1. - The appellant has challenged the judgment dated 24.07.2002 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Sikar, whereby he has been convicted for offences under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (VC', for short) and has been sentenced to life imprisonment and has been imposed with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and to further undergo six months of simple imprisonment in default thereof. But, he has been acquitted of offence under Section 201 IPC.

2. According to the prosecution allegedly Bhanwar Lal, the appellant, reached the Police Station, Laxmangarh at 8.15 AM and informed the Station House Officer, Shri Ugamchand (P.W. 16) that he had killed two of his daughters. The said information was recorded in the Roznamcha. Alongwith the appellant, the police reached the village Sheorana Ka Bas, where allegedly the murder had taken place. Madanlal (PW. 2), the appellant's brother, submitted a written report (Ex.P/3) to the police. In the report, he claimed that he and Bhanwar Lal were two brothers. Their uncle (Tau), Hanumanaram was a bachelor and had no children of his own. The appellant and the complainant were living separately. Their father, Bhagirath and their to uncle, Hanumanaram were also living separately. Bhanwar Lal and his wife, Imarta were suffering from mental problem for which they were treated by a psychiatrist. Yesterday, i.e. on 10.01.2002, Bhanwar Lal had gone to his in-law's place and had come back at about 8.00 in the evening. Around 9.00 o'clock at night, his daughter, Kavita aged about two years, was sleeping 15 with her mother. Bhanwar Lal went inside the room and picked up the daughter and told his wife that let me take the daughter and leave her with the uncle, as she may weep at night'. Today, i.e. 11.01.2002 around 8'o clock, they received a phone call asking the whereabouts of Bhanwar Lal. We searched for Bhanwar Lal but could not locate him. It seems that he killed his daughter, Kavita, aged about two years, and has left her body under the fodder for the animals. In the morning, when we were feeding our animals, we discovered the body of Kavita under the animal feed. We also discovered that Babita, aged about four years, was also missing. We suspect that Bhanwar Lal has also killed Babita and has hidden her dead body somewhere else." On the basis of this report, the police lodged a formal FIR, FIR No. 6/2002 for offence under Sections 302 and 201 1PC. In order to support its case, the prosecution examined eighteen witnesses and submitted thirty-seven documents. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. However, it is to be noted that while the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant for murder of Babita, it has acquitted the appellant for the alleged murder of Kavita. Hence, this appeal challenging the conviction before this Court.

3. Mr. Poonam Chand Bhandari, the learned amicus curiae for the appellant, has raised various contentions before this Court : firstly, the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. However, the chain of circumstances are not complete to the extent of unerringly pointing to the guilt of the appellant. Secondly, the prosecution has not come with clean hands before the Court. According to the prosecution, the appellant had himself informed the police about the twin murders of his children. He had reached the Police Station at 8.15 in the morning. Yet, according to the arrest Memo (Ex.P/16), the appellant was not arrested till 12.30 PM Once the appellant had stated before the police about the alleged murders, there is no reason for the police to arrest him four hours later. Moreover, according to the Ex.P/27, the appellant had informed the police about the location of Babita's body at 12.45 PM. But, according to the witnesses, Nathu Singh (P.W. 7), Dalu Ram (P.W. 9) and Manoj Kumar (P.W. 17), the photographer. the police had reached the well, whe