JUDGMENT : 1. In this criminal appeal filed by the accused appellant, Banwari Lal, the judgment dated 06th of October, 2008, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as "Trial Court") in Session Case No. 17/2007 is under challenge, by which the accused appellant was convicted for offence under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC, and following sentence was passed against him:- 302 of IPC Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment. 201 of IPC Five Years’ rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo fifteen days’ simple imprisonment. FACTS OF THE CASE: 2. On 22.03.2007 complainant, namely, Kadar Khan (PW. 1) submitted a written report (Ex. P/1) at Police Station- Sam, District Jaisalmer, alleging therein that my cousin brother, namely, Mugar Khan S/o. Mighe Khan, aged 12 years, is student of Government Primary School, Samand Fakir-Ki-Dhani, on 21.03.2007 at 09.30 AM he went to school, but did not return back. The said information was given to me by my uncle i.e. father of deceased. Upon receiving the said information, I, Ali Khan, Jabre Khan, Bahadur Khan made search of Mugar Khan in the village but he was not traced out. We made enquiry from the school teacher, Banwari Lal Meena (accused appellant) also but it is informed by him that after school hours, he (Mugar Khan) went back to the home. 3. In the complaint, it is specifically mentioned that in whole of the night search was made but he was not traced out. In the morning, during search at about 07-08.00 A.M., one Maru Khan S/o. Kande Khan, informed that yesterday at about 12'O Clock he saw Banwari Lal Meena was going towards Village Bida on road, carrying a jute sack ¼cksjh½ upon motorcycle. After receiving the said information, again enquiry was made from Banwari Lal Meena, then initially he refused to tell anything but later the accused appellant disclosed that yesterday at about 09.30 AM, he gave beatings to Mugar Khan with a "Lathi"/stick ¼bZl½ in the class room and on account of injuries suffered by Mugar Khan, he died. After receiving the said information, again enquiry was made from Banwari Lal Meena, then initially he refused to tell anything but later the accused appellant disclosed that yesterday at about 09.30 AM, he gave beatings to Mugar Khan with a "Lathi"/stick ¼bZl½ in the class room and on account of injuries suffered by Mugar Khan, he died. It was further informed by him that the dead body of Mugar Khan was taken by me in a jute sack and thrown in the well, which is of no use, situated on the road towards Bida. The complainant along with Banwari Lal and other persons went near the well, where sign of tyres of motorcycle and sign of foot prints were found there. Thereafter, they went to the police station along with accused, Banwari Lal and submitted the report for taking action against him. The accused appellant was arrested on 22.03.2007 vide Arrest Memo (Ex. P/39) and thereafter on the basis information (Ex./40) given by him the dead body of deceased was recovered from the Well and the motorcycle and weapon of offence i.e. "Lathi"/stick ¼bZl½ were also recovered as per his information. 4. On receipt of said report, the S.H.O., Police Station-Sam, registered the F.I.R. No. 11/2007 on 22.03.2007 under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC and commenced the investigation. 5. The investigating officer went on the well to search the dead body of deceased, where mould of footprint was taken vide Ex. P/6. A jute sack was taken out from the well in which dead body of Mugar Khan was recovered. According to police, the well was 500 Ft. deep and no water was there. After making all efforts, the dead body of deceased Mugar Khan was taken out from the Well at 03.10 PM on 22.03.2007. The "Panchanama" of the dead body was prepared vide Ex. P/9 in the presence of five persons. The dead body of the deceased, Mugar Khan, was sent for postmortem and thereafter postmortem was conducted at Govt. Hospital, Jaisalmer and postmortem report (Ex. P/18) was obtained by the Investigating Officer on 22.03.2007. Photographs of the site and dead body were also taken for the purpose of investigation. Foot mould of sleeper and tyre of motorcycle were also collected and after postmortem dead body of the deceased was handed over to his family members. 6. Hospital, Jaisalmer and postmortem report (Ex. P/18) was obtained by the Investigating Officer on 22.03.2007. Photographs of the site and dead body were also taken for the purpose of investigation. Foot mould of sleeper and tyre of motorcycle were also collected and after postmortem dead body of the deceased was handed over to his family members. 6. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused appellant for offence under Sections302 and 201 of IPC in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Jaisalmer, from where the case was committed for trial to the court of Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer. 7. The learned Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer after providing opportunity of hearing to the appellant, framed charges against the accused appellant for offence u/s. 302 and 201 of IPC, which he denied and prayed for trial. 8. In the trial, statements of 21 witnesses were recorded and thereafter statements of accused appellant were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he said that:- ^^esjs edku esa ejEer py jgh FkhA edku esa njokts ugha FksA eSa xkao okyks ds lkFk ryk'k djus x;k FkkA eSusa ml fnu Ldwy ugha [kksyh] yM+dk Ldwy ugha vk;k FkkA** 9. Although opportunity to lead evidence was granted to the accused appellant, however, no evidence was led by him. 10. The learned trial court heard the final arguments of both the parties, and vide judgment dated 06.10.2008 proceeded to convict the accused appellant for the offences under Sections 302 and 201of IPC and passed the sentence, mentioned above, which is under challenge in this appeal. 11. Learned counsel for the accused appellant vehemently argued that there is no eye witness in this case, the whole case is based upon circumstantial evidence of recovery of dead body and other articles, upon which blood of "B" group was found. However, upon consideration of entire evidence, it will reveal that finding arrived at by the trial court against the accused appellant holding him guilty for offences u/s. 302 and 201 of IPC is erroneous and far from the truth because the circumstance upon which the trial court has relied upon, does not prove the allegations levelled against the accused appellant, therefore, the appellant is entitled to be acquitted from the charges levelled against him. 12. 12. Learned counsel for the accused appellant further argued that in absence of direct evidence, although accused can be convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence, but in this case the trial court convicted the accused appellant only on the basis of statement of P.W. 5, Maru Khan, who claimed to be a witness of last seen with deceased and recovery of dead body of the deceased as per statement of this witness, the appellant was carrying the dead body of deceased in the jute sack on his motorcycle on the fateful day. Upon perusal of statement of Maru Khan (PW. 5), it is also obvious that he saw the accused from a distance of more than 1000 feet, therefore, it is impossible for any person to see the accused because visibility of a person from 1000 feet is not possible. It is also argued that there is no evidence on record to prove the motive or intention of the accused to commit murder of a 12 years old child. The trial court has totally mistaken the entire facts and while appreciating the evidence and holding accused appellant guilty because there is no truth in the testimony of the witness. 13. It is also argued by the learned counsel for the accused appellant that concocted prosecution evidence cannot be relied upon against the accused appellant because material witness of the prosecution stated that the accused made confession before them and said that with help of a stick ¼bZl½ injuries were caused to the person of deceased but in the postmortem report (Ex. P/18) the doctor categorically said that deceased died due to suffocation. Therefore, the alleged confession, which is said to be made by the accused appellant become meaningless. Learned counsel for the appellant submit that the theory of extra judicial confession, which is alleged to be made before the witnesses, has not been proved by the prosecution by leading trustworthy evidence, therefore, the judgment impugned deserves to be quashed. 14. With regard to evidence of recovery, it is submitted that the trial court has not relied upon the foot mould taken from the place i.e. near the Well, but relied upon the recovery of motorcycle and the said recovery cannot be treated to be proved because mandatory provisions of Section 27 of the Evidence Act as well as Section 100 Cr.P.C., have not been complied with. Therefore, these recoveries cannot connect the accused appellant directly or indirectly with the alleged crime. It is also argued that there is no whisper about the motive, the only assertion is made in the judgment impugned that the accused appellant had illicit relations with the sister of the deceased and the deceased saw the accused with his sister, therefore, due to fear as it would be open to all, therefore, he has committed offence of murder of a boy but it is very strange that not a single person has disclosed or stated on oath before the court that on the fateful day, such incident had taken place. In absence of any motive, and only on the basis of circumstantial evidence of recovery of dead body, clothes and motorcycle upon which blood was found, it cannot be said that the accused appellant is guilty for committing any offence. 15. The investigating officer has not conducted the investigation fairly. He has simply relied upon the testimony of P.W. 5, Maru Khan, for the purpose of investigation, therefore, the judgment impugned may kindly be quashed and the appellant be acquitted from the offences charged with. 16. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel appearing on behalf of complainant vehemently opposed these submissions and submitted that it is a case in which although there is no direct evidence but the provision has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt on the basis of circumstantial evidence. While inviting our attention towards written complaint (Ex. P/1) submitted by Kadar Khan (complainant), it is submitted that the allegations against the accused appellant were not made directly, whereas the report was lodged with respect to missing of Mugar Khan (deceased) as he did not come from the school after school hours. Thereafter search was made from accused appellant, Banwari Lal, Teacher by the complainant as well as his family members of the deceased, but he said that after school hours, he left the school for his home. The complainant relied upon the version given by the accused appellant but on the next day when complainant party went again for search in the morning, then witness P.W. 5 Maru Khan, apprised them that yesterday at about 12'O clock, when I reached Lolai Pond with camels for providing water to camels, at that time, Phulie Khan S/o. Sahar Khan was also there. Phulie Khan informed that accused appellant was carrying some material in a jute sack and thrown the jute sack in to the well. Both these witnesses have specifically stated that they saw the accused appellant carrying a jute sack on the motorcycle, but they did not know what material was in the sack. 17. Upon the aforesaid information given by P.W. 5, Maru Khan, complainant Kadar Khan filed FIR, upon which investigation was conducted and after registration of FIR. Thereafter upon the information given by accused appellant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the dead body of deceased was recovered from the Well and as per information furnished, one "Payjama" (hose), shirt, pant, blood scattered swab were recovered vide Ex. P/40, Ex. P/41 and Ex. P/42 and the same were sent to FSL for examination. 18. The FSL report (Ex. P/43) was received on 03.04.2007 during the investigation, which human blood of "B" group was found upon all the articles, therefore, it cannot be said that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of circumstantial evidence. 19. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of complainant further argued that complete chain of circumstance has been established to prove the case against the accused appellant, therefore, the finding arrived at by the learned trial court holding the appellant guilty for committing offence under Section 302 and 201 of IPC cannot be disturbed. It is further argued that the entire evidence on record loudly speaks that the dead body of deceased Mugar Khan was recovered as per information given by the accused appellant. Blood was found upon the jute sack, motorcycle and clothes of the accused appellant himself. All those articles were sent for chemical analysis to the FSL, in which human blood group of "B" group was found. 20. It is also submitted that two witnesses, namely, P.W. 5 Maru Khan and P.W. 10, Phulie Khan categorically stated before the court that on the date of incident they saw accused appellant carrying a jute sack on motorcycle and the said jute sake was thrown by him (appellant) in the well, in which dead body of the deceased was recovered on the basis of information furnished by the appellant during investigation. Therefore, it is a case in which trustworthy and reliable evidence produced by the prosecution has been relied upon by the learned trial court so as to hold accused appellant guilty and, thus there is no strength in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that prosecution has failed to prove its case on the basis of circumstantial evidence. Thus, it was prayed by the learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant that the appeal may kindly be dismissed. 21. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we have perused the entire evidence. 22. Admittedly the FIR was registered against the accused appellant on 22.03.2007 on the basis of written complaint filed by P.W. 1-Kadar Khan. Thus, it was prayed by the learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant that the appeal may kindly be dismissed. 21. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we have perused the entire evidence. 22. Admittedly the FIR was registered against the accused appellant on 22.03.2007 on the basis of written complaint filed by P.W. 1-Kadar Khan. The said witness categorically stated before the court on oath that:- ^^l'kiFk c;ku fd;k fd e`rd eqxjs [kka iq= eh?ks [kka esjk ppsjk HkkbZ FkkA eqyfte cuokjhyky dks eSa tkurk gaw tks vkt gkftj vnkyr gSA ;s jktdh; izkFkfed fo|ky;] lenQdhj dh <k.kh esa v/;kid FkkA eqxjs [kka eqyfte okyh Ldwy esa gh pkSFkh d{kk esa i<+rk FkkA 21-3-2007 dks djhc lk<+s 9 cts lqcg eqxjs [kka Ldwy ds fy, x;k FkkA Ldwy dh NqV~Vh dk le; 5 cts dk Fkk] ij bl le; rd ?kj ugha vk;kA Ldwy ls ?kj ugha vkus dh ckr eq>s esjs pkpk ehnsa [kka us crkbZA rc eSusa xkao esa] vkl ikl esa iwNrkN dhA eSusa o vyh [kka] >cjs [kka o cgknqj [kka us feydj eqxjs [kka dh ryk'k dh ij dksbZ irk ugha yxkA rc eSa o essjs lkFk okys x;s vkSj gkftj vnkyr eqyfte ls Ldwy tkdj iwNk fd eqxjs vHkh rd ?kj ugha vk;k gS] D;k ckr gSA rc blus crk;k fd NqV~Vh gks xbZ gS] oks ?kj gh x;k gksxkA rc geus jkr Hkj eqxjs [kka dh ryk'k dh] ij dksbZ irk ugha pykA fQj lqcg Hkh mldh ryk'k dh] rc lqcg djhc 7 cts ek: [kka iq= dams [kka us crk;k fd viuh Ldwy ds v/;kid cuokjhyky dy fnu esa djhc 12 cts dkyh eksVjlkbZfdy ij vkxs ,d cksjh yknh gqbZ mRrj dh rjQ lh/kk tk jgk FkkA rc fQj geus rhuks us ftuds uke Åij crk;s gS] us gkftj vnkyr eqyfte ls nqckjk iwNrkN dh rks igys rks mlus vkukdkuh dh] ckn esa rlYyh ls iwNus ij eqyfte us crk;k fd dy eSusa djhc lk<s 9 cts ds vklikl eqxjs [kka dks Ldwy ds dejs esa pkjikbZ dh bZl ls ekjihV dj mlds eqag o ukd dks cUn dj lkal ?kqVkdj] ekj fn;k gSA vkSj crk;k fd yk'k dks chnk xkao dh rjQ ls tkdj lqus daq, esa cksjh esa Mkydj Qsad nh gSA fQj pkj ge vkSj eqyfte dqa, ij x;sA daq, ds vkl ikl ekLVj ds lsafMdy ds fu'kku vkSj eksVjlkbZfdy ds Vk;jksa ds fu'kku ogka ekStwn FksA v/;kid gkftj vnkyr eqyfte us viuk tqeZ dcwy dj fy;kA fQj ge ogka ls okfil vk;s vkSj fjiksVZ fy[kkdj gkftj vnkyr eqyfte dks lkFk ysdj iqfyl dks is'k fd;kA 23. In the cross-examination also, although number of questions were put to the said witness, but P.W. 1 reiterated his allegations made by him in the complaint. 24. P.W. 2-Chanda Singh is the witness before whom the room where the incident took place, was inspected and Ex. P/2 was prepared. The said witness categorically said that in Room No. 2 of the school at village Faledi, where blood and books were spread over on the floor. 25. P.W. 3-Janab Khan is the witness before whom Room No. 2 of the school was inspected and foot mount were taken from the site vide Ex. P/6. The dead body was also recovered in his presence vide Ex. P/7. He has specifically stated in his statement that the Well in which the dead body was found, was 500 Ft. deep. He further deposed that all the articles were collected in his presence including dead body of the deceased. In the cross-examination he has reiterated the facts of recovery of dead body at the instance of accused appellant. 26. P.W. 4-Bahadur Khan stated before the court that on the date of incident, father of deceased, Mige Khan, his nephew Kadar Khan, Jhabre Khan, Ali Khan met him and they informed that son of Mighe Khan did not return from the school. The said witness specifically supported the prosecution case that information was given by the accused appellant, Banwari Lal, so also he was seen by Maru Khan when he was going on the motorcycle carrying one jute sack at 12'O clock and was going towards village Bida. 27. P.W. 5-Maru Khan, is the witness upon whose testimony the trial court relied upon. 27. P.W. 5-Maru Khan, is the witness upon whose testimony the trial court relied upon. The said witness gave following statement, which reads as infra:- ^^l'kiFk c;ku fd;k fd eSa gkftj vnkyr cuokjhyky ekLVj dks tkurk gawA ;s len Qdhn dh Ldwy] QysM+h esa v/;kid yxk gqvk FkkA vkt ls djhc rhu ekg igys dh ckr gSA eSa xkao ls ÅaV ysdj yksykbZ rkykc x;k Fkk rks eSusa ns[kk fd cuokjhyky dkys jax dh eksVjlkbZfdy ij vkxs cksjh ykns gq, Ldwy dh rjQ ls chnk xkao dh rjQ tk jgk FkkA eSusa chnk dh rjQ jksM+ ij tkrs gq, bldks ns[kk FkkA ;s ns[kus dh ckr dh ckr djhc 12 cts dh gSA fQj eSa yksykbZ rkykc igqapkA ogka igqapdj eSusa ÅaV dks ikuh fiyk;k rks ogka ij Qwys [kka iq= lgM+ [kka feykA oks viuh HksM+ks dks ikuh fiykus ogka vk;k FkkA HksM+ks dks ikuh fiykdj ge ckr djus cSBs rc mlus eq>s crk;k fd len Qdh dh Ldwy ds v/;kid us eksVjlkbZfdy ij cksjh yk;k vkSj daq, esa og cksjh Mky nhA eSus mlls dgk fd eSaus Hkh mls eksVjlkbZfdy ij cksjh ykndj ys tkrs chnk dh rjQ tkrs gq, ns[kk gSA cksjh esa lkeku D;k gS] eq>s irk ugha pykA Qwys [kka viuh HksMsa ysdj vius xkao pyk x;k vkSj eSa ÅaV ij vius xkao pyk vk;kA nwljs fnu lqcg esjs ikl dkn [kka] vyh [kka cgknqj [kka vkSj >cjs [kka vk;s vkSj esjs ls iwNk fd eqxjs [kka dks rqeus dgha ns[kk gS D;k vkSj os cksys fd eqxjs [kka dy Ldwy ls okfil ugha vk;k gSA eSaus mUgsa crk;k fd cuokjhyky ekLVj eksVjlkbZfdy ij cksjh ykns gq, chnk xkao dh rjQ fnu ds 12 cts tk jgk Fkk] ftls eSusa ns[kk FkkA fQj ;s pkjksa ekLVj ds ?kj x;sA eSa muds lkFk ugha x;kA** 28. P.W. 6 - Aalam Khan, stated before the court that in the Well situated in Village Faledi, as per information given by accused appellant Banwari Lal, police recovered the dead body of Mugar Khan from the well in his presence and Ex. P/3 was also prepared, upon which I put my signatures. The dead body was thereafter handed over vide Ex. P/4 to Kadar Khan for cremation. "Panchnama" (Ex. P/9) was also prepared in his presence. In the cross-examination, he has reiterated the fact of recovery of dead body in front of him. 29. P/3 was also prepared, upon which I put my signatures. The dead body was thereafter handed over vide Ex. P/4 to Kadar Khan for cremation. "Panchnama" (Ex. P/9) was also prepared in his presence. In the cross-examination, he has reiterated the fact of recovery of dead body in front of him. 29. P.W. 7-Hingola Khan stated before the court that one stick ¼bZl½ was recovered from the house of accused appellant vide Ex. P/12 in his presence. The police after recovery, prepared recovery memo and the same was kept and sealed in a white colour cloth bag on the spot and the Far was prepared (Ex. P/12), upon which I put my signatures. The blood stained pant of the accused appellant was recovered vide Ex. P/13 in his presence from the house of accused appellant. In the cross-examination it is stated by the said witness that accused appellant himself said that room from where, pant was recovered, belongs to him. ^^eqxjs [kkaa e`rd fens [kka dk cSBk FkkA vkt ls djhc pkj eghuks igys dh ckr gSA eSaus lquk Fkk fd eqxjs [kka dks ekLVj gkftj vnkyr eqyfte cuokjhyky us ekjdj daaq, esa Mky fn;k gSA eSa Hkh vU; yksxks ds lkFk dqa, ij x;kA eSa x;k rc ogka lh-vkbZ- lkgc] iqfyl okys] tkuc [kka] gkth es.kw] vkye [kka vkfn yksx o panu flag ogka ekStwn FksA daq, esa dksbZ ugha mrjk FkkA eSaus igys fcykbZ dqa, esa Mkyh] ftlls esa cksjh vM+dj ckgj vkbZA cksjh ij [kwu yxk gqvk FkkA blds ckn eSaus HksM+ ds cPps dks ckYVh esa Mkydj daq, esa mrkjk rkfd irk yx lds fd dqa, esa tgjhyh xSl gS ;k ughA FkksM+h nsj ckn ckYVh dks ckgj fudkyk rks HksM+ dk cPpk ftank fudykA fQj ckr pyh fd daq, esa dkSu mrjsxk] dksbZ rS;kj ugha gqvk rks eSa rS;kj gqvkA eq>s jLlh ls cka/kk vkSj ,d vU; jLlh eq>s idM+kbZA eq>s ,d ykbZV Hkh lkFk esa lh-vkj- lkgc us nh fd ;fn yk'k feys rks ykbZV Åij djukA eSa uhps daq, esa mrjk vkSj yk'k dks vanj ik;kA eSaus yk'k dks daq, ls ckgj yk;kA ckgj vkus ds ckn eSa csgks'k gks x;kA MkDVj us esjs lqbZ yxkbZ rc eq>s gks'k vk;kA dqavk djhc 500 QhV xgjk FkkA daqvk lq[kk FkkA** 30. P.W. 8-Subhaga Khan, is the witness who was present at the time of recovery of dead body at the instance of accused appellant. P.W. 8-Subhaga Khan, is the witness who was present at the time of recovery of dead body at the instance of accused appellant. The dead body of Mugar Khan was recovered from the Well and the said witness fetched the dead body from the Well. The said witness gave following statement, which reads as infra: 31. Witness P.W. 9-Sadre Khan is the witness from whom the motorcycle No. GJ-09-R-7651 (TVS Victor) was taken by Banwari Lal on 21.03.2007 at 10'O Clock. The said witness has proved the said fact. 32. The said witness gave following statement, which reads as infra: 31. Witness P.W. 9-Sadre Khan is the witness from whom the motorcycle No. GJ-09-R-7651 (TVS Victor) was taken by Banwari Lal on 21.03.2007 at 10'O Clock. The said witness has proved the said fact. 32. P.W. 10-Phulie Khan is the witness who has categorically stated the following statement, which reads as infra:- ^^vkt ls djhc pkj eghus igys dh ckr gSA eSa QysM+h xkao ds jksM+ ds nf{k.k esa FkkA fnu ds 12 cts dh ckr gSA cq/kokj dk fnu FkkA eSa esjh HksM+ks ds ihNs FkkA jksM+ ij eSaus ns[kk fd jksM ij ekLVj eksVjlkbZfdy ij tk jgk Fkk] vkxs cksjh idM+s gq, FkhA ekLVj vkt gkftj vnkyr eqfyte gSA eksVjlkbZfdy dkys jax dh FkhA eksVjlkbZfdy ij vkxs cksjh idM+s gq, FkkA cksjh eksVjlkbZfdy ij idM+s gq, ekLVj xksykbZ <y x;kA cksjh dgka j[kh] dgka ugha j[kh] irk ughaa] ij ekLVj okfil esjh rjQ vk x;kA mlus eksVjlkbZfdy jksM+ ij jksdh vkSj og esjs ikl vk;k vkSj eq>s dgk fd ikuh fiykvksA esjs ikl ikuh ugha FkkA mlus dgk fd rw ikuh dgka ls ihdj vk;k gS] eSaus dgka Vkad ij ls ihdj vk;k gawA eq>s mlus dgk fd lkFk pydj ikuh fiykvks] bl ij eSaus dgk fd esjh HksM+s pyh tk;sxhA fQj og ekLVj Ldwy ls fQj dgk eksVjlkbZfdy ls mrj dj jksM+ ij cSB x;kA eSa vkxs pyk x;kA eSaus vkxs tkdj ihNs ns[kk fd ekLVj ihNs cSBk gSA eq>s ml ij 'kd gqvk fd vHkh rks ;s I;kl yxus dk dg jgk Fkk vHkh jksM+ ij D;ksa cSBk gSA eSa Hkh vkxs tkdj 200 iksaMk nwjh ij cSB x;kA ekLVj okfil eksVjlkbZfdy ysdj chnk jksM ij jokuk gks x;kA fQj eksVjlkbZfdy ij cksjh Mkydj ys tkrs gq, mls eSaus ns[kkA fQj eksVjlkbZfdy ij cksjh Mkydj ekLVj daq, ij x;kA cksjh nksuksa gkFkksa ls idM+dj ekLVj us daq, ij mYVh dh] tks eSaus ns[kkA cksjh mBkdj daq, dh [ksyh ds vUnj iVdh] eSa ns[krk jgkA fQj og dqa, dh [ksyh ds vUnj ?kqlkA [ksyh esa ls cksjh mBkdj dqa, ds vUnj Mky nh eSa ns[krk jgkA blds ckn ekLVj cksjh daq, esa Mkydj le/kkf.k;ksa dh jksM+ ij eksVjlkbZfdy ij p<+dj jokuk gks x;kA ;s djhc 300&400 iksaMk le/kkf.k;ksa dh jksM+ ij tkdj ;s okfil eqM+kA dqa, ds utnhd vkus eksVjlkbZfdy jksM+ ds Åij [kM+h djds iSny pydj jksM+ ij ls daq, x;kA fQj daq, ij tkdj nks rhu iRFkj mBkdj daq, ds vUnj MkysA okfil iSny iSny eksVjlkbZfdy rd vk;kA fQj eksVjlkbZfdy jokuk dj le/kkf.k;ksa dh jksM+ rjQ jokuk gks x;kA fQj eSa viuh HksM+s ysdj yksykbZ rkykc pyk x;k vkSj viuh HksM+ks dks ikuh fiyk;kA vkSj ogka rykbZ ij ek: [kka Hkh viuk ÅaV ysdj vk x;kA -------** 33. P.W. 11-Jhabre Khan and P.W. 12 Mighe Khan (father of deceased) are the witnesses before whom the accused appellant made confession that he has killed Mugre Khan in the school and the dead body has been thrown by him in the well. As per their statements, the dead body was recovered in their presence. 34. P.W. 13-Narayan Singh, who was working as ASI at Police Station-Sam on 26.03.2007. The foot mould were taken in the presence of said witness. 35. P.W. 14 - Dr. R.P. Garg, who conducted the postmortem of the deceased. He has proved the postmortem report that opinion was given by me with regard to cause of death. 36. P.W. 15 - Shailendra Singh, is the photographer who took the photographs of the place of occurrence. 37. P.W. 16 - Santosh Lal, who was working as Constable at Police Station Sam, and the articles were handed over to him for deposited the same in the FSL, Jaipur. He has categorically proved that communication (Ex. P/32) & Ex. P/34 and said that articles were deposited in sealed condition at FSL. 38. P.W. 17 - Chutra Ram Vishnoi, P.W. 18 - Noor Khan, P.W. 19 - Ramlal Vishnoi, and P.W. 20 - Shaitan Singh, are the witness of investigation. They all proved the proceedings of investigation. 39. P.W. 21 - Rajesh Vishnoi, is the investigating officer of this case. All investigation was conducted by him and he specifically stated that the FIR was registered by him upon complaint made by Kadar Khan and thereafter the accused appellant was arrested. As per information, the dead body of deceased, Mugar Khan was recovered from an abandoned Well at village Faledi. 40. Upon assessment of entire evidence, it is obvious that the trial court has relied upon trustworthy and reliable testimony of the prosecution witnesses, so as to hold accused appellant guilty for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. It is true that there is no evidence of motive is on record, but at the time, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has proved the fact that blood was found in the class room (Room No. 2) of the school, where the deceased was a student of class 4th. 41. Admittedly, the accused appellant was teacher in the school where the deceased was student of Class 4th. 41. Admittedly, the accused appellant was teacher in the school where the deceased was student of Class 4th. The prosecution has proved the fact that on the date of incident, the accused appellant was seen by the witness P.W. 5 - Maru Khan, and P.W. 10 - Phulie Khan, carrying a jute sack on the motorcycle and threw the sack in the well. The prosecution has proved that the dead body of Mugar Khan was recovered from the Well as per information given by accused appellant. Upon the clothes viz. pant and shirt recovered as per information of the accused, and on the floor of the class room blood was found, which has been further fortified from the FSL report, therefore, all the circumstances have been proved by the prosecution to hold the accused appellant guilty for the offence of murder, which is punishable under Section 302 of IPC. 42. In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sharda vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the prosecution is required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, if the allegation is based on circumstantial evidence. The following parameters/guidelines are laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which reads as under:- A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established: (1) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between 'may be proved' and 'must be or should be proved' as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Another v. State of Maharashtra, where the following observations were made: "Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions." (2) 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. (3) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. (4) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. (5) 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. These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the Panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence." 43. In the instant case, upon consideration of entire evidence coupled with the findings of guilty recorded by the learned trial court, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all shadows of reasonable doubt and there is complete chain of circumstantial evidence, which has been amply established so as to hold accused appellant guilty for committing murder of a 12 years boy. 44. Consequently, in view of above discussion, we find no merit in the present appeal filed by the accused appellant and the same is hereby dismissed.