The main legal point established is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, especially in cases based on circumstantial evidence.

JUDGMENT :

RAJIV SHARMA, J.

1. This appeal is instituted against the judgment dated 30.4.2003 and order dated 2.5.2003, rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, in Sessions Case No. 8 of 2003, vide which accused Jaipal and Ram Lal were charged with and tried for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. They were convicted thereunder and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

2. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that Dharma Ram on 20.9.2001 lodged the complaint to the effect that on 18.9.2001 at about 4.30 P.M., while he was sitting in front of his house situated in village Randoli, accused Ram Lal and Jaipal residents of his village came to the house of his son Ved Pal alias Vedu. They asked his son to accompany them for catching fish from river Yamuna. Ved Pal alias Vedu accompanied them after taking a bag and kanta dori (equipment to catch fish). In the night Ved Pal alias Vedu did not return. On 19.9.2001 enquiries were made from Jaipal. Jaipal told the wife of Ved Pal alias Vedu that Vedu was catching fish in Yamuna. Complainant's another son Baldev asked about Vedu from other accused Ram Lal. He told that Vedu had returned from Yamuna prior to them. At about 2.00 P.M., Ramesh son of Kishan resident of their village came to the house of the complainant and told that Vedu was lying unconscious in the gohar (passage) leading to village Kamalpur. The complainant, his son Baldev, one Jia Lal and wife of deceased Smt. Pasho Devi reached the spot and found Vedu lying unconscious there. Froth was coming out of his mouth and he was smelling of liquor. At that time the deceased was wearing only underwear. His trouser, shirt and bag were lying at some distance. They brought Vedu in tractor-trolley to the house. Thereafter, he was taken to P.H.C., Indri, where the doctors referred him to General Hospital, Karnal. Vedu died on the intervening night of 19/20.9.2001. According to the complainant, accused Jai Pal and Ram Pal made Vedu to consume excessive liquor or after mixing some poisonous substance in liquor. It was also stated that about 5-6 years prior thereto accused Ram Lal had levelled allegations on the deceased about his having molested his brother Radhu's daughter. The matter was compromised. Ram Lal was bearing grudge against him due to this incident. The dead-body was sent for post-mortem examination. The clothes of the deceased were also taken into possession. Viscera was also sent for chemical examination. Investigation was completed and challan was put up after completion of all the codal formalities.

3. The prosecution examined a number of witnesses in support of the case. The statements of the accused were also recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the case of the prosecution. Three witnesses were examined in defence. The accused were convicted and sentenced, as noticed above. Hence, the present appeal.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case. Learned counsel appearing for the State vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and supported the judgment and order of the learned trial Court.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the judgment and record very carefully.

6. Pw1 Dr. Rakesh Girdhar had conducted the post-mortem examination on the body of deceased Vedu. According to him, the probable duration between death and post-mortem was within 24 hours. According to PW1 Dr. Rakesh Girdhar, the cause of death was Halogenated Hydrocarbons Compound Group insecticides as per the report of Chemical Examiner. In his cross-examination, he deposed that the congestion of the organs of the deceased was due to insecticide poison. The origin of the insecticide was not presented before him by the police at