JUDGMENT 1. - This Jail Appeal in which Shri Vivek Shrimali, Advocate was appointed Amicus Curiae on behalf of the accused-appellant Jeepu, was filed against the Judgment dated 8.5.2006 passed in Sessions Case No. 180/2005 titled as State of Rajasthan v. Jeepu which was passed by the Additional sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Udaipur. By the impugned judgment, the appellant Jeepu was convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, six months simple imprisonment was also ordered by the Trial Court. 2. We have heard the arguments, perused the record and we have also gone through the impugned judgment. 3. The accused-appellant was charged for murder of Rama in the night of 3.3.2005 in village Gamadi. The F.I.R. (Exp. 2) states that oral information was given by Smt. Deoli wife of Rama that her husband had gone to the house of her brother in law Jeepu as he was called by Jeepu and when in the night, her husband did not return back then on 4.3.2005, the next morning, she went to she house of Jeepu where she found dead body of her husband lying opposite the house of Jeepu. In the oral information, she has further levelled allegations against her brother in law Jeepu because both the brothers were having dispute regarding partition of property. 4. PW-12-Deepak Yadav, the then Station House Officer, Panarwa has stated that during the investigation of F.I.R. No. 13/2005, he had inspected the site, recorded statements of the relevant witnesses and then he had arrested the accused Jeepu by memo of arrest (Exp. 10). He says that during the investigation, Jeepu had given him information (Exp. 14) and as per the information (Exp. 14), he had recovered a blood stained Bamboo stick from his possession. He states that he had sent the said bamboo stick to Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination and the report (Exp. 16) of F.S.L. was received by him. He admits that the bamboo stick was recovered from the open house of accused-appellant and the recovery was not made in the presence of any witness. 5. It is pertinent to mention here that the seizure memo (Exp. 15) of Bamboo stick mentions that the recovery was made in the presence of witnesses Shankar Lai S/o Shri Kalu and Mohan Lai S/o Shri Deva. 5. It is pertinent to mention here that the seizure memo (Exp. 15) of Bamboo stick mentions that the recovery was made in the presence of witnesses Shankar Lai S/o Shri Kalu and Mohan Lai S/o Shri Deva. Both these witnesses were not examined for the reasons best known to the prosecution. Hence, the recovery of blood stained bamboo stick from possession of the accused-appellant Jeepu appears to be doubtful. 6. PW-10-Laxman Prasad, Assistant Sub-Inspector states that on the ora information of Smt. Devli wife of Rama, he had chalked the F.I.R. No. 13/2005 as Exp. 2. He says that he had seized the clothes of deceased Rama from his body by seizure memo (Exp. 5). He states that blood stained soil, ordinary soil and one Axe was also seized by him from the spot of the incident by Exp. 9. 7. PW-l-Smt. Deoli states that she had seen dead body of her husband Rama near the residence of Jeepu. She admits that she does not know that who had lodged the F.I.R. in the Police Station. She further states that on the day of incident Jeepu had not come to her residence and this fact mentioned in the F.I.R. about calling of deceased Rama by Jeepu appears to be incorrect. 8. PW-2-Rama is a witness who says that the dead body of Rama was lying opposite the house of Jeepu. He says that Jeepu and Rama (deceased) used to quarrel often and in the previous night of the incident also both had quarreled regarding share in the immovable property. In his cross-examination, he states that he does not know who had killed Rama. 9. PW-3-Kalu is also a.formal witness of Panchnama of dead body. He state nothing about the incident. PW-4-Shankar S/o Shri Rama is also a formal witness of site plan and Panchnama, etc. He states nothing about the incident. 10. PW-5-Gehri Lai is also a formal witness of Malkhana entries. PW-7-Budhu is also a formal witness of seizure memo of clothes worn by the deceased from the spot. He says that one axe was also recovered from the spot by the police by seizure memo (Exp. 9). He also states that he knows nothing about the incident. Similarly PW-8-Babu Lal is also a witness who does not say anything about the incident. He says that one axe was also recovered from the spot by the police by seizure memo (Exp. 9). He also states that he knows nothing about the incident. Similarly PW-8-Babu Lal is also a witness who does not say anything about the incident. PW-9-Udai Singh is also a formal witness of carrier of sampls of the F.S.L. PW-ll-Amrat Lal, LC is also a formal witness of carrier of samples to the F.S.L. 11. PW-6-Dr. Gurmit Singh states that he had conducted postmortem o Rama S/o Shri Bhika. He says that the following injuries were found on the boo, of the deceased (1) injury of pointed weapon 2 x 1 x 2 Cm in the right side of Neck. (2) Contusion 4 x 4 Cm on left side of the back. (3) Contusion 2 x 2 Cm on front side of the head. (4) Abbresion 4 x 2 Cm on left side of the neck. (5) Fracture in left medibula bone. (6) Fracture in left parietal bone. 12. Postmortem report (Exp. 8) was exhibited by this witness and the cause of death was mentioned as excessive bleeding because of head injuries. In his cross-examination, he admits that on hard surface, if anybody falls down towards his head from left side then such injuries may occur. 13. Thus, we see that there is no evidence in the file to connect the accused-appellant with the crime. The learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the S.L. report mentions that bamboo stick allegedly recovered from the accused-appellant was having stains of blood group-A and Bushirt and Chaddi of the deceased were also carrying stains of blood Group-A. 14. In our consideration opinion, only this much evidence cannot connect the accused-appellant to the charge of murder and in the circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the prosecution could not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused-appellant. The chain of circumstances alleged against the accused-appellant is not complete which reveals a big gap and is not sufficient to make us believe that the offence was committed by the accused-appellant. 15. The chain of circumstances alleged against the accused-appellant is not complete which reveals a big gap and is not sufficient to make us believe that the offence was committed by the accused-appellant. 15. The judgment of the Trial Court does not appear sound and reasons mentioned by the Trial Court to convict the accused are not cogent and convicting reasons and hence, the impugned judgment dated 8.5.2006 deserves lo be quashed which is hereby quashed and the Appeal of the accused-appellant Jeepu is hereby allowed accordingly. He is hereby acquitted from the charge of Section 302 I.P.C. He is in jail since his date of arrest i.e. 9.3.2005. He be released forthwith, if not warranted in any other case. Two copies of this judgment be sent to the concerned Jail Authorities where the accused-appellant is serving the sentence. Out of these copies, one copy be provided to the accused-appellant and another copy be used by the jail for office purpose. The record of the Trial Court be returned along with a copy of this judgment.Appeal allowed. *******