MADAN MOHAN LAL, J. This is an appeal against a judgment and order dated 29-6-1978 passed Sri Y. P. Singh, the then 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Agra by which he has convicted Mahabir Singh appellant under Section 302 IPC and has sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. Smt. Poonam deceased was married to Mahabir Singh appellant in the year 1972. It is said that Mahabir Singh appellant used to make a demand for scooter and because the same was not being fulfilled, hence he used to torture Smt. Poonam. The latter had been asking her parents to fulfill the said demand but the scooter was not supplied to the appellant, 3. According to the case of the prosecution on the night between 17 and 18th July, 1975 at about 5/3-30 a. m the appellant by tiring a shot from a gun at his wife Smt. Poonam murdered here. 4. One Mool Chand went to Agra to give intimation of the said incident to Sri Krishna Kant Tyagi, Advocate, who was brother of Smt. Poonam. He came on the same morning to village Garhi Bachcbi hamlet of Bans Boriya where this incicent had taken place, on the same morning. He gave a report of the said incident to the police on 18-7-197 at about 11 a. m. 5. In support of its case the prosecution examined nine witness P. W. 3 Krishna Kumar Tyagi informant is brother of Smt. Poonam deceased. He was examined to depose that Smt. Poonam used to be tortured because the demand for giving a scooter to the appellant was not fulfilled, P. W. 5 Roop Kishan and P. W. 6 Viddha Rram were also examined to prove the motive. P. W. 7 Brijendra Singh had stated that at the time of the incident when a shot was fired he had seen the appellant armed with a gun standing on the roof of his house, i. e. where the murder was concinnities P. W. 8 Lal Kishan had also stated that he had heard a shot having been fired in the house of the appellant, he had gone to see Smt. Poonam lying dead on the roof. P. W. 8 Lal Kishan and P. W. 3 Krishna Kumar Tyagi had deposed that the appellant had made a extra judicial confession in their presence. P. W. 2 Raj Kumar was Head Moharrir at P. S. Btmadpur. P. W. 8 Lal Kishan and P. W. 3 Krishna Kumar Tyagi had deposed that the appellant had made a extra judicial confession in their presence. P. W. 2 Raj Kumar was Head Moharrir at P. S. Btmadpur. He bad deposed that on 18-7-1975 Ahar Singh, i. e. uncle of the appellant, had come to the Police Station to lodge a report of the incident. The investigation of this case was made by P. W. 9 Dharam Singh Sirohi, S. O. 6. The post mortem examination of the dead body of Smt Poonam was conducted by P. W. 4 Or. R. K. Jain the then Medical Officer S. N. M. Hospital, Firojabad on 19-7-1975 at 9. 30 a. m. He had found the following ante-mortem injuries on the dead body of Smt. Poonam : 1. Gun shot wound of entrance 2 cm x 2 cm x neck cavity deep in the frot and middle of neck, 3. 5 cm. above the enternal notch. Blackening and scorching present around the wound in area 7 cm x 7 cm Margins are inverted and irregular. On prove direc tion of the shot was, slightly downward and lightly towards left side. 2. Blackening marks continuous present within area of 4 cm. X 2 cm, extending from base of left thumb to the tip of index finger and top of left thumb, on the dorsum of left hand. 7. On internal examination the doctor found communicated fracture of second and third vertebrae. Second, third and fourth ribs were frac tured posterior on left side. Pleura was ruptured and pleural cavity left side contained 12 ounces clotted blood. Three card board wads and twenty six shots were recovered from tie pleural cavity. The trachea was at places. Four metallic shots were recovered. Left lung was punctured at upper and inner side of left lung and 8 metallic shots were recovered was ruptured. Digested food material was present in small intestines and in the large intestines faeceal matter was present. According to the doctor the death was caused due to syncopae (Shock and haemorrhage on account of injury No. 1. 8. The appellant in his statement denied the case of the prosecution. Digested food material was present in small intestines and in the large intestines faeceal matter was present. According to the doctor the death was caused due to syncopae (Shock and haemorrhage on account of injury No. 1. 8. The appellant in his statement denied the case of the prosecution. He further stated that on the date of the incident he was at Tundala and on account of threat and fear of the badmashas he used to stay along with his uncle at Tundala The appellant, however did not produce any evidence in defence. 9. The learned trial Court has, however, believed the case set up and the evidence produced by the prosecution and has accordingly convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid. Aggrieved by the same appellant has filed this appeal. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and State and have perused the record carefully. 11. This is a case of circumstantial evidence The star witness of the prosecution produced in this case is P. W 7 Brijendra Singh. He is resident of village Bas Sunder, situate at a distance of five miles frome village Garhi Bachchi hamlet of Bans Boria. He has deposed that one day prior to the incident he had come to village Garhi Bachchi hamlet of Bans Boria in order to see bride-groom for his daughter and for the said purpose had stayed for the night in the said village. He further deposed that on the date of the incident at about 5/5-30 a. m. when he, along with one Ram Khilari, was returning after easing himself, he heard the fire of a shot from the house of the appellant and at that time he found the appellant carrying a gun standing on the roof his house. In the firit place it may be observed that the witness is a chance witness because, as already observed, he was resident of a different village and in normal course had no reason to be present in the village where this incident took place. Secondly, the roof on which the appellant was said to have been standing at that time admittedly had a parapet, which, according to P, W. 9 Sharam Singh Sirohi, was 4-5 feets high. This witness is also said to have seen the appellants standing on his roof from a distance of 80 feets. Secondly, the roof on which the appellant was said to have been standing at that time admittedly had a parapet, which, according to P, W. 9 Sharam Singh Sirohi, was 4-5 feets high. This witness is also said to have seen the appellants standing on his roof from a distance of 80 feets. In our view even if it may be believed that P. W. 7 Brijendra Singh was standing at a distance of 80 feets, it would not have been possible for him to see and recognise the appellant standing of the roof his house parapet of which was 4-5 feets high. This witness had further deposed that he had seen the appellant carrying a gun. The height of the appellant has not come on the record. In our view even if it may be said that a person stand ing at a distance of 80 feets may have been in a position to see and recognise the assailant standing on the roof of theaforesaid house at that time of the day it could not be said by any stretch of imagination that the said person would have been in a position to see the assailant carrying a gun in his arm. Therefore, who version given by P. W. 7 Brijendra Singh cannot believed Besides, it may be observed that P. W. 7 Brijendra Singh had stated in his evidence that after seeing the aforesaid incident he had not narrated the same to anyone in the village. This conduct is quite unnatural. Moreover, it may be observed that although this incident took place in the night of 17/18 July, 1975 yet the I. O. had recorded the statement of P. W 7 Brijendra Singh as late as 15th August, 1975. There is no explanation as to how and why the statement of this witness was recorded so late. Therefore, P. W. 7 Brijendra Singh is a got up witness. Also, his evidence does not inspire confidence and we are not impressed with the same. Therefore, the evidence of P. W. 7 Brijendra Sigh cannot be believed and relied upon. 12 Lal Kishan P. W. 1 is also a resident of different village, i. e. village Rahlai. He has deposed that on the date of incident he had gone to village Garhi Bacbchi hamblet Bans Boria and that on that date day at 5. Therefore, the evidence of P. W. 7 Brijendra Sigh cannot be believed and relied upon. 12 Lal Kishan P. W. 1 is also a resident of different village, i. e. village Rahlai. He has deposed that on the date of incident he had gone to village Garhi Bacbchi hamblet Bans Boria and that on that date day at 5. 30 a. m. he heard the firing of a shot and immediately thereafter cries in the house of the appellant and that he, along with other persons, then went to the house of the appellant to find Smt. Poonam lying dead on the roof of the said house. With regard this witness as well it may be observed that being a resident of a different village he was merely 8 chance witness. Besides, it may be observed that even if the version given by P. W. 8 Lal Kishan is to be believed that he had heard the firing of a shot in the house of the appellant, the same would not connect the appellant with this crime because admittedly many persons besides the appel lant reside in the same house. In this respect reference may be made to the evidence of P. W. 3 Krishna Kumar Tyagi, who deposed that Atar Singh uncle of the appellant, his nephew Gobardhan and other persons reside in the said house. 13. There is another aspect of the matter as well. By producing P. W. 8 Lal Kishan and P. W. 7 Brijendra singh the prosecution had tried to prove that the murder of Smt. Poonam had been committed at the roof of the house of the appellant. In our view had the murder been committed at the roof of the said house then some blood would have been found at the place. In this case Lal Kishan P. W. 8 has deposed that immediately after the firing of shot he along with other persons had gone to the house of the appellant to find Smt. Poonam lying dead on the roof of her house. He had not stated that he had found any blood at the said roof. It is also not a case where the inmates of the house had time to wipe of the blood. He had not stated that he had found any blood at the said roof. It is also not a case where the inmates of the house had time to wipe of the blood. In order to explain the said discrepancy learned trial court at one stage of its judgment took a view that probably Smt. Poonam was killed some where else in the house and it was later on the other dead body was shifted to the roof of the house. In opinion if the said view is accepted then evidence of P. W. 7 Brijendra Singh and P. W. 8 Lal Kishan to the effect that the murder was committed at the roof of the house has to discarded at once. 14. In result, therefore, we are of the opinion that the evidence of P. W. 7 Brijendra Singh and P. W. 8 Lal Kishan cannot be believed. 15. In this case the prosecution has further led evidence regarding the extra judicial confession alleged to have been made by the appellant. There are two witnesses, i. e. P. W. 8 Krishna Kumar Tyagi informant and P. W. 8 Lal Kishan, who have been examined with regard to the same P. W. 8 Krishna Kumar Tyagi has deposed that Atar Singh, i. e. uncle of the appellant had told him that on previous night he demonstrated appellant and had asked him as to why he had raised a demand of scooter and that it was on account of the said anger that the appellant had murdered Smt. Poonam. Clearly if this was any confession the said confession was made by Atar Singh and not by the appellant. Clearly if this was any confession the said confession was made by Atar Singh and not by the appellant. With regard to the appellant P. W. 8 Kumar simply sated that he committed a mistake and that for the same he should be excused @ HINDI TYPING--------------------------- ------------------------------------- in our view the said words taken by there face value do not make out that the appellant has admitted that he had committed murder his wife Smt. Poonam as against the sad evidence of P. W. 8 Lal kishan is difference he deposed that Atar Singh had stated that they should be excused for what soever had happened @ HINDI TYPING--------------------------------------------------------------------------- this witnesses further deposed that the appellant his part at that time had stated that be shuld be excued @ HINDI TYPING --------------------------------------------- in our view P. W. 8 Lal Kishan by given sad evidence has put both appellant and his uncle Atar Singh at par. There for if this witness is to be belived it manes that both the appellant and Atar made concession in similar word however it is not the of the prosecution that Atar Singh had committed this murder or he had made by extra judicial confession admitted his own guilt. There for the evidence produced by the procession regard extra judicial confession made by the appellant can hadly we belived. 16. Lastly the prosecution had led evidende regarding motive. 17. Lerned cousel for the state has a argued before as that the appellant and Smt. Poonam had been in the year 1972 and that because the remaind of the appellant for supply a scooter had not been fulfilled hence the appellant had murded his young wife with a view to prove the said demand the prosecution beside examined P. W. 8 Krishna Kumar Tyagi informet has examined P. W. 5 Roop Kishan P. W. 6 vidha Ram learned session judge has not belive P. W. 6 Vidya Ram much be coused he was a change witness. Acording to him he was retuened he was after attending a marriage when he happen to stat at the house of Smt. Poonam the later told him that she was being tortured because demand of her husband for the supply of scooter had not been fulfilled. Acording to him he was retuened he was after attending a marriage when he happen to stat at the house of Smt. Poonam the later told him that she was being tortured because demand of her husband for the supply of scooter had not been fulfilled. This witness was not able to withstand the cross- examination and therefore, we are of the opinion that the learned trial Court has rightly not placed any reliance upon him. 18. P. W. 5 Roop Kishan has stated in evidence that once when he was sitting at the house of mother of Smt Poonan where her mother-in-law had come, he had heard the talks between the mother and mother-in-law of Smt. Poonam deceased regarding the supply and non supply of the scooter to the appel lant. This witness has stated that he was not related to the mother of Smt. Poonam. This witness was aged about 32 years at that time. In our view either this witness has told a lie that he was not related to the mother of Smt. Poonam or that he has given a wrong evidence In our view even this witness was not rela ted to any of the aforesaid two ladies, he would not have sitting in the house to listen their talks specially when he had no business to have been present there. It may not be out of place to state here that the Investigating Officer had record ed the statement of this witnesses late as 8th October, 1975. There is no explanation as to why the Investigating Officer had recorded the statement so late. Therefore, he appears to be a procured witness. 19. After the evidence of above two witnesses is discaded the evidence which remains on record is that of P. W. 3 Krishna Kutnar Tyagi informant. He has stated in his evidence that after the marriage of his sister she was tor tured by her husband because scooter etc could not be supplied, In our view that Smt Poonam had been leading a miserable life and had she been tortured by her husband etc. then in normal course she would have made a complaint of the same in her letters. The prosecution had not produced any letter of Smt. Poonam in which she may have complained regarding tbs torture which she may have been facing in the house of her in-laws. 20. then in normal course she would have made a complaint of the same in her letters. The prosecution had not produced any letter of Smt. Poonam in which she may have complained regarding tbs torture which she may have been facing in the house of her in-laws. 20. Learned counsel for the State has, however urged before us that because Smt. Poonatn had been meeting her near and dear ones, hence she had been making complaint with respect to the same in the meetings and not in the letters. In our opinion the said argument is devoid of force. Smt Poonam was admittedly married in February/march, 1912. She was literate. P. W. 3 Krishna Kumar Tyagi has also stated that after her marriage Smt. Poonam had come to his parents house three-four times, meaning thereby that she visited her parents approximately once in a year. In our view when the meetings and visits of Smt, Poonam were so scare then in normal course she would have written letters to her brother or parents and in the same she would have made complaint of the torture which she may have facing. The that the prosecution has not been able to produce any such letter, makes the case of the prosecution doubtful that she was being tortured by her in-lawi and that the appellant had committed the murder of Smt. Poonam because her parents had not been able to fulfill his demand for the supply of a scooter. The motive alleged by the prosecution is not made out beyond reasonable doubt in this case. 21. In a case of circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fally established. There are five golden principles constituting of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence. The same are as follows :- (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established ; (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency ; (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one due to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused la our opinion none of aforesaid principles and conditions have been satisfied in this case. 22. Therefore, for the discussion made above and for the reasons stated we of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to make out its case beyond reasonable doubt. 23. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302, IPC are set aside. He is held not guilty of offence under Section 302 IPC and is accordingly acquitted thereof. He is on bail. He need not surrender to his bail bonds, which hereby stand discharged. Appeal dismissed. .