JUDGMENT 1. By his judjement dated January 31, 1977, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (1) Jodhpur convicted the accused Tola Ram under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. The accused has come-up in appeal and challenges his conviction. 2. The prosecution case is short and simple and may be summarised as under: Haridas Saad, aged about 40-45 years, was a Police Constable and was living with his wife Smt. Mohini Devi (PW 5) in his house situate in Sharmikpura, Masooriya, Jodhpur. The accused also resides in the same locality. He indulged in rowdysim and used to pick-up quarrel with the residents off and on. Haridas used to reprimand the accused for his nefarious activities. This irked and annoyed the accused. At about 9 30 p.m. on 18th November, 1975. Haridas was going to his house on a bicycle. When he reached out-side the house of PW 2 Sultan Singh, situate a few wards away from his house, the accused came from the opposite side and asked Haridas to stop. Haridas got down from the bicycle. The accused went to him and told him that he was unnecessarily harrasing him and that he would not be spared. Saying so, the accused took-out a dagger and plunged it into the chest of Haridas. Haridas passed away instantaneously on the spot. The incident was seen by PW 2 Sultansingh and PW 11 Narpat Singh. Sultan Singh immediately rushed to the Police Station, Sardarpura and lodged the verbal report Ex P 2 of the occurrence at about 11. 15 p.m The police registered a case and took-up the investigation. The Station House Officer Manohar Lal (PW 14) arrived on the spot, inspected the site and prepared the site plan. He also prepared the inquest report of the victim's dead body. He also seized and sealed the sheath of the dagger lying near the dead body. Blood-stained soil and the blood-stained clothes of the victim were also seized and sealed. The post-mortem examination of the victim's dead body was conducted at 11.00 a.m. on the next day by PW 16 Dr. P. Dayal, the then Medical Jurist, M.G. Hospital, Jodhpur. The doctor noticed the following injuries on the dead body: (1) Incised wound 2.5 c.m. X 0 5 c.m. on the chest on right side 5 c.m. from the mid line at the 4th intercostal space. P. Dayal, the then Medical Jurist, M.G. Hospital, Jodhpur. The doctor noticed the following injuries on the dead body: (1) Incised wound 2.5 c.m. X 0 5 c.m. on the chest on right side 5 c.m. from the mid line at the 4th intercostal space. The upper border of the 5th rib has been cut (about 0.5 c.m.) near the costochandral junction. The intercostal muscle has been cut. The right pleura is cut at the site and there is a cut in the right pubuonary artery. The pericardium has been cut (about 1 c.m. long) and there is about 250 cc clotted blood in the pericardial and about 700 cc partially clotted blood in the thoracic cavity and the right lung is collapsed. The left lung is healthy. (2) Abrasion 0 5 c.m. x 2 c.m. on the right knee anterior aspect; (3) Abrasion 1 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. on the forehead on right side 1.5 c.m. above the eye-brow. (4) Old partially healed and dressed injury in the leftt endoacholis region. 3. In the opinion of Dr. Dayal, the cause of death was shock as a result of haemorrhage and injury to the right pulmonary artery and pericardium. The post-mortem examination report prepared by him is Ex. P5. The accused was arrested on November 20, 1975. In consequence of the disclosure statement Ex. P 13 and Ex.P 14 made by the accused on November 21, 1975. dagger (Article 8) and bushirt (Article 14) were recovered. The dagger, the bushirt and the clothes of the deceased were sent for examination to the forensic Science Laboratory. Blood was detected on all of them. On the completion of the investigation, the police submitted a challan against the accused in the Court of the Additional Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur, who, in his turn, committed the case for trial. The trial was conducted by the Additional Sessions Judge. He framed a charge under Section 302 Indian Penal Code against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and faced the trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined sixteen witnesses and filed some documents. In defence, the accused adduced no evidence. On the conclusion of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge held the charge duly proved against the accused. He was consequently convicted and sentenced as mentioned at the very out-set. 4. We have beard Mr. K.C. Gaur and Mr. In support of its case, the prosecution examined sixteen witnesses and filed some documents. In defence, the accused adduced no evidence. On the conclusion of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge held the charge duly proved against the accused. He was consequently convicted and sentenced as mentioned at the very out-set. 4. We have beard Mr. K.C. Gaur and Mr. Niranjan Gaur learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor Dr. S.S. Bhandwat. 5. learned Counsel for the appellant did not challenge the opinion of PW 16 Dayal relating to cause of death of Haridas. We have also gone through his statement and find no reason to distrust what he stated. The death of Haridas had taken place on account of the injury caused to his chest by a knife. The death of Haridas was, thus, homicidal and not otherwise. 6. In order to connect the appellant with the murder of Haridas, the prosecution adduced both direct and circumstantial evidence. PW Sultan-Singh and PW 11 Narpat Singh were examined as ocular witnesses of the incident. It was alleged by the prosecution that both of them had seen the accused plunging the dagger into the chest of Haridas. It was PW 2 Sultan Singh who lodged the First Information Report Ex. P2 at the Police Station. The circumstantial evidence consists of the following sets: (1) the deceased was a Police Constable and he used to reprimand the accused for his dowdyism and nefarious activities. This served as a motive; (2) the accused had borrowed dagger (Article 8) together with its sheath (Article 7) from PW 10 Ram Singh in the evening of November 18, 1975 on the pretext that the dagger was required in the performance of some ceremonies in a marriage of his friend. Sheath (Article 7) was found on the spot lying near the dead body while dagger (Article 8) was discovered in consequence of the information furnished by the accused; (3) bushirt (Article 14), which the accused was wearing at the time of the incident, was discovered in consequence of the information furnished by him; (4) blood was found on the dagger (Article 8) and the bushirt (Article 14). 7. Unfortunately, PW 2 Sultan Singh and PW 11 Narpat Singh turned hostile and lent no support to the prosecution. During trial, they denied that they had seen the accused causing a dagger-injury to the deceased-victim. 7. Unfortunately, PW 2 Sultan Singh and PW 11 Narpat Singh turned hostile and lent no support to the prosecution. During trial, they denied that they had seen the accused causing a dagger-injury to the deceased-victim. Both them denied that they had seen anybody killing Haridas. The learned Sessions Judge took the view that even if the evidence of these two eye witnesses is not helpful to the prosecution, the other sets of circumstantial evidence were sufficient to arrive at a conclusion that it was the accused who had committed the murder of Haridas. 8. In impeaching the conviction, it was argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the circumstances enumerated above did not stand proved and even if they are taken as proved, they were wholly insufficient to show that Haridas was done to death by the accused. It was argued that knife (dagger) (Article 8) and bushirt (Article 14) were not sent for chemical examination to the Serologist to find out the origin of the blood found on them. No body can say that human blood was found on these two articles, namely, knife and bushirt. It was further argued that PW 10 Ram Singh was examined on November 23, 19 5 during investigation. He was present when the police arrived on the scene and made the investigation; inspected the site, prepared the site plan and the inquest of the victim's dead body. He had seen the sheath (Article 7) on the spot. And yet he remained silent and did not immediately come out with the story that the sheath (Article 7) was his and that the accused had borrowed the dagger (Article 8) with its sheath (Article 7) from him a few hours before the incident That is sufficient to destroy the crediblity of this witness. The motive alleged is wholly insufficient Except the bare statement of the victim's widow Smt. Mohini Devi (PW 9), there is no material on record. She has no personal knowledge that her husband Haridas used to reprimand the accused and the accused, therefore, got irked and annoyed with him. 9. It was, on the other hand, contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that though the two eye witnesses lent no support to the prosecution, the various sets of circumstantial evidence were sufficient to arrive at a conclusion that the accused was the perpetrator of the murder of Haridas. 9. It was, on the other hand, contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that though the two eye witnesses lent no support to the prosecution, the various sets of circumstantial evidence were sufficient to arrive at a conclusion that the accused was the perpetrator of the murder of Haridas. He tried his best to support the findings of the trial court. We have taken the respective submissions into consideration. 10. Assuming that the dagger (Article 8) and bushirt (Article 14) were recovered in consequence of the disclosure statement made by the accused during investigation whilst in police custody, the pertinent question for consideration is whether these recoveries furnish any incriminating material against him. The report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, which was not tendered in evidence during trial by the prosecution, merely shows that blood was found on dagger (Article 7) and bushisr (Article 14). Both these articles, though forwarded by the Forensic Science Laboratory to the Serologist for examinat on, report from the Serologist was not received. It could not be, therefore, ascertained that the blood found on these two articles was human blood. In order to furnish an incriminating circumstance against the accused, what was required to be established by the prosecution is that human blood was found on knife (dagger) (Article 8) and bushirt (Article 14). The presence of blood on the articles, in itself, unless it is human blood, furnishes no incriminating material against the accused. The learned Sessions Judge, despite this big infirmity in the prosecut on case, was much impressed by the recoveries of dagger (Article 8) and bushirt (Article 14) made in consequence of the informations furnished by the accused. Since no human blood was found on these articles, they render no help to the prosecution and do not furnish any incriminating material against the accused. The learned Sessions Judge was obviously in error in taking these discoveries as incriminating circumstance against the accused. 11. The learned Sessions Judge held that the accused had borrowed dagger (Article 8) with its sheath (Article 7) in the evening of November 18, 1975, that is to say, a few hours before the incident from PW 10 Ram Singh, making a false pretext that the dagger was required for the performance of some ceremonies in the marriage of his friend. Sheath (Article 7) was found on the spot when the Investigating Officer inspected the site. Sheath (Article 7) was found on the spot when the Investigating Officer inspected the site. He seized and sealed it. PW 10 Ram Singh was examined on this point and he, no doubt, stated that the accused had borrowed the aforesaid sheath and the dagger from him in the afternoon of November 18, 1975. We entertain no doubt that sheath (Article 7) was found near the victim's dead body when the site was inspected by the Investigating Officer. It was seized and sealed. If the fact that the accused had borrowed the dagger and the sheath from PW 10 Ram Singh is proved, it furnishes a very valuable link in the chain of circumstantial evidence against the accused. 12. The pertinent question before us is whether PW 10 Ram Singh is a witness of truth and his testimony was rightly accepted by the trial court. Normally, the evidence on oath by a witness is presumed to be true unless it stands shattered in cross-examination and it is so inherently improbable that no credence can be given to it. Unfortunately, there are some disturbing and disquieting features in the testimony of Ram Singh PW 10. which destroys the crediblity of what he stated on oath. In his examination-in-chief, he stated that he went on the spot just after the incident and found the dead body of the deceased Haridas lying there. The police had also arrived on the stop. He saw sheath (Article 7) lying near the victim's dead body. If it was so, he must have immediately identified the " sheath (Article 7) as his own and he must have informed the Investigating Agency. The offence was committed on November 18, 1975, that is, the day on with the dagger and sheath were borrowed from Ram Singh by the accused. However, he disclosed this fact to the Investigating Officer only on Nov. 23, 1975, that is, nearly six days after the incident. The explantion funished by him is that the police did not interrogate him and he, therefore did not come out with the story of the accused's borrowing the dagger and the sheath form him. His explanation is wholly unsatisfactory. The police did not know that the accused had borrowed the sheaih and the dagger from him. The explantion funished by him is that the police did not interrogate him and he, therefore did not come out with the story of the accused's borrowing the dagger and the sheath form him. His explanation is wholly unsatisfactory. The police did not know that the accused had borrowed the sheaih and the dagger from him. It was only he who could inform the police that the accused had borrowed these articles form him a few hours before the incident. His explanation for not disclosing the fact for six days to the Investigating Officer is wholly untrue and cannot be accepted. It is also interesting to note that when PW 10 Ram Singh was examined in the course of trial, sheath (Article 7) was not shown to him. We are, therefore, not in a position to say that sheath (Article 7) is the same which PW 10 Ram Singh saw on the scene of the incident lying near the victim's dead body. The witness also admitted in his cross-examination that he did not disclose the fact of the accused's borrowing the sheath and the dagger from him to anybody till his statement was recorded by the police on November 23, 1975 When he was pointedly cross-examined as to why he himself did not voluntarily approach the Investigating Agency and disclosed this fact of the accused's borrowing these articles from him, he expressed his inability to furnish any explanation. Thus, the witness did not disclose the story of the accused's borrowing the sheath and the dagger from him to any body nor disclosed this fact to the Invstigating Agency till November 23, 1975. The silence for six/seven days on his part is inexplicable and unexcusable. These infirmities point out that the witness has invented and fabricated a false story of the accused's borrowing the sheath and the dagger from him. His conduct is highly abnormal and destroys the credentials of his being a witness of truth. The testimony of this witness that the accused had borrowed the sheath and the dagger from his being wholly untrue, is discarded. 13. The next incriminating circumstance is that of motive. According to prosecution, the accused was a rowdy fellow indulging in nefarious activities in the locality. The deceased was a Head Police Constable and lived in the same locality in which the accused resides. 13. The next incriminating circumstance is that of motive. According to prosecution, the accused was a rowdy fellow indulging in nefarious activities in the locality. The deceased was a Head Police Constable and lived in the same locality in which the accused resides. The deceased used to reprimand the accused for lis rowdyism and nefarious activities. This irked and annoyed the accused and it instigated him to finish the victim. The only witness examined to prove this motive is the victims's widow Smt. Mohini Devi (PW 5). She stated that the accused used to indulge in "Gundagardi" and her husband used to reprimand him. When she was cross-examined to state any instance of the accused's "Gundagardi" and the deceased's reprimanding him, she expressed her inability. She clearly admitted in cross-examination that she had no personal knowledge of the "Gundagardi" of the deceased's reprimanding him. To quote her in her own words: 14. It is clear from what she admitted that she had no personal knowledge of the accused's "Gundagardi" and the deceased's remonstrating him. The motive alleged, thus, does not stand proved. The learned Sessions Judge did not take the aforesaid material into consideration and abruptly concluded that the accused had a motive to finishthe deceased. The approach of the the Sessions Judge is clearly erroneous. 15. There is no other incriminating circumstance against the accused. The prosecution has virtually lost the case when the two alleged eye witnesses PW 2 Sultansingh and PW 11 Narpatsingh turned hostile and denied to have seen the accused stabbing the deceased. 16. An accused can be safely convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence. While assessing the guilt of the accused, the circumstances should not be taken into consideration in isolation with each other. They should be jointly taken into considearation. The circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused and none else. The incriminating circumstances must militate against the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation of any reasonable hypothesis other than that of the accused's guilt. The various sets of circumstantial evidence, alluded to above, when taken together into consideration, do not form a complete chain to point out that it is the appellant who is the perpetrator of the murder and none else. The various sets of circumstantial evidence, alluded to above, when taken together into consideration, do not form a complete chain to point out that it is the appellant who is the perpetrator of the murder and none else. The appellant was wrongly convicted and we are unable to sustain his conviction. 17. In the result, the appeal of accused Tolaram is allowed. His conviction and sentence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code are set aside and he is acquitted. He is already on bail and need not surrender. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled.Appeal allowed. *******