JUDGMENT 1. This appeal arises out of the judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1. Baran dated 26.11.1981, whereby he convicted accused appellant Kanhi Ram for offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life, and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 2 months rigorous imprisonment. 2. The prosecution case started with the F.I.R. (Ex.P.16) lodged by Madan Lal father of the deceased Majboot Singh. It was mentioned in the report that the complainant is resident of Faizpura and his younger brother Kanhi Ram wants to forcibly occupy his house. He also intends to swallow the agricultural land. The complainant has stated that he has only one son and two daughters. A couple of days before lodging the report i. e. on 14.4.1985, it was alleged that Kanhi Ram took his son to his house and they started playing cards, which he saw when he had gone to the river for washing twine (Sutali). He had seen the shoes of his son lying outside the house of the latter. When he came back from the river side, the house was bolted. Since there was a condolence congregation in village Hanyahedi, he left for that village at 2.00 in the noon in the company of Kalyan Singh Raghunath, Radhey Shyam and Baijnath. They saw accused Kanhi Ram coming from the side of Bedhare (rivulet) and he was perspiring and also giving nervous look. He however, avoided it and did not talk to him. On his return from Hanyahedi in the night at about 8.0, his wife asked about his son, on which he replied that he had not accompanied him. The search was made at various places, but he was not traceable. His daughter Ramkali however informed him that she has seen her brother with Kanhi Ram at about 12.30 or 1.00 in the noon. It is further mentioned that search was made in various villages on the next day, but he was not traced out. Thereafter, Kanhi Ram on seeing him and his wife searching, told them that they should go towards Badhare side and he further told that some one might have murdered him and they can get the dead body there. It is further mentioned that search was made in various villages on the next day, but he was not traced out. Thereafter, Kanhi Ram on seeing him and his wife searching, told them that they should go towards Badhare side and he further told that some one might have murdered him and they can get the dead body there. On hearing this, he along with his brother Jagroop went to Badhare and found the dead body of his son near the field of Kishna. He also found his shoes lying near him and also a ring, which he had. It was further mentioned that they have also seen the foot marks of two persons near the place of occurrence; one of which was small and another was large in size. He mentioned in the report that his son has been killed by Kanhi Ram. On receipt of this report, S.H.O. Police Station Bapkya registered a case under Section 302 IPC and started investigation. The doctor was called at the place where the dead body was found. Dr. Vinod Mehta (PW12) conducted the post mortem examination. He found that the body was decomposed, but had bruises around the neck and the cause of death was shown to be strangulation (throttling). The accused who had participated in searching out the boy, in the company of the father and another brother, was arrested on 17.4.1981. The Police during investigation on 17.4.1981 went to the place of occurrence and prepared the site-plan (Ex.P.4) and site inspection memo (Ex.P.5). At point D in the site plan, they marked foot prints and information thereafter, was sent to the Modus-operandi-bureau of the crime branch wherefrom Nand Kishore, Sub-Inspector of the S. P. Office went on the spot and took the mould of the left leg foot prints. This mould was sealed are sent to the S.P. Office for onwards transmission to the Finger Prints Bureau Rajasthan. Jaipur along with the pair of shoes recovered from accused Kanhi Ram The Superintendent of Police, Kota vide his letter No. KTH/MOB/8718 dated 12.5.1981 sent a pair of shoes along with the mould to the Director Finger Prints Bureau. Rajasthan, Jaipur for comparison as well as the final opinion. An specific question was posed in the letter addressed by the Investigating Officer to the Director. Rajasthan, Jaipur for comparison as well as the final opinion. An specific question was posed in the letter addressed by the Investigating Officer to the Director. Finger Prints Bureau as to whether the mark A, which was mould print is identical to the shoes of the left foot and if so, the result may be sent. Report (Ex.P 20) was sent by the Director, Finger Prints Bureau on 2.6.1981. After completion of investigation, a charge sheet was submitted against the accused appellant in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Baran who, committed the accused to Sessions for trial. 3. At the trial, prosecution examined 15 witnesses in support of its case. The accused when examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C. submitted that he has been falesely implicated in the case. He however, did not lead any evidence in defence. Learned Sessions Judge after discussing the law about the circumstantial evidence, found the following four circumstances against the accused: "(1) D;k fnukad 14&4&81 dks etcwr flag dh e`R;q okgz; fgalk ds QyLo:i gqbZ Fkh\ (2) D;k vfHk;qDr us etcwr flag dk xyk ?kksaVdj mls tku ls ekjk Fkk\ (3) D;k vfHk;qDr us dksbZ vijk/k fd;k gS ;fn gkWa rks og fdl /kkjk esa n.Muh; gS\ (4) D;k vfHk;qDr dks n.Mkfn"V fd;k tkuk gS ;fn gkWa rks fdl izdkj\ " On the strength of the statements of Mst. Kashi (PW 4; and Prem Narain (PW 13), learned Sessions Judge held that there was enmity between the lather of the deceased and the accused and the latter has given a challenge. The second circumstance which is found proved is that on 14.4.1981 the accused was seen in the company of deceased in the noon and thereafter, Majboot Singh was not seen alive. The third circumstance was that accused on 15.4.1981 told the mother of the deceased that Majboot Singh could be found in Badhere and the last circumstance was the similarity in the foot marks i.e. in the mould and the shoe belonging to the accused and ultimately held the accused guilty of committing murder of deceased Mrjboot Singh and convicted and sentenced as indicated above. Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred this appeal from Jail, wherein Mr. J.P. Goyal was appointed as Amicus Curiae, who has assisted this court in disposing of this appeal. 4. Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred this appeal from Jail, wherein Mr. J.P. Goyal was appointed as Amicus Curiae, who has assisted this court in disposing of this appeal. 4. It is contended by Mr Goyal that though the learned trial court has rightly discussed the law regarding appreciation of circumstantial evidence, but while applying the same in the facts and circumstances of the case, the evidence has not been properly appreciated, which has resulted in failure of justice. It is contended that the F.I R. is inordinately delayed and though it contained all details including the one that a day prior to lodging of the report, it came to the notice of the parents of the deceased that the boy could be found in Badhare, they did not even care to go there and this conduct shows that the F.I.R. has been subsequently written, even after the recovery of the dead body and it is for this reason that it has been sent to the Magistrate on 18th April, 1981 and that too even after the accused has been arrested and his shoe had been recovered. It is further submitted that the trial court has committed an error in relying upon the evidence of last seen when the prosecution has failed to substantiate that the time of last seen was approximately the time of death of deceased Majboot Singh. It is further contended that the trial court has not applied its mind to the report of the Finger Prints Bureau, wherein the mould of the left foot has been compared with the shoe of the right leg and the similarity has been shown, which exposes the Bureaus report completely and no reliance ought to have been placed on the same. It is submitted that if this important evidence is taken out of consideration along with the evidence of last seen and the conduct of the parents of the deceased, then the whole prosecution story is rendered doubtful. 5. As against this, the learned Public Prosecutor contends that the evidence of last seen by itself is strong evidence in the case, on which conviction should be maintained. Learned Public Prosecutor sought the assistance of one of the Officers of the Finger Prints Bureau in this court and could not substantiate the finding of the trial court on that issue. As against this, the learned Public Prosecutor contends that the evidence of last seen by itself is strong evidence in the case, on which conviction should be maintained. Learned Public Prosecutor sought the assistance of one of the Officers of the Finger Prints Bureau in this court and could not substantiate the finding of the trial court on that issue. He however, contended that even on rest of the 3 circumstances, the conviction should be maintained. 6. We have given our due consideration to the rival contentions and have perused the entire record. 7. Needless to quote here the law about the appreciation of evidence and circumstantial evidence because it is by now well settled that the prosecution must prove its evidence by convincing evidence where no link in the chain is missing, and whatever evidence is sought to be proved, must be proved by unimpeachable evidence Before we address over selves on the other evidence, we would first like to take lip the evidence about the comparisons of chance shoes impression mould with the pair of shoes purported to have been recovered from accused Kanhi Ram and on which much emphasis have been led by the trial court. It is most unfortunate that the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not look into the documents properly and arrived at a conclusion on a purfunctory look at the same. Ex. It is most unfortunate that the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not look into the documents properly and arrived at a conclusion on a purfunctory look at the same. Ex. P. 12 is the memo, which has been prepared by the Investigating Officer Mohan Lal in presence of Sub-Inspector Nand Kishore, Madan Lal father of the deceased and two motbirs, namely Ram Dayal and Hanumana Ram, which reads as under:- "Ex P 12 QnZ rS;kj djus eksYM ck;sa QqV fizUV twrh dk ftldk dke if'pe ds iwoZ dks tkrs gq, FkkA csnjk ( ukyk ) eky ekStk Qstiqjk P.S. okipk o flyflys eqdnek ua0 16@81 /kkjk 302 I.P.C. okipk fnukad okipk fnukad 19&4&81 at 6 p.m. :c: xokgku& 1- jken;ky S/o Hkwjk mez 36 lky tkfr yks/kk fuoklh Qstiqjk 2- gjukjk;.k S/o HkkM+ mez 36 lky tkfr yks/kk fuoklh Qstiqjk mijksDr xokgku ds le{k o ekStwnxh eqLrxhl Jh enuyky S/o iUukyky yks/kk fuoklh QStiqjk ds ,d QqVfizUV ck;sa iSj dk twrh igus gq, dk oSnjs ( ukyk ) eky ekStk QStiqjk esa if'pe ls iwoZ dks tkrs gq, FkkA eksYM ?kVuk LFky dk eqQ~r uUnfd'kksj SII/C M O.B dksVk us gLc fu'kknsgh Jh eksguyky ehuk SHO ] ckipk ds ,d eksYM cuk;k tks oDr ij dke vk;sxkA QnZ ekSdk ij ewfrZc dh tkdj xokgku dks i<+dj lqukbZ xbZ lgh rLyhe djus ij gLrk{kj o fu0v0 djok;s x;sA ;g LFkku ekStkQStkiqjk ls 2km nf{k.k esa csnjk eky ekStk fdlU;k yks/kk ds [ksr ds ikl ?kVuk LFky yk'k eqroQh etcwrflag ls if'pe esa 15 fQV gSA " g0 fu0v0 fu0v0 C D g0 gjukjk;.k enu jken;ky uUnfd'kksj eksguyky eh.kk A perusal of the memo Ex.P. 12 shows that the mould has been taken of the left foot. This was done on 19.4.1981. Thereafter on 20.4.1981 a pair of shoes was recovered from the accused in presence of the same two motbirs and this was recovered vide memo Ex. P. 13. Both the moulds as well as pair of shoes had been forwarded to the Director, Finger Prints Bureau Rajasthan, Jaipur as mentioned above. The report of the Bureau is Ex. P. 20 and it will be purposeful to reproduce the same :Engineering Bureau Raj. Jaipur - Sub : Comparison of chance shoe impression mould in case No. 16/81 U/S 302 I.P.C. P.S. Babcha Distt. Kota. Ref : Supdt. of Police Kota's letter No. KTH/MOB/8718 dated 12.5.1981. (Material recovered for examination) 1. The report of the Bureau is Ex. P. 20 and it will be purposeful to reproduce the same :Engineering Bureau Raj. Jaipur - Sub : Comparison of chance shoe impression mould in case No. 16/81 U/S 302 I.P.C. P.S. Babcha Distt. Kota. Ref : Supdt. of Police Kota's letter No. KTH/MOB/8718 dated 12.5.1981. (Material recovered for examination) 1. Chance shoe impression mould marked `A' lifted from the crime scene on 19.4 81 (one mould) 2. One sealed packed marked `B' containing one pair of shoes of Kanhi Ram alias Milmil S/o Panna Lal now marked `B' (one pair of shoes) (Comparisons desired) The chance shoe impression mould `A' is to be compared with the original pair of shoes of Kanhi Ram S/o Panna Lal. OPIOIONThe chance shoe impression mould marked A has been examined and compared with the sole of original shoes of Kanhi Ram. The chance shoe impression mould marked A is similar and identical with the original right shoe sole of marked B1 of Kanhi Ram. Following similar features have been observed in both A and B1:- 1. Trace of outer margins of both A and B1 virtually coincide over each other. 2. The pattern of both is exactly the same. 3. Length of the shoes sole from A to B is 31 Cms in both. 4. Width of the heel from C to D is 6.2 Cms. in both `A' and B1. 5. E is hole mark in A which corresponds to a similar hole in middle of the heel in B1 at the same relative positions. 6. F to G is the lower edge of upper half sole present at the same relative positions in A and B1. 7. H, I and J is the work out portion of upper half sole towards the toe due to fair use of shoe and is present at the same relative position in both Aand B1. Slight difference in formation in mould A is due to impression of B1 being impressed in sand. 8. K to L is a used up portion of toe present at the same relative position in both. Slight difference in formation in mould A is due to impression of B1 being impressed in sand. 8. K to L is a used up portion of toe present at the same relative position in both. From the above similar features present, we are of the opinion that chance shoe impression mould A has been left by the same shoe i e. right shoe of Kanhi Ram S/o Panna Lal " On perusal of the aforesaid documents as well as the forwarding letter and the report, we are convinced that it is a case of gross negligence on the part of all concerned, may be the Investigating Officer, the Incharge comparing the impressions in the Finger Print Bureau and the trial Judge. 8. It is an admitted case of the prosecution that the impressions of left leg had been obtained from the place of occurrence for which the mould was prepared vide Ex. P. 12. Vide forwarding letter of the Investigating Officer, he wanted the opinion whether the mould of the left leg tallies with the left shoe of the left leg, but on a perusal of the opinion shows that the chance shoe impression mould mark A has been examined and compared with the sole of original shoes of Kanhi Ram and the shoe impression mould mark A has been found similar and identical with the original right sole mark B1 of Kanhi Ram. After giving similar features at the bottom of the report, it has again been mentioned that from the above similar features present, we are of the opinion that the chance shoe impression mould A has been left by the same shoe i.e. right shoe of Kanhi Ram S/o Pannalal. What was sought to be compared was the mould of the left foot with the left shoe of Kanhi Ram, or at the best even assuming for a moment that he had changed the shoe in the foot, it was essential for the Finger Prints Bureau to have come up with the comparisons of both shoes. It is essential in a serious case like that of murder that when opinions are sought, they should be absolutely clear and no room for doubt should be left in the minds of the courts, who have to base their judgments on the basis of the same. It is essential in a serious case like that of murder that when opinions are sought, they should be absolutely clear and no room for doubt should be left in the minds of the courts, who have to base their judgments on the basis of the same. Admittedly, the sealed packet marked B contained one pair of shoes which was marked B1 and B2. B1 has been shown to be the right shoe of Kanhi Ram and no denial can be made from the fact that the mould was from the left foot. Thus the entire comparison is meaning less and no reliance can be placed on such evidence At this very stage, we would like to make observations aiming Finger Prints Bureau that they should be specific, meticulous and unambiguous. This court earlier also had to pass observations in one of the cases and it is unfortunate that it has to be repeated. We, therefore, discard the aforesaid circumstances and do out of consideration. 9. Then we are left with the evidence of last seen, for which the prosecution has examined Ramkali (PW 3) who is a child witness. She had given her statement and stated that she had seen her brother in the company of the accused and she thought that they have gone for hunting Titar. She however said that it was about 12 O' Clock or thereafter or may be in the after-noon. She was in fact not certain about the time when she had seen them. Another witness, who has been examined is Jagannath (PW 6) who has stated that he had seen the accused going in the company with deceased, towards the place of occurrence at about 11'o clock. He however, is also a witness to the effect that he had seen the accused coming back alone when he was going to village Anahedi with Madan, Kalyan and Raghunath etc. and the accused was perspiring. He however, admits in cross-examination that he does not have good relations with the accused and they are not on talking terms. 10. Then is the evidence of the father of deceased Madan Lal (PW2), who states that when he was going to the river side, he had seen his son playing cards at the place of the accused. But when he returned he was not there. 10. Then is the evidence of the father of deceased Madan Lal (PW2), who states that when he was going to the river side, he had seen his son playing cards at the place of the accused. But when he returned he was not there. He also state that he had seen the accused again when he was going towards village Anahedi and he was perspiring and was looking nervous. This witness in his cross-examination has stated that it was about 12 in the day that he had gone to Anahedi and obviously he had seen them prior to that time. Thus, there is great variance in the timings given by all the 3 witnesses about the last seen Besides this, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the approximate time of death was the same when the accused was seen returning from the side of Badhare where the alleged murder is said to have been committed, because what the prosecution wants to believe this court is that the incident took place between the period Madan Lal went to the river side for washing the twine (Sutli) and between the time he was going to Annahedi, which according to his statements, comes to be about 12'O clock on 14.4 1985. Therefore, we are unable to rely this circumstance alone tor holding the accused guilty for the offence of murder. 11. Thereafter remains the evidence about the past enmity and a challenge thrown. Suffice it to say that this evidence has been produced by the prosecution virtually to be rejected. No such strong evidence has been brought which can convince the court that relations between the two brothers were strained. On the contrary, the prosecution evidence is that when deceased was not found, accused was in the company of the parents for searching him out, and dispute, if any, which is trifle in nature, has been brought in about theft, couple of years before. A separate incident between the two brothers, which might have taken place a couple of years before, in our opinion is not sufficient to come to a conclusion of committing murder of a boy of 14 years by the accused appellant. There is hardly any evidence substantiating this except that of another witness Smt. Kashi (PW 4) who is the mother of the deceased. There is hardly any evidence substantiating this except that of another witness Smt. Kashi (PW 4) who is the mother of the deceased. She has stated that the accused in her parents house, at once, said that since they had digger a well, he will do away with her son. But this incident, she says, took place a couple of years before. Soon thereafter, nothing has been proved on record. Thus, this circumstance also, in our opinion, is not convincing. 12. Then remains only the evidence regarding information given by the accused to the mother on 15.4.81 about the possibility of finding out the corps of Majboot Singh near Badhare, which he suspected might have been murdered. The evidence in this respect is highly contradictory. In F.I.R.. Madan Lal (PW 2) father of deceased has categorically said that when he and his wife met the accused. he told them that they should search out the boy near Badhare and that he might have been murdered by some body. This statement has been given a complete go-by by Madan Lal in his statement before the court, where he has said that he was not present when the accused gave information about the possibility of the boy finding out at Badhare. He has admitted that accused said nothing to him about the boy. P.W. 4 Mst. Kashi states that when she and her husband were weeping, accused came and told them that their son has been killed and thrown near Badhare. Thus, there are 3 versions about the said information and it is difficult to place reliance on one of them. Besides this, the conduct of the parents that they learnt it from the accused on 15th evening that their only 10 years old son dead, yet they slept in the house and did not go in search of the body at the place, is not acceptable. Had this information been given by the accused on 15th evening, in our opinion, the natural conduct of the parents, should have been to go in search for the son at the place indicated immediately and the whole village would have known about it But at the cost of repetition, we may add that the conduct of the parents, in not trying to find out on the evening of 15th, casts doubt in our mind that this is a cooked up story. 13. 13. Having ruled out all the circumstances, as discussed above, we have no option but give benefit of doubt to the accused appellant. 14. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, we accept this appeal, set aside the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Baran dated 26.11.1981 and consequently, the conviction and sentence, and acquit the appellant Kanhi Ram son of Shri Panna Lal of the charge under Section 302 I.P.C. The accused is in jail and will be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. 15. Before parting with the judgment, we would like to observe that we have stated above gross negligence and callousness on the part of the Bureau as well as the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Baran, who has delivered the judgment, the relevant observations may be communicated to them.Appeal allowed. *******