In a case of circumstantial evidence, the circumstances on which the prosecution relies must be consistent with the sole hypothesis of the guilt of the accused.

1. - This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 21.11.1992, passed by the Sessions Judge, Sikar in Sessions Case No. 61 of 1989, whereby he convicted the appellant for the offences Under Sections 302, 457 & 380 Indian Penal Code and sentenced as under :

Section 302 Indian Penal Code:

Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 500/In default of payment of fine to suffer three month's S.I.

Section 457 Indian Penal Code:

Five years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine to further suffer 3 months' S.I.

Section 380 Indian Penal Code:

Four years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine to further suffer 3 months' S.I. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

2. The prosecution case is woven like this :

On 9.3.1989, at 6.30 p.m. a memorandum sent by the Station Master Railway Station Goriyon was received at Police Station Ranoli, District Sikar, informing about an unknown dead-body lying near the railway track between KM 215/5 and 215/6. Dead body had been handed over to the G.R.P. Staff. On receipt of this information the Station House Officer, Police Station Ranoli initiated proceedings Under Section 174 Criminal Procedure Code and registered sudden death case No.1 of 1989 Police Station Ranoli. His dead-body was then shifted to Government Dispensary Palsana where one Om Prakash son of Kistoor Chand at 12.50 p.m. submitted written report (Ex. P/1) before the Station House Officer, Police Station Ranoli Camp Palsana. It was stated in the report that in the preceding night the informant and his cousin Bajranglal deceased had returned from Delhi. After alighting from the Bus at the Bus Stand, the informant went to his house and Bajranglal went to the shop where he used to sleep. In the morning Bajranglal was not found in the room above the shop, and the room was locked from outside. At about 11.00 a.m. information arrived that a dead-body was lying near railway track and on receiving information the informant Om Prakash went there and found Bajrang lying dead on the road.

3. The Station House Officer, Police Station Ranoli forwarded the report to the concerned Police Station - Khatu where the first information report No. 35/89 Under Section 302 Indian Penal Code was registered on the same day at 5.15 p.m. Yet another report Ex. P/2 was submitted by the informant Om Prakash to the Station House Officer, Police Station Ranoli at 6.00 p.m. on 9.3.1989. It was stated therein that on opening the lock of the room the clothes of Bajrang Lal were seen scattered near his Attachee. Further it was also stated that 22 cigarette cartons out of the 31 lying in the room were found missing. The dead-body was subjected to post-mortem-examination and site was inspected. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. The inquest report was prepared. Blood stained earth as well as blood stained clothes of the deceased were taken into custody. The appellant was arrested and on the basis of information given by him two knives and his clothes were recovered. On completion of investigation challan against the appellant for offences Under Sections 302, 201 & 394 Indian Penal Code was filed. The case was committed before the Sessions Judge, Sikar who framed charges Under Sections 302, 201, 380 & 457 Indian Penal Code. The appellant denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution examined 29 witnesses in support of its case. The statement of the appellant Under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code was recorded. The appellant denied the allegations and claimed innocence. No evidence in defend was lead. After hearing the arguments the Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner stated herein above.

4. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel at length and perused the entire record of the case.

5. The learned counsel Mr. Bajwa, appearing on behalf of the appellant has argued that the trial Court has drawn its conclusion on the basis of surmises and conjectures. The