1. - This appeal arises out of the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar dated 18.8.99 passed in Sessions Case No. 44/94, convicting appellant Harbans Singh, for the offence under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and sentencing him to imprisonment for life alongwith a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo two years' simple imprisonment, and also convicting him for the offence under Section 394/34 I.P.C. and imposing another identical sentence.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 18.2.94, one Amarjeet Singh, resident of 7-TK, submitted an oral report in the Police Station Raisinghnagar to the effect that at about 8-8.15 A.M., once Chandan Singh, milk vender, came to his house and informed that, when he had gone to fetch milk to 8-TK, he went to ease himself in the mustered field of the informant, situated on the road side, and on going little ahead in the field, his spotted dead body lying there. Thereupon, the informant alongwith Jernail Singh, Darbara Singh and Jeet Singh etc., went to the field, the other persons kept standing on the road, and the informant went in the field being Kila No. 5 of Murabba No. 57, and found the mustered crop damaged, and a dead body of one Sardar, aged about 17-18 years, lying there, and also noticed foot prints of two persons, and marks of dragging of some person. According to the informant, it appears that some unknown persons have committed the murder, and have concealed the dead body in his mustered field.

3. On this report, a case under section 302, 201 I.P.C. was registered and investigation commenced. After completing the investigation, the Police fired charge-sheet against the appellant Harbans Singh, and two other accused Buta Singh and Jagmel Singh @ Jagga, for the offence under Section 302, 394 I.P.C.

4. The learned Magistrate committed the case. On committal, the learned trial Court found the other two accused persons Buta Singh and Jagmel Singh to be juveniles, and ordered them to be tried by the Juvenile Court. However, the learned trial Court framed the charges against the appellant for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC so also Section 394/34 I.P.C. The accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

5. During trial, the prosecution examined as many as 20 witnesses in the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused took stand of denial, and contended that after being arrested, the SHO took him to 7-TK, and a false case has been prepared there. In defence, the appellant examined two witnesses, being Hakam Singh DW/1, and Gurmail Singh, DW/2. The prosecution also tendered in evidence some 49 documents, while the defence tendered in evidence 8 documents. After completing the trial, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as above.

6. A perusal of the charge shows that, the appellant had been charged for committing murder of the deceased Ranjeet Singh, in furtherance of common intention of all the other accused persons, and of committing robbery of camera valuing about 37,000/- rupees.

7. From the facts recapitulated above, it is clear that there is no direct evidence consisting of any eye-witness to establish the offence, and the case rests only on circumstantial evidence.

8. The evidence led by the prosecution during trial consists of, the deceased having been last seen alive in the company of the accused persons soon before the incident alongwith camera belonging to PW/1 Madho Singh. The other circumstances led upon is, recovery of the camera, on the information of, at the instance of, and from the exclusive possession of the appellant Harbans Singh shortly after the incident. The third evidence relied upon is, of identification of the accused persons, obviously as the persons last seen in the company of the deceased. (This evidence has been led because the identity of the accused was not previously known). The next circumstance led upon is, of the foot prints of the appellant having been found at the site, wh