JUDGMENT Chandra Kumar Songara, J. - Instant criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred on behalf of the accused- appellant, namely Jitendra @ Chandi son of Shri Bhagwan Singh assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 17.03.2018 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, No.2, Tijara District Alwar, in Sessions Case No.06/2017, whereby the accused-appellant was convicted and sentenced as under :- Offence U/s. Imprisonment Fine Sentence in default of payment 302 I.P.C Life imprisonment Rs.5000/- To further undergo two months simple imprisonment. 201 I.P.C. Five years rigorous imprisonment Rs.5000/- To further undergo two months simple imprisonment Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows :- Complainant - Kushal Singh (PW-3) had submitted a written-report (Exhibit-P/5) to the S.H.O. Police Station Tapukada District Alwar alleging therein that Seema daughter of Makhan Singh, was married to Jitendra. After marriage, Jitendra used to beat Seema, as a result of which she came to the residence of her Mausi (maternal- aunt). Jitendra also came there and started living with her. He used to beat her after consuming liquor. Few days ago, Jitendra took Seema at his house after enticing her and tried to kill her by beating. Upon this, Gurmukh Singh had beaten Jitendra. Yesterday, on 21.10.2016 at about 03:00 P.M. the landlord informed that the room is locked for four days and there is foul smell coming from the room. Police was called and the lock was broken. Dead-body of Seema was found there but Jitendra had already absconded from the place of occurrence. 3. On the aforesaid information, an F.I.R. bearing registration No.325/2016 (Exhibit-P/6) came to be lodged at Police Station, Tapukada District Alwar for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code. After completion of investigation, the Police presented the charge-sheet against the accused-person. 4. Charges were framed by the learned trial Court for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of I.P.C. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed trial. 5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as seventeen-witnesses, during trial. The accused when examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., after closing of the prosecution evidence, pleaded that he had been falsely implicated in the present case. 5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as seventeen-witnesses, during trial. The accused when examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., after closing of the prosecution evidence, pleaded that he had been falsely implicated in the present case. He chose to lead evidence in his defence but did not produce any defence evidence. 6. After hearing the arguments advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor for the State & learned defence counsel and after appreciating the evidence available on record, the learned trial Court proceeded to convict and sentenced the accused-appellant, namely Jitendra @ Chandi, as stated herein-above. Hence, the present appeal. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant has submitted that the appellant was not present at the residence at the time of incident or even 15-20 days prior to the alleged incident. Counsel has further submitted that the entire case of the prosecution is based on the circumstantial evidence and the chain of the circumstances is not complete. Counsel has also submitted that the learned trial Court has erred in not taking into consideration the fact that from the statements of the prosecution witnesses, no case is said to be made out against the accused-appellant. Counsel has contended that the complainant - Kushal Singh, who was examined as PW-3, stated that he was informed at 03:00 P.M. by the owner of the house, but as per his statement, he reached at 08:00 P.M. at the place of alleged incident. Shri Bhagwan, owner of the house, who was examined as PW-5 also did not support the case of prosecution. Mahendra Singh (PW-1) and Gurmukh Singh (PW-2) witnesses of recovery of the broken lock did not corroborate the version of the Investigating Officer. Dr. Sagar Arora (PW-9) has stated that the injury received on the neck is not clear. Counsel has further contended that so far as recovery of 'chunni' and 'key' from the accused-appellant is concerned, both the things were recovered from an open place and the said recovery of 'chunni' and 'key' is also doubtful. Counsel has also contended that the findings of the learned trial Court are based on surmises & conjunctures and without considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned trial Court convicted the accused-appellant Jitendra @ Chandi. Counsel has also contended that the findings of the learned trial Court are based on surmises & conjunctures and without considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned trial Court convicted the accused-appellant Jitendra @ Chandi. Lastly, counsel has prayed that the present appeal filed on his behalf be allowed and the impugned judgment be quashed and set aside. 8. During the course of arguments, learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant, has placed reliance upon the following judgments viz., (i) Aghnoo Nagesia Vs. State of Bihar, reported as AIR 1966 SC 119 , (ii) Shivaji Chintappa Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported as AIR 2021 SC 1249 , (iii) State of Goa Vs. Sanjay Thakran and Others, reported as JT 2007 (5) SC 146 and (iv) Irshad Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported as RLW 2006 (4) Raj. 3013. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant and urged that from the statements of the prosecution witnesses and the material made available on record, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. State counsel has further submitted that the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court is based on cogent and sound reasons. Hence, the impugned judgment against the accused-appellant Jitendra @ Chandi does not warrant any interference of this Court in the appeal. 10. During the course of arguments, learned counsel appearing for the State, has placed reliance upon the following judgments viz., (i) Govindaraju @ Govinda Vs. State by Sriramapuram P.S., reported as (2012) 4 SCC 722 and another (ii) State of U.P. Vs. Ramesh Prasad Misra and another, reported as (1996) 10 SCC 360 . 11. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and gone through the impugned judgment as well as material made available on record. 12. Prosecution has examined as many as seventeen witnesses, whereas the accused-appellant has not examined any witness in his defence. 13. Mahendra Singh (PW-1) and Gurmukh Singh (PW-2) deposed about Exhibit-P/1 memo of Panchnama of the dead-body of Smt. Seema Bai, Exhibit-P/2 description memo of the dead-body of deceased Seema Bai, Exhibit-P/3 site-plan of the place of incident with its description and Exhibit-P/4 seizure memo of the broken lock with its description. 13. Mahendra Singh (PW-1) and Gurmukh Singh (PW-2) deposed about Exhibit-P/1 memo of Panchnama of the dead-body of Smt. Seema Bai, Exhibit-P/2 description memo of the dead-body of deceased Seema Bai, Exhibit-P/3 site-plan of the place of incident with its description and Exhibit-P/4 seizure memo of the broken lock with its description. Arjun Singh (PW-4) and Kalidas (PW-7) also deposed about Exhibit-P/1 memo of Panchnama of the dead-body of Smt. Seema Bai. Mahendra Singh (PW-1) admitted in his cross-examination that Police had not broken the lock in his presence and he had not seen any lock. Gurmukh Singh (PW-2) admitted in his cross-examination that Police had not made seizure memo of broken lock with its description in his presence. Police had obtained his signatures on blank paper vide Exhibit-P/4. Mahendra Singh (PW-1) admitted in his cross-examination that at the time of memo of Panchnama of the dead-body of Smt. Seema, nobody had said anything as to how Seema died. Gurmukh Singh (PW-2) admitted in his cross-examination that people told him that Jitendra had left the house 15-20 days ago, so Seema used to remain angry at Jitendra and, therefore, Seema committed suicide. Kushal Singh (PW-3), who is the complainant and the deceased Seema was the daughter of his sister-in-law, deposed about Exhibit-P/5 written-report and Exhibit-P/6 F.I.R. No.325/2016 registered (Downloaded on 30/11/2022 at 12:13:39 PM) at Police Station Tapukara District Alwar. In examination-in-chief, this witness stated that he did not know as to how Seema died. In his cross- examination, he admitted that he did not know from whom he got the report written as he is illiterate. Also, report was not read over to him. His thumb impression was affixed. He had not seen broken lock. Police did not conduct any proceedings with regard to breaking the lock in his presence. He further admitted that Jitendra used to remain out for months due to company work, for this reason, Seema used to remain angry at him. People told that Jitendra had gone out 15-20 days before the date of incident. Shri Bhagwan (PW-5) who is the owner of the alleged rented room, admitted in his cross-examination that when Seema died, Jitendra had been out for 15-20 days due to company work. Anoop (PW-6), Deepak (PW-8), Ramlakhan (PW-10) and Manoj (PW-17) are all hostile witnesses. Dr. People told that Jitendra had gone out 15-20 days before the date of incident. Shri Bhagwan (PW-5) who is the owner of the alleged rented room, admitted in his cross-examination that when Seema died, Jitendra had been out for 15-20 days due to company work. Anoop (PW-6), Deepak (PW-8), Ramlakhan (PW-10) and Manoj (PW-17) are all hostile witnesses. Dr. Sagar Arora (PW-9) being posted as Medical Officer at C.H.C. Tapukada, on 22.10.2016 had conducted autopsy on the dead- body of Seema vide Exhibit-P/9. The cause of death marked as A to B, reads as under :- "Cause of death - strangulation and throttling of neck leading to Asphyxia and death." Dr. Sagar Arora (PW-9) further deposed about Exhibit-P/10 to Exhibit-P/13 photographs taken at the time of post mortem of deceased Seema. In his cross-examination, Doctor admitted that it was not clear as to how injury marks were received on the neck of deceased Seema. Zahir Abbas (PW-11) being the Investigating Officer of the case, deposed about Exhibit-P/5 written-report, Exhibit-P/6 F.I.R. No.325/2016 registered at Police Station Tapukada, Exhibit-P/1 memo of Panchnama of the dead-body of Smt. Seema Bai, Exhibit-P/2 description memo of dead-body of deceased Seema Bai, Exhibit-P/3 site-plan of the place of incident with its description, Exhibit-P/14 seizure and recovery memo of one 'Chunni' (dupatta), Exhibit-P/15 seizure and recovery memo of 'Key' at the instance of accused Jitendra @ Chandi, Exhibit-P/16 delivery receipt of the dead-body of deceased Smt. Seema Bai, Exhibit-P/17 Inquiry note, Exhibit-P/18 arrest and personal search memo of accused Jitendra @ Chandi, Exhibit-P/19 information memo under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act given by accused Jitendra @ Chandi about 'Chunni', Exhibit-P/20 information memo under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act given by accused Jitendra @ Chandi about 'Key', Exhibit-P/21 site-plan of the place of recovery of 'chunni' with its description and Exhibit-P/22 site-plan of the place of recovery of 'key' with its description. In his cross-examination, Investigating Officer (PW-11) admitted that the complainant Kushal Singh had not told in Exhibit-P/5 that who killed Seema. Panchnama did not state that who killed Seema. He could not say that at the time of alleged incident, Jitendra was present in his room or not. The alleged 'Chunni' was recovered from the bushes. It was true that 'chunni' and 'key' were recovered from an open place and no blood stains were found on the seized 'chunni'. Panchnama did not state that who killed Seema. He could not say that at the time of alleged incident, Jitendra was present in his room or not. The alleged 'Chunni' was recovered from the bushes. It was true that 'chunni' and 'key' were recovered from an open place and no blood stains were found on the seized 'chunni'. Sunil Kumar (PW-12) Constable and Yudhveer (PW-13) Constable deposed about Exhibit-P/14 seizure and recovery memo of one 'chunni' (dupatta), Exhibit-P/18 arrest and personal search memo of accused Jitendra @ Chandi, Exhibit-P/21 site-plan of the place of recovery of 'chunni' with its description. Sunil Kumar (PW-12) Constable and Gajraj (PW-14) Constable deposed about Exhibit-P/15 seizure and recovery memo of 'key' at the instance of accused Jitendra @ Chandi and Exhibit-P/22 site-plan of the place of recovery of 'key' with its description. Sunil Kumar (PW-12) admitted in his cross-examination that 'chunni' and 'key' were recovered from an open place. Yudhveer (PW- 13) also admitted in his cross-examination that the recovery place of 'chunni' was open place. Rajesh Kumar (PW-15) Incharge-Malkhana deposed about Exhibit-P/23 extract copy of the Malkhana Register. Sajjan Kumar (PW-16) another Investigating Officer of the case, deposed about Exhibit-P/4 seizure memo of the broken lock with its description. 14. On appreciation of evidence, it is clear that in the present case, the prosecution has examined as many as seventeen-witnesses during trial. Anoop (PW-6), Deepak (PW-8), Ramlakhan (PW-10) and Manoj (PW-17) all four are hostile witnesses. Arjun Singh (PW-4), Kalidas (PW-7) and Rajesh Kumar (PW-15) all three are formal witnesses. Dr. Sagar Arora (PW-9) deposed about Exhibit-P/9 Post Mortem Report of Seema and Exhibit-P/10 to Exhibit-P/13 photographs. He admitted in his cross-examination that as to how injury marks were received on the neck of deceased, it was not clear. Zahir Abbas (PW-11) and Sajjan Kumar (PW-16) are the Investigating Officers of the case. 15. Kushal Singh (PW-3) who is the complainant of the case and the deceased Seema was daughter of his sister-in-law, does not support the story of the prosecution in his cross-examination as complainant. He admitted in his cross-examination that he did not know from whom he got the report written as he is illiterate. Also, report was not read over to him. He admitted in his cross-examination that he did not know from whom he got the report written as he is illiterate. Also, report was not read over to him. Mahendra Singh (PW-1) and Kushal Singh (PW-3) in their cross and examination-in-chief stated that they did not know as to how Seema died, whereas Gurmukh Singh (PW-2) in his cross-examination stated that Seema had committed suicide. Zahir Abbas (PW-11) Investigating Officer also admitted in his cross-examination that the complainant Kushal Singh had not stated in the F.I.R. (Exhibit-P/6) that who killed Seema. Panchanama also did not state that who killed Seema. Gurmukh Singh (PW-2), Kushal Singh (PW-3) and Shri Bhagwan (PW-5) admitted in their cross-examination that the people told that Jitendra had been out for 15-20 days due to company work. Zahir Abbas (PW-11) Investigating Officer also admitted in cross- examination that he could not say that at the time of alleged incident Jitendra was present in his room or not. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the last seen evidence that the accused and deceased Seema were last seen together soon before the alleged incident. 16. In the case of State of Goa (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court, in Para Nos.18 and 31, has held as under :- "18. On the information received by the police, the accused persons were arrested at Agra and at the time of arrest on 30.01.2000, as per the prosecution, certain incriminating articles were seized from the accused couple at Agra. The police recovered the ladies purse and salwar suit from A-2- Anjali Thakran. These articles were put for Test Identification which was conducted in the presence of P.W.24- Vinayak S.N. Alornekar, Special Judicial Magistrate on 10.02.2000. During this T.I. Parade, P.W.5-Kishen Valecha, brother of deceased Priya Nanda, was unable to identify the salwar suit, but he had identified the ladies purse belonged to his sister and the reason given for identifying it was that she was carrying the same purse while leaving for Vaishnodevi after marriage. Another witness P.W.33- Subhash Nanda, identified both purse and salwar kameez as belonging to his daughter-in-law, Priya Nanda. In his cross- examination, P.W.-33 has mentioned that he identified the salwar kameez only from the colour and design and not from any other identification mark. He has admitted that same salwar suit and purse are available in the market. Another witness P.W.33- Subhash Nanda, identified both purse and salwar kameez as belonging to his daughter-in-law, Priya Nanda. In his cross- examination, P.W.-33 has mentioned that he identified the salwar kameez only from the colour and design and not from any other identification mark. He has admitted that same salwar suit and purse are available in the market. P.W.-5 has also admitted in his cross- examination that there was no distinctive mark on the purse. Identification of these articles have been disbelieved by the courts below and, in our opinion, rightly so. When the persons identified it, they did not have sufficient opportunity to see these articles used by the deceased for a long duration, and when the articles do not carry any distinctive marks, on the basis of which the articles can be distinguished from the similar articles which are easily accessible and available in the market, identification of the articles by the witnesses would be difficult to be believed. The recovery of these articles from the accused in the absence of their identification as belonging to the deceased, does not take the prosecution case any further. 31. In the light of the factors that evidence regarding the recovery of the incriminating materials from the accused persons has been discarded; that there has been sufficient time gap between the instances when the accused persons were last seen together with the deceased persons; and in the absence of any other corroborative piece of evidence to complete the chain of circumstances to fasten the guilt on the accused couple, we are of the opinion that the accused have been rightly given the benefit of doubt by the courts below. We have found that the finding of the High Court that the chain of circumstances is not complete to conclusively establish that either A-1 or A-2 alone or with the common intention of each other have committed the dreadful crime of murder of newly married couple, is correct and merely suspicion, however grave, cannot replace the weight attached to the evidence. Accordingly, we order for dismissal of the appeals." ' 17. Mahendra Singh (PW-1), Gurmukh Singh (PW-2) and Kushal Singh (PW-3) admitted in their cross-examination that Police had not broken the lock in their presence. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove Exhibit-P/4 seizure memo of broken lock with its description. 18. Accordingly, we order for dismissal of the appeals." ' 17. Mahendra Singh (PW-1), Gurmukh Singh (PW-2) and Kushal Singh (PW-3) admitted in their cross-examination that Police had not broken the lock in their presence. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove Exhibit-P/4 seizure memo of broken lock with its description. 18. Sunil Kumar (PW-12) Constable, Yudhveer (PW-13) Constable, Gajraj (PW-14) Constable and Zahir Abbas (PW-11) Investigating Officer, all in their cross-examination admitted that the recovery place of 'chunni' and 'key' was an open place and no blood stains were found on the seized 'chunni'. The Motbir of Exhibit-P/14 and Exhibit-P/15 are not independent witnesses. Therefore, Exhibit-P/14 and Exhibit-P/15 seizure and recovery memos of 'chunni' and 'key' do not support the case of the prosecution. 19. In the case of Aghnoo Nagesia (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court, has held as under :- "22. Section 27 applies only to information received from a person accused of an offence in the custody of a police officer. Now, the Sub Inspector stated that he arrested the appellant after he gave the first information report leading to the discovery. Prima facie, therefore, the appellant was not in the custody of a police officer when he gave the report, unless it can be said that he was then in constructive custody. On the question whether a person directly giving to a police officer information which may be used as evidence against him -may be deemed to have submitted himself to the custody of the police officer within the meaning of s. 27, there is conflict of opinion. See the observations of Shah, J. and Subba Rao, J. in State of U.P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya(1). For the purposes of the case, we shall assume that the appellant was constructively in police custody and therefore the information contained in the first information report leading to the discovery of the dead bodies and the tangi is admissible in evidence. The entire evidence against the appellant then consists of the fact that the appellant gave information as to the place where the dead bodies were lying and as to the place where he concealed the tangi the discovery of the dead bodies and the tangi in consequence of the information, the discovery of a blood-stained chadar from the appellant's house and the fact that he had gone to Dungi Jharan Hills on the morning of August 11, 1963. This evidence is not sufficient to convict the appellant of the offenses under s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code." In the case of Irshad (supra), Division Bench of this Court, has held as under :- "17. Again the Division Bench of this Court in Mohan Vs. State of Rajasthan, 1985 RCC 406 indicated that where a weapon from open place got recovered after more than a month of occurrence, no reliance can be placed on such recovery." In the case Govindaraju @ Govinda (supra) cited by the learned counsel appearing for the State, it has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, as under :- "19. The obvious result of the above discussion is that the statement of a police officer can be relied upon and even form the basis of conviction when it is reliable, trustworthy and preferably corroborated by other evidence on record." In the case State of U.P. (supra) cited by the learned counsel appearing for the State, it has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, as under :- "5. The question, therefore, is whether the first respondent has committed the murder of his wife ? Undoubtedly, the entire prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence. It is settled law that it is the duty of the prosecution to establish all the circumstances conclusively to hold that the respondent alone had committed the offence. Witnesses may be prone to speak, and in this case, material witnesses have spoken falsehood but the circumstantial evidence will not. It is, therefore, the duty of the court to carefully scan through the evidence on the anvil of human conduct, probabilities and attending circumstances extending all doubts in favour of the accused. In a case of this type, hardly any direct evidence would be forthcoming for the prosecution." 20. The aforesaid two judgments relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the State, fail to advance the case of the prosecution looking to aforesaid discussion. 21. In the case of Shivaji Chintappa Patil (supra) Hon'ble Apex Court, has held as under :- "22. It could thus be seen, that it is well-settled that Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not directly operate against either a husband or wife staying under the same roof and being the last person seen with the deceased. 21. In the case of Shivaji Chintappa Patil (supra) Hon'ble Apex Court, has held as under :- "22. It could thus be seen, that it is well-settled that Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not directly operate against either a husband or wife staying under the same roof and being the last person seen with the deceased. Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not absolve the prosecution of discharging its primary burden of proving the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt. It is only when the prosecution has led evidence which, if believed, will sustain a conviction, or which makes out a prima facie case, that the question arises of considering facts of which the burden of proof would lie upon the accused. 32. It is more than settled principle of law that if two views are possible, the benefit shall always go to the accused. It will be apposite to refer to the following observations of this Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (supra):- "163. We then pass on to another important point which seems to have been completely missed by the High Court. It is well settled that where on the evidence two possibilities are available or open, one which goes in favour of the prosecution and the other which benefits an accused, the accused is undoubtedly entitled to the benefit of doubt. In Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh (1973) 2 SCC 808 , this Court made the following observations : [SCC para 25, p. 820 : SCC (Cri) p. 1060] "Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases, is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in cases wherein the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence." 22. It is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused-appellant was present at the residence at the time of alleged incident. The entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence but the chain of the circumstances is not complete. 23. The recovery of broken lock is not established. It is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused-appellant was present at the residence at the time of alleged incident. The entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence but the chain of the circumstances is not complete. 23. The recovery of broken lock is not established. Mahendra Singh (PW-1) and Gurmukh Singh (PW-2) have stated in their cross- examination that lock was not broken and recovered in their presence and they were made to sign at blank paper in the Police Station. 24. The recovery of 'Chunni' and Key do not form a chain for the very reason that recovery was effected from an open place, from the same spot from where 'chunni' was recovered (Exhibit-P/21) on 23.10.2016, key was recovered (Exhibit-P/22) on 24.10.2016. Sunil Kumar (PW-12) has admitted that no independent witness was called for recovery of 'chunni' and key. The recovery is, therefore, not established from independent witnesses further recovery of key from the same spot on the next day also makes the recovery of key doubtful. 25. The prosecution has further not established that the key recovered vide Exhibit-P/22 is the key of the lock recovered from the room. Zahir Abbas (PW-11) Investigating Officer has admitted in his cross-examination that he did not prepare any document to the effect that the key was of the same lock. Though, recovery of key is doubtful but even assuming for the sake of arguments that the key was recovered, it is not established that the key was of the same lock which was recovered. 26. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, for bringing home the guilt, chain has to be connected, however, in the present case, not a single link in a chain is established, there is no evidence that appellant was present at his house, recovery of 'chunni' and key do not form any link in the chain. 27. Yet another story, which emerges from evidence of Shri Bhagwan (PW-5) is that truck drivers used to visit the deceased and she was having illicit relations with truck drivers. The possibility of some truck drivers committing the offence cannot be ruled out. 28. 27. Yet another story, which emerges from evidence of Shri Bhagwan (PW-5) is that truck drivers used to visit the deceased and she was having illicit relations with truck drivers. The possibility of some truck drivers committing the offence cannot be ruled out. 28. Learned Trial Court has convicted the appellant on the basis of cross-examination of Zahir Abbas (PW-11) Investigating Officer, wherein he stated that on the basis of interrogation note of accused and statement of witnesses, it was established that accused committed the offence on 19.10.2016 (Karwachauth). Learned Trial Court has committed grave error in placing reliance on the interrogation note, there was not a single witness, who stated that accused-appellant was at his house on 19.10.2016 (Karwachauth), rather evidence was to the effect that he was not at his house for last 10-15 days. 29. Learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the cross- examination of the complainant, Investigating Officer and the other aforesaid prosecution witnesses. 30. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the firm opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge levelled by them and also failed to establish the guilt against the accused-appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the appellant is liable to be acquitted of the charges under Sections 302 and 201 of I.P.C. by giving him the benefit of doubt. 31. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 17.03.2018 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, No.2, Tijara District Alwar is quashed and set aside. The appellant Jitendra @ Chandi is acquitted of charges under Section 302 and 201 of I.P.C. The appellant Jitendra @ Chandi, who is in custody, be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. The appellant Jitendra @ Chandi is acquitted of charges under Section 302 and 201 of I.P.C. The appellant Jitendra @ Chandi, who is in custody, be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. Keeping in view of the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the accused-appellant, namely Jitendra @ Chandi son of Shri Bhagwan Singh is directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount, before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, which shall be effective for a period of six months with the stipulation that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the judgment or on grant of leave to appeal, the accused-appellant Jitendra @ Chandi son of Shri Bhagwan Singh, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.