JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is preferred to challenge the order dated 16.02.2005 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar, District Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No. 33/2003 (The State of Rajasthan v. Dalip Kumar S/o Bhagdas) . Learned Additional Session Judge by the judgment impugned convicted the accused appellant for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo life term imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 20,000/-. He is further required to undergo two years' additional imprisonment in the event of default of payment of fine. A sum of Rs. 15,000/- out of fine of Rs. 20,000/- is required to be paid to Mrs. Savitri widow of deceased Govind Ram. 2. The factual matrix necessary to be noticed for adjudication of this appeal is that on 02.08.2003 at about 9.15 a.m. Mr. Sohan Lal S/o Mr. Dharmpal, resident of Bhukarka, submitted a written report to the Station House Officer, Police Station Nohar with assertion that a dead body of unknown person was lying in western side of agriculture field 4 - B K K, near to main road connecting Nohar with Bhukarka. The dead body was having injuries appears to have been assigned by some sharp-edged weapon. On basis of the information, a case was registered and investigation commenced. After completing the investigation, a police report was filed before the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nohar. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and after affording hearing, charge against the accused-appellant for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC was framed. On denial of the charge, trial commenced as desired. 3. The prosecution supported its case by getting testimony of 19 persons (P.W.1 to P.W.19) examined and by exhibiting several documents prepared during the course of investigation. An opportunity was given to the accused to explain the adverse circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence. The accused appellant termed the entire evidence as false with further assertion that he was arrested on 03.08.2003 and no recovery was made at his instance. 4. Learned trial court after examining the entire evidence available on record and hearing learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused-appellant recorded conviction and awarded sentence vide the judgment impugned. 5. The accused appellant termed the entire evidence as false with further assertion that he was arrested on 03.08.2003 and no recovery was made at his instance. 4. Learned trial court after examining the entire evidence available on record and hearing learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused-appellant recorded conviction and awarded sentence vide the judgment impugned. 5. In appeal, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the accused-appellant is that the court below failed to appreciate that the circumstances on which conviction is based were not sufficient enough to indicate only one conclusion, i.e. involvement of accused-appellant with crime in question. As per learned counsel, a reasonable doubt exists in accepting involvement of the accused-appellant in the crime in question. 6. While defending the conviction recorded and sentence awarded, it is submitted by learned Public Prosecutor that the conviction is based upon the circumstances of last seen and recovery of weapon of offence made at the instance of accused-appellant. The weapon recovered was having blood-stains with the blood group matching with the blood group of the deceased. A recovery of blood-stained clothes of the accused also supports the prosecution case, thus, the circumstances are sufficient to indicate only one conclusion as arrived at by learned trial court. 7. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor. 8. As per the medical evidence available on record, there is no doubt about homicidal death of Mr. Govind Ram. The issue requires consideration is about definite involvement of the accused with the crime in question. The case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence relating to last seen of the deceased in the company of accused and certain recoveries made at his instance. P.W.4 Rajaram was cited by the prosecution as a witness of last seen, but as a matter of fact, he has not supported the version sought to be advanced by the prosecution, thus, he was declared hostile. P.W.5 Mrs. Savitri, wife of deceased Govind Ram, stated that accused Dalip is son of her elder brother-in-law. Her husband accompanied the accused on the fateful day for Rawatsar. She also stated that some dispute with regard to accounts was existing between accused Dalip and her husband. As per this witness, when the accused returned alone to home, on asking he conveyed about movement of deceased Govind Ram for Bhadra. Her husband accompanied the accused on the fateful day for Rawatsar. She also stated that some dispute with regard to accounts was existing between accused Dalip and her husband. As per this witness, when the accused returned alone to home, on asking he conveyed about movement of deceased Govind Ram for Bhadra. The accused was looking little perturbed when some enquiry was made from him about spray that was to be brought by him from Hanumangarh. P.W.6 Sitaram has also supported the prosecution story to the extent that he saw accused Dalip and deceased Govind Ram going to Rawatsar. We do not find any just reason to disbelieve the testimony of these two witnesses. Both the witnesses, in quite unambiguous terms and with all confidence, stated that they saw deceased Govind Ram proceeding for Rawatsar with accused Dalip. 9. The second circumstance on which the trial court relied is recovery of the weapon of offence and recovery of blood-stained clothes said to be worn by the accused appellant while accompanying deceased Govind Ram and also at the time of committing the crime in question. As per learned counsel for the appellant, neither the recovery of weapon of offence nor of the clothes said to be having bloodstains bear confidence required to settle the conviction for an offence of murder. It is asserted that as a matter of fact, the recovery of weapon of offence and clothes is planted one. From perusal of the evidence available on record, it reveals that an information as per Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act was provided by the accused-appellant as per document Ex.P.44 on 05.08.2003 at 11.00 a.m. about the weapon of offence. Acting upon the information given, a blood-stained axe was recovered as per document Ex.P.19 on 06.08.2003 at 8.40 a.m. As per the serological examination report given by the Forensic Science Laboratory, Jodhpur, the blood group of the blood-stains available on the axe was matching with the blood group of the deceased. However, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is that the axe, that is said to be recovered at the instance of the accused appellant, was found by the investigating agency at the spot of occurrence on the day of the incident itself. However, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is that the axe, that is said to be recovered at the instance of the accused appellant, was found by the investigating agency at the spot of occurrence on the day of the incident itself. It is pointed out that P.W.1 Raghuveer, who was present at the spot where the dead body of Govind Ram was found, stated that the axe was lying at the spot. This fact was reiterated by him even while deposing in his re-examination. Suffice to mention here that this witness is real brother of deceased Govind Ram. 10. P.W.11 Sohan Lal, the person who reported to the police about availability of the dead body near the main road connecting Nohar with Bhukarka, stated before the court that an axe was recovered by the investigating agency while inspecting the site, where the incident occurred. This witness also stated that he saw the axe in the hand of the Circle Inspector. 11. Beside the above, an important aspect of the matter is that the axe was recovered by the investigating agency under the document Ex.P.19 from an open place on 06.08.2003. The incident in question took place on 02.08.2003. The accused, as per the prosecution, was arrested on 04.08.2003 and on 05.08.2003, necessary information was given by him at 11.00 a.m. The investigating agency effected recovery on 06.08.2003 at 8.40 a.m, i.e. after a lapse of about 21 hours. No explanation is available on record for causing such delay in effecting the recovery. From perusal of the record, it also reveals that the police station was at the distance of 4 k.m. Only from the place, wherefrom recovery was made. In totality, the statements made by P.W.1 Raghuveer, P.W.11 Sohan Lal clubbed with the facts that the recovery was made from an open place after huge delay despite availability of necessary information, creates a reasonable doubt in believing the prosecution story pertaining to recovery of the weapon of offence. 12. The other recovery made by the investigating agency is of the clothes said to be worn by the accused at the time of the incident. 12. The other recovery made by the investigating agency is of the clothes said to be worn by the accused at the time of the incident. The pant and shirt of the accused having blood-stains were recovered on 07.08.2003 at 09.00 a.m. on basis of the information availed as per Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act on 06.08.2003 at 7.05 p.m. The blood group of the blood-stains available on the pant and shirt of the accused was matching with the blood group of deceased Govind Ram, however, recovery of these cloths too does not bear necessary confidence in view of the statements given by P.W.4 Rajaram and P.W.5 Mrs. Savitri. P.W.4 Rajaram while deposing before the court stated that Dalip while proceeding for Rawatsar on 02.08.2003 was wearing a red shirt and black pant and when he returned from Rawatsar, he was dressed with the same clothes. P.W.5 Mrs. Savitri, wife of deceased Govind Ram, also stated that when police brought Dalip to the village, he was wearing the same red shirt and black pant that was worn by him while going to Rawatsar. As per the recovery memo, the shirt was having several stains of blood. In normal course, no accuse would have gone to the family members of deceased with a shirt having blood-stains. The statement given by P.W.4 Rajaram and P.W.5 Mrs. Savitri creates a reasonable doubt in accepting the prosecution case relating to the recovery said to be made on 07.08.2003. 13. In view of the factual position discussed above on the basis of the evidence available on record, the circumstance pertaining to the recovery receives severe jolts and that dismantles the chain of circumstances put forward by the prosecution. In totality, the only circumstance that can be accepted without any doubt is relating to movement of accused with deceased from his village to Rawatsar town. This circumstance is not further corroborated with necessary evidence to settle the conviction for a serious offence of murder. A reasonable doubt as pointed out in preceding paras exists in accepting the prosecution story and on ignoring the evidence relating to recovery made by the investigating agency at the instance of the accused-appellant, the chain of circumstances remains incomplete and that in no manner indicate only one conclusion, that is of involvement of the accused appellant in crime in question. 14. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. 14. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The judgment impugned dated 16.02.2005 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar, District Hanumangarh is set aside. Appellant Dalip Kumar S/o Bhagdas is acquitted from the charge of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. He be released from the State custody forthwith, if not otherwise required. *******