IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment emphasizes the importance of establishing a complete chain of evidence consistent only with the guilt of the accused in cases relying on circumstantial evidence, and highlights the significance of delays in recording statements and filing the F.I.R. in assessing the credibility of the prosecution's case.

JUDGMENT :

(Bhuwan Goyal J.) :

1. The appellant-State of Rajasthan has preferred instant appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against impugned Judgment and Order dated 24.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Sikar in Sessions Case No. 36/2001 titled as "State of Rajasthan vs. Gajanand", whereby accused-respondent - Gajanand was acquitted of offences under Sections 302 & 201 of I.P.C.

2. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of present appeal are that on 24.11.2000, complainant - Suwalal (P.W. 2) submitted the typed report (Ex.P/2) before the S.H.O. Police Station Sadar, Sikar, wherein it was alleged that his younger brother Hari Prasad was running a small shop in their village but on account of less margin, his younger brother Hari Prasad was in search of another employment. On 12.11.2000, Gajanand came to their house in his presence and told his brother Hari Prasad in his presence that he was having contact with big contractors at Sikar and he will get him permanently employed with them, for which you will have to come to Sikar with him tomorrow on 13.11.2000, upon which, his brother Hari Prasad agreed. On 13.11.2000, his brother Hari Prasad with said Gajanand departed for Sikar. Hari Prasad told him and other family members that he will return by evening after purchasing household items and goods for the shop. But his brother did not return to village for 3-4 days, upon which, he and his family members started worried about Hari Prasad and they searched Hari Prasad at Sikar and in their relatives but did not find his whereabouts. The marriage of his maternal cousin Sanwarmal son of Premchand was fixed on 18.11.2000 and the marriage of his niece Ms. Geeta was scheduled at his house on 21st & 22nd November, 2000. At that time also, Hari Prasad did not return to the house, so they got worried. On 23.11.2000, one Satyanarayan Master informed that a news was published under the heading "Naale me sada gala shav mila" in the Rajasthan Patrika on 20.11.2000, upon which, he read said news and saw photograph and description then, he felt like his brother, whereupon, he along with Ramswaroop, Suresh Kumar, Puranmal Jangid, Premchand of their village came at Police Station Sadar, Sikar and saw the photographs and clothes, which were of his brother Hari Prasad. Further, it was alleged that said Gajanand who was "Dharam Bhaai" of his brother Hari Prasad, used to visit house of Hari Prasad. Said Gajanand was having illicit relations with wife of Hari Prasad, namely, Chhoti Devi and on account of said illicit relations, Gajanand with the help of his companions murdered his brother Hari Prasad and threw his dead body in the drainage at Nani Ki Beed in order to conceal the criminal act of his murder. Further, it was alleged that strict legal action may be taken against said Gajanand and his companions, who were involved in this murder.

3. On the basis of said report, an F.I.R. No.343/2000 (Ex.P/3) came to be registered at the Police Station Sadar, Sikar for the offences under Sections 302 & 201 of I.P.C. and investigation was commenced. After conclusion of investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against accused-respondent for the offences under Sections 302 & 201 of I.P.C. before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar, who took cognizance of aforesaid offences against accused-respondent and committed the case to the Court of Sessions, from where it was transferred to the court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Sikar (hereinafter referred to as "learned trial court").

4. Learned trial court framed charges against accused-respondent for the offences under Sections 302 & 201 of I.P.C. The accused-respondent pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 23 witnesses and exhibited Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/31 documents to prove its case. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, accused-respondent was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and wa