JUDGMENT : (Bhuwan Goyal, J.) The appellant has preferred instant appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against impugned Judgment and Order dated 18.10.2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Beawar, District Ajmer in Sessions Case No.07/2023 (47/2020) titled as "State of Rajasthan v. Devendra Singh alias Deva", whereby accused-appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo four months' additional simple imprisonment. 2. Brief facts relevant and germane for disposal of present appeal are that on 17.02.2020, Shri Gyandev Sharma, A.S.I., Incharge of the Police Station Jawaja (P.W.15) received an information through telephone that one person was murdered in Village Bhuriya Kheda Khurd Khatela and dead body was lying on the cot in the field, upon which, Shri Gyandev Sharma, A.S.I. along with team reached at the spot, where dead body of one person was lying on the cot in the field and his throat appeared to have been cut with a sharp weapon. A broken beer bottle was found lying on cot, which was bloodstained. Probably, he appeared to have been hit with said glass bottle. The bistar and shawl were bloodstained. Brother of the deceased, namely, Dau Singh was present at the spot, who identified the dead body as of his brother Sohan Singh. The death of the deceased took place in suspicious circumstances, therefore, higher officers were informed about the circumstances by Incharge of the Police Station. For collecting evidence, F.S.L. Team and Mobile Forensic Team, Dog Squad from Ajmer and Circle Officer Beawar & Ramendra Singh, S.H.O. Beawar City were called at the spot. The brother of the deceased Sohan Singh, namely, Dau Singh submitted the report at the spot (Ex.P/7) stating that today in the morning at around 8.00 a.m., his brother Sohan Singh had left the house saying that he was going to the field. Jeevan Singh of their village told him that on 17.02.2020 in the morning at around 11 - 12 O'clock, Devendra Singh and his brother Sohan Singh were consuming liquor on Jeevan Singh's cot and were abusing. Jeevan Singh left them quarreling and went away. Jeevan Singh of their village told him that on 17.02.2020 in the morning at around 11 - 12 O'clock, Devendra Singh and his brother Sohan Singh were consuming liquor on Jeevan Singh's cot and were abusing. Jeevan Singh left them quarreling and went away. Jeevan Singh returned to his field at around 2.00 p.m. then, Sohan Singh was lying dead on the cot and blood was oozing from his neck and bloodstained beer's broken mouth was lying on the cot. Jeevan Singh informed them, upon which, he reached at the field, then his brother Sohan Singh was lying dead on the cot. Devendra Singh of their village has murdered his brother etc. 3. On the basis of said report, an F.I.R. No.47/2020 came to be registered at the Police Station Jawaja, District Ajmer for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. and investigation was commenced. After conclusion of investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against accused-appellant for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Beawar who committed the case to the court of Sessions from where it has been transferred to the court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Beawar (hereinafter referred to as "learned trial court"). 4. Learned trial court has framed charge against accused-appellant for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. The accused-appellant has pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, prosecution has examined as many as 19 witnesses and exhibited Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/38 documents to prove its case. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, accused-appellant has been questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and confronted with the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, which he has denied and claimed that testimony deposed by the prosecution witnesses was false and sought time for producing defence evidence. However, no evidence has been led in defence. 5. Learned trial court has, thereafter, proceeded to hear the arguments of the Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel, appreciated the evidence available on record and delivered the impugned judgment dated 18.10.2023, whereby accused-appellant has been convicted and sentenced as above. Aggrieved with the same, present appeal has been filed by accused-appellant before this Court. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. Aggrieved with the same, present appeal has been filed by accused-appellant before this Court. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that there is no eye-witness of alleged incident in the case in hand and entire case of the prosecution rests on the circumstantial evidence. He has further submitted that P.W. 1 - Jeevan Singh, in whose field incident was stated to have taken place and who is stated to be witness of last seen, does not support the prosecution case. P.W. 2 - Dau Singh son of Ladu Singh, who is brother of the deceased, is a hearsay witness. P.W. 3 - Nanda Singh, P.W. 4 - Laxman, P.W. 5 - Dau Singh are motbir witnesses. P.W. 6 - Kalu Singh has not supported the prosecution story and turned hostile. P.W. 7 - Suresh and P.W. 8 - Chetan, who are sons of the deceased, were not present at the spot and deposed hearsay version. Remaining all the witnesses are official witnesses. He has thus, contended that from the evidence on record, it has been proved that prosecution has failed to complete the chain of circumstances warranting conviction of the accused-appellant for the alleged offence. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that false recovery of jacket and muflar has been planted against the appellant. He has also submitted that so far as recovery of bloodstained articles is concerned, there is no material on record to prove that blood found on the recovered articles was of the deceased. No fingerprints were obtained from the place of incident or glass bottle. He has, therefore, contended that the appellant cannot be connected with the present case on the basis of recovery. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that the place of incident was already within the knowledge of the investigation officer, therefore, verification of the place of incident at the instance of the accused-appellant is of no significance. He has, therefore, contended that in the present case, the prosecution has failed to complete chain of circumstances against the accused-appellant to prove that it was accused-appellant and none else who committed the offence. Learned counsel has, thus, prayed that present appeal filed by the appellant may be allowed and he may be acquitted of charge levelled against him. 10. He has, therefore, contended that in the present case, the prosecution has failed to complete chain of circumstances against the accused-appellant to prove that it was accused-appellant and none else who committed the offence. Learned counsel has, thus, prayed that present appeal filed by the appellant may be allowed and he may be acquitted of charge levelled against him. 10. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State while supporting the judgment and order of sentence has submitted that learned trial court after appreciating entire material as well as evidence on record has rightly recorded conviction against accused-appellant for the offence alleged in the present case, which does not warrant any interference by this Court. 11. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at the Bar and have gone through impugned judgment and have minutely sifted through the evidence available on record. 12. In the instant case, the prosecution in order to prove its case has produced last seen witness i.e. P.W. 1 - Jeevan Singh, in whose field incident is stated to have taken place. On perusal of statement of P.W. 1 - Jeevan Singh, it reveals that he in his cross-examination has categorically stated that he did not have knowledge about incident; he was not present in the village at the time of incident and he heard about same later. He has also stated that he did not seen Devendra and Sohan consuming liquor together; no recovery was effected in his presence and he was made to sign Ex.P/1, Ex.P/2 & Ex.P/3 in the Police Station Jawaja. He did not see Devendra and Sohan Singh abusing and quarreling. 13. P.W. 2 - Dau Singh, who is brother of deceased, has stated in his examination-in-chief that on 17.02.2020 in the morning at 11 - 12 O'clock, Devendra and his brother were consuming liquor on the cot lying in the field of Jeevan Singh and were abusing each other. Jeevan Singh saw them, when he went to his field. When he returned to his field in the afternoon at 2.00 p.m., dead body of Sohan was lying on the cot, information of which was given by Jeevan Singh to him. Jeevan Singh saw them, when he went to his field. When he returned to his field in the afternoon at 2.00 p.m., dead body of Sohan was lying on the cot, information of which was given by Jeevan Singh to him. Thus, from his statement, it reveals that he is not an eye-witness and secondly, his statement does not find corroboration from statement of P.W. 1 - Jeevan Singh, as Jeevan Singh in his statement has nowhere stated about informing to Dau Singh regarding said incident, rather, he stated that he was not having knowledge about incident and he was not present in the village at the time of incident and he later heard about the same. Thus, from the statements of both these witnesses, prosecution story cannot be confirmed. 14. P.W. 3 - Nanda Singh, P.W. 4 - Laxman and P.W. 5 - Dau Singh are motbir witnesses. They have stated that they did not see as to who killed Sohan Singh and put their signatures on documents on the asking of police. P.W. 6 - Kalu Singh has not supported the prosecution story and turned hostile. He has stated that he did not see anyone killing Sohan and was saying from hearsay. He was at a distance of 10 kms. away from the place of incident at the time of murder of Sohan. 15. P.W. 7 - Suresh and P.W. 8 - Chetan, who are sons of the deceased, they have stated that at the time of murder of their father, they were at Haridwar and their uncle Dau Singh informed them about the incident. In cross-examination, they have stated that they have been stating about murder caused by Devendra as informed by their uncle Dau Singh. The version of above witnesses does not find corroboration from the statement of P.W. 2 - Dau Singh because Dau Singh has not stated about informing Suresh and Chetan regarding said incident. From the statements of witnesses produced by the prosecution, it reveals that the prosecution has failed to complete the chain of circumstances and therefore, it has not been proved that it was only accused-appellant and none else, who murdered deceased Sohan Singh. 16. From the statements of witnesses produced by the prosecution, it reveals that the prosecution has failed to complete the chain of circumstances and therefore, it has not been proved that it was only accused-appellant and none else, who murdered deceased Sohan Singh. 16. Now adverting to issue of recovery of jacket and muflar at the instance of accused-appellant, from perusal of Ex.P/14 - recovery memo dated 19.02.2020, it reveals that same were recovered by the police from residential house of the accused-appellant in the presence of witnesses Ramraj (P.W. 18) and Bhanwar Lal (P.W. 12). Both above witnesses are police officials and there is no independent witness produced by the prosecution and nor any explanation to this effect has been furnished by the prosecution. On perusal of the statement of P.W. 12 - Bhanwar Lal, it reveals that he has stated nothing regarding recovery of jacket and muflar at the instance of accused-appellant. P.W. 18 - Ramraj in his cross-examination has stated that recovery of said articles was made from a box lying inside a room. P.W.17 - Kanwarpal, who is Seizure Officer, has stated in his cross-examination that said clothes were kept on a patti (slab) in the house from where he brought the same. Whereas, on perusal of statement of P.W. 2 - Dau Singh, brother of the deceased, he in his cross-examination has admitted that one dusty muflar and grey coloured jacket were lying on the cot. The jacket wore by his brother Sohan Singh was of maroon colour. The police took away all these articles with them at Police Station Jawaja. It shows that so-called jacket and muflar, which were stated to have been recovered at the instance of accused-appellant, were seized by the police from the place of incident itself. Thus, recovery of same at the instance of the accused-appellant comes under the cloud of suspicion and the accused-appellant cannot be connected with the alleged offence on the basis of said recovery. 17. Thus, recovery of same at the instance of the accused-appellant comes under the cloud of suspicion and the accused-appellant cannot be connected with the alleged offence on the basis of said recovery. 17. So far as bloodstains found on the clothes of deceased recovered vide Ex.P/4, mouth of broken beer bottle recovered vide Ex.P/5, Bistar (Gudara) and shawl recovered vide Ex.P/6 is concerned, it is pertinent to note that from the F.S.L. Report (Ex.P/12), human blood of group "A" was found on articles mouth of broken beer bottle, bistar (gudara), jacket and clothes of the deceased and jacket recovered at the instance of accused-appellant but there is no evidence on record to prove that blood found on the recovered articles was of the deceased. Even, no fingerprints have been collected from the place of incident or broken beer bottle. Thus, it further does not complete the chain of prosecution story and the appellant cannot be connected with alleged offence on the basis of recovery of bloodstains articles. 18. Now coming to the question of verification of place of incident at the instance of accused-appellant, it is pertinent to note that place of incident was within the knowledge of the investigation officer since recovery of body on 17.02.2020, therefore, verification of the place of incident at the instance of the accused-appellant vide Ex.P/13 dated 19.02.2020 is of no significance. 19. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the learned trial court has erred in convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C., we, therefore, deem it proper to allow this appeal and set aside judgment and order of sentence dated 18.10.2023 passed by the learned trial court. 20. Accordingly, present appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and order of sentence dated 18.10.2023 passed by the learned trial court is set aside. The accused-appellant is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. He is in jail, he shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case or for any other purpose. 21. 20. Accordingly, present appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and order of sentence dated 18.10.2023 passed by the learned trial court is set aside. The accused-appellant is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. He is in jail, he shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case or for any other purpose. 21. The appellant is directed to furnish bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount in accordance with provisions of Section 437A of Cr.P.C. before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court within four weeks from the date of his release, to the effect that in the event of filing of special leave petition against this judgment or on grant of leave, the appellant, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The bail bond will be effective for a period of six months. 22. The application for suspension of sentence stands disposed of accordingly. 23. The record of the learned trial court be sent back forthwith.