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

JUDGMENT

Rajiv Sharma, J. - This appeal has been instituted against the judgment dated 16.10.2004 and order dated 20.10.2004 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, in Sessions case no.48/2003 whereby the appellant was charged with and tried for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC'). He was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that on 24.08.2003, a telephonic message was received in the police station Gharaunda that a person had fallen in the Haudi of the tubewell belonging to Rishi Pal resident of village Kohand near Shanni Temple. PW-12 ASI Shri Pal along with other police employees reached at the spot. The dead body was lying outside the water tank (Haudi). Naresh son of Ishwar was present. He made statement Ex.P35 to the effect that on 24.08.2003 at about 08.15 P.M. he was present at his shop. Baljinder son of Narsa came to his shop. He told that a person aged about 50 years had fallen in the Haudi of tubewell of Rishipal son of Asgar. Inhabitants of the village had taken out his dead body. There were signs of number of injuries on his body. It appeared that he was Ram Niwas resident of Panipat who used to visit him. Naresh Kumar identified the dead body of Ram Niwas. He used to ply his tractor trolley on hire for transporting the goods from the factories at Kohand. ASI Shri Pal inspected the dead body and prepared the inquest report. He lifted the blood stained earth from the place of occurrence. The dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. On 27.08.2003 PW11 Mukesh Kumar, brother of the deceased made statement Ex.P37 before SI Baljinder Singh. His brother Ram Niwas was also owner of the tractor trolley. On 24.08.2003 he was present at his house. Baljit son of Narsa resident of village Kohand came to him at about 9.00 P.M. and told that the dead body of his brother Ram Niwas was lying at the tubewell of Rishi Pal and he had no suspicion about the death of his brother. Now he made enquiries at his level. PW-5 Anil Kumar son of Zile Singh told him that on 24.08.2003 Ram Niwas along with his tractor trolley was present in front of Singla Hotel, Barsat Road, Panipat, at about 5.45 P.M. One unknown person hired his tractor trolley for transporting the goods. That person with intention to snatch the tractor trolley or due to some other reasons, caused injuries to his brother with some sharp edged weapon. He also came to know that on 23.08.2003 in the same manner one unknown person had hired tractor trolley of PW-13 Hawa Singh on the pretext of paying the hire and that unknown person brought Hawa Singh to the tubewell of Rishi Pal resident of Kohand and he attempted to commit same type of occurrence with him. . However, Hawa Singh escaped. Police again visited the spot. Site plan was prepared. Statements of other witnesses were recorded. On 28.08.2003, accused Rohtash was arrested from bus stand Babarpur. He was medico legally examined. On 29.08.2003 accused Rohtash was interrogated. He made disclosure statement that he had kept concealed a shirt and a knife by putting it in a polythene under the earth near the pavement of canal which is near Babarpur Mandi canal bridge. His disclosure statement was Ex.P39. Accused took the police party to the spot and got recovered his shirt and knife. These were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.P41. Site plan of recovery was prepared. The investigation was completed. Challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities.

3. The prosecution examined a number of witnesses. Statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the case of the prosecution. The appellant was convicted and sentenced, as noticed hereinabove. Hence, this appea