Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1540 (RAJ)

Roop Singh @ If Singh @ Dal Singh v. State

2024-11-11

MUNNURI LAXMAN, PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2024
JUDGMENT : Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. 1. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this appeal may kindly be allowed and impugned judgment dated 11.12.2014 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Nathdwara in Sessions Case No. 11/2010 may kindly be quashed and set aside and the appellants may kindly be acquitted from all the offences.” 2. The accused-appellants laid a challenge to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.12.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nathdwara, (‘Trial Court’) in Sessions Case No.11/2010 (State of Rajasthan vs. Roop Singh & Ors.), whereby the accused-appellants have been convicted and sentenced as below: Offence under Sentence (s) Section(s) Fine(s) 302/34 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.5000/-, in default of which, was ordered to undergo further 6 months’ Imprisonment. 201 IPC 7 years’ R.I. Rs.5000/-, in default of which, was ordered to undergo further 6 months Imprisonment. 392 IPC 10 years’ R.I. Rs.5000/-, in default of which, was ordered to undergo further 1 Year’s Imprisonment 397 IPC 7 years’ R.I. Rs 5000/-, in default of which, was ordered to undergo further 6 months Imprisonment. 3. Brief facts of this case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the accused-appellants, are that on 19.04.2010, one Kishan Singh (complainant) submitted a report before the Police Station, Khamnor stating that on the said date, he got an information that in the complainant’s well, a dead body of an unidentified person was floating, whereupon he reached the well. 3.1. It was further stated in the report that by that time, certain neighbours have also reached the place. When the said dead body was pulled out with the help of the other villagers, they found that there were two dead bodies – one female and other male – both of young age (around 30 years). Thus, in such circumstances, a doubt was raised, to the effect that after being killed by some unknown persons, their dead bodies were thrown in the well of the complainant. 3.2. On the basis of the aforesaid report, an FIR bearing FIR No.74/10 was lodged before the concerned Police Station against the unknown persons for the offences under Sections 302 & 201 IPC and the investigation commenced accordingly. 3.3. 3.2. On the basis of the aforesaid report, an FIR bearing FIR No.74/10 was lodged before the concerned Police Station against the unknown persons for the offences under Sections 302 & 201 IPC and the investigation commenced accordingly. 3.3. On 28.04.2010, the crime branch Ahmedabad Gujarat received information as to a group of persons roaming in the city with the purpose of causing theft (including the accused-Roop Singh and Uday Singh), thereafter in connection with the same, the said crime branch arrested the present accused- Roop Singh and Uday Singh alongwith some other persons under Section 41 Cr.P.C. in connection with different FIR. 3.4. During the course of interrogation the accused Roop Singh and Uday Singh, confessed of committing the murder of one Jaiti Bai and Kalu Singh, in the State of Rajasthan, and thereafter stealing ornaments, cash and other articles belonging to the deceased, along with one Bhagwan Lal. A receipt of sale of the ornaments was also found with accused- Roop Singh. 3.5. Thereafter, the information was forwarded to the S.H.O. Police Station, Khamnor and the present accused-appellants were handed over to the concerned police authorities. Subsequently, the investigation began and all circumstantial evidences were collected; whereafter, a charge-sheet was filed against the present accused-appellants under Sections 302/34, 201, 392, and 397 IPC. 3.6. The learned Trial Court framed the charges against the accused-appellants under the aforementioned provisions of IPC; the said charges were read over to the accused-appellants, which they denied and claimed to stand due trial, whereafter, the trial commenced accordingly. 3.7. During the course of trial, the prosecution produced 29 witnesses and 113 documents were exhibited; in defence, 5 witnesses were produced on behalf of the accused-appellants whereafter, the accused-appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which they pleaded innocence and false implication in the criminal case in question. 3.8. Thereafter, upon hearing the contentions of both the parties as well as considering the material evidence placed on record, the learned Trial Court, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants, as above, vide the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.12.2014, against which the present appeal has been preferred by the accused-appellants, claiming the afore-quoted reliefs. 4. 3.8. Thereafter, upon hearing the contentions of both the parties as well as considering the material evidence placed on record, the learned Trial Court, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants, as above, vide the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.12.2014, against which the present appeal has been preferred by the accused-appellants, claiming the afore-quoted reliefs. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellants submitted that the prosecution failed to prove the presence of the present accused-appellants at the place of incident at the relevant time and that identification of the dead bodies was also not proved by the prosecution. It was further submitted that there was no supporting last seen witness in the present case and that it was only on the basis of recovery of an alleged ‘SIM’ and despite failure of the prosecution to prove its case against the accused-appellants beyond all reasonable doubts, the impugned judgment of conviction has been passed by the learned Trial Court, which is not justified in law. 4.1. It was further submitted that as regards the call details of the mobile phones recovered from the accused-appellants, the prosecution neither has been able to corroborate the same by producing the requisite Certificate as per the Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, nor it has proved that the accused-appellants were the owners of the SIM Cards inserted in the said mobile phones. In support of this submission, the learned Counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Anwar P.V. Vs P.K. Basheer (2014) 10 SCC 473 . 4.2. It was also submitted that the said recoveries made on the basis of the confession before the Gujarat Police are not read against accused persons under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and therefore the prosecution has failed to prove the said recoveries from the said accused- appellants. In support of such submission, the learned Counsel relied upon the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in cases of Govind Guru alias Govinda Vs. State (2012) 4 SCC 722 , Masarur Khan Vs. State of MP (2010) 2 SCC 748 and Ashish Jain Vs. Markand Singh & Ors. (2019) 3 SCC 770 . 4.3. In support of such submission, the learned Counsel relied upon the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in cases of Govind Guru alias Govinda Vs. State (2012) 4 SCC 722 , Masarur Khan Vs. State of MP (2010) 2 SCC 748 and Ashish Jain Vs. Markand Singh & Ors. (2019) 3 SCC 770 . 4.3. It was further submitted that the identification of the alleged recovered jewellery from the accused-appellants is not beyond suspicion, and the procedure adopted in this regard is suffering from infirmities, thus, the said evidence could not have been read against the accused-appellants. Therefore, the said vital aspect of the matter also creates a doubt on the prosecution story and hence, the impugned judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is not justified in law. 4.4. It was further submitted that the place of incident, got verified by the accused-appellants, but the same was already well within the knowledge of the concerned investigating officer, and thus, the said verified Naksha Mauka, i.e., Ex.P.11, cannot be used as an evidence against the accused-appellants. 4.5. It was also submitted that the recoveries alleged to have been made, include a Shirt from the accused-appellant Roop Singh, which was not proved by the prosecution adversely against the said accused. Hence, the FSL Report so submitted against the said accused-appellant can not be read in evidence against him. 4.6. It was also submitted that one ‘Mangi’ (the daughter of deceased-Jeti Bai), for meeting whom the deceased left home, was not produced, despite being an important witness, by the prosecution during the trial for due examination. Further the deceased- Kalu Singh’s wife was also neither examined nor brought on record, for which the investigating officer has furnished no satisfactory explanation, which in turn further weakens the prosecution’s case. 4.7. It was further submitted that the investigation has not been conducted in a licit manner and with an unexplainable delay. Further, there has been tampering of evidence as the clothes mentioned in the Fard of the recovered clothes of the deceased-Jeti Bai were of different colour, than those stated as per the prosecution story, during the trial. It was thus submitted that in such circumstances, the prosecution has failed to prove in entirety the chain of events and evidences that implicate the present accused-appellants beyond all reasonable doubts 4.8. It was thus submitted that in such circumstances, the prosecution has failed to prove in entirety the chain of events and evidences that implicate the present accused-appellants beyond all reasonable doubts 4.8. It was further submitted that there are no eyewitnesses in the present case and that the whole case of the prosecution is based solely on circumstantial evidence; in such circumstances, the prosecution ought to have based its case upon the circumstances and instances which could directly connect the accused-appellants with the crime in question, particularly on the aspect of mens rea, which the prosecution has failed to do. Hence, as per learned counsel, the prosecution has based its case on the chain of circumstances, which were neither corroborated by any documentary nor any oral evidence. Thus, on that count also, the impugned judgment passed by the learned Trial Court deserves interference of this Hon’ble Court in the instant appeal. 4.9. In support of such submissions, reliance has been placed on the following judgments: (i) Shiv Narayan Lakshmi Narayan Joshi vs State of Rajasthan &Anr. ( AIR 1980 SC 439 ); and (ii) NCT Delhi vs Navjot Sandhu & Afzal Guru (AIR 2005 SC 3830). (iii) Yogesh Singh vs Mahaveer Singh ( (2017) 11 SCC 195 ) (iv) Harbeer Singh vs Shivpal ( (2016) 16 SCC 418 ) (v) Prakash vs State of Karnataka ((2014) 12SCC 135) (vi) Sharad Birdi Chand Sarda vs State of Maharashtra ( (1984) 4 SCC 116 ) (vii) NCT OF Delhi vs Navjot Sandhu & Afzal Guru ( (2005) 11 SCC 600 ). 5. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent-State, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the accused-appellants, submitted that the accused-appellants used deadly weapons like knife & stick, in furtherance of their common intention and knowledge in connection with the crime in question; the accused-appellants have also forcibly taken the gold and silver jewelry, which the deceased persons were wearing at the relevant time, and thereafter, committed the crime in question, while causing grievous injuries to the deceased, threw their bodies in the Well and thereby committed the offence of robbery as well as murder. The same has been fully corroborated by the testimonies of all the prosecution witnesses as well as the documentary evidence placed on record during the trial by the prosecution. 5.1. The same has been fully corroborated by the testimonies of all the prosecution witnesses as well as the documentary evidence placed on record during the trial by the prosecution. 5.1. It was further submitted that the articles recovered from the accused-appellants were sent for FSL, and the same clearly indicates detection of human blood which matched with the blood found at the place of incident. It was further submitted that certain articles recovered under Section 102 Cr.P.C. were taken into custody by the police station, Khamnor, by a production warrant which were later identified to be belonging to the deceased as per the testimonies of her husband, PW.-2 Bhim Singh, the same further proves that all the required steps were taken during the investigation. 5.2. It was further submitted that the prosecution proved the presence of accused-appellants at the spot of the incident and the same was later verified by the accused appellants during the investigation. It was also submitted that two empty bottles of beer were also recovered, which also proves the presence of the accused-appellants at the place of incident. 5.3. It was also submitted that the post-mortem report Ex.P. 78 (of deceased Kalu Singh) wherein it was stated that there were 2 injuries on the body of the deceased, Kalu Singh, both antemortem, were sufficient to cause death of the deceased. It was further submitted that as per the postmortem report Ex. P.- 79, wherein 3 injuries were found prominently on the body of the deceased Jaiti Bai and that injuries 1 and 3, were grievous and sufficient enough to cause the death. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case alongwith the judgments cited at the Bar. 7. This Court observes that the allegations against the accused-appellants are that they looted the deceased and after stealing the ornaments and other things in possession of the deceased, they killed the deceased persons and threw their bodies in a well. Subsequently, the accused-appellants were charged under the aforementioned provisions of law and the trial was duly conducted, whereupon the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants vide the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 8. Subsequently, the accused-appellants were charged under the aforementioned provisions of law and the trial was duly conducted, whereupon the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants vide the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 8. This Court further observes that in the present case, there is no eyewitness and the same is based on circumstantial evidence and for that purpose, it is expedient to have a look at the case laws pertaining thereto. 8.1. This Court is conscious of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 , relevant portion whereof is reproduced as hereunder-: “153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established:(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned “must or should” and not “may be” established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between “may be proved” and “must be or should be proved” as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra [ (1973) 2 SCC 793 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 1033: 1973 Crl LJ 1783] where the observations were made: [SCC para 19, p. 807: SCC (Cri) p. 1047] “Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.” (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, 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. 154. 154. These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence”. 8.2. This Court is further conscious of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Haresh Mohandas Rajput v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 12 SCC 56 , relevant portion whereof is reproduced as hereunder:- “Circumstantial evidence 14. In Krishnan v. State [ (2008) 15 SCC 430 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 1029] represented by Inspector of Police, this Court after considering a large number of its earlier judgments observed that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests : (SCC p. 435, para 15) “(i) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; (ii) those circumstances should be of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; (iii) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and (iv) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.” 9. This Court further observes that in the present case, the accused-Roop Singh and Uday Singh, were arrested by the Gujarat Police authorities on the basis of suspicion of theft along with other persons and thereafter during the investigation, the said accused-appellants confessed the crime in question and the ornaments were thereafter recovered on the basis of the information given by them. However, there has been no direct and cogent evidence in support of the factum of theft and causation of the double murder in the State of Rajasthan, by the accused-appellants, which weakens the prosecution case. 10. This Court also observes that during the course of investigation, on the basis of the information given by accused-appellants Roop Singh and Uday Singh, recovery of ornaments, money and receipt of sale of ornaments (namely, 17 grams gold ornaments, gold mandaliya, silver bangles, gold nose ring, gold necklace, silver necklace, 3 silver rings, along with other articles) was made. 10. This Court also observes that during the course of investigation, on the basis of the information given by accused-appellants Roop Singh and Uday Singh, recovery of ornaments, money and receipt of sale of ornaments (namely, 17 grams gold ornaments, gold mandaliya, silver bangles, gold nose ring, gold necklace, silver necklace, 3 silver rings, along with other articles) was made. Thereafter, the said ornaments were identified by the family members of the deceased, that they belonged to the deceased. 10.1. This Court further observes that at the time, the FIR was lodged, no information as to the ornaments worn by the deceased was given by the complainant. Even thereafter, when the body of the deceased was recovered from the well, no information of the ornaments missing from the possession of the deceased has not come into picture, nor it has come at any later stage during the investigation. They only came into picture after the arrest of the accused-Roop Singh and Uday Singh (in connection with different FIR), when the said ornaments were recovered from them. 10.2. At this juncture, this court finds it appropriate to reproduce the relavant portion of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Tulesh Kumar Sahu vs State of Chhattisgarh (Criminal Appeal No. 753 of 2021, decided on 24.02.2022). “11. The observations in Ashish Jain were relied upon in the decision in Sonu alias Sunil, and it was found that it would not be safe to uphold the conviction on the basis of material produced by the prosecution. This Court also relied upon the decisions in Sunder Lal alia Sundera vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ( AIR 1954 SC 28 ) and Sanwant Khan vs. State of Rajasthan ( AIR 1956 SC 54 ). The relevant discussion found in paragraphs 27, 28 and 33 of the judgment is:- “27. The scope of this provision has been considered by this Court on various occasions. In Sunder Lal alias Sundera v. State of Madhya Pradesh, both the accused and deceased were seen together. After the alleged murder, the accused went with the article belonging to the deceased for pledging/selling it. In the circumstances, the Court took the view that the ornaments were established to be the ornaments worn by the deceased. In Sunder Lal alias Sundera v. State of Madhya Pradesh, both the accused and deceased were seen together. After the alleged murder, the accused went with the article belonging to the deceased for pledging/selling it. In the circumstances, the Court took the view that the ornaments were established to be the ornaments worn by the deceased. No explanation was forthcoming how the accused came to be in possession on the very same day on which the alleged murder was committed. On this, the Court took the view that the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC, based on the circumstances, was correct. 28. On the other hand, in Sanwant Khan v. State of Rajasthan, one Mahant Ganesh Das, who was a wealthy person, used to live in a temple of Shri Gopalji along with another person. Both of them were found dead. The house had been ransacked and boxes and almirah opened. It was not known at the time who committed the offence. Investigation resulted in arrest of the appellant, and on the same day, he produced a gold khanti from his bara, where it was found buried in the ground. Another accused produced a silver plate. The Court found that there was no direct evidence. There were certain circumstances which were rejected by the Sessions Judge and the solitary circumstance was the recovery of the two articles. In these circumstances, the Court held, inter alia, as follows: “Be that as it may, in the absence of any direct or circumstantial evidence whatsoever, from the solitary circumstance of the unexplained recovery of the two articles from the houses of the two appellants the only inference that can be raised in view of illustration A to S.114 of the Evidence Act is that they are either receivers of stolen property or were the persons who committed the theft, but it does not necessarily indicate that the theft and the murders took place at one and the same time. Here, there is no evidence, direct or circumstantial, that the robbery and murder formed parts of one transaction. It is not even known at what time of the night these events took place. It was only late next morning that it was discovered that the Mahant and Ganpatia had been murdered and looted. In our Judgment, Beaumonth, C.J., and Sen J. in - Bhikha Gobar v. Emperor, AIR 1943 Bom. It is not even known at what time of the night these events took place. It was only late next morning that it was discovered that the Mahant and Ganpatia had been murdered and looted. In our Judgment, Beaumonth, C.J., and Sen J. in - Bhikha Gobar v. Emperor, AIR 1943 Bom. 458 (B) rightly held that the mere fact that an accused produced shortly after the murder ornaments which were on the murdered person is not enough to justify the inference that the accused must have committed the murder. ** ** ** In our judgment no hard and fast rule can be laid down as to what inference should be drawn from a certain circumstance. Where, however, the only evidence against an accused person is the recovery of stolen property and although the circumstances may indicate that the theft and the murder must have been committed at the same time, it is not safe to draw the inference that the person in possession of the stolen property was the murdered. Suspicion cannot take the place of proof.“ (Emphasis supplied) 33. In the case of recovery of an article from an accused person when he stands accused of committing offences other than theft also, (in this instance murder), what are the tests: i. The first thing to be established is that the theft and murder forms part of one transaction. The circumstances may indicate 7 that the theft and murder must have been committed at the same time. But it is not safe to draw the inference that the person in possession of the stolen property was the murderer [Sanwant Khan (supra)]; ii. The nature of the stolen article; iii. The manner of its acquisition by the owner; iv. The nature of evidence about its identification; v. The manner in which it was dealt with by the accused; vi. The place and the circumstances of its recovery; vii. The length of the intervening period; viii. Ability or otherwise of the accused to explain its possession.” 11. The only material which may possibly be taken up against the present accused-appellants is thus extremely weak. There is no other material on record which could even remotely be taken against the accused- appellants. On the strength of the law declared by this Court, the appellants are therefore, entitled to the benefit of doubt. 12. The only material which may possibly be taken up against the present accused-appellants is thus extremely weak. There is no other material on record which could even remotely be taken against the accused- appellants. On the strength of the law declared by this Court, the appellants are therefore, entitled to the benefit of doubt. 12. In light of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court observes that solely on the basis of recovery of stolen articles from the accused-appellants, the burden and liability of the crime in question cannot be fastened upon them. Furthermore, the absence of other material evidence which could remotely be taken against the accused-appellants, further strengthens the case of the accused-appellants. 13. This Court further observes that as per the prosecution the last seen witnesses PW 11 Bhur Singh, PW. 12 Chun Singh, and PW13 Heera Singh, saw the accused-appellants and the deceased together at the relevant time, but the said witnesses have turned hostile during the trial and therefore the last seen theory as relied upon by the prosecution has also failed. 14. This Court also observes that PW. 6 Lakshmi Lal, the witness (motbir) of Mauka Report EX.P. 10, Fard Gatna Sthal Ex.P. 11 and 12, Fard Recovery Memo of wooden stick Ex.P.13, verified Exp. 15 and 16, Recovery of beer bottles Ex.P. 17 and 18 has turned hostile. 15. This Court further observes that there has clearly been inconsistencies with respect to the clothes of the deceased Jaiti Bai as mentioned in the fard and the statements of the prosecution witnesses and the same casts a shadow of doubt as to the reliability of the testimonies of such witnesses. This Court further observes that such a discrepancy cannot be discarded, so as to deny extension of the benefit thereof, in favour of the accused-appellants. 16. This Court also observes that PW.19 Ramesh Bhai, whose motorcycle was allegedly used for the said crime in question, and who was the neighbour of the accused persons has been declared hostile during the course of trial. In such circumstances, therefore, the prosecution’s story does not stand as it failed to prove that the motorcycle used was taken by the accused-appellants without due consent and was used to commit the crime in question. 17. In such circumstances, therefore, the prosecution’s story does not stand as it failed to prove that the motorcycle used was taken by the accused-appellants without due consent and was used to commit the crime in question. 17. This Court further observes that when the judgment of conviction is challenged before the Appellate Court, a proper appreciation of the evidence recorded by the learned Trial Court has to be made. The power of the Appellate Court is provided under Section 386(b) of Cr.PC, which reads as under:- “386. Powers of the Appellate Court.— (b) in an appeal from a conviction— (i) reverse the finding and sentence and acquit or discharge the accused, or order him to be re-tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction subordinate to such Appellate Court or committed for trial, or (ii) alter the finding, maintaining the sentence, or (iii) with or without altering the finding, alter the nature or the extent, or the nature and extent, of the sentence, but not so as to enhance the same.” 17.1.This Court also observes that as provided under Section 386(b)(i) Cr.P.C., the Appellate Court has the power to reverse the findings of the conviction, so as to acquit the accused. 18. This Court further observes that the prosecution case has various inconsistencies viz-a-viz the recoveries. The FSL Report has not been proved substantially against the accused-appellants and the witnesses relied upon by the prosecution have turned hostile. Therefore, in the presence of the such lacunae, the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused-appellants beyond all reasonable doubts, which in the present case, are insufficient in themselves to complete the chain of circumstantial evidence and thus, it would be appropriate to reverse the findings of conviction against the accused- appellants, as recorded by the learned Trial Court in the impugned judgment. 18.1. This Court also observes that looking into the overall factual matrix and the circumstances of the case as well as the evidence and the precedent law, as placed before us, it is a fit case to exercise the power conferred under Section 386(2), which pertains to the reversal of a finding from conviction to acquittal. 19. 18.1. This Court also observes that looking into the overall factual matrix and the circumstances of the case as well as the evidence and the precedent law, as placed before us, it is a fit case to exercise the power conferred under Section 386(2), which pertains to the reversal of a finding from conviction to acquittal. 19. It is however, made clear that a submission has been made on behalf of the accused-appellants that the accused-appellants-Roop Singh and Uday Singh have been behind the bars for about last 14 years, and that there has been no direct evidence which could be sufficient to implicate accused-Bhagwan Lal in the said crime in question; in the given circumstances and looking into the factual matrix of the case, this Court finds no necessity to delve into the issue of prolonged custody of the accused-appellants, as the facts of the present case warrant complete acquittal of the accused-appellants. 20. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.12.2014 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Nathdwara in Sessions Case No. 11/2010 is quashed and set aside. The accused-appellants are acquitted of the charges against them. The accused-appellants-Roop Singh @ If Singh @ Dal Singh and Uday Singh are in custody; they be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. Accused-appellant Bhagwan Lal is already on bail in pursuance of the order dated 01.05.2017 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court in D.B. Suspension of Sentence (Appeal) No.396/2017; he need not surrender in connection with the present case; his bail bonds stand discharged. 20.1. However, keeping in view the provisions of Section 437- A Cr.P.C./481 B.N.S.S., the accused-appellants are hereby directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- and a surety bond each in the like amount 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 a Special Leave Petition against the present judgment on receipt of notice thereof, the accused-appellants shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as and when called upon to do so. 20.2. All pending applications stand disposed of. The record of the learned Trial Court be returned forthwith.