In criminal jurisprudence, an accused cannot be convicted unless guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt; significant contradictions in evidence favor acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

Sunil Beniwal, J.

1. The instant criminal appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellant - State of Rajasthan under Section 378 (iii) & (i) Cr.P.C. assailing the judgment dated 29.06.1993 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Merta, District Nagour in Sessions Case No.17/1990, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent for the offence under Sections 302 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (IPC) while extending benefit of doubt.

2. The facts in nutshell, as per the prosecution story in the present case are that a case was registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by PW-1 Raghuveer Singh, wherein it was alleged that on 15/16.11.1989, the accused-respondent committed the murder of one Madan Singh.

2.1. As per the contents of the FIR dated 16.11.1989, it was stated by complainant PW-1 Raghuveer Singh that he was informed by one Satya Narayan and Bhanwar Singh on 16.11.1989 that Madan Singh was killed. This information was given to him when Madan Singh was about to be cremated. Later, he went to Police Station whereupon the post mortem was conducted and police also started investigation.

2.2. The prosecution case is primarily based on circumstantial evidence, as there was no eye-witness to the incident.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, while arguing the appeal made the following submissions:

3.1 The accused-respondent used a liquor bottle as a weapon to inflict a head injury upon the deceased Madan Singh, and due to the said fatal injury, Madan Singh succumbed on the spot.

3.2. PW-6 Heera Lal who deposed that the accused-respondent made an extra-judicial confession before him admitting that he had killed Madan Singh. This confession was stated to have been made in the presence of PW-11 Ram Narayan. It was urged that, in view of this confession, the learned trial Court ought to have accepted the prosecution story and have convicted the accused-respondent for the offence U/s 302 of the IPC.

3.3. The PW-6 Heera Lal, before whom the extra-judicial confession was made, conveyed the same to PW-22 Satya Narayan, who attended the funeral of the deceased. Before the cremation, the information was further conveyed to the brother of the deceased. As a consequence, the cremation was halted and PW-1 Raghuveer Singh was sent to inform the police. Thereafter, the police and medical team reached the spot, conducted the post-mortem and the body of Madan Singh was cremated.

3.4. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the evidence available on record clearly established that the accused- respondent and deceased Madan Singh were last seen together. They consumed liquor together, and had a quarrel over food and some money. Learned counsel submitted that motive to kill Madan Singh was very clear and the possession of money was proved as Madan Singh had gone to the Krishi Mandi to sell agricultural produce and was having about Rs.10,000/- in his pocket.

3.5. While concluding the arguments, learned State counsel submitted that this is a case based on circumstantial evidence and the prosecution successfully established a complete chain of circumstances/events. The prosecution has led cogent evidence to prove that the accused-respondent and the deceased Madan Singh were last seen together before the incident happened and in addition, there is an extra-judicial confession by the accused- respondent and