JUDGMENT 1. - These two appeals are directed against the judgment dated October 23,1986, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bikaner, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants for the offences under Sections 302 and 394 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and acquitted accused Angrej Singh of these offences by giving him the benefit of doubt. 2. Two children, namely, Om S/o Shri Dalu Ram and Miss Manju D/o Shri Bhanwar Lal, residents of Chak 276, went to graze their catties in the morning at about 7.00a.m. on June 20,1984. They took their catties by the Pacca road and near the road-side where the wire-fencing of the Forest Department is there, they saw two deadbodies. Both the children, alongwith their catties, went back to the village and informed their parents about the same. Dalu Ram alongwith Bhanwar Lal, thereafter, went to the place of occurrence and saw the two deadbodies over the land of Forest Department surrounded by wire fencing, which is situated at a distance of 51/2 kilometres from Loonkaransar on the State Highway between Loonkaransar to Suratgarh. They thereafter lodged a report at Police Station, Loonkaransar at about 9.15 a.m. The police registered the First Information Report against some unknown persons for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. During investigation, it was later on revealed that the deadbodies, which were found over the land of the Forest Department, were those of Anand Prakash S/o Shri Mohan Lal R/o Pilibanga (the owner of truck No. RJF 2232) and that of Chamkor Singh- the Khalasi of the truck. It was also, revealed that on June, 18, 1984, the truck belonging to Mohan Lal Tewari of Pilibarga, after taking 135 bags of Gawar from the shop of Navlakha of Pilibanga, proceeded towards Bikaner to deliver these Gawar bags to Goyal Gawar Factory, Bikaner. At that time, the truck was driven by Raj Singh, who was employed as the driver of this truck by Mohan Lal Tewari and when the truck left Pilibangas, Raj Singh driver, Chamkor Singh, Anand Prakash and Hardeo Singh were there in the truck. Angrej Singh and one more person, namely, Mahendra Singh, joined these four persons in the way and when the truck left Suratgarh, there were six persons in the truck, including the present three appellants, Angrej Singh and the two deceased. Angrej Singh and one more person, namely, Mahendra Singh, joined these four persons in the way and when the truck left Suratgarh, there were six persons in the truck, including the present three appellants, Angrej Singh and the two deceased. They were seen at Suratgarh by PW 7 Chhotu and PW 8 Darshan Lal. The truck then proceeded towards Bikaner and at Rajiyasar, these six persons were soon by PW 19 Jeet Singh. In the ways from Bikaner to Rajiyasar, Anand Prakash and Chamkor Singh were murdered and their deadbodies were thrown over the land of the Forest Department at a distance of about 51/2 kilometres from Loonkaransar. Thereafter the truck proceeded to Bikaner, unloaded the Gawar bags there on June 19,1984 and after unloading the Gawar at Goyal Gum Factory, Bikaner, the truck proceeded towards Madhya Pradesh and reached Dhamaniya Check Post at about 4.30 a.m. in the morning of June 20,1984. As the papers were not complete, therefore, the In charge of Dhamaniya Check Post did not allow the driver thereafter told the In charge of the check post that he is coming with the necessary papers, which are with the owner of the truck at Nimach and asking so, he left the truck and did not return. This truck was seized by the police in this case. The police, after necessary investigation, presented the challan against the present three appellants and Angrej Singh. All the four accused were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bikaner, for the offences under Sections 302 and 394 read with Section 34 I.P.C. 3. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined 29 witnesses and placed reliance over the recoveries. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after trial, acquitted the accused Angrej Singh of the offences under Sections 302 and 394 read with Section 34 I.P.C. by giving him benefit of doubt. He, however, convicted accused-appellants Mahendra Singh, Hardeo Singh and Raj Singh for the offences under Sections 302 and 394 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and ten years; rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and ten years; rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo two years; rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 394 read with Section 34 I.P.C. It is against this judgment dated October 23, 1986, convicting and sentencing the accused-appellants that the appellants have preferred this appeal. 4. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellants as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record of the case and the judgment of the trial Court. 5. The nature of evidence, produced by the prosecution, consists of the evidence of PW 1 Dalu Ram and PW 2 Bhanwar Lal, who have seen the dead bodies and made the report at Police Station, Loonkaransar. PW 3 Dayal Singh is the father of deceased Chamkor Singh, who has identified the dead body and the clothes of deceased Chamkor Singh and has stated that the deceased was in the employment of Mohan Lal Tewari and was working as cleaner [Khalasi] on truck No. RJF 2232. Mohan Lal PW 4 is father of Anand Prakash and the owner of truck No. RJF 2232 and he has stated that on June 18, 1984 at about 6.00/7.00 a.m., the truck No. RJF 2232 took 135 bags of Gawar from the shop of Navlakha, which was to be handed over to Goyal Gum Factory, Bikaner. At that time, Raj Singh was driving the truck and Chamkor Singh was the Khalasi in the truck and Anand Prakash and Hardeo Singh were, also , in the truck. PW 5 Chiman Lal is a clerk in the Transport Company, who prepared R.R. for 135 bags of Gawar. PW 6 Gyan Singh is the owner of the truck, over which accused Hardeo Singh was employed as Khalasi and he left the services with Gyan Singh, but this witness has resiled from some part of his statement, recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and, therefore, he was declared hostile. PW 7 Chhotu Singh and PW 8 Darshan Lal are the two truck drivers, who saw six persons in the truck including the two deceased, the appellant and one Angrej Singh at Suratgarh. PW 7 Chhotu Singh and PW 8 Darshan Lal are the two truck drivers, who saw six persons in the truck including the two deceased, the appellant and one Angrej Singh at Suratgarh. PW 9 Bhajan Singh is the Mistry at Pilibangas, who had seen these accused and the two deceased in the truck while the truck was standing at the petrol pump at Pilibanga and were ready to proceed towards Bikaner. PW 10 Ishwar Singh is the person, who got Hardeo Singh employed with Harphool Ram. PW 11 is Narsingh Das the owner of Goyal Gum Factory, Bikaner, who received 135 bags of Gawar on June 19, 1984 at about 8.00 a.m. PW 12 Laxman Das, PW 13 Kailesh Chandra S/o Igiyarsi Lal and PW 28 Vilas Chandra are the three employees posted at Dhamaniya Check Post, where the truck was detained. At that time the truck was bearing No. RRK 2819. They, also, took certain papers in their possession from the driver of the truck vide Ex.P.26 and Ex.P.27 PW 14 Harphool is the owner of truks No. RRK 5819 and RSK 9855, with whom accused Hardeo Singh worked for some time. At that time, the registration papers of truck No. RRK 5819 were stolen and the report to that effect was lodged with the police. PW 1 5 Hardeva Ram is the person, who was working at Rathi Petrol Pump and who gave diesel to the truck on June 18,1984, while the truck left for Bikaner. PW 16 Lal Singh Rao, is the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, who conducted the identification of the accused and has stated that the witness Kailash Chandra identified the accused correctly. PW 17 is Dr. Jagdish Sankhla, who conducted the post-mortem on the dead bodies of Anand Prakash and Chamkor Singh. PW 18 Nazir Khan is the Police Constable, who took the sealed articles to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur. PW 19 is Jeet Singh, the truck driver of truck No. RSC 9177 who had seen the present three accused-appellants and Angrej Singh along with the two deceased at Rajiyasar hotel at about 11.00 p.m. on June 18, 1984. PW 18 Nazir Khan is the Police Constable, who took the sealed articles to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur. PW 19 is Jeet Singh, the truck driver of truck No. RSC 9177 who had seen the present three accused-appellants and Angrej Singh along with the two deceased at Rajiyasar hotel at about 11.00 p.m. on June 18, 1984. PW 20 Heera Lal took the photographs of the deadbodies of Anand Prakash and Chamkor Singh on June 20,1984.PW 21 Chanan Singh is the person, before whom the accused made the extra-judicial confession, but this witness has not supported the prosecution case and, therefore, he was declared hostile. PW 25 Suba Singh, PW 26 Gurmail Singh and PW 27 Jamala Ram are the Police Constables, who were concerned with the investigation. PW 23 Vijay Prakash is the photographer, who took the photographs of the truck, which are Ex.P.47 and Ex.P.48. PW 24 is Gauri Shanker, who was employed at the Octroi Check Post, Jamsar, who, on June 19,1984, at about 5.00 a.m., issued entry-ticket Ex.P.49-A to Raj Singh driver, which bears the signatures of Raj Singh. PW 29 is Vardhi Chand-Assistant Colonisation Commissioner, Chhattargarh, who took the specimen of the writing of accused Raj Singh and the thumb impression and the finger prints of all the appellants and Angrej Singh. The prosecution, also, placed reliance over 71 documents. The accused did not produce any evidence in defence. 6. There is no eye witness to the incident and the case of the prosecution wholly rests upon the circumstantial evidence. There is no difference between the direct and circumstantial evidence provided the evidence produced by the prosecution is reliable and acceptable. It is only the credibility of the evidence that land assurance to the Court for its acceptance. The circumstances produced by the prosecution, which can result in the conviction of the accused, should be reliable and the chain of the circumstantial evidence should be reliable and the chain of the circumstantial evidence should be complete and should be consistent only with one hypothesis that is, the guilt of the accused. Now, we have to see the evidence, produced by the prosecution, in this light. 7. We will first like to take the case of accused- appellants Raj Singh and Hardeo Singh, as some of the evidence produced by the prosecution to connect these accused-appellants with the crime, is common. Now, we have to see the evidence, produced by the prosecution, in this light. 7. We will first like to take the case of accused- appellants Raj Singh and Hardeo Singh, as some of the evidence produced by the prosecution to connect these accused-appellants with the crime, is common. These two accused left Pilibanga in the evening at about 6.00/7.00 p.m. on June 18, 1984, in truck No. RJF 2232, which was carrying 135 bags of Gawar, which were to be carried to Bikaner. At that time, PW 4 Mohan Lal Tewari, who is the owner of truck No. RJF 2232, had seen Raj Singh, Anand Prakash, Chamkor Singh and Hardeo Singh in the truck when the truck left Pilibanga. PW 4 Mohan Lal has, also stated that accused Raj Singh was employed by him as the driver of his truck No. RJF 2232 and he was working with him. On June 18,1984, the truck was booked to Bikaner through Truck Operators' Union and carried 135 bags of Gawar. The diesel in the truck was filled in by Rathi Petrol Pump. His son had informed him before leaving Pilibanga that Raj Singh had asked him that the business in Gujarat State is much profitable and goods are being carried there at a higher rate and, therefore, they will go to Gujarat and will work there for 15 days and return back thereafter. At that time, when the truck left Pilibanga, Raj Singh. Anand Prakash, Chamkor Singh and Hardeo Singh were in the truck. On July 9, 1984, one driver, of a truck of Mandi Dabawali informed him that one truck is lying near Dhamaniya Check Post, Chhoti-Sadri. On receiving this information he went to Chhoti Sadri and found his truck lying there and the number of the truck was changed. At that time, the truck was bearing No. 2819. On enquiry from the Inspector, the Inspector told him that this truck reached there on June 20, 1984, and till then it is lying there. On receiving this information he went to Chhoti Sadri and found his truck lying there and the number of the truck was changed. At that time, the truck was bearing No. 2819. On enquiry from the Inspector, the Inspector told him that this truck reached there on June 20, 1984, and till then it is lying there. At the time when the truck reached at Dhamaniya Check Post, there were four persons in the truck and when the papers were demanded from them, they were furnished but they were related to the truck No. 5819 and the driver informed them that by mistake, the papers of other truck have been brought by him and he will bring the papers of this truck from Nimach and thereafter the driver left the truck and has not returned. He, thereafter, went to Bikaner and met the owners of Goyal Gum Factory and they, also, informed him that in the truck, four persons came there and after unloading the Gawar bags had taking the receipt thereof, they left the place. He was, also, informed that the thumb impressing of accused Raj Singh was taken. He, thereafter, collated the members of the Union and made further enquiry. 8. PW 5 is Chiman Lal, who prepared the R.R. at that time in the presence of Raj Singh and Anand Prakash. 9. PW 9 Bhajan Singh is a mechanic, who used to repair the truck of Mohan Lal Tewari. He has stated that on June 18,1984, he saw Raj Singh, Chamkor Singh, Anand Prakash and Hardeo Singh near the truck at the petrol pump, Pilibanga, and thereafter they left for Bikaner. 10. PW 15 Hardeva Ram filled the diesel tank of the truck on June 18,1984, with 160 litres of diesel and has stated that the truck, after taking diesel, left for Bikaner. 11. Thus, from the evidence of these witnesses, namely, PW 4 Mohan Lal Tewari and PW 9 Bhajan Singh it has been proved that accused appellant Raj Singh, deceased Anand Prakash, deceased Chamkor Singh and accused-appellant Hardeo Singh left Pilibanga in the truck No. RJF 2232, which was driven by accused Raj Singh driver, who was in the employment of PW 4 Mohan Lal Tewari and was working as the driver of this truck. To support the evidence of these four witnesses, viz., PW 4 Mohan Lal Tewari, PW 5 Chiman Lal, PW 9 Bhajan Singh and PW 13 Hardeva Ram, who had seen accused Raj Singh, deceased Anand Prakash and deceased Chamkor Singh and accused-appellant Hardev Singh at Pilibanga and leaving for Bikaner in the truck in the evening at about 6.00/7.00 p.m. on June 18, 1984, there is the evidence of PW 7 Chhotu Singh, who was the driver on truck No. RSF 1974, who was coming from Bikaner to Pilibanga on that day and met Anand Prakash and others in the evening of June 18, 1984, at Suratgarh. He has stated that Raj Singh was in the employment on the truck of Mohan Lal and on June 18, 1984, when he was coming back to Pilibanga, he met Anand Prakash and saw Raj Singh, Angrej Singh, Raj Singh brother Hardev Singh and one more person in the truck. Mohan Lal's son and the Khalasi Chamkor Singh were, also, in this truck. This witness has, therefore, seen six persons in the truck, including the accused appellants, while the truck was proceeding towards Bikaner. There is another evidence of PW 8 Darshan Lal, who was the driver on truck No. RJK 4565 and who saw the accused- appellants along with Angrej Singh, Anand Prakash and Chamkor Singh in the truck No. RJF 2232 on June 18, 1984, at Suratgarh. He has, also, stated that Raj Singh was the driver of Mohan Lal and was plying the truck No. RJF 2232. He has specifically stated the presence of these three accused-appellants along with Angrej Singh, Anand Prekash and Chamkor Singh in the truck while it was proceedings towards Bikaner. Then comes the evidence of PW 19 Jeet Singh, who was the driver on truck No. RSC 9177, who, also, took the rice from Pilibanga and was proceeding towards Bikaner. At Rajiyasar, he stopped his truck in order to take his meals. At about 11.00 p.m., when he was taking his meals in the hotel at Rajiyasar, he saw accused Raj Singh, Angrej Singh, Mahendra Singh, Hardev Singh and the two deceased Anand Prakash and Chamkor Singh. They were, also, taking their meals in the same hotel at Rajiyasar where this witness was taking his meals. At about 11.00 p.m., when he was taking his meals in the hotel at Rajiyasar, he saw accused Raj Singh, Angrej Singh, Mahendra Singh, Hardev Singh and the two deceased Anand Prakash and Chamkor Singh. They were, also, taking their meals in the same hotel at Rajiyasar where this witness was taking his meals. He had a talk with Anand Prakash and Anand Prakash told him that from Bikaner whether he will go ahead or will come back, to which he replied that after unloading the truck he will come back. Form the evidence, produced by the prosecution, it has, therefore, clearly been proved beyond any reasonable manner of doubt that these three appellants alongwith deceased Chamkor Singh and Anand Prakash left Pilibanga towards Bikaner and they reached upto Rajiyasar in the night of June 18, 1984, in the truck and reached Rajiyasar at about 11.00 p.m. 12. Apart from this evidence, produced by the prosecution, which is common against both the accused appellants Hardev Singh and Raj Singh, the prosecution has led further evidence which connects both these accused-appellants with the crime. 13. The further evidence connecting the accused appellant Raj Singh with the crime, consists of the evidence of PW 24 Gauri Shanker, who was employed at the Octroi Check Post at Jamsar in the night intervening 18th and 19th June, 1984, and his duty- hours were since 8.00 p.m. to 6.00 a.m. and who has stated that in the morning of June 19, 1984, at about 5.00 a.m., truck No. RJF 2232, which was carrying Gawar and was, also, having a bilty. He issued entry ticket Ex.P.49-A, which bears the signatures of Raj Singh. The specimen signature of Raj Singh was, also, taken by the Assistant Colonisation Commissioner Chattargarh Shri Vardhi Chand PW 29, and the specimen signatures of accused Raj Singh as well as the chance signature on the entry ticket Ex.P.49-A of Raj Singh were sent for the examination to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Rajasthan, Jaipur. The specimen signature of Raj Singh was, also, taken by the Assistant Colonisation Commissioner Chattargarh Shri Vardhi Chand PW 29, and the specimen signatures of accused Raj Singh as well as the chance signature on the entry ticket Ex.P.49-A of Raj Singh were sent for the examination to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Rajasthan, Jaipur. The report Ex.P.67 of the Director of the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Rajasthan, Jaipur, States as under:- "As a result of very careful and through examination of the documents, referred to overleaf, it is concluded the at the disputed signature marked as Q. 1 is in the handwriting of the person who wrote the specimen marks as Section 1 to Section 22B." This report is signed by the Senior Scientific Officer and the Deputy Director (Documents). In the report, though the result is directly demonstrable and the expert has clearly opined that the specimen signature of Raj Singh tallies with the chance signatures on the entry ticket, but the experts have not given the reasons for their conclusion and the Court is unable to assess the evidence of the experts as the reports is inadequate an cryptic and does not give any information regarding the similarities and dissimilarities in the hand writings, and the' reasons, on the basis of which the experts gave their opinion, are missing in the report. The opinion, or the report of the experts, though provides an important link to the prosecution evidence and is an important corroborative link, but a cryptic and inadequate report, without showing the reasons for conclusion, is of no use to the prosecution. While coming to the conclusion that the specimen signatures tally with the chance signatures, it is expected from the Expert that the Expert should give, also, the reasons in the report, on the basis of which the opinion is formed so that the Court may check the facts and form its own opinion and it is not expected from the Court that it should surrender within its own judgment to that of the expert but the Court has to assess the evidence like any other evidence. Merely stating in the report that the specimen signatures tally with the chance signatures, is not sufficient and the Court cannot act merely on the result of the expert which is not based on any reasons. Merely stating in the report that the specimen signatures tally with the chance signatures, is not sufficient and the Court cannot act merely on the result of the expert which is not based on any reasons. As the reasons given by the expert support of its finding have to be tested by the Court and if they are cogent and convincing and plausible, only then they can be accepted but as no reasons have been given by the expert in the report, therefore, this evidence, produced by the prosecution against the accused Raj Singh is of no help to the prosecution. 14. Then comes the evidence of PW 11 Narsingh Das, who is the owner of Goyal Gum Factory, Bikaner. This witness has stated that on June 19,1984, at about 8.00 a.m., he received 135 bags of Gawar at his factory premises vide Milty Ex.P.22. This Gawar was brought by accused Raj Singh in truck No. RJF 2232 and he made payment of freight as well as octroi duty to Raj Singh and this bilty bears the thumb impression of accused Raj, Singh. He has, also, stated that normally 3 to 4 persons come in the truck but in this truck, how many persons came, he cannot say. But he has stated that the Gawar was brought by accused Raj Singh. The thumb impression on the bilty Ex.P.22 was sent for examination to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Rajasthan, Jaipur along with the specimen thumb impression of accused Raj Singh taken by PW 29 Virdi Chand. The report of the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Rajasthan, Jaipur, is Ex.P.68. The Director, Finger Print Bureau, Rajasthan, Jaipur, vide its opinion dated December 15,1984, after giving reasons, opined that the disputed thumb impression mark D.1 is similar and identical to the specimen thumb impression mark Section 1 of Raj Singh. The expert, in its report, Ex.P.68, has given his opinion after studying the specimen and the chance thumb impressions. According to him both the prints are of converging loop pattern, core formation is by staple in both delta is by divergence of two ridges in both the prints and certain other ridge characteristics are present at the same relative positions in both the prints. According to him both the prints are of converging loop pattern, core formation is by staple in both delta is by divergence of two ridges in both the prints and certain other ridge characteristics are present at the same relative positions in both the prints. The opinion, formed by the Director, Finger Print Bureau, is based on the cogent reasons and in our opinion, the specimen thumb impression tallies with the disputed thumb impression mark of Raj Singh. 15. After unloading the Gawar at Bikaner, this truck was driven to Dhamaniya Check Post at Chhoti Sadri, where the Check Post Officer did not allow the truck to proceed towards Madhya Pradesh as the papers were not complete and at that time, according to the witnesses PW 12 Laxman Das, PW 13 Kailash Chandra and PW 28 Vilas Chandra, there were four persons in the truck and the driver left the truck at the check post and as the driver was not having the proper papers with him and he informed the officer on duty that he will report back after taking the necessary papers from his owner, who had gone to Nimach. At that time, when the truck reached Dhamaniya Check post, the number plates of the truck were changed by the accused from RJF 2232 and in its place, the number plates of RRK 2819 were fixed. The registration papers relating to truck No. RRK 5819 and certain papers were, also, seized from the possession of the driver of the truck at Dhamaniya Check post vide Ex.P.26 and Ex.P.27. The accused got the number plates changed as they were having the Registration Certificate of truck No. RRK 5819. How this registration certificate of truck Number RRK 5819 came in the possession of the accused, is also, an interesting story. Accused appellant Hardeo Singh, who is the brother of accused Raj Singh, was employed with Harphool Ram (PW 12) for some time. Harphool Ram owns two trucks bearing No. RRK 5819 and RJK 9855. While Hardeo Singh was in the employment of Harphool Ram, the Registration Certificate and other papers of truck No. RRK 5819 were stolen. Accused appellant Hardeo Singh, who is the brother of accused Raj Singh, was employed with Harphool Ram (PW 12) for some time. Harphool Ram owns two trucks bearing No. RRK 5819 and RJK 9855. While Hardeo Singh was in the employment of Harphool Ram, the Registration Certificate and other papers of truck No. RRK 5819 were stolen. An F.I.R. (Ex.P.46) regarding the theft of these papers was lodged at Police Station, Raisinghnagar on May 8,1984, but the police did not register the case, as in the report it was mentioned that the papers are not traceable and either the papers have been lost or the same have been taken by Darshan Singh Khalasi (accused Hardeo Singh). This Darshan Singh has been identified by the owner as Hardeo Singh, who was working as Khalasi (cleaner) over his truck PW 10 Ishwar Singh is the person who got Hardeo Singh employed as Khalasi with Harphool Ram. PW 6 Gyan Singh is the owner of a truck, over which Hardeo Singh was employed as Khalasi, but he left his service and cleaned his account. This witness has not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile, but his whole evidence cannot be rejected and the acceptable part can be acted upon. PW 6 Gyan Singh is the owner of a truck, over which Hardeo Singh was employed as Khalasi, but he left his service and cleaned his account. This witness has not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile, but his whole evidence cannot be rejected and the acceptable part can be acted upon. If the statement of this witness is taken note of that accused Hardeo Singh was employed with PW 6 Gayn Singh and before the incident be cleared his account and at that time he was not in his employment then from the evidence produced by the prosecution that accused Raj Singh and Hardeo Singh left Pilibanga in the night of June 18, 1984, alongwith deceased Anand Prakash and Chamkor Singh, they were last seen by PW 4 Mohan Lal and PW 9 Bhajan Singh at Pilibanga and thereafter they were seen at Suratgarh to PW 7 Chhotu Singh and PW 8 Darshan Lal and then at Rajiyasar by PW 19 Jeet Singh and thereafter the dead bodies of Chamkor Singh and Anand Prakash were found in the land of the Forest Department surrounded by wire-fencing at a distance of 31/2 kilometres from Loonkaransar and thereafter the truck reached Bikaner and unloaded the Gawar at Bikaner and then the truck, after changing the number plates from RJF 2232 TO RRK 2819, proceeded towards Madhya Pradesh and reached at Dhamaniya Check Post where it was stopped and not allowed to proceed ahead and the accused thereafter left the truck at Dhamaniya Check Post and abscond and were not traceable ; thereafter they did not report the matter to the owner of the truck nor to anybody else. All these circumstances lead to an irresistible conclusion that these were the accused appellants who murdered Anand Prakash and Chamkor Singh and threw their deadbodies in the land of the Forest Department surrounded by baried wire fencing. These circumstances cogently and fully establish that these were the accused-appellants who committed the murder of Anand Prakash and Chamkor Singh. These circumstances fully establish the guilt of the accused and are consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused-appellants. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the combined effect of all the proved facts taken together is conclusive in establishing the guilt of the accused appellants Raj Singh and Hardeo Singh. 16. These circumstances fully establish the guilt of the accused and are consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused-appellants. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the combined effect of all the proved facts taken together is conclusive in establishing the guilt of the accused appellants Raj Singh and Hardeo Singh. 16. Now, we will like to take the case of accused-appellant Mahendra Singh. This accused -appellant was not seen by the owner of the truck, namely, Mohan Lal Tewari started and was for the first time, seen by PW 7 Chhotu Singh and PW 8 Darshan Lal, at Suratgarh. PW 7 Chhotu Singh has not named this accused and has only stated that he had seen one more person and who that 4th man was, he did not enquire. So far as PW 8 Darshan Lal is concerned, he has stated that Anand Prakash alone came to him at Suratgarh and demanded Rs. 250/- from him and he was not knowing the 4th person and had seen this 4th person only 1 5-20 days prior to the date of the incident. PW 19 Jeet Singh has, also, seen this accused at Rajiyasar. It is not in dispute that this accused was not there from Pilibanga and met the other two accused in the way and was with them from Suratgarh to Rajiyasar. There is no further evidence to connect this accused beyond Rajiyasar and, therefore, his proceeding towards Bikaner and participating in the crime with the other accused is not proved beyond reasonable manner of doubt, though there is a strong suspicion against this accused regarding his accompanying with the other accused-appellants, but even the strong suspicion cannot take the place of proof. He was not related to the other co-accused and no evidence has been produced in this regard that he was, in anyway, related to the other accused-appellants. 17. There is another evidence, produced by the prosecution , against this accused, which relates to the recovery of the knife and blood-stained clothes. So far as recoveries are concerned, they have bean made by PW 27 Jagmala Ram on the information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, supplied by this accused. The. information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act with respect to knife is Ex.P.62 and the recovery memo is Ex.P.17. So far as recoveries are concerned, they have bean made by PW 27 Jagmala Ram on the information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, supplied by this accused. The. information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act with respect to knife is Ex.P.62 and the recovery memo is Ex.P.17. Regarding the clothes, the information memo is Ex.P. 63 and the recovery of the clothes was made vide Ex.P.18. Apart from PW 27 Jagmala Ram, PW 1 Dalu Ram and PW 2 Bhanwar Lal are the two witnesses of the recoveries. These recoveries were made from an open place accessible to all. Further-more, the accused was arrested on August 2,1934, and pointed out the place of occurrence on August 11,1984. The place was known to the police and the so-called recoveries have been shown to be made on August 11, 1984. Even nobody has proved that the recovered clothes belonged to the accused-appellant Mahendra Singh and, therefore, the recovery so made, in the importance of the accused, which are made from the open place, accessible to all and made near about two months after the' date of the occurrence, does not connect the accused-appellant Mahendra Singh with the crime. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the circumstantial evidence, connecting the accused Mahendra Singh in the present case answers the question essential for the proof of the commission of the offence only vaguely and inadequately and not incompatible with the innocence of the accused. We, therefore, give benefit of doubt to the accused-appellant Mahendra Singh as the prosecution has failed to prove the case against accused Mahendra Singh beyond reasonable manner of doubt. 18. In the result, we allow the appeal of accused-appellant Mahendra Singh set-aside his conviction and sentence, passed under Sections 302 and 394/34 I.P.C. and acquit him of all these offences. He is in jail and be released forthwith if he is not required in any other case. But so far as the appeal of accused appellants Raj Singh and Hardeo Singh is concerned, we do not find any merit in their appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.Appeal partly allowed. *******