JUDGMENT : G.R. MOOLCHANDANI, J. 1. By this appeal accused-appellant Babulal has assailed the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Balotra, District Barmer in Sessions Case No. 63/2006 (Old No. 29/2006) dated 5/12/2007, awarding life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and a fine of Rs.5,000/- and to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment in default of payment of fine. 2. The brief facts, as mentioned in the first information report submitted by complainant Neta Ram vide Ex.P.21 narrates that Prakash son of Bheruram came to him on 09/09/2006 at about two and half past noon complaining that offensive smell was coming out of the house of his uncle (baddebaa) and asked him to come alongwith to check the house of Bhura Ram, so he and Prakash went to the house of Bhura Ram and found that foul and offensive smell was coming out of the house, they tried to peep into the small perforation, but could not see anything clear, then they went towards back side of the premises and made a hole after removing some bricks apart and removing some katta (bags) and tried to peep inside in the sunlight and found decomposed body of Bhura Ram son of Bhuta Ram Meghwal, blood spots were lying scattered near the dead body in Aangan. The utensils kept around were also having blood blots. The premises was having a lock from outside, some unknown person locked the premises from outside after killing Bhura Ram. Report is submitted, necessary action be done and this FIR was registered on 10.09.2006 at about 9:00 a.m. under Section 302 of IPC at Police Station Samdari and a case No. 110 was registered. Post investigation, charge sheet was filed against accused Babulal under Section 302 of IPC and accused Babulal was charged under Section 302 of IPC by the trial Court, the prosecution produced twenty six witnesses and got exhibited forty seven documents. The accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C and none of the witness was produced in the defence. The learned trial Court, after appreciating the evidence adduced, passed the impugned conviction order sentencing the appellant-accused to life imprisonment as discussed earlier. 3. The accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C and none of the witness was produced in the defence. The learned trial Court, after appreciating the evidence adduced, passed the impugned conviction order sentencing the appellant-accused to life imprisonment as discussed earlier. 3. We have given our thoughtful views and considerations to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant as well as by the learned public prosecutor and has scrutinized and assessed the entire evidence available on the record. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that there is no evidence regarding last seen together neither motive is established and the recovery of the alleged items is also not established, so its not readable in evidence. Learned counsel has further contended that link, which requires to be established as positive to prove circumstantial evidence is also missing. Recovery of the trouser (pant of the accused) has shown to have been taken and recovered in “five pieces” whereas F.S.L. report and article opened during the course of evidence, the said “pant” of the accused has been shown to be a single pant only, and not in five pieces, which too adds suspicion. Accused appellant is nephew and close relative of the deceased Bhura Lal and he has been wrongly and falsely implicated. The main recovery witnesses have become hostile and have not supported the story of the prosecution, testimony with respect to last seen together is also not certain, therefore, the learned trial court has committed error in passing the impugned judgment, so the appeal may be accepted and the accused-appellant may be acquitted. Contrariwise, learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing and proving its case beyond reasonable doubt, after murder of deceased Bhura Ram, lock was put on his tenement and several witnesses have observed, accused Babulal locking, the door and key of that lock has also been recovered from the possession and on the instance of the appellant-accused, his cloths have also been found blood blotted, prosecution has adduced positive and reliable evidence, so the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality and the appeal has not got any force, so it may be dismissed. 5. Several important witnesses of the prosecution have turned hostile and have not supported incident and story of the prosecution, rather have declined several recitals of their Parchabayan. 5. Several important witnesses of the prosecution have turned hostile and have not supported incident and story of the prosecution, rather have declined several recitals of their Parchabayan. PW.6 Sujaram, PW.7 Veera Ram, PW.8 Paarash Mal, PW.9 Padma Ram, PW.10 Smt. Gomti, PW.12 Surjaram, PW.14 Tejaram, PW.16 Jetha Ram and PW.17 Chautha Ram have become hostile, apart from the above, PW.15 Neta Ram, who is none-else but “nephew” (bhatija) of the deceased and author of the FIR Ex.P.21 has also declared hostile, many narrations made by this witness Neta Ram are very important, since he has said that we peeped into the premises then observed a “skeleton” of a person laid upon a cot, being hostile, he has said that the premises belonged to “Bhurabaa” but the skeleton was in a petrified position and was beyond identification. He has also said that there were no blood blots on the spot and it is wrong to say that he had seen a Kulhaari on the spot and after declining several recitals of Parchabayan, he has said that deceased “Bhurabaa” was my ‘badda-baap’ he has also denied seizure of any lock by the police before him and has said that he is not aware as to what was caused to the skeleton “whether the corpus was killed or not, he has also said that it is true that “Bhura-baa” had alienated a piece of land prior to his death, he has also said that he had witnessed “Bhura-baa” when the river was in spate and not afterwords, in his cross examination he has said that it is true that Bishna (son of the deceased Bhura) and “Bhura-baa” were not nurturing good relations because “Bhura-baa” used to admonish wife of Bishna and there was a dispute between “Bhuara-baa” and Bishna owing to the sale of land and dispute had taken place because Bishna had wanted the vend money from “Bhura-baa” and after that dispute, Bishna started living at Balotra and did not visit Jethantarri. He has also said that he did not see “Bhura-baa” after this dispute. He has also said that Bishna Ram did not visit to the premises of “Bhura-baa” to witness his body from Balotra, but police had taken him to thana Samdari from Savet. He has also said that he did not see “Bhura-baa” after this dispute. He has also said that Bishna Ram did not visit to the premises of “Bhura-baa” to witness his body from Balotra, but police had taken him to thana Samdari from Savet. He has also told that it is true that Bishna did not witness the skeleton and no process taken place to consign the body to Bishna Ram. He has also made a significant say by saying that after dispute between “Bhura-baa” and Bishna, Neta Ram, his father and Babulal did not visit to the premises of “Bhura-baa”. He has also said that he is unaware as to the fact whether “Bhurabaa” is alive or has since died, he has also said that the skeleton, which was there in the premises of “Bhura-baa” was laid and kept there by someone and it was appearing like that the skeleton was kept on the cot after spreading of bed in a position as if it was slept. He has also said that the wearings of the skeleton were not having any blood spots and the skeleton was put there in a position alike it was kept there, he has also said that wife of Babulal was having illicit relations with Babu Lakhara of Samdari, so she did not come to Babulal again for eleven months clarifying it he has also said that she did not come for last eleven months prior to detection of the dead body. He has also said that Police had caught Bishna and Prakash with Babu and subsequently released Bishna and Prakash and falsely involved Babulal on the say of Shambhu and Suja and others. He has also said that Babu has involved falsely in order to protect Bishna. He has also told that the society had ex-communicated and ousted Bishna and to us from the society because the Jethantari Meghwals were unhappy with us and were against us. He has also said that Babulal is engaged in labour kind of work and he jointly lives with us and has not got any separate premises. He has also told that the society had ex-communicated and ousted Bishna and to us from the society because the Jethantari Meghwals were unhappy with us and were against us. He has also said that Babulal is engaged in labour kind of work and he jointly lives with us and has not got any separate premises. He has also said that police had got his thumb impressions affixed on the FIR, he does not know, what was written there and he did not find any script or writing in the FIR, he has further said that he did not tell any villager that dead body of “Bhurabaa” was lying but had told that a skeleton was lying there and such was also informed to police. 6. Evaluation and examination of the utterances made by this witness are sufficient to reveal that the dead body was not identified and there was no blood spots or lying of axe near the body and the dead body was laid on the cot in such a manner as to have been brought from somewhere else. Bishan son of deceased “Bhura-baa” was not having good relations with his father and was demanding money procured on transfer of land and had shifted to Balotra because of that dispute and feeling discontent. Bishna son of the deceased, Prakash and Babulal all three were taken into custody, Bishan and Prakash were later released, this kind of evidence has also come from the mouths of several prosecution witnesses. 7. PW.4 Prakash has also said that “Bhura-baa” was his “baddebaap” (elder paternal uncle) and Bishna was his sibling, who had sold his land two to two and half month before his death, he has also said that police had taken away Babulal and Bishna Ram and to him as well and has said that the police released him two days later and Bishna was also released three to four days ahead. He has also said that when the police had witnessed the body, it was skeleton and no flesh was there and the body was beyond recognition. He has also said that when the police had witnessed the body, it was skeleton and no flesh was there and the body was beyond recognition. He has also said that when the police inspected the spot, Kulhari was not there and because the body was recovered from the premises of “Bhura-baa”, they drawn an inference that the body belongs to “Bhura-baa”, Police did not get the dead body identified, even none was asked for the identification, so it is difficult to say candidly with regard to the identity of the dead body. 8. Almost several witnesses have narrated that apart from Babulal, Prakash (another nephew of the deceased) and Bishna son of the deceased were simultaneously taken into custody by the police and were kept under police custody for multiple days and later Bishna and Prakash were released after lapse of few days, but Babulal was involved and remained in custody, so Ex.P.42 arrest memo of accused Babulal, by which Babulal has been shown to have been arrested on 14/09/2006 at 4.30 p.m. does not infuse credence and is clouded with suspicion. 9. PW.8 Parashmal has also said that relations of Bishna Ram were not amicable with his father Bhuraram and there was unpleasure, he has also said that he never seen Babulal ever visiting to the premises of Bhuaram, neither Bhuraram to the house of Babulal and he has also said that he never heard anything regarding spread of foul and offensive smell from the house of “Bhurabaa” and never peeped into the house of Bhuraram, he has also declined several recitals of Police Bayan Ex.P.26. 10. This is a categorical say of all the prosecution witnesses that the premises of deceased “Bhura-baa” was accessed after shattering and breakage of lock, the said lock was broken and thereafter the doctor was opened. PW.1 Sawaram has also narrated so, and Ex.P.1 has also got a recital to this effect, hence, the conclusion of the FSL report as contained in Ex.P.48 also become dubious because a forcibly broken lock does never be in a position to be conveniently operated with a key and opinion to this effect hints towards unreliability. 11. PW.1 Sawaram has also narrated so, and Ex.P.1 has also got a recital to this effect, hence, the conclusion of the FSL report as contained in Ex.P.48 also become dubious because a forcibly broken lock does never be in a position to be conveniently operated with a key and opinion to this effect hints towards unreliability. 11. Recovery of “pant” (trouser) of the accused Babulal, which was made by Ex.P.12 discloses that the “pant” was recovered in “five pieces” on the instance of the accused Babulal but the said pant, which is stated to have been recovered in “five pieces”, does not reflect such a fragmented position in Ex.P.46 FSL because it has got a say “pant” only, likewise the statements of Anand Singh PW.26, investigator does also depicts recovery of a “pant” and during the course of the evidence at the time of opening of the article 2 and 3, the physical production has also got a reference of “Pant”, which was recovered at the instance of the accused, here too the said pant has not been stated to be in “five fragments” (pieces), which makes the whole recovery and its nature, dubious and untrustworthy. 12. Deposition and statements made by PW.11 Smt. Gigi are also shaky and doubtful because Smt. Geegee is none-else but the wife of the accused Babulal, who has herself admitted in her statements that she was not having good relations with her husband Babulal and was having a kid begotten prior to marriage with Babulal. She has also admitted that she was accustomed visiting to some Babulal Lakhara. Smt. Gigi has made a untrustworthy narration that her husband Babulal while inebriated (drunk) made a disclosure before her that he killed “Bhura-baa” by Kulhari because she has said that Babulal had narrated this fact to her two to three months later to the incident, whereas in her police statements recorded on 12/09/2006 (i.e. two days later) to the FIR, she has disclosed all such facts in her Parchabayan, so such a communication of extra judicial confession, which has said to be made to her two to three months later to the incident becomes false and unreliable, she has also a close relative of deceased “Bhura-baa” since she has herself admitted that “Bhura-baa” is his “Mausajee” and daughter of “Bhurabaa” was married to her Kaka Magaram, so Mangli daughter of “Bhurabaa” is her Kaki. She has also said that ;g dguk lgh gS fd esjs ifr vkSj esjs vkil esa ugha curh gSA D;ksafd esjk ifr esjs lkFk ekjihV djrk FkkA She has also said that ;g dguk lgh gS fd esjs tks yM+dk gqvk Fkk oks esjs ihgj esa gh gqvk FkkA She has also said that it is correct that Bishna and Prakash were released by Police after four days and Babulal was not released. She has also said that ;g dguk lgh gS fd eSa ckcwyky dh iRuh cu dj ugha jguk pkgrh gwWaA She has also said that ;g dguk lgh gS fd esjk ckcwyky y[kkjk ds ;gkWa vkuk tkuk gSA She has also said that ckcwyky us ftl fnu eq>s Hkqjkck dks ekjus dh ckr crkbZ ml fnu mlus ‘kjkc ih j[kh FkhA She has also said that ckcwyky us ‘kjkc ds u’ks esa cdrs cdrs gh eq>s ;g ckr crkbZ FkhA She has also said that esjk ukrk vHkh r; ugha gqvk gS So, it is clear from the statements of Geegee that she was having close blood relation with deceased “Bhurabaa” and deceased was his “Mausajee” and father of his Kaki. PW.15 Netaram has also said that wife of Babulal was having illicit relations with Babulal Lakhara of Samdari and she did not come to our house eleven months prior to the detection of the dead body of “Bhurabaa”, so it is unsafe to rely on the testimony of this witness and the learned trial court has rightly rejected theory of extra judicial confession as uttered by Smt. Geegee. 13. PW.1 Savaram is a witness of Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8 and he has also said that the lock was broken by police party. PW.2 Sujaram is a witness of Ex.P.9- recovery of key and Ex.P.20 its spot map and instead of accepting recovery of the said key before him, he has said that I was standing out of the room, so cannot say that what other goods was there in the room and has told, Babu when entered in the room there was nothing in his hand, when he came out of the room key was in his hand, so recovery of the alleged key from exclusive possession and on the instance of the accused Babulal also becomes suspicious. 14. PW.3 Shambhu Singh is a witness of Ex.P.3 Panchnama. 14. PW.3 Shambhu Singh is a witness of Ex.P.3 Panchnama. Ex.P.11 and Ex.12 and Ex.13 recovery of pant and shirt, he has said that Chhapra of Babulal from where shirt and pant were recovered, was not having any gate, recovery becomes a myth because Shambu Singh has said that he was taken there on the date of 15th at about 10 to 11 of the day, whereas Ex.P.12-recovery of the “shirt and pant” has got entry of time of recovery as 6 p.m. and Ex.P.13 its spot map has got an entry of time of 6.45 p.m. 15. PW.5 Bishna Ram son of deceased “Bhurabaa” has also accepted that police had kept him under custody for four days with Babu and Prakash. 16. PW.13 Chhotaram is a neighbour of deceased “Bhura-baa” has said that who killed “Bhura-baa” at what place is not known to him. PW.18 Teja Ram has also said nothing material. PW.20. Chhagandas is a photographer snapping Ex.P.23 to 32, the photographs. PW.21 to 25 are police constables obtaining and depositing the samples and PW.26 is I.O. Anand Singh who too has said that the lock was broken and was taken into custody afterwards vide Fard Ex.P.5 and has said that Babulal was arrested vide Ex.P.42 and Ex.P.42, but that Babulal was arrested on 14/09/2006 at 4:30 p.m., if we examine and evaluate the evidence of all other relevant witnesses on the point of taking suspected persons under custody, then it shows that the statement made by the IO on the point of arrest of Babulal as mentioned in Ex.P.42 becomes incorrect and false because several prosecution witnesses has specifically said that Babulal, Prakash and son of the deceased Bishna were taken into custody soon after detection of the dead body and were kept together under custody for few days. Bishna and Prakash were later released and Babulal was kept there. Bishna (son of the deceased Bhura-baa) as also accepted this say in his statements as discussed above, so the arrest and its documentary memo becomes doubtful. 17. PW.15 Netaram has explicitly said that he did not find any Kulhari near the body of deceased then its recovery and detection of any kind of blood spots over that axe also becomes suspicious and not worthy to be relied upon. 18. 17. PW.15 Netaram has explicitly said that he did not find any Kulhari near the body of deceased then its recovery and detection of any kind of blood spots over that axe also becomes suspicious and not worthy to be relied upon. 18. Ex.P.46 FSL report reveals that ‘A’ group blood was found on blood stained floor pieces Kulhari, Kurta, Tehmaad, Shirt and Pant, but this report does not indicate that the pant was in a solo piece or it was in fragtments. Ex.P.12 by which the recovery of pant is stated to have been made, does reveals that the pant was in five pieces. PW.15 Netaram denies recovery of any Kulhari or even existence of such a weapon near the dead body and group ‘A’ blood belonged to which individual whether to the deceased or to accused or someone else has also not been established by the prosecution because there is no evidence adduced by the prosecution that deceased was having ‘A’ group blood. 19. PW.19- Dr. Dinesh Charan has also made a utterance by saying that he had conducted the postmortem of the body vide Ex.P.22 and the body of the deceased was totally decomposed and soft organs of the body were absent. He has also opined that the cause of the death was multiple injuries, excessive haemorrhage, the injuries were ante-mortem. The startling utterance made by this witness says that “the death had occurred 10 days before the postmortem” and in cross-examination this medical expert has again said that he is narrating it on the basis of technicality that the death occurred 10 days before the post-mortem. If we consider the language of the “charge” then it reads as:- ^^1& vkius fnukad 10-9-06 ls djhcu 10 fnu iwoZ dHkh Hkh fdlh Hkh le; ekStk tsBUrjh esa jgoklh edku e’rd Hkwjkjke iq= Hkwrkjke es?koky dh gR;k&dkfjr djus dh fu;r ls mlds edku esa mlds lks;s gq, ij /kkjnkj dqYgkM+h ls mlds flj] xnZu] psgjs ij o ‘kjhj ds vU; fgLlksa ij ekjihV dj xaHkhj pksVsa dkfjr dh] ftl dkj.k ls mldh ekSds ij gh e’R;q gks xbZ & bl izdkj vius lk’k; e’rd Hkwjkjke dh gR;kdkfjr dh] tks fd /kkjk 302 Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk ds rgr naMuh; vijk/k gS] tks fd esjs izlaKku esa gS\^^ Then, the charge also becomes bit ambiguous. He has also said that the period of death and identity of the body could be ascertained conclusively by DNA examination. 20. Careful appraisal and evaluation of the aforesaid evidence as produced by the prosecution clearly discloses that almost majority of the witnesses of the prosecution have turned hostile and have not supported story of the prosecution. Smt. Geegee wife of accused Babulal is a untrustworthy witnesses, so has rightly been disbelieved by the trial Court, the kind of extrajudicial confession, which has been revealed by this witness is also not trustworthy, because its timing as discussed above is not reliable, she is also having animosity with her husband and obviously living separate with an intention to marriage some one else. It has also come in the evidence that she has having also relation with some “Babulal Lakhara” to whom she often visits, as per her assertions, she is also having a baby begotten prior to her marriage at her parental house. She has also said that she is reluctant to stay with Babulal, so it is not safe to rely on her narrations. Prosecution has come with the story that lock hanging on the door of the deceased was broken, then it is also doubtful as to how the key can conveniently operate in that broken lock, a forcibly broken lock won’t be in a position to be conveniently operated by its key, so the things become doubtful, moreover the witnesses of the recovery have also not adduced a positive evidence, there is a clear cut version of the prosecution that Bishna Ram son of the deceased was not having good relations with his deceased father and he was demanding money from his father out of the sale consideration, which he had sold few months before his death, several blood relatives have made such assertions that he had separated from his father because of this reason and was not visiting to him, such a disclosure has also been made by the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. it has also emerged from the story of the prosecution that Babulal, Bishna and Prakash, these three persons were earlier taken into custody, soon after detection of assassination and subsequently Bishna and Prakash were set at liberty but Babulal was booked, that is why arrest memo and information leading to any recovery also becomes mysterious and unreliable. Author of the FIR Netaram PW.15, complainant has also become hostile, even it has been said by complainant Neta Ram PW.15 that no Kulhari was found near the dead body nor any kind of blood-stains were scattered near or around the dead body. He has even so said that the body laid on the cot was not identifiable and it was lying there as if after laying bed, the body was brought there and later was put on the cot. It is also very strange that the First Information Report, was not lodged by Bishna Ram son of deceased, so the cumulative assessment candidly hints that prosecution has not succeeded in producing positive evidence against the accused-appellant, which may connect the accused person with the offence beyond reasonable doubt. 21. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622 cardinal principles pertaining to appreciation on circumstantial evidence has been laid down and those are as under:- “(i) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned ‘must or should’ and not ‘may be’ established. (ii) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. (iii) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. (iv) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. (v) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.” 22. (iv) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. (v) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.” 22. In State of U.P. vs. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, AIR 1992 SC 840 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has said that while appreciating circumstantial evidence the Court must adopt a very cautious approach and should record a conviction only if all the links in the chain are complete pointing to the guilt of the accused and every hypothesis of innocence is culpable of being negatived on evidence, likewise in Ram Singh vs. Sonia & Others, AIR, 2007 SC 1218, it has been laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court that “in a case depending largely upon circumstantial evidence, there is always a danger that conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof. The Court must satisfy itself that various circumstances in the chain of events have been established clearly and such completed chain of events must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused and Hon’ble Supreme Court while deciding the State of Karnataka vs. Chand Basha, 2015 CR.L.R. (SC) 1040 has held that High Court rightly ruled out the recovery and extra-judicial confession and had dismissed appeal of the State, when the offence has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and in Daulat Ram (Daulati) Vs. State of Haryana, 2015 CR.L.R. (SC) 830, Hon’ble Apex Court, after finding the evidence non reliable, has set aside the conviction. 23. The Supreme Court in Ashish Batham vs. State of M.P. (2002) 7 SCC 317 , in Para 8 of the judgment, held as under:- “Realities or Truth apart, the fundamental and basic presumption in the administration of criminal law and justice delivery system is the innocence of the alleged accused and till the charges are proved beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of clear, cogent, credible or unimpeachable evidence, the question of indicting or punishing an accused does not arise, merely carried away by heinous nature of the crime or the gruesome manner in which it was found to have been committed. Mere suspicion, however, strong or probable it may be is no effective substitute for the legal proof required to substantiate the charge of commission of a crime and grave the charge is greater should be the standard of proof required. Courts dealing with criminal cases at least should constantly remember that there is a long mental distance between ‘may be true’ and ‘must be true’ and this basic and golden rule only helps to maintain the vital distinction between ‘conjectures’ and ‘sure conclusions’ to be arrived at on the touch stone of a dispassionate judicial scrutiny based upon a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all features of the case as well as quality and credibility of the evidence brought on record.” 24. In Mohd. Arif v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2011) 13 SCC 621 , the Supreme Court held that each of the circumstances has to be assessed on its own merits. Quality rather than quantity of evidence is crucial factor in a case of circumstantial evidence. The court has to be cautious against imaginary inferences or its prejudices, which may unwittingly creep in. Its verdict must be based on clear and irrefutable logic. Responsibility of the prosecution in a case of circumstantial evidence is more as compared to the cases where ocular testimony or the direct evidence is available. 25. Thus, in view of the aforesaid it is enough to conclude that the prosecution has not succeeded in establishing its case beyond reasonable doubt and this is a settled principle of law that suspicion however strong cannot be a substitute for prove and in case resting on the circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances must be so perfect that it should lead only to one conclusion, that is, the guilt of the accused but the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 26. For the reasons dwelt above, finding of guilt as recorded by learned trial Court is not sustainable and accused-appellant is entitled for benefit of doubt. 27. In view of the aforesaid, this Criminal Appeal is hereby allowed and the impugned judgment dated 05.12.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Balotra, District Barmer in Sessions Case No. 63/2006 (Old No. 29/2006) convicting and sentencing the accused-appellant for offence under Section 302 is hereby set aside and quashed. 28. Consequently, the accused-appellant be set at liberty unless needed in any other case. 29. 28. Consequently, the accused-appellant be set at liberty unless needed in any other case. 29. Considering the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. the accused-appellant is directed to furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount before the learned trial Court forthwith, which shall remain effective for a period of six months to the fact that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the judgment for grant of leave, the appellant, on the receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before Hon’ble the Supreme Court. The appeal is hereby allowed in the aforesaid terms.