Mohammad Rafiq, J.

1. This criminal appeal is directed against judgment dated 20.10.2010 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aklera, District Jhalawar, in Sessions Case No. 62/2009, whereby accused-appellant Vinod S/o Shri Kalu Lal has been convicted for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/-; and in default in payment of fine, to further undergo one year s rigorous imprisonment.

2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 11.08.2009 one Radhey Shyam S/o Shri Prabhu Lal submitted a written report (Exhibit P-18) to the Station House Officer, Police Station Aklera, District Jhalawar, alleging that in the night of 11.08.2009 his sister Santosh Bai has been murdered by her husband Vinod Kumar, her mother-in-law Vidhya Bai and her elder sister-in-law (jithyani) Kalabai. The police, on that basis, chalked out regular First Information Report No. 291/2009 for offence under Section 302 IPC and commenced investigation. After investigation, charge-sheet was tiled against accused-appellant in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aklera. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, committed the same on the very same day to the court of Sessions, wherefrom it was made over to Additional Sessions Judge, Aklera, District Jhalawar, for trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 21 witnesses and got 41 documents exhibited. The defence did not examine any witness, however, got four documents exhibited. Learned trial court, after completion of trial, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant in the manner indicated above. Hence, this appeal.

3. Mr. Santosh Kumar Jain, learned counsel for accused-appellant, has argued that conviction of accused-appellant has been recorded contrary to weight of evidence available on record. According to him, this is a case of total lack of evidence and that the prosecution has completely failed to prove guilty against accused appellant beyond reasonable doubt. It is argued that while appreciating the evidence in a criminal case, the court should keep in view the two cardinal principles that the guilt against accused must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and that the burden on the accused is not so heavy to prove the plea taken by him as it lies on the prosecution and therefore it is the prosecution which is required to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the accused cannot be required to prove his innocence. The accused has to merely probabilize his defence by preponderance of evidence. In the present case, the accused has set up a plea that he was not present at Aklera as he had gone to Jhansi and reached Aklera on the next evening of the date of incident. He has been falsely implicated in the criminal case There were several infirmities and contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses and therefore no reliance can be placed on the testimony of such witnesses. Anil (PW-1), Aruna (PW-2), Anand (PW-3), Surajmal (PW-4). Munshi Lal (PW-5), Sangeeta (PW-20) and Ranjeeta (PW-21) have not support the prosecutory story and have been declared hostile. The complainant, who lodged the FIR, has stated that deceased Santosh Bai was his sister. Before her murder, she came to her parents' house on the festival of 'raksha bandhan' and on that day she informed that her in-laws were treating her good (sic).

4. Mr. Santosh Kumar lain learned counsel for accused-appellant, has argued that Bhawna (PW-7), daughter of appellant of appellant and deceased, is the star witness of the case and learned trial court has based the conviction on her statement. She is a child witness and when her statement was recorded, she was only bout 7-8 years old. While the incident is alleged to have taken place on 11 08.2009, the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 13.08.2009 The prosecution has not furnished any explanation for the delay in recording the statement. There are a number of