B. L. LOOMBA, J. Dr. J. K. Pathak was posted as Veterinary Surgeon at Veterinary Hospital Gouriganj, District Sultanpur. He was living alone in one of the quarters built in the Housing Complex within the hospital com pound. During Holi holidays of 1984 he left Gauriganj presumably for his home on 13-3-1984 and returned on 19-3-1984. He was found murdered in the morning on 20-3-1984 by the hospital staff. Meraj Ahmad and Arshad Ali were tried for the offence of this crime but were acquitted by Shri On keshwar Bhatt by his judgment and order dated H-10-1985 the then Additional Session Judge, Sultanpur, the State Government has come in appeal against the said judgment of acquittal dated 11-10-1985. 2. During the relevant time both the accused respondents were admit tedly posted at the same hospital; respondent Meraj Ahmad as Stockman while Arshad Ali as peon. It is the admitted position that both these appel lants were permitted by the deceased to be on leave from 9th March to 13th March, 1984 and as per the prosecution case they were directed to return to the hospital on 13-3-1984. The plea raised by the respondents, however has been that they were on leave upto 13th March, 1984 and were required to attend to their duties on 14th March, 1984. Prosecution case is that when the respon dents did not return to the hospital on 13th March, 1984, deceased got energy and marked both the respondents absent in the attendance register before proceeding on leave on 13-3-1984. When the deceased returned on 19-3-1984 and checked up the attendance register he found that entry of absence which had been marked by him in the register for the respondents had been scored out and the respondents had instead recorded their presence on all the dates from 9th to 13th March, 1984. The deceased on seating this erasing of the absence entry in the attendance register and the respondents having marked them present and signed became furious and rebuked the respondents in pre sence of some members of the staff of the hospital. This, according to the prosecution had its original reaction on the respondents and in a fit of agita tion and anger they committed the murder of the deceased sometime during the night by strangulation and then set the dead body on fire. 3. This, according to the prosecution had its original reaction on the respondents and in a fit of agita tion and anger they committed the murder of the deceased sometime during the night by strangulation and then set the dead body on fire. 3. First information report of the occurrence was lodged by Meraj Ahmed, respondent and one Ram Charan Lal Khare who was compounder at the hospital. Ram Charan has appeared as prosecution witness PW 4 and according to him, this first information report was written by him as dictated by accused Meraj Ahmed which contains the signature of both accused Meraj and Ram Charan Lal. It is a short first information report stating that the deceased did not open the door of his house at about 6 in the morning. Peon Arshad Ali went to knock the door and made a loud call for the doctor. There was no response and the door was not opened. The informer then went from the back side of the house and saw through the opening of the back door that the charpoy and the bedding on which the deceased was sleeping in the verandah of the house was burnt and the doctor had died. The smoke was also coming from the spot. On the basis of this written first information report the case was registered at the Police Station at 7. 10 a. m. According to this G. D. entry the written first information report was lodged by accused-respondent Meraj Anmed. Raja Ram Upadhyaya was sub-Inspec tor posted at the Police Station before March, 1984. He was are trusted with the investigation and after registration of the case he is sad to have gone to the spot. He appeared as PW 9 on 26-8-1985. At that time he had retired from Government service. He reached the spot and found the dead body of Dr. Pathak lying on the charpoy. Panchayatnama was prepared which is Ext. Ka. 6 on record. According to this document the body of the deceased was lying on the charpoy in the western verandah of the house. The southern side of the charpoy was found to have been burnt while the other side had not been burnt. Some smoke was found coming from the fire which had finished. Ka. 6 on record. According to this document the body of the deceased was lying on the charpoy in the western verandah of the house. The southern side of the charpoy was found to have been burnt while the other side had not been burnt. Some smoke was found coming from the fire which had finished. In the unusual situation the Investigating Officer considered it necessary to have the post-mortem examination of the dead body done and after due sealing of the dead body and completing other formalities the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination through constable Sobh Nath who has filed his affidavit as PW 3. According to him the dead body was handed over to him at about 9. 45 a. m. The Investigating Officer found some meat, cooked rice and onion lying in the verandah near the charpoy. According to the inquest report and statement of the Investigating Officer a match box and a packet of cigarette was also found on a table near the charpoy. Three empty bottles, one of foreign liquor and the other two of country made liquor were also found Iving in the verandah which were taken in possession by the Investigating Officer. One country made pistol was also recovered from an open small box in one of the rooms of the house. According to this witness the investigation was then taken in hand by the Station Officer. Tei Narain Misra was the Station Officer of the Police Station and he did nothing worth while in regard to the investigation except that he received the result of the postmortem examination and the case was converted to be one under Section 302, of the Indian Penal Code, Only thing stated by Tej Narain Misra as PW 7 if that he made some. interrogation on 21-3-1984 but no useful clue of the crime could be found and thereafter he was transferred. 4. Shri T. N. Misra was succeeded as Station Officer by Shri Ram Behari Singh who has appeared as PW 8. According to him he stated with the investigation of this case on 27-3-1984 and recorded the statements of witnesses S. P. Srivastava, Ram Charan Lal, Kalu Ram and Ram Kishore. He examined the attendance register of the hospital and took it in possession on 27-3-1984. Statements of some other persons were recorded on 27-3-1984 and he interrogated the accused-respondents also. According to him he stated with the investigation of this case on 27-3-1984 and recorded the statements of witnesses S. P. Srivastava, Ram Charan Lal, Kalu Ram and Ram Kishore. He examined the attendance register of the hospital and took it in possession on 27-3-1984. Statements of some other persons were recorded on 27-3-1984 and he interrogated the accused-respondents also. On 29-3-1984 he is said to have recorded the statements of Jai Narain Tewari, Block Pramukh and Badri Prasad and on the basis or the evidence so collected he was satisfied about the implication of the accused-respondents in the crime and he is said to have arrested them on 2-4-1984. He completed the investigation on 10-5-1984 and submitted the charge-sheet on that date. 5. Post mortem examination of the dead body was done by Dr. K. N. Singh who was Medical Officer, Incharge, Sultanpur Hospital on 20-3-1984. Dr. K. N. Singh has appeared as PW 5. The postmortem examination is said to have been done at 5 p. m. It was considered expedient by Dr. K. N. Singh to associate some other doctors also in the post-mortem examination, namely, Dr R. S. Agarwal. Dr. V. K. Verma and Dr. R. K. Mathur. The post mortem examination appears to have been done by Dr. R. S. Agarwal who has signed the post-mortem examination report which is Ext. ka-4 on record. It has been signed by Dr. R. S. Agarwal and the other doctors, namely, Dr. K. N. Singh, Dr. V. K. Verma and Dr. R. K Mathur have signed mentioning that they agree with the findings in the report. The deceased was aged about 45 years. General condition of the body was regards muscularity could not be tested due to severe degree of burns. Riger mortis was present on the left upper arm. Important noticeable feature recorded was that-tongue was found clinched in between the teeth. The following ante- mortem injuries were found :- "superficial and deep burn on both lower limbs, both hips, back, thorax and abdomen, face right side and medical aspect of left side c f face, right upper arm, neck, head with singing of hairs. Blisters were present at places on left side of chest and writs on left side. The following ante- mortem injuries were found :- "superficial and deep burn on both lower limbs, both hips, back, thorax and abdomen, face right side and medical aspect of left side c f face, right upper arm, neck, head with singing of hairs. Blisters were present at places on left side of chest and writs on left side. Muscle and bones were cooked and charred on both lower limbs, abdomen, right side of chest in the back on both sides with large intestines protruding out from right side. In the back right upper limb muscles and bones cooked and charred. Parts spared from burns were recorded to be left forearm, upper arm, hand and left side of chest and part of left bald of face. Signs of inflamation were present, blisters were also present at places on left side of chest and wrist on left side. A nail was found in right side of femur. There was no smell of kerosene oil. " The internal examination revealed that scalp and skull bones were burnt and hair singed. Membrances was congested all over more on the right side. Brain was congested more on right side. Another noticeable feature was that hyoid cartilage was fractured and cornua of hyoid born was fractured. No scoty particulars were present in trachea. Gross congestion of trachea was present. The stomach was congested and was empty. Small and large intes tines were also empty. The cause of death was recorded to be asphyxia due to strangulation. Viscera was preserved for examination 6. Both accused-respondents pleaded innocence. In their statements under Section 313, Cr. P. C. both Meraj Ahmad and Arshad Ali admitted that they were on leave from 9-3-1984 to 13 3-1984. According to them they were required to return to their duty on 14-3 1984. They denied that they made any interpolation in the attendance register. It was also denied that the deceased rebuked them. They are said to have been arrested merely on the basis of suspicion. Meraj Ahmed stated that the deceased returned from leave on 19-3-1984 and he had gone to greet him for Holi and other members of the staff and public had gone to the deceased for Holi greeting till late in the evening and the doctor was having liquor which he used to take almost everyday. Meraj Ahmed stated that the deceased returned from leave on 19-3-1984 and he had gone to greet him for Holi and other members of the staff and public had gone to the deceased for Holi greeting till late in the evening and the doctor was having liquor which he used to take almost everyday. According to this accused he had slept at about 10 p. m. Peon Arshad Ali informed him 11 at the doctor was found burnt and had died and thereupon the first information report was recorded by him and Ram Charan Lal and was lodged at the Police Station. It was placed that he was arrested on 27-3-1984. One thing important stated by the accused is that suttings in the attendance register were made and entires about their presence and signatures were obtained from him by the police by threat and beating. Virtually, the same plea is taken by Arshad Ali in his statement under Section 313, of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 7. There is no definits case as on what exact time the death of the deceased took place. The post- mortem examination was done on 20-3 -. : 984 at 5 p. m. and according to the opinion of the doctors who conducted the examination the probable time of death was 3/4 days, meaning thereby that the death took place at about 11 p. m. in the night. The abdomen was found to be empty and the same was the condition of small and large intestines. The Investigating Officer had found that cooked rice and meat was lying on a table nears the charpoy on which the dead body was found lying. That also indicated that the deceased had not taken his food before he was done to death. Viscera was preserved but nothing has come in the prosecution evidence as to whether it was sent for examination. In any case there is no report. 8. The cause of death as per post-mortem examination report was as phyxia due to strangulation Dr. R. K. Singh PW 5 who was examined on this point has reiterated the opinion that this was a case of murder and in support of his opinion three reasons were mentioned. That thyroid cartilages was found fractured and the cornua hyoid born was also found fractuted and thirdly tongue was found clinched in between the teeth. R. K. Singh PW 5 who was examined on this point has reiterated the opinion that this was a case of murder and in support of his opinion three reasons were mentioned. That thyroid cartilages was found fractured and the cornua hyoid born was also found fractuted and thirdly tongue was found clinched in between the teeth. As to the question as to whether the body was set on fire prior or after the death, the reply given by the doctor was that as per the condition of the body the deceased appeared to have died just before the body was set on fire or he was alive where he was set on fire and started burning. From the evidence on record we ate satisfied that this is a case of murder and what appears probable is that the deceased was strangulated and soon after his death the dead body was set on fire, perhaps with the idea that it may appear to be a case of death as a result of accidental fire having been caused because of the neglect of the doctor being in drunken state of mind. 9. There is no direct evidence of any person as eye-witness of the occurrence and the prosecution case is sought to be established on the basis of circumstantial evidence. The first circumstances relates to be motive. This is the admitted position that the accused were granted leave from 9-3-1984 to 13-3-1984. According to the prosecution case they were required to come back on 19-3-1981 and when they failed to so return the deceased become annoyed and marked them absent in the attendance register. The deceased admittedly returned on 19-3-1984 and checked up the attendance register and that the entry of absence which had been marked by him for the respondents had been scored out and the respondents had instead recorded their presence on all the dates from 9th to 13th March, 1984. The prosecution evidence on this point consists of the statements of Ram Charan Lal, PW 4 and Kalu Ram PW 6 Kalu Ram has clearly stated that the deceased had returned on 19-3-1984 and asked for the register and on finding that the respondents had been recorded to be present while the entry of absence marked by the deceased had been scored out. He then asked the respondents as to how the entry of absence made by the deceased had been scratched and the entry of presence was recorded by the respondents. The respondents could not give any answer and kept quiet. The witness further stated that the respondents had scratched the entires made by the deceased and recorded their presence. The doctor become enraged and rebuked the respondents. The witness was subjected to detailed cross- examination on this point but his credit remained unshaken. The witness appears to be independent and no thing could be suggested to show that he was inimical towards the respondents. Ram Charan Lal PW 4 corroborated the statement of Kalu Ram and has proved the signatures of the deceased and scoring of the entries of presence recorded by the respondents. The statements of these witnesses stand corroborated by the position of the entries in the attendance register itself which clearly show that some entries were scratched and the presence recorded by the respondents in the from of their initials on these cuttings. Support is further gathered by the own statement of the respondents under Section 313, of the Code of Criminal Procedure that cutting in the attendance register were made and signatures of the respondents were obtained forcibly by police at the Police Station. This evidence is sufficient to prove that the deceased got annoyed with the conduct of the accused-respondents and admonished them. Learned counsel for the accused respondents argues that even if all these allegations are admitted that was hardly a sufficient motive for the respondents to have thought of committing the murder of the deceased. What was the state of agitation of the mind of the persons who were rebuked, is difficult to imagine and in the entire situation it has to be accepted that the respon dents could have a motive of revenge against the petitioners. 10. The next circumstance relied by the prosecution is that the accused respondents prevented Ram Charan Lal; PW 4 while he was going to the house in the deceased around 9 p. m. in the same night. 10. The next circumstance relied by the prosecution is that the accused respondents prevented Ram Charan Lal; PW 4 while he was going to the house in the deceased around 9 p. m. in the same night. Ram Charan Lal has stated that when he learnt that the deceased had arrived he wanted to go his resi dence for Holi greeting and he was passing in front of the house of accused Meraj who (Meraj) told the witness that he was not in fit condition and it would be appropriate if he goes give Holi greetings in the morning. The suggestion underlying the pursuation of the accused was that the deceased was drunk and that both of them kept talking at the house of the accused for about one hour and he felt persuaded not to go to the house of the deceased that night. 11. The next important circumstance relied is that the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused respondents. Kalu Ram PW 6 has stated the deceased had given the key of his quarter and asked him to lay his bed and ten rupees were given to Shitla Prasad Pathak to bring cigarette and match box. When the deceased arrived at his quarter he had liad bedding and the deceased was followed by the two respondents but they stood outside the door and the deceased asked the witness to let the accused respondents come in the house. According to the further statement of the witness the deceased asked him to check up from the accused-respondents whether his things had been brought by them. Thereupon accused Arshad Ali told him that he had brought the material and went to his quarter and brought liquor bottles. Arshed accused served liquor to the deceased in the meantime Shitla Prasad Pathak brought cigarettes and match box and that the deceased asked the witness and Shitla Prasad Pathak to go and while both of them came out, the two accused persons remained at the quarter of the deceased. The time given by he witness is about 7-7. 15 p. m. According to the statement of this witness the deceased was last seen in the company of both the accused persons at about 7-7. 15 p. m. There is no reason why the statement of this witness should be discarded. The time given by he witness is about 7-7. 15 p. m. According to the statement of this witness the deceased was last seen in the company of both the accused persons at about 7-7. 15 p. m. There is no reason why the statement of this witness should be discarded. No suggestion could be advanced that the witness was inimical towards the accused-respondents and had any motive to make a false state ment. This evidence, however, goes to establish only this much that the two accused persons were found at the residence of the deceased at about 7-7. 15 p. m. in the night in question. That does not by itself, however, imply that both the accused persons continued to remain at the residence of the deceased thereafter and if so, for how much time. This is in the evidence of PW 4 Ram Charan Lal that accused Meraj met him near his own quarter at about 9 p. m. which shows that the accused persons had come from the house of the deceased sometime before 9 p. m. 12. Another circumstance relied by the prosecution is that both the accused persons were found moving about in a disturb state of mind at about 1. 30 a. m. near Tiraha of Amethi, Rae Bareli, Sultanpur Road by Jai Narain. Tripathi who has appeared as PW 1. He was a Block Pramukh of Gauriganj and according to his statement he had gone to Lucknow and came back by night train and was going towards his house when he saw both the accused person near the Tiraha. It is true that nothing substantial could be suggested to imply that this witness was inimical towards the accused persons but by its very nature the statement of this witness appears uninspiring. It appears some how unnatural that the two accused persons even if moving about near the Tiraha would ask the witness about the time so as to register their identity with the witness. That does not appear normally to be a natural conduct of a guilty man. According to the witness the Investigating Officer met him on 29-3-1984 and it is then that he stated that he had seen the two accused near the Tiraha. It is not understandable how the Investigating Officer could have approached this witness to seek any such information. That does not appear normally to be a natural conduct of a guilty man. According to the witness the Investigating Officer met him on 29-3-1984 and it is then that he stated that he had seen the two accused near the Tiraha. It is not understandable how the Investigating Officer could have approached this witness to seek any such information. The Investigating Officer Shri Ram Behari Singh PW 8 also not provided any satisfactory expla nation as on what basis he recorded the statement of Shri Jai Narain Tripathi. Accordingly, it is unsafe to place reliance on the statement of Shri Jai Narain Tripathi. 13. The most important piece of evidence relied by the prosecution is the extra-judicial confession which the two accused-respondents are said to have made before PW. Badri Prasad. He gave out his age to be 38 years. He is a teacher by profession and according to his statement he was an active worker of Congress Party for the last about 25 years. According to his statement about 10 days after the occurrence which means ground 29th March, 1984, the two accused persons arrived at his residence at about 9-10 p. m. and confessed to have killed the deceased and they sought the help of the witness for influencing the police so that they might not be implicated in the case. The accused are stated to have mentioned that the body of the deceased was set on fire by placing one wooden Patra below and one above the body. We have carefully perused the statement of this witness which appears to us to be uninspiring, not of the nature on which it may be possible to place implicit reliance. In cross-examination the witness has admitted that he had sent a complaint against the Station Officer of the Police Station and that the police was infact annoyed with him. The witness also admitted that a case under Section 307, of the Indian Penal Code was registered at the Amethi Police Station and was pending from before the murder in question. The statement of this witnesss it is not clear as on what date the two accused respondents came and made confession of this guilt. The witness also admitted that a case under Section 307, of the Indian Penal Code was registered at the Amethi Police Station and was pending from before the murder in question. The statement of this witnesss it is not clear as on what date the two accused respondents came and made confession of this guilt. It is also interesting that he did not go to inform the police about this confession and did not make a mention of this confession to any one and for the first time he made statement before the Investigating Officer. It is understandable as on what basis the Investigating Officer could approach this witness to find out about the alleged extra-judicial confession made by the accused persons before the witness. It is highly impro bable that the accused persons would have thought of approaching such a person who was merely a teacher and a public worker at a lower level and without having any appreciable amount of influence with the police. 14. If the statements of Jai Narain Tripathi PW 1 and Badri Prasad PW 2 are excluded from consideration the circumstantial evidence relied by the prosecution is on the face of it grossly insufficient to establish the case against the accused-respondents. When the case is based on circumstantial evidence the chain of evidence must be a complete chain without any broken or missing link so as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. In other words, the various factors which from a link in a claim of circumstantial evidence must be such as to advance the case against the accused from much beyond suspicion howsoever strong and must be such as to point to the accused and accused alone as the person who com mitted the crime with such certainty and definiteness as to rule out any likeli hood of the innocence of the accused. 15. In the present case only things established is existence of the motive which normally speaking cannot be said to be taken to be so strong as to have provoked the accused-respondents to have taken the life of the deceased merely because he had marked them absent and rebuked. 15. In the present case only things established is existence of the motive which normally speaking cannot be said to be taken to be so strong as to have provoked the accused-respondents to have taken the life of the deceased merely because he had marked them absent and rebuked. The strength of the motive is further weakened by the fact that the deceased had asked the respondents or one of them to have brought liquor for him and as per the statement of Kalu Ram accused Arshed Ali served liquor to the deceased. The circumstance of accused Meraj persuading Ram Charan Lal witness to not to go to residence of the deceased is also not of such a character which definitely points towards the guilty mind of the accused because act of such a pursuation can equally be consistent if the deceased was in drunken state to the knowledge of the accused and be asked the witness that it would be appropriate 10 visit the deceased for Holi greetings next morning. Coming to the circumstance of the deceased having been last seen in the company of the assused persons at about 7-7. 15 p. m. it may be noticed that this does not rule out a possibility of any other person coming to the house of the deceased of the 7-15 p. m. what happended or could have happened between 7. 15 and till the time when the deceased was done to death is a matter which can only be imagined 16. In any case, the evidence of extra-judicial confession being of an un inspiring and doubtful character, all other circumstances relied by the prosecu tion even if taken to have been established are not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused respondents beyond reasonable doubt. It is true that in this case there is a grave suspicion of the respondents being involved in this crime but suspicion howsoever strong and grave cannot take the place proof. The learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the accused persons and we are satisfied that the appreciation of evidence by the learned Sessions Judge is neither improper nor unjustified. 17. In the result, the State appeal is liable to be dismissed and is accor dingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed. .