The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for sufficient and admissible evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard learned counsel representing the applicant appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the impugned Judgment and the material available on record.

2. The appellant applicant herein stands convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 28.02.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaitaran, District Pali in Sessions Case No. 39/2018 (CIS No. 39/2018):

3. The incident relates to the alleged murder of Babulal by unknown assailants on the night intervening 17/18th June, 2018. The written report (Ex. P/1) came to be submitted by Ramlal at the Police Station Aanandpur Kalu, District Pali alleging inter alia that his father Shri Babulal had been murdered by unknown assailants by inflicting blows of sharp weapons while the deceased was sleeping inside his house. After investigation, initially, a charge-sheet came to be submitted against Mahipal, the appellant herein and Ramnarayan son of Babulal. Later on, a supplementary charge-sheet was filed against Sundri wife of the deceased Babulal, Mamta daughter of Babulal and Sushila daughter of Babulal.

4. Shri Shekhawat, counsel representing the applicant appellant, vehemently and fervently contended that there is hardly any evidence worth the name on the record of the case to connect the appellant with the crime. The only links in the chain of circumstances, which have been relied upon by the prosecution so as to prove the guilt of the appellant, are in form of the confessional statement of the accused Mahipal and the recovery of a knife made at the instance of the accused appellant. He urged that the confessional statement of the co-accused cannot be read against the accused appellant as the same is hit by Sections 25/26 of the Indian Evidence act. Regarding the recovery of knife, Shri Shekhawat urged that no blood group was found on the knife when it was subjected to serological examination at the FSL. In this regard, he referred to the FSL report (Ex. P/70) which reflects that the Chaku (Article 'K') recovered at the instance of the accused Hanuman Ram did not give any conclusive test regarding blood grouping. On these grounds, Shri Shekhawat implored the Court to accept the application for suspension of sentences and direct enlargement of the appellant on bail during pendency of the appeal.

5. Per contra, Shri M.A. Siddiqui, learned GA-cum-AAG vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by Shri Shekhawat and urged that the prosecution has led convincing circumstantial evidence so as to prove the guilt of the accused and thus, he does not deserve indulgence of bail in this application for suspension of sentences.

6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the material available on record.

7. A thorough perusal of the record indicates that only two links of circumstantial evidence were presented by the prosecution in an attempt to bring home the charges against the appellant;

(i) the interrogation note of the co-accused Mahipal and

(ii) recovery of knife.

8. Suffice it to say that interrogation note of an accused recorded by the police officer would be hit by Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act. The knife recovered at the instance of the appellant did not give any conclusive result regarding blood grouping when the same was tested at the FSL which fact is affirmed from the FSL Report (Ex. P/70).

9. In this background, we are of the opinion that the ap