JUDGMENT :

Sabina, J.

1. Appellant has filed this appeal challenging his conviction and sentence as ordered by the trial court vide impugned judgment/order dated 17.12.2018 under Section 302 and 454 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC').

2. Prosecution story, in brief, is that complainant was Principal of Central Academy, Dausa. Abhay Pandey was working as a cashier in the school and was residing in the school campus. Rahul Kandera and Makhan were working as Chowkidars. Rahul Kandera remained on duty from 6.30 a.m. to 6.30 p.m., whereas, Makhan remained on duty from 6.30 p.m. to 6.30 a.m. Abhay Pandey was murdered on the night of 14.9.2016. Complainant received a phone call from Director Vijay Laxmi Mishra on 14.9.2016 at 9.15 p.m. that Abhay Pandey had been murdered. He immediately reached the school premises. Police was already present at the spot. He was informed by Ojha that Laptop, mobile phone and money lying on the rack were missing.

3. On the basis of the statement of the complainant, formal FIR No. 596 dated 14.9.2016 was registered at Police Station Kotwali, Dausa u/Sec. 302 IPC.

4. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against the appellant and his co-accused Rahul Kandera and Sunil Khan. Accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial.

5. Charges were framed against the accused under section 392, 302, 454 and 120B IPC. Charge was also framed against the appellant under section 4/25 of the Arms Act 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

6. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 12 witnesses. Appellant when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., after the close of prosecution evidence, prayed that he was innocent and had been falsely involved in this case. His signatures had been obtained on blank papers after giving beatings to him. False recoveries had been shown from him.

7. Accused did not examine any witness in their defence.

8. Trial court vide impugned judgment/order dated 17.12.2018 ordered the conviction of the appellant under Sec. 302 and 454 IPC and acquitted him of the charges framed against him under Sec. 392, 392/120B IPC and Sec. 4/25 of the Act. Appellants Rahul Kandera and Sunil Khan were acquitted of the charges framed against them. Hence, present appeal by the appellant.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the present case rests on circumstantial evidence. Prosecution was required to establish complete chain of circumstances leading to the guilt of the appellant. Trial court has not believed the recoveries allegedly effected on the basis of disclosure statements suffered by the appellant or his co-accused during trial. Consequently, appellant was acquitted of the charges framed against him under section 392 IPC. Recovery of Knife from the appellant and his co-accused was also disbelieved by the trial court. Due to this reason, appellant was acquitted of the charge framed against him under section 4/25 of the Act. Thus, there was no motive against the appellant to have committed murder of deceased. Appellant was not known to the deceased. Appellant does not have any criminal antecedents. The circumstance of footprints lifted from the spot, which had allegedly matched with the chappal of the appellant, has been falsely foisted by the prosecution to implicate the appellant in this case. Case of the appellant was on a similar footing as that of Rahul Kandera. However, accused Rahul Kandera was acquitted by the trial court. Appellant was also liable to be acquitted.

10. Learned State counsel has opposed the appeal and has submitted that the appellant has been rightly convicted by the trial court.

11. Present case relates to murder of Abhay Pandey. Deceased was residing in the school premises. Case rests on circumstantial evidence. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Brajendrasingh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 2012 Supreme Court 1552, as under:-

"There is no doubt that it is not a case of direct e