JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 3rd March, 1986 passed by the Distt. & Sessions Judge, Udaipur in sessions trial No. 62/84. The learned Judge by this order convicted the appellant Ratia under Sections 302,379 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code sentencing him for imprisonment for life under Section 302 and one year's R.I. under Section 379 and five years' R.I. and fine of Rs. 250/- under Section 201, Indian Penal Code proceeded to acquit accused No. 2 Heeria of that offence, he directed the sentence of all offences to run concurrently. Ratia has challenged this order in the present appeal. It is contended by the learned counsel for Ratia that learned District and Sessions Judge committed an error of law on the face of record in convicting the accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the submission of the learned counsel, the prosecution has failed to prove even homicidal death of deceased Raju. Even if it is assumed that the prosecution has proved the death of Raju to be homicidal, there is no proof on record to connect the accused with the crime. 2. It was contended by the learned counsel that even if the entire evidence on record is accepted as truth, the accused cannot be held guilty of the offence under Sections 302, 201 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The only circumstances according to the learned counsel which is being used against the accused is his possession and hypothecation of one `Hasli' belonging to the deceased and being seen last together with the deceased. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor, we have carefully scrutinised the evidence on record which consist several documents and 25 witnesses. We have also scrutinised the statements of the accused, the post-mortem report and other connected documents. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the deceased Raju 18 years old married girl. P.W. 1 Dela s/o Kishan went to see Ramleela on 28.12.82 at about 8 p.m. as she did not return that night or on the next day, search was made and ultimately her dead body was found in a well, therefore, first information report was lodged on 30th December, 1983. P.W. 1 Dela s/o Kishan went to see Ramleela on 28.12.82 at about 8 p.m. as she did not return that night or on the next day, search was made and ultimately her dead body was found in a well, therefore, first information report was lodged on 30th December, 1983. This report states that information is being given of the fact that Raju died by falling in well this does not mention any doubt about her death being homicidal and nor does it name any suspect. 4. It is then alleged that there was disturbance in the Ramleela programme and, therefore, she along with other girls came out of the programme where they were met by the accused Ratia and one Heeria. The accused Ratia told Raju the deceased that one `Hasli' belonging to her is with him, therefore, Raju left with Ratia. The girls accompanying her waited for her to return for about one and half hour and then went home without Raju. Next day enquiries were made by the family of Raju and ultimately it was revealed that her dead body is lying in a well of which information was lodged with police on 30th December, 1983. Investigations conducted thereafter, resulted in arrest of the accused who were subsequently charge-sheeted. After recording evidence, the learned Judge came to the conclusion as aforesaid consistent with the finding of guilt, the learned Judge convicted accused Ratia as stated above. It is this judgment of conviction and sentence which is impugned in this appeal on the grounds mentioned above. 5. As we have already noted above, there is no eye-witness to the incident. In our opinion, conviction of the accused under any of the offence is not possible, even if, the entire evidence of the prosecution is accepted. It has been said by witness P.W. 2 is that deceased Raju went to see Ramleela did not return for the two days, information was lodged with the police and that her dead body was found in a well and hence, report is lodged. Even in this report no doubt is expressed about any individual, it is not even alleged that deceased Raju has met homicidal death. 6. Even in this report no doubt is expressed about any individual, it is not even alleged that deceased Raju has met homicidal death. 6. It is also proved that after deceased Raju and others came out of the Ramleela, they were met by accused Ratia who said to Raju that her `Hasli' is with Ratia and, therefore, Raju went with Ratia to bring the `Hasli'. It is thus, proved that to the knowledge of deceased, her `Hasli' (an ornament) was already with Ratia, it is one `Hasli' which has been allegedly hypothecated by accused with P.W. 11 Poonjalal, the hypothecation is proved. Its seizure by the police is proved what has thus been proved is that the deceased wore a `Hasli' which was with the accused and he hypothecated it with P.W. 11 Poonjalal beyond that there is no connection between the accused and the death of victim Raju. 7. In the post-mortem report, the Dr. has opined that the throttling is the cause of death. Then there is the alleged discovery of certain ornaments from Ratia. The learned trial Judge found this circumstance enough to convict the accused. In our opinion, it may not be possible to do so for the reason that all the witnesses who accompanied Raju to the Ramleela have failed to state that at that time she was wearing any ornament. There is no explanation from the prosecution as to how the accused was in possession of the `Hasli' even prior to the death of the victim Raju. This unexplained possession in regard to one ornament creates a reasonable doubt that even the other ornaments might have come in possession to accused prior to the death of Raju. In fact, the accused has stated in this examination under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code that even the `Hasli' hypothecated with P.W. 11 belonged to his mother. 8. In view of the deposition of the witnesses who accompanied Raju they did not know whether Raju was wearing ornaments or not. It is not possible to accept the evidence on record as conclusive proof of the fact that same have been received by the accused after killing Raju. In our opinion, therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove any of the charges levelled against the accused-appellant Ratia. It is not possible to accept the evidence on record as conclusive proof of the fact that same have been received by the accused after killing Raju. In our opinion, therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove any of the charges levelled against the accused-appellant Ratia. In any event, the scrutiny of the evidence on record does create doubt in the minds of the reasonable man that the accused Ratia may not have killed deceased as to whether accused killed the deceased Raju and the over all appreciation of evidence requires that benefit of this doaibt is given to the accused. It is not a case where it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that Raju was killed or done to death by Ratia alone and nobody else. This circumstance proved on record also does not lead to irresistible conclusion that the appellant killed Raju. 9. A close scrutiny of the entire evidence on record will show that Raju met homicidal death but even if, the entire evidence if accepted, it is insufficient to connect the accused to the killing. In a case of circumstantial evidence it is always necessary that the connection between the homicidal death and accused having caused it must be established beyond doubt. The prosecution has failed to established any motive. It is on record that the body of the deceased was lying in the well for some time and consequently, even if, the discovery of certain ornaments is established. It cannot lead to irresistible conclusion that the death was caused by Ratia with the intention of committing theft of those ornaments. Admittedly, one `Hasli' belonging to the deceased was already with the accused, the deceased voluntarily accompanied the accused, if theft was the only intention a simple assault would have sufficed even the evidence of identification of the ornaments is not sufficient. In the absence of any such evidence it is unsafe to hold that Ratia is the killer of Raju beyond reasonable doubt. 10. We are, therefore, unable to agree with the judgment of conviction. In the result, the appeal is, therefore, accepted. The judgment and order of conviction is set-aside. The accused is acquitted of all the charges levelled against him and he be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.Appeal allowed. *******