JUDGMENT Tripathi, J. - These two Appellants have been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of Shanjahanpur of an offence u/s 302/34 IPC and each of them has been sentenced to death. They have come up in appeal against their conviction and sentence and the learned Sessions Judge has made the usual reference for the confirmation of the sentence of death inflicted on each of them. 2. The prosecution case in short is as follows: Smt. Bhagga aged about 17 years (the victim in this case) was the married daughter of Kadher Teli of village Balma. Two months prior to the occurrence she had come to her father and had been living with him. On 20th March, 1965, at about 4 p.m. Smt. Bhagga was found lying dead in the Arhar field of Kadher Kachi (not to be confused with Kadher Teli) with a serious injury in her abdominal region. An information was lodged with the police by Mangli Ghaukidar of the village at P.S. Tilhar on the same date at 5.25 p.m. on the basis of which a case was registered and investigation followed. 3. Sub Inspector Ram Kumar (P.W. 13) reached the village in the evening and found the dead body of a woman lying in the field. He prepared a site plan and sent the dead body for post mortem examination. He interrogated Kadher Teli and Smt. Kituka father and mother of the deceased and some old villagers. 4. The post mortem examination on the dead body of Smt. Bhagga was performed by Dr. B.N. Ghatterji, Civil Surgeon, Shahjahanpur, on the 21st of March, 1965, at about 3.30 p.m. The deceased was about 17 years of age, of an average build and the probable time since her death was about a day. The following ante mortem injuries were found on the body : I. Incised penetrating wound 2" 3/4" abdominal cavity deep on left side abdomen 2" above the umbilicus and 1" on the midline, The wound was placed obliquely from inside downwards and outwards. Loops of bowels and mysentry were protruding. 2. Abrasion with contusion 1/2" 2 " below the right ear lobe. 3. Three linear abrasions each 1/4" long on left side front of neck spread over an area of 2"1" outside the midline. 5. On internal examination the small intestines, mysentry and large bowels were found cut. Loops of bowels and mysentry were protruding. 2. Abrasion with contusion 1/2" 2 " below the right ear lobe. 3. Three linear abrasions each 1/4" long on left side front of neck spread over an area of 2"1" outside the midline. 5. On internal examination the small intestines, mysentry and large bowels were found cut. Death in medical opinion was due to shock and bleeding as a result of antemortem injuries. 6. On 4th of April, 1965 Appellant Bandha was arrested who discovered in the presence of the witnesses the sickle Ex. 2 which was put in a sealed cover. Appellant Taule was also arrested on the same date and he handed over a silver Hansli Exhibit 1 after digging it out of the ground below a corn bin of his house. The Hansli too was put up in a sealed cover in the presence of the witnesses and its recovery memo was prepared. The sickle discovered by Appellant Bandha was sent to the' Chemical Examiner and Serologist for their examination and their reports indicated that it was found to be stained with human blood. The Hansli Exhibit 1 discovered by Appellant Taule was put for identification in the court of Sri Fateh Bahadur Singh (PW 14) and was identified by Kadher and Smt. Kituka (PWs 2 and 3) father and mother of the deceased as one belonging to her which she was wearing when she had left the house. 7. At the trial Appellants pleaded not guilty to the charges. Bandha denied to have discovered the sickle Exhibit 2 and attributed his false implication in the case due to his enmity with Bhoop Ram, Ex-Pradhan of the village whose son Lakhan and nephew Piare had appeared as prosecution witnesses. He has added that his wife had been abducted by Rohan, brother-in-law of Kadher Kachi and prosecution witness Nathu is a nephew of Kadher Kachi. Appellant Taule stated that he did not discover Hansli Exhibit 1 after digging a portion of the house but it was taken away by the police from his house on their own accord and it belongs to his sister and that the witnesses were falsely deposing against him on account of enmity. He examined Smt. Neema his sister in defence who stated that the Hansli Exhibit 1 belonged to her and that it was snatched away from her neck by one of the constables. He examined Smt. Neema his sister in defence who stated that the Hansli Exhibit 1 belonged to her and that it was snatched away from her neck by one of the constables. Appellant Bandha, however, did not examine any evidence in defence. 8. There is no eye-witness to the murder and the case against the Appellants is based on circumstantial evidence. The circumstances on which the prosecution relied to connect the Appellants with the crime under consideration are these: (1) That Appellant Bandha had immoral connection with the deceased. (2) That the deceased had developed an illegitimate intimacy with another person which was resented by Appellant Bandha. (3) That Bandha and Taule were found talking on the well of Dood Ram close to the scene of occurrence on the date when the dead body was found in the Arhar field of Kadher Kachi. (4) That when the villagers assembled to see the dead body Bandha although knew of it did not go to see it. (5) That Bandha absconded after the occurrence. (6) That Bandha gave out the sickle after taking it out of a thatch of his house which was found stained with human blood. 9. As against Taule he is said to be a friend of Bandha and was found conversing with him on the date of murder a few hours before nearabout the scene of occurrence and then had discovered the Hansli Exhibit 1 after digging it out of his house which was identified subsequently by the parents of the deceased as belonging to her. In addition to the above circumstances the prosecution also relies on the fact that: both the Appellants had falsly denied several facts conclusively proved against them. 10. Mr. P.G. Chaturvedi, learned Counsel for the Appellants, has argued that many of the circumstances alleged against the Appellants have not been established beyond doubt by cogent and reliable evidence and even if they are held to be so established they are wholly insufficient to connect the Appellants unmistakably with the crime. 11. We now proceed to discuss the various pieces of circumstantial evidence indicated above in their serial order. 12. Nathu and Ganga Din (P.Ws. 4 and 11) have stated that Appellant Bandha had illicit connection with the deceased. 11. We now proceed to discuss the various pieces of circumstantial evidence indicated above in their serial order. 12. Nathu and Ganga Din (P.Ws. 4 and 11) have stated that Appellant Bandha had illicit connection with the deceased. Nathu has stated that he had seen the deceased talking with Bandha two months before the occurrence and also that Bandha had complained to him that the deceased had developed illicit liasion with one Nanhey and the witness should ask him not to go astray. In cross-examination he admitted that he had not stated before the committing Magistrate that he had seen the deceased talking with Bandha. The witness added further that his statement that he had seen the deceased talking with Bandha is false. It is obvious, therefore, that no reliance can be placed on this witness and even if it is held that he had seen Appellant Bandha talking with the deceased and complaining to him about her character no inference can be drawn that Bandha had illicit liaison with the deceased. 13. Ganga Din has stated that he had seen the deceased and Appellant Bandha on one or two occasions walking and talking with each other in any Arhar field he thought that they had developed illicit liaison. It is obvious that simply because the Appellant and the deceased were found talking with each other in an Arhar field no inference can be drawn that they had developed an illicit connection among themselves. In villages men and women of the agricultural class do visit fields covered by Arhar and talk with each other. Unless, therefore, some definite talk of theirs showing amorous relations is indicated in the evidence, it would be futile to draw an inference on the basis of the statement of Ganga Din that the Appellant had developed an illicit connection with the deceased lady. 14. Nathu (PW 4) and Nathu (PW 12) have testified that Bandha had complained to them that the deceased had developed illicit connection with one Nanhey. We have already held that Nathu (PW 4) is an unreliable witness. As regards Nathu (PW 12) he has admitted that when Bandha complained against the deceased he did not tell anyone of her family members about it nor did he mention it to any other villager because he had not seen anything wrong on the part of the deceased. We have already held that Nathu (PW 4) is an unreliable witness. As regards Nathu (PW 12) he has admitted that when Bandha complained against the deceased he did not tell anyone of her family members about it nor did he mention it to any other villager because he had not seen anything wrong on the part of the deceased. It is obvious that the statement of this witness is wholly insufficient to show that Bandha had made a complaint against the deceased regarding her alleged connection with Nanhey. Even if it is held that Bandha had complained against the character of the deceased that will hardly be an incriminating circumstance against him. 15. The two Nathu's (PWs. 4 and 12) have also testified that they had seen the two Appellants talking with each other on the date of occurrence at about 10 a.m. on the well of Dood Ram 15 or 20 paces of the main door of the house of Kadher Teli (PW 2) and the fields of Kadher Kachi and Taule were visible from that well. In short the evidence of these two witnesses is to the effect that on 20-3-1965, at about 10 a.m. these two Appellants were found near about the scene of occurrence and it was on that very day that the dead body of Bhagga deceased was found in the afternoon in a field. Even if the circumstance is held to be established it is hardly an incriminating circumstance. It has come in evidence of Kadher Teli (PW 2) the father of the deceased that the well is only 10 to 15 paces to the west of his main door and is visible. It is also in evidence that the field of Tauley lies near the well. There was nothing wrong, therefore, on the part of Tauley to be near his field or to have been talking with Appellant Bandha his co-villager. In case they had been conspiring to commit the offence they would not have indulged in the talk of conspiracy so near the house of Kadher Teli and in open. It is, therefore, obvious that no inference can be drawn from this fact adverse to the Appellants. 16. In case they had been conspiring to commit the offence they would not have indulged in the talk of conspiracy so near the house of Kadher Teli and in open. It is, therefore, obvious that no inference can be drawn from this fact adverse to the Appellants. 16. Even if it is held that Bandha did not go to see the dead body of Smt. Bhagga lying in the field it can hardly be said to be an incriminating circumstance against him. Nathu, Ganga Din and Sub-Inspector Ram Kumar Tripathi have stated that after the discovery of the dead body Bandha was not found in the village. Bandha has, however, stated that he continued to remain throughout in his house looking after his cultivation in the absence of anyone. There is also nothing to show that any proceedings Under Sections 87 and 88 Code of Criminal Procedure were initiated against this Appellant. In this state of affairs we are not prepared to accept that Bandha remained absconding. 17. The most important circumstance on which the prosecution relies is the recovery of a sickle stained with human blood at the instance of Bandha on the 4th of April, 1965 Pyare Lal and Lakhan (PWs 7 and 8) have stated that on the interrogation of the Sub Inspector Bandha who was under arrest offered to take out the Hansia from his house and did take it out from the thatch of his house which appeared to contain stains of blood. To the same effect is the statement of Sub Inspector, Ram Kumar Tripathi. Bandha has stated that Lakhan is the son of Bhoop Ram and Pyare is his nephew and they were deposing falsely against him because he was instrumental in removing Bhoop Ram from the office of Pradhan. Pyare and Lakhan have admitted their relationship with Bhoop Ram. Pyare has further admitted that Bhoop Ram was the Pradhan of the village and that he was removed from the office of Pradhan by Roopan and Bandha and their party members. It is, therefore, obvious that Pyare and Lakhan are not independent witnesses and it will not be safe to rely on their testimony for holding that Appellant Bandha had discovered the sickle Exhibit 2 from his house. The statement of the Sub Inspector alone is insufficient to hold otherwise. It is, therefore, obvious that Pyare and Lakhan are not independent witnesses and it will not be safe to rely on their testimony for holding that Appellant Bandha had discovered the sickle Exhibit 2 from his house. The statement of the Sub Inspector alone is insufficient to hold otherwise. In any case even if it is held that the sickle Exhibit 2 was recovered from the thatch of Bandha's house at his pointing out and it was subsequently found to have been stained with human blood it is not possible to hold that it was necessarily a weapon of assault used by Bandha for committing the murder of Smt. Bhagga. Injury No. 1 found on the deceased could have been caused by any sharp pointed cutting weapon. The nature of this injury does not show that it had been caused necessarily by a sickle which is of semi circular shape. The sickle is an implement of husbandry and can be found in any village home as it is used by the villagers for reaping their crops. It is not known as to what was the extent of the blood which was found on the sickle. Sometimes the villagers while using the sickle in reaping crops injure their finger and blood attaches to it. In these circumstances because the sickle was found from the house of Bandha at his pointing out 14 days after the discovery of the dead body it will not necessarily connect him with the crime under consideration. 18. We are, therefore, satisfied that some of the circumstances enumerated above have not been established beyond doubt and even if they are all held to have been established they are insufficient to connect Appellant Bandha with the crime under consideration. 19. As regards Appellant Taule the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are (1) that he was found talking with Bandha on the well of Dood Ram and (2) that a Hansli was discovered from his house at his pointing out which was identified by the parents of the deceased. 20. We have already held that the fact that Taule and Bandha were talking near a well situate near the field of Taule is not an incriminating circumstance. The Hansli Ex. 1 which was recovered 15 days after the murder was claimed by Taule as belonging to his sister and that it was taken away by the Sub-Inspector. 20. We have already held that the fact that Taule and Bandha were talking near a well situate near the field of Taule is not an incriminating circumstance. The Hansli Ex. 1 which was recovered 15 days after the murder was claimed by Taule as belonging to his sister and that it was taken away by the Sub-Inspector. He denied to have discovered it. It was an ordinary silver Hansli which is found in majority of village homes. The discovery of the Hansli has been testified by Kadher Kachi (P.W. 9) and Lallu (P.W. 10) and Sub Inspector Ram Kumar (P.W. 13). The trial Judge has rejected the evidence of Kadher (P.W. 9) on this point. Kadher (P.W. 9) is said to be maternal uncle of Lallu (P.W. 10). He also belongs to the same fraternity. Lallu also admitted that there was some dispute between him and Taule two years ago regarding the possession of a common well and a Panchayat was held in that connection but Taule did not accept the decision of the Panchayat. It is, therefore, obvious that Lallu is not an independent witness and it may be that he was deposing against Taule on account of enmity. Even if it is held that the Hansli (Ex. 1) was recovered from the house of Appellant Taule on his pointing out that will hardly be a circumstance sufficient to connect him with the crime of murder. Kadher (P.W. 2) and Smt. Kituka (P.W 3) father and mother of the deceased did identify the Hansli Ex. 1 as belonging to their daughter. On the other hand Smt. Neema sister of Taule has claimed that the Hansli belongs to her. Neither Kadher (P.W. 2) nor his wife Smt. Kituka (P.W. 3) has been able to give any specific sign in the Hansli on account of which they could pick it up as their own. It is, therefore, difficult to believe that the Hansli necessarily belonged to the deceased. 21. It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial, nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established and all the facts so established should be inconsistent with any other hypothesis but the guilt of the accused. 21. It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial, nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established and all the facts so established should be inconsistent with any other hypothesis but the guilt of the accused. In other words there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. Needless to say that the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution in this case fall short of that standard and do not point out conclusively that the murder of Smt. Bhagga was committed by the two Appellants. 22. Accordingly this appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentences of the Appellants as recorded by the trial court are set aside. The Appellants are in jail. They shall be released forthwith, unless required in connection with some other case. The reference made by the learned Sessions Judge u/s 374 Code of Criminal Procedure is rejected.