IMPORTANT POINT
In the cases of circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused.

JUDGMENT :

Rastogi, J.

1. These appeals have been filed by the prosecution assailing the judgment of the High Court of Rajasthan dated 3rd January, 2012 acquitting the respondents charged for the offences under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 IPC.

2. As per case of the prosecution, on 19th October, 2002 in the morning at 12.30 p.m., the informant Abdul Haq gave a written report that in the intervening night of 18th and 19th October, 2002, while he was sleeping in his railway quarter situated at Borkheda Culvert near the railway line, Kota at about 12.05 a.m., one Madan Bheel and Parmanand Bheel came to his quarter and woke him up and stated that the dead body of one unknown person was lying beneath the culvert at 916/8.10 km of the railway line, Kota (Rajasthan). Thereupon, he reached there and saw that dead body had injuries on its head, mouth and face. On inquiry, Smt. Saroti Bai Bheel disclosed that sometime before she woke up for urinating, she saw twothree persons coming by an auto rikshaw, who had placed the said body on the railway line and had gone away. One person who was standing there revealed that the said dead body was of Bajranglal, retired Constable. From the facts of the report made by informant Abdul Haq, the Police Station Incharge reached at the spot and found an offence under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 IPC. This report was sent with Shri Fazlur Rehman, Head Constable for registering a case to Police Station Nayapura, Kota.

3. Crime No. 679/02 was registered by the Head Constable and First Information Report was sent to the Police Station In charge. Thereafter, the investigation was done and chargesheet was submitted against the respondents Mahesh Kumar, Dinu @ Deendayal and Bhaiya @ Devkaran in the Court of Magistrate. Learned Magistrate handed over the case to the Sessions Court, Kota from where it was transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, No. 2, Fast Track, Kota.

4. The prosecution in support thereof produced 25 witnesses and got exhibited Exhibit P1 to P45 in its documentary evidence. Thereafter, the statements of the respondents were recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In defence, DW1 Rajendra Singh was produced and the statements of prosecution witnesses Pratap and Bhupendra recorded under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were relied as Exhibit D1 and D2.

5. The learned Sessions Judge, based on the material available on record, held all the respondents guilty under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life along with fine, which came to be challenged by the respondents in Appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the Division Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur.

6. On appraisal of the records, the High Court in its impugned judgment dated 3rd January, 2012 recorded a finding that the chain of circumstantial evidence produced by the prosecution is very doubtful, contradictory and not reliable at all. At the same time, it was also observed that most of the prosecution witnesses were declared hostile and many important and relevant witnesses without any reason has not been produced by the prosecution.

7. Dayaram and Gulab, who identified the dead body of the deceased Bajranglal and who lifted the dead body from the railway track and kept in side have not been produced. The Samdhi of deceased Bajranglal and Brijgopal, father of PW5 Rajeshbai were not produced. That apart, the witnesses alleging the reason for murder Surendrasingh, Ramgopal, Ramswarup, Girraj Gupta, Premchand and Shyambabu were not produced. The motive of the incident which is allegedly the illicit relation of Sulochana and respondentMahesh, the said Sulochana has not been produced as prosecution witness. The witnesses of Memos Exhibit P13, P15, P41, etc. Dilipsingh have not been produced. Witness Hemraj of Memos Exhibit P30, P35 and P36 and witnesses Manoj, Vijay of