P. S. GUPTA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal has been filed by nine accused against the judgment and order dated 23-5-1978 of 3rd Addi. Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr, passed in Sessions Trial No. 4 of 1976 by which the appellants were convicted under various sections including Section 302/149 I. P. C. ( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution, in brief, is that appellant No. 1 Bharat Singh, was Pradhan of Gaon Sabha Resoolpur whereas the deceased Panna Lal was a member. The other deceased, Karan Singh, was the son of Panna Lal and was aged about ten years at the time of the incident. Panna Lal was Jatav and a Neta-type person and used to do pairavi on behalf of Gram Samaj in matters relating to Gram Samaj land. Panna Lal used to oppose Bharat Singh Pradhan and used to give applications against him. A case was fought between Panna Lal and Bharat Singh under Untouchability (Offences) Act in which Panna Lal had given evidence against Bharat Singh. It is alleged that at about 8 P. M. on 30-10-1975 accused Bharat Singh came to the house of Panna Lal in the village and told him that people were collecting and he should come for settling the dispute of Gram Samaj land. Panna Lal then accompanied Bharat Singh. He also asked his son Karan Singh to accompany him for the purpose of bringing flour from the flourmill. Thereafter both Panna Lal and Karan Singh accompanied Bharat Singh as he had given out that people had collected at his flour mill. Since Panna Lal and Karan Singh did not return for about 2 1/2 hours, Smt. Rajjo, wife of Panna Lal went to one Fakira and informed him that her husband and son had accompanied Bharat Singh but they had not returned. Thereafter Fakira, along with Ram Singh, Devi and Ganga Saran, proceeded in search of Panna Lal. They went to the house of Bharat Singh and also to his flour mill but no-one was found there. Thereafter they went to the flour mill of Ratna and Nain Singh but as no-one was present there, they proceeded towards Kalariwali Batia on the eastern side. When they reached near the border of Gram Samaj they heard some people talking. On this they proceeded further and Fakira flashed his torch and in its light they sawall the nine accused. Thereafter they went to the flour mill of Ratna and Nain Singh but as no-one was present there, they proceeded towards Kalariwali Batia on the eastern side. When they reached near the border of Gram Samaj they heard some people talking. On this they proceeded further and Fakira flashed his torch and in its light they sawall the nine accused. The accused threw something and ran away. At that time accused Kunwar Pal was armed with a spear, Mathan with Gandasa. Rajbir with Knife and others with lathies. On proceeding further they saw the dead bodies of Panna Lal and Karan Singh. This incident took place at about 12/12. 30 in the night of 30-10-1975. Thereafter in the morning Fakira dictated a report of the occurrence to Kali Charan and a written First Information Report was lodged at P. S. Kakore, which is about four miles from the place of occurrence, at 8. 20 AM on 31-10-1975. Banwari Lal Gautam, S. O. of P. S. Kakore, immediately proceeded for the spot and took the dead bodies in his possession. He prepared inquest report and after conducting the necessary formalities despatched the dead bodies to Bulandshahr for postmortem examination. Thereafter he went to the tubewell of Mathan accused and recovered a blood-stained tahmad from a pit which is in front of the tubewell. He also inspected the Kotha and the flour mill and recovered a wreist watch and buttons from the said place. After completing investigation charge-sheet was submitted against all the nine accused appellants. ( 3 ) THE accused were tried in the Court of 3rd Addi. Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr. The prosecution in support of its case examined 11 witnesses. The learned Sessions Judge believed the prosecution case and convicted appellant Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 and 8, namely, Bharat Singh, Kiranpal, Har Prasad, Rajpal, Mahendra Singh and Batna, under sections 147, 201/511 and 302/149 IPC and sentenced each one of them to one year R. I. , three years R. I. and imprisonment for life respectively under each count. Appellant nos. 4, 5 and 19 namely Kunwar Pal, Mathan Singh and Regbery were convicted under Sections 148,201/511 and 302/149 IPC and were sentenced to two years R. I. , three years R. I. and imprisonment for life respectively under each count. Appellant nos. 4, 5 and 19 namely Kunwar Pal, Mathan Singh and Regbery were convicted under Sections 148,201/511 and 302/149 IPC and were sentenced to two years R. I. , three years R. I. and imprisonment for life respectively under each count. ( 4 ) THERE is no eye-witness of the occurrence and the prosecution has relied upon circumstantial evidence in order to establish the case against the accused persons. The prosecution has examined witnesses in order to establish the chain of circumstances and has also examined some formal witnesses. ( 5 ) PW 1 Fakira has stated that the deceased Panna Lal was his real nephew and the other deceased Karan Singh was the sons of Panna Lal. Bharat Singh accused was the Pradhan of the village while Panna Lal, was member of the Gram Samaj. Panna Lal was a Neta-type person and used to do pairavi on behalf of Gram Samaj regarding disputes relating to Gram Samaj land and lie used to oppose Bharat Singh as well. A Criminal case was fought between Bharat Singh and Panna Lal in which Panna Lal had given evidence against him. He has further stated that at about 8 PM on the date of occurrence he was silting at the door of Mahua from where Panna Lals house is situate at about ten paces. Bharat Singh accused came to the house of Panna Lal and called him on which both Panna Lal and Karan Singh came out and thereafter they accompanied Bharat Singh. He witnessed this in the light of lantern and also of the Choolha where food was being cooked. At about 11 PM Smt. Rajjo, wife a Panna Lal, came to him and asked him to inquire as Panna La] and Karan Singh had not returned. Thereafter he along with Devi, Ganga Saran and Ram Singh, proceeded in search of Panna Lal and his son. They went to the house of Bharat Singh, then to his flour mill and thereafter to the flour mill and Ratna and Mahendra, but as no one was found there they went to Kalariwali Batia and near the border of Gram Samaj they heard some people talking. He flashed his torch and saw all the nine accused persons, who threw something and ran away. He flashed his torch and saw all the nine accused persons, who threw something and ran away. On coming closure he found the dead bodies of Panna Lal and Karan Singh from which blood was coming out on account of injuries. He further stated that on hearing the alarm, people from the village collected on the spot and he along with the family members of Panna Lal stayed near the dead bodies of Panna Lal and Karan Singh in night. In the morning he dictated a report to Kali Charan and thereafter went to P. S. Kakore where he lodged the same. In cross-examination he has stated Rampal had filed a case under Untouchability (Offences) Act against accused Bharat Singh, Mahendra, Ratna and others about five years back in which he had given evidence. He also admitted that PW 8 Surjhan and Ganga Saran were cited as witnesses but they did not give evidence. This case-ended in acquittal on 29-10-1975. He has also admitted in cross-examination that Sohan Singh had filed a case against accused Bharat Singh and Rajbir under the Untouchability (Offences) Act three years back in which P. W. 8 Surjhan was a prosecution witness, Kanchan, father of deceased Panna Lal, had also filed a case against accused Mathan and Mahendra in the year 1975 in which he (P. W. 1 Fakira) was a witness. He has further admitted that Kiranpal accused had filed a case against Rampal, Panna Lal deceased, Kali Charan and others about five years back and the said Rampal is father of P. W. 2 Ram Singh and Kali Charan scribe of the First Information Report of the present case. He also admitted that all the prosecution witnesses of fact examined in the present case belonged to his caste, namely, they are all Jatav. He has admitted in para 21 of his statement that deceased Panna Lal was not on talking terms with accused Bharat Singh. In para 28 he had admitted that he forgot to mention in the First Information Report that he along with the family members of Panna Lal remained present near the dead bodies of Panna Lal and Karan Singh and that the statement in the First Information Report to the effect that everybody went to the spot in the morning was correct. ( 6 ) PW 2 Ram Singh has stated that at about 11 P. M. Fakira came to him and informed him that accused Bharat Singh, had taken Panna Lal along with him. Karan Singh had also accompanied them but they had not returned. Thereafter Ram Singh accompanied Fakira and went to the house or Bharat Singh, his tubewell and flour mill and also to the flour mill of Mathan but no one was found. Then they proceeded on way to Panchawali. There they heard some people talking and in the light of the torch he saw all the nine accused persons out of whom Kunwarpal, Mathan and Rajbir were armed with spear, Gandasa and knife respectively, and remaining persons were armed with lathies. These accused threw something and ran away. On proceeding further he saw the dead bodies of Panna Lal and Karan Singh. This incident took place at about 12 in the night and he stayed near the dead bodies throughout the night. In the cross-examination he has stated that the Investigating Officer had not made any inquiries from him regarding the incident. In para 7 he has stated that he could not see as to who was carrying the dead bodies and in what manner. He further stated that he did not see how the dead bodies were thrown. ( 7 ) P. W. 3 After Singh has stated that he was sitting at the shop of Krishna at about 8-9 P. M. , when Bharat Singh accused came to the house of Panna Lal and called him. Bharat Singh asked Panna Lal to accompany him in order to settle the dispute relating to land as people had collected. Thereafter Bharat Singh took Panna Lal and Karan Singh deceased to his tubewell. He has further stated that at about 12 in the night he came to know that Panna Lal and his son had been murdered. Next day in the morning at about 9-10 A. M. the Investigating Officer came to the village and took plain and blood-stained earth from near the dead bodies in his possession and prepared a recovery memo. The Dhotit of Panna Lal, which was tied with the cord of Karan Singh was also taken in possession, he was made a witness of the recovery memo. The Dhotit of Panna Lal, which was tied with the cord of Karan Singh was also taken in possession, he was made a witness of the recovery memo. Thereafter he went to the tubewell of Mathan along with the Investigating Officer where a wrist watch and buttons belonging to deceased Panna Lal were found. The Investigating Officer took in possession the buttons and the wrist watch and he signed the recovery memos the Investigating Officer also took in his possession the plain and the blood-stained earth and the blood stained Tahmad from the pit in front of the flour mill. He signed as a witness on the recovery memos prepared by the Investigating Officer. In para 11 he has stated that he had not heard about the litigation between accused Bharat Singh and Panna Lal deceased but he had heard that Panna Lal used to give applications. He has also stated that he had seen accused Bharat Singh going to this mohalla but he had never seen him going in night. ( 8 ) P. W. 4 Smt. Rajjo has stated that accused Eharat Singh was annoyed with her husband Panna Lal and that Panna Lal had no enmity with any other person. At about 8-9 P. M. Bharat Singh came to her house and told Panna Lal that people had collected and he should come for settling the dispute of Gram Samaj land. Panna Lal accompanied Bharat Singh and he also asked his son Karan Singh to accompany him for bringing flour from the flour mill. The deceased Panna Lal and Karan Singh did not return for about two hours and after two and a half hours she went to her uncle-in-law P. W. 1 Fakira and narrated the incident. Fakira, along with Ram Singh, Devi and Ganga Saran proceeded to search for Panna Lal. After about 1 1/2 hours she heard an alarm that Panna Lal and Karan Singh had been murdered. She went to the Kalar where she found the dead bodies of Panna Lal and Karan Singh. There she found the four persons who had gone in search of the deceased and one or two other persons. She stayed near the dead bodies in the night. In para. She went to the Kalar where she found the dead bodies of Panna Lal and Karan Singh. There she found the four persons who had gone in search of the deceased and one or two other persons. She stayed near the dead bodies in the night. In para. 6 of her statement she has stated that there was enmity between Bharat Singh and Panna Lal and although enmity was not to that extent that they may not talk to each other but Bharat Singh had not come to her husband on any previous occasion to call him. In Para. 12 she has stated that it was the month of Kartik and was cold and, therefore, her son had taken the Lungi for covering his body. She has also stated that Panna Lal was putting on a watch when he left the house and She identified the watch (Ex. 2) and the buttons (Ex. 3 and 4) in Court and stated that the watch belonged to her husband and the buttons were the same which were on the Kurta which Panna Lal was wearing. ( 9 ) P. W. 11 Kali Charan has stated that on 31. 10. 1975 he scribed the report on the dictation of Fakira in the village. He also stated that P. W. 2 Ram Singh and Bhoori Singh were his real uncles. He also stated that he did not know whether Ram Pal son of Ram Singh aforesaid had filed any case against Bharat Singh accused under Untouchability (Offences) Act or that Kanchan, father of deceased Panna Lal, had lodged any First Information Report against accused Mahendra and Mathan. He denied to have written the First Information Report of the aforesaid two cases. In para. 3 he admitted that accused Kiranpal had filed a criminal complaint against him (Kali Charan), Panna Lal deceased Rampal and Devi under Section 395 I. P. C. on 18. 9. 1972. In para. 4 he stated that he heard the alarm after day-break and then he reached the spot and that his house was at a distance of 25-30 paces from the house of deceased Panna Lal. After reaching the spot he did not inquire from anybody about the murder. He also stated in para. 9. 1972. In para. 4 he stated that he heard the alarm after day-break and then he reached the spot and that his house was at a distance of 25-30 paces from the house of deceased Panna Lal. After reaching the spot he did not inquire from anybody about the murder. He also stated in para. 5 of his statement that P. W. 2 Ram Singh and Ganga Saran were going 2-4 steps ahead of him and that the Investigating Officer did not record his statement. He further stated that since 9. 6. 1976 he was employed in Delhi Police. ( 10 ) P. W. 8 Surjhan stated that he reached the dead bodies in the morning. The Investigating Officer took in his possession the Dhoti tied around the neck of Karan Singh and he put his signature on the recovery memo Ex. Ka. 2. There after the Investigating Officer took him and Atar Singh to the tubewell of Mathan and recovered blood-stained Tahmad from a pit near the tubewell and prepared a recovery memo Ex. Ka 6 which was signed by him. He also put his signature on the recovery memo Ex. Ka 5 regarding bloodstained grass. Thereafter the Investigating Officer entered the tubewell and recovered the watch Ex. 2 and buttons Exs. 2 and 4 from near the flour mill and prepared their recovery memo Ex. Ka 4 which was signed by him. He further stated that the watch and the buttons belonged to deceased Panna Lal. In the cross-examination in para 4 he stated that he did not know whether Rampal Singh had filed any case against accused Bharat Singh nor did he know that his name was mentioned as witness in the said case. He also stated that he did not know as to whether accused Kiranpal had filed any case of dacoity against his son Devi. He did not know whether Sohan had filed any case against accused Bharat Singh. He did not know whether the said case was pending and his name was mentioned as one of the witnesses. In para 6 he stated that he reached near the dead bodies in the morning and when he went for casing in the morning he learnt that Panna Lal had been murdered. When he reached there he found that 10-5 persons had collected there. In para 6 he stated that he reached near the dead bodies in the morning and when he went for casing in the morning he learnt that Panna Lal had been murdered. When he reached there he found that 10-5 persons had collected there. After about half an hour he along with P. W. 2 Ram Singh went to S. P. , Bulandshahr, from where he returned at about 10 A. M. He did not give any application to S. P. but the S. P. gave some directions to Dy. S. P. on phone and sent him along with the witnesses. In para 7 of his statement he stated that after the dead bodies were despatched he also sat on a Tonga but after proceeding for some distance he got down from the Tonga and case back. In para. 14 he stated that he had no enmity with the accused. In para. 15 he stated that he was seeing Panna Lal wearing the said watch for the last 2-3 months and he was able to identify the same on the basis of colour and Chain. Otherwise there was no special feature. Similarly there was no special sign on the buttons. He admitted that he was up-Pradhan of the village. ( 11 ) P. W. 6 Bhopal Singh was Head Constable at P. S. Kakor on 3. 10. 1975. He proved the chik First Information Report prepared by him on the basis of the First Information Report lodged by Fakira at 8. 20 A. M. P. W. 7 Constable Ombir Singh stated that he had taken the dead bodies of Panna Lal and Karan Singh from the spot to Bulandshahr and had identified the same before the doctor who had performed the post-mortem on 1. 11. 1975. He had stated in the cross-examination that the dead-bodies had reached mortuary at 4 P. M. and he had handed over the papers to the doctor next day. P. W. 10 J. B. Saxena stated that he was posted as constable at P. S. Kakor in 1975 and on 9. 12. 1975 the had brought seven sealed bundles from P. S. Kakor and had deposited the same in Sadar Malkhana, Bulandshahr, on 10. 12. 1975. P. W. 9 Banwari Lal Gautam was S. O. P. S. Kakor on 31. 10. 1975 and he investigated the case. 12. 1975 the had brought seven sealed bundles from P. S. Kakor and had deposited the same in Sadar Malkhana, Bulandshahr, on 10. 12. 1975. P. W. 9 Banwari Lal Gautam was S. O. P. S. Kakor on 31. 10. 1975 and he investigated the case. He has stated that the First Information Report was lodged in his presence and he immediately proceeded to the spot where he examined the dead bodies of the deceased and took the same in his possession and prepared recovery memos. He also took in possession plain and blood-stained earth from near the place where the bodies were found. He found some stains of blood on the way and following them reached the tubewell of Mathan accused. There was a small pit near the peepal tree in front of the tubewell of Mathan. He found a blood stained Tahmad in the pit and some grass which was also blood-stained. He took in possession the Tahmad, blood-stained grass and blood-stained earth and plain earth and prepared their recovery memos. Exs. Ka 5 and Ka 6. Thereafter he went inside the Kotha of the tubewell and found a wrist watch Ex. 2 and two buttons Exs. 3 and 4 near the flour mill. He took the aforesaid articles in possession and prepared recovery memo Ex. Ka 4. He arrested some accused on 6. 11. 1975 and some on 7. 11. 1975. Mathan and Rajpal Singh accused surrendered in Court and he took their statements. After completing investigation he submitted charge-sheet against the accused on 16. 12. 1975. In cross-examination he stated that he reached the spot at 10 A. M. and he despatched the dead bodies at 12. 45 A. M. The bodies were found at about 2-2-1/2 fm-longs from the place where Tahmad was found. He further stated in para 10 of his statement that he neither inquired nor it came to his knowledge that Atar Singh and Surjhan witnesses had long standing enmity with the accused although he knew that a case under the Untouchability (Offences) Act had been fought. But he did not know who had appeared as witness in the said case. He also stated that the population, of the village would be about 1000-100. ( 12 ) P. W. 5 Dr. B. B. Singh conducted post-mortem examination on the body of the deceased Panna Lal at 3. 40 P. M. on 1. But he did not know who had appeared as witness in the said case. He also stated that the population, of the village would be about 1000-100. ( 12 ) P. W. 5 Dr. B. B. Singh conducted post-mortem examination on the body of the deceased Panna Lal at 3. 40 P. M. on 1. 11. 1975 and found the following anti-mortem injuries on his person:1. Abraded contusion on the right side head above right ear. 2. Abraded contusion apart on right temple 3. Three stab wounds on left temple in an area of measuring bone muscle and muscle. 4. Two abraded contusions apart on right side forehead measuring. 5. Abraded contusion on the right ankle of mendible. 6. Two stab wounds apart on the front neck lower part measuring muscle and muscle, right side to the midline. 7. Abraded contusion at the supersternal notch. 8. Abraded contusion on front of left shoulder. 9. Abraded contusion on right side front of chest at the nipple. 10. Abraded contusion on right side front of chest 2 below the right nipple. 11. Stab wound abdominal cavity on right side abdomen 21/2 above unmblicus at 11 OClock position. 12. Abraded contusion on the back of left forearm middle. 13. Multiple abraded contusions area on the back of right elbow measuring smallest and highest. 14. Stab wound muscle on front of right thigh middle. 15 Abraded contusion on the left scapular region. 16. Stab wound left lung lower 1000 pierced through and through. 17. Stab wound abdominal cavity at left renal angle leading upto left kidney upper pole substaternum. 18. Abrasion on left scapula. He also conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Karan Singh at 4. 15 P. M. on 1. 11. 1975 and found the following ante-mortem injury on his person: Incised wound left mendible cut through and through and cartical vertebreae cut extending from outer and of left eye brow to the back of neck passing through lower part of left ear pinna left carotid and jgular vessels cut. Dr. Singh stated in his cross-examination that the deceased could have taken food about 4-5 hours before their death ( 13 ) THE accused in their statement under Section 323 Cr. P. C. denied the prosecution case and stated that they were wholly innocent. Dr. Singh stated in his cross-examination that the deceased could have taken food about 4-5 hours before their death ( 13 ) THE accused in their statement under Section 323 Cr. P. C. denied the prosecution case and stated that they were wholly innocent. Accused Bharat Singh categorically denied that he went to the house of Panna Lal deceased at about 8-9 P. M. on 30. 10. 1975 or that he called him to his place for settling dispute regarding Gram Samaj land. The accused denied recovery of blood-stained Tahmad and the wrist watch and buttons from near the flour mill of Mathan. They further stated that the witnesses were giving evidence against them on account of enmity. The accused did not examine any witness in their defence. However, they have filed some documentary evidence to show that there was enmity between them and the witnesses. Ex. Kha 1 is the certified copy of the complaint filed by accused Kiranpal son of Bharat Singh against Rampal son of P. W. 2 Ram Singh, Panna Lal (deceased) and Devi son of P. W. 8 Surjhan under section 395 I. P. C. on 6. 12. 1972. Ex. Kha 2 is the certified copy of the judgment dated 1. 3. 1976 given by Judicial Magistrate IV, Bulandshahr, in Cr1. Case No. 33 of 1974 (State v. Dharampal and others) under sections 504 I. P. C. and 6/7 Untouchability (Offences) Act. In this case according to prosecution at about 6 P. M. on 4. 3. 1973 Dharampal, Jaipal and Sukkha had used criminal force and filthy language against Panna Lal. The case ended in acquittal on 1. 3. 1976. Ex. Kha 3 is the certified copy of the charge- sheet of case Crime No. 189 under section 147/323 I. P. C. in which the present accused Bharat Singh, Karanpal and Mahendra Singh were arrayed as accused. The informant of this case was Rampal son of P. W. Ram Singh and P. W. 1 Fakira and Kanchan Singh, father of deceased Panna Lal were cited as prosecution witnesses. Ex. Kha 5 is the copy of the chargesheet dated 2 1. 9. The informant of this case was Rampal son of P. W. Ram Singh and P. W. 1 Fakira and Kanchan Singh, father of deceased Panna Lal were cited as prosecution witnesses. Ex. Kha 5 is the copy of the chargesheet dated 2 1. 9. 1975 of case Crime No. 227 under section 6/7 Untouchability (offences) Act and under section 506/352 I. P. C. The informant to this case was Sohan Singh and the present accused Bharat Singh and Rajbir along with others were arrayed as accused in this case, the occurrence of which took place on 7. 9. 1975. P. W. 1 Fakira and P. W. 8 Surjhan were cited as prosecution witnesses in this case. ( 14 ) THE prosecution in order to establish its case had examined six witnesses of fact. All these witnesses are inimical to the accused persons. P. W. 1 Fakira was cited as prosecution witness against Mathan appellant vide Ex. Kha 4 and appellant nos. 1 and 9, namely, Bharat Singh and Rajbir, vide Ex. Kha 5. He has also admitted that he had given evidence against Bharat Singh, Ratna and Mahendra accused in a case instituted by Rampal which ended in acquittal on 29. 10. 1975, i. e. , two days before the present occurrence. He has also admitted in para, 10 for having given evidence against Mathan and Mahendra accused in a case instituted by Kanchan, father of Panna Lal deceased, in the year 1975. Thus P. W. 1 Fakira is a highly inimical witness. ( 15 ) P. W. 2 Ram Singh is also highly inimical as his son Rampal had lodged a report against accused Bharat Singh, Kiranpal and Mahendra Singh on 31. 8. 1972 regarding which a charge sheet was submitted against the accused vide Ex. Kha 3. Accused Kiranpal had also filed a criminal complaint against Rampal, son of P. W. 2 Ram Singh, on 6. 12. 1972. P. W. 4 Smt. Rajjo, wife of deceased Panna, Lal, has admitted in her statement that there was enmity between Bharat Singh and Panna Lal. P. W. 8 Surjhan is also inimical to the accused as his son Devi was accused in a criminal complaint filed by accused Kiranpal vide Ex. Kha 1 and he was cited as a witness against accused Bharat Singh and Rajbir in case crime No. 227 of 1975 vide Ex. Kha 5. P. W. 8 Surjhan is also inimical to the accused as his son Devi was accused in a criminal complaint filed by accused Kiranpal vide Ex. Kha 1 and he was cited as a witness against accused Bharat Singh and Rajbir in case crime No. 227 of 1975 vide Ex. Kha 5. This fact is also admitted in statement of P. W. 1 Fakira in para 10 of his statement. Similarly P. W. 11 Kali Charan was arrayed as an accused in the criminal complaint filed by Kiranpal accused on 6. 12. 1972. vide Ex. Kha 1. This fact is admitted by the witnesses in para 3 of his Statement. The name of P. W. 3 Atar Singh is not mentioned in the First Information Report. Thus all the witnesses examined by the prosecution are highly inimical to the accused persons. In these circumstances their testimony is to be scrutinised with great care and caution. ( 16 ) SO far as the first circumstance regarding calling of deceased Panna Lal by accused Bharat Singh is concerned, it appears highly improbable in view of the strained relations between the parties and the time at which this incident is alleged to have taken place. P. W. 1 Panna Lal used to oppose Bharat Singh and had also given applications against him. Panna Lal had also given evidence against Bharat Singh. P. W. 4 Smt. Rajjo, wife of deceased Panna Lal, has also stated that Bharat Singh was angry with her husband and that Bharat Singh had never come to her house on any previous occasion. Both P. W. 3 Atar Singh and P. W. 4 Smt. Rajjo have stated that Bharal Singh came to call Panna Lal at about 8-9 P. M. Smt. Rajjo has further stated in para. 12 that it was the month of Kartik and had become cold. It appears highly improbable to us that accused Bharat Singh would have gone to the house of Panna Lal and would have called him for settling the dispute regarding Gram Samaj land. Besides, the time given by the prosecution, i. e. , 8-9 P. M. again casts serious doubt inasmuch as at such a late hour there was no question of holding any meeting or talk for settling the dispute regarding Gram Samaj land. Besides, the time given by the prosecution, i. e. , 8-9 P. M. again casts serious doubt inasmuch as at such a late hour there was no question of holding any meeting or talk for settling the dispute regarding Gram Samaj land. There was no immediate urgency and in villages such talks are held in day hours and not nights. The evidence further shows that winter had settled and in our opinion, the time given by the prosecution for calling the so called meeting for settling the dispute, i. e. , 8-9 P. M. , is too late to be believed. Similarly there was no occasion for Panna Lal to ask his young son, who was aged about ten years to accompany him at such a late hour merely for bringing flour from the flour mill. We are not inclined to accept the prosecution case that Bharat Singh accused came to the house of deceased Panna Lal and asked him to accompany him. We, therefore, reject the prosecution case that Panna Lal and Karan Singh accompanied Bharat Singh accused at about 8-9 P. M. on 30,10. 1975. ( 17 ) THE other circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is that P. W. 1 Fakira and P. W. 2 Ram Singh both went in search of the deceased and saw all the nine accused going together and throwing the dead bodies of the deceased. The prosecution has tried to prove this circumstance from the testimony of only two witnesses, namely, P. W. 1 Fakira and P. W. 2 Ram Singh. As mentioned earlier both the witnesses are highly inimical to the accused persons. P. W. 1 Fakira stated that Smt. Rajjo came to him and asked him to inquire about Panna Lal and Karan Singh at about 11 P. M. and he immediately started for search of these persons along with P. W. 2 Ram Singh, Devi and Ganga Saran. Devi and Ganga Saran have not been examined by the prosecution. Ram Singh has also stated that Fakira came to his place at about 11 P. M. and they proceeded in search of these persons. Fakira has stated that he saw the accused throwing the bodies at 12-12. 30 P. M. These witnesses went to the tubewell of Bharat Singh and thereafter to the flour mill of Mahendra and then to Kalariwali Batia where they saw the accused. Fakira has stated that he saw the accused throwing the bodies at 12-12. 30 P. M. These witnesses went to the tubewell of Bharat Singh and thereafter to the flour mill of Mahendra and then to Kalariwali Batia where they saw the accused. P. W. 2 Ram Singh has stated in para 6 of his statement that in between the tubewell of Mathan and Kalar there are two fields of 8 bighas and 4 bighas and then there is Pir which is about 40 yds. The Investigating officer has stated in para 9 that the tubewell is at about a distance of 2-2 1/2 furlongs from the place where the bodies were found. Thus the distance covered by these witnesses in reaching the place where they saw the accused is hardly 4-5 furlongs. This distance can easily be covered in about 15 minutes. The witnesses, however, stated that they started at 11 P. M. and saw the accused at about 12-12. 30 P. M. Therefore, the version given by them does not appear to be truthful. P. W. 2 Ram Singh has stated in para. 7 of his statement that he could not see as to who was carrying the dead bodies and how the bodies were being taken. He further stated that he did not see as to how the bodies were thrown. Similarly P. W. 1 Fakira in para. 27 has stated that he did not see as to how the bodies were being taken. From the statements of these witnesses it appears that neither P. W. 1 Fakira nor P. W. 2 Ram Singh actually saw the dead bodies of the two deceased being thrown by the accused persons. ( 18 ) THERE is yet another very important circumstance which casts serious doubt on the prosecution case that the accused were seen carrying the dead bodies and throwing the same at about 12 in the night of 30. 1. 1975. In the First Information Report lodged by Fakira he has stated towards the end that SUBAH HOTE HEE SABHEE LOGO NE MAUKE PAR JA KAR DEKHAT Which means everybody went to the spot in the morning and saw. He admitted in para 28 of the statement that this fact was correctly mentioned in the First Information Report. 1. 1975. In the First Information Report lodged by Fakira he has stated towards the end that SUBAH HOTE HEE SABHEE LOGO NE MAUKE PAR JA KAR DEKHAT Which means everybody went to the spot in the morning and saw. He admitted in para 28 of the statement that this fact was correctly mentioned in the First Information Report. Similarly P. W. 8 Surjhan has stated in para 6 that he reached near the dead bodies in the morning at day-break and when he had gone for easing then he came to know that Panna Lal had been murdered. P. W. 11 Kali Charan has stated in para. 4 that he heard the alarm in the morning after daybreak and then he reached the spot. He has also admitted that his house is at about 25-30 paces from the house of Panna Lal deceased. The statements of these witnesses specially that of Kali Charan and Surjhan, give a death blow to the prosecution case inasmuch as they have in clearly stated that they learnt about the murder in the morning and then reached the place where bodies were lying. The house of Kali Charan being at about 25 paces from the house of Panna Lal, he was bound to learn about the murder in the night itself in case the prosecution version was correct. We are, therefore, not prepared to accept the prosecution version that Fakira and Ram Singh saw the accused throwing the dead bodies in the night and discard the same. ( 19 ) WE have how to consider the recovery made by the Investigating Officer. The bloodstained Tahmad was recovered not from inside the tubewell of Mathan accused but from an open pit situate near the Pipal tree which is in front of the Baithaka of the tubewell. Therefore, the recovery of Tahmad has been made from an open place which is accessible to everyone. It cannot, therefore, be used as an incriminating circumstance against anyone of the accused. The two buttons have been recovered by the Investigating Officer from near the flour mill from the Kotha of the tubewell. P. W. 3 Atar Singh has stated in para 18 of his statement that the buttons were of white nylon and such buttons were used by many people in their shirts. He further stated that there was no special sign on the buttons. P. W. 3 Atar Singh has stated in para 18 of his statement that the buttons were of white nylon and such buttons were used by many people in their shirts. He further stated that there was no special sign on the buttons. P. W. 4 Smt. Rajjo has stated in para 20 that there was no identifying mark on the buttons but she was able to identify the same as she used to wash the Kurta and stich the buttons. Admittedly no Identification parade with regard to buttons was held. The white nylon buttons are normally used in shirts and one cannot say that they belong to the shirt of a particular person more so when there was no special identifying mark. In our opinion the recovery of buttons cannot be said to be an incriminating circumstance against the accused as it is not established that the buttons belonged to the clothes which were being worn by deceased Panna Lal. The Investigating Officer has also recovered a watch from the same place and according to the case of the prosecution the watch belonged to deceased Panna Lal. The prosecution did not hold any identification parade with regard to the watch as well. P. W. 3 Atar Singh has stated that he used to see occasionally Panna Lal wearing the said watch but he was not in a position to tell about its colour. P. W. 4 Smt. Rajjo has stated that her husband had got a new watch from the market 15 days back but she did not know about its receipt. P. W. 8 Surjhan has stated in para. 15 of his statement that he had seen the said watch being worn by Panna Lal for the last two-three months. On further cross-examination he has stated that he never used the said watch but was making the statement on the basis of its colour and chain that the watch belonged to Panna Lal. He also stated that there was no special identification mark on the watch. In view of the fact that the prosecution did not hold any identification parade and contradictory statements given by P. W. 3 and P. W. 4 we are not prepared to accept the prosecution version that the watch belonged to the deceased Panna Lal. He also stated that there was no special identification mark on the watch. In view of the fact that the prosecution did not hold any identification parade and contradictory statements given by P. W. 3 and P. W. 4 we are not prepared to accept the prosecution version that the watch belonged to the deceased Panna Lal. At any rate since we have discarded the prosecution case on the main aspect, namely, calling of deceased by Bharat Singh accused as well as seeing of the accused going together and throwing the dead bodies, the recovery of the watch by itself fasten any liability upon the accused. ( 20 ) THE law of circumstantial evidence is well settled. 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 consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but that of guilt. There must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground [or 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. ( 21 ) IN the present case the prosecution has miserably failed to adduce such evidence as may satisfy the standard laid down for judging the case based on circumstantial evidence. ( 22 ) THE appeal is accordingly allowed. The conviction and sentence passed against the accused persons by the 3rd Additional sessions Judge by his judgment and order dated 23. 5. 1976 are set aside. The accused are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds and sureties are discharged. Appeal allowed. .