JUDGMENT 1. - The accused Nihala alias Nihalsingh has preferred this appeal through Jail against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Churu, dated 31.1.1969, whereby the appellant was convicted under section 302, I.P.C., and was sentenced to imprisonment for life. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the accused was living at village Kharkhaai, District Hisar (Haryana). He disposed of all his property and started living with his daughter Mst. Rajbala at village Dhandhal, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu. He handed over a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to her daughter, who, in turn, gave that amount to her husband deceased Ganpat. Ganpat then deposited a sum of 40,000/- in fixed deposit in the New Bank of India Ltd. It is said that Ganpat, the son-in-law of the accused, was addicted to drinks and was not engaged in any work. Apprehending squandering of his money the accused used to demand his money back from his son-in-law Ganpat. It was on this account that the accused was annoyed with his son-in-law. The prosecution case further is that on the night intervening 25th and 26th February. 1978, the deceased was sleeping in the 'dulan' and outside the 'dulan' in the adjoining 'kotha' the accused was sleeping. A minor daughter of Rajbala was also sleeping nearby. Rajbala was sleeping in the kitchen. It is said that on that night the accused done his son-in law to death with a 'gandasa' and went away from the house. As usual Rajbala got up in the morning. She asked her daughter to awake her maternal-grand-under, that is the accused, but he was not found on his cot. She thought that her father might have gone to attend the nature's call. Thereafter, she asked her daughter to awake her father. Her daughter then started weeping and when she went she saw the neck of her husband cut and she started weeping and screaming, which attracted Meharchand and Lalchand. Meharchand then lodged the report on 26.2.1978 at about 9.30, a. m., at the Police Station, Rajgarh. Thereupon, a case under section 302, I. P. C., was registered S. H. O. Richhpalsingh (P. W. 12) visited the spot and conducted the spot investigation and he got post mortem examination of the dead body conducted. He arrested the accused on 28.2.1978 and on 4.3.1971 he recovered a blood stained 'gandasa' on the information and at the instance of the accused. He arrested the accused on 28.2.1978 and on 4.3.1971 he recovered a blood stained 'gandasa' on the information and at the instance of the accused. The accused also got one Reti, recovered with which, it is said, that 'gandasa' was sharpened. On 8.3.1978 the accused also gave information in respect of his 'dhoti' and 'kurta' said to be blood stained and got these clothes recovered. The blood stained articles were packed and were sent for chemical examination. 'Gandasa' and shirt were found stained with human blood and the 'dhoti' was found stained with blood, but human blood could not be detected on 'dhoti'. Investigation was conducted from the witnesses and after completion of usual investigation, charge-sheet was presented against the accused. The accused was ultimately sent up for trial to the Court of Sessions Judge, Churu. 3. The accused was charged for the offence under section 302, I. P. C. However, he pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in this case examined Rajbala (P. W. 1), Meharchand (P. W. 2), Shrichand (P.W. 3), Amarsingh (P.W. 4), Bhanwarlal (P.W. 5), Mst. Chand Kanwari (P.W. 6), Ramkumar (P. W. 7), Prabhuram (PW 8), Dr. Mangilal (PW 9), Dr. Meghsingh (P. W. 10), Kesharam (P. W 11), & Richhpalsingh (PW 12). The statement of the accused was recorded under section 313, Cr. P. C. in which he stated that the deceased was his son-in-law and he had handed over a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to his daughter Rajbala after disposing of his property, out of which a sum of Rs. 40,000/- was deposited in fixed deposit for seven years and the rest of the amount was deposited in the current account. He also admitted that Ganpat was addicted to drink and was not doing any work. He, however, denied demanding of money from Ganpat, though he stated that he did tell Ganpat that he should give up drinking. He also admitted that he started living with his daughter, so that he may get bread. His sight had become dim. He also admitted that Ganpat was addicted to drink and was not doing any work. He, however, denied demanding of money from Ganpat, though he stated that he did tell Ganpat that he should give up drinking. He also admitted that he started living with his daughter, so that he may get bread. His sight had become dim. He also admitted that Rajbala slept in kitchen and Ganpat used to sleep in the inside other 'kotha', whereas he used to sleep in the outside 'kotha' He further stated that he had gone to attend the nature's call and with regard to the incident he stated that when he returned back from the 'jungle' after sufficient time he found the neck of Ganpat cut. Meharchand did not come at that time. He came afterwards. He denied to have quarrelled with Ganpat. He also admitted that Shrichand (PW. 3) met him at about 4.00, a. m., and asked him as to where he is going ? Then he told him that he is going to attend the nature's call. He further stated that he was arrested and at that time there were injuries on his person. He received the injuries at the hands of the S. H. O. He admitted that blood stains appeared on his shirt, because of beating. It may be mentioned here that the accused also had three injuries on his person, which were examined by Dr. Mangilal (P. W. 9) on 1.3.1978. Rest of the prosecution case was denied by the accused. No evidence was led in defence. 4. After hearing the arguments the learned Sessions Judge, on the basis of the circumstances proved, which he enumerated in para 11 of the judgment, found the accused guilty and convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. Dis-satisfied with the conviction and sentence the present appeal has been filed. 5. We have heard Shri Doongarsingh, counsel for the appellant and Sbri N. S. Acharya, Public Prosecutor, for the State, and perused the record of the case. 6. It may be stated that there is no direct evidence in this case. The prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. The learned Sessions Judge found the following circumstances proved against the accused : (1) That the accused, after disposing of his property, handed over a sum of Rs. 6. It may be stated that there is no direct evidence in this case. The prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. The learned Sessions Judge found the following circumstances proved against the accused : (1) That the accused, after disposing of his property, handed over a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to his sole daughter Rajbala, who gave that money to her husband, out of which a sura of Rs. 40,000/- was deposited with the New Bank of India Ltd. by Ganpat in his name and the remaining amount was deposited in the current account. (2) That the accused, after disposing of his property, had started living with his daughter since Bhadwa and on the date of occurrence the accused slept at the house of Rajbala. (3) That the deceased used to drink .and was not doing any work. The accused used to ask the deceased not to drink and not to squander the money. Therefore the relations of the accused and the deceased got strained. (4) That on the night of occurrence the deceased was sleeping in Dulan and the accused was sleeping outside in the 'kotha', At the time when she accused slept, the door of his'kotha'was bolted from inside, whereas the door of 'dulan' was open and Rajbala was sleeping in the kitchen. (5) That the accused went outside the house early in the morning and met Shrichand (PW. 3) at about 4-00, a. m. (6) That the accused got 'gandasa'(Article 15) and Reti (Article 16) recovered after his arrest on 28.2.1978. (7) That the accused got his 'dhoti' (Article 17) and shirt (Article 18) recovered after giving information. (8) That these articles were found stained with blood and 'gandasa' and shirt had stains of human blood. (9) That according to Dr. Meghsingh the injuries on the person of the deceased could be caused by 'gandasa' (Article 15). 7. Shri Doongarsingh submitted that the evidence of recoveries cannot be availed of by the prosecution in view of the fact that the prosecution had not produced any evidence that the seals on the parcels of the articles remained untampered till they were delivered at Jaipur at the State Forensic Science Laboratory. 7. Shri Doongarsingh submitted that the evidence of recoveries cannot be availed of by the prosecution in view of the fact that the prosecution had not produced any evidence that the seals on the parcels of the articles remained untampered till they were delivered at Jaipur at the State Forensic Science Laboratory. The prosecution has only examined one witness Kesaram (P. W. 11) who has stated that he carried the four sealed packets to Jaipur from the Police Station, Rajgarh, on 27.3.1978 and delivered the same at the Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur. He submitted that is understand a be as to how the packets were carried from Rajgarh, when the packets are said to have been dispatched from S. P. Office, Churu, along with letter Ex.P/42. The prosecution did not examine the Incharge, Malkhana at Rajgarh and no evidence has been produced as to when the packets were taken to the S. P. Office and how from the S. P. Office the packets returned to the Police Station. Necessary Malkhana entries of the police station as well as the S. P. Office, nor 'Rojnamcha' entries have been produced, nor the keepers of the articles at the two places and the carriers have been examined, so the recovery evidence and the chemical evidence is of no avail to the prosecution and the circumstances enumerated at Nos. 6, 7, and 8 cannot be relied upon. 8. The learned Public Prosecutor at the fag end of the arguments, submitted an application for additional evidence, for examination of one witness Sadik Mohammad, A. S. I. Rajgarh. The said application had already been rejected by us. The learned Public Prosecutor candidly conceded that in the absence of necessary evidence regarding non-tampering of the sealed packets from the time of their seizure till they were delivered to the Laboratory, the circumstantial evidence in the nature of recoveries and the chemical evidence, cannot be availed of. He, however, submitted that even the circumstantial evidence is excluded from consideration, still there is clinching evidence in the case on the basis of which conviction of the appellant can be maintained. He urged that these facts are well proved that the accused was sleeping inside the 'kotha' and went away in the morning. He, however, submitted that even the circumstantial evidence is excluded from consideration, still there is clinching evidence in the case on the basis of which conviction of the appellant can be maintained. He urged that these facts are well proved that the accused was sleeping inside the 'kotha' and went away in the morning. There was none else in the night inside the apartment where the deceased was sleeping According to the statement of Rajbala, 2-3 days prior to the occurrence, the accused demanded his money and it is said by him that in case the same would not be returned he would do 'Kumar' 'final' and quarrel also arose a day prior to the occurrence between the accused and her husband. The accused told her husband that he should return his money else he would see him. Thus, according to the learned Public Prosecutor there was a strong motive with the accused and further the accused and the decease there in the night of occurrence at one and the same place. The intervening door of the apartment was open and the accused was seen at about 4.00, a. m , in the out-skirts of the village by the witness Shrichand (P. W. 3) It was also pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor that the statement of the accused is failed that he came to the house after attending to the nature's call some time. According to Richhpal Slhingh, S. H. O. (P. W. 12), the accused was arrested on 28.2.1978 in the 'jungle of village Indasar and according to Rajbala the accused went away after committing the murder. 9. Shri Doongarsingh, learned counsel for the accused-appellant, submitted that after excluding the recovery evidence the other circumstances are insufficient to connect the accused with the commission of the offence. He urged that the first two circumstances are innocuous. They stand admitted by the accused. The motive, as stated by Rajbala, is also not commensurate with the offence. Had the relations been so much strained so as to give rise to a suspicion, that the accused may take the life of his son-in-law, the two would not have slept in such manner in the night. They stand admitted by the accused. The motive, as stated by Rajbala, is also not commensurate with the offence. Had the relations been so much strained so as to give rise to a suspicion, that the accused may take the life of his son-in-law, the two would not have slept in such manner in the night. He also urged that it has not been put to the accused that the accused absconded and it has not come in the evidence of the prosecution that the accused left the house at what time in the night. He was only seen at about 4.00 a. m , by Shrichand in the outskirts of the village and it is natural for the villagers to leave the house in the morning to attend to the nature's call. The explanation offered by the accused is not afterthought. It has come in the statement of Shrichand (P. W. 3) and according to the accused he did come to the house after attending the nature's call. Shri Doongar Singh vehemently submitted that this possibility cannot be ruled out that some one else may have done Ganpat to death after leaving of the house by the accused to attend to his nature's call. The circumstantial evidence should exclude every other reasonable hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused. Such a hypothesis, other than the guilt of the accused, cannot be excluded from the facts and circumstances of the present case. So he urged that the accused deserves to be acquitted. 10. We have considered over the submissions advanced before us by both the sides. We are not in agreement with the learned counsel for the appellant that the motive, as stated by Mst. Rajbala, was not commensurate with the offence or was no motive at all. According to the Rajbala there was a quarrel in the day prior to the occurrence and a threat was extended by the accused and before that as well, some quarrel did take place and a threat was extended, but the evidence of motive is only a presumptive evidence, unless there is other clinching circumstantial evidence on the record. Pointing only to the sole conclusion of the guilt of the accused, the accused cannot be held guilty of the offence. There is no evidence on record at what time the accused left the house. Pointing only to the sole conclusion of the guilt of the accused, the accused cannot be held guilty of the offence. There is no evidence on record at what time the accused left the house. According to Shrichand (P. W. 3) the accused met him at about 4-00 a. m. when he was returning to the village from his field, and on being asked, the accused gave out to him that he is going to attend to the nature's call. It is significant to note that Shrichand does not state that the accused was seen armed with 'gandasa'. The explanation of the accused appears to be natural. Further, it has not been put to the accused that he did not return to the house and absconded. Even if it is taken that the accused sub seconded, still only a grave suspicion would arise against the accused and this possibility cannot be ruled out that some one else might have committed the offence when the accused left the house to attend to the nature's call. Suggestions, of course, have been offered that the deceased had illicit relations with the wife of Meharchand, the brother of the deceased, and the wife of Jailal. Such suggestions have been denied by the witnesses Meharchand and Shrichand. It is for the prosecution to establish the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and when this hypothesis cannot be excluded that some one else might have committed the murder after leaving of the house by the accused, in our opinion, the accused cannot be held guilty of the offence of murder. It is well settled that when the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstantial evidence, should be such, which excludes every other hypothesis, other than the guilt of the accused. We do not find that the present is a case of that nature and, in our opinion, the accused in these circumstances of the case is entitled to the benefit of doubt. 11. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the conviction and sentence of the appellant are set aside and is acquitted of the offence under section 302, I. P. C. He is in custody. He should be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.Appeal Accepted Appellant Acquitted. *******