In a criminal case based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances that leads to the conclusion of the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The acquittal of a co-accused may raise doubts about the prosecution's case against the remaining accused.

JUDGMENT

Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - The instant appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure mounts a challenge to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.08.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Merta in Sessions Case No.11/2012 (CIS No.63/2015), which determination and verdict, has culminated in conviction of the present accused/appellant for the offence under Section 302 of IPC, and thereby, was ordered to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment.

2. The factual matrix that is required to be exposited for the purpose of disposal of the present appeal is that complainant Girdhari Ram filed a written report on 30.01.2012 at Reserve Centre, Gotan alleging therein that on 30.01.2012 in the morning at about 10 o'clock, he returned back to Talanpur after attending some marriage at Chowkadi, and from there, he alongwith Rajesh went to his dhani, where they found the dead body of Bhanwarlal lying in front of the house.

It was also stated that the stomach and chest of deceased Bhanwarlal were full of blood, and the injury caused by sharpedged weapon was reflected; blood was spilled all over the rooms and the chowk, and Bhanwarlal has thus been murdered by unknown persons with sharp edged weapons at night and his dead body was lying in front of the house.

3. Upon receiving such information, an FIR bearing No.19/2012 was registered at Reserve Centre, and after investigation, the offences were found to be made out - against present accused/appellant-Shesha Ram under Section 302 IPC, while under Section 302/34 IPC against Panchi Devi - and accordingly, the trial commenced.

4. On 18.12.2012, separate charges were framed, as the present accused/appellant was charged under Section 302 IPC, whereas Panchi Devi was charged under Section 302/34 IPC, as aforementioned.

5. The prosecution produced 19 witnesses and 57 exhibits.

6. In course of his examination, under Section 313 Cr.P.C., present accused/appellant-Shesha Ram having denied the imputations and alleged his false implication, thereby pleaded 'not guilty', he was made to stand the trial.

Panchi Devi also refuted the charges and submitted that she did not know accused-Shesha Ram.

In her defence, Panchi Devi produced Ramkumar as DW-1 and Guddi Devi as DW-2, and also got the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C rendered by Ramdayal, exhibited as Exhibit D-1.

7. After hearing the arguments advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor and learned defence counsel and upon appreciating the material available on record, the learned trial court proceeded to convict and sentenced the present accused/appellant-Shesha Ram, vide the impugned judgment and order, as mentioned above; whereas Panchi Devi was acquitted, while giving her the benefit of doubt. Hence, accused/appellantShesha Ram has preferred this appeal.

8. Mr. Vikas Bijarnia, learned counsel for the accused/appellant submitted that the accused/appellant is in custody since 7 years 5 months and 24 days.

Learned counsel further submitted that the best case of the prosecution was that the accused/appellant alongwith Panchi Devi murdered Bhanwarlal, who was Panchi Devi's husband.

Learned counsel also submitted that the conviction of the present accused/appellant was on account of the same set of witnesses, who were operating on the same pedestal as that of the Panchi Devi, who was acquitted by the learned trial court vide the impugned judgment and order.

Learned counsel further submitted that the last seen evidence, on the basis of which the whole trial has proceeded with, cannot be bifurcated for the purpose and result of the present accused/appellant and Panchi Devi, particularly in light of the fact that there was no distinction drawn by witness Ram Dayal.

Learned counsel also submitted that the total case is based upon the circumstantial evidence, which is not trustworthy and the chain of circumstances is absolutely in