JUDGMENT 1. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated August 5, 1988 of Additional Sessions Judge, Beawar in sessions case No. 20/88 whereby the appellant was convicted under section 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-. In default of payment of fine he was awarded rigorous imprisonment for one year. 2. The necessary facts of the case are : The Head Constable Ram Chandra of police station Masooda got information at bus stand while going to village Jotiya that a dead-body of a man was lying near the village pond. On getting this information he went there and found the dead body of Ramesh s/o Heera lying with several injuries by a knife. Therefore, he made a report at police station Masooda on the same day and a case under section 302/34 IPC was registered. It may be stated here that in the report, the informant had also stated that at 8.00 P.M. in the previous night the deceased-Ramesh was seen loitering along with the appellant-Kalu and 2-3 more persons, and that Ramesh was unmarried and his character was not good. After registration of the case, the investigation was started. A site plan Ex. P-4 was prepared and the post-mortem of the dead-body was got conducted by Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Masooda. As per the post-mortem report, the deceased had sustained as many as 17 incised wounds on various parts of his body. The post-mortem report is Ex. P-23 on the record. The Investigating Officer also seized blood smeared earth from the place where the dead body was lying. A cycle belonging to the deceased Ramesh was also seized from a park in front of bus stand Masooda vide memo Ex. P-9. The clothes of the deceased were also seized vide memo Ex. P-ll. The appellant-Kalu was arrested on the same day vide Ex. P-22. Then, a knife is said to have been recovered vide Ex. P-15 on7-2-1988 in pursuance to the information of the appellant-Kalu. The said knife was recovered from a bath room situated in front of the Government quarters. The clothes of the deceased were also seized vide memo Ex. P-ll. The appellant-Kalu was arrested on the same day vide Ex. P-22. Then, a knife is said to have been recovered vide Ex. P-15 on7-2-1988 in pursuance to the information of the appellant-Kalu. The said knife was recovered from a bath room situated in front of the Government quarters. The police also seized one pent and bushirt of the deceased on 7-2-S988 in pursuance to another information of the appellant under section 27 of the Evidence Act.After completion of the investigation challan was filed against the appellant and he was tried for the offence under section 302 IPC in the court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Beawar. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Beawar convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated above. 3. There is no direct evidence to connect the accused appellant with the crime and the entire prosecution case rests on the circumstantial pieces of evidence. The learned trial court held the following circumstances proved against the appellant : (i) That the appellant was seen at 4.00 P.M. at bus stand Masooda in the company of Bholu. (ii) That both Kalu and the deceased Ramesh were then seen together at 5.00 P.M. at the hotel of one Babu and thereafter, they were seen together at a liquor shop at 8.00 P.M. and then they went to purchase jalabi at the shop of PW 4 Ramdeo. (iii) That the deceased and the appellant were last seen together at 8.15 P.M. going towards 'Looharon Ki Gadiyon' from the bus stand and in the morning the dead body of Ramesh was found. (iv) That in pursuance to the information of the appellant one coat, pent and a bushirt were recovered with human blood. (v) A knife was seized from the bathroom in pursuance to the information of the accused appellant and human blood was found on it as per the report of the Serologist. (vi) That an injury was found on the thumb of the accused. 4. Before dealing with the circumstantial pieces of evidence, we would like to refer the principles which should guide the court in considering the conviction of an accused resting on circumstantial evidence. (vi) That an injury was found on the thumb of the accused. 4. Before dealing with the circumstantial pieces of evidence, we would like to refer the principles which should guide the court in considering the conviction of an accused resting on circumstantial evidence. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that circumstantial evidence must be fully established from which there should be inevitable conclusion of the guilt of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt, and the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, ruling out any hypothesis of innocence of the accused. In Hanumant v. State of M.P., (1952 SC 343) the Hon'ble Supreme Court had laid down fundamental and basic principles for appreciating the circumstantial evidence. It has been observed as under: "It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, 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. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence, so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence, so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. These principles were again reiterated by the Supreme Court in Shivali Sahebrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, (1973 SC 2622) wherein it was emphasised that where the prosecution rests merely on circumstantial evidence, the facts 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, The Court further observed that the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved and the chain of evidence should be so complete as to rule out any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and the circumstances must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.In Sharad B Chand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, ( AIR 1984 SC 1622 ) , the hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the absence of explanation or a false explanation of the accused for the circumstances and the facts proved against him, struct a note of caution that before a false explanation is used as additional link against the accused the court should satisfy itself that (1) various links in the chain of evidence led by the prosecution have been satisfactorily proved, (2) circumstances point to the guilt of accused with reasonable definiteness; and (3) the circumstances are in proximity to the time and situation. Where all these conditions are fulfilled only then a court can use a false explanation or a false defence of an accused, as an additional link to lend an assurance to the court and not otherwise.There is yet another basic rule of criminal jurisprudence that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in a case of circumstantial evidence, one pointing to the guilt of the accused the other to his innocence, the court should adopt the latter view favourable to the accused.In the background of the aforesaid principles we have to ascertain as to whether the trial court has correctly applied these principles in convicting and sentencing the appellant. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued forcefully that the aforesaid circumstances are neither proved nor they complete the chain to arrive at an irresistible conclusion that it was the appellant who had committed the murder of the deceased Ramesh. With regard to the circumstance of last seen, the learned counsel argued that it was not proved and further it was cot proximate to the time and place of the death.On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the conviction of the appellant and submitted that the aforesaid circumstances are proved against the appellant and the conclusion drawn by the trial court is sound in law. 6. We have gone through the entire evidence on the record and the judgment under appeal. We have also given our anxious and careful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosector.After giving our thoughtful consideration, we are of the firm view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of murder against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and he deserves to be acquitted. The reasons are given. 7. The first and the foremost circumstance against the appellant is that he was last seen in the company of the deceased at various places on Feb. 2, 1988. In this connection, the prosecution has placed reliance on the statements of PW 4. Ramdeo, PW 5 Mahaveer Prasad, PW 6 Panchu, PW 7 Chothulal, PW 8 Bhanwarlal, PW 9 Babu, PW 10 Jakir Hussain and PW 19 Nathu.PW 4 Ramdeo has stated that at 8.15 p.m. on February 1, 1988, the appellant Kalu and Ramesh had come to his shop. He further stated that he knew Kalu but did not know Ramesh. Ramdeo, PW 5 Mahaveer Prasad, PW 6 Panchu, PW 7 Chothulal, PW 8 Bhanwarlal, PW 9 Babu, PW 10 Jakir Hussain and PW 19 Nathu.PW 4 Ramdeo has stated that at 8.15 p.m. on February 1, 1988, the appellant Kalu and Ramesh had come to his shop. He further stated that he knew Kalu but did not know Ramesh. They demanded 100 gms. jalabi on credit, but he refused to give them. Thereafter, they went towards "Looharon ki Gadiyon" and he was unable to say where they had gone thereafter. On the next day at 8.00 a.m. he heard that a dead body of a man was lying rear village pond, but he neither went there nor saw the dead body. In cross-examination, this witness further stated that there were other customers at his shop that time and that his some money was outstanding against Kalu accused appellant to be recovered by him.From this statement, in our view, it is not established that the other person was the decased-Ramesh as this witness did not know him and he also did not see the dead body of Ramesh.The next witness is PW 5 Mahaveer Prasad. He has stated that he was a sales man on a liquor shop at Masooda and one day prior to the murder the accused along with one person to whom he did not know came at his shop and they had purchased liquor of Rs. 5/ and thereafter, they took the liquor. After taking liquor they went away. Then he stated that the dead body of a man lying at the village pond was seen by him but he was unable say that it was of the same person who had come at the liquor shop with the appellant. In cross-examination, this witness stated that at his shop half bottle or quarter bottle of liquor were sold and if two persons purchased the liquor then the liquor may be sold from a packed bottle after dividing the same. He then admitted that at the shop he was not having any measurement of the liquor of Rs. 5/-and that the liquor was not being sold at the shop for Rs. 5/-. This witness further stated that he did not know the person with whom Kalu had taken the liquor. He then stated that Kalu had given him Rs. 5/-. He then admitted that at the shop he was not having any measurement of the liquor of Rs. 5/-and that the liquor was not being sold at the shop for Rs. 5/-. This witness further stated that he did not know the person with whom Kalu had taken the liquor. He then stated that Kalu had given him Rs. 5/-. He was unable to name other persons who had purchased the liquor on that day. He also admitted that he did not know Kalu from before, but he was told by the police that the accused was Kalu. For the other person he stated that he was wearing a safa and his name was not known to him. He was wearing a white shirt and the safe was of red colour. This witness then stated that the name of Kalu-appellant and of the deceased Ramesh were told to him by the police. He also stated that he went to the police station where Kalu alone was there.After critical analysis of the statement of this witness, we are of the view that his evidence is neither believable nor the same proved the identity of the appellant and the deceased Ramesh. The name of the appellant Kalu was supplied by the police and no identification parade was arranged to identify the accused appellant by this witness even though he was not known to him from before. The alleged identification of the appellant at the police station when he was alone is meaningless and it creates suspicion that this witness has been procured to give evidence against the appellant, after showing him at the police station. It is also unusual that he could have identified the appellant at the police station while he was unable to identify other customers who had purchased the liquor from his shop on that day. We, therefore, no hesitation in excluding the statement of this witness from consideration.The next witness is PW 6 Panc'nu. He was a groundnut vendor at bus stand Masooda He has stated that 2-3 months prior to his statement the man who bad died had come to purchase groundnut and he had purchased groundnut for Rs. 1/-. He also stated that the man was drunked at that time and thereafter, he went towards "Looharon ki Gadiyon" and thereafter, he did not see that man again. This witness was declared hostile by the prosecution. 1/-. He also stated that the man was drunked at that time and thereafter, he went towards "Looharon ki Gadiyon" and thereafter, he did not see that man again. This witness was declared hostile by the prosecution. In our view, the statement of this witness does not provide any assistance to the prosecution.The next witness on this point is PW 7 Chothulal. He has stated that 3 4 months ago while he was returning from bus stand Masooda at 8.15 p.m. he saw the accused near the cart of lohars alongwith Ramesh and they were pushiag each other. In cross-examination, he denied that he was made to sit at the police station as he was suspected in the murder. Then, this witness stated that it was a fact that he was called at the police station for interrogation and that he had admitted to have committed the murder of Ramesh due to beating given by the SHO. He further stated that he was kept at the police station for three days. Then, this witness stated that he has given the statement because he was beaten by the police.Without much comments on the statement of this witness, suffice is to say that no reliance can be placed on his statement. He himself was suspected to be the murderer and kept at the police station for three days and he was made a witness against the appellant by giving beating by the police.Another witness is PW 8 Bhanwarlal. He has stated that at Babu's hotel he was taking tea with Virda Singh on 1-2-1988 and near him Kalu & Ramesh were taking tea and thereafter he went to his house after taking tea. In cross-examination, this witness denied that he had gone to the police station after 2nd Feb. 1988. PW 9 Babu, the owner of the tea hotel, was also examined as PW 9. He has stated that in the evening of 1-2-1988 Kalu. Ramesh and one Gudu had come to take tea and after taking tea they went towards hotel. In cross-examination, this witness has stated that they took tea at the place in between his hotel and the shop of Jakir Hussain. He also admitted that many persons were coming to take tea at his shop and he did not know the names of all. P\V 10 Jakir Hussain has been also examined as PW 10. In cross-examination, this witness has stated that they took tea at the place in between his hotel and the shop of Jakir Hussain. He also admitted that many persons were coming to take tea at his shop and he did not know the names of all. P\V 10 Jakir Hussain has been also examined as PW 10. He has stated that Kalu. Ramesh and Gudu were taking tea at 5.00 P.M. at a place between his shop and Babu's hotel and t hereafter Ramesh and Kalu came to him and demanded Rs. 30/- for purchasing foodgrains, but he refused to oblige them, Then this witness stated that he gave Rs. 30/- to Kalu when he demanded with folded hands and both brothers, namely, Ramesh & Kalu went from his house but he was unable to say where did they go.If we scrutinise the statement of these witnesses then at the most it transpires that at 5.00 P.M. on 1-2-1988 tea was taken together by the appellant along with deceased Ramesh and Gudu and the witnesses did not know how and where they went subsequently. In our considered view this evidence cannot prove that the deceased was in the exclusive company of the appellant at 5.00 P.M. on that day and his taking tea along with deceased Ramesh and one Gudu near hospital at Masooda have no proximity of time and place of the death. Their meeting may be in the normal course also and this meeting can hardly be a pointer towards the guilt.The last witness to prove this circumstance is PW 19 Nathu. This witness has not supported the prosecution case and he has declared hostile by the prosecution.Thus, the circumstantial pieces of evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 3 relied upon by the trial court that the deceased and the appellant were last seen together have not been satisfactorily proved and they may be excluded from consideration. 8. The next circumstance is the recovery of a knife in pursuance to the information of the appellant under section 27 of the Evidence Act.The prosecution case is that the appellant was arrested on 2-2-1988 and on 7-2-1983 he gave information Ex. P 40. 8. The next circumstance is the recovery of a knife in pursuance to the information of the appellant under section 27 of the Evidence Act.The prosecution case is that the appellant was arrested on 2-2-1988 and on 7-2-1983 he gave information Ex. P 40. The prosecution has examined PW 22 Bhairulal Sharma and PW 12 Tejsingh to prove this recovery.PW 12 Tej Singh is a motbir witness of the recovery and he has stated that the accused had brought a knife which was under stone in the bathroom in front of his quarter and that the knife was smeared with sand. He admitted that the bathroom from where the knife was recovered was open one.PW 22 Bhairulal Sharma, the Investigating Officer has stated that the accused was arrested vide memo Ex. P 22 and on his information a knife was recovered vide Ex. P 15 which was lying in a bathroom in front of the house of the accused. In cross-examination, he stated that the accused had given two different information on the same day one regarding the clothes and the other regarding the knife and he was unable to say the time gap between the two information. Then, this witness stated that there are other quarters also near the quarter of the accused Kalu. Then this witness was cross-examined that other persons were also called by him on suspicion of having committed the murder, but he denied this fact.As per the prosecution case, the appellant had borrowed the knife from one Gudu. However, Gudu was not examined by the prosecution and the second motbir witness of the recovery, namely, Madan Mohan Singh has also not been examined. Human blood has been found on the knife by the Serologist vide report Ex. P-42.For this circumstance, the learned counsel for the appellant argued that the alleged recovery is suspicious as it cannot be expected that the knife would have been placed by the accused in the bathroom after commission ( of the offence and that it would have remained there lying for such a long time when the bathroom is an open one in front of several quarters. This argument has force. Otherwise also, if we consider this evidence against the appellant along with the other evidence of recovery of clothes, then too, in our opinion, they do not prove the guilt of murder beyond reasonable doubt, 9. This argument has force. Otherwise also, if we consider this evidence against the appellant along with the other evidence of recovery of clothes, then too, in our opinion, they do not prove the guilt of murder beyond reasonable doubt, 9. The last piece of circumstantial evidence is the recovery of bushirt and pent belonging to the appellant in pursuance to his information alleged to have been on 7-2-1988.To prove this circumstance, the prosecution has examined the aforesaid two witnesses, namely PW 12 Tej Singh and PW 22 Bhainilal Sharma. In the recovery memo Ex. P-14, only this fact has been mentioned that some spots of the blood were found on the bushirt and pent without giving there number and the extent of blood. Even if this circumstance is taken to be proved along with the recovery of the knife, they do not complete the chain to prove the guilt of the murder. At the most they could be used as corroborative evidence had there been other circumstance pointing the guilt. Further, small blood marks on the clothes is explainable in the absence of blood group and its tallying with the blood group of the deceased.In Prabhu Babaji v. Slate of Bombay ( AIR 1956 SC 51 ) it was observed as under : "The Chemical Examiner's duty is to indicate the number of blood stains found by him on each exhibit and the extent of each stain unless they are too minute or too numerous to be described in detail. Merely to say that blood was detected on an exhibit is not enough. It may well, lead to a miscarriage of justice compelling Judges to acquit when they would have convicted, had the report been more revealing." In Hari Singh and Ors. v. The State of Raj. (1979 RCC 106) it was held that presence of blood in small quantity on the clothes of the accused, who arc villagers without the evidence of blood grouping cannot be considered to be an evidence of conclusive nature to connect with the crime.In Dhanji v. The State of Raj. (1980 Cr. LR Raj. 87) it was observed as under : "The reports of the Chemical Examiner and the Serologist do not reveal the extent and the position of the blood stains found on these clothes. (1980 Cr. LR Raj. 87) it was observed as under : "The reports of the Chemical Examiner and the Serologist do not reveal the extent and the position of the blood stains found on these clothes. It is the duty of the Chemical Examiner to state precisely the number and extent of blood stains detected by him on each article which is sent to them for analysis. If the reports are perfunctory in nature they do not carry such weight." In Surinder Singh v. State of Punjab (1989 Suppl. (2) SCC 22) the recovery of blood stained knife in the absence of the evidence that it was of the same group as the blood of the deceased, was held not sufficient to prove the guilt of the murder.In Kansa Behera v. State of Orissa ( AIR 1987 SC 1507 ) a shirt and a dhoti stained with human blood were recovered at the instance of the accused but there was no evidence in the report of the serologist about the group of the blood to be connected with the deceased. In the report, it was not mentioned as to what were the dimensions of the stains of blood. It was held that few small blood-stains on the clothes of a person may be of his own blood especially if it is a villager putting on these clothes and living in villages. The evidence of the blood group is only conclusive to connect the blood stains with the deceased, and in the absence of this evidence, this circumstance was not sufficient on the basis of which any inference could be drawn. The accused was, therefore, acquitted.The prosecution has led no evidence that the accused appellant was having any motive against the deceased. Rather the evidence shows that the deceased and the appellant were like brothers and were colleagues taking tea together and used to live together. This fact also goes against the prosecution. 10. In the light of the discussions made above, in our opinion, the trial court was wrong in convicting and sentencing the appellant. The appeal is, therefore, allowed and the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant are set-aside. He is in custody and he shall be set at liberty forthwith if not wanted in some other case.Appeal allowed. *******