The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt; failure to establish a connection between the appellant and the crime results in acquittal.

JUDGMENT

Upon the murder of Medailal, Gyan Prakash who was the son of Smt. Raj Kumari, the Pradhan of the Village Amkhera, lodged a First Information Report on 25.12.2010 at around 02:00 pm alleging that Medailal who was in possession of two acres land had wanted to dispose of that land but his grandson Deendayal had prevented him from selling the same and when on 25.12.2010 at around 09:00 am Deendayal had asked Medailal not to sell the land and when he had insisted that he would sell the land then there was a verble altercation between Medailal and Deendayal and thereafter Deendayal killed Medailal with a banka. Upon some hue and cry being raised prior to the killing and during the killing, the neighbours Bhagwan Das, Jagdish Prasad and the daughter of Deendayal, Km. Rama Devi reached the spot and they all saw that Deendayal had killed Medailal. When the neighbours Bhagwan Das and Jagdish Prasad and the daughter Km. Rama Devi reached the spot, Deendayal had left the banka at the spot and had run away. Gyan Prakash had stated in the First Information Report that since he was the son of the Gram Pradhan, he was lodging the First Information Report.

2. After the First Information Report was lodged, the Police got into action and started off with the investigation. It was alleged that Deendayal had absconded after murdering his grandfather Medailal and he was arrested on 26.12.2010 at around 08:00 pm in the night and on his person a sharp edged weapon was also found. Therefore, after the arrest of the appellant-Deendayal on 26.12.2010, a First Information Report was also lodged against him under Section 4 /25 ARMS ACT . The earlier F.I.R. which was lodged, gave rise to Case Crime No. 1985 of 2010, under Section 302 I.P.C. and the subsequent F.I.R. was numbered as Case Crime No. 1193 of 2010, under Section 4 /25 ARMS ACT . On 25.12.2010 itself the banka was taken into custody and this was done in the presence of two independent witnesses namely Fateh Singh and Rakesh Kumar. The recovery memo of the banka was prepared and was numbered as Exhibit "Ka-11". From the spot, the sample of the floor along with bloodstains was also taken into custody and a recovery memo of it was prepared and was numbered as Exhibit "Ka-12". The clothes, which the appellant was wearing, was also recovered and was kept as Exhibit "Ka-16". The material of which the bed was made of, on which the deceased was lying, was also kept as Exhibit "Ka-17". After the First Information Report was lodged, a post mortem was also undergone and this post mortem was sought to be proved by the statement of the doctor. The police, upon investigation, submitted its charge-sheet and charged the appellant-Deendayal for the crime of murder under Section 302 I.P.C. After the charge-sheet was submitted before the Sessions Court, the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Pilibhit framed the charges on 12.05.2011. The appellant/accused denied the charges and desired a trial.

3. Before the trial Court as many as 12 prosecution witnesses were examined. Dal Chand was examined as PW-1. He had proved the Panchnama. However in the cross-examination he had categorically stated that the murder of Medailal had not taken place in his presence. He has only stated that there was some enmity between Medailal and appellant Deendayal. He has also stated that he had never heard in the village about the fact that Medailal was murdered by his grandson. PW-2 was the daughter of the appellant namely Km. Rama Devi. She was ten years of age. The Court upon examining as to whether she could give her evidence, ha