Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2802 (RAJ)

Surajmal Urf Ram Swaroop v. State Of Rajasthan

2017-12-16

GOVERDHAN BARDHAR, KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

body2017
JUDGMENT Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) - The case of the prosecution as per the first charge formulated by the trial court is that on the intervening night of 20th and 21st of September, 2010, in revenue estate of village Moja Tokaspura, murder of Ramphool Meena was caused with incised weapon like axe etc., and thus, five accused namely Shahnaz wife of Pappu Khan, Rodu Lal son of Gangaram, Surajmal @ Ramswaroop son of Kesari Lal, Onkar son of Ram Lal and Hajari son of Suwa Lal committed offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC. The second charge was also formulated, wherein it was stated that since accused knew that Ramphool Meena was member of Scheduled Tribe, thus, they had committed offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter called as ''SC/ST Act''). 2. The accused appellants had denied above charges, hence, they were tried in Sessions Case No. 2/11. The prosecution to secure conviction of the appellants, examined twenty one witnesses, namely Jai Ram (P.W.1), Shyopal (P.W.2), Jyoti Tiwari (P.W.3), Sabu Lal (P.W.4), Kalyan (P.W.5), Dinesh Kumar (P.W.6), Mohan Lal (P.W.7), Bina Kumari (p.W.8), Amrit Mani (P.W.9), Bholi Bai (P.W.10), Chandrabhan Singh (P.W.11), Dr. Hari Prasad Lakwal (P.W.12), Bhanwar Lal s/o Ram Chandra (P.W.13), Bhanwar Lal s/o Jai Lal (P.W.14), Kumari Poorti Bai (P.W.15), Mahesh Punetha (P.W.16), Ram Sahai (P.W.17), Manak Lal (P.W.18), Rajesh Kumar (P.W.19), Chhotu Lal (P.W.20) and Prakash Kumar Sharma (P.W.21). 3. Thereafter, the statement of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused denied all incriminating evidence put to them. The prosecution besides oral evidence, has also proved on record documents Exhibit-P/1 to Exhibit-P/60. No defence witness was examined, however, defence relied upon statement of Bholi Bai and Manak Chand recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., as Exhibit-D/1 and Exhibit-D/2, respectively. 4. After conclusion of the trial, the court of Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Bundi, Rajasthan vide impugned judgment dated 30.7.2012, acquitted the accused Shahnaz and Onkar of offence under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act. However, the said court held all the accused persons guilty of offence under Section 302/34 IPC. Having convicted the accused for the aforesaid offences, the trial court vide a separate order of even date, sentenced the appellants as under :- U/s. 302/34 IPC-to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. However, the said court held all the accused persons guilty of offence under Section 302/34 IPC. Having convicted the accused for the aforesaid offences, the trial court vide a separate order of even date, sentenced the appellants as under :- U/s. 302/34 IPC-to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-each, in default thereof to undergo additional six months SI. 5. Aggrieved against their conviction and sentence, Surajmal @ Ram Swaroop has filed appeal through Jail which has been registered as D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 816/2012. Onkar preferred D.B. Cr. Appeal No. 741/2012, whereas, Rodulal through Jail filed appeal which was assigned docket No. D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 817/2012. Hajari instituted D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 823/2012, whereas Smt. Shahnaz preferred appeal D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 887/2012. Since in all the appeals, common impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been assailed, we shall decide all the appeals together. 6. The criminal proceedings in the present case were set into motion on the basis of written report (Exhibit-P/32), presented by Bholi Bai (P.W.10), before Rajesh Kumar Soni (P.W.19), who was then posted as SHO, Police Station Indragarh. 7. Rajesh Kumar Soni (P.W.19) in the court deposed that on 21.9.2010, he was posted as SHO, Police Station Indragarh. On the said day, at 1:00 PM, he received telephonic information that in village Tokaspura, dead body of Ramphool Meena is lying and he has been brutally murdered. This witness entered the information received in the Daily Diary Register and thereafter, in police jeep proceeded to the spot. At the spot, Bholi Bai (P.W.10) presented written report (Exhibit-P/32). Upon receipt of written report, same was sent to the police station for registration of formal FIR. On the basis of written report (Exhibit-P/32), formal FIR bearing No. 118/2010 was registered at Police Station Indragarh, Bundi for offence under Section 302/34 IPC. Formal FIR has not been exhibited on record. 8. Rajesh Kumar Soni (P.W.19) remained at the spot. He got spot photographed and has proved photographs on record vide Exhibit-P/7. The said photographs were attested by Jai Ram (P.W.1) and Babu (not examined). Thereafter, investigating officer prepared site plan (Exhibit-P/1), which was attested by Babu (not examined). Thereafter, panchnama/inquest of dead body (Exhibit-P/2) was prepared. The inquest was attested by Babu (not examined), Ram Sahai (P.W.17) and Ram Karan (not examined). The said photographs were attested by Jai Ram (P.W.1) and Babu (not examined). Thereafter, investigating officer prepared site plan (Exhibit-P/1), which was attested by Babu (not examined). Thereafter, panchnama/inquest of dead body (Exhibit-P/2) was prepared. The inquest was attested by Babu (not examined), Ram Sahai (P.W.17) and Ram Karan (not examined). This witness being investigating officer, lifted blood stained soil and simple soil from the spot for sample vide memo Exhibit-P/3 and said memo was also attested by Babu (not examined). From the spot, investigating officer had lifted one bottle, one quarter of liquor, utensils in which meat was cooked and other clothes and same were taken into possession vide memo Exhibit-P/4. The said memo was also attested by Babu (not examined). Thereafter, investigating officer reached Government Hospital, Indragarh. He took into possession blood stained clothes of Ramphool Meena, which consisted of shirt, vest and Safi. They were taken into possession vide Exhibit-P/5 and they were attested by Babu (not examined). Thereafter, dead body of Ramphool Meena was handed over to his brother Sabu Lal (P.W.4) vide memo Exhibit-P/6, which was attested by Manak Lal (P.W.18) son of deceased. Thereafter, Rajesh Kumar Soni (P.W.19) had recorded the statement (Exhibit-D/1) of Bholi Bai (P.W.10) under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Investigating Officer further stated that later he received information that one lady is searching for her daughter at Railway Station. He reached there and arrested Shahnaz vide arrest memo Exhibit-P/33. The said arrest memo was attested by Jyoti Tiwari (P.W.3) and Laxman Singh (not examined). At the time of arrest, Dupatta worn by Shahnaz which was stained with blood was taken into possession vide memo Exhibit-P/8. The said memo Exhibit-P/8 was attested by Jyoti Tiwari (P.W.3) and Constable Laxman Singh. 9. Another investigating officer, Prakash Kumar Sharma (P.W.21) stated that on 24.9.2010, he was posted as Circle Officer at Lakheri. Investigation of the case FIR No. 118/2010 was entrusted to him. He interrogated Shahnaz, who was in police custody. Thereafter, he had arrested Rodu Lal, Suraj Mal @ Ram Swaroop, and Onkar vide memo Exhibit-P/35, Exhibit-P/36 and Exhibit-P/37, respectively. 10. On 26.9.2010, Rodu Lal made a disclosure statement Exhibit-P/38 and in pursuance thereof, got one axe recovered vide memo Exhibit-P/31. On the said date, Suraj Mal @ Ram Swaroop also made a disclosure statement that he had kept concealed axe used in crime and he can get the same recovered. 10. On 26.9.2010, Rodu Lal made a disclosure statement Exhibit-P/38 and in pursuance thereof, got one axe recovered vide memo Exhibit-P/31. On the said date, Suraj Mal @ Ram Swaroop also made a disclosure statement that he had kept concealed axe used in crime and he can get the same recovered. The disclosure statement made by Suraj Mal @ Ram Swaroop has been proved on record as Exhibit-P/39. In pursuance of the said disclosure statement (Exhibit-P/39), one axe was recovered vide memo Exhibit-P/29. Thereafter, Onkar during interrogation also made a disclosure statement (Exhibit-P/40) that he had kept concealed Safi stained with blood and he can get the same recovered. In pursuance of disclosure statement (Exhibit-P/40), Onkar got blood stained Safi recovered vide memo Exhibit-P/30. Prakash Kumar Sharma (P.W.21) has further stated that on 29.9.2010, Rajesh Kumar Soni (P.W.19) had interrogated Hajari. Thereafter, he also interrogated him and he made a disclosure statement (Exhibit-P/42) and stated that he had kept one axe concealed. In pursuance of disclosure statement (Exhibit-P/42), Hajari got recovered axe vide memo Exhibit-P/34. After interrogation Hajari was arrested at Police Station vide arrest memo Exhibit-P/41. 11. Prakash Kumar Sharma (P.W.21), further stated that on 10.11.2010, photographs of the spot were handed over to him and said photographs are Exhibit-P/43 to Exhibit-P/53. 12. Having noted the broad features of the investigation carried, after receipt of information that a dead body is lying in village Tokaspura, we shall now notice as to how the prosecution case had unfolded itself. 13. Bholi Bai (P.W.10) in written report (Exhibit-P/32) had made a grievance that the accused had come and had stayed with her husband. The written report (Exhibit-P/32) when translated into English reads as under:- "To SHO Saheb Police Station Indragarh District Bundi (Raj). Subject: Regarding lodging report of murder of my husband Sir, 14. It is submitted that today on 21.9.2010, Tuesday, at about 12:00 PM, I have taken meals for my husband Ramphool son of Morpal Meena at the Well in our field. I found my husband lying dead on the bed. He had received injuries on his neck and the head. Lot of blood was oozing out. My husband was staying in the field at the Well by raising thatched roof. I found my husband lying dead on the bed. He had received injuries on his neck and the head. Lot of blood was oozing out. My husband was staying in the field at the Well by raising thatched roof. From the last four days, Rodu Lal son of Gangaram by caste Mehar r/o Chhoti Sunel District Jhalawar and Ram Swaroop and one another person whose name is not known and one lady Shahnaz d/o Bashir Tailor Musalman R/o Chhoti Sunel District Jhalawar were staying. Three persons and one woman had come and they were staying at the Well. Shahnaz was accompanied by his younger son aged two years and daughter Muskan aged seven years. Yesterday, two persons also came to meet them. After sometime they had gone back. Their names and address are not known to me. Yesterday evening, my daughter Beena and Poorti brought Muskan daughter of Shahnaz to our house. She stayed for whole night with us. In the morning, my daughter had gone to leave Muskan at the Well. She after leaving Muskan at a distance from Well had returned. Today I have come to the Well and found my husband dead. None has met me there. I was accompanied by my daughter Poorti. She went to the village and informed my daughter Beena and mother-in-law Dhapu Bai. They came at the Well. Somebody from village had given information to the police. Police had arrived. I have suspicion that above said persons after committing murder of my husband had decamped from the spot. In case they are brought before me, I can identify. Report is presented for action. 21.9.2010 RTI Applicant Bholi Bai w/o Ramphool Meena R/o Tokaspura." 15. So far prosecution case, which has been noted by us, depicts following circumstances:- (a) That Shahnaz along with Rodu Lal, Suraj Mal @ Ram Swaroop and one another unknown person had stayed at the Well of deceased Ramphool for 3-4 days and at the time when dead body was found, above said persons were not found there. (b) That during investigation, one Dupatta stained with blood was recovered from Shahnaz vide memo Exhibit-P/8. (c) That from Rodu Lal and Suraj Mal @ Ramswaroop in pursuance of their disclosure statements, two axes were recovered, separately, vide memo Exhibit-P/31 and Exhibit-P/29, respectively. Onkar in pursuance of disclosure statement (Exhibit-P/40) got recovered one Safi vide memo Exhibit-P/30. (b) That during investigation, one Dupatta stained with blood was recovered from Shahnaz vide memo Exhibit-P/8. (c) That from Rodu Lal and Suraj Mal @ Ramswaroop in pursuance of their disclosure statements, two axes were recovered, separately, vide memo Exhibit-P/31 and Exhibit-P/29, respectively. Onkar in pursuance of disclosure statement (Exhibit-P/40) got recovered one Safi vide memo Exhibit-P/30. Hajari had suffered disclosure statement (Exhibit-P/42) and in pursuance thereof got recovered one axe vide memo Exhibit-P/34. 16. Now, we shall take note of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. 17. Jai Ram (P.W.1) in the court stated that he knew deceased Ramphool and Bholi Bai (P.W.10) wife of Ramphool but accused Shahnaz, Rodu Lal, Ramswaroop were not know to me. This witness stated that he had gone to the Well. He attested site plan (Exhibit-P/1). He has also attested inquest (Exhibit-P/2) and had also attested memo Exhibit-P/3, whereby blood stained earth and simple soil were taken into possession by the police. He has also attested memo Exhibit-P/4, whereby one bottle, quarter of liquor, utensils used for cooking meat and clothes were taken into possession. This witness stated that police had also taken clothes of one woman into possession. This witness has also attested photographs taken at the spot. In cross-examination, this witness stated that no accused is known to him by face. Thus, this witness is regarding recoveries effected from the spot. So far incriminating evidence and circumstance is concerned, this witness has not advanced the case of the prosecution. 18. Shyopal (P.W.2) in the court stated that Ramphool deceased was known to him. He heard about his death. He had attested inquest (Exhibit-P/2). 19. Constable Jyoti Tiwari (P.W.3) in the court stated that on 21.9.2010, she was posted in the office of Circle Officer, Lakheri. On the said date, police had recovered Dupatta of Shahnaz and same was taken into possession vide memo Exhibit-P/8. In crossexamination, this witness admitted that Dupatta, which was taken into possession as case property, has not been produced in the court. This witness stated that she is not aware as to what was the colour of Dupatta and whether it was torn or not. This witness further stated that she is not aware as to who was other Mohtabir, who had attested memo Exhibit-P/8. 20. Sabu Lal (P.W.4) younger brother of deceased Ramphool, in the court proved Exhibit-P/6, whereby dead body was handed over to him. This witness further stated that she is not aware as to who was other Mohtabir, who had attested memo Exhibit-P/8. 20. Sabu Lal (P.W.4) younger brother of deceased Ramphool, in the court proved Exhibit-P/6, whereby dead body was handed over to him. 21. Kalyan (P.W.5) in the court stated that he is having a meat shop. This witness stated that deceased Ramphool Meena used to visit him. A year ago Ramphool Meena had purchased meat from his shop and thereafter, Ramphool is in the jail. This witness stated that a year ago, he had gone to Bundi Jail and he had identified Ramphool. This witness in the court touched the person Hajari and stated that he had purchased the meat from his shop. This witness proved Test Identification proceedings vide memo Exhibit-P/9. 22. Dinesh Kumar (P.W.6) in the court stated that he is a salesman at liquor vend at Sumerganj. Six to seven months ago, a person had purchased liquor from his shop. He stated that one person came to his shop and another person accompanying him was standing at a distance at Choraha. This witness stated that after taking liquor Ramphool left. This witness in the court identified said person as Hajari, who had come to his shop to purchase liquor. This witness stated that he had identified the said person in the Test Identification proceedings (Exhibit-P/9). 23. Mohan Lal (P.W.7) in the court stated that he was married with Santosh. His wife had died. His cousin Bhanwar Lal told him that in village Tokaspuriya one woman is there and he can talk about his alliance with her. They came to Tokaspura. They talked with four persons. One lady was along with them. She demanded Rs. 1 Lakh. Then the matter was settled for Rs. Ninety Five Thousand. At that time, at the place of Ramphool Meena, there were three persons and two ladies. This witness stated that he later learnt that Ramphool has been murdered. He had gone to Bundi Jail and in Test Identification proceedings, had identified Rodu Lal, Suraj Mal @ Ram Swaroop and Onkar vide Exhibit-P/10, Exhibit-P/11 and Exhibit-P/12, respectively. This witness in the court stated that he was called by the police after two - three days. The police had obtained his signatures on blank papers. 24. He had gone to Bundi Jail and in Test Identification proceedings, had identified Rodu Lal, Suraj Mal @ Ram Swaroop and Onkar vide Exhibit-P/10, Exhibit-P/11 and Exhibit-P/12, respectively. This witness in the court stated that he was called by the police after two - three days. The police had obtained his signatures on blank papers. 24. Bina Kumari (P.W.8) in the court stated that she along with her mother was staying in village Tokaspura. Her father was doing agricultural work. Since the field was at a distance, his father had built a house in the field also. This witness stated that Suraj Mal @ Ramswaroop and other four accused which included a lady had come to stay at their Well. This witness stated that on the day, murder of her father took place, accused were not there. Constable Amrit Mani (P.W.9) deposed in the court stated that Constable Chandrabhan Singh (P.W.11) had handed over eight packets to him and he had carried the same to the FSL. 25. Bholi Bai (P.W.10) is wife of Ramphool. She is complainant. She has reiterated that accused had come to stay with her husband and when she went and found the dead body of her husband, accused were missing. 26. Chandrabhan Singh (P.W.11) has been examined to prove link evidence. He was incharge of Malkhana at Police Station Indragarh. This witness stated that sealed packets were deposited with him and same were sent to FSL through Constable Amrit Mani (P.W.9). 27. Dr. Hari Prasad Lakhwal (P.W.12) had conducted autopsy on the dead body. We need not notice the injuries on the dead body of Ramphool, as it is admitted case of the prosecution and defence that in the present case, Ramphool Meena had died because of violence. 28. Bhanwar Lal (P.W.13) son of Ram Chandra in the court has stated that he along with Mohan Lal (P.W.7) had gone to Well of Ramphool to settle alliance between Shahnaz and Mohan Lal (P.W.7). This witness has stated that at that time, accused were present at the Well of Ramphool Meena, where the occurrence has taken place and he had identified accused in Test Identification proceedings carried. This witness stated that the police personnel had already introduced accused to him. 29. This witness has stated that at that time, accused were present at the Well of Ramphool Meena, where the occurrence has taken place and he had identified accused in Test Identification proceedings carried. This witness stated that the police personnel had already introduced accused to him. 29. Bhanwar Lal (P.W.14) son of Jai Lal in the court stated that he alongwith Hajari accused and Bhanwar Lal (P.W.13) and Mohan Lal (P.W.7) had gone to Tokaspura to the Well of Ramphool deceased. They had to settle alliance of Mohan Lal (P.W.7). Mohan Lal is his relative. There they were made to meet Shahnaz. It was settled for Rs. Ninety Five Thousand and it was agreed that Shahnaz will come and stay with Mohan Lal (P.W.7). Towards advance for settlement of alliance, they had given Rs. 500/-. Next day Bhanwar Lal informed on telephone that Ramphool has been murdered. 30. Poorti Bai (P.W.15) is another daughter of Ramphool Meena deceased. She has supported her mother Bholi Bai (P.W.10) and sister Beena (P.W.8) regarding stay of accused at the field of Ramphool Meena. 31. Mahesh Punetha (P.W.16) was posted as Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bundi. On 10.11.2010, he had conducted Test Identification proceedings and accused were identified by the witnesses, as those who had stayed at the Well in the field of Ramphool Meena. 32. Ram Sahai (P.W.17) in the court deposed that 5-6 days after the murder of Ramphool Meena, Onkar got one Safi recovered from Railway quarter. Suraj Mal @ Ramswaroop and Rodu Lal got axe recovered, from the place and spot disclosed by them. 33. Manak Lal (P.W.18) son of deceased Ramphool Meena in the court stated that his father had expired on 20.9.2010. On 17th and 18th of September, 2010 he had gone to his field and had found Suraj Mal @ Ramswaroop, Rodu Lal, Shahnaz and one another person were staying at the field of his father. 34. We have already noticed the testimony of Rajesh Kumar Soni (P.W.19) and Prakash Kumar Sharma (P.W.21). 35. Chhotu Lal (P.W.20) who had identified Hajari has not supported the prosecution case. 36. As already stated, all incriminating evidence was put to accused. They denied the same and pleaded false implication. 37. The prosecution has proved on record report of Forensic Science Laboratory as Exhibit-P/59. 35. Chhotu Lal (P.W.20) who had identified Hajari has not supported the prosecution case. 36. As already stated, all incriminating evidence was put to accused. They denied the same and pleaded false implication. 37. The prosecution has proved on record report of Forensic Science Laboratory as Exhibit-P/59. As per said report, blood smeared soil, shirt, vest and Safi of the deceased were having human blood. Similarly, Dupatta recovered from Shahnaz, three axes recovered from three different accused and Safi from Onkar were also found to be stained with human blood. However, on all the above articles, blood group has not been determined as it was found inconclusive. 38. In the present case of circumstantial evidence, prosecution relied upon two circumstances. The prosecution has conclusively proved that on the night when occurrence took place accused were at the Well in the field and they had taken liquor and eaten meat at the Well. Thereafter, the accused after murder had taken place, were not found at the spot. Purportedly, they ran away from the scene of occurrence. Second circumstances relied by the prosecution is recovery of Dupatta from accused Shahnaz, Safi from Onkar and axe each from Rodu Lal, Suraj Mal @ Ramswaroop and Hajari. 39. Law is very settled that the prosecution must complete chain of circumstances to arrive at a conclusion that the offence has only been committed by the accused and by none else. The above observation has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in various judgments, which are reproduced as under:- 40. In State of Goa vs. Sanjay Thakran and Anr.[ (2007) 3 SCC 755 ] , wherein their Lordships in paras 31, 32, 33 & 34 of the said judgment held, as under:- "31.....It is a settled rule of criminal jurisprudence that suspicion, however grave, cannot be substituted for a proof and the courts shall take utmost precaution in finding an accused guilty only on the basis of circumstantial evidence. This Court has applied the above-mentioned general principle with reference to the principle of last seen together in Bodhraj vs. State as under : (SCC p.63, para 31) "31. This Court has applied the above-mentioned general principle with reference to the principle of last seen together in Bodhraj vs. State as under : (SCC p.63, para 31) "31. The last-seen theory comes into play where the time-gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were seen last alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible. It would be difficult in some cases to positively establish that the deceased was last seen with the accused when there is a long gap and possibility of other persons coming in between exists. In the absence of any other positive evidence to conclude that the accused and the deceased were last seen together, it would be hazardous to come to a conclusion of guilt in those cases. .." [See also : State of U.P. vs. Satish (SCC para 22) and Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy vs. State of A.P. (SCC para 27) ]. 32. In Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy, this Court further opined that even in the cases where time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive and when the deceased was found dead is too small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible, the courts should look for some corroboration. 33. In Jaswant Gir vs. State of Punjab, it was observed that (SCC p.441, para 5) "5......In the absence of any other links in the chain of circumstantial evidence, it is not possible to convict the appellant solely on the basis of the ''last seen'' evidence, even if the version of PW 14 in this regard is believed. .." 34. From the principle laid down by this Court, the circumstance of last-seen together would normally be taken into consideration for finding the accused guilty of the offence charged with when it is established by the prosecution that the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were found together alive and when the deceased was found dead is so small that possibility of any other person being with the deceased could completely be ruled out. The time gap between the accused persons seen in the company of the deceased and the detection of the crime would be a material consideration for appreciation of the evidence and placing reliance on it as a circumstance against the accused. But, in all cases, it cannot be said that the evidence of last seen together is to be rejected merely because the time gap between the accused persons and the deceased last seen together and the crime coming to light is after a considerable long duration. There can be no fixed or straight jacket formula for the duration of time gap in this regard and it would depend upon the evidence led by the prosecution to remove the possibility of any other person meeting the deceased in the intervening period, that is to say, if the prosecution is able to lead such an evidence that likelihood of any person other than the accused, being the author the crime, becomes impossible, then the evidence of circumstance of last seen together, although there is long duration of time, can be considered as one of the circumstances in the chain of circumstances to prove the guilt against such accused persons. Hence, if the prosecution proves that in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, there was no possibility of any other person meeting or approaching the deceased at the place of incident or before the commission of the crime, in the intervening period, the proof of last seen together would be relevant evidence. For instance, if it can be demonstrated by showing that the accused persons were in exclusive possession of the place where the incident occurred or where they were last seen together with the deceased, and there was no possibility of any intrusion to that place by any third party, then a relatively wider time gap would not affect the prosecution case". 41. A Division Bench of this Court, to which one of us Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J., was a member, in the case of Manveer & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan, DB Cr. Appeal No. 823/2006, decided on 13.5.2015, held as under:- "18. 41. A Division Bench of this Court, to which one of us Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J., was a member, in the case of Manveer & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan, DB Cr. Appeal No. 823/2006, decided on 13.5.2015, held as under:- "18. We are thus of the considered opinion that the present case rests on circumstantial evidence and it is the settled proposition of law that in case of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish "a cogent and reliable evidence" to lead a hypothesis accepting guilt of the accused. In other words, the circumstances must be incriminating in character and all circumstances must provide a complete chain and no link of which should be missing. A critical and holistic analysis of the evidence thus clearly reveals that the prosecution has failed to travel the distance between "may be true" and "must be true". Although the prosecution has produced certain evidence, but there are too many pieces of the jigsaw puzzle, which are conspicuously missing. The evidence is neither cogent nor convincing for upholding the conviction of the appellants for the alleged crime. Our view has been fortified by judgment of Hon''ble the Supreme Court in Sampath Kumar vs. Inspector of Police, Krishanagiri: (2012) 4 SCC 124 , wherein the Apex Court has held that motive alone in the absence of any other circumstantial evidence would not be sufficient to convict the appellant. On the materials on record, there may be some suspicion against the accused but as is often said, suspicion, howsoever, strong cannot take the place of proof. 19. The circumstances, which have been brought against the appellants, cannot lead to a conclusion of guilt and even circumstances have not been fully established in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 19. The circumstances, which have been brought against the appellants, cannot lead to a conclusion of guilt and even circumstances have not been fully established in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Our view has been fortified by judgment of Hon''ble the Supreme Court in Hanumant Govind Nargundkar vs. State of M.P.: AIR 1952 SC 343 and further by another judgment recently passed by Hon''ble the Supreme Court in the case of Vasanta Sampat Dupare vs. State of Maharashtra : (2015) 1 SCC 253 , wherein Their Lordships have reiterated the principles governing the appreciation of evidence in a case based on circumstantial evidence and held, as under:- "It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused." 42. The learned counsel for the appellants have contended that even if it is proved that the accused were staying at the field at Well of the Ramphool Meena, it cannot be ruled out that somebody else committed murder and accused out of fear ran away to save their own skin. The learned counsel for the appellants has contended that it is case of no motive. It has not come in evidence that the accused from the field of Ramphool Meena had not taken away any valuable article or have committed murder to cause wrongful loss to the deceased. The learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that the story of prosecution regarding motive is too feable and weak. It is contended that Ramphool Meena deceased was acting a go between to settle alliance between accused Shahnaz who is widow and Mohan Lal (P.W.7). It is contended that Shahnaz had demanded Rs. The learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that the story of prosecution regarding motive is too feable and weak. It is contended that Ramphool Meena deceased was acting a go between to settle alliance between accused Shahnaz who is widow and Mohan Lal (P.W.7). It is contended that Shahnaz had demanded Rs. 1 Lakh for alliance and the same was settled for Rs. Ninety Five Thousand. Rs. 5000/- was to be paid as earnest money and only payment of Rs. 500/- was made as token money. Thus, the learned counsel for the appellants have rightly submitted that there was no amount which was to be shared between the parties. The learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that it has not come in evidence that the accused ran away with some jewellery or valuable articles of the deceased from the spot. Neither wife nor daughters of the deceased have stated that any valuable article was missing. The learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that Ramphool Meena due to enmity with others could have been murdered by somebody else. Merely because accused were staying there, presumption of the guilt cannot be drawn. It is contended that evidence of last seen is weak type of evidence and itself is not sufficient to record conviction. 43. We have given due consideration to the above arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants. 44. Admittedly, no valuable article or jewellery was missing from the Well, where accused were staying with the deceased. Thus, no motive has been proved on the record. It is also true that only Rs. 500 was paid by Mohan Lal (P.W.7) toward settlement of alliance. It was not booty which was to be shared or dispute occurred because of the same. In case of circumstantial evidence, courts must be circumspect and on guard to find that the offence has been committed by accused alone and none else. We cannot rule out that somebody may have committed murder and accused being who had come to stay ran away from the spot. In each and every case, conduct of the accused is not conduct of a guilty mind. Every innocent person tend to stay away from untoward situation so that he is not unnecessarily involved. 45. We cannot rule out that somebody may have committed murder and accused being who had come to stay ran away from the spot. In each and every case, conduct of the accused is not conduct of a guilty mind. Every innocent person tend to stay away from untoward situation so that he is not unnecessarily involved. 45. So far recoveries are concerned, they in no way advance case of the prosecution, even though human blood has been found, but blood group has been found to be inconclusive and same could not be determined. Recovery itself in the present case is doubtful. 46. Babu Lal who is witness to recovery memos has not been examined. Otherwise, also axe is an agricultural implement. Merely on the evidence of last seen and recovery of weapons we cannot say that chain of circumstance is complete to arrive at conclusion that offence has been committed by the accused alone and none else. There are many loop holes and chinks in the prosecution case, which have remained unplugged. Therefore, we as a matter of abundant caution extend benefit of doubt to the accused appellants. 47. Consequently, the present appeals are accepted and the conviction and sentence of the appellants are set aside and they are acquitted of the charge framed against them. 48. Legal heirs of the deceased are also held entitled to compensation under the Victim Compensation Scheme formulated by the State of Rajasthan under Section 357-A Cr.P.C., for death of deceased Ramphool Meena. Award of compensation under Section 357A of Cr.P.C. is not dependent upon conviction or acquittal of the accused. 49. Secretary, Rajasthan Legal Services Authority Jaipur is directed to disburse the amount of compensation under the Victim Compensation Scheme to the legal heirs of the deceased Ramphool Meena. 50. We find that at the time of admission of appeal, sentence of appellants Onkar and Shahnaz were suspended and they were ordered to be released on bail. In view of acceptance of the appeals, bail bonds furnished by the appellants Onkar and Shahnaz and bonds furnished by the sureties on their behalf stand discharged. Remaining accused appellants be released if not required in any other case. However, the trial court shall call all the appellants to comply with the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. 51. A copy of this judgment be sent to the Secretary, Rajasthan Legal Services Authority Jaipur. 52. Remaining accused appellants be released if not required in any other case. However, the trial court shall call all the appellants to comply with the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. 51. A copy of this judgment be sent to the Secretary, Rajasthan Legal Services Authority Jaipur. 52. Copy of the judgment along with record be sent to the trial court forthwith.