Judgment ( 1 ). Two accused stand convicted for a murder for gain by killing Nanak ram who was the driver of a jeep. Both were, therefore, convicted under sections 302 and 392 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life on the first count and rigorous imprisonment for five years on the second count. A Division Bench of the high Court of Rajasthan confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal filed by both of them separately. Here also, they filed appeals separately by special leave. ( 2 ). The incident happened on 3-2-1987 at about 10-11 p. m. There is sufficient evidence as adverted to by the Sessions Court and the High Court to prove that both the accused travelled together with the deceased in the jeep driven by the deceased (the jeep belonged to PW 1 Gokul Chand ). There is sufficient evidence that deceased Nanak Ram was killed inside the jungle at rohi Hafasar (Bikaner District in Rajasthan ). PW 18 Dr Amolak Chand golchha who conducted the post-mortem had reported that Nanak Ram was killed by smashing his skull. The extensive fracture noted on the parietal as well as temporal lobes of the skull associated with the injuries of the brain would prove beyond doubt that the deceased was murdered by somebody. ( 3 ). There is evidence to show that first accused Megha Ram returned from the jungle all alone in the same jeep without its number plate and when he saw the police at Dudu Police Station, he wanted to escape the barracks and so he proceeded further. PW 15 Bhikharam of that police station made a chase and intercepted Megha Ram along with the jeep. PW 7 said that it was a-1 Megha Ram who pledged the wristwatch with him on 4-2-1987. There is sufficient evidence for identifying the said wristwatch as belonging to the deceased which he was wearing. PW 13 said that a tape recorder was sold to him on 4-2-1987 itself. The significance of his evidence is that PW 13 was traced out by the investigating officer on the strength of the information elicited from A-l Megha Ram. The tape recorder was identified in this case as the one fitted in the jeep. ( 4 ). The jeep itself was identified by its owner. The significance of his evidence is that PW 13 was traced out by the investigating officer on the strength of the information elicited from A-l Megha Ram. The tape recorder was identified in this case as the one fitted in the jeep. ( 4 ). The jeep itself was identified by its owner. The jeep was one which the deceased was driving in which A-l and A-2 were travelling on the fateful day. ( 5 ). There is evidence to show that deceased and A-l and A-2 were the persons in the jeep which reached the petrol pump where 20 litres of diesel had been pumped into the vehicle by PW 11. PW 10 Megha Ram testified that he saw the accused A-l Megha Ram and two others at the jungle which must be very close to the scene of occurrence. ( 6 ). When all these circumstances are put together, the conclusion that A-1 megha Ram had involvement in the murder of Nanak Ram is irresistible. Hence, the conviction passed by the trial court and confirmed by the High court as against A-1 Megha Ram does not warrant interference. ( 7 ). But the case as against A-2 Rameshwar Lal is slightly different to connect him with the murder of Nanak Ram. We have only the circumstances established up to his presence near the place of occurrence. One of the scientific evidence sought to be proved against him is the impression of the sole of the shoe found on the ground of the jungle near the spot where the dead body was found. The mould of the shoe impression had been collected and that was compared with the impression taken from the shoes sole of the second accused. The Forensic Science Laboratory sent a report saying that both would tally with each other. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the second accused contended that even assuming that there are comparative features between the two, the impression of a shoe sole is hardly sufficient to establish that the second accused would have trampled over that area. According to the learned counsel, the standard used for drawing inference from finger impressions cannot be applied to shoe sole impressions. ( 8 ). According to the learned counsel, the standard used for drawing inference from finger impressions cannot be applied to shoe sole impressions. ( 8 ). We are unable to conclude anything with the shoe impression as no authority has been brought to our notice regarding the level of perfection of footwear impressions in crime detectors or regarding any scientific advancement made on that subject. It is difficult for us to utilise the aforesaid material as an incriminating circumstance for connecting the second accused and then to conclude that the second accused was present at the time of murder. ( 9 ). We may point out at this juncture that there is no other circumstance pitted against him by the prosecution. He was not found in possession of any incriminating article nor was he found along with the first accused at any time subsequent to the murder. ( 10 ). In the absence of any such circumstance, we find it difficult to hold that the prosecution has succeeded in completing the chain of circumstances leading to the irresistible inference that A-2 had a hand, much less involvement, in the murder of Nanak Ram. There is an area of reasonable doubt regarding his role and, therefore, the benefit of that doubt must be extended to him. ( 11 ). In the result, we allow Criminal Appeal No. 233 of 1996 filed by A-2 rameshwar Lal and set aside the conviction and sentence passed on him. We acquit him and we order that the bail bond executed by him will stand discharged. Criminal Appeal No. 2102 of 1996 is disposed of and the appellant Megha Ram will continue in jail to serve out the sentence imposed on him.