The sufficiency of circumstantial evidence and the last seen theory to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT

anoop Kumar Dhand, J. - The appellant has preferred instant appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C aggrieved against the judgment dated 25.10.2017 passed by the Court of learned additional Sessions Judge, Ramganj Mandi, District Kota (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court') in Sessions case No.28/2016, whereby the appellantJagdish has been convicted and sentenced as under:-

2. Skeleton facts relevant and essential for disposal of the appeal are as under:-

'On 19.08.2016, the FIR bearing No.185/2016 (Ex.P-8) was registered at Police Station Modak, District, Kota on the basis of the written report (Ex.P.42) submitted by Babu Lal (PW-2). In the report, he alleged that he is resident of Mahaveer Colony, Modak. They are three brothers. Yesterday, on the day of 'Rakshbandhan', his wife Badam Bai and children Pooja and Vishan were at home. His mother Sita Bai and Jagdish were also at home. On the same day, at about 2:30 PM, Pappu, son of his brother-in-law Bhanwarlal came on a motor cycle to take his wife. His wife Badam Bai and daughter Pooja went with Pappu to his matrimonial home at Vrindavan, Jhalawar. after some time, he along with his son Vishan went to his matrimonial home. at that time, his mother and brother Jagdish were at home. He reached his matrimonial home at 4:30 PM and at 10:00 PM, he returned back with his son Vishan at his home. He consumed more liquor as a result of which slept in his room. When he awoke at 7:30 a.M in the morning, he saw his mother dead in a blood-stained position. There were injuries on her body and blood was oozing out therefrom. He called his uncle Harlal and informed the Sarpanch of Modak Village and told them that some unknown persons assaulted his mother and committed her murder.

3. after registration of FIR (Ex.P8), investigation was undertaken by Police Station Modak, District, Kota. after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The Trial Court framed charges against the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC. The accused-appellant, denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined as many as 23 witnesses and exhibited 43 documents to prove its case. The accused-appellant, upon being questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C, and when confronted with the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence denied the same and claimed to be innocent.

4. after hearing arguments advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned defence counsel and upon appreciating evidence available on record, the trial Court convicted and sentenced, the appellant as indicated here-in-before. The accusedappellant being aggrieved with the impugned judgment dated 25.10.2017 has preferred instant appeal

5. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the entire prosecution case is false and fabricated. The prosecution has failed to bring home the charges against the accused on the strength of circumstances of last seen of the deceased with the appellant. Counsel further submitted that the material prosecution witnesses namely; PW-1 Kamlesh, PW-2 Babulal, PW-3 Shankarlal, PW-6 Madanlal, PW-7 Satyanarain, PW9 Harlal, PW-11 Ratani Bai PW-12, Tej Singh, PW-13 Jiyauddin and PW-20 Radheyshyam did not support the prosecution story and turned hostile.

6. Counsel further submits that as per Post-Mortem report (Ex.P.10), the cause of death of the deceased was 'asphyxia' while there is no allegation of throttling against the appellant hence there was no occasion that the clothes of the accused were found with blood-stain. as per FSL report (Ex.P.43), there was human blood on the clothes but the blood group was found to be 'inconclusive'. Counsel submitted that the statements of the witnesses create doubt on the veracity of their presence. Counsel for the