JUDGMENT Sangeet Lodha, J. - This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 13. 8. 10 passed by learned Additional Session Judge, Fast Track No. 3, Udaipur in Session Case No. 16/09, whereby the accused appellant Arjun Lal has been convicted for offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced for life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-; in default of payment of fine to further undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment. 2. Briefly stated, the case of prosecution is that on 23. 1. 09 around 4 P. M. Arjunlal s/o Manilal, resident of Godi Gogan Fala, accompanied by his wife Savita Meena, his brother-in-law Laxman s/o Soma Meena (PW 11) and Laxman's (PW 11) wife Smt. Shanta (PW 9), came to the house of Laxman s/o Meghaji (PW 1). Around 9 P. M. in the evening after taking meal Arjun and his wife Savita slept in a separate room. Smt. Shanta (PW 9) and Smt. Sangeeta (PW 2), the wives of Laxman (PW 11) and Laxman (PW 1) respectively slept in yet another room nearby. Laxman (PW 1) and Laxman (PW 11) slept outside the room in verandah. At 4 O'clock in the morning a sound of falling down and screaming with smash came from Arjunlal's room. On this Laxman (PW 1), Laxman (PW 11) and their wives woke up. Laxman (PW 1) and his wife asked Arjun as to what's the matter. Thereupon, Arjun opened the door and they saw that there were serious injuries on Savita's right side ranging from cheek to ear. She was lying on the floor and blood was oozing out. A blood stained sword was lying nearby. Arjun said work has been accomplished. Thereafter, Laxman (PW 1) informed Hajaram (PW 3) about the incident who in his turn informed Kalyan Singh, Head Constable (PW 12) at Parshad Chowki. Head Constable Kalyan Singh (PW 12) and Constable Babulal (PW 6) reached the spot. Arjun was there only, he was arrested. He was caught and information was given to the concerned police station that Arjun has caused death of his wife by inflicting blow of sword. 3. On the basis of the written report (Ex. P/1) narrating the incident occurred as aforesaid submitted by Laxman (PW 1), the police registered an FIR against the accused appellant Arjunlal for offence under Section 302 IPC and the investigation commenced. 4. 3. On the basis of the written report (Ex. P/1) narrating the incident occurred as aforesaid submitted by Laxman (PW 1), the police registered an FIR against the accused appellant Arjunlal for offence under Section 302 IPC and the investigation commenced. 4. During the investigation, the police drawn necessary memos. After inquest proceedings, the dead body was subjected to autopsy, and the statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C. Inter alia, blood stained T-shirt of the accused, blouse of the deceased and sword were sent for examination to Forensic Science Laboratory. FSL report was obtained. 5. After completion of the investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the accused appellant for offence under Section 302 IPC before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kherwara, whereupon cognizance was taken and the matter was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Udaipur. Learned Sessions Judge transferred the matter to the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track No. 3, Udaipur for trial. The trial Judge framed the charge under Section 302 IPC. The accused appellant denied the charge and claimed trial. 6. The prosecution in support of its case got examined 14 witnesses PW-1 to PW-14 and produced the documentary evidence Ex. P/1 to Ex. P/30. The accused appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr. P. C. . In defence, the accused appellant got examined a witness Manilal (DW 1). 7. After due consideration of the evidence on record, the learned trial Judge arrived at the finding that the accused appellant with the intention to cause death inflicted injuries by sword on Savita, who died as a result of grievous injuries suffered. Accordingly, the accused appellant was convicted for offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced as indicated above. Hence, this appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the star witness of prosecution Laxman (PW 1), the complainant as also his wife Smt. Sangeeta (PW 2), did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile. It is submitted that when complainant himself has not supported the version of FIR, the entire case of the prosecution stands demolished and on the basis of other evidence, the appellant could not have been convicted for offence under Section 302 IPC. It is submitted that when complainant himself has not supported the version of FIR, the entire case of the prosecution stands demolished and on the basis of other evidence, the appellant could not have been convicted for offence under Section 302 IPC. Learned counsel submitted that Laxman (PW 11) and Smt. Shanta (PW 9) being brother and sister-in-law of deceased Savita were interested witnesses and therefore, their testimony cannot be made basis for conviction of the appellant. Learned counsel submitted that Smt. Shanta (PW 9) in her cross examination has accepted that all the three females were sleeping inside the room and all the males were sleeping outside the rooms and thus, the accused appellant being there in the room with his wife Smt. Savita stands belied. Learned counsel submitted that as per deposition of Smt. Shanta (PW 9), she alongwith her husband Laxman (PW 11) left the place of occurrence immediately after the incident which is absolutely unnatural inasmuch as, any person whose sister has been killed, in normal course would not leave the spot in such manner. Learned counsel submitted that on the basis of the evidence on record, it is apparent that the appellant and deceased Smt. Savita were enjoying good relations and thus there was no motive with the appellant to kill his own wife. Learned counsel submitted that the weapon of the offence sword was not recovered on the information of the appellant. Moreover, the link evidence is also missing as the articles were deposited with Balwant Singh (PW 5), Malkhana Incharge and the same were not given to carrier Harish Chandra (PW 4), rather, the same were given to Harish Chandra (PW 4) by Abdul Razzak, who has not been produced for examination before the court by the prosecution. Learned counsel submitted that there is no evidence brought on record showing that the appellant was present in the room when occurrence took place and thus, his conviction presuming his presence in the room at the time of occurrence is not sustainable in the eye of law. In support of the contention, learned counsel has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of ' Sohail Mehboob Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra , 2009 AIR(SC) 2702' . In support of the contention, learned counsel has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of ' Sohail Mehboob Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra , 2009 AIR(SC) 2702' . Learned counsel submitted that a close scrutiny of the evidence makes it abundantly clear that the factum of only the accused appellant causing the death of Smt. Savita has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Learned counsel submitted that as opined by the Dr. Shanker Lal Bamaniya (PW 7), the cause of death was comma due to severe and massive haemorrhage and it leads to death within 6 hours and thus, when the autopsy was conducted at 2. 20 P. M. , the case set out by the prosecution that Smt. Savita died on the spot at 4 A. M. stands belied. Learned counsel would submit that in murder case where charge is sought to be proved solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence presumption of innocence of accused must have dominant role and no inference of guilt can be drawn unless the facts evolving out of circumstantial evidence are such as not to admit of any inference except that of guilt of the accused and thus, on the facts and in the circumstances where the guilt of the accused is not proved beyond reasonable doubt, the appellant deserves to be acquitted. In support of the contention, learned counsel has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of ' Munshir Khan @ Badshah Khan & Anr. vs. State of M. P. , 2010 AIR(SC) 762'. 9. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that Laxman (PW 1) though turned hostile has admitted his signature on the written report (Ex. P/1), which was transcribed by Hajari Lal (PW 13) as dictated by Laxman (PW 1) and thus, merely because Laxman (PW 1) and Smt. Sangeeta (PW 2) being brother-in-law and sister respectively of appellant have turned hostile, the prosecution story proved on the basis of deposition of other witnesses present at the place of occurrence and corroborative evidence on record, cannot be disbelieved. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that Hajaram (PW 3) has deposed in unequivocal terms that on telephonic information being received from Laxman (PW 1) that his brother-in-law Arjun has killed his wife, he accompanied by Kalyan Singh and yet another policeman reached the place of occurrence. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that Hajaram (PW 3) has deposed in unequivocal terms that on telephonic information being received from Laxman (PW 1) that his brother-in-law Arjun has killed his wife, he accompanied by Kalyan Singh and yet another policeman reached the place of occurrence. Drawing the attention of the court to the deposition of Babulal Meena (PW 6), it is submitted that even he was informed by Laxman (PW 1) that Arjun has killed his wife Smt. Savita. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that eye witnesses Laxman (PW 11) and Smt. Shanta (PW 9), whose presence at the place of occurrence is not in dispute, have clearly supported the prosecution case and thus, their testimony cannot be doubted. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that merely because Laxman (PW 11) is brother of deceased Smt. Savita, his testimony cannot be discarded being interested witness. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as a matter of fact, being brother of deceased he will always be interested in seeing that the real culprit is punished and there is absolutely no reason why he will falsely implicate his own brother-in-law. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the presence of the accused appellant at the place of occurrence is also not in dispute and it is not even the case set out by the defence that the incident had occurred in the manner different than as set out by the prosecution. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that even in examination under Section 313 Cr. P. C. , the accused appellant has not explained the incident occurred which also indicates towards his guilt. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that it has come on record that accused appellant had doubt about the character of the deceased and therefore, contention of the appellant that there is absence of motive is also devoid of any merit. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that opinion of the doctor as reflected in the post mortem report is in terms that the injuries suffered lead to death within 6 hours and thus, the same cannot be read as after 6 hours. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that taking into consideration the nature of the injuries, the instant death was possible and thus, the suspicion sought to be created by the counsel for the appellant is without any basis. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that taking into consideration the nature of the injuries, the instant death was possible and thus, the suspicion sought to be created by the counsel for the appellant is without any basis. It is submitted that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the evidence on record leads to only one conclusion that the accused appellant inflicted injuries on the person of his wife Smt. Savita by sword which resulted in her death and thus, conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC cannot be faulted with. 10. In rejoinder, the counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the complainant Laxman (PW 1) has denied contents of the written report (Ex. P/1), it cannot be used to corroborate the statement of third party. In support of the contention, learned counsel has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of ' C. Mahesh & Ors. etc. vs. State of Karnataka , 2010 4 JT 467 '. Learned counsel submitted that accused has right to remain silent, the prosecution has to prove its own case and the burden can never be shifted upon the accused and thus, for want of explanation as suggested by the learned Public Prosecutor, the appellant cannot be held guilty. In support of the contention, learned counsel has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of ' Dhanpal vs. State by Public Prosecutor, Madras , 2009 CrLJ 4647 '. Learned counsel submitted that none of the prosecution witness examined is eye witness of the incident and thus, in absence of any corroborative evidence, the appellant cannot be convicted on the basis of deposition of Laxman (PW 11). Learned counsel submitted that deposition of Smt. Shanta (PW 9) that the females were sleeping inside the room and males outside the room stand corroborated by the testimony of witnesses Laxman (PW 1) and Sangeeta (PW 2), who have turned hostile. Learned counsel urged that the testimony of hostile witnesses cannot be rejected outrightly and both the parties are entitled to rely on such part of evidence which assists their case. In support of the contention, learned counsel has relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in the matter of ' Sarvesh Narain Shukla vs. Daroga Singh & Ors. , 2008 AIR(SC) 320'. 11. In support of the contention, learned counsel has relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in the matter of ' Sarvesh Narain Shukla vs. Daroga Singh & Ors. , 2008 AIR(SC) 320'. 11. We have considered the rival submissions and scanned the evidence on record carefully. 12. As per the Postmortem Report (Exhibit-P/14), following ante mortem injuries were found on the body of the deceased : 1. Incised wound- at back of neck transversely- 7 (L)x 4 (B)x 4 (D) cm leading to cut of cervical vertebrae, membrane & spinal cord. 2. Incised wound- at Rt. Side of head extending from Rt. Cheek to behind of Rt. Ear, size 14 (L) x 5 (B) x 3 (D) cm showing cutting of Rt. maxilla bone with cheek, ear Pinna & mastoid bone of Rt. Side. 3. Incised wound- 11 (L) x 4 (B) x 3 (D) cm-cutting of Rt. Ear canal to Rt. Lower cheek extending occipital region of scalp-head of Rt. The cause of death is opined to be comma due to severe and massive haemorrhage which leads to death within 6 hours. Dr. Shanker Lal Bamaniya (PW-7) while confirming the injuries found on the body of the deceased and cause of death, further deposed that the said injuries were caused by sharp edged weapon. In this view of the matter, the death of Smt. Savita was concededly homicidal in nature. 13. In the first instance, it would be appropriate to scrutinise the evidence of Laxman (PW 1), Smt. Sangeeta (PW 2), Laxman (PW 11) and Smt. Shanta (PW 9), who were alleged to be present at the place of occurrence and immediately came to know about the incident occurred. 14. Laxman (PW 1) who is brother-in-law of the appellant Arjunlal, being brother of Smt. Sangeeta (PW 2), has deposed that Arjun's wife was sleeping in a room and all others were sleeping in the verandah. Around 4 A. M. Laxman (PW 11) woke up, he awakened them and said what had happened. When they went inside the room they saw Savita lying dead, she had injuries on neck and cheek. Arjun started crying. He denied any knowledge as to by whom and by what weapon Savita had been eliminated. He admitted his signature on written report (Ex. P/1) and other memos drawn by the police. However, in cross examination, he stated that Ex. Arjun started crying. He denied any knowledge as to by whom and by what weapon Savita had been eliminated. He admitted his signature on written report (Ex. P/1) and other memos drawn by the police. However, in cross examination, he stated that Ex. P/1 was written by Hazari and he had affixed his signature thereon. He deposed that Ex. P/1 contains the details what he had spoken and other details also. On being confronted with the written report (Ex. P/1) and statement recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr. P. C. (Ex. P/9), the contents thereof contrary to his deposition before the court, he stated the same to be incorrect. 15. Smt. Sangeeta (PW 2) who is sister of the appellant herein has also turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case. She deposed that the appellant herein, her husband and the person accompanying the appellant slept in a separate room and her sister-in-law (deceased) and her children slept in yet another room. At the time when the cock bang, her husband, Arjunlal and the person accompanying him were indulged in conversation, her sister-in-law Savita was lying dead in the room. She denied the knowledge as to who opened the door. She deposed that all three were standing inside. Savita had suffered injuries on the throat, ear and neck and blood was oozing out. She further stated that she did not know if Arjun had killed Savita. In cross examination, she deposed that the appellant Arjunlal and his wife deceased Savita were enjoying good relation and never indulged in quarrel. 16. Laxman (PW 11) who is alleged to be interested witness, being real brother of deceased Savita, while supporting the prosecution story deposed that after taking the meal at 9 P. M. his sister Savita and brother-in-law Arjun slept in a separate room and he and Laxman (PW 1) slept outside in the verandah whereas, his wife Smt. Shanti (PW 9), Sangeeta (PW 2) and children slept in yet another room, then said that children were sleeping with the appellant Arjunlal. Around 4 A. M. hearing a sound of falling down and cry of the children from Arjun's room, they woke up and Arjun was asked to open the door. On the door being opened, they saw Savita lying on the floor. Around 4 A. M. hearing a sound of falling down and cry of the children from Arjun's room, they woke up and Arjun was asked to open the door. On the door being opened, they saw Savita lying on the floor. She had suffered severe injuries on right cheek, ear and in the back of neck and was covered in blood. He deposed that Arjun stated that he has accomplished the work and would kill him also. Further that a sword was lying there, Arjun has murdered Savita by sword. In cross examination, he stated that when the room was opened, there was dark. The children were sleeping in the room of Arjun. He denied the knowledge if anybody entered the room after they slept. He further deposed that he had left the place of occurrence alongwith his wife Smt. Shanta (PW 9) while it was still dark. He stated that Arjun and his sister were staying at his home peacefully and till that time, Arjun had no quarrel with his wife. He further deposed that he did not hear the sound of any quarrel between them in the midnight or thereafter in the morning. 17. Shanta (PW 9) in her examination-in-chief has deposed in the line of the deposition of her husband Laxman (PW 11). But in the cross examination, contrary to the examination in chief, she deposed as under: 18. A conjoint reading of the deposition of all the four witnesses Laxman (PW 1), Sangeeta (PW 2), Laxman (11) and Smt. Shanta (PW 9), makes it abundantly clear that on the fateful day, they all were present at the place of occurrence. But then, their statements regarding their places of sleeping in the night within the precincts of the house of Laxman (PW 1) are at great variance. As per deposition of Laxman (PW 1) except Arjun, deceased Savita and their children who were sleeping in a separate room, everybody else was sleeping outside the rooms in the verandah whereas, as per Smt. Shanta (PW 2), her husband Laxman (PW 1), the appellant Arjunlal and Laxman (PW 11) were sleeping in separate room and her sister-in-law (deceased Savita) alongwith her children were sleeping in yet another room. Laxman (PW 11) has deposed that his sister Savita (deceased) and brother-in-law Arjunlal alongwith children were sleeping in a separate room and Shanta (PW 9) and Sangeeta (PW 2) were sleeping in yet another room and he and Laxman (PW 1) were sleeping outside in the verandah. Thus, there exists material discrepancy in the statement of the witnesses regarding their location in the precincts of the house at the time of occurrence. 19. It is pertinent to note that Smt. Shanta (PW 9) contrary to what she stated in examination-in-chief, in cross examination, categorically deposed that all the females were sleeping in the room whereas all the males were sleeping outside the rooms in verandah and thus, her statement regarding the places of sleeping of the persons present in the house on the fateful day is in line of the witnesses Laxman (PW 1) and Smt. Sangeeta (PW 2). 20. Obviously, on the fateful night if Arjunlal was not sharing the room with his wife Smt. Savita (deceased) as deposed by the witnesses Laxman (PW 1), Smt. Sangeeta (PW 2) and Smt. Shanta (PW 9) then the story as projected by the prosecution that on hearing the sound of falling down and screaming others present in the house woke up, Laxman (PW 1) while banging the door asked Arjun as to what's the matter, Arjun opening the door and their seeing Smt. Savita lying injured on the floor covered in blood with the sword nearby, stand belied. To put in other words, if the accused appellant was not present in the room where Smt. Savita was sleeping in the night and found dead in the morning, the very basis of the prosecution story would stand demolished. 21. As discussed hereinabove, as per the deposition of Laxman (PW 1) and Sangeeta (PW 2), Arjun was not sharing the room with Smt. Savita while sleeping in the night rather, he was sharing room with Laxman (PW 1) and Laxman (PW 11) and Smt. Savita alongwith her children was staying in yet another room. 21. As discussed hereinabove, as per the deposition of Laxman (PW 1) and Sangeeta (PW 2), Arjun was not sharing the room with Smt. Savita while sleeping in the night rather, he was sharing room with Laxman (PW 1) and Laxman (PW 11) and Smt. Savita alongwith her children was staying in yet another room. As per Laxman (PW 11), Arjun was sleeping in a room alongwith her wife Smt. Savita (deceased) and his children but, Smt. Shanta (PW 9), the wife of Laxman (PW 11) though in her examination-in-chief deposed that Arjun was sharing the room with Smt. Savita but in the cross examination, she has stated in unequivocal terms that at the Laxman's (PW 1) house, all the males were sleeping outside in verandah and all the females were sleeping in a room. She expressed her ignorance as to who entered the room of Savita and what had happened. In this view of the matter, in the considered opinion of this court, it is difficult to accept the version of the witness Laxman (PW 11) in stating that Arjun was sharing the room with his wife Smt. Savita in the intervening night of 22. 1. 09 and 23. 1. 09, as correct, which makes the entire prosecution story as set out suspicious. 22. Laxman (PW 11) on whose testimony the prosecution case rests has stated that Arjun said that the work he had intended to do, has been accomplished, he will kill him also and therefore, he got frightened. He alongwith his wife ran away from the place of occurrence. In the cross examination, he stated that he had left the place of occurrence when there was still dark. At the same time, he has admitted that his statement was recorded by the police at the place of occurrence and thereafter, he had gone to the police station. As per deposition of Kalyan Singh (PW 12), on the telephonic message being received from Hajaram he had reached the place of occurrence at 7 A. M. The conduct of Laxman (PW 11) in running away from the place of occurrence, whose sister has been murdered, also appears to be unnatural. As per deposition of Kalyan Singh (PW 12), on the telephonic message being received from Hajaram he had reached the place of occurrence at 7 A. M. The conduct of Laxman (PW 11) in running away from the place of occurrence, whose sister has been murdered, also appears to be unnatural. Suffice it to say that keeping in view the contradictions in the statement of Laxman (PW 11) as also his conduct, he cannot be considered to be a witness of sterling worth, whose testimony could be wholly relied upon so as to convict the accused appellant. 23. Coming to the version of the complainant Laxman (PW 1) in the written report (Ex. P/1) transcribed by Hajarilal (PW 13), it needs to be noticed that Laxman (PW 1) in his deposition has stated in unequivocal terms that it contains the details which were never disclosed by him. Further, Hajarilal (PW 13) in his deposition has admitted in clear terms that the FIR was written by him as said by Dy. S. P. & SHO and Laxman had only put his signature thereon and thus, it is difficult to accept that the written report (Ex. P/1) as lodged contains the details of the incident as revealed by the complainant Laxman (PW 1). Even otherwise, learned counsel for the appellant was justified in contending that the FIR is not substantive piece of evidence and it cannot be used to corroborate the statement of third party and it can be used only for the purpose of corroboration of the evidence of the person lodging the same, which in the instant case is not corroborated. 24. This takes us to consider other corroborative evidence on record. As per the prosecution, the weapon of offence i. e. blood stained sword was recovered from the place of occurrence and was seized by seizure memo (Ex. P/6). Police personnel Hajaram and one Shri Dinesh were the witnesses of seizure memo. Dinesh has not been examined as witness. Hajaram (PW 3) in his deposition has stated that the blood stained sword was put in the police jeep and the same was not sealed and seized before him. The finger prints if any on the hilt of the sword were not taken by the police. Dinesh has not been examined as witness. Hajaram (PW 3) in his deposition has stated that the blood stained sword was put in the police jeep and the same was not sealed and seized before him. The finger prints if any on the hilt of the sword were not taken by the police. In this view of the matter, it is difficult to accept the recovery of sword as evidence directly connecting the accused appellant to the commission of crime. 25. In the instant case, there is total absence of the motive, to the contrary, the witnesses Laxman (PW 1), Sangeeta (PW 2), Smt. Shanta Devi (PW 9) and the brother of the deceased Laxman (PW 11) all have deposed that they were enjoying good relation and there was no quarrel between them at any point of time. The character of the deceased Savita projected as motive of the crime is not supported by any evidence whatsoever on record. Rather, in the cross examination when it was suggested by the prosecution to Smt. Shanta (PW 9) regarding the relationship of Smt. Savita with Dinesh and Raju, she had denied the knowledge in this regard specifically. 26. It is well settled that the prosecution has to prove its case on the basis of cogent evidence on record beyond reasonable doubt and the burden can never be shifted on the accused. No improvement or re-writing of the evidence is permissible. [vide Dhanpal's case ]. Thus, on account of the failure of the accused appellant in not explaining the incident occurred, no inference whatsoever regarding his guilt could be drawn. 27. In " Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra , 1984 AIR(SC) 1622", the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down following five golden principles named as "panchsheel" of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence : (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. (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. (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, and (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. " 28. In the instant case, the guilt of the accused having not been established on the basis of any direct evidence on record and further in absence of motive, solely on the basis of the recovery of the blood stained T-shirt of the accused appellant which as per the FSL report was found to be stained with blood of group 'B' i. e. the blood group of the deceased, we do not find it safe to hold the accused appellant guilty for offence under Section 302 IPC and he deserves to be extended the benefit of doubt. 29. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The conviction of the accused appellant Arjunlal for offence under Section 302 IPC is set aside. The accused appellant is acquitted of the charge giving the benefit of doubt. The accused appellant Arjunlal shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case. However, he will execute a bail bond in sum of Rs. 25,000/- to the satisfaction of trial court in terms of provisions of Section 437A of the Criminal Procedure Code.