Short Note : 1. This judgment shall also govern the disposal of Criminal Appeal No. 197 of 1976 Mohan v. The State, as both these appeals are filed against the judgment dated 25-3-76 passed by the Sessions Judge, Ratlam in Sessions Trial No.8 of 1976, arising out of the same incident, whereby the appellants have been convicted under section 302/34 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life for committing the murder of Shaukat. Held: The only evidence relied upon by the prosecution against the appellant is the confession (Ex. P-10) given by Mohan which was recorded by Ramgopal Ghatia (PW. 12) on 18-12-75. In this written confession, he has admitted his presence along with the other accused persons including the other appellant Govinda and that he Kanhaiyalal and Radhia (now acquitted) caught hold of that person and the appellant Govinda inflicted three or four Katar injuries on his neck. However, the appellant Mohan has retracted from this confession. According to him, the police beat him and threatened him with the result that under force of compulsion he was compelled to make such a statement as dict ted by the Police. Even in his statement he has taken the same stand. In face of this suggestion the alleged confession (Ex P-10) has to be considered with great care and caution. It is true that Ramgopal Ghatia (PW. 12) has said that before recording the confession, he has explained to the appellant Mohan, the implication and the effect of the confession, which he wanted to record but Harpalsing (PW. 15) has been suggested in his cross-examination that he actually beat Mohan, applied electric shock and also assured to make him an approver. This confession also can not be used against the other co accused, namely, the appellant Govinda even though Mohan in that confession has tried to implicate the appellant Govinda as the assailant. Thus, in our opinion, it is not safe and proper to rely on the only evidence of confession of Mohan to come to a definite conclusion that it is these two appellants, namely, Govinda and Mohan who bad murdered Shaukat. We have already referred to the statement of Gattu (PW.2), who could not identify any of the assailants due to his dim eye sight, and in these circumstances, in our opinion, the appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt. 2. We have already referred to the statement of Gattu (PW.2), who could not identify any of the assailants due to his dim eye sight, and in these circumstances, in our opinion, the appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt. 2. It is the bounden duty of prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and simply because the prosecution has not been able to collect all the evidence will not necessarily mean that whatever evidence has been produced by the prosecution should be relied upon for holding the appellants guilty for murder. Appeal allowed.