JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed by the accused-appellant Ram Murti under Section 374 Criminal Procedure Code challenging the judgment dated 19.9.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Jaipur District, Jaipur whereby he was convicted for offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.100/- and also convicted for offence under Section 201 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs.100/-. It was further directed that in case the appellant fails to make payment of fine, he shall have to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment of one month on each count. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The factual matrix of the case is that on 28.3.2002 a written report (Exhibit P-1) was submitted by PW.1 Ved Bhatt to the SHO, Police Station Sanganer stating therein that he had a house behind Panchayat Samiti, Sanganer. He lived in the house with his wife. Ram Murti, Amar Singh Rajpoot and Amar Singh Chhipa were his tenants. On 27.3.2002, he had to go to attend birthday party of his friend in Dana Pani restaurant. He and his wife got ready to go to the party at 9.15 PM. Before going to attend the party, he went to the room of Ram Murti and had one peg of dry gin and another peg was taken by Ram Murti. He then left for the party with his wife. At that time, in the room of Ram Murti, Rinku and another person, who was cooking rice, were also present. That person was wearing loongi and sandoz baniyan. He and his wife came back from the party at 11.15 PM. While entering into house, he noticed that the door of Ram Murti's room was lying open and lights were on. When he entered the room, the person, who was cooking rice, was lying upside down. He was apparently under the influence of liquor. Informant inquired from Neeraj, nephew of Ram Murti, who was in another room as to who this person was? Neeraj informed that he was Rajesh. He expressed his displeasure over the fact and stated that he did not like other persons staying in the room till late night. He asked Neeraj to convey to his uncle that he may visit him in the morning. Neeraj informed that he was Rajesh. He expressed his displeasure over the fact and stated that he did not like other persons staying in the room till late night. He asked Neeraj to convey to his uncle that he may visit him in the morning. He then went to his room with his wife for sleeping. When he got up at about 6.30 AM in the morning, his another tenant Amar Singh told that dead body of somebody was lying outside in the lane. When he went out, he saw dead body of Rajesh lying in drainage of the lane close to Panchayat Samiti. His throat had been cut by sharp edged weapon. Rajesh was the same person, whom he saw lying on the floor of Ram Murti's room. It was stated by the informant that he immediately went to the room of Ram Murti, who was not available. He saw blood stains on the floor of the room. He inquired from Neeraj how these blood stains were there, who told that since Rajesh did not repay his uncle Ram Murti a sum of Rs.1100/-, his uncle Ram Murti has murdered Rajesh. His uncle warned him not to divulge this information to anyone. 3. The prosecution filed challan against accused appellant Ram Murti alone for offence under Section 302 and 201 Indian Penal Code. He was committed to the Court of Sessions to stand trial. Charges on both courts were framed against the accused appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution, in support of its case, examined as many as 10 witnesses and also got 20 documents exhibited. The accused appellant in his defence exhibited only two documents and did not produce any witness. Accused-appellant in his statement under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code denied the allegations and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the matter and that witnesses are not telling the truth. The learned trial court, after conclusion of trial, convicted the accused appellant for the aforesaid offences and awarded sentences, as indicated herein above. Hence, this appeal. 4. We have heard Shri Ashwin Garg, learned counsel for the appellant, and Ms. Rekha Madnani, learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 5. The learned trial court, after conclusion of trial, convicted the accused appellant for the aforesaid offences and awarded sentences, as indicated herein above. Hence, this appeal. 4. We have heard Shri Ashwin Garg, learned counsel for the appellant, and Ms. Rekha Madnani, learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 5. Shri Ashwin Garg, learned counsel for the appellant, has argued that the true genesis of the incident has been completely suppressed by the prosecution and the appellant has been made a scapegoat only because the investigating agency was not able to solve the case. It may be true that deceased Rajesh had visited the room of the accused-appellant Ram Murti the previous night for taking meal but, that does not connect the accused appellant with the crime. It is against the normal human conduct that the accused-appellant having murdered Rajesh would throw his dead body just outside his house. It is argued that in the FIR, Rinku has been named as another person present in the room of accused appellant Ram Murti along with deceased Rajesh the last night of incident. But, the investigating agency has neither investigated him nor has the prosecution produced him as witness for the reason best known to it. PW.1 Ved Bhatt has not fully supported the prosecution case, yet he has made substantial improvements upon his original version in the written report. While in the written report he has stated that he saw deceased Rajesh cooking rice previous night and after sometime, he saw him lying upside down on the floor in drunk position. But in his statement before the court, this witness has stated that he saw deceased Rajesh sitting on a stool with his head lying on a 'thali' which was placed on a rack just opposite the stool. When he tried to awake him, he found that Rajesh was heavily drunk. He sprinkled water on Rajesh but, he could not come in full senses. This witness PW.1 Ved Bhatt has while in his Parcha Bayan stated that Neeraj told him about the confession made by the accused appellant but, in his court statement, he has made significant change and stated that Neeraj told so to his wife. He sprinkled water on Rajesh but, he could not come in full senses. This witness PW.1 Ved Bhatt has while in his Parcha Bayan stated that Neeraj told him about the confession made by the accused appellant but, in his court statement, he has made significant change and stated that Neeraj told so to his wife. Learned counsel argued that alleged extra-judicial confession by accused-appellant to Neeraj that Rajesh was murdered by him (accused appellant) because he had stolen his money to the tune of Rs.1100/- for which, an FIR was also registered, is a concocted story because when produced as a witness in court, Neeraj did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. The so-called story of extra-judicial confession to his nephew by the appellant is totally false and does not inspire confidence. Learned counsel submitted that statement of Neeraj under Section 164 Criminal Procedure Code was recorded eight days after incident on 4.4.2002 to prove the alleged extra-judicial confession. PW.6 Neeraj, however, when his statement was recorded in the court, has stated that he was staying with his uncle in Sanganer, who was engaged in printing job. Rinku, Shyamveer and Rajesh used to come to meet his uncle. He did not saw anyone sleeping in the room nor, did he see any dead body outside the room. He gave statement before the Magistrate, exactly the way police wanted him to say as the police threatened to kill his uncle Ram Murti if he did give such statement. Since he was solely dependent on Ram Murti, who did not marry for his sake and was responsible for his upbringing, he was frightened. He was made to say that he saw his uncle Ram Murti cleaning blood stains from the floor. In fact, the police threatened PW.6 Neeraj that if he did not give such statement, they would kill his uncle, has also been corroborated by PW.2 Farooq Islam, who was a motbir witness to the site plan and recovery of the blood stained stand. He has stated that Neeraj was kept by the police for 7-8 days in the police station. Reading his statement along with statement of Neeraj, clearly shows that he gave the statement to the Magistrate under Section 164 Criminal Procedure Code on being intimated by the police that if he did not give such statement, his uncle would be killed. He has stated that Neeraj was kept by the police for 7-8 days in the police station. Reading his statement along with statement of Neeraj, clearly shows that he gave the statement to the Magistrate under Section 164 Criminal Procedure Code on being intimated by the police that if he did not give such statement, his uncle would be killed. Learned counsel argued that in such circumstances, PW.6 Neeraj, aged only about 11 years at that time, had to give the statement under the belief that if he gave such statement, his uncle would be saved. His statement under Section 164 Criminal Procedure Code can not therefore be believed. 6. Shri Ashvin Garg, learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that if the accused appellant was detained on same day, there was no reason why recovery of loongi alleged to be of the deceased was not made immediately on 28.3.2002, the day when he was arrested. While information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is alleged to have been obtained from the accused appellant on 28.03.2002, recovery of loongi was shown to have been made from the room of the appellant on 31.3.2002. Learned counsel argued that PW.1 Ved Bhatt in his statement has stated that he saw blood stains outside the house but, not close to the room. In his cross-examination, he has stated that recovery of knife (Exhibit P-3), recovery of Kurta Payjama (Exhibit P-4), recovery of sand (Exhibit P-5), recovery of lime (Exhibit P-6) were not made before him and he was not available at that time. His signatures were obtained on blank papers. Even the site plan also was not prepared in his presence. Similarly PW.2 Farooq Islam has also stated that neither knife nor Kurta Pajama of deceased were recovered in his presence. Learned counsel argued that there were only two apparent injuries on the body of deceased as per the panchnama (Exhibit P-9) but, in the postmortem report, as many as five injuries were shown. It was argued that the investigating agency deliberately did not produce Rinku, who was present along with the deceased at the last night and also they did not produce the Magistrate, who recorded statement of PW-6 Neeraj under Section 164 Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore, benefit of doubt should be given to the accused appellant. It was argued that the investigating agency deliberately did not produce Rinku, who was present along with the deceased at the last night and also they did not produce the Magistrate, who recorded statement of PW-6 Neeraj under Section 164 Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore, benefit of doubt should be given to the accused appellant. PW.7 Munnu Singh has also stated that his signatures were obtained by the police in the police station on memo of identification of dead body. Shri Ashvin Garg, learned counsel for the accused-appellant, submitted that in a case of circumstantial evidence, chain of circumstances against the accused should be so complete, which rules every other hypothesis, compatible with his innocence and points the accusing finder only towards such accused and none else. This is not the case of that kind where any such evidence has come on record. In the present case, there were so many missing links to render the chain of circumstances incomplete. In the room, another person Rinju was also there along with the deceased on the previous night and the possibility that he might have committed such offence can not be ruled out because he too was seen with deceased that night. Besides the landlord PW-1 Ved Bhatt himself could also be another suspect. Guilt of the accused appellant is therefore not proved beyond reasonable doubt and benefit of doubt should be extended to him. 7. Ms. Rekha Madnani, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the appeal and argued that the PW.1 Ved Bhatt submitted written report at the very place where the dead body was recovered. Therefore, the FIR contains true and correct story, there being no possibility of any embellishment. Minor contradictions as to whom Neeraj (PW.6) informed about extra-judicial confession, whether to PW.1 Ved Bhatt as stated in FIR or, to his wife as stated in his court statement, should not be given undue weightage. It is trite law that such minor discrepancies have to be ignored. Learned Public Prosecutor argued that loongi of the deceased was recovered at the information of appellant from the room vide Exhibit P-8. Kurta Payjama was recovered vide Exhibit P-4, sandoz baniyan and underwear were also recovered vide Exhibit P-11 at his information. 8. Ms. It is trite law that such minor discrepancies have to be ignored. Learned Public Prosecutor argued that loongi of the deceased was recovered at the information of appellant from the room vide Exhibit P-8. Kurta Payjama was recovered vide Exhibit P-4, sandoz baniyan and underwear were also recovered vide Exhibit P-11 at his information. 8. Ms. Rekha Madnani, learned Public Prosecutor referred to that part of the judgment in Para-16 where the learned trial court has observed that loongi was found to contain human blood which has matched with the blood, of the deceased found on his underwear and baniyan. It was argued that accused appellant Ram Murti was last seen with the deceased in his room where murder has taken place. Weapon of offence has been recovered at the instance of the accused appellant. The dead body was found to be dragged from the room to the place from where it was ultimately recovered. Learned counsel referred to the postmortem report and argued that first four injuries found on the person of the deceased were ante-mortem in nature. However, fifth injury was postmortem and was caused when the dead body of the deceased was dragged out from the room outside the house. Learned Public Prosecutor argued that as per opinion of the medical officer, death took place due to hemorrhages shock caused by sharp edged weapon injury. Learned Public Prosecutor referred to Exhibit P-13 and argued that even from the FSL report, it is clear that the Visra test was positive for ethyl alcohol which corroborates the version of PW.1 Ved Bhatt that deceased was in highly drunken state on previous night. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that even if PW.6 Neeraj was declared hostile, what he has stated in his statement that he was frightened by the police but, he did not allege that he was kept in the police station for 7-8 days. Investigating Officer PW.9 Jai Singh has denied the suggestion that Neeraj was kept in confinement. Similarly, another I.O. PW.10 Ashok Chauhan has also denied the allegation that Neeraj was in custody of the police. In the aforesaid circumstances, chain of circumstances against accused appellant is complete. In view of the fact that Neeraj was real nephew of accused-appellant and that he was looking after him, it was very natural for him to have turned hostile. Similarly, another I.O. PW.10 Ashok Chauhan has also denied the allegation that Neeraj was in custody of the police. In the aforesaid circumstances, chain of circumstances against accused appellant is complete. In view of the fact that Neeraj was real nephew of accused-appellant and that he was looking after him, it was very natural for him to have turned hostile. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that chain of circumstances against the accused-appellant is complete so as to rule out every possibility of his being innocent. The circumstances emerging out of the evidence clearly point towards guilty of the accused appellant alone and none else. 9. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 10. The law on the question of circumstantial evidence is well settled that an accused can be convicted in a case of circumstantial evidence only if the chain of circumstances against him is so complete as to rule out every single hypothesis that may be compatible with his innocence. Standard of proof in a criminal matters is always beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the prosecution in every such case is required to prove guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. If there is any scope of reasonable doubt, benefit of such doubt has to be extended to the accused. The rival submissions have to be therefore tested on that yardstick to find out whether alleged offences against the accused appellant have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. 11. In the chain of circumstances, the first circumstance that has been cited against the accused appellant is that he was last seen with the deceased in the room when PW.1 Ved Bhatt left at about 9.15 PM for attending a birthday party with his wife. When he returned, the deceased was found lying on the floor, as per version given in the written report and sitting on the stool, as per version given by him in the court statement. But, what is common in both of them according to PW.1 Ved Bhatt is that the deceased was heavily under the influence of liquor and was not in senses. But in such chain of circumstances, missing link at this stage is that it was not accused appellant alone, who was last seen with deceased Rajesh but, one more person Rinku was also present with him in the same room. But in such chain of circumstances, missing link at this stage is that it was not accused appellant alone, who was last seen with deceased Rajesh but, one more person Rinku was also present with him in the same room. The prosecution even though initially recorded his statement under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code but did not produce him as a witness for the reasons best known to it. Another circumstance that has been made basis for conviction of the accused appellant is the statement of PW.6 Neeraj recorded under Section 164 Criminal Procedure Code wherein he has stated that the accused appellant Ram Murti confessed to him that since deceased did not repay his money to the tune of Rs.1100/- which he had stolen, he committed his murder. But, in his court statement PW.6 Neeraj, who was then aged 10-11 years, has not supported the prosecution story and was declared hostile. He has stated that he was staying with his uncle in Sanganer who was engaged in printing job. Rinku, Shyamveer and Rajesh used to come to meet his uncle. He did not see anyone sleeping in the room nor, he saw any dead body outside the room. He gave statement before the Magistrate exactly in the manner the police wanted him to say because the police had threatened him that they would kill his uncle Ram Murti in case he did not toe their line. Since there was no one else in the city of Jaipur to look after him and he was solely dependent on Ram Murti, who did not marry for his sake and was responsible for his upbringing, he was frightened and gave statement as told by the police. When it was pointedly put to PW.9 Jai Singh, Investigating Officer, in his cross-examination by the defence, he denied the suggestion that Neeraj was kept in the police station for 6-7 days. PW.10 Ashok Chauhan also denied similar suggestion. In fact, PW.9 Jai Singh has stated that he was not aware whether Neeraj was sent to his native place in police protection and then stated that SHO must be aware of this fact. He also denied the knowledge of the fact that any of close relative of Neeraj accompanied him when his statement under Section 164 Criminal Procedure Code was recorded. He also denied the knowledge of the fact that any of close relative of Neeraj accompanied him when his statement under Section 164 Criminal Procedure Code was recorded. It is in this context that statement of PW.2 Farooq Islam assumes significance where he has stated that Neeraj was kept in Police Station for 7-8 days. This period of 7-8 days, if counted from the date of recording of FIR on 28.3.2002, coincides with the date 4.4.2002 when his statement under Section 164 Criminal Procedure Code was recorded. Moreover, on this aspect, there is again serious contradictions in what has been stated by PW.1 Ved Bhatt. In his court statement, he has stated that Neeraj informed about extra-judicial confession made to him by his uncle (the accused appellant) to his wife whereas, in the written report submitted by him to the SHO on the day of incident, he stated that when he inquired from Neeraj, he informed him that since deceased Rajesh did not repay Rs.1100/-, therefore he murdered him. Further, in the written report, this witness PW.1 Ved Bhatt stated that he was informed about dead body lying outside the house by his another tenant Amar Singh whereupon he went outside and that he did not inform the police, rather the information was given to the police by someone else and police soon thereafter reached at the place where the dead body was found. However, during that interregnum, when did he come to inquire from Neeraj, has not been explained by him either in his written report or even in court statement. The so-called extra-judicial confession made by the accused appellant Ram Murti to his nephew Neeraj (PW.6) is, therefore, a weak evidence. It would be highly unsafe to record conviction of the accused appellant on that basis. 12. Recovery of knife alleged to have been made at the instance of the accused appellant has not been proved. PW.1 Ved Bhatt in his court statement has stated that the site plan (Exhibit P-2) was not prepared by the police in his presence and his signatures were obtained on blank papers. He saw blood stains outside the house but, there were no blood stains in front of the room. The police brought accused appellant 2-3 times to his house but, the knife was not recovered in his presence. He saw blood stains outside the house but, there were no blood stains in front of the room. The police brought accused appellant 2-3 times to his house but, the knife was not recovered in his presence. Recovery memos Exhibits P-3, P-4, P-5, P-6 were also not prepared in his presence. His signatures were obtained on blank papers. Even the site plan of the place of recovery (Exhibit P-7) was also not made in his presence. Recovery memo of Loongi (Exhibit P-8) was also not prepared in his presence because by the time police reached, he had left the house. Similarly PW.2 Farooq Islam has also disowned all these recovery memos. 13. There are two memos of information given by the accused appellant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. One is Exhibit D-1 which information said to be given by the accused appellant for recovery of knife from his room on 28.03.2002. Another information is said to have been obtained on 30.3.2002, when the information was given that he had hidden the knife in mattress of the bed in the room vide Exhibit P-20. But, recovery of knife was made as per Exhibit P-3 from the iron container. When the accused appellant was arrested, his young nephew, Neeraj, aged about 10-11 years, was also detained by the police and, therefore, the room was under unlocked condition. The Investigating Officer (PW.9) Jai Singh when asked in the cross-examination as to why two informations under Section 27 of the Evidence Act were procured from the accused appellant for recovery of knife, has stated that Exhibit D-1 information given by the accused appellant was found to be incorrect. Another information vide Exhibit P-20 was procured when subsequently the accused appellant told that earlier information given by him was not correct. Therefore, subsequent information was made basis of recovery of knife. All these facts make the recovery of knife, which simply was kitchen knife and had no bloodstains, makes the recovery, made by the investigating agency, highly doubtful. 14. The contention regarding matching of blood group found on the Baniyan with the blood group of deceased has not been substantiated from the record. Only one FSL report has been produced on record at Exhibit P-13 and it does not indicate any such opinion by the expert, as has been mentioned by the trial court in Para-16 of the impugned judgment. Only one FSL report has been produced on record at Exhibit P-13 and it does not indicate any such opinion by the expert, as has been mentioned by the trial court in Para-16 of the impugned judgment. A perusal of the FSL Report (Exhibit P-13) does not substantiate the said finding. 15. Analysis of the evidence that we have made above thus clearly show that there are in this case several missing links and the chain of circumstances against the accused appellant Ram Murti is not so complete as to rule out every other hypothesis which may be compatible with his innocence. The evidence of last seen and so-called extra-judicial confession and recovery of clothes of the deceased and knife do not conclusively connect the accused appellant with the crime and do not rule out the possibility of any other person being responsible for the murder of deceased Rajesh. It cannot be concluded on available evidence that the circumstances of this case points towards the guilt of the accused appellant only and none else. In our considered opinion, therefore, it would be highly unsafe to convict the accused appellant on the basis of such evidence. 16. In view of above, charges for offence under Sections 302 and 201 Indian Penal Code cannot be, therefore, held to have been proved against the accused appellant beyond reasonable doubt, which is the required standard of proof under the law. The accused-appellant is, thus, held entitled to benefit of doubt and consequential acquittal. 17. In the result, the appeal filed by the accused appellant Ram Murti succeeds and accordingly, it is allowed. The conviction of the accused appellant for offences under Sections 302 and 201 Indian Penal Code and sentence recorded in the impugned judgment is set aside and the accused appellant is acquitted of both the charges. The accused appellant Ram Murti, if he is not required to be detained in any other case, may be released forthwith. *******