In a murder case, the conviction of the accused cannot be based solely on the statement of the Investigating Officer without corroboration from other witnesses. If the accused raises a plea of alibi and is able to substantiate it, the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused.

1. - Murder is a serious offence in which compromise is not permissible but because of the poverty of the relatives of the deceased lady, almost all the witnesses have turned hostile in this case and the prosecution story hinges upon the statement of the Investigating Officer only. Relying upon the statement of Investigating Officer only, the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.4, Jodhpur Metropolitan, in Sessions Case No. 38/2012, titled as State v. Rajesh Suthar , has convicted accused Rajesh on 7.6.2013 for the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and he has been sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine, it has been ordered that the accused will have to suffer six months' additional simple imprisonment. This appeal has been filed by accused Rajesh against the aforesaid judgment.

2. We have heard both the parties and we have also perused the record of the case.

3. If we go through the statements of the hostile witnesses, then we come to know that PW-1 Baldev has been found hostile. He is a cousin brother of deceased Mst. Santosh. He says that Panchnama of dead-body (Ex.P.1) was not prepared in his presence but he signed it on the request of police. PW-2 Nemi Chand is also a hostile witness. He is real brother of deceased Mst. Santosh. He says that his sister Mst. Santosh had never complained to him against misbehaviour of her husband and so he states that he does not remember that FIR Ex.P.2 was true or not true. He says that his brother-in-law accused Rajesh has not committed murder of his sister Mst. Santosh. Thus, he has also been found totally a hostile witness. He admits that both the parties have come to a compromise in this case of death of his sister.

4. PW-3 Champa Lal is husband of elder sister of Mst. Santosh. This witness has also been declared hostile and he says that piece of wood used in committing the offence of murder was not recovered from accused Rajesh in his presence. He also admits the signature on Ex.P.9 but he denies the contents of Ex.P.9. He says that he had signed only on blank paper on the request of the police.

5. PW-4 Shyam Lal s/o Bhanwar Lal has also been declared hostile. He denies the contents of police statement Ex.P.13. He says that both the parties have compromised the matter. He also states that Panchnama of dead-body was not prepared in his presence and he does not know if accused Rajesh had any doubts on the character of his wife Mst. Santosh. He denies the fact of beating of Mst. Santosh by her husband in his presence.

6. PW-5 Radhey Shyam has also been declared hostile. He admits that both the parties have compromised the matter. He states that blood stained pent of accused Rajesh was not seized in his presence. He also denies the recovery of blood stained piece of wood used in committing offence of murder by accused. He only admits the signature on Ex.P.9, Ex.P.10 and Ex.P.11, but he denies the contents of these documents.

7. PW-6 Arjun is also a hostile witness. He admits his signature of Panchyama of dead-body(Ex.P.1) but he states that he does not know anything about the death of Mst. Santosh. He also states that both the parties have compromised the matter.

8. PW-7 Mst. Gomati is mother of deceased Mst. Santosh. She has also been declared hostile by the prosecution in this case. She states that it is wrong fact that her son-in-law Rajesh has committed murder of her daughter. She denies the contents of her police statement Ex.P.14 also. She states that on the day of death of her daughter, her son-in-law Rajesh was not on the spot. She states that because of allegation of theft against Sita Ram by her daughter, she might have been murdered by any person like Sita Ram.

9. PW-8 Mst. Munni Devi has also been declared hostile. She denies the contents of her police statement Ex.P.15. She states that both the parties have compromised the matter. She denies the fact that accused Rajesh was having any doubt on the character of hi