JUDGMENT

 This appeal pursuant to the leave granted by this Court is directed against the judgment of High Court of Bombay acquitting the two respondents.

2. The two respondents were tried for offences punishable under Ss. 460, 302, 307 and 397 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is alleged that on the intervening night of 3rd and 4th September, 1980 the accused committed the murder of Filemena Pareira and Mary Lobo and committed robbery by stealing the articles belonging to the deceased persons. It is also further alleged that during the one of them caused injury to Clera Pareira P.W. 24. The case rested mainly on the circumstantial evidence. The main circumstance is the recovery of the articles alleged to have been made at the instance of the accused. The trial Court appears to have mainly relied on the alleged recovery and presumption that the accused must have committed the murder and committed the robbery since they did not give any explanation for the stolen property.

3. The High Court in its detailed judgment considered the entire evidence in respect of all the circumstances and held that the prosecution has not established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

The prosecution case is as follows :

Inacio Pareira is the resident of Cenra (sic) a village situated on the outskirts of Panaji in Goa. Filemena Pariera, the deceased was his wife. They had three daughters and a son. Clera Pareira P.W. 24 aged eight years was staying along with her mother. At the relevant time, rest of the children were out of the said village. The other deceased Mary Lobo was residing in a neighbouring house and she used to sleep in the house of Filemena Pariera during night. The accused No. 2 Johny was related to Filemena Pariera. He used to visit the house now and then. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 got their residential houses in the nearby hamlet and they were closed friends. Everyday accused No. 1 Kistu after his dinner used to go to the house of Johny and used to sleep there. According to the prosecution, both the accused decided to commit the murder with a view to rob the deceased. Taking advantage of the fact that the deceased Filemena Pariera was very much fond of fish. On the night of 3rd September, 1980 for the dinner, A-2 offered fish to the deceased and stayed there for the night. The two deceased ladies and P.W. 24 slept in another room. The further case is that during the night A-2 facilitated A-1 to enter the house and thereafter both the accused committed the murder of these two ladies. After committing the murder accused escaped after ransacking the valuable articles like golden ornaments, cameras etc. The next morning i.e. on 4th September, 1980 the milkman came to the house of the deceased and since he did not get any response he peeped into the house. By then a fisher-woman P.W. 15 also reached the house and they saw that the two ladies were lying in a pool of blood. They raised an alarm. P.W. 1 who happened to be there gave the report to the police. P.W. 24 was seriously injured and was also treated for her injuries. The police arrested the accused on 3-10-80 i.e. one month after the occurrence. It is alleged that pursuant to the statements the police recovered various articles said to be belonging to the deceased. The doctor who conducted the post-mortem on the two dead bodies found injuries and opined that they died because of the injuries. On P.W. 24 the doctor who examined found some bleeding injuries.

4. The case rests on the circumstantial evidence. Circumstances relied upon by the trial Court are :

(i) Both accused were close friends and accused No. 1 used to go to the house of A-2; (ii) On 3-9-80 both accused were found in the vicinity of the house of the deceased; (iii) Both accused went to a brook and caught a fish and thereafter went to the house of the deceased to offer fish; (iv) After dinner at the house of the deceased A-2 over-night stayed; (v) During the said night the two deceased were hale