JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant revision petition has been preferred by the juvenile Joncarlo Patton through his natural guardian-father Dr. George Richard Patton, challenging the judgment dated 15.10.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Criminal Appeal No. 287/2011 whereby the learned Sessions Judge has affirmed the judgment dated 2.5.2011 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Case No. 91/2010 arising out of F.I.R. No. 170/2010, P.S. Osian, for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 Indian Penal Code, convicting the petitioner juvenile under the provisions of Sections 15(1)(6) and 16(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (referred to herein after as the Act of 2000') and directing him to be kept in a Special Juvenile Remand Home for a period of three years. 3. Succinctly stated the facts necessary for the disposal of the instant revision petition are that one Terrance Aarbulnot, claiming himself to be the Manager of a resort named Reggis Camel Camp, filed a report with the S.H.O., P.S. Osian on 13.8.2010 alleging inter alia that he was the manager of the aforesaid resort. On 11.8.2010, a lady Smt. Cynthia Inaraly along with her son Joncarlo Patton who both were foreign tourists checked into his resort at about 1:30 PM. Both of them went for the camel safari on 12.8.2010 at about 9:00 AM and returned back and then visited the Osian temple at about 4:30 PM and returned to the resort at about 6:30 PM. In the night at about 10 O'clock, they retired into their tent after taking dinner. The informant went to the tent at about 8:45 AM on 13.8.2010 for enquiring about breakfast but did not receive any reply. He saw blood stains on the zip of the tent on which he intimated the owner of the resort - Shri Rajendra Singh. On further search, he saw that tracks of a body being dragged were seen on the soil and on following the said tracks, the body of Cynthia wrapped in a white bed sheet was seen concealed in the sand dunes. The footprints of a person to and fro from the resort to the place where the body was concealed, were also seen. The footprints of a person to and fro from the resort to the place where the body was concealed, were also seen. It was alleged in the F.I.R. that the lady had been done away by her son and thereafter the body was dumped in the sand dunes for concealing the evidence of the crime. 4. On this report, F.I.R. No. 170/2010 was registered for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 Indian Penal Code and investigation commenced. The inspection of the site was done and from the scene of occurrence, an envelope of jet airways, surgical gloves, human hair and a plastic jerrycan were seized. The inquest of dead body was conducted and a further seizure of pair of gold earrings, one sim card, clothes of deceased and the petitioner juvenile, white bed sheet and ropes as well as pair of shoes was made. Foot-molds were lifted from the scene of occurrence vide document Ex.P-21. The inspection of the tent where the deceased and accused were staying, was done and from therein, the blood stained clothes etc. were recovered. Blood stains were found scattered at different places in the tent. 5. It is alleged by the prosecution that the petitioner was apprehended at the Jodhpur airport whilst trying to flee and the seizure of various items belonging to the petitioner and currency of US dollars 1750 was made vide seizure memo Ex.P-16. It is further stated that the blood stained shoes of the petitioner were also seized vide seizure memo Ex.P-17. (It is most relevant and pertinent to mention here that in the seizure document Ex.P-16, the petitioner has been projected to be a juvenile whereas by that time, there was no such material by which the prosecution could have known that the petitioner was a juvenile). In the document Ex.P-17, originally the word "accused" (mulzim) was stated then the same has been scored out and "juvenile offender" has been superimposed. Both these documents do not bear the petitioner's signature. The molds of the shoes worn by the petitioner were taken vide memo Ex.P-18. On the medical examination of the petitioner being done, number of cut wounds and abrasions were found on his person. 6. Shri S.K. Jha, a police officer, said to have been posted as a security officer at Jodhpur Airport allegedly received a black bag claimed to have been found from a dustbin at the Airport. On the medical examination of the petitioner being done, number of cut wounds and abrasions were found on his person. 6. Shri S.K. Jha, a police officer, said to have been posted as a security officer at Jodhpur Airport allegedly received a black bag claimed to have been found from a dustbin at the Airport. The bag was allegedly containing the passport, driving license, visa, credit pards etc. belonging to the deceased Cynthia. It is claimed that the aforesaid bag was handed over to Shri S.K. Jha by. one Rawan Lal, a loader in the Jet Airways, who found the same in a dustbin at the airport. The seizure of these articles was done at 4:10 PM on 13.8.2010 vide seizure memo Ex.P-20. 7. The post mortem of the body of Cynthia revealed that she had 17 injuries on her person and most of them were caused by a sharp weapon. 8. The petitioner was arrested and thereafter, on his age being found to be 15 years as per the documents, he was treated to be a juvenile and ultimately, the result of investigation was filed in the Court of Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Jodhpur. 9. Charges were framed against the juvenile for the offences mentioned above, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. At the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 33 witnesses in support of its case. The accused-petitioner in his statement under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code specifically took a plea that on the fateful night, while he was sleeping in the tent with his mother, 2-3 intruders entered into the tent. He woke up and saw the intruders trying to molest his mother and when he intervened, he and his mother were both assaulted. He ran for help but no help was forthcoming. Thereafter, he himself tried to inform the staff of the hotel about the incident but he could not find anybody. He submitted that he had travelled with his mother from USA since 3.8.2010. They travelled to Dubai, Sri Lanka, Mumbai and New Delhi before coming to Jodhpur and Osian. He submitted that he bore a great affection towards his mother. He claimed that he informed the police about the incident from a public telephone. He claimed that the police officers connived with the hotel management and implicated him falsely. 10. They travelled to Dubai, Sri Lanka, Mumbai and New Delhi before coming to Jodhpur and Osian. He submitted that he bore a great affection towards his mother. He claimed that he informed the police about the incident from a public telephone. He claimed that the police officers connived with the hotel management and implicated him falsely. 10. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the petitioner as above, vide judgment dated 2.5.2011. 11. The appeal preferred by the petitioner too has been rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur (Metropolitan) vide judgment dated 15.10.2011. 12. Thus, the instant revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner juvenile through his father being his natural guardian challenging the impugned judgments as well as his conviction. 13. Assailing the impugned judgments, learned counsel Mr. R.D. Mehra assisted by learned counsel Mr. Umesh Shrimali for the petitioner submitted that the case against the petitioner has been built up on flimsy circumstantial evidence. It is submitted that no independent witness was kept by the Investigating Officer to witness the memos of recovery etc. It is also submitted that the petitioner and his mother were travelling together from USA since 3.8.2010 and they travelled to various places. There was no motive for the petitioner to have committed the murder of his mother. It is also submitted that no weapon of offence has been recovered during the course of investigation. It is argued that the petitioner is a young boy and it is impossible to believe being at a totally strange and unknown place, he would have the means or knowledge to conceal the weapon at such a place from where the police could not recover the same. It is further submitted that the seizure memos prepared in this case do not connect the petitioner with the crime and cannot be read against him because none of the seizure memos bears his signature. It is claimed that the recoveries shown at the instance of the petitioner are concocted and manipulated by the Investigating Officer. Much stress has been Laid on the fact that the petitioner himself received injuries in the same, incident and, therefore, the finding of the appellate Court that the petitioner did not make any attempt to save his mother cannot be accepted. Much stress has been Laid on the fact that the petitioner himself received injuries in the same, incident and, therefore, the finding of the appellate Court that the petitioner did not make any attempt to save his mother cannot be accepted. It is argued that the whole case of the prosecution regarding the petitioner having been apprehended at the airport is a manipulated and concocted story. It was thus prayed that the judgments of the Courts below deserve to be quashed and the petitioner deserves to be acquitted in this case. 14. Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand has submitted that there is sufficient material available on the record to connect the petitioner with the crime and he has been rightly held guilty for the ghastly offence of committing his own mother's murder. It is argued that the petitioner was the only person present in the tent with his mother and as such by effect of the presumption provided under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, the burden lay upon the petitioner to prove the facts within his exclusive knowledge. He further submitted that the recovery of incriminating articles i.e. the shoes of the petitioner bearing the same blood group as that of the deceased and the fact that the petitioner tried to destroy the evidence by concealing the various articles in the dustbin of the Airport are the circumstances which conclusively point to the guilt of the petitioner regarding having committed the murder of his mother. It is further submitted that the defence which is taken by the petitioner regarding number of unknown persons having assaulted the deceased and having done away with her has not been found substantiated by the investigation and, therefore, the said theory cannot be accepted. 15. After having considered the arguments advanced at bar and after having gone through the material available on the record as well as after perusing the impugned judgments, the re-appreciation of the prosecution evidence appears to be necessary in this case.Some of the significant features arising from the reappraisal of testimony of the material and relevant prosecution witnesses are noted herein below: (1) PW-1 Terrance is the Manager of Reggis Camel Camp who filed the F.I.R. The said witness on being cross-examined has admitted that even before he reported the matter to the police, the police had come to know of the incident. Considering this admission of the witness, the stance of the petitioner that he informed the police about the incident over telephone comes to mind. The said contention of the petitioner in view of this admission of the witness PW1 cannot be said to be without any basis. (2) The witness PW-4 Chatur Singh, who is constable at the P.S. Osiyan, stated that he received the information of the incident over telephone and then proceeded to the scene of occurrence. (3) The witness PW-7 Damodar Lal Meena is the Dy. S.P. of Jodhpur District. He is the witness to whom the witness PW-16 S.K. Jha submitted the documents/ articles said to have been seized from the Civil Airport, Jodhpur. He in his cross-examination admits that no independent witness from public was kept as a Motbir for attesting the seizure memo Ex.P-20. (4) The witness PW-16 S.K. Jha, working in the C.I.S.F. and was posted as a security officer at the airport, has been examined at the trial and he has stated that the articles which were allegedly concealed by the petitioner in a dust bin and which were found at the Jodhpur Airport, were handed over to him by one Rawan Lal, a loader of Jet Airways. The witness has also not supported the prosecution story in material parts and has denied that the articles were seized by a seizure memo. He was examined by the prosecution for the purpose of proving that he was intimated by A.S.I. Pooran Lal that the accused-petitioner would be -coming towards Airport in an attempt of fleeing away in between 11 to 12 AM. He has stated that a boy resembling the petitioner's features came and then he was taken away by the police officers from the Airport. The witness S.K. Jha has emphatically denied his signatures on the seizure memo Ex.P-20. A perusal of document Ex.P-20 by which the articles are claimed to have been seized from the Airport reveals that the first two pages of the document bear no signatures at all. Thus, the very genuineness of the said document appears to be in serious doubt. The seizure memo Ex.P-20 was prepared by PW-7 Damodar Lal and there are serious contradictions interse between the statements of S.K. Jha and Damodar Lal as regards the preparation of this document. Thus, the very genuineness of the said document appears to be in serious doubt. The seizure memo Ex.P-20 was prepared by PW-7 Damodar Lal and there are serious contradictions interse between the statements of S.K. Jha and Damodar Lal as regards the preparation of this document. (5) Rawan Lal has been examined as PW-21 and he has not supported the prosecution case. He has totally denied the fact that the articles in question were found by hi-in in a dustbin. (6) The prosecution has claimed that S.K. Jha handed over the petitioner's custody to Pooran Mal, ASI of P.S. Osiyan but for the reasons best known to the prosecution, Pooran Mal has not been examined at the trial. In the absence of the testimony of the said witness, the theory of the prosecution regarding the petitioner having been apprehended from the Airport whilst trying to flee becomes doubtful. (7) The memo regarding the petitioner having been taken into the custody has been exhibited as Ex.P-126 at the trial and the document reads that the petitioner was taken into custody at P.S. Osiyan at 5-5:15 PM on 13.8.2010. There is no mention in the document regarding his having been apprehended at the Airport. Thus, there is no convincing evidence on the record to conclude that the petitioner was apprehended from the Jodhpur Airport while trying to flee. The only logical conclusion which can be derived from the above circumstances is that there is no plausible material on the record of the case to show that the petitioner was apprehended from the Airport as claimed by the prosecution. The testimony of the witness S.K. Jha in this regard is highly suspicious. No document has been prepared regarding the petitioner having been found and restrained at the Airport. (8) The next material witness is the Investigating Officer Lakha Ram- PW-32, has made a deposition about the investigation carried out by him. During cross-examination, the witness has admitted that he did not keep any witness apart from Rewat Ram, who is a police officer himself in the seizure proceedings conducted during the course of investigation. (9) The report of the FSL regarding comparison of foot-molds is available on the record as Ex.P-128 and the opinion which is given is that the comparison was not conclusive for holding that the molds of the petitioner's shoes matched with the foot-molds found at the crime scene. (9) The report of the FSL regarding comparison of foot-molds is available on the record as Ex.P-128 and the opinion which is given is that the comparison was not conclusive for holding that the molds of the petitioner's shoes matched with the foot-molds found at the crime scene. Thus, this piece of evidence also does not connect the petitioner with the alleged crime. 16. From the crux of the discussion made herein above, it becomes apparent that the evidence of motive is totally lacking in this case. Looking to the backdrop and the manner in which the incident has taken place, the motive for commission of murder could have provided a very significant link in the chain of circumstances relied upon by the prosecution for proving the petitioner's guilt. It does not stand to reason as to why the petitioner after having travelled with his mother extensively would have gone to the extent of committing her murder and that too in such a gruesome fashion. 17. Learned Public Prosecutor had been directed to make an enquiry regarding the criminal record/character of the petitioner but no such report has been placed on the record. 18. Thus, the only three pieces of evidence which can be said to be in existence against the petitioner are that the petitioner was seen last in the company of the deceased which is absolutely natural because the petitioner was admittedly lodged with his mother in Reggis Camel Camp. 19. The second circumstance which the prosecution has claimed to be incriminating against the petitioner is his attempt to flee from the scene of occurrence and his concealing his mother's articles at the Airport which were later on recovered vide Ex.P-20. As has been held above, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the said fact by leading any reliable evidence in this regard. The most material witness in regards to this circumstance could have been the witness Pooran Mal who is said to have taken the petitioner in custody from Airport at Jodhpur. Neither any document has been prepared for showing the petitioner's apprehension at the airport nor the prosecution has produced the most material witness Pooran Mal for testifying about this fact. Thus, the case of the prosecution regarding the petitioner attempting to flee from the scene of occurrence is also not found to be proved by any trustworthy evidence. Neither any document has been prepared for showing the petitioner's apprehension at the airport nor the prosecution has produced the most material witness Pooran Mal for testifying about this fact. Thus, the case of the prosecution regarding the petitioner attempting to flee from the scene of occurrence is also not found to be proved by any trustworthy evidence. No witness has been produced to show that the petitioner left Osiyan after committing the offence and came to Jodhpur. The investigation in this regard is highly deficient. It appears that the Investigating Officer has deliberately chosen to keep the investigation deficient on this issue as well as on a number of other important aspects. The number of injuries on the body of the deceased are more than 17. The possibility of a single person and that too a young boy of 15 years having inflicted such a large number of injuries on the deceased is extremely doubtful. The weapon of offence has not been recovered in this case. 20. The third circumstance regarding the blood group of the deceased being found on the petitioner's shoes is also not incriminating as the petitioner was admittedly present in the tent when the incident took place. Thus, the possibility of the blood of the deceased staining the shoes of the accused cannot be ruled out in the normal cause of events. 21. In view of the overall circumstances and the factual matrix as is derived from the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the circumstantial evidence available on the record is not so clinching so as to form a complete chain of circumstances necessary for bringing home the petitioner's guilt beyond any manner of doubt in this case. The petitioner is a juvenile and, therefore, a more meticulous and closer appreciation of evidence is all the more warranted in this case. 22. The petitioner has already remained confined in custody in the Juvenile Remand Home in this case since 13.8.2010. i.e. for a period of nearly 11/2 years. 23. The Hon'ble Apex Court while considering the principles regarding the standards for appreciating circumstantial evidence, observed in the case of Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1957 SC 637 as below : "It is no doubt a matter of regret that a foul cold-blooded and cruel murder like the present should go unpunished. It may be as Mr. It may be as Mr. Gopal Singh strenuously urged before us that there is an element of truth in the prosecution story against both the appellants. Mr. Gopal Singh contended that, considered as a whole the prosecution story may be true; but between may be true' and 'must be true' there is inevitably a long distance to travel and the whole of this distance must be covered by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence." 24. On testing the prosecution evidence on the touchstone of the salutary principles Laid down by the Apex Court in Snrzoan Singh's case, this Court has no hesitation in arriving at a conclusion that the prosecution has, in this case, miserably failed to travel the distance between may be true and must be true. The evidence produced by the prosecution before the trial Court cannot by any stretch of imagination be said to be clinching or unimpeachable so as to inspire the Court's confidence to uphold the petitioner's conviction. 25. The upshot of the above discussion is that the revision petition filed on behalf of the juvenile Joncarlo Patton through his father, the natural guardian, deserves to be allowed and the same is hereby allowed. The judgment dated 2.5.2011 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Jodhpur Metropolitan and the judgment dated 15.10.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur Metropolitan in appeal confirming the petitioner's conviction are hereby set aside. The petitioner is accordingly acquitted of all the charges. 26. The petitioner is confined at the Special Juvenile Home. He shall be set at liberty forthwith if not wanted in any other case. The Commissioner Police, Jodhpur shall arrange for the petitioner to be sent to the American Embassy at New Delhi. His passport has already been handed over to the American Embassy as per the record. The Embassy of the United States of America at Delhi shall take necessary steps for sending the petitioner to the country of his origin i.e. USA as per the prevalent procedure. 27. A copy of this order is directed to be sent to the Director General of Police for intimation.Revision petition allowed. *******