JUDGMENT

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment of a Division Bench of Bombay High Court at Goa directing acquittal of the respondent. The accused faced trial for offences punishable under Section 302, 392 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC'). The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mapusa found the accused guilty of offence punishable under Sections 302, 392 and 201 IPC and convicted him to undergo imprisonment for life, seven years and one years with different fines with default stipulations.

2. In appeals the High Court found the evidence to be inadequate and directed acquittal.

3. Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows:

Chandrakant Mahadeshwar and his son Shyam Mahadeshwar (hereinafter referred to as the `deceased') had gone for the annual fair to sell sweets at the village Zarme. On 1.3.1998, in the morning they were returning home. At about 7.30 A.M. when they reached at village Valpoi, Shyam told his father that he would stay behind and father should proceed ahead to his house and that he would follow him after some time. So, Chandrakant left behind Shyam at Valpoi and went to his Village at Thana. Till 1.00 p.m. on that day Shyam did not return home. So he started searching for Shyam. Ultimately, on 2.3.1998, at about 8.30 a.m. he lodged report at the Valpoi Police Station that Shyam was missing. On the basis of that report, the missing case No.6/98 was registered at the police station.

On 2.3.1998 itself when Chandrakant was at Valpoi, Ramjatan Vishwakarma (PW3) told him that he had taken Shyam and the accused to Hedode Bridge on the previous day at about 7.15 a.m, and he had left them there. Ramjatan then took Chandrakant to the house of the accused, but the accused was not there. The matter was also reported to the police. The police visited the house of the accused on 2.3.98 at about 11 a.m., but the accused was not there.

On 2.3.1998, at about noon time, when Chandrakant returned home, he saw that the accused was at his home and accused told him that Shyam would be returning home by evening. Thereafter, the police came there. The accused was taken to the police station. There was one bicycle. It was seized by the police.

On 2.3.1998 itself, the brother of the accused i.e. Baburao as well as brother-in-law of the accused i.e. Jaidev Paryekar were also called at the police station and inquiries were made with them. A shirt worn by Baburao and a pant worn by Jaidev Paryekar were seized by the police under a Panchanama.

The accused was interrogated and he made a statement that he would point out the place where dead body of Shyam was lying. Then the police, panchas and the accused went by police jeep to Hedode Bridge. From there, the accused took them in a jungle at distance of about one and half kilometre and pointed out to the dead body of the deceased. Since it was night time, Inspector Dessai who had taken the accused and the panchas to that place, could not prepare the panchanama of the dead body and therefore, he kept some policemen to keep watch on the dead body and returned to the police station.

On returning to the police station, inspector Dessai himself lodged F.I.R. at about 1.30 a.m. on 3.3.1998. He gave all the details as to how the dead body was recovered and alleged that the accused had committed the offence of murder of Shyam and had taken away cash and other valuables from the body of the deceased. So, crime was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 392 and 201 of I.P.C. It was crime No.18/98.

Inspector Dessai himself took up the investigation. In the morning of 3.3.1998, Inspector Dessai again went to the place in the jungle where dead body was lying. He prepared panchanama of the place of the offence and from there he recovered a pair of chapples and a knife. He also prepared inquest panchanama of the dead body. He found that there were some injuries on the person of the deceased and there were also burn injuries. He sent the