In a criminal case, the prosecution bears the burden of proving the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If the evidence is inconclusive or unreliable, the accused must be acquitted.

1. - This appeal has been filed by accused-appellant Shiv Singh @ Sidhnath Singh against the judgment dated 18.7.2007 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.l, Pali Head quarter Jaitaran, District Pali in Session Case No. 32/2005 whereby the accused-appellant was convicted and sentenced as follows:-

2. The facts in brief as narrated in F.I.R. may be summarised as follows; On 24.9.2004 at 6.30 A.M., the complainant Kishan Singh had sent a telephonic f message to Police Station, Kalu, District Pali regarding murder of Mangu Singh in village Tibri. On receiving above information, the police reached on the spot and the complainant Kishan Singh gave the report about the incident in writing in which it was mentioned that Mangu Singh was sleeping on a bed in front of his I house and in the mid-night, the informant heard sound of two gun fires and then he came to the spot and found injured Mangu Singh lying beneath his cot. He also says that Shiv Singh, who was standing there, started running from the spot having a gun in his hand. He tried to chase Shiv Singh but due to darkness, he could not catch him and then after other villagers reached the spot on his call and then in the morning at 6.30 A.M. he sent the telephonic message to Police Station, Kalu.

3. The Trial Court has found the accused-appellant guilty of Section 302 of Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, 1959.

4. In the appeal, it has been argued by the appellant's Counsel that the order of the Trial Court is without appreciation of facts and law and it should be quashed. It has also been argued that no one had seen the accused-appellant killing Mangu Singh. It has also been argued that the F.I.R. lodger Kishan Singh also did not see accused-appellant Shiv Singh in the act of killing Mangu Singh. It has further been argued that no motive has been alleged against the accused-appellant for committing murder. It has been argued that Kishan Singh says that the incident occurred in the mid-night at 12.00 P.M. while other witnesses say that it occurred at about 3.00 A.M. in the morning. It has also been argued that there was considerable delay in lodging the F.I.R. and in the first message which j was sent to the police, name of the accused-appellant does not appear, though Kishan Singh was knowing the accused-appellant well before the incident being his close relative. It has been argued that the police had sent the F.I.R. to the concerned Magistrate only after receiving the post-mortem report which creates doubt upon the reliability of F.I.R. It has also been argued that it was not possible for Kishan Singh (PW-1) to see the appellant running from the place of the incident because on the date of incident, the moon set at 12.55 A.M. at Jaitaran as stated by Harish Chandra (DW-1) who had exhibited panchang (Ex.D-10) also in this regard. It has also been argued that there are so many contradictions in the statement of Kishan Singh and he is not a reliable witness and recovery of gun from him is also doubtful and so it has been prayed that the accused-appellant should be acquitted from both the charges because the prosecution [ story is doubtful on so many counts.

5. We have heard the detailed arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellant as well as of the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. We have perused the judgment of the Trial Court and we have also perused the record of the case.

6. In this case, Ex.D-1 is most important document which is copy of the Rojnamcha Register which is dated 24.9.2004 recorded at 6.30 A.M. which reads as under:-VARNA