Evidence – Circumstantial evidence – As per the prosecution,two days prior to the date of the incident, a dispute allegedly arosebetween the deceased-complainant’s brother and their step motherwherein she allegedly threatened the deceased that he would notsurvive – Two days after, the appellants (the step mother along withthe co-accused) came in a car and took the deceased on the pretextof purchasing shoes, when the complainant was also present in thehouse and allegedly noticed that the step mother was carrying her12 bore double barrel licensed gun in the car – Later, dead body ofthe deceased was found bearing two gunshot wounds – The car inwhich the appellants and the deceased were travelling was alsofound with the gun kept inside, along with the cartridges –Appellants were convicted u/s.302 r/w s.34, IPC and sentenced tolife imprisonment – Correctness of – Held:The present is a casebased on circumstantial evidence – In view of the serious doubtwith regard to the credibility of the witnesses on the issue of extrajudicialconfession and last seen theory, the failure to examineBallistic Expert would be a glaring defect in the prosecution case –Prosecution failed to prove thecase beyond reasonable doubt –Appellants entitled to benefit of doubt – Judgment of the High Courtand the Trial Court quashed and set aside – Penal Code, 1860 –s.302 r/w s.34.Criminal Law – Law with respect to conviction in the case ofcircumstantial evidence – Discussed.Evidence – Circumstantial evidence – Law of extra-judicialconfession – Discussed.