JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment of Sessions Judge, Alwar, dated November 28, 1979, convicting the accused-appellant for offence under section 302 IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 200/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo two months' rigorous imprisonment. 2. A written report Ex. P.1 was lodged at police station Narainpura by Chhittar, PW. 1, on June 18, 1979, wherein it was alleged by him that he is a resident of Kola-ka-bas. On the previous night some voices were heard by him from the side of Gwadi of Ramsahai to the effect that bullocks have been untied on which he and his father Ramsahai, Ramchandra and Chhitter Chamar reached the Gwadi of Ramsahai where they saw the dead body of Ramsahai lying on the floor near the cot. The dead body was bleeding from the neck and blood was also visible on the mattress lying over the cot. His mother and wife were weeping. His guest Ramkishan, his brother and Babbu were also there. Babbu told that he had seen Ram Kishan accused going with an axe towards the backyard and returning after some time. Ram Kishan is alleged to have told Babbu that he should not tell people about an axe with him. When Ram Kishan was asked he replied that whatever was to happen has happened. Ramsahai is now dead. If the matter would be reported he will be arrested and the children will suffer. It was further mentioned that Ramsahai and Ramkishan had strained relations as Ramkishan was unmarried and has his illicit relations with one Shanti Chamari which was objected to by Ramsahai. Since the S. H. O. and Head Mohrrir were not available at the police station that massage was sent to Dy S. P. Rajgarh who came to Narainpur at 4 p.m. and a case under section 302 IPC was registered on the report Ex. P. 1. The investigation officer PW. 16 Shri Gangaram reached the spot and prepared site-plan Ex. P. 4. inquest report Ex. P. 3 and recovered blood stained earth and clothes from the person of the deceased. He got the post-mortem of the dead body conducted by Dr. H. S. Mathur, PW. 15, who was posted as Medical Officer-Incharge, Primary Health Centre, Narainpur. Dr. 16 Shri Gangaram reached the spot and prepared site-plan Ex. P. 4. inquest report Ex. P. 3 and recovered blood stained earth and clothes from the person of the deceased. He got the post-mortem of the dead body conducted by Dr. H. S. Mathur, PW. 15, who was posted as Medical Officer-Incharge, Primary Health Centre, Narainpur. Dr. Mathur found the following external and internal injuries on the person of the deceased : External Injuries : 1. An incised wound 3 X 11/2" X 2" extending from medial end of left clavical laterally for 3" antro lateral direction. 2. An incised wound 21/2"X 11/2" X 2" extending from medial end of right clavical laterally for 21/2" in antro-laterial direction. Internal Injuries:Large blood vessels of the neck on both sides injured along with other soft structure like muscles and fascia.According to him the cause of death of Ram Sahai was injuries to the large blood vessels of the neck leading to haemorrhage and shock and in his opinion each of the injury individually was also sufficient to cause the death in the ordinary course of nature. The accused-appellant was arrested on June 20, 1979 at 8.30 a.m. vide Ex. P. 18 and he, while under arrest, gave an information under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act to the investigating Officer on June 21, 1979 to the effect that the axe with which he has committed the murder of Ram Sahai has been hidden by him in the Chhan where the she-goat are kept. The axe in furtherance of this information was recovered at the instance of the accused which was said to have been smeared with blood from the place shown in the information memo and a recovery memo was prepared which is Ex. P. 17. This axe was sealed and sent to the Forensic Laboratory for examination and a report showing blood on it was received which is Ex. P. 15. On completion of investigation a charge-sheet was submitted in the court of Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate. Thana Gaji who committed the accused to Sessions for trial. The learned Sessions Judge framed charge under section 302 IPC against the accused to which the later denied and claimed to be tried. 3. The prosecution examined sixteen witnesses in support of its case. On completion of investigation a charge-sheet was submitted in the court of Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate. Thana Gaji who committed the accused to Sessions for trial. The learned Sessions Judge framed charge under section 302 IPC against the accused to which the later denied and claimed to be tried. 3. The prosecution examined sixteen witnesses in support of its case. The accused submitted his statement in writing besides answers given in reply to questions put to him under Section 313 Cr. P.C. The accused came with a case that he has neither given an information nor got recovered the axe nor has made any extra judicial confession before any of the witnesses. His case is that Mst. Koyali, wife of deceased, is having illicit relations with the brother-in-law (gainer) Mahadeo and Mahadeo and Panna are responsible for the murder of his brother Ram Sahai. He has been falsely implicated in the case in order to devour his land so that she alone becomes the owner of the entire property. 4. The learned Sessions Judge held that there are three types of evidences available in the case. The first is about the conduct of the accused in raising false alarm that the bullocks have been taken by the thieves, secondly, the extra judicial confession. The next is about the recovery of the axe and lastly, the motive. Relying on the aforesaid circumstances the accused was convicted and sentenced as indicated above. 5. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence the accused has preferred this appeal through jail. 6. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant that the four circumstances relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge are not sufficient in the circumstances of this case to base the conviction of the accused-appellant. It has been argued that the very basis of the prosecution case i. e. the F. I. R. is doubtful document and it does not inspire confidence. It was argued that P.W. 1 Chhittar in his statement has stated that Sarpanch wrote the report and gave it to him on which he put his thumb impression and took it to the police station Thana Gaji. He stated that the report Ex. P. 1 is the same which was handed over to him and which he had taken to the police station Thana Gaji. He stated that the report Ex. P. 1 is the same which was handed over to him and which he had taken to the police station Thana Gaji. When asked as to who had written the report the witness answered that the report Ex. P. 1 was written by the Sarpanch in his own hand. PW. 10 Gasiram who is the Sarpanch of the village, states that Ex. P. 1 is an endorsement by him but he has stated that it was brought to him duly written by Chhittar. He does not know as to who had written the report. He states that when it was brought to him it was already written. Thus, it is contended by the learned counsel for the accused- appellant that the prosecution has failed to substantiate as to who is the scribe of this report Ex. P. 1 and the chances of manipulation cannot be ruled out. It has further been argued that the case is based on two sets of evidence, one consists of Babbu PW. 2, Koyali, wife of Ram Sahai deceased, PW. 7, Mahadeo PW. 8 and Panna PW. 9 who are alleged to have been in the Gwadi of the deceased on the fateful night. The another set of witness consists of PW. 1 Chhittar. PW. 3 Ram Sahai, PW. 4 Chhittar son of Prabhu Chamar and PW. 5 Ramchandra who, according to the learned counsel, are the so called neighbours who reached the place on hearing the alarm. All these witnesses have stated that the accused made an extra judicial confession before them but it is contended that since none of the two repeats the same words, reliance has wrongly been placed on their statements. The argument of the learned counsel is that so far as the first set of witnesses is concerned they are all interested in his land for the reason that Mahadeo is in liasion with Mst. Koyali, wife of the deceased and Panna is Mahadeo's Samadhi. Babbu has been betrothed with Panna's niece. All the three witnesses do not belong to the family of the accused and the deceased and there was no occasion for them to have come on the fateful night except that they hatched conspiracy to murder the deceased and to falsely implicate the accused. Babbu has been betrothed with Panna's niece. All the three witnesses do not belong to the family of the accused and the deceased and there was no occasion for them to have come on the fateful night except that they hatched conspiracy to murder the deceased and to falsely implicate the accused. It has further been contended that so far as the witnesses of the locality are concerned, in whose presence the extra judicial confession is said to have been made do not corroborate each other or bear enmity with the accused because he had a quarrel with them a few days before and he had been arrested also earlier on their report, and there being no artificial light available. The learned counsel has further argued that it was a dark night and the story of seeing the accused-appellant with the axe in his hand is obviously false inasmuch as even Mst. Koyali wife of the deceased, had to admit in her cross-examination that she identified the accused by voice. Regarding the recovery of the axe the submission of the learned counsel is that once the investigating officer was told on the spot by the witnesses that accused had put the axe in the thatch it was his bounden duty to have searched the premises and recovered it immediately on the spot. He ought not to have waited till June 21, 1979 when he recovered it in pursuance of the information of the accused. It is alleged that this recovery is fake and even if it may be found proved the axe is not connected with the crime. Neither the Doctor has been asked whether the injuries on the deceased could be caused by the axe recovered nor the axe has been found to be smeared with human blood. Regarding the evidence of motive the submission of the learned counsel is that it has not been established that the accused had illicit relations with Mst. Shanti and he wanted to transfer the entire land in her name which was objected to by Ramsahai. On the evidence on record, it is argued that the papers concerning the land were thrown at Mst. Shanti about five or six years prior to this incident. Shanti and he wanted to transfer the entire land in her name which was objected to by Ramsahai. On the evidence on record, it is argued that the papers concerning the land were thrown at Mst. Shanti about five or six years prior to this incident. It is thus argued that there is neither any circumstantial evidence individually or collectively to hold the accused guilty of offence under section 302 IPC and is entitled to acquittal. 7. The learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge and submitted that the statement of Babbu PW. 2 fully implicates the accused and he being an independent witness should be relied upon. It is submitted that his testimony is corroborated by Mahadeo and Panna besides both Chhittar, Ramsahai and Koyali. 8. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions as well as have thoroughly perused the record. 9. The entire case is based on circumstantial evidence and it may be observed at the out-set that in cases based on circumstantial evidence the prosecution story should not admit of any other hypothesis than the one leading to guilt of the accused and if one of the main circumstance is available extra-judicial confession, the evidence has to be carefully scanned as the evidence of extra judicial confession must inspire confidence of the Court. Keeping in view the aforesaid principles of law in our mind we have carefully gone through the statement of each witness and have considered each of the circumstances sought to be proved against the accused-appellant. 10. Again in any criminal case it is the bounden duty of the prosecution to squarely place the entire evidence available with them so that no doubt is created in the mind of the court. In the instant case the prosecution from the very beginning has not come out with a straight case. P W. 1 Chhittar who has lodged Ex. P. 1, has stated that this report has begin written by the Sarpanch and then he handed it over to him after obtaining his thumb impression on it and then sent him for lodging at police station. He stated that he took the report and came to Thana Gaji. P W. 1 Chhittar who has lodged Ex. P. 1, has stated that this report has begin written by the Sarpanch and then he handed it over to him after obtaining his thumb impression on it and then sent him for lodging at police station. He stated that he took the report and came to Thana Gaji. This report in fact is addressed to the station house officer, Thana Narainpur and has been handed over to a literate constable at police station, Narainpur, who in turn is said to have informed the Circle Inspector Rajgarh, P.W. 16, Gangaram Dy. S.P. by wireless and it is after latter's arrival at Narainpur at 4 p.m. on June 18, 1979 that the case has been registered. PW. 1 Chhittar has categorically stated that Sarpanch came on the spot, he talked to all the relations and it is thereafter that he lodged the report. This witness in his police statement has stated that it is he who had got the report written and thereafter took it to the Sarpanch who put his endorsement on it and then he had taken it to the police station. He was confronted with this part of his statement portion C to D in Ex. D. 1 to which he denied and stated that the fact is that there was a Sarpanch who gave him a written report which he had given at the police station. Thus, it is obvious from his statement that he wants to disown the contents of this report to the extent that there are material contradictions in it that the story putforth at the trial maintains that it is the Sarpanch who is the scribe of the report. PW. 10 Ghasiram who is the Sarpach of the village states that Ex. P. 1 was produced before him by Chhittar. He himself is not the scribe of it and it was already written when it was brought to him. He had only read it, put his endorsement and sent it to the police station. This witness does not speak a word about the details written in the F. I. R. He rather, according to his statement. has reached the spot subsequently when the other witnesses had already joined hands in getting the report written. He had only read it, put his endorsement and sent it to the police station. This witness does not speak a word about the details written in the F. I. R. He rather, according to his statement. has reached the spot subsequently when the other witnesses had already joined hands in getting the report written. The Investigating Officer has neither tried to find out as to who is the scribe of the report nor he has attempted to find out at whose behest Chhittar has lodged the report at the police station. We are unable to place reliance on a document the scribe and author of which has not been made known to the Court. Neither Chhittar owns this report nor the Sarpanch and strangely enough the case has been registered on this at 4 p.m. on June 18, 1979 when it was only 6 kms. away from the place of occurrence and the incident took place in the night intervening June 17 & 18, 1979. 11. There is yet another circumstance which creates doubt in our mind about mind about the genuineness of this report is that it is admitted by P.W. 8 Mahadeo and P.W. 9 Panna that when the police came it enquired from them whether they have killed Ramsahai to which they said that they have not killed him. Thereupon the police had given them beating and it was thereafter that they gave the statements under Section 161 Cr. P. C. If the F. I. R. Ex. P. 1 was already with the investigating officer which contained the entire details and the name of the accused and his extra-judicial confession, it is most surprising as to why these two witnesses of the prosecution who were sleeping on that night in the Gwari of the deceased and who are now the star witnesses of the prosecution should have been beaten by the investigating officer. It appears to us that till the time the investigating officer reached the spot he was not knowing the name of the the accused and he wanted to find out as to who is the person who has committed the murder of deceased Ram Sahai. It appears to us that till the time the investigating officer reached the spot he was not knowing the name of the the accused and he wanted to find out as to who is the person who has committed the murder of deceased Ram Sahai. This is also surprising that if the report has been lodged on June 18, 1979, as the prosecution case is, then why the accused had not been arrested on the same day and why his arrest should have been defferred till June 20, 1979. It is not the case of the prosecution that the accused either absconded or was not available in the village on that day. On the contrary the arrest memo Ex. P. 18 also shows that the accused has been arrested on June 20, 1979 at 8.30 a.m. at his own village. It is after this arrest of the accused that the report has reached the Magistrate at 11.45 a.m. on June 20, 1979. No date of dispatch is mentioned in the column meant for it in Ex. P. 14. We are also unable to understand that when investigating officer knew from the statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. on the same day i.e. on June 18, 1979, that the accused had placed the axe in the thetch why he should not have searched the thetch immediately and seized the axe at once and should have deferred till he arrested the accused and obtained an information from him leading with the discovery of the weapon of offence, a fact which he knew earlier. 12. We cannot refrain from observing here that in a criminal case, much less a murder case, the investigation should be conducted in such a manner that there is no room of entertaining a doubt about the fair investigation of the case. The Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965 are quite elaborate in laying down the procedure for recording the first informations and the consequent investigations. Chapter v. onwards of these Rules lay down detail procedure of taking a written report and further investigation. Most of the provisions are mandatory in character. To illustrate in Chapter v. clause 5.5. (1) which reads as under : "First Information Report Register-(1) The first Information Report Register shall be a printed hook in Form 5.5(1) consisting of 200 pages and shall be completely filled before a new one is commenced. Most of the provisions are mandatory in character. To illustrate in Chapter v. clause 5.5. (1) which reads as under : "First Information Report Register-(1) The first Information Report Register shall be a printed hook in Form 5.5(1) consisting of 200 pages and shall be completely filled before a new one is commenced. Cases shall bear an annual serial number in each police station for each calendar year. Every four pages of the register shall be numbered with the same number and shall be written at the same time by means of the carbon copying process. The original copy shall be a permanent record in the police station. The other three copies shall be submitted as follows : (a) One to the Superintendent of Police or other gazetted officer nominated by him. (b) One to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizable of the offence as is required under section 157. Cr. P.C. (c) One to the complainant-unless a written report in form 5.5(l) (c) has been received in which case the check receipt prescribed will be sent". A bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions show that the original copy of F.I.R. taken down in register shall be the permanent record in the police station and out of the other three carbon copies, one of them shall be sent to the Magistrate as required by Section 157 Cr. P.C. A bare look at Ex. P. 14, F. I. R., taken down in the proforma under this rule and which had been sent to the Magistrate on June 20. 1979, is not a carbon copy but the original. This amounts to clear breach of the rule as the original cannot now be found in the permanent record of the police station. Thus, these rules have been followed in breach rather than in observance. We are not further illustrating the rules as the same is not essential for the adjudication of this case, but at the same time expect that due regard shall be given to these rules. 13. Thus, these rules have been followed in breach rather than in observance. We are not further illustrating the rules as the same is not essential for the adjudication of this case, but at the same time expect that due regard shall be given to these rules. 13. Regarding the evidence of extra-judicial confession the prosecution has examined several witnesses and their evidence to this effect is reproduced hereunder : P.W. Chhitar has stated: jkefd'ku us dgk fd tks esjs ls cu x;k ;kuh esjs HkkbZ ds dRy dk eqdnek cu x;kA mlus dgk fd iqfyl dsl er djuk ;g gekjs ?kj ds NksVs&NksVs cPps gS mudks dkSu ikysxk gekjs rks ?kj dk rkyk cUn gks tk;sxkA P.W. 2 Babu has stated: mlus dgk Fkk fd xyrh gks xbZ ftls ekQ djksA eSusa esjs HkkbZ dks ekj fn;kA P.W. 3 Ramsahai has stated: fQj jkefd'ku cksyk] gekjs lkeus tks dqN gks x;k lks gks x;kA bldks tkap ns nks ojuk iqfyl dsl gks tk;sxkA P.W. 5 Ramchandra has stated: mlus dgk fd tks dqN gksuk Fkk lks gks x;kA vc vkxs fjiksVZ oxSjg djkrs gks rks gekjk ?kj cUn gks tkosxkA cjckn gks tk;sxkA Vkoj cklu ekjsxkA P.W. 8 Mahadeo has stated: mlus dgk fd cu xbZ lks cu xbZ vkSj viuh xyrh ekuh Fkh fd esjs ls xyrh gks xbZ A P.W. 9 Panna has stated: jkefd'ku us dgk fd esjs ls xyrh gks xbZ bldh iqfyl esa fjiksVZ er nks vkSj bldks tyk nksA The aforesaid statements of the witnesses reproduced clearly go to show that different sentences have been used by the accused before different persons though they were all together. The exact words used by the accused are therefore, not the same which he might have heard on the spot. Some of these statements even do not connect the accused with his act of committing murder. The statements of the aforesaid witnesses of the prosecution in our opinion are not such on the basis of which we can base the conviction of the accused-appellant. As we have already mentioned above while dealing another point that PW. 1 Chhittar on the point of filing the report, has been completely shaken and we have to keep his evidence out of consideration, he not being a wholly truthful witness. Similarly PW. 2 Babbu in his cross-examination has resided from his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr. As we have already mentioned above while dealing another point that PW. 1 Chhittar on the point of filing the report, has been completely shaken and we have to keep his evidence out of consideration, he not being a wholly truthful witness. Similarly PW. 2 Babbu in his cross-examination has resided from his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. where he had attributed motive for the murder which the accused himself is said to have told him while confessing the guilt. He has stated in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. that" mlus crk;k fd eSa 'kkfUr ds pDdj esa vk x;kA "He has denied to have given such a statement in the police. Then, his conduct of not taking with the Sarpanch about the whole incident when it was he with whom the accused was sleeping, is again doubtful. PW. 3 Ramsahai is not at good term with the accused and it has been admitted by him in his cross examination that three or four days prior to this occurrence there was a quarrel between him and the accused. P.W. 5 Ramchandra has improved upon his statement as given under Section 161 Cr. P.C. In his statement in the court he stated that when he reached the spot Babbu told him that he had seen Rani Kishan running with an axe and then the accused had said that he had not told the story about the axe to anyone. This material portion does not find place in the statement of this witness before the police. Besides this, his story that the accused had told hint that he will give him 10 or 20 rupees if he does not tell about his confession to anyone. appears to be made up story. So far as PW. 8 Mahadeo and PW. 10 Panna are concerned, we have already stated that these are the two persons whom the police suspected and were given beating in the police station, it is thereafter that they had given their statements under Section 161 Cr. P.C. We are therefore, unable to place any reliance on the statements of above witnesses, and we hold that the evidence of extra judicial confession against the accused in this case is not such on which we can record the finding of guilt against the accused. We, therefore, rule out this circumstance from consideration. 14. P.C. We are therefore, unable to place any reliance on the statements of above witnesses, and we hold that the evidence of extra judicial confession against the accused in this case is not such on which we can record the finding of guilt against the accused. We, therefore, rule out this circumstance from consideration. 14. Now commissions the evidence about the motive. The prosecution case is that the accused had illicit relations with Mst. Shanti and he wanted to give land to her. This was objected by Ramsahai deceased who was younger brother of these accused. Shanti has also been examined by the prosecution in this respect. She has denied the fact of her having illicit relations with the accused. There is not an iota of evidence on the side of the prosecution even to suggest that the accused used to visit the house of Shanti either frequently or casually or that they have been living together at any time. There is absolutely no evidence on record to even suggest the illicit relations between the two. Regarding the accused giving his property to Mst. Shanti, the only evidence is that about four to six years before he had thrown some documents at Shanti which she had lifted, but neither there is evidence of writing any deed in her favour nor any attempt has been made either to deliver the possession of any of the property belonging to the accused to Mst. Shanti physically nor is there any evidence for attempting to transfer the title deeds in her favour. Even if the evidence of giving some papers to Mst. Shanti is believed, then too it was five or six years before this occurrence which could not be a motive for murder after such a long lapse of period.16. Looking to the entire evidence and the circumstances of the case, we hold that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt and the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt.17. In the result we allow this appeal. Set aside the conviction and sentence of the accused-appellant and acquit him of the charge under section 302 IPC. The accused-appellant is in jail and shall be released forthwith, if he is not required any other case.Appeal allowed. *******