Honble PALSHIKAR, J.–Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 27.5.1992 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Nohar (Sriganganagar) convicting the accused for offence under Sec. 302. I.P.C. for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-; in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months; for offence under Sec. 201 I.P.C. to five years rigorous imprisonment and 5 a fine of Rs. 100/-and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month; the appellant-accused has preferred this appeal on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal. (2). With the assistance of the learned counsel for the accused and the learned P.P., we have gone through the records of the case. We have re-appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and have examined the records of this case critically in the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel at the Bar. (3). Facts giving rise to the prosecution stated briefly are that on 29.10.1989, First Information Report (F.I.R.) was lodged in the Police Station by Liladhar P.W.1 who is Sarpanch of village that dead body is lying near the field of one Birbal and the body has injuries on it. Investigation was taken up and the accused was prosecuted after being arrested for causing murder of deceased Hanuman and causing injuries appearing on his body. It is alleged by the prosecution that Hanuman was murdered by the accused-appellant in his home in Haryana State and the body was loaded in truck belonging to the deceased and was dropped on the road in Rajasthan. After the discovery of the body as aforesaid, investigation was done, challan was filed and as many as 21 witnesses were examined in support of the prosecution case that the death of Hanuman amounted to murder and is caused by the accused. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge in appreciation of the evidence, came to the conclusion of guilt and by his aforesaid judgment, sentenced the accused to suffer imprisonment for life on account of the murder. This order is impugned in this appeal on several grounds raised before us by the learned counsel while urging the appeal. (4). Basically the learned counsel argued that the courts in Rajasthan had no jurisdiction to try the case as the offences both punishable under Secs. This order is impugned in this appeal on several grounds raised before us by the learned counsel while urging the appeal. (4). Basically the learned counsel argued that the courts in Rajasthan had no jurisdiction to try the case as the offences both punishable under Secs. 302 and 201 I.P.C. have been completed in State of Haryana and not in Rajasthan. He has taken us through the record of the case to prove his contention by showing that according to the prosecution itself, the deceased Hanuman was murdered by the accused in his house in Haryana, the body was removed by the accused with the intention to dispose of his evidence of murder from the house of the deceased in Haryana that the offence was complete after the body was successfully removed from the site and, therefore, there is no cause of action in the State of Rajasthan including the courts therein to take up jurisdiction. The argument though appears to be attractive in the first place, is devoid of any substance. In order to meet such contingency Sec. 180 has been enacted in the Criminal Procedure Code of 1974. Even prior to that, the 1898 Code had also similar provision. Sec 180 of the Criminal Procedure Code reads as thus:- ``180. Place of trial where act is an offence by reason of relation to other offence-When an act is an offence by reason of its relation to any other act which is also an offence or which would be an offence if the doer were capable of committing an offence, the first-mentioned offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction either act was done.. (5). It will be seen from the above quoted provisions of Sec. 180 that Rajasthan courts definitely have jurisdiction in the present case because the offence under Sec. 201 is completed in the State of Rajasthan. Sec. 201 of the Indian Penal Code reads thus:- ``201 Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender:-Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, cause any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false. (if a capital offence) shall, if the offence which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with death, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; (if punishable with imprisonment for life) and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; (if punishable with less than ten years imprisonment) and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for any term not extending to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence, for a term which may extent to one-fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both. (6). The section, therefore, postulates punishment for causing disappearance of evidence of an offence. Here the evidence was the dead body and the accused was causing its disappearance by removing it from Haryana State and dumping it in Rajasthan State. Consequently, the offence is complete when causing disappearance of the evidence of offence is completed and according to the person committing the offence whether the action is completed or not, is immaterial. It is based basically on intention of guilt for which the offender should be punished. Attempt to cause disappearance of any evidence of commission of an offence is also penal under the section. In the present case, the offence was, therefore, complete on the date of the dump and the prosecution had a right for the trial of the accused in Rajasthan State. This being the position, by virtue of Sec. 180 quoted above, the courts in Rajasthan have jurisdiction to try the offence because the offence punishable under Sec. 201 is in regard to another act, which is also an offence viz..., causing murder of Hanuman in Haryana State and, therefore, courts in Rajasthan have jurisdiction. The contention raised by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant is, therefore, rejected. The contention raised by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant is, therefore, rejected. (7) Advering to the merits of the case, it was submitted by the learned counsel that the conviction is solely based on circumstantial evidence and even if the entire circumstantial evidence as led by the prosecution is accepted, it is hopelessly short of the required standards of proof on which judgment of conviction was based. He, therefore, prays for acquittal of the accused. This submission requires re-appreciation of the evidence for a finding thereon. (8). P.W.1 Liladhar is the Sarpanch of the village where the body was discovered in the State of Rajasthan. He was informed of the offence by P.W. 2 Birbal. P.W. 1 has filed the F.I.R., which he has proved. (9). P.W.2 Birbal who has come to the witness box has stated that when he went to his field, he discovered the body. He does not identify the same and he states that he reported this discovery to the Sarpanch. He has then deposed that the police came to the scene of occurrence the next day i.e., the day after the discovery, which in effect further means that the body was discovered on 29.10.1989 around 10 A.M. and the police came on the site next day i.e., on 30.10.1989. P.W. 1 Liladhar has deposed that he was informed of the discovery of the body by P.W. 2 Birbal on 29.10.1989 at about 3 P.M. and Birbal P.W. 2 states that he saw the body at about 1 P.M. The witness has also deposed to the injuries that he saw on the body. The witness was also present the next day when the police came and was, therefore, witness to seizure of ticket recovered from the dead body. He has deposed -^^e`rd dh tsc ls ,d fVdV gfj;k.kk jksMost dh iznkZ ih-8 feyh Fkh** (10). It is, therefore, proved by the prosecution with the help of these two witnesses that the dead body of Hanuman was recovered or discovered near the field of Birbal on 29.10.1989 at about 1 P.M. (11). P.W.3 Gopi Ram has deposed that Hanuman, the deceased had a Tata Company`s truck, the number of the model was 407. He states that a day prior to Diwali i.e. on 28th possibly, he saw the truck of Hanuman being loaded in his factory. P.W.3 Gopi Ram has deposed that Hanuman, the deceased had a Tata Company`s truck, the number of the model was 407. He states that a day prior to Diwali i.e. on 28th possibly, he saw the truck of Hanuman being loaded in his factory. He had exchanged pleasantries with Hanuman, during which Hanuman disclosed to him that he i.e., Hanuman will not go to his home but will stay in the town. The witness has deposed that both the accused and the deceased were residents of village Seniwas and the witness was a resident of Siwani Mandi. The witness then states that he never saw Hanuman alive thereafter and informed on 30.10.1989 that Hanuman was murdered. At the best, he is, therefore, a witness to the fact of the truck of Hanuman being loaded in his factory and the accused was also present there. (12). To the same effect is the testimony of P.W. 4 Birbal S/o Tejaram in whose presence it was said by the deceased Hanuman that he and the accused will not go to the village that day. He is also, therefore, a witness of seeing the accused and the deceased being in Siwani in the evening of 28.10.1989. (13). P.W.5 Raghuveer is also witness to prove that the accused and the deceased were seen in the village Siwani in the evening of 28.10.1989. (14). P.W.6 Satish was with P.W. 5 Raghuveer and his deposition is corroborated with what has been said by Raghuveer. He has said that the accused told him that Hanuman has gone to Hisar and he i.e., Hanuman told him i.e. accused to clean the vehicle and keep it on the sand, which accordingly was done by the accused. (15) P.W. 7 Hanuman Prasad is inconsequential as he deposes that in the morning of 29.10.1989, he sold diesel to the accused. It proves nothing. (16). P.W.8 Dharmpal has deposed that on 28.10.1989 at about 8 in the evening, he came to village Sherda and at 10, he left Sherda for Siwani when he crossed accused driving the truck belonging to the deceased. Except the fact that he saw the accused driving the truck belonging to the deceased this witness proves nothing. It proves nothing. (16). P.W.8 Dharmpal has deposed that on 28.10.1989 at about 8 in the evening, he came to village Sherda and at 10, he left Sherda for Siwani when he crossed accused driving the truck belonging to the deceased. Except the fact that he saw the accused driving the truck belonging to the deceased this witness proves nothing. (17) P.W.9 Hansraj is the brother of the deceased Hanuman, who states that the accused who was in service of the deceased, was removed from that service at the instance of this witness. The witness then deposes that on 29.10.1989, he was informed that the vehicle of Hanuman was parked at the Union by the accused and the accused told them that Hanuman had gone to Hisar. He has deposed that on 29.10.1989 the accused returned to him Rs. 400/-which he had earlier borrowed from him. On 30.10.1989 when this witness went to Siwani, he was informed by the police that his brother Hanuman is dead. (18). P.W. 10 Sajjan Singh is another inconsequential witness, who was examined by the prosecution. This pertains to checking the air pressure of the vehicle owned by the deceased at the instance of the accused. (19). P.W.11 Ramphal is a witness to the arrest and recovery of certain articles from the house of the deceased Hanuman in Siwani. He proves the description of those various articles. (20). P.W. 12 Roshanlal is the witness who saw the accused in the morning of Deepawali washing the vehicle belonging to the deceased. Meaning thereby that on 29.10.1989 in the morning, the accused was seen washing the vehicle belonging to the deceased. He describes the vehicle as ^^xkM+h VkVk yky jax dh Fkh** . He does not give its number nor any other description. This deposition is, therefore, inconsequential. (21). P.W. 13 Kanaram deposed that the accused returned Rs. 280/-to him on the day of Diwali. To the same effect is the deposition of P.W. 14 Prithvi and P.W. 15 Dharmpal. (22). P.W. 16 Hanuman S/o Hariram has stated that about two days after Deepawali in 1989, the police had seized the vehicle belonging to Hanuman Bishnoi bearing number HNH 995. He states that he alongwith the Station House Officer saw the vehicle being blood stained. To the same effect is the deposition of P.W. 14 Prithvi and P.W. 15 Dharmpal. (22). P.W. 16 Hanuman S/o Hariram has stated that about two days after Deepawali in 1989, the police had seized the vehicle belonging to Hanuman Bishnoi bearing number HNH 995. He states that he alongwith the Station House Officer saw the vehicle being blood stained. However, the witness does not describe how the blood stains were seen on the back of the vehicle which according to him was blood stained. He proves certain documents, which were executed in his presence. (23). P.W.17 Bhal Singh is the witness to the arrest of the accused. He was also witness of the seizure of shirt belonging to accused, which according to him, had blood stains on the back side of the shirt. He also proved the documents Ex. P23 and Ex.P.24 prepared in his presence. (24). P.W. 18 Ram Singh is the witness of recovery of key, lock, pair of chappal etc. from the house of the deceased Hanuman. P.W. 19 Baldeo Singh is the carrier of articles for examination to F.S.L., Jaipur. (25) P.W. 20 Dr. B.M. Choudhary is the person who had conducted the post-mortem of Hanuman. He has deposed that the death was caused due to excessive hemorrhage and other injuries. He then states ^^esjs }kjk tkap djus o e`R;q ds chp dh vof/k djhc 24 ?kaVs ls T;knk dh FkhA** He then admitted ^^e`rd dh pksV uEcj ,d o nks e`rd ds kjhj dks vxj Vªd esa Mkyk tkos ;k iVdk tkos rks vk.kh laHko gSA** He proves post-mortem report Ex. P/30. (26). According to the testimony of this witness, therefore, the post-mortem was conducted by him on 30.10.1989 at about 1 P.M. Even the witness deposes in his statement before the court, which is inconsistent with the injuries in the post-mortem report. He has said ^^eSaus ,d vKkr O;fDr ftldh mez 25 ls 30 lky ds chp esa Fkh 10 cts lqcg chdhiqj xkao ds ikl lM+d ij iM+h ykk dk ijh{k.k fd;k FkkA** (27). A perusal of Ex p/30 the post-mortem report also discloses that the examination was conducted at 10 A.M. on 30.10.1989. He has said ^^eSaus ,d vKkr O;fDr ftldh mez 25 ls 30 lky ds chp esa Fkh 10 cts lqcg chdhiqj xkao ds ikl lM+d ij iM+h ykk dk ijh{k.k fd;k FkkA** (27). A perusal of Ex p/30 the post-mortem report also discloses that the examination was conducted at 10 A.M. on 30.10.1989. It will thus be seen that the death has occurred according to the doctor 24 hours prior to his examination i.e., the death has occurred around 10 A.M. on 29.10.1989 or few hours earlier thereto whereas the charge is that the accused committed the murder of the deceased in the night of 28.10.1989 around 10 P.M. (28). P.W. 21 Atar Singh is the Station House Officer (S.H.O.). This witness gives the overall evidence on the basis of which, the learned Judge thought it fit to convict the appellant for committing the murder of Hanuman. (29). Even if entire evidence as led by the prosecution and appreciated by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge is accepted as true, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable on the following glaring defects in the prosecution evidence:- (i) the learned Judge has found that the accused has stated falsely when he states that the deceased had gone to Hisar. This finding of the learned Judge is baseless and wrong for the reason that a ticket of Haryana Roadways from Hisar bus stand was found in the pocket of the deceased. No attempt has been made by the prosecution to prove the date on this ticket, which could have proved the fact of travel by the deceased on that ticket on a particular date. It would have further fixed the date and time when the deceased travelled from Hisar to another place. It would have witnessed date and time of the ticket. (ii) the learned Judge has accepted the evidence of the prosecution that the accused and the deceased were last seen together alive in Siwani in the morning at 8 A.M. on 28.10.1989 and it is thereafter that the accused murdered the deceased. This finding is improbable on the evidence on record as the doctor has unequivocally stated in his deposition that the death occurred about 24 hours or more from the time of examination of the dead body. This finding is improbable on the evidence on record as the doctor has unequivocally stated in his deposition that the death occurred about 24 hours or more from the time of examination of the dead body. Apart the dead body was examined only on 30.10.1989 at 10 A.M., 24 hours prior to examination which would be 29.10.1989 at 10 A.M. Even if we assume that the 24 hours or ``More means six hours more than, which would be 4 a.m. on 29.10.1989. Thus, the case of the prosecution is that the death occurred on 28.10.1989 at around 10 P.M. Consequently, the finding that it was caused by the accused at 4 A.M. next day is indigestible conclusion. (iii) Coming to the evidence of the doctor as stated, there is no reason to reject it, then it cannot be said that the accused committed the murder. (iv) There is yet another angle from which it appears that the accused is not the person who committed the murder. The accused and the deceased according to the prosecution witnesses were seen alive around 8 A.M. on 28. 10. 1989. The accused was seen driving the truck belonging to the deceased at about 10 P.M. on 28.10.1989 and there was a ticket from Hisar to some place in Haryana in the pocket of the deceased, the date of which was not verified by the prosecution. The possibility of the deceased travelling on the date from Hisar to some place in Haryana after 8 P.M. on 28.10.1989 has thus not been overruled by the prosecution. This possibility would, therefore, be not accepted by a prudent man regarding the commission of the offence by the accused in the manner as alleged by the prosecution. This aspect is ignored by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. (30). Taking an overall view of all the circumstances, it is difficult to maintain the order of conviction as recorded by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. From several aspects, proper investigation of which could led to a better clarification of the attending circumstances. According to the police and prosecution, one Aari (an instrument meant for cutting steel) was found in the house of the deceased and it was blood stained. Thus, the allegation of the prosecution is that it was by this Aari that the accused committed the murder of the deceased. According to the police and prosecution, one Aari (an instrument meant for cutting steel) was found in the house of the deceased and it was blood stained. Thus, the allegation of the prosecution is that it was by this Aari that the accused committed the murder of the deceased. Nothing prevented the police from getting the Aari finger printed and excluding the possibility of the Aari being used by anyone for murdering the deceased. Non-exclusion of this possibility, therefore, raises yet another doubt in the mind of a reasonable and prudent man regarding user of this Aari for the murder by the accused. This aspect is also ignored by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. On overall re-appreciation of the evidence on record, we are, therefore, of the opinion that it is not a case where looking to the record, involvement of the accused in the commission of the offence arises and it is, therefore, not a fit case where conviction can be recorded on such evidence. We are, therefore, unable to maintain the order of conviction as passed by the learned Judge. (31). The appeal succeeds and is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the accused as imposed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge is set aside. The accused is in jail. He be released immediately if he is not required in any other offence.