JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is preferred to challenge the judgment dated 15.12.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Udaipur convicting the accused-appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and 4/25 of the Indian Arms Act. 2. Learned trial Court on the basis of conviction aforesaid sentenced the accused to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of that to further undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment. For conviction under Section 4/25 of the Indian Arms Act, the accused is sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment. 3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that on 1.1.2003 PW-1 Mohd. Nazeer submitted a written report (Ex.P-2) at Police Station, Suraj Pole, Udaipur with assertion that he is having a residential accommodation at Kacchi Basti, Ward No. 24, House No. 674, Raja Nagar, Kishanpole. The accommodation aforesaid was rented to Yaqub Mohammed, wherein he was residing with his family from last about VA years. One man viz. Mushtak, who was working as a cook in some nearby hotel used to visit the house of aforesaid Yaqub quite often. On 1.1.2003, Smt. Haseena wife of PW-1 Mohd. Nazeer went to Yaqub's residence for collecting rent. She found that exit door of the house was closed. The door concerned was having certain blood stains. This information was given at Police Station Rang Niwas, therefrom, some police personnels came on the spot and in the presence of certain residents of the colony, lock was broken and on entering into the room, it was found that a dead body was lying there. The chopped neck wrapped in a plastic bag was also lying there. As per Ex.P-2, the informant was having a doubt about commission of murder by Yaqub. On basis of the information aforesaid, a case was lodged and investigation was initiated. During the course of investigation, certain recoveries were made, including recovery of a key from the accused as per Ex.P-15 and recovery of a knife, dhowana and electric wire. As per Ex.P-16, recovery aforesaid was made in the presence of PW-9 Chand Khan and Pw-11 Mohd. Sharif. During the course of investigation, certain recoveries were made, including recovery of a key from the accused as per Ex.P-15 and recovery of a knife, dhowana and electric wire. As per Ex.P-16, recovery aforesaid was made in the presence of PW-9 Chand Khan and Pw-11 Mohd. Sharif. Tire knife so recovered and clothes of deceased were sent for Serological examination to Forensic Science Laboratory, report of that is available on record as Ex.P-57. As per the report aforesaid, the knife and dhowana recovered at the instance of the accused were found blood stained with "B group of blood", matching with the blood group of blood swab, blood stains found on 'lungi' of the deceased, chaddar found at the spot of occurrence and the plastic bags in which chopped neck was found on the spot. 4. On the basis of available evidence, during the course of investigation, the Investigating Agency submitted a charge-sheet as per provision of Section 173 Cr.P.C. before the competent Court, lire case being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions was committed to it. The trial Court framed charges for commission of the offences under Section 302 I.P.C. and 4/25 of the Indian Arms Act. On denial of the same, regular trial was conducted. 5. During the course of trial, learned trial Court examined as many as 16 witnesses and several documents. 6. PW-6 Dr. Yogesh Sharma conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased, thus, he proved the postmortem report (Ex.P-12). As per Ex.P-12, the cause of death was shock as a result of complete amputation of neck. In view of the cause given in postmortem report homicidal death of Mushtak is settled beyond shadow of doubt. 7. PW-16 Akhilesh Tripathi was Investigating Officer, therefore, he narrated all the steps taken during the course of investigation. 8. Learned trial Court also examined the accused as per provision of Section 313 Cr.P.C. for getting explanation relating to the evidence available against him. lire accused in general denied all the adverse evidence and pleaded his innocence. 9. Learned trial Court while relying upon the existing circumstances found the accused-appellant guilty for the offences charged and sentenced accordingly. 10. 8. Learned trial Court also examined the accused as per provision of Section 313 Cr.P.C. for getting explanation relating to the evidence available against him. lire accused in general denied all the adverse evidence and pleaded his innocence. 9. Learned trial Court while relying upon the existing circumstances found the accused-appellant guilty for the offences charged and sentenced accordingly. 10. In appeal, the basic contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that all the material witnesses including informant and the persons in presence of whom material recoveries are said to be made did not support the prosecution case and the circumstances available too do not make any chain of events to reach at the definite and exclusive finding regarding guilt of the accused-persons. 11. While opposing the contention aforesaid and defending the conviction recorded and sentence awarded, learned Public Prosecutor urged that the recovery of key of lock which was put on the door of room where from body of Mushtak was recovered, recovery of knife having blood stains matching with the blood group available on the clothes of the deceased and plastic bags recovered from the spot carrying chopped neck are adequate to substantiate the conviction. 12. We have considered the arguments advanced and also examined the entire record available. 13. Learned trial Court based the conviction on three substantial circumstances and those are ; (1) the accused was residing on rent in the premises where the crime occurred. (2) at the instance of accused a weapon of offence was recovered and that was having blood stains of the same group which were available on the clothes of deceased. (3) a key was recovered from the accused at the time of his arrest. In addition to the aforesaid circumstances, learned trial Court also taken into consideration the conduct of the accused-appellant to the extent that he even refused regarding his retention in the accommodation concerned on rent. 14. PW-1 Nazeer Mohammed is the person, who submitted the First Information Report and as a matter of fact, he has supported the contents thereof, except the doubt as referred in document Ex.P-2 itself regarding involvement of the accused Yaqub in commission of crime. This witness was declared hostile at the instance of prosecution. 14. PW-1 Nazeer Mohammed is the person, who submitted the First Information Report and as a matter of fact, he has supported the contents thereof, except the doubt as referred in document Ex.P-2 itself regarding involvement of the accused Yaqub in commission of crime. This witness was declared hostile at the instance of prosecution. During cross-examination, this witness admitted the fact relating to submission of First Information Report as Ex.P-2 and also that the accommodation concerned was rented to the accused Yaqub. However, this witness has not supported the recovery made as per Ex.P-5. Document Ex.P-5 relates to recovery of some cotton pieces and taking of blood stained soil from the spot of occurrence. 15. PW-2 Smt. Haseena is wife of PW-1 Mohd. Nazeer. This witness stated that the accused Yaqub was residing on rent from last about VA years with his wife and children. On 1.1.2003, at about 8-8.30 a.m. when she went to collect rent, she found that some blood was stained and clotted below the door, and therefore, she called a lady from neighbourhood and then went to make necessary information at police post concerned. As per this witness, the police personnels came from police post, unlocked the room and found therein a body with chopped neck. The neck too was found in the room, wrapped in a packet. She also stated that the body of deceased was not recognised by her. This witness too was declared hostile. PW-3 Smt. Asha Salvi was also declared hostile. As per prosecution this was the lady to whom PW-2 Smt. Haseena at the first instance called and instructed to make necessary information at Police Station concerned. 16. The other witnesses including PW-9 Chand Khan and PW-11 Mohd. Sharif in the presence of whom blood stained knife, dhowana and electric wire are said to be recovered, were also declared hostile as they did not support the prosecution case. As a matter of fact, PW-9 Chand Khan in quite unambiguous term stated that no recovery was made in his presence and he saw knife and dhowana, when the same were handed-over to the accused by the police personnel. PW-11 Mohd. Sharif also not supported the recoveries made under Ex.P-16. As per this witness Yaqub handed-over one knife, electric wire and Dhowana to police in his presence, but all these articles were first given to Yaqub by police personnels. PW-11 Mohd. Sharif also not supported the recoveries made under Ex.P-16. As per this witness Yaqub handed-over one knife, electric wire and Dhowana to police in his presence, but all these articles were first given to Yaqub by police personnels. An important recovery, as per prosecution was made as per Ex.P-15 i.e. a key of the lock which was available on the room and was broken by the police personnel on reaching at the spot of occurrence. This recovery too was made in the presence of PW-9 Chand Mohammed, however, this witness has not supported the prosecution stand. 17. PW-16 Akhilesh Tripathi, Investigating Officer though supported the recoveries made during the course of investigation, however, with regard to the recovery of key made as per Ex.P-15 he stated that the key was recovered from the pocket of the accused at the time of arrest and at that time, responsible persons were present. This witness found himself unable to confirm the lock, of which the key concerned was. As per this witness, the key was not having any mark of its manufacturer and he was not aware about the fact that whether the key recovered was of the same company, that manufactured the lock broken from the room, where the crime occurred. 18. It is well settled that whenever the Court is reaching at the conclusion regarding guilt of an accused on the basis of circumstances, then nature of such circumstances and the chain of events advanced by the prosecution should be of such nature that no second possibility can be there, except the finding relating to guilt. In the present case retention of the accused in the premises where the crime occurred is proved beyond any doubt. PW-1 Mohd. Nazeer and PW-2 Smt. Haseena in quite unambiguous term stated that accused Yaqub Khan was residing in the premises rented to him by them. The factum of visiting the spot by PW-2 Smt. Haseena is also established. However, the linkage of accused with the crime is based mainly on recovery of a key seized from him at the time of his arrest and recovery of a knife, dhowana and electric wire as per Ex.P-16 and matching of the blood stains available on the clothes of deceased with the knife recovered. 19. We are having our own doubts in relying the prosecution story. 19. We are having our own doubts in relying the prosecution story. PW-16 Akhilesh Tripathi, Investigating Officer has stated that the key recovered was not having any mark or any other identity to connect the same with the lock which was available on the room door, where the crime concerned occurred. It is relevant to note here that the lock was broken and as such, no exercise was made by the Investigating Agency to establish that they key recovered from the accused was of the same lock. PW-16 was having no explanation or material to connect the key concerned with the lock aforesaid. The recovery of key is also not supported by PW-9 Chand Mohammed. In such circumstances, the recovery of the key could not be linked with the lock concern. 20. The recovery of knife, dhowani and electric wire is also not at all reliable in view of the statement of motbirs. Besides that no other material evidence is available to rely the recoveries, even by ignoring the motbirs. In such circumstances, a reasonable doubt exists in believing the prosecution case. The doubt exists demand for extending its benefit in favour of the accused. 21. In result, this appeal deserves acceptance, therefore, the same is allowed. The judgment impugned dated 15.12.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Udaipur is quashed. The conviction recorded in the judgment aforesaid and sentence awarded is also set aside. As a consequent to aforesaid, the accused, who is presently in judicial custody deserves to be enlarged forthwith, if not required otherwise.Appeal allowed. *******