The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; reliance on circumstantial evidence requires an unbroken chain linking the accused to the crime.

JUDGMENT :

Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.

1. This Criminal Appeal under Section 374 , Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment and order of sentence dated 21.04.1995 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh, in Sessions Case No. 60/86 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Chetram), whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted and sentenced as below:

1.1. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 1986 and the present appeal has been pending since the year 1995.

2. The prosecution case, as unfolded in the oral report lodged on 07.08.1986 at about 5:00 PM by complainant Kaluram, is that his son Ramuram had been working as an agricultural labourer in the fields of Sardar Gurmel Singh, along with Birbal Meghwal of Longwala. It was stated that on 05.08.1986, in the morning, Ramuram had gone for work in the fields of Gurmel Singh but did not return home that evening. When the complainant visited the house of Gurmel Singh to inquire about his son, the latter informed the complainant that on the said morning, he, his brother Baljeet Singh, Ramuram, and accused-appellant-Chetram (son of Birbal) were engaged in agricultural work at Naka, and at around 11:00 AM, he and Baljeet returned home, leaving behind Ramuram and Chetram.

2.1. It was further stated that Chetram returned to Gurmel Singh’s house at around 3:30 PM and informed that at around 01:00 PM, Ramuram had left stating that he was going to Ayalki, and that Chetram himself returned due to stomach pain. However, when Ramuram did not return home, the complainant went to Ayalki and inquired whereupon he was informed that Ramuram had not come there. The complainant then returned and informed Gurmel Singh of this fact, whereafter he, along with Gurmel Singh, Sohan Singh, and Prabhu, proceeded to inquire about Ramuram from Chetram at his residence.

2.2. It was further stated therein that upon being questioned again, Chetram initially reiterated his earlier version but subsequently confessed that two days earlier, after Gurmel Singh and Baljeet Singh had left the field, he prepared tea which got spoiled, leading to a quarrel wherein Ramuram slapped him, and they were separated by neighbour Amarjeet. He further confessed that at around 01:00 PM, while Ramuram was sleeping, he inflicted a kasiya blow on his neck, followed by 2–3 more blows, after which Ramuram became unconscious. He then dragged the body and threw it in the standing Narma crop nearby.

2.3. Thereafter, on being asked to show the place, Chetram led them to the fields of Gurmel Singh, where the dead body of Ramuram was found lying in the standing Narma crop, bearing injuries on the neck, right hand, and both legs, and the HMT wristwatch ordinarily worn by Ramuram was missing. The complainant thereafter proceeded to Police Station Pilibanga, where the report was lodged.

2.4. After the investigation, a charge-sheet under Sections 302 , 201, and 379 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘ IPC ’) was presented against the accused-appellant; the charges were read over to the accused-appellant and explained to him, to which he denied and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the present case.

2.5. During the course of trial, the prosecution produced 9 witnesses and 33 documents were exhibited; in defence, no witness was produced.

2.6. In his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused–appellant denied the prosecution allegations and asserted that on the relevant day, Gurmel Singh and Baljit Singh had sent him to fetch water while they continued digging the field. Upon his return, he allegedly found Ramuram lying dead in the field, and at t