The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, with credible evidence; insufficient evidence leads to acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP MEHTA, J.

1. Heard.

2. The appellant-State of Rajasthan has filed these appeals assailing the common final judgment and order dated 14th December, 2011, passed by the Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur¹ [Hereinafter being referred to as ‘High Court’] in D.B. Criminal Appeal Nos. 95 of 2008, 122 of 2008 and 166 of 2008 filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973² [Hereinafter being referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’] by the accused-respondents herein against the judgment and order dated 10th January, 2008, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Jodhpur³ [Hereinafter being referred to as ‘trial Court’] in Sessions Case No. 3 of 2006, whereby the accused-respondents had been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 120-B, 143 and 201 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860⁴ [Hereinafter being referred to as the ‘IPC’] and were sentenced as below:

(a) Section 302 read with Section 120-B IPC: Imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for three months.

(b) Section 143 IPC: Simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

(c) Section 201 IPC: Rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years along with fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for one month.

3. The Division Bench of the High Court, vide the common impugned judgment and order dated 14th December, 2011, allowed the individual criminal appeals preferred by each of the accused-respondents and set aside their conviction and sentences imposed by the trial Court and acquitted them of the charges by extending them the benefit of doubt on the ground of insufficiency of evidence and patent infirmities in the prosecution case.

4. We have heard and considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel representing the appellant-State of Rajasthan and the learned counsel representing the respondents (acquitted accused) and have gone through the impugned judgment and have minutely re-appreciated the evidence available on record.

5. Succinctly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 23rd January, 2006, Navneet Sharma (PW-15)⁵ [Hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant-Navneet’] lodged a missing report at Police Station Mahamandir, Jodhpur at 12:40 P.M. alleging that his father Shri Suresh Sharma had gone missing. It was stated in the missing person report that Shri Suresh Sharma had some ongoing disputes with Vijay Punia and Gokalram pertaining to the lands situated in the village Nandri District, Jodhpur. On 21st January, 2006, a telephone call made by a property dealer was received on the landline number at the complainant’s residence at Luhar Colony, Paota, and the same was attended by Shri Suresh Sharma who conveyed to the caller that he would be visiting the subject site on the next day. On the following day, Shri Suresh Sharma left his house at about 6:00 P.M. to visit the agricultural fields located at the Village Banad, however, he did not return, and