JUDGMENT : Virendra Kumar Mathur, J. This Criminal Appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C, 1973 has been filed against judgment & order dated 18.09.2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Balotra, HQ Barmer Camp Balotra in Sessions Case No.01/2009 (31/2008) whereby appellants have been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 08.10.2008 complainant Sata Ram submitted a written report (Ex.P/24) to the SHO, Police Station Sindhari, stating therein that in the previous night i.e. 07.10.2008, his son Kheta Ram was sleeping in his 'Bara'. At about 3:00AM, accused Mula Ram and Magha Ram armed with 'kulhari' (axe) and lathi entered into Bara and inflicted blows on the head of his son. His son raised hue & cry. Upon hearing his hue & cry his wife Pappu Devi, who was sleeping in the house, Mula Ram s/o Kisna Ram and Bhera Ram s/o Govind Ram from neighbouring houses, rushed to the Bara to rescue him. On seeing these persons, accused ran away from the place of incident. Thereafter, his son was taken to Sindhari hospital. At Sindhari hospital his son was referred to Jodhpur. On the way to Jodhpur, his son died. 3. On the basis of the written report (Ex.P/24), Police registered case vide FIR No.107/2008 (Ex.P/25) and started investigation. After investigation, challan was filed against Mula Ram, Magha Ram and Pata Ram s/o Likhma Ram. Charges were framed against the accused Mula Ram and Magha Ram for offence under Section 302/34 & 120 B IPC and against the accused Pata Ram for offence under Section 302 read with Section 120B IPC. The accused persons denied the charges and claimed trial. 4. The prosecution produced 21 witnesses (PW1 to PW21) and exhibited 34 documents (Ex.P/1 to P/34). Statements of accused persons were recorded under section 313 CrPC, 1973. No evidence was led on behalf of the defence, however, the documentary evidence was exhibited as Ex.D/1 to D/4. 5. After hearing the arguments advanced by both the parties, the trial court pronounced judgment on 18.09.2012 and convicted the accused-appellants Mula Ram and Magha Ram, as aforesaid. Third accused Pata Ram s/o Likhma Ram was acquitted from the charges. No evidence was led on behalf of the defence, however, the documentary evidence was exhibited as Ex.D/1 to D/4. 5. After hearing the arguments advanced by both the parties, the trial court pronounced judgment on 18.09.2012 and convicted the accused-appellants Mula Ram and Magha Ram, as aforesaid. Third accused Pata Ram s/o Likhma Ram was acquitted from the charges. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.09.2012, the accused appellants have preferred this appeal on various grounds. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the trial court has erred in convicting the accused appellants in the present case as there is no evidence to prove that the accused appellants were involved in the commission of said crime. Alleged two eyewitnesses, namely Mula Ram s/o Kisna Ram and Bhera Ram s/o Govind Ram have not supported the prosecution case and so far as complainant PW20 Sata Ram is concerned, he is not an eyewitness. The entire case of prosecution rests only on alleged eyewitness PW19 Pappu Devi. The trial court has not appreciated the evidence of Pappu Devi properly and has come to a wrong conclusion that Pappu Devi is a truthful witness. Pappu Devi is not an eye-witness nor is a trustworthy witness. Hence, the present is a case of no evidence and the accused-appellants are entitled to be acquitted from all the charges. 7. It was also contended that PW19 Pappu Devi stated in her statement that she was sleeping in the house and her husband was sleeping in cattle 'Bara', which is situated in back side of their 'dhani'. She further stated that 3 persons came, namely Mula, Pata and Magha. She further stated that Mula was carrying a 'kulhari' and Magha was having a lathi and all these 3 persons started beating her husband, who was sleeping. She further stated that her husband raised hue & cry and on hearing voices, she went to 'bara' and there she saw Magha Ram gave blow on forehead/head of her husband and Mula gave beating with 'kulhari'. She admitted in her cross-examination that she saw only 3 persons running from the place of occurrence. She admitted that she saw only back of those persons. She admitted in her cross-examination that she saw only 3 persons running from the place of occurrence. She admitted that she saw only back of those persons. From her evidence, it is clear that she did not recognize who were those persons who committed the crime but due to enmity between the families of accused and the deceased, names of appellants have been implicated in the crime. 8. Learned counsel submitted that it has come in the evidence that there were foot-marks of persons who committed the crime. This important piece of evidence has not been examined and thus the appellants have been falsely implicated in this crime. 9. It was also contended that as per postmortem report and statement of PW14 Dr Harish Kumar, there is only one injury on parietal region, which was caused by blunt weapon. The allegation of the eye-witness that 3 persons came there and gave beating, out of them one person has already been acquitted, meaning thereby two persons were involved in the crime but looking to number of injuries, the version of the eye-witness is falsified. In the light of this position also, the appellants are entitled to be acquitted from all the charges. 10. It was also contended that the FIR has been lodged after 10 hours of the incident. It is settled law that delay in lodging FIR is not always fatal to the prosecution but in the present case, it has come on record that the Police Station is only 20 minutes away from the place of incident. PW19 Pappu Devi in her statement stated that when her husband was taken to hospital, she went to Police Station and took Police personnel along with them to Sindhari hospital. However, the statement of PW19 Pappu Devi under Section 161 Cr.P.C., 1973 were recorded on 10.10.2010 and there is absolutely no explanation as to why her statement was recorded belatedly. 11. In this situation, there are two possibilities; firstly the report, which was lodged by PW19 Pappu Devi before her husband was taken to Sindhari hospital, has been suppressed by the prosecution and second possibility is that after 10 hours, with deliberations, this second FIR was lodged. In such situation, this delay of 10 hours is fatal to the prosecution and the appellants are entitled to be acquitted from all the charges. 12. In such situation, this delay of 10 hours is fatal to the prosecution and the appellants are entitled to be acquitted from all the charges. 12. It was also contended that PW19 admitted in her statement that accused Mula Ram's mother, who was residing with them (complainant), at the relevant time she categorically stated that these foot-marks are of Mula Ram and hence, a report should be made against Mula Ram and Magha Ram. This statement further proves that PW19 Pappu Devi was not the eye-witness and only on the basis of suspicion, names of appellants were mentioned by her in the FIR. The trial court has not appreciated these facts and wrongly convicted the appellants. 13. It was further contended that so far as recovery is concerned, lathi has not been recovered and 'kulhari' has been recovered but there is no injury by sharp-edged weapon on the person of deceased. The 'kulhari' was recovered from open field and thus, the same is not reliable. Hence, as far as weapon of offence is concerned, that is not connected with the crime and hence, the appellants can not be held responsible for the crime. 14. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the accused-appellants. It is contended that the prosecution has successfully proved guilt of the accusedappellants beyond reasonable doubt. It is contended that the conviction can be based on the basis of testimony of even solitary eye witness and therefore, nothing turns on the question that out of the 3 eye witnesses produced by the prosecution, 2 witnesses turned hostile. It is submitted that the incident occurred in the moon night and thus, there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of eye witness PW19 Pappu Devi. It is further submitted that pursuant to the information furnished by Mula Ram under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the recovery of 'kulhari' was effected from the 'Bara' adjoining to the residential 'dhani' of accused Mula Ram and therefore, merely because the recovery was effected from open place, the evidence in this regard cannot be discarded. It is submitted that since PW19 Pappu Devi was mournful on account of sad demise of her husband, the delay of 2 days in recording the statement is not fatal to the prosecution case. It is submitted that since PW19 Pappu Devi was mournful on account of sad demise of her husband, the delay of 2 days in recording the statement is not fatal to the prosecution case. It is contended that a dispute was existing between the accused persons and the deceased in respect of the land and thus, the motive for commission of the crime is also stands established. 15. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the appellants Mr. Nishant Bora contended that the deposition of the eye witness PW 19 Pappu Devi has not been believed for the third accused who has been acquitted and therefore, the same cannot be believed for other accused as well. It is further submitted that the witness of recovery PW16 Motaram has turned hostile and yet another witness PW17 Umaram being nephew of deceased Kheta Ram was interested witness. Lastly, learned counsel contended that as per the prosecution, the size of blade of 'kulhari' was 16" but the size of the injuries as per the injury report (Ex.P/18) no injury on the person of the deceased was found with the width beyond 7 cm and further there was no injury caused by sharp edged weapon and therefore, in no manner the weapon of offence recovered connect the appellants with the commission of crime. 16. We have considered the rival submissions and re-appreciated evidence on record objectively and in entirety. 17. Admittedly, the prosecution in support of its case relied upon testimony of 3 eye witnesses namely; PW3 Mula Ram, PW4 Bhera Ram and PW19 Pappu Devi. PW3 Mula Ram and PW4 Bhera Ram have turned hostile and thus, the prosecution case rests on testimony of eye witness PW19 Pappu Devi and other corroborative evidence. 18. PW19 Pappu Devi in her statement stated that 4 years ago, in the midnight, her husband Kheta Ram was sleeping in Bara of cattles. At that time, Mula, Patta and Magha entered in the Bara at about 3:00AM. Mula was holding a 'kulhari' and Magha was having a lathi. Mula inflicted blow of 'kulhari' on the head of her husband, her husband raised voice in pain. Magha Ram inflicted lathi blow on the forehead of her husband. From the place where she was sleeping, the Bara was just nearby. Upon hearing hue & cry, Mula Ram s/o Kisna Ram and Bhera Ram s/o Govind reached at the spot. Mula inflicted blow of 'kulhari' on the head of her husband, her husband raised voice in pain. Magha Ram inflicted lathi blow on the forehead of her husband. From the place where she was sleeping, the Bara was just nearby. Upon hearing hue & cry, Mula Ram s/o Kisna Ram and Bhera Ram s/o Govind reached at the spot. Then her husband was taken to Sindhari hospital and due to grievous injuries, her husband was referred to Jodhpur but on the way to Jodhpur he died. She further stated that there is land dispute between her mother-in-law and the accused persons for those reasons they committed murder of her husband. She further stated that before this incident, the accused persons had also given threatening in this regard. 19. In her cross-examination, she deposed that the Police Station, Sindhari was informed about the incident in the night and the names of all the three accused Mula Ram, Patta Ram and Magha Ram were disclosed to the police. She stated that she saw these 3 persons running away, she had seen their back, then said, she had seen from her own eyes. She deposed that when the police reached the place of occurrence, she was lying unconscious at her home. She deposed that Mula Ram was wearing dhoti and further that he was holding kulhari and lathi in both the hands. She further deposed that in her police statement Ex.D/1 she got recorded that Magha Ram was having lathi however, she does not known as to why the same has not been mentioned therein. She deposed that Bara is adjoining to her dhani and there exists a common 'Badd' (fence). She admitted that fencing of dhani is high, however, she had seen the accused persons by climbing on stone fence. 20. PW20 Sata Ram is the complainant, who stated that there is an alleged dispute between Hukma, Mula and his wife Lali Devi. This witness further stated that on 07.10.2008 during night at 3:00AM, his son Kheta Ram was sleeping in Bara and his wife Pappu Devi was sleeping in 'aangan' of the dhani. The accused persons Magha, Mula and Patta Ram by conspiracy intruded into Bara. Mula Ram inflicted injuries to Kheta Ram by 'kulhari'. This witness further stated that on 07.10.2008 during night at 3:00AM, his son Kheta Ram was sleeping in Bara and his wife Pappu Devi was sleeping in 'aangan' of the dhani. The accused persons Magha, Mula and Patta Ram by conspiracy intruded into Bara. Mula Ram inflicted injuries to Kheta Ram by 'kulhari'. On hearing the cries of Kheta Ram, his wife Pappu Devi immediately came to Bara and saw that Magha Ram was having lathi in his hand and Mula Ram was having 'kulhari' and they were inflicting injuries on Kheta Ram. He further stated that then Mula and Bhera came to his rescue on hearing the voices. Kheta Ram was referred to Jodhpur on account of grievous injuries but on the way to Jodhpur he died. This witness gave first information report Ex.P24 and admitted his signature on the report. 21. In cross examination, he admitted that he had not seen Pata Ram, Mula Ram and Magha Ram belabouring Kheta Ram. The police had lifted the footmoulds from the place of occurrence. He further deposed that his daughter-in-law had seen the incident and accused persons while standing on the stone lying near the neem tree. He accepted the suggestion that Pappu Devi had not gone near the deceased and did not try to rescue him. He admitted that he had not seen the incident. 22. PW21 Devendra Singh, SHO Police Station Sindhari investigated the matter. He deposed that since Pappu Devi was mournful he did not record her statement on 8.10.2008 and the same was recorded on 10.10.2008. The written report (Ex.P/24) was written by Chena Ram Vakil. The 'kulhari' was recovered from a open place. He admitted that the factum of 'kulhari' recovered being blood stained is not mentioned in Ex.P/22. No documents regarding the title over the Bara from where 'kulhari' was recovered, were taken on record. He deposed that when he inspected the site, foot-moulds were there. He admitted that the clothes of the deceased were handed over to him by his father. The suggestion of the defence that there were no stones lying near the neem tree as correct. He admitted the measurement of the distances between the various places specified in Ex.P/10 was not taken. He admitted that the clothes of the deceased were handed over to him by his father. The suggestion of the defence that there were no stones lying near the neem tree as correct. He admitted the measurement of the distances between the various places specified in Ex.P/10 was not taken. The suggestion of the defence that in his investigation, it was not revealed that Pappu Devi had seen the incident by standing on the stones near the neem tree, was accepted him as correct. He deposed that PW19 Pappu Devi never said that she had seen the incident in the moon light. 23. In the present case, PW19 Pappu Devi, wife of the deceased, stated in her examination-in-chief that on the fateful night, she was sleeping in 'aangan' of her dhani along with her children and her husband Kheta Ram was sleeping in cattle Bara. This Bara is situated in back side of the dhani. In the night, Mula, Patta and Magha intruded in the dhani. Mula was having 'kulhari' (axe) and Magha was having lathi. All these three persons entered in the Bara where her husband Kheta Ram was sleeping. Mula Ram inflicted injury on the head of her husband with 'kulhari', upon which her husband raised voices. Magha Ram inflicted lathi blow on the forehead of her husband and her husband again raised voices. On hearing voices of her husband, Mula s/o Kisna and Bhera s/o Govind also came there. Thereafter, Mula telephoned and called a vehicle and took her husbnad to Sindhari hospital, where after the first aid, her husband was referred to Jodhpur and on the way to Jodhpur, her husband died. 24. Mula and Bhera were examined in the court. Mula Ram (PW3) did not support prosecution story and he was declared hostile. Bhera Ram was examined as PW4 and he also did not support the prosecution story and was declared hostile. These witnesses did not say anything about the fact that they called any vehicle on telephone. PW21 Devendra Singh, the Investigation Officer, stated in his examination-in-chief that he reached the place of occurrence on 08.10.2008 and did not record statement of Pappu Devi on that day and her statement was recorded on 10.10.2008. He also admitted that no reason was mentioned in the case diary for recording statement of Pappu Devi after delay of two days. 25. He also admitted that no reason was mentioned in the case diary for recording statement of Pappu Devi after delay of two days. 25. This witness PW21 has further stated that after preparing Exhibits P4, P5, P6, P19, P10 and P11, he took statements of Pappu Devi as well as other witnesses - Mula, Bhera, Jassa Ram, Tulchha Ram and Pema Ram. These witnesses were examined in the court. Mula, Bhera and Jassa Ram were declared hostile. Tulchha Ram was the witness, who deposited recovered articles in Malkhana and Pema Ram was the witness, who deposited sealed packets with the FSL. 26. PW19 Pappu Devi in her cross-examination stated that her husband was sleeping in front of gate of the Bara and it is true that gate is on Western side and it is also true that moon sets at 4 O'clock and the accused persons, after committing the crime, ran in the direction in which moon sets. She further stated that the accused persons came from Saran field and again ran away towards same path. She also stated that 'baad' of dhani is high and then stated at her own that she saw the accused persons by standing on 'baad' of stones. 27. She further admitted that there is dispute relating to field with the accused persons and for this reason they implicated their names in the report. She also admitted that at the time of incident, mother of Mula Ram was also present in their house. She stated on her own that mother of Mula Ram saw foot-marks. Mula Ram is not having cordial relation with his mother and Mula Ram is not keeping her mother with him. It is true that mother of Mula Ram saw foot-prints and stated that these foot-prints are of Mula Ram and therefore, they gave report against Mula Ram and Magha Ram. She further stated that she herself had seen the incident, therefore, she reported. 28. PW20 Sata Ram, father of deceased Kheta Ram in his crossexamination has stated that it is wrong that 'baad' of the dhani is high but level of 'aangan' is high and it is wrong to say that a person while standing in 'aangan' of his dhani can not see the place where his son Kheta Ram was sleeping. 28. PW20 Sata Ram, father of deceased Kheta Ram in his crossexamination has stated that it is wrong that 'baad' of the dhani is high but level of 'aangan' is high and it is wrong to say that a person while standing in 'aangan' of his dhani can not see the place where his son Kheta Ram was sleeping. In Samvat 2044, 'baad' was prepared and from that time, some stones are lying near Neem tree, 30 stones are lying near the Neem. This witness further admitted that it is true that Pappu Devi did not go near to his son at the time of the occurrence nor did she try to rescue. 29. The Investigation Officer, PW21 Devendra Singh, in the cross-examination stated that it is true that in report Ex.P10 he has not shown Neem tree and stones lying near Bara because there were no stones lying. He further stated that he has not shown in Ex.P10 the distance from Neem tree to the cot where deceased was sleeping nor has he shown height of 'baad'. This witness has also admitted that Pappu Devi in Ex.D2 has not shown which of the accused was having 'kulhari' and which accused was having lathi and it is also true that he has not shown distance from place 'F' through main gate of dhani to place 'X' nor has shown that how much is the distance between Neem and 'Bara' of the dhani. This witness further admitted that it is true that he has not recorded from where eye-witness came at the spot nor has shown that there were other dhanis nearby. This witness also admitted that he has not examined mother of accused Mula Ram and also admitted that in his investigation, this fact has not come that Pappu Devi, while standing on stones near Neem saw the incident and the accused appellants. This witness also admitted that in Ex.D2, it is not mentioned that Pappu Devi saw the incident during night in the moonlight. At the time when the incident took place whether there was moonlight or not, no investigation was made in this respect. This witness further admitted that he has not asked Pappu Devi that in the dark night, upto what distance she can see. He also admitted that no identification parade for the accused-appellants was conducted, so as to identify the accused appellants by Pappu Devi. This witness further admitted that he has not asked Pappu Devi that in the dark night, upto what distance she can see. He also admitted that no identification parade for the accused-appellants was conducted, so as to identify the accused appellants by Pappu Devi. 30. From the evidence placed on record, it can not be inferred that Pappu Devi had seen the accused-appellants while they were running after committing the offence charged with, specially when she admitted in her cross-examination that:- ;g ckr lgh gS fd gekjs o eqyfteku ds vkil esa [ksr dk fookn py jgk gS blfy, eqyfteku ds uke dk eqdnek ntZ djok;k o buds uke ls gh fjiksVZ nh FkhA 31. In view of discussion above, Pappu Devi can not be said to be eye-witness of the occurrence, the entire prosecution case now rests on circumstantial evidence. It is settled law that for conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence, following triad test must be meted out: (i) that the circumstances from which the inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, have been fully established by unimpeachable evidence beyond a shadow of doubt; (ii) that the circumstances are of determinative tendency, unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; and (iii) that the circumstances, taken collectively, are incapable of explanation on any reasonable hypothesis save that of the guilt sought to be proved against him. {vide Mahmood v. State of UP: AIR 1976 SC 69 } 32. So far as motive for committing the offence is concerned, PW19 Pappu Devi in her examination-in-chief stated that Magha, Patta and Mula gave threat at the shop of her husband situated at Panchayat Samiti Sindhari and Mula was also involved in giving the threatening. It was stated that:- exk o irk us fl.k/kjh esa iapk;r lfefr ds ikl fdjk.kk o fdrkcksa dh esjs ifr dh nqdku gS ogka ij esjs ifr dks /kedh nh Fkh & /kedh nsus esa ewyk Hkh lkFk FkkA /kedh nh fd ?kVuk djsaxs vkSj tks nks flj okyk gksxk og tehu dk'r djsxkA 33. PW20 Satta Ram, father of deceased Kheta Ram, in the examination-in-chief stated that there is a land dispute between Hukma, Mula and his wife Lali Devi. He stated nothing about what type of dispute exists between them nor any documentary evidence was placed on record. PW20 Satta Ram, father of deceased Kheta Ram, in the examination-in-chief stated that there is a land dispute between Hukma, Mula and his wife Lali Devi. He stated nothing about what type of dispute exists between them nor any documentary evidence was placed on record. In the cross-examination, he stated only that the dispute is going on for last 4-5 years. PW21 Devendra Singh, the Investigation Officer, in his statement stated that during the investigation he has recovered land records and placed on record Jamabandi as Ex.P12 and trace-map as Ex.P13. From oral as well as documentary evidence, the prosecution was not able to establish the motive in the present case. 34. Other incriminating circumstances, on which prosecution case is based, are recoveries made in furtherance of information Ex.P26 (& Ex.P28), lathi was recovered from accused Magha Ram and on the basis of information Ex.P27 (& Ex.P29), 'kulhari' was recovered from accused Mula Ram and memo of recovery was prepared as Ex.P22 and a map of recovery Ex.P23 was prepared. In his cross-examination, the Investigation Officer PW21 Devendra Singh admitted that the 'kulhari' was recovered from open place. PW13 Dr Suwa Lal has not mentioned any injury to deceased Kheta Ram by any sharp-edged weapon. The injuries were shown to be inflicted by blunt weapon. PW21 Investigation Officer has also admitted that in Ex.P22 it is not written that blood-stains were found on the recovered article 'kulhari' and it is also true that in respect of 'kulhari', which was recovered from Bara, no documents were taken on record as to legal title of the place of recovery. Thus, recovered article 'kulhari' can not be said to be used for inflicting injury No.1, which was found to be fatal for death of deceased Kheta Ram. 35. Deceased Kheta Ram suffered 3 injuries as per injury report Ex.P18: (1) Lacerated wound - 5cm x 2cm x 1 cm - on the scalp (2) Pain & swelling-Bruises - 7cm x 5 cm - on right jaw (3) Multiple abrasions on head 36. The postmortem is Ex.P19 reveals that the cause of death according to opinion of Medical Board is 'shock due to head injury'. All injuries were ante-mortem and duration of death was 7-8 hours. The postmortem is Ex.P19 reveals that the cause of death according to opinion of Medical Board is 'shock due to head injury'. All injuries were ante-mortem and duration of death was 7-8 hours. In this connection, Dr Harish Kumar (PW14) was examined before the trial court and he stated that he has seen following outside injuries on the body of deceased Kheta Ram:- ^^cka;s ÝUvksisjksbVy ,fj;k esa fMLisDV ÝsDpj FkkA bldh gM~Mh VwVdj flj ds vUnj ?kql x;h Fkh ml ?kko dh lkbt 7 lsŒehŒ yEch ,oa 5 lsŒehŒ pkSM+h ,oa 2 lsŒehŒ xgjh Fkh ,d cM+k lk [kwu dk FkDdk e`rd ds blh ,fj;k esa tek gqvk FkkA ml ejht e`rd dk Hkstk iwjh rjg {kfrxzLr FkkA e`rd ds eqag vkSj ukd esa ls [kwu vk jgk Fkk blds vykok nkfgus tcM+s dk vfLFkHkax FkkA** 37. He further stated that on the postmortem report, C to D is his signature. A separate certificate showing cause of death was issued, which is Ex.P20. 38. As per injury report Ex.P18, PW13 Dr Suwa Lal has specifically stated that no injury to deceased was by sharp-edged weapon. PW14 Dr Harish Kumar also stated that there is only one injury on parietal region, which was caused by blunt weapon. Thus, the prosecution evidence of recovery is not supported by medical evidence. 39. It has also come in evidence that PW21, the Investigation Officer, admitted in his statement that there were foot-marks of persons who committed the crime. PW19 Pappu Devi also admitted in her statement that accused Mula Ram's mother, who was residing with them (complainant) at the relevant time, has categorically stated that these foot-marks are of Mula Ram and hence, a report should be made against Mula Ram and Magha Ram. This important piece of evidence has not been examined nor foot moulds were taken. 40. In view of the above, it is very much clear that the circumstances, from which inference of guilt of the accusedappellants is sought to be drawn, have not been fully established by unimpeachable evidence beyond a shadow of doubt. Thus, the conclusion arrived at by the trial court is liable to be set aside. 41. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. In view of the above, it is very much clear that the circumstances, from which inference of guilt of the accusedappellants is sought to be drawn, have not been fully established by unimpeachable evidence beyond a shadow of doubt. Thus, the conclusion arrived at by the trial court is liable to be set aside. 41. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of punishment dated 18.09.2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Balotra, HQ Barmer Camp Balotra in Sessions Case No.01/2009 (31/2008) is set aside and appellants Mula Ram s/o Navla Ram and Magha Ram s/o Hukma Ram are acquitted of the charge levelled against them in this case. 42. The appellant Mula Ram has been in jail since 12.10.2008. He be released from the imprisonment immediately, if not required in any other case. The appellant Magha Ram is on bail. His bail bonds are discharged. 43. Keeping in view, however, the provisions of section 437-A CrPC, the appellants Mula Ram s/Navla Ram and Magha Ram s/o Hukma Ram are directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount each, before the learned trial court, which shall be effective for a period of six months to the effect that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the judgment or for grant of leave, the appellants, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before Hon'ble the Supreme Court.