The court reinforced that in criminal appeals, the onus is on the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, especially when relying on circumstantial evidence.

JUDGMENT :

BENIWAL, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred laying a challenge to the judgment of acquittal dated 19.09.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nathdwara, in Sessions Case No.27/2003 ( State of Rajasthan Vs. Shri Fateh Lal ), whereby the accused-respondent, namely, Fateh Lal has been acquitted of the charges under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.

2. The matter pertains to an incident which had occurred in the year 2003 and the present appeal has been pending since the year 2007.

3. The facts in nutshell are that an FIR was lodged by the complainant Ganesh Lal with allegation that on 08.08.2003 at around 7.00 A.M., he saw some smoke coming out from the house of one Rang Lal Mahajan. Some persons were gathered outside the house of Rang Lal Mahajan, however, his house was locked. Later, his brother Fateh Lal got the keys and opened the door. He along with other persons entered the house, wherein Rang Lal Mahajan was lying dead and blood was oozing out from his nose. His hand was lying on the pillow and smoke was also coming out of the burnt pillow. It was reported that someone murdered Rang Lal and has locked his house.

3.1. On the said report being filed, police started investigation and after completing investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused-respondent for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC to which he denied and sought for trial. The learned Trial Court on the basis of the charges framed against the accused- respondent examined as many as 23 prosecution witnesses, 35 documents and two defence witnesses. After examining the entire record, the learned Trial Court proceeded to acquit the accused-respondent for the offences alleged against him.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant-State while challenging the impugned judgment made the following submissions:-

(i) the deceased Rang Lal and accused Fateh Lal were real brothers. When smoke was seen coming out of the house of Rang Lal, the complainant-Ganesh Lal and other persons enquired about the keys of the house and at that point, accused Fateh Lal stated that he had a second key. Thereafter, lock was opened by Fateh Lal and therefore, it is clear that it was Fateh Lal who committed the murder of his brother Rang Lal and locked the house;

(ii) the motive behind the above crime is apparent as Rang Lal had renounced the world and had become a ‘Sadhu’. The accused-Fateh Lal was having eyes on the property belonging to Rang Lal and he wanted to grab the share of Rang Lal and, therefore, he is the only person who could have benefitted from the above crime. Therefore, the surrounding circumstances also point towards the involvement of the accused-respondent in the crime in question; and

(iii) the bloodstained clothes of the accused-respondent after recovery were sent to Forensic Lab and as per the FSL Report (Ex. P/20), the bloodstains found on the clothes of accused-respondent matched the blood group of deceased Rang Lal which further connects the accused-respondent to the crime.

4.1 On the basis of the above submissions, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-State submitted that the prosecution was able to fully establish the circumstances in which accused- respondent committed the crime. Though, there was no eye- witness to the incident, however, the chain of circumstances clearly establish the fact that it was the accused-respondent who murdered Rang Lal in order to grab his p