JUDGMENT 1. - This jail appeal was filed by accused-appellants (1) Savji and (2) Homa against the judgment dated 12.10.2006 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge(Fast Track) No.1, Udaipur in Sessions Case No.19/2006 titled as State v. Savji and anr. whereby both the accused-appellants were convicted under Section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code by life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, each of the accused-appellants was ordered to suffer one year's additional rigorous imprisonment. Both the accused-appellants are in jail in this case since 15.12.2005. 2. Mr. K.R. Bhati was appointed Amicus Curiae on behalf of the accused-appellants. It has been submitted by him that the trial court had convicted the accused-appellants on the basis of alleged extra-judicial confession by the accused persons before Nagji Ram, Up-sarpanch, who has been examined as PW-13, but PW-13 Nagji Ram was found hostile, so in absence of other reliable evidence it has been prayed that both the accused-appellants should have been given benefit of reasonable doubts by the trial court and they should have been acquitted. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the arguments of the accused-appellants generally and it has also been submitted at Bar that both the accused-appellants are in jail in this case since 15.12.2006(the date of their arrest). 4. In the aforesaid background, we have perused the record of the case. Both the accused were charged under Section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code by the trial court for murder of Jagannath in the night of 13.12.2005 in village Manas. The prosecution case was basically dependent on the extra-judicial confession of accused-persons before Nagji Ram, Up-sarpanch,PW-13, so, let us first examine the evidence of PW-13 Nagji Ram. He was declared hostile. He states that in the night of the incident both the accused were attending a 'Parsadi' in a 'jagaran' at Devra and he also attended the 'Parsadi' in that 'jagaran'. He says that there was no previous enmity of both the accused-persons with deceased Jagannath and accused persons were falsely implicated by police for murder of Jagannath. He does not corroborate the prosecution story of alleged extra-judicial confession being made by both the accused-persons before him. He says that it is wrong to say that blood stained clothes or blood stained stones had been recovered by the police in his presence from possession of or at the instance of accused-appellants. He does not corroborate the prosecution story of alleged extra-judicial confession being made by both the accused-persons before him. He says that it is wrong to say that blood stained clothes or blood stained stones had been recovered by the police in his presence from possession of or at the instance of accused-appellants. He was confronted from his police statement Ex.P.41 and there are so many contradictions in his statement from his previous statement. He says that there was a trench and it appeared that Jagannath must have slipped in the trench and that is why he must have died. Thus, it can be said that Nagji Ram totally refutes the prosecution story of alleged murder of Jagannath by accused-persons. 5. PW-7 Mukund Singh, C.I. was the then S.H.O. of Police Station, Jhadol. He says that information about dead body of Jagannath lying in Manas village was given through QST by Shankar Lal, L.C. He says that on receiving information, he rushed to the spot and there oral report Ex.P.1 was lodged by Hakara Parmar. On the basis of this oral information, FIR Ex.P.18 was registered. Dead body and its blood stained clothes were recovered by this witness from the spot. On his request, postmortem of dead body was conducted by the doctor and then accused Savji and Homa were arrested by him. He further states that Savji has informed through Ex.P.22 that blood stained clothes worn by him at the time of the incident may be recovered from his house and, accordingly, blood stained clothes were recovered through seizure memo Ex.P.24. He further states that Savji had given an information Ex.P.23 regarding recovery of stone used in the incident and that too was recovered through Ex.P.25. 6. PW-7 Mukund Singh further states that Homa had also given an information regarding recovery of his clothes which is Ex.P.27. Blood stained clothes of accused Homa were recovered from his residence through Ex.P. 29. In his cross-examination, this witness admits that blood stained stone was recovered from an open agricultural field. He further states that perhaps, while being in intoxication, both the accused-persons had a quarrel with Jagannath and then Jagannath was killed by them. 7. PW-14 Dr. Anil Kumar Bansal is the person who had conducted the postmortem of deceased Jagannath. Postmortem Report Ex.P.42 has been exhibited by him. He further states that perhaps, while being in intoxication, both the accused-persons had a quarrel with Jagannath and then Jagannath was killed by them. 7. PW-14 Dr. Anil Kumar Bansal is the person who had conducted the postmortem of deceased Jagannath. Postmortem Report Ex.P.42 has been exhibited by him. He states that following injuries were found on the dead body of Jagannath:- " 'kjhj lkekU;] nks vka[ks vkSj eqag FkksM+k lk [kqyk gqvk FkkA diM+s] psgjs vkSj xnZu ij [kwu FksA 'kjhj vdM+u fy;s gq, FkkA flj ds cka;h rjQ isjkbVy cksu VwVh gqbZ FkhA vka[kksa dh nksuksa rjQ dh iqrfy;ka iwjh rjg ls Qsyh gqbZ FkhA vka[kksa dh jks'kuh x;h gqbZ FkhA flj ds cka;h rjQ isjkbVy cksu tks VwVh gqbZ FkhA og 4 x 3 ls0eh0 FkhA gzn; esa nksuksa rjQ [kwu Hkjk gqvk FkkA vU; lHkh vax rUn:Lr FksA iksLVekVZe fjiksVZ izn'kZ ih0 42 gSA ftl ij , ls ch esjs gLrk{kj lh ls Mh esjh jk; vafdr gSaA esjh jk; esa e`rd dh e`R;q flj ij pksV yxus ds dkj.k gqbZ gSaA mDr flj dh pksV izd`fr ds lkekU; ifjdze esa e`R;q dkfjr djus ds fy;s i;kZIr FkhA " 8. FSL Report is Ex.P. 35 in which it has been mentioned that shirt, pant, baniyan, blood smeared soil, bushirt, pant, bushirt, pant and two stones sent for serological examination were found stained with blood of human origin. Out of these items, shirt, pant, bushirt, pant, bushirt, pant and two stones were found to be stained with 'A'-Group of blood. It has not been proved that blood group of deceased was of Group-'A', though it could have been determined by the FSL. 9. Ex.P.24 is seizure memo of blood stained clothes of accused Savji. This memo was allegedly prepared in presence of Nagji Ram and Nakka. Similarly, blood stained stone used in murder of Jgannath was recovered through seizure memo Ex.P.25 allegedly in presence of Nagji Ram and Nakka. Blood stained clothes of accused Homa were also allegedly recovered in presence of Nagji Ram and Nakka and one more blood stained stone was also allegedly recovered in presence of Nagji Ram and Nakka. As we have seen, Nagji Ram(PW-13) does not support the prosecution story in this regard. He was declared hostile and he says that no recovery was made in his presence. 10. As we have seen, Nagji Ram(PW-13) does not support the prosecution story in this regard. He was declared hostile and he says that no recovery was made in his presence. 10. PW-11 Nakka has also been declared hostile and he also does not support the prosecution story of recovery of blood stained stones and blood stained clothes from accused-persons. In the circumstances of the case, whole story of recovery also fails. 11. If we go thourgh other evidence of the prosecution, then we come to know that PW-1 Hakara was the first witness produced by the prosecution in the trial court. This witness was declared hostile. In his cross-examination he says that Nagaji Ram PW-13 had told him about the extrajudicial confession of both the accused-persons, but it is pertinent to mention here that Nagji Ram has denied the story of the alleged extra-judicial confession of the accused-appellants. Thus, this witness is not able to substantially prove the prosecution story. He has been able only to prove his oral report Ex.P.1 which was recorded by the police. 12. PW-2 Bhaga has also been declared hostile by the prosecution and he also does not support the prosecution story of any recovery from accused-appellants. PW-4 Sava was also declared hostile by the prosecution and he also does not support the prosecution story of any recovery of controlled sample of soil or blood smeared soil from the spot. PW-5 Ram Lal has also been declared hostile and he was confronted from his police statement Ex.P.17. He says that the amount of Rs. 10,051/- was recovered by community leaders as 'mautana' from the accused-appellants. He denies that it is wrong fact that because of said payment of 'mautana' he is supporting the accused-persons. 13. PW-3 Ramesh Chandra is a photographer and Ex.P.9 to Ex.P.16 photographs of dead body had been exhibited by him which are not disputed in the case. 14. PW-6 Dharma is father of deceased Jagannath. He was confronted from his police statement also and material contradictions were found in his statement. He says that there was no previous enmity of deceased with both the accused-appellants. He says that he does not know that he had demanded 'mautana' from both the accused-appellants and because of non-payment of 'mautana' he has filed a false case of murder against the accused-appellants. He says that there was no previous enmity of deceased with both the accused-appellants. He says that he does not know that he had demanded 'mautana' from both the accused-appellants and because of non-payment of 'mautana' he has filed a false case of murder against the accused-appellants. He says that his son Jagannath had gone with both the accused-appellants and he did not come back,so he had apprehension that both the accused-appellants must have murdered his son. 15. PW-10 Smt. Kaku is wife of deceased Jagannath. She says that her husband had gone with both the accused-appellants that evening and then he did not come back and his dead body was recovered from agricultural field near pond. She admits that there was no previous enmity of her husband with both the accused-appellants. She says that Nagji Ram had told her that her husband was killed by both the accused-appellants and otherwise she was not knowing about the alleged act of accused-appellants. 16. PW-8 Bhanwar Singh,H.C. and PW-12 Prem Chand are carriers of samples to FSL. PW-9 Shankar Lal says that he had informed the SHO by QST and then FIR was registered. 17. In the statements under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, both the accused-appellants have totally denied the prosecution story and they have pleaded plea of alibi also. They have produced two witnesses also, namely, DW-1 Amara and DW-2 Mava. Out of them, DW-1 Amara has tried to prove alibi of accused-appellants and says that both the accused-appellants were in the 'jagaran' that night and they had never gone with Jagannath, the deceased. Similarly, DW-2 Mava also supports the said theory of alibi pleaded by accused-appellants. 18. On the basis of aforesaid appreciation of evidence in the case, it can be said that benefit of reasonable doubt should have been given to both the accused-appellants. Last seen evidence has not been proved against the accused-appellants in the true spirit so as to invite their conviction and alleged extra-judicial confession has also not been proved against the accused-appellants. Further more, the alleged recovery of blood stained clothes or blood stained stones from the possession of accused-appellants is also doubtful. Blood group was also not compared. There was no previous enmity between the parties. Further more, the alleged recovery of blood stained clothes or blood stained stones from the possession of accused-appellants is also doubtful. Blood group was also not compared. There was no previous enmity between the parties. In the circumstances of the case and in absence of any motive, both the accused-appellants deserve to be given the benefit of reasonable doubt in the case. 19. Hence, this jail appeal deserves to be accepted, which is hereby accepted and both the accused-appellants Savji and Homa are hereby acquitted from the charge of Section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code. The conviction and sentence passed by the trial court by the impugned judgment is hereby quashed and set aside. Both of them be released forthwith from jail if not wanted in any other case. The record of the trial court be sent back along with one copy of the judgment to the trial court. Three copies of the judgment(two for the accused and one for office) should be sent immediately to the concerned Jail Superintendent for necessary action.Appeal allowed. *******