JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated Feb 8, 1975 of the learned Sessions Judge, Kota, whereby he convicted accused Gobari Lal under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 500/- In default of payment of fine to further suffer a sentence of six month's rigorous imprisonment. He was also convicted under section 201 I.P.C. and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs. 500/- In default of payment of fine to further suffer sentence of imprisonment for six months. He was also convicted under Sections 379 I.P.C. and was sentenced to three year's rigorous imprisonment. All the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to the accused were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case as disclosed at the trial is that Hari Prasad's father Jamnalal filed a verbal report at Police Station Kotwali, Kota on June 7, 1974 at about 10:30 a.m. which was reduced into writing in Roznamcha a Copy of which has been placed on record and has been marked as Ex.22 It was disclosed that Hari Prasad (Since deceased) was sent by his father towards sultanpur Itawa side for purchasing wheat. He had Rs. 12,00/- with him. He started from Kota on June 3 1974 and as he has not returned back some foul play was suspected. The description of Hari Prasad showing the physical features was also given in the first information report. It was also disclosed there in that he was wearing a white bushirt and blue terebene pent and having one wrist watch on his hand. On the same day another report Ex. P/33 was filed mentioning therein that the dead body of Hari Prasad was found floating in a well near the field in village Morpe. The S.H.O. sent both the reports to the concerned Police Station, Budhadeet, who prepared Ex. P/9 and proceeded to inquirer into the matter on the spot. After inequity he was satisfied that the murder was committed and as such a regular first information report Ex. P/12 was recorded by him. Accused Gobari Lal was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. P/15 on June 13, 1974. At the time of arrest the accused was wearing wrist watch which was also seized. After inequity he was satisfied that the murder was committed and as such a regular first information report Ex. P/12 was recorded by him. Accused Gobari Lal was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. P/15 on June 13, 1974. At the time of arrest the accused was wearing wrist watch which was also seized. After two days of the arrest the accused expressed his desire to get seven gunny bags recovered from the place of their concealment viz., the place where he had thrown them. Inconsequence of the information given by the accused the Police party took the accused to the well from which the dead body was recovered and seven gunny bags were brought out. They were also taken into possession. The seizure memo Ex. P/17 was prepared on the spot. The accused also informed the Investigating Officer that out of Rs. 1200/- he paid Rs. 400/- to Uttam Chand, Rs. 149/- to Surajmal and Rs. 131/- to Birdhi Lal. The information was reduced into writing and the same has been marked as Ex. P/18. In pursuance of the alow noted information the recovery of the aforesaid amount was also made from concerned persons. The recovery memos are Ex. P/19 to Ex. P/21. Certain blood stained clothes were also recovered by the Investigating Officer, but they are of little consequence for the decision of this case as no report of Chemical Examiner oi Serologist has been placed on record. During the course of investigation a test identification parade was held and the watch Article 8 was identified by PW 14 Om Prakash, PW 15 Suresh Chandra, PW 17 Jamnalal and PW IS Dhanraj. The identification memo is Ex. P/3. The gunny bags Articles 1 to 7 were also get identified in test identification parade. Pent Article 1 worn by the deceased prior to his death and recovered from the dead body was also got identified during the test identification parade. It was identified by Hiralal, Daudayal, Kishanlal, Kanhaiya Lal and Gopal. Autopsy on the dead body of Hari Prasad was performed by PW 1 Dr. Vinod Kumar Sharma. The postmortem report is Ex. P/1. He noticed one lacerated wound 4" X 4" on the upper right eye brow. In the opinion of the Doctor the cause of death was as physical due to strangulation. The mouth was swollen and the tongue was protruding. Vinod Kumar Sharma. The postmortem report is Ex. P/1. He noticed one lacerated wound 4" X 4" on the upper right eye brow. In the opinion of the Doctor the cause of death was as physical due to strangulation. The mouth was swollen and the tongue was protruding. The police after usual investigation submitted a challan against the accused, who was committed to the Court of Sessions for facing trial under Sections 302, 201 and 379 I. P. C. 3. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and the prosecution examined 27 witnesses in support of its case. The accused denied his complicity in the crime, but did not examine any witness in defence. 4. The learned Judge placing reliance on circumstantial evidence convicted and sentenced the accused as mentioned above. The convicted accused has come up in appeal to this Court. 5. From the statement of PW 1 Dr. Vinod Kumar and the postmortem report Ex. P/1 as well as the statement of PW 15 Suresh Chand it stands proved beyond reasonable doubt that whosoever inflicted injuries on the person of Hari Prajid intended to cause his death. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused to rightly not contested this point and it need not detain us more. 6. It is an admitted case of the prosecution that there is no direct evidence. The law regarding circumstantial evidence stands well settled by a number of decision so( this Court and the Supreme Court. Where there is no direct evidence one way of the other and the whole case turns on circumstantial evidence, the circumstance evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused, but should/ inconsistent with his innocorce. Reference in this connection may be made will advantage to Mangleshwari Prasad v. State of Bihar A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 715. The circumstances relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge are (1) Deceased Hari Prasad went towards Sultanpur side for purchasing wheat with cash, empty bags and wrist watch. (2) Deceased was last seen with Gotarilal by the witnesses. (3) The wrist watch, which belonged to the deceased was found in possession of the accused at the time of his arrest and was identified as that of the deceased. (2) Deceased was last seen with Gotarilal by the witnesses. (3) The wrist watch, which belonged to the deceased was found in possession of the accused at the time of his arrest and was identified as that of the deceased. (4) The pent found on the body of the deceased was identified by the witnesses stating that at the time when they saw deceased Hari Prasad in the company of accused Gobarilal, the former was wearing pent Article (5) Payment of the amount made by the accused to his creditors just after the occurrence. (6) Recovery of gunny bags at the instance of the accused and the same were identified as that of the deceased. 7. As regards the evidence regarding accused being last seen with the deceased, it can be divided into two heads (i) statement of PW 27 Nathulal, who stated that I he saw the deceased who told him that he was proceeding for purchase of wheats. The witness instructed Gobarilal to take the deceased to the places from where he would purchase wheat, and (ii) statements of PW 3 Kanhaiya Lal, PW 11 Kishan Lal and PW 21 Gopal as well as PW 22 Hiralal who were examined to prove that the pent Article 1 was worn by the deceased and they saw the deceased wearing that pent when the deceased was in company of Gobarilal. 8. A careful examination of the statement of PW 27 Nathulal shows that he is not a witness of truth. He had no special acquaintance with the deceased. He knew the deceased, because both of them used to go sometime to visit a Samadhi at Kota. The deceased never made any request to the witness that someone should be sent with him for help and there was no reason for this witness to ask Gobarilal to accompany the deceased. This witness was examined after seven days of the occurrence. In his police statement the witness did not state that he asked Gobarilal to accompany the deceased and this fact was admitted by him during the course of cross-examination. This omission is a material contradiction in his statement. Besides that the witness wants us to believe that on the next day he went to the father of the deceased to ask whether Hari Prasad had returned back or not. This omission is a material contradiction in his statement. Besides that the witness wants us to believe that on the next day he went to the father of the deceased to ask whether Hari Prasad had returned back or not. It does not stand to reason what made him to suspect and why he went on the next day to inquirer from his father. Thus the entire statement of this witness is full of inherent contradictions and improbabilities and no reliance can be placed on his statement. The other evidence regarding accused being last seen with the deceased relied upon by the prosecution is recovery of pent Article from the body of the deceased and I identification of the same by the witness in the Court as well as in the test identification parade. PW 3 Kanhaiya Lal stated that he was not in a position to identify J the pent in the Court. This witness stated that Gobarilal came to his shop in company of a boy of 26 years for taking betel. Thus his statement does not connect the accused with the crime. PW 7 Mathura Lal stated that Gobarilal in the company of I a young man came to his shop for purchasing wheat, but he did not know the other man. He only know that he was wearing a blue pant, At the time when he made statement before the Court he forgot colour of the pent. The witness further goes on to state that he does not know whether the person seen by him in the company of Gobari Lal was wearing such a pent or not at the time when he came to purchase wheat. PW 21 Gopal stated that he saw one boy in the company of Gobari Lal, who was wearing pent Article. During the course of cross-examination the witness stated that he did not give the description and colour of the pent in his police statement. He could identify the pent in the test identification parade, because it was of blue colour. At the time of test identification parade there was only one pent of blue colour. Thus similar is the statement of PW 22 Hira Lal. He could identify the pent in the test identification parade, because it was of blue colour. At the time of test identification parade there was only one pent of blue colour. Thus similar is the statement of PW 22 Hira Lal. As only one blue coloured pent was available at the time of holding of the test identification parade, the identification of the pent by the witness in the parade and the Court cannot be of any assistance to the prosecution case to prove the fact that the deceased was found in the company of the accused. Reference in this connection may be made to Chander Singh v. State of U.P., A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 1200 . Where in the question of identification regarding accused was raised. One of the accused was having brown eyes. Persons mixed in the parade were not of brown eyes. The identification of the accused I the Court and the test identification parade was not relied upon by their Lordships of the Supreme Court for the reason that other accused not having features which would distinguish him from the outsiders mixed with him in the parade. On the perity of reasoning it can be very well said that the identification of the pent by the witnesses also does not inspire any confidence to prove that the accused was last seen with the deceased. 9. The arrest memo shows that watch Article 6 was recovered from the person of the accused. The arrest memo Ex. P/15 reads that Sandos watch with 25 Jewels was recovered from the possession of the accused. PW 14 Om Prakash under cross-examination admitted that in the watches which were mixed at the time of test identification parade, there was no other watch of Sandos make and of the type which was identified by him. PW 15 Suresh Chandra also made a similar statement. He admitted that there was only one Sandos watch at the time of test identification. PW 17 Jamana Lal, the father of the deceased stated that he could identify the watch as it was automatic. The witness was honest enough to admit that if similar such watches would be shown to him, be would not have able to distinguish and identify it. PW 17 Jamana Lal, the father of the deceased stated that he could identify the watch as it was automatic. The witness was honest enough to admit that if similar such watches would be shown to him, be would not have able to distinguish and identify it. PW 18 Dhanraj no doubt stated that two or three Sandos watches were mixed with the watch which was to be identified at the time of test identification. The witness wants us to believe that near about 8 watches were mixed, whereas Ex. P/3 (test identification memo) shows that there were only five watches mixed. In face of the statements of three witnesses including that of the father of the deceased, more evidence cannot be given to the statement of this witness. Thus the identification of watch in this case was more or less a farce. No doubt a Sandos watch was recovered from the possession of the accused, but simple recovery of the watch unless it is proved to be that of the deceased, does not connect the accused with the crime and this circumstance cannot be utilised to connect the accused with an offence, which provides a punishment of death or imprisonment for life. 10. Now remains the recovery of gunny bags. Gunny bags are articles of common pattern. Besides that Om Prakash PW 14 under cross-examination admitted that the learned Magistrate mixed 57 or 58 bags at the time of test identification, but they did not bear the print of the date marked 15th March, 1974. None of them was tied with red thread, nor there was any print over them written in English language, whereas the bags identified by him bore on their bosom the above noted marks and as such he could easily identify them. This witness gives a good-by to the sanctity of test identification of the gunny bags. 11. Now remains the recovery of the amount paid by the accused to his creditors, There is nothing to hold that the notes which were paid by the accused to the creditors were the same, which were in possession of the deceased. Neither any specific mark has been shown, nor their numbers were shown. Simply because the accused paid some amount to his creditors, it cannot be held with certainty that the amount paid by him was the same which was in possession of the deceased. Neither any specific mark has been shown, nor their numbers were shown. Simply because the accused paid some amount to his creditors, it cannot be held with certainty that the amount paid by him was the same which was in possession of the deceased. Even if this piece of evidence is believed in toto, it cannot be held to be sufficient to connect the accused with the crime. 12. In cases where the evidence is of circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in first instance be fully established and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and that should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. 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 probabilities the act must have been done by the accused. 13. The question which remains to be considered is whether the circumstantial evidence produced in the case is of such a nature which can be termed to be of unerring certainty establishing the guilt of the accused. Courts are required to be watchful in cases of circumstantial evidence so as to ensure that conjectures and suspicion howsoever strong may not take place of legal proof. The chain of evidence to sustain a conviction must be complete and admit of no reasonable conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accessed. It is settled position of law that the prosecution is required to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond, all manner of doubt. It may be, as suggested by the learned counsel for the state that there is an element of truth in the prosecution story, but between the words 'may be true' and must be true there is inevitably a long distance to travel and the whole of this distance must be covered by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence must be covered by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence. As the prosecution has failed to do so, the appeal preferred by the accused appellant deserves to be allowed. 14. As the prosecution has failed to do so, the appeal preferred by the accused appellant deserves to be allowed. 14. In the result the appeal is allowed. The judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Kota dated February 8, 1975 convicting and sentencing the accused - appellant is set aside. He is acquitted of all the charges framed and found proved by ] the learned Sessions Judge. He is on bail. He need not surrender to his bail - bonds. His bail bonds are cancelled. *******