JUDGMENT 1. - This jail appeal is preferred to challenge the judgment dated 18.9.2006 by which learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Udaipur recorded conviction of accused appellant Bhura son of Lakhma Gameti for the offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo life term imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5000/- with a default stipulation. The accused appellant was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 201 Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2000/-. Both the punishments were ordered to be served concurrently. 2. In brief, facts of the case are that on 8.11.2005 at 12:30 PM, an oral statement made by Shri Haku (PW-1) was reduced in writing by the Station House Officer of Police Station Gogunda. As per the statement (Ex.P/1), Haku, his son Gopa (deceased) and Teja were cutting fodder in the fields of Shri Laxmilal near village Morwal on 7.11.2005. At about 11:00 AM, Bhura (accused), cousin brother of Haku, came to recover a due sum of Rs. 1000/-. The amount under demand being not available with Haku , a writing about due amount was made in the form of a note on a slip of paper. Accused Bhura then consumed beer with Gopa, Khuman Singh and Hon Singh. At about 03:00 PM Bhura and Gopa left the site and proceeded for village Morwal. Gopa did not return to home in night, but much care of that was not taken as Haku was under the impression that Gopa must have been stayed at the house of Bhura. In morning one Shri Prabhu Singh informed that a dead body was lying in a small pond near to well. On having this information, Haku went to the site and identified the dead body as of his son Gopa. 3. The investigating agency after having written report initiated investigation as per provisions of Section 174 Cr.P.C. The corpus of deceased Gopa was subjected to an autopsy and as per report of that the cause of death was "asphyxia due to drowning". 4. A formal first information report for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 384 and 201 Indian Penal Code was registered against accused Bhura. 5. During the course of investigation accused was arrested on 20.11.2005 as per document Ex.P/10. 4. A formal first information report for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 384 and 201 Indian Penal Code was registered against accused Bhura. 5. During the course of investigation accused was arrested on 20.11.2005 as per document Ex.P/10. On 22.11.2005 at 07:30 AM a disclosure was made by him about availability of the slip on which a writing with regard to due money was noted and a silver bracelet of deceased Gopa. By acting upon the information received a used silver bracelet and a slip having note about due amount were recovered from the house of the accused. The recovery aforesaid was made in presence of two independent witnesses viz. Dhula (PW-9) and Gula. During the course of investigation statements of several persons were drawn mainly pertaining to last seen and extra judicial confession said to be made before Chain Singh (PW-5). 6. On completion of investigation, a police report was filed before the competent court and the case being sessions triable was committed to the court of Sessions. Learned Sessions court after providing an opportunity of hearing to the accused persons framed charge relating to commission of offence punishable under Sections 384, 394, 302 and 201 Indian Penal Code and on denial of the same trial commenced as desired. 7. The prosecution supported its case with the aid of 14 witnesses and by getting 13 documents exhibited. An opportunity was accorded to the accused to explain the adverse and incriminating circumstances in prosecution evidence and while availing the same the accused stated that he was falsely implicated in the criminal case as he failed to pay a bribe of Rs. 25,000/- to the police as demanded. He also denied any enmity with deceased and dispute relating to money transactions. No evidence in defence was adduced. 8. Learned trial court after examining the evidence available on record and considering rival submissions, held the accused guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 Indian Penal Code. For remaining charges acquittal was recorded. 9. In appeal, the argument advanced by counsel for the appellant is that the conviction of the appellant is based on circumstantial evidence that is not forming a complete chain of circumstances indicating only one conclusion i.e. about his involvement in the crime in question. For remaining charges acquittal was recorded. 9. In appeal, the argument advanced by counsel for the appellant is that the conviction of the appellant is based on circumstantial evidence that is not forming a complete chain of circumstances indicating only one conclusion i.e. about his involvement in the crime in question. According to learned counsel the trial court has recorded conviction on basis of the evidence relating to movement of deceased with accused, last seen of the deceased in the company of the accused, recovery of a bracelet and an extra judicial confession said to be made before Shri Chain Singh (PW-5), but the evidence relating to recovery of bracelet and extra judicial confession is not at all reliable. It is asserted that a reasonable doubt exists in accepting the prosecution story, thus, the appellant deserves to be acquitted. 10. Per contra, as per learned Public Prosecutor the prosecution evidence is having strong links of circumstances and those are sufficient to indicate definite involvement of the accused appellant in the crime in question, thus, his conviction was rightly recorded by the trial court. With regard to recovered bracelet, it is submitted that the accused has not given any explanation about availability of that with him. 11. We have considered the arguments advanced in light of the evidence available on record. 12. The first set of circumstance is movement of the deceased with accused from the fields of Shri Laxmilal to village Morwal. Shri Haku (PW-1) in quite unambiguous terms stated that on 7.11.2005 he, his son Gopa (deceased) and Teja were cutting fodder in the fields of Shri Laxmilal. At that time at about 11:00 AM his cousin brother Bhura, the present accused, came to recover due money. After having some deliberations, a note on a paper slip was drawn about due money. Teja then went to village and brought a bottle of beer that was consumed by Bhura, Gopa, Khuman Singh and Hon Singh. Bhura and Gopa at about 03:00 PM left the site and proceeded for village Morwal. The facts stated by this witness are corroborated by Teja (PW-2). In view of the definite evidence adduced by Haku (PW-1) and Teja (PW-2), there is no doubt about accepting the fact that Gopa and Bhura moved together from the agricultural field of Shri Laxmilal on the fateful day at about 03:00 PM. 13. The facts stated by this witness are corroborated by Teja (PW-2). In view of the definite evidence adduced by Haku (PW-1) and Teja (PW-2), there is no doubt about accepting the fact that Gopa and Bhura moved together from the agricultural field of Shri Laxmilal on the fateful day at about 03:00 PM. 13. An another witness Kamla (PW-12) son of Dhula stated that he saw Bhura and Gopa at the shop of Chain Singh at about 04 - 04:30 PM, where they both were consuming beer. 14. Shri Pema (PW-8) stated that in the evening of the fateful day while returning home, he saw Bhura and Gopa quarrelling near 'Devra of Bheruji Bavji'. This witness has not disclosed exact time when he saw accused and deceased near 'Devra of Bheruji Bavji'. The Investigating Officer Shri Adarsh Kumar (PW-14), while deposing before the court, stated that during course of the investigation the version of Kamla (PW-12) and Pema (PW-8) was first drawn by him as per provisions of Section 161 Cr.P.C. after 12 days from the date of incident. Looking to this delay, the argument advanced by counsel for the appellant is that Kamla and Pema both are residents of village Morwal and they did not choose to disclose the knowledge available with them at their own and the police too recorded their statements at a belated stage, thus, implantation of evidence cannot be denied. According to learned counsel in the factual background above these two witnesses are not reliable. 15. True it is, the investigating agency inquired necessary facts from Pema (PW-8) and Kamla (PW-12) after a lapse of 12 days, but the delay simpliciter is not sufficient to disbelieve the witnesses. It is the position admitted that the police station is situated at the distance of about 20 kms. from the place of incident, the witnesses are members of Scheduled Tribes and they were knowing the fact that the deceased and the accused were close relatives. The fact about company of these two persons was not unnatural being close relatives and, therefore, the witnesses concerned would have not been found fit to connect that with crime in question. Looking to all the facts of the case we do not find any just reason to disbelieve the evidence adduced by these witnesses merely on the count that some delay occurred in inquiring their version by the investigating agency. 16. Looking to all the facts of the case we do not find any just reason to disbelieve the evidence adduced by these witnesses merely on the count that some delay occurred in inquiring their version by the investigating agency. 16. The most important evidence in the instant matter is in relation to recovery of bracelet i.e. said to be of deceased and the extra judicial confession made by the accused before Shri Chain Singh (PW-5). 17. So far as recovery of silver bracelet is concerned, that was made on 22.11.2005 from the house of the accused. Shri Dhula (PW-9), the attesting witness, has supported the prosecution case in totality. As such, the recovery of silver bracelet stands established, but the issue yet deserves consideration about identity of the bracelet. 18. Dhula (PW-9) and Shri Adarsh Kumar (PW-14), Investigating Officer, accepted that the bracelet recovered was not having any special marking and such type of bracelets are usually available with the members belonging to Tribes. Shri Adarsh Kumar (PW-14) also accepted that no independent identification of this article was made. No other witness as a matter of fact stated in definite terms that the bracelet recovered was of deceased Gopa. It is pertinent to note here that the trial court also recorded that the article bracelet was not produced before the court and as such it was not available for identification even before the court. 19. In view of the fact that neither during the course of investigation nor before the court the bracelet was identified, we do not find any material available on record to connect that with deceased Gopa. A heavy burden to prove this fact was upon prosecution, and that failed to establish this circumstance against the accused. 20. The last but quite important evidence, on which the trial court relied, is of extra judicial confession said to be made by the accused before Shri Chain Singh (PW-5). 21. Shri Chain Singh son of Shri Daulat Singh, by caste Rajput, stated that at 03:00 PM Bhura and Gopa came to his shop and consumed beer. Gopa purchased four quarters of liquor and Bhura purchased three bottles of beer. Two bottles of beer were consumed by them at his shop. A bundle of beedis was also purchased by Gopa. Gopa and Bhura then proceeded towards 'Devra of Bheruji Bavji'. Gopa purchased four quarters of liquor and Bhura purchased three bottles of beer. Two bottles of beer were consumed by them at his shop. A bundle of beedis was also purchased by Gopa. Gopa and Bhura then proceeded towards 'Devra of Bheruji Bavji'. In next morning, Bhura came to this witness and stated that Gopa has died. This witness then proceeded with Bhura to the place where dead body was lying and saw the same. This witness and Bhura then came to village where again Bhura stated before him that he had some quarrel with Gopa about some dues. During the course of quarrel, Bhura gave beating to Gopa and threw him in water when he was unconscious. 22. On examination of the evidence adduced by Chain Singh, it can be assumed that he was knowing all the facts even before recovery of dead body on basis of the information given by Prabhu Singh. This witness admittedly did not choose to state anything about this fact for more than 12 days. No reason has been given by this witness for remaining silent for good 12 days. We would like to mention here that this witness is a member of a marshal community and in the State like Rajasthan a person coming from such community in normal course could have not been under any fear psychosis from a member belonging to Scheduled Tribes. Shri Adarsh Kumar (PW-14), the Investigating Officer, also failed to explain as to why Chain Singh was not examined immediately. It is also important to note that as per Adarsh Kumar (PW-14) the person before whom extra judicial confession was said to be made, did not come before the investigating agency at his own but was called for by the police. In totality of the facts available we are having all doubts about genuineness of this witness. The reliability of this witness is under doubts and that is sufficient not to accept the circumstance based on the evidence adduced by this man. 23. In view of the appreciation of evidence in the terms discussed above, we are of the view that the chain of circumstances on which prosecution relies is having several breakages and i.e. not sufficient to arrive at the conclusion about definite involvement of the accused appellant in the crime in question. A reasonable doubt exists in believing the prosecution case. 24. A reasonable doubt exists in believing the prosecution case. 24. The appeal, for the reasons given above, is allowed. The judgment impugned dated 18.9.2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Udaipur in Sessions Case No.16/2006, is set aside. The conviction of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 Indian Penal Code is also set aside. He is acquitted from the charges levelled against him. Accordingly, the sentence awarded is also set aside. The accused be released from State custody forthwith, if not required in any other case.Appeal allowed. *******