Hon'ble CHAUHAN, J.—The discovery of two dead bodies, of Pooran Singh and Rampyari @ Ramdei, the recovery of few footprints, the recoveries of Sariyas (iron rods) and of a barrel of a gun, recovery of the stolen jewelry and its identification form the backdrop of this case. By judgment dated 24.11.2012, the Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Kishangarhbas convicted the appellants, namely Sunder, Suresh @ Ravi, and Bhagwan Singh @ Chuchu for offences under Sections 460 and 394 IPC. By an order of even date, the learned Judge has sentenced all the three appellants to life imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.5000/-, and further directed the appellants to undergo three months of simple imprisonment in default thereof, for both the offences. The appellants have challenged the said judgment before this court.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that Charan Singh (P.W.1) submitted a written report (Ex.P.1) before the SHO, Police Station Khairthal wherein he claimed that “he is a resident of the village Rasgan. He lives in the village Dabadwas under Police Station Mandad and does the work of ‘Phirwali’ (a person who protects the farms from intrusion of animals). My mother and father both do the work of ‘Phirwali’ at Village Pranpura. On 30.7.2007, both of them had come and had started living at our village, Rasgan. This morning my grand-father informed me that in the night between 7.8.2007 and 8.8.2007, my mother and father have been killed. I came to Rasgan and I saw that both my mother and father were lying dead on a Charpoi (cot) in my house. Both had suffered injuries on their faces and on their heads. There was lot of blood spilled around them. The objects kept in the room were scattered in the room. I am submitting this report so that legal proceedings can be initiated”.

3. On the basis of this written report (Ex.P.1), a formal FIR, bearing FIR No.211/07, was chalked out for offences under Sections 302 and 460 IPC. During the course of the investigation, the police arrested the three appellants, namely Sunder, Suresh and Bhagwan Singh, and one juvenile delinquent, Babulal. After completing the investigation, the appellants were put up for trial. Since Babulal was a juvenile, his case was separated from the trial of the present appellants. The appellants were charged for offences under Sections 460, 302, or 302/34 and 394 IPC.

4. In order to support its case, the prosecution examined thirty-six witnesses, and submitted seventy-four documents. In turn, the defense neither examined the witness, nor submitted any document. After completing the trial, by judgment dated 24.11.2012, the appellants were convicted and sentenced, as aforementioned. Hence, this appeal before this Court.

5. Mr. Govind P. Rawat, the learned counsel for the appellants has raised the following contentions before this court: firstly, the case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence. However, the prosecution has failed to build-up its case against the appellants in order to prove their guilt. There are too many lacunae in the case of the prosecution to unerringly point to the guilt of the accused.

6. Secondly, according to the prosecution, footprints of all the three appellants were recovered from the scene of the crime; their individual footprints were also taken while they were in police custody. These footprints were sent to the FSL for its report. According to the FSL Report (Ex.P.50) dated 19.9.2008, the footprints taken from the scene of the crime and from the individual appellants matched perfectly. However, according to the learned counsel, the recovery of footprint is highly doubtful. For, the prosecution witnesses, Charan Singh (P.W.1), Balbeer (P.W.2), Gorelal (P.W.3), Sunita (P.W.7), Smt. Mani (P.W.8), Jagdish (P.W.13), have consistently deposed that not only the relatives, but many people from the village had gathered at the scene of the crime. Therefore, the footprints of the appellants and the footprints of the villagers must have gotte