JUDGMENT 1. Both these appeals arise out of the same judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bharatpur, dated 10th May, 1989, whereby both the accused appellants have been found guilty of offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code and each of them has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Therefore, both these appeals are disposed-of by this one common judgment. 2. Brief facts giving rise to these appeals are that a written report Ex-P19, was lodged at Police Station, Kotwali, Bharatpur, by P.W. 7, Giriraj Prasad, wherein it was alleged by him that in the evening he was watching a film Sampoorn Ramayana on television in his house alongwith his children. At about 8.00 p.m. when the picture was over and he switched off the T.V. he heard the cries of his mother Shakuntala Devi, who was living alone in another portion of the house. He rushed towards the other portion alongwith his son and they saw two boys running and going up the stair-case leading to roof. Seeing this, both of them rushed on the road and saw that one boy had jumped down and was running. He and his son chased him and caught him. By that time a huge crowd gathered and in their presence the boy gave out his name to be Ramkishan Jatav. The another boy escaped, his name was disclosed by Ramkishan as Dinesh resident of Kasot. He too was seen by them running in the street light and they could identify him. When they went to their mothers house they found their mother lying in a pool of blood. Accused appellant Ramkishan was produced alongwith the report at the Police Station, before the Incharge, Kotwali. 3. On receipt of this report, a case for offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code was registered and the investigation commenced. Police arrived at the spot, prepared the inquest report and the site plan. They also got post-mortem of the dead body of Smt. Shakuntala Devi, done. The arrest memo of Ramkishan, was also prepared. On 11th April, 1988, accused Dinesh Chandra, was arrested and his identification parade was got done. Blood stained clothes were recovered from the person of the deceased. A Gandasa was also recovered on the information and at the instance of accused Dinesh Chandra. The arrest memo of Ramkishan, was also prepared. On 11th April, 1988, accused Dinesh Chandra, was arrested and his identification parade was got done. Blood stained clothes were recovered from the person of the deceased. A Gandasa was also recovered on the information and at the instance of accused Dinesh Chandra. All the material was sent for chemical examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory and a report where of was received which is Ex-P35. After completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against both the accused appellants in the Court of learned Chief Judl. Magistrate, Bharatpur, who committed the accused to Sessions for trial. The learned Sessions Judge, framed the charges for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code against each of the two accused, who denied the charge and claimed to be tried. Prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses in support of its case. Accused appellants in their statements, denied the prosecution case and examined 4 witnesses in support of their case. The learned Sessions Judge, found the case proved and convicted and sentenced the accused appellants as indicated above. Aggrieved by the same separate appeals were filed by both the accused appellants which are disposed-of by this common judgment. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, is, based on surmises as he has not read the evidence in true perspective. It is submitted that there is no eye witness and the case is based on circumstantial evidence and the circumstances, brought forward by the prosecution do not complete chain and has missing link. It is also submitted that the evidence of Giriraj Prasad P.W. 7, and Shri Pushpendra P.W. 9, is not worthy of any reliance. It is submitted that it could not be possible for the witnesses to have seen the accused in the portion of their mother from their own chowk as there is a wall in between. It is further submitted that there is no evidence to the effect that accused appellant, Ramkishan, participated in the crime. He is an accused, who is alleged to have been arrested just out-side the house of the deceased Smt. Shakuntala, while running and yet no incriminating article had been recovered from his person. It is further submitted that there is no evidence to the effect that accused appellant, Ramkishan, participated in the crime. He is an accused, who is alleged to have been arrested just out-side the house of the deceased Smt. Shakuntala, while running and yet no incriminating article had been recovered from his person. It is a case of brutal murder and the amount of blood alleged to have been found on the clothes of the accused Ramkishan also makes the story doubtful that he cannot be connected with the theory of murder. Besides this, there is no recovery of any weapon of offence which might have been used by him. It is also submitted that at best the evidence against accused Ramkishan is that he had been found standing out-side the house of the deceased and was apprehended on the road but that alone is not enough to conclude that he had entered the house of the deceased and participated in the murder of Shakuntala Devi. It is also submitted that in view of the statement of D.W. 4, Dr. Satish Arya, no importance can be attached to the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory qua the report regarding Ramkishan. Regarding accused Dinesh Chandra, it is submitted that he was not arrested on the spot and was arrested after 4 days of the occurance. His test identification parade had not been held in accordance with law and proper care and caution had not been taken. In this view of the matter, it is submitted that it is too risky to connect him with the crime. It is next submitted that the prosecution has not brought out any motive of the crime and also that the best evidence which could be available has not been collected and produced, namely, that of the finger prints and the foot prints. It is, therefore, submitted that there is no cogent and reliable evidence on record to hold the appellants guilty and they are therefore, entitled to the benefit of doubt. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor, has supported the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge and stated that chain of circumstances is complete in as much as P.W. 7, Giriraj Prasad and his son P.W. 9 Pushpendra had seen both the accused appellants climbing the roof through the stair-case and they had chased both of them. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor, has supported the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge and stated that chain of circumstances is complete in as much as P.W. 7, Giriraj Prasad and his son P.W. 9 Pushpendra had seen both the accused appellants climbing the roof through the stair-case and they had chased both of them. Accused Dinesh, made his escape good but accused Ramkishan was apprehended on the spot and he had named accused Dinesh Chandra. Accused Ramkishan, was found running bare footed and he had his chappals in his bag which show that he had prepared himself for running away. It is submitted that there were blood marks on his pant and the blood was of the same group which was the blood group of deceased Shakuntala Devi. Similarly, the blood group on the clothes recovered from accused Dinesh Chandra was also of the same blood group that of deceased Shakuntala, and so also on the weapon of offence recovered on the information and at the instance of accused Dinesh Chandra. In these circumstances, it is submitted that the case is fully proved and no further evidence is required. 6. We have given our earnest consideration to the rival contentions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. There is no denial of the fact that the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence and, therefore, we are conscious of the law that the circumstances must be such which lead to an irresistable conclusion about the guilt of the accused and that there is no missing link in the chain of circumstances. Before dealing with each circumstance, it is pertinent to mention that Mst. Shakuntala, deceased was living in one portion of the house with her son Hanuman Sharan and witness Giriraj Prasad, who is another son, was living in different portion of the house and there was no inter-connection between both the portions of the house. Both the portions had separate entrance which too were at some distance. The prosecution case is that the accused had climbed the stair-case to go on roof is on the extreme northern side of the house of Hanuman and the place where they jumped in the lane is running from north to south. Accused appellant Dinesh Chandra, ran away towards the northern side while accused Ramkishan, after jumping in the street, ran towards the southern side. Accused appellant Dinesh Chandra, ran away towards the northern side while accused Ramkishan, after jumping in the street, ran towards the southern side. He was caught at the intersection which is at the southern end of the lane where the other persons had also gathered when he was apprehended. It is also not denied that Ramkishan was taken to the police station by Complainant Giriraj Prasad, when he went to lodge the report. This is again an admitted case of the prosecution that when the accused Ramkishan, was arrested from his person one bag was recovered wherein there was one Dhoti and Chappal and the sole on which there was blood seen which had not been found sufficient for test. From his person only Rs. 2/- where recovered and no other incriminating article. He was medically examined and following injuries were found on his person:- 1. Red contusion 2 1/2 cm x 11/2 cm on nasal bridge; 2. Red contusion 3 cm x 1 cm on left side eye and lower lid; 3. Red contusion 1 cm x 1 cm on right side neck; 4. Red contusion 2 cm x 1 cm on right neck 5. Red contusion 3 cm x 1 cm on right hand back; 6. Red contusion 2 cm x 2 cm on right knee; 7. Red contusion 2 cm. x 2 cm at lt. knee; 8. Red abrasion 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm on lt. by middle; 9. Red contusion each 15 cm x 15 cm on both hip; 10. Red contusion 7 cm x 2 cm on rt. forearm not deep back; and 11. Red tender difference swelling 3 cm x 3 cm on the tip of the head. 7. Yet another admitted fact in the case is that nothing has been found missing from the residence of the deceased Smt. Shakuntala and that no motive has been put forth on record. In the back ground, we deem it proper first to mention the evidence of P.W. 7, Giriraj Prasad and P.W. 9, Pushpendra and other witnesses. 8. P.W. 7, Giriraj Prasad, in his statement has stated that soon after the film was over on T.V. he heard the cry of his mother on which he and his son Pushpendra, went in the portion of his mother. At that time he saw two boys going on the roof through the stair-case. 8. P.W. 7, Giriraj Prasad, in his statement has stated that soon after the film was over on T.V. he heard the cry of his mother on which he and his son Pushpendra, went in the portion of his mother. At that time he saw two boys going on the roof through the stair-case. He thought that the boys would jump from the roof so he came out in the street through the gate. Just then the boy came running and was apprehended on the spot. He is Ramkishan present in the Court. Another boy had run away and he could not be apprehended. The witness further Stated that he had not seen another boy jumping or running. Accused who was caught on asking gave out his name as Ramkishan and be gave out the name of another accused as Dinesh. At that time Sadanand and Govindji, were also there. He and Pushpendra, then went inside the house and saw that in the room near the Chokhat his mother was lying in pool of blood which had flown upto verandah. Ramkishan thereafter was taken to Kotwali, where the report was lodged. The witness stated that he had seen the other accused also while he was in chowk. He further stated that he attended the identification parade and identified the accused Dinesh. The witness further stated that when Ramkishan was caught on the spot, he told that he had left a bag on the roof so they took him to the roof and was also taken to the police station. The witness then stated that he participated in the investigation. In cross-examination, the witness stated that when he heard the cries of his mother neither he nor his son had raised any alarm. He further stated that he had seen both the accused from a distance of 2 to 3 paces while they were about 5 to 6 paces away from the stair-case. He admitted that the house is divided into two parts and there is a wall in between and that there is no inter-connection. He also admitted that there are two separate staircase and the stair-case through which the accused had gone up was in the portion of Hanuman Sharan. He admitted that the house is divided into two parts and there is a wall in between and that there is no inter-connection. He also admitted that there are two separate staircase and the stair-case through which the accused had gone up was in the portion of Hanuman Sharan. The witness was unable to point-out the place in the site plan shown to him from where he had seen the accused standing or the place where the accused were standing. The witness also admitted that the television was in the room shown at No. 10 in the site plan where from they came into verandah where there is a wall in between and before they went to the house of Hanuman Sharan, they had entered through his main gate. The witness then resiled from this part of his statement and said that they had entered into the house of Hanuman Sharan, only after the accused was apprehended. He also admitted that the height of the wall between the two houses is 4 to 5. The witness then improved upon his statement and stated that he had seen the accused from his Tibari. The witness also admitted that the person standing in the chowk of Hanuman Sharan cannot be seen from the T.V. room of his house. The witness then stated that it is wrong to say that he had not seen the accused standing in the chowk but had seen them for the first time when they were climbing the roof. The witness then was confronted with the first information report, where he had stated that he had seen the accused going on the roof. The witness further stated that the place from where the accused Ramkishan, had jumped is 7 to 8 high and the floor was not Pacca. He however, could not say as to whether the marks of jumping were there on the place or not. The witness further stated that he did not consider it necessary to mention about the bag in his police statement. He has also admitted that the accused Ramkishan, was beaten by the persons standing there. The witness further stated that there is no road on the eastern side of Hanumans house towards which side Ramkishan had jumped. The witness thereafter changed his statement about the direction where from he is alleged to have apprehended the accused. He has also admitted that the accused Ramkishan, was beaten by the persons standing there. The witness further stated that there is no road on the eastern side of Hanumans house towards which side Ramkishan had jumped. The witness thereafter changed his statement about the direction where from he is alleged to have apprehended the accused. He has further stated that he considers chasing and holding of the accused as one and the same thing. The witness denied the suggestion that the accused had told on the spot about his going to one of his relation. The witness also denied that the accused Dinesh was shown to him in the police station before his identification parade. 9. P.W. 9, Pushpendra, in his statement has stated that he and his father had seen the accused when they came near the wall and it is at that time that both the accused went on the roof and he and his father came out of the house on the road and near the electric pole apprehended the accused Ramkishan. The witness further stated that Ramkishan, tried to set free himself but they held him tight and at that time, number of people from the locality had gathered. He and his father went inside and saw his grand mother lying in pool of blood and then the accused was taken to police station. The witness in his cross- examination stated that they had seen the accused while climbing on the roof only when they were on stair-case. He admitted that he has not stated in the police station about the accused Ramkishan trying to escape. He has also admitted that number of persons had collected there and had beaten the accused. The witness first admitted that when accused Dinesh was in Kotwali, he used to visit Kotwali but later on he denied the same. The other evidence in the case is that of P.W. 1, Govind Prasad, who is a witness to the recovery of the bag and preparation of the site plan, arrest memo etc. He has stated that while he was at his house, he heard the noise and when he came out he saw that the accused had been caught by Giriraj Prasad and his son, who was saying that he has killed his mother. He has stated that while he was at his house, he heard the noise and when he came out he saw that the accused had been caught by Giriraj Prasad and his son, who was saying that he has killed his mother. Thereafter, he went inside the house and saw deceased Shakuntala, lying in pool of blood which had flown right upto the chowk. Then police arrived there with Giriraj Prasad, who had apprehended the accused Ramkishan and he was taken into custody. The witness has stated in cross-examination that nobody went to lodge the report. Police had been informed on telephone by somebody and it had arrived on the spot where only Ramkishan was arrested. It is after the police left, he had also gone to the police station with Giriraj Prasad. He has also stated that in his presence accused Ramkishan was neither beaten by anybody on the spot nor injuries were there on his person. 10. P.W. 2, Nemichand, P.W. 3, Thakurlal and P.W. 8 Kishan have been declared hostile. P.W. 4, Mithlesh Kumar was A.M.J.M. who conducted the identification parade in respect of accused Dinesh Chandra. He has admitted that he has not put any slab on the nose of accused Dinesh as the mark was not very significant. 11. P.W. 6, Harisingh, is a formal witness.P.W. 10, Pothi Prasad, who was examined to prove that the accused was kept 'Baparda' has admitted in cross-examination that since he does not know Giriraj Prasad and Pushpendra, he is unable to say as to whether they had come to police station when the accused was in lock-up. He has also admitted that lock-up opens in the gallery which opens in the chowk and the accused can be shown to any person who is standing in the chowk. According to him rugs used to be placed as curtains outside the cell in which baparda accused used to be kept but there is no mention about it in the record. P.W. 11, Sadanand, is a neighbour of the deceased. He came out on hearing the cries. According to him when he came out Giriraj Pd. and his son were holding the accused Ramkishan and it was said that he has killed his mother. Giriraj Prasad, also said that the boy had told that his name was Ramkishan. P.W. 11, Sadanand, is a neighbour of the deceased. He came out on hearing the cries. According to him when he came out Giriraj Pd. and his son were holding the accused Ramkishan and it was said that he has killed his mother. Giriraj Prasad, also said that the boy had told that his name was Ramkishan. He has also stated that the boy who had ran away was named as Dinesh. Accused at that time had a plastic bag in his right hand. Thereafter, the boy was taken to the police station and the police thereafter arrived on the spot and investigated into the case and he is motbir to various documents. The witness in his cross-examination has stated that in his presence the accused was not beaten by anybody nor he had seen injuries on his person. He has been confronted on various portions of his police statement from which he has resiled. He has even denied that the accused was with a bag when he was taken to the police station. P.W. 12, Vishnuchand, is the photographer, who had taken the photographs of the deceased on the spot. P.W. 13, Satveer is the witness in whose presence accused Dinesh Chandra was arrested. P.W. 14, Ramsshwar Dayal, was incharge of police station, Kotwali, on the day of incident. It was before him that the F.I.R. was lodged. The witness stated that when the accused was produced before him in the police station, he had a bag with him which was recovered in which there was a dhoti and a pair of chappals. He had conducted the investigation into the case and had submitted the charge-sheet after completion of the investigation. He has admitted in his cross-examination that when he arrested accused he was bare footed but he had not mentioned about this fact in the arrest memo. He had admitted that he had not got the accused Ramkishan medically examined. He had also admitted that he did not mention the time of recovery of the alleged blood stained pant of accused Ramkishan in Ex.P. 7. He has admitted that name of one Bhagwan Singh, was written on the dhoti, which was recovered from the bag but he had not investigated as to who that Bhagwan Singh was. He could not assign any reason for the same. 12. He has admitted that name of one Bhagwan Singh, was written on the dhoti, which was recovered from the bag but he had not investigated as to who that Bhagwan Singh was. He could not assign any reason for the same. 12. D.W. 1, is Shri Chandra, who has stated that accused Ramkishan, had injuries when he went to seen him while he was in police custody. He had told him that he was detained in the way while he was coming to him. D.W. 2, Jagdish Prasad has been examined to show that there was no person of the name of Satveer, near Deep bus stand, who has been examined as P.W. 13, motbir regarding arrest of Dinesh Chandra. D.W. 3, Bhora, has also stated about the arrest of accused Dinesh to show that he has been arrested from his own residence where his father was sick. D.W.4. Dr. Satish Arya, is a medical Officer in General Hospital, Bharatpur, According to him the blood group of accused Ramkishan was B-positive. He has stated that there are two type of B-groups; one is positive and another is negative and this is all the evidence in this case. In the light of the aforesaid evidence, the circumstantial evidence has to be tested. Before commenting upon the evidence, we would like to mention here that the photographs Ex.P. 29, to Ex.P. 31, which had been taken on the spot. They are of great significance in this case because they show how brutally deceased Shakuntala had been murdered and as to how much the blood had come out and spread. It is extremely important to scan evidence in the light of site from the point of view that it is cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the witnesses may lie but the circumstances would not lie, the circumstances which were available on the spot must be taken note of. It is extremely important to scan evidence in the light of site from the point of view that it is cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the witnesses may lie but the circumstances would not lie, the circumstances which were available on the spot must be taken note of. The pool of blood shown in the photographs and the manner in which it had been flown in the chowk, is clearly indicative of the fact that anybody who had either caused the injury or had left-out immediately at the time of murder, ought to have carried blood not only in few drops but it should have been in ample quantity on his clothes or under the foot or under the sole of the shoes if worn and there ought to have been mark of going out from that place. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses P.W. 7, Giriraj Prasad and P.W. 9, Pushpendra that they saw the accused going on the stair-case is not worthy of any reliance for various reasons. The first and the foremost point is that the accused could not have been visible from inside the room where the television was on. After coming out in the verandah also the accused could not have been seen inside the chowk because according to the site plan, there is a wall 5 ft. high and it has not been shown that there was any sunlight which would have beep on the face of the accused. P.W. 7, Giriraj Prasad, though however, has stated in his statement that he identified the accused in the light and the statement is belied from the fact that the light was on the back of the accused if they were going on the roof according to the site inspection memo. Besides this, he has been waivering on the point as to whether he had been the accused from inside the house of Hanuman and from his own house. Besides this, he has been waivering on the point as to whether he had been the accused from inside the house of Hanuman and from his own house. At one stage, he has stated that he saw the accused from his own verandah when they were standing in the chowk of his mother while according to the first information report, he had seen the accused while the were on the stab-extending to roof, yet at another place he has stated that he saw them from his own chowk and in the court he has stated that he had seen the accused rushing up to the roof. There is no consistent evidence as to from where and in what position he had seen which of the accused and as to whether he could have identified them. Similarly, P.W. 9, Pushpendra also gave an oscilating evidence on this issue. It is true that accused Ramkishan was arrested outside the house of witness Giriraj Prasad, P.W. 7, but that is not alone evidence sufficient to connect the accused Ramkishan, with crime. There are certain blurred areas which have been left-out by the prosecution. Accused Ramkishan, had been given beating as admitted by P.W. 7, Giriraj Prasad and P.W. 9, Pushpendra but denied by other witnesses. Accused Ramkishan, was medically examined and he had several injuries on his person which are indicative of the fact that he had been given beating and there was little amount of blood on his pant, where from it came, cannot be definitely said because the manner in which the murder has taken-place, there ought to have been blood present on his hands, on his foot or other parts of the body or clothes and at-least he would have been in possession of some arm or if he had left weapon on the spot, it should have been recovered from there but there was nothing on the spot and there was no incriminating material recovered from his person and the evidence of recovery of a bag from the roof does not at all connect the accused with the crime. Neither it has been shown that the Chappals were of the size of his foot nor the blood was found under the sole of the Chappals nor on the dhoti. Neither it has been shown that the Chappals were of the size of his foot nor the blood was found under the sole of the Chappals nor on the dhoti. The dhoti bears the name of Bhagwan Singh, Bhagwan Singh, is neither the father of the accused Dinesh nor that of Ramkishan and it is not known as to who is this person who had left the bag on the roof. It is admitted by the I.O. that he did not investigate into this aspect of the matter at all. In our opinion, it was essential to have proved the matter further more particularly, because in this case the entire evidence is of the son of the deceased and the grand son of the deceased who admittedly were not living with the mother and the relationship had also not been proved to have been very cordial which is clearly available from the fact that there is a wall constructed between the partitions of the house with not connecting even door in between. 13. The chances and co-incidents narrated by Giriraj Prasad, about the film on T.V. being co-terminus with hearing of cries of his mother; his coming out of the room and seeing the accused climbing stairs; the story of jumping of the accused from the roof and catching hold of one of the accused on the crossing without first raising alarm, lack corroboration from any independent evidence as all the witnesses have been called subsequent to above happening and they have narrated the story of Ramkishan killing Shakuntala, at the instance of Giriraj Prasad and Pushpendra. It is surprising as to how Giriraj Prasad and Pushpendra could tell the two witnesses namely P.W. 1, Govind Prasad and P.W. 11, Sadanand, that his mother has been killed by accused Ramkishan as till then they had no opportunity of entering into the house of the deceased and even knowing the fact that old lady has been killed. According to both these witnesses, accused Ramkishan was taken inside the house only after the witnesses came and at that stage they learnt that Shakuntala, has been murdered, while according to the witnesses they had already told the witnesses that Shakuntala, has been murdered. According to both these witnesses, accused Ramkishan was taken inside the house only after the witnesses came and at that stage they learnt that Shakuntala, has been murdered, while according to the witnesses they had already told the witnesses that Shakuntala, has been murdered. There is nothing to explain and reconcile the situation of lodging F.I.R. in the light of the statement of P.W. 1, Govind Prasad, according to him when the police had come on a telephonic message and it was subsequently that the F.I.R. was taken-down. He has categorically stated that none had gone to lodge the report at police station and police had arrived on telephone. Who phoned the police is also a mystery. All these circumstances taken together with non-availability of weapon of offence at the place of occurance or any recovery at the instance of Ramkishan, absence of blood on his foot and hands and sufficient blood on his clothes, creates doubt about involvement of Ramkishan, with the crime committed. The small amount of blood stains on his clothes, of the same group, which he himself had, as per the statement of Dr. Satish Chand, D.W. 4, is not enough to hold him guilty. There may be truth in prosecution story but as per law laid-down in Sarwan Singh v. State AIR, 1954 S.C. 637 there is long distance to travel between May be true and must be true. Due to several blurred areas left we are made to conclude that Ramkishan is not guilty of committing murder of Shakuntala. 14. Regarding accused Dinesh, the only evidence against him is that he is alleged to have been named by Ramkishan, and that there was recovery of blood stained clothes and blood stained weapon of offence at his instance coupled with identification parade. As careful scrutiny of the evidence has not impressed us about his involvement in the case, more particularly, because it appears that the investigation has not been very fair. Regarding test identification parade, suffice it to say that according to the evidence of the police officer himself, merely a rug was hanging outside the cell where the accused was kept, besides this, the main witness Pushpendra himself has admitted that he had seen the accused in Kotwali, before identification parade. Regarding test identification parade, suffice it to say that according to the evidence of the police officer himself, merely a rug was hanging outside the cell where the accused was kept, besides this, the main witness Pushpendra himself has admitted that he had seen the accused in Kotwali, before identification parade. We have already held that both, the father and son, had no opportunity to have seen the face of the accused from the place where they are alleged to have been standing in their house. We have already said that neither they could be visible across the wall nor their faces could have been facing the light so that they could be identified and admittedly the bulb was behind the accused. They could neither be seen from the room nor from the chowk nor there was any chance of seeing them on roof, nor they were known before so that they could even suspect them to be the present accused. Thus, the evidence of the identification does not inspire the least confidence. Of-course, there is recovery of blood stained clothes and blood stained Gandasa at the instance of the accused. The pant which is alleged to have contained certain blood marks was said to be on the person of the accused even on 11th April, 1988; when he was arrested though the incident relates to 9th April, 1988. The accused had been arrested at 3.35 p.m. and the recovery of Gandasa is alleged to have been made at his instance of accused on the information furnished by him under S. 27 of the Evidence Act at 4.15 p.m. on the same day. He is a resident of village Kasot and the recovery is alleged to have been made from the residence of one Kishan Koli of Deeg. Motbir of the incident is one Satveer who according to the prosecution was available at the bus stand Deeg, where the accused was arrested. Satveer, when he was asked about his occupation as to how he was present at the bus stand, first said that he is an agriculturist and had come with some work. Thereafter, he changed his version and said that he is having a shop near the bus stand and on further cross-examination, he stated that he owns a cabin but he himself is not sitting on that cabin and he has engaged a person who is sitting there. Thereafter, he changed his version and said that he is having a shop near the bus stand and on further cross-examination, he stated that he owns a cabin but he himself is not sitting on that cabin and he has engaged a person who is sitting there. This Satveer is also a witness regarding arrest of the accused, recovery of the pant, as well as recovery of the weapon of offence. Thus, he is a witness in stock of the prosecution and accused Dinesh. He ultimately, admitted that though he owns a cabin but he has rented it out to one Mali. He could not name any of his neighbours who had their shops by the side of cabin. On the other hand, there is evidence to suggest that he is not having any shop near the bus stand and this fact has been established by the witnesses including D.W. 2, Jagdish. Satveer, is not a truthful witness. Thus, the evidence of the recovery of pant as well as gandasa, does not inspire confidence as we have no corroborative evidence to the evidence of I.O. who unfortunately, in our opinion, has failed to investigate the case properly. 15. From a bare look at the photographs, the site inspection memo and the circumstances available on the spot, borne out from the statements of P.W. 7, Giriraj Prasad and P.W. 9, Pushpendra, we are firmly of the opinion that had the I.O. any will to properly investigate the case, there could have been conclusive evidence in this case. The circumstances in which the murder had taken-place, there ought to have been lot of finger prints and foot prints which could be lifted from the place of occurrance and the accused could easily be connected with the crime. This was extremely essential in view of the circumstances that Giriraj Prasad and Pushpendra are son and grand-son of the deceased who were not living with the latter. Secondly, both of them without even seeing or knowing that their mother has been murdered, they started telling neighbours that the boy who was found in the street, has murdered their mother. We have already stated above, that according to both father and son themselves, they had not even entered the house before the accused was apprehended and the crowd collected. We have already stated above, that according to both father and son themselves, they had not even entered the house before the accused was apprehended and the crowd collected. Thus, we are at a loss to understand how they knew that old lady has been murdered. Their own conduct to us appear to be doubtful. The conduct of these two witnesses, who apprehended the boy of 19 years near the house, who was given beating is such that their evidence cannot be sufficient to connect the accused with the crime. More we read their evidence, more we are convinced that there are missing links which ought to have been brought on record in order to prove the case beyond doubt. 16. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are, thus, not convinced that the circumstances placed on record are sufficient to connect the accused with the crime and therefore, we are inclined to extend them the benefit of doubt. 17. The result of the aforesaid discussions is that the appeals are allowed. The judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bharatpur, dated 10th May, 1989, against the accused appellants is set-aside. The accused appellants Ramkishan and Dinesh are acquitted and the charges levelled against them are quashed. In case, they are in jail, they shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case. 18. The appeals are disposed-of as indicated above.Appeal accepted-Conviction set aside. *******