Judgment RAJENDRA SAXENA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal filed under section 374 (2), Cr. P. C. has been directed against the judgment dated 29. 10. 1985 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No. 43/85, whereby he found appellants Manohar Lal and Hanumana Ram guilty for the offences under sections 376, 302 and 201, I. P. C. and sentenced each of them to 7 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 300/- in default to further undergo 3 months, rigorous imprisonment on the first count, imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months on the second count and to rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and a fine of Rs. 100/- in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month for the third count. He further ordered that the substantive, sentences passed to each of the appellants shall run concurrently. ( 2 ) SUCCINCTLY stated the relevant facts are that on 26. 9. 1983, Kumari Bhanwari, aged about 1213 years, daughter of P. W. 7 Sarwan Meghwal had gone to look after the crop standing in her field situated near village Ranjitpura. However, she did not return in the evening. Thereupon, Sarwan made a search about her, but she could not be found. On 27. 9. 1983 on his oral information, report Ext. P. 7 was incorporated in the daily diary (Rojnamcha Aam) of Police Station, Hanumangarh Town about Bhanwaris disappearance. On 4. 10. 1983, P. W. 2 Milap Chand Brahmin found dead body of a girl lying in his field, where cotton crop was standing. That dead body was emitting bad odour. He informed about this to P. W. 1 Bhagmal Meghwal, Kurda, Ram Pratap and others, who immediately came with him to his field in a tractor, but they could not identify the dead body. Since one Meghwal girl from Ranjitpura was missing, P. W. 2 Milap Chand and others went to that village. They collected the villagers and told them about the dead body of the girl. P. W. 7 Sarwan along with P. W. 5, Bhoma Ram, P. W. 6 Ladu Ram and about 15 persons rushed to the field of Mi lap Chand. There Sarwan identified the dead body as that of his daughter Bhanwari. They collected the villagers and told them about the dead body of the girl. P. W. 7 Sarwan along with P. W. 5, Bhoma Ram, P. W. 6 Ladu Ram and about 15 persons rushed to the field of Mi lap Chand. There Sarwan identified the dead body as that of his daughter Bhanwari. Since by that time it had become dark, they remained there throughout the night near the dead body. On the next day i. e. on 5. 10. 1983 at 7 a. m. , Sarwan lodged an oral report before P. W. 10 Richhpal Singh, S. H. O. , Police Station, Hanumangarh Town to the effect that his daughter Bhanwari was missing since 26. 9. 1983, that her dead body was lying in the field of Milap Chand, which is in putrefied condition and that part of her body was found buried under the soil while part of her body has been taken out by the animals. He informed that by seeing the garments, he has identified that it was Bhanwarits dead body. He also informed that some unknown person after committing her murder has buried the dead body. On this information, F. I. R. Ext. P. 15 was scribed and a case under sections 302 and 201, I. P. C. was registered. Immediately thereafter P. W. 10 Richhpal Singh rushed to the spot. The dead body of a girl was lying in Kila No. 19 of Muraba No. 168/353 of Chak NO. 7 RPA situated near village Ranjitpura, where the cotton crop was standing. The said field belonged to P. W. 2 Milap Chandts father Nand Ram. The hands, legs and the abdomen of the dead body were visible. Her skull without any skin was severed from the dead body and lying about 25 ft. away. A portion of skin of scalp along with hair was lying about 150 ft. away from the dead body. Rest of the dead body was superficially buried under the earth. It is the case of the prosecution that two empty bottles of country liquor were found lying about 25 ft. away from the dead body. Richhpal Singh seized and scaled those bottles, because it appeared that those contained chance prints thereon. Foot-prints of two persons were also visible near the dead body. Richhpal Singh also lifted four foot-prints by preparing there moulds. He prepared the site-plan Ext. away from the dead body. Richhpal Singh seized and scaled those bottles, because it appeared that those contained chance prints thereon. Foot-prints of two persons were also visible near the dead body. Richhpal Singh also lifted four foot-prints by preparing there moulds. He prepared the site-plan Ext. P. 16, memo of the dead body Ext. P. 18 and inquest report Ext. P. 19. It is the case of the prosecution that in the left palm of the dead body about IS black hair were found, which were seized and sealed vide seizure memo Ext. P. 22. After the post-mortem examination that Investigation officer also seized the blood stained Salwar, Jumpher and one Shawl vide seizure memo Ext. P. 23, which were taken out from the dead body. ( 3 ) P. W. 3 Dr. Narendra Godara, Medical Officer, Government Hospita Hanumangarh conducted the post-mortem examination of the dead body of Bhanwari on the spot. He found that the body was partially buried under the earth. The skull was lying about 7-8 ft. away from the body. No vertebrae was attached to the skull. The bones were easily separable at the joints on slight pull. Foul smell of decomposition was present. At several places, bones were exposed. At some places dried skin was present over the limbs. At some places, the skin was peeling off and had become dark in colour due to decomposition. At some places few maggots were present. The skin over both hands was peeling off at several places. Soft tissues were missing, which could have been eaten away by animals/birds. At several places the epiphyses of bones were separating on pressure and were seen separated. No soft tissue was present on the skull. The skull bones were separating on pressure at sutures and a little liquidities decomposed brain matter was coming out of the skull. The thorax cavity was lying burst open. Ribs were lying scattered near the site of chest. Some ribs were quite loose at the joints. The visceras and the soft tissues were missing and could have been eaten away by the animal birds. On the neck, a little decomposed skin was present on which mark of ligature or any other mark of injury was not detectable. The coruna of the hyoid bone was fractured. The vertebrae of the neck were quite loose and easily separable on pressure due to decomposed ligament. On the neck, a little decomposed skin was present on which mark of ligature or any other mark of injury was not detectable. The coruna of the hyoid bone was fractured. The vertebrae of the neck were quite loose and easily separable on pressure due to decomposed ligament. Only a little lower part of trachea was present. The abdomen was burst open and no viceras were detected therein. No crgans were present in the pelvic cavity. Pelvic bones were exposed separating apart at pubic symphysis. No external genetalia was present. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was due to strangulation. ( 4 ) IT is the case of the prosecution that two days after the dead body of Bhanwari was recovered, appellants Manohar Lal and Hanumana Ram went to P. W. 4 Bega Ram Jat, before whom they jointly made an extra judicial confession to the effect that they had committed rape with Bhanwari, that when she became unconscious, and fearing that they would be dishonoured, they committed her murder and buried her dead body in the field of Nand Ram. They also requested Bega Ram to save them. Bega Ram advised them to appear before the police, but they fled away. The appellants were arrested on 20. 10. 1983. It is alleged that on 23. 10. 1983, appellants Hanumana Ram and Manohar Lal volunteered informations separately, which were recorded vide information memos Ext. P. 27 and Ext. P. 28, and stated that they could show the place where the dead body of Bhanwari was buried and that in pursuance thereof they took P. W. 10 Richhpal Singh along with motbirs to the place where the dead body of Bhanwari had been found lying. During investigation it transpired that the appellants had taken Bhanwari from her field to the dhanit (kucha kotha) of appellant Hanumana Ram, where they committed rape with her and that when she became unconscious, they committed her murder by strangulating her neck and thereafter carried her dead body and buried the same in the field of Milap Chands father Nand Lal. It is also the case of the prosecution that in pursuance to their information memos dated 23. 10. 1983 Ext. P. 33 and Ext. It is also the case of the prosecution that in pursuance to their information memos dated 23. 10. 1983 Ext. P. 33 and Ext. P. 35 appellant Hanumana Ram got one under-wear recovered from the fodder (Turi) stored in his Kucha Kotha, while appellant Manohar Lal got his under-wear recovered from the terrace of the said Kotha. Specimen finger prints and moulds of the appellant were taken before the Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Hanumangarh. ( 5 ) THE sealed packets of the bottles, garments of the deceased, under-wears of the accused persons and the moulds of chance foot-prints and specimen foot-prints were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory and Finger Prints Bureau. The Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Rajasthan, Jaipur vide his report dated 13. 3. 1984 Ext. P. 44 found that the Sa/war, Jumper and Shawl of the deceased and under-wear (Kachha) of appellant Hanumana Ram were stained with human blood. However, the blood group of these stains could not be determined due to disintegration. No blood was detected on the Kachha of appellant Manohar Lal. The Director, Finger Prints Bureau, Rajasthan, Jaipur, vide his report dated 2. 12. 1983 Ext. P. 45 opined that after comparison of chance foot impression moulds with the specimen foot impression moulds, the chance foot impression moulds marked A-i and A-2 tallied with the specimen right and left foot impression of appellant Manohar Lal marked S- 3 and 8-4 respectively and that the chance foot impression moulds marked B-i and B-2 tallied with the specimen foot impression of appellant Hanumana Rams left and right foot marked Sol and S-2 respectively. The Director Finger Prints Bureau in his report dated 5. 3. i984 Ext. P. 46 further opined that after examination and comparison of the chance prints marked Q-2 to Q-7 and Q-io and Q-13 found on the empty bottle and half bottle were similar and identical to the specimen finger impressions of appellant Hanumana Ram, while chance finger prints marked Q-8, Q9 and Q-i3 were similar and identical with finger prints of appellant Manohar Lal. However, chance prints marked Q-i, Q-i5, Q-ii, and Q-i2 were found unfit for comparison. The assistant Director (Biology) (F. S. L.) vide his report dated 7. 6. i984, Ext. However, chance prints marked Q-i, Q-i5, Q-ii, and Q-i2 were found unfit for comparison. The assistant Director (Biology) (F. S. L.) vide his report dated 7. 6. i984, Ext. PA 7 opined that human semen was detected on the under-wears, alleged to have been got recovered by the appellants, but no semen was detected on the Salwar, Jamphur or Shawl taken out from the dead body of Bhanwari. He also opined that on morphological and microscopic examinations the hair taken out from the scalp and pubic regions of the appellants and the hair alleged to have been seized from the palm of the dead body, no definite conclusion could be drawn regarding their similarity. After investigation the 1. 0. submitted challan against the appellant in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh, who committed the case to the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge. ( 6 ) THE appellants were charged for the offences under sections 376, 302 and 20i, I. P. C. to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as io witnesses. The appellants in their plea recorded under section 313, Cr. P. C. denied the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence and asserted that they have been falsely implicated in this case by the S. H. 0. , who got them detained in the Police Station, Hanumangarh for i0-i2 days without showing their arrest, that during this period, he made them to put their thumb impressions on bottles and also took their foot-prints. He also cut their hair in the police station to fabricate false evidence against them. They, however, did not adduce any evidence in their defence. After hearing the parties, the learned Additional Sessions Judge by his impugned judgment dated 29. io. 1985 found them guilty and convicted and sentenced them in the manner detailed above. Hence this appeal. ( 7 ) WE have heard Shri Doonger Singh, the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor at length and carefully perused the record of the lower court. Shri Doonger Singh has vehemently contended that the factum of extra-judicial confession alleged to have been made by the appellants before Bega Ram and Bhoma Ram has not been proved at all, because these witnesses in their police statements, have not said anything about the extrajudicial confession. Shri Doonger Singh has vehemently contended that the factum of extra-judicial confession alleged to have been made by the appellants before Bega Ram and Bhoma Ram has not been proved at all, because these witnesses in their police statements, have not said anything about the extrajudicial confession. According to him, these witnesses have strained relations, with the appellants and their testimony is wholly unreliable and that the learned Sessions Judge has committed an illegality in blindly believing on their statements. He has submitted that there is not a fringe of evidence to show that Bhanwari was-raped by any person or that she was last seen in the company of the appellants. According to him, the alleged recoveries of bottles and the chance foot-prints on the spot have been fabricated afterwards by the Investigation Officer, because P. W. 1 Bhagmal, P. W. 2 Milap Chand and P. W. 7 Sarwan, the father of the deceased have specifically stated that they did not find any foot-prints or bottles lying near the dead body. Similarly, the alleged recovery of the under-wears of the appellants docs not connect them with the offence of rape, because no semen stain was found on Bhanwarits garments as per F. S. L. report Ext. P. 44, Shri Doongar Singh has asserted that the dead body of Bhanwari was already found on 5. 10. 1983, therefore, the alleged informations obtained from the appellants regarding the place where the dead body was found lying is of no consequence. He has thus submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has committed a grave error in convicting and sentencing the appellants. On the other hand Shri D. R. Bohra, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment and simply reiterated the reasonings given by the learned trial Judge. ( 8 ) WE have given our most anxious and earnest consideration to the rival submissions made before us. Admittedly, there is no direct evidence and the whole case hinges on circumstantial evidence. It is a well settled position of law that when conviction is sought on circumstantial evidence then all sets of circumstantial evidence must be proved and if proved, those should have the tendency to conclusively point out that it was the accused, who was in all probability perpetrator of the crime. It is a well settled position of law that when conviction is sought on circumstantial evidence then all sets of circumstantial evidence must be proved and if proved, those should have the tendency to conclusively point out that it was the accused, who was in all probability perpetrator of the crime. The various pieces of the circumstantial evidence should be read together and should not be taken into consideration in isolation with each other. The prosecution has to establish each set of circumstances by adducing clear, cogent and convincing independent evidence and the circumstances so proved should form a well knit complete chain without giving room to any other hypothesis and should be inconsistent with innocence of the accused. Keeping in view these well defined parameters about the evaluation of the circumstantial evidence, let us now examine, analyse and scan the evidence recorded by the learned trial Judge. ( 9 ) THE learned trial Judge has based the conviction of appellants on the following circumstantial evidence:1. extra judicial confession made before Bega Ram and Bhoma Ram; 2. recovery of bottles having chance finger prints and foot-prints from the place where dead body of Bhanwari was found lying; 3. reports Ext. P. 45 and Ext. P. 46 of the Finger Print Bureau to the effect that the chance prints on bottles and chance footprints tallied with the specimen finger prints and foot prints moulds of the appellants. 4. recovery of under-wears at the instance of appellants, which had semen stains; 5. the garments taken out from the dead body of Bhanwari were stained with human blood and the under-wear got recovered by appellant Hanumana Ram was also stained with human blood. the medical evidence to the effect that the cause of death of Bhanwari was due to strangulation. But in our considered opinion, the learned trial Judge has not discussed, analysed and evaluated the evidence in a right perspective and ignored many material and striking features of this case. ( 10 ) P. W. 2 Milap Chand, who had seen the dead body of a girl in his field for the first time, has specifically deposed that he did not see any empty bottles or any other article lying near the dead body. ( 10 ) P. W. 2 Milap Chand, who had seen the dead body of a girl in his field for the first time, has specifically deposed that he did not see any empty bottles or any other article lying near the dead body. He has further deposed that he was present when the police had inspected the body at about 9-10 a. m. , that the police remained in his field for about 3-4 hours and that the 1. 0. did not take or lift any other article except the dead body from his field. He has reiterated that he was present all the time the police remained in his field, that it appeared that the dead body was eaten away by some animals and that foot marks of animals were visible near the dead body. P. W. I Bhagmal, who along with Sarwan had seen the dead body of Bhanwari in the field of Milap Chand, has in most unambiguous, clear, and explicit words stated that he did not see bottles, or the foot-prints near the dead body at that time. However, foot prints of animals near the dead body were visible. P. W. 4 Bega Ram has also deposed that he had gone along with Sarwan and other villagers to the place, where the dead body of Bhanwari was found, that he remained there throughout night and that he did not see any foot-prints or any other article lying nearby the dead body. P. W. 7 Sarwan, the father of the deceased Bhanwari, has also clearly stated that he did not see any bottle or foot prints near the dead body. On the other hand P. W. 10 Richhpal Singh had stated that he inspected the site at the instance of Sarwan Ram and prepared site-plan Ext. P. 16, that he had found two bottles lying there and that he had also lifted four moulds of chance prints from there. But Sarwan Ram has not stated that the empty bottles were found near the dead body, that the Investigation Officer had seized and sealed those bottles and also lifted four moulds of chance coat prints. Apart from it in the F. I. R. Ext. P. 15 and P. W. 7 Sarwan did not mention that he had seen two bottles and the foot prints of two persons near the dead body of Bhanwari. Apart from it in the F. I. R. Ext. P. 15 and P. W. 7 Sarwan did not mention that he had seen two bottles and the foot prints of two persons near the dead body of Bhanwari. It may also be pointed out here that though site plan Ext. P. 16 bears the signatures! thumb impressions of motbirs and informant P. W. 7 Sarwan Ram, but the memo of site-plan Ext. P. 17, does not bear their signatures/thumb impressions. Shri Richhpal Singh has failed to give any satisfactory reason as to why on the memo of site pian Ext. P. 17, wherein the factum of the bottles and chance foot prints of two persons finds mention, signatures/thumb impressions of motbirs and informant Sarwan were not procured? Thus it appears that memo Ext. P. 17 was prepared by the 1. 0. later on. The appellants in their plea recorded under Section 313, Cr. P. C. have clearly asserted that they were kept under detention in the Police Station for 10-12 days without showing their arrest by the Investigation Officer and that during that period their finger prints were taken on two bottles and that their foot prints were also taken in the police station. As per statement of P. W. 4 Bega Ram and P. W. 5 Bhoma Ram, the appellants had come to them two days after the dead body of Bhanwari was recovered from the field of Milap Chand and made extra judicial confession before them about the alleged crime and that they had advised them to go to the police Station, In such circumstances, this possibility cannot be ruled out that the appellants had gone to the police Station on or about 7th October, 1983 but that their formal arrest was shown as late as on 20. 10. 1983. Had there been two empty bottles of country liquor lying near the dead body of Bhanwari and the foot prints of two persons were visible near-by then these material facts must have been mentioned by P. W. 7 Sarwan in his F. I. R. Ext. P. 15, but these facts are conspicuously missing P. W. 5 Bhoma Ram and P. W. 6 Ladu Ram, who are the motbirs of seizure memos of one empty bottle and empty half bottle Ext. P. 20 and Ext. P. 21 respectively have deposed that the 1. 0. P. 15, but these facts are conspicuously missing P. W. 5 Bhoma Ram and P. W. 6 Ladu Ram, who are the motbirs of seizure memos of one empty bottle and empty half bottle Ext. P. 20 and Ext. P. 21 respectively have deposed that the 1. 0. had seized and sealed two empty bottles, which were lying near the dead body. They have also proved the seizure memo Ext. P. 24 of the four chance foot-prints, moulds taken from Milap Chands field. But it is pertinent to note that Bhoma Ram in his police statements dated 5. 10. 1983 and 7. 10. 1983 Ext. D. 3 and Ext. D. 4 respectively, as also P. W. 6 Ladu Ram in his police statement dated 5. 1 0. 1983 Ext. D. 5 have not stated that they had been two empty bottles of country liquor and the foot prints of two persons in the field of Milap Chand, where the dead body of Bhanwari was lying and that the 1. 0. had seized those bottles and lifted four moulds of foot-prints from that place. The absence of these material facts in their police statements unmistakably reflects that the alleged recoveries of two bottles and lifting of four moulds of foot prints of two persons was not made on 5. 10. 1983 and that alleged recoveries of two bottles and lifting of four chance foot prints vide seizure memos Ext. P. 20, Ext. P. 21 and Ext. P. 24 were introduced later on. Therefore, the prosecution story in this behalf is shrouded in mystery. There is yet another factor to be taken into consideration. The alleged crime took place on 26. 9. 1983, the dead body was sighted for the first time on 4. 10. 1983 and the same was recovered by the 1. 0. on 5. 10. 1983, during the night intervening 4th and 5th October, 1983 Sarwan and other villagers had stayed near the dead body in the field. In such circumstances, it does not appeal to common sense that the footprints, if there were any, remained intact for a period of 9-10 days, especially when lot of persons had gathered at the spot till the police had arrived and the part of the dead body was taken out by the animals. In such circumstances, it does not appeal to common sense that the footprints, if there were any, remained intact for a period of 9-10 days, especially when lot of persons had gathered at the spot till the police had arrived and the part of the dead body was taken out by the animals. The learned trial Judge has not taken into consideration these material facts and circumstances and thus positively committed an illegality in blindly relying on the testimony of P. W. 5. Bhoma Ram and P. W. 6 Ladu Ram and in disbelieving the natural and independent witnesses P. W. 1 Bhagmal; P. W. 2 Milap Chand, P. W. 4 Bega Ram and P. W. 7 Sarwan Ram, who is most equivocal terms have deposed that they did not see any foot-prints or bottles lying near the dead body. Hence, the alleged recovery of the bottles and lifting of foot prints becomes highly suspicious and doubtful, In such circumstances the reports of Director, Finger Prints Bureau Ext. P. 45 and Ext. P. 46 also pale into insignificance and do not incriminate, connect the appellants with the alleged crime. ( 11 ) IT will suffice to add that the Assistant Director (Biological Division) F. S. L. after morphological and microscopic examination in his report dated 7. 6. 1984 Ext. P. 47 has not given any definite conclusion regarding the similarity of hair, which were alleged to have been recovered from the palm of the dead body and the hair taken out from the scalp and pubic regions of the appellants. Therefore, the alleged recovery of the hair does not connect the appellants with the crime. ( 12 ) P. W. 4 Bega Ramjat has deposed that two days after the dead bogy of Bhanwari was found, appellants, Hanumana Ram and Manohar Lal had come together to his house at about 8 a. m. and jointly told rim that they had come with some purpose. When he inquired about the purpose, they told him that they had committed the murder of Sarwans daughter and buried her dead body in the field of Nand Ram. When he inquired about the purpose, they told him that they had committed the murder of Sarwans daughter and buried her dead body in the field of Nand Ram. When he further inquired as to why did they commit the murder, they told him that they had committed rape with her and when she became unconscious, they realised that after regaining consciousness she would tell against them in the village, which will undermine their reputation and, therefore, they killed her. They also told that the name of that girl was Bhanwari and requested him to save them. Thereupon he told them as to how he could save them and advised them to go to the police station. Thereupon they ran away. In his cross examination, he has admitted that his wife and the wife of Loona Ram are foster sisters, that Loona Ram is the real uncle of appellant Manohar and that Loona Ram and the appellant Manohar Lal s father have a land dispute and a case is pending. It is significant to note that Bega Ram in his police statement Ext. D. 2, did not mention that the appellants had come to his house two days after the dead body of Bhanwari was found. He has admitted that he was neither a Panch nor the Sarpanch nor the headman of the village nor he has any influence on the police. He further stated that both the appellants had made the aforementioned confession before him jointly and that he had informed the police about it after 2-2-1/2 hours on the same day. It appears quite unnatural that the appellants made a judicial confession before him, who was neither a Panch nor a Sarpanch, nor a headman of the village, nor had any influence on the police and that too jointly in a chorus. ( 13 ) P. W. 5 Bhoma Ram, who was the motbir of the recoveries, has deposed that two days after the dead body of Bhanwari was entrusted by the police to Sarwan, both the appellants had come to his house and told him that they had first raped Bhanwari and thereafter committed her murder and buried her dead body in the field of Nand Ram and requested him to save them. Thereupon he asked them to go to the police station, and thereafter they went away. Thereupon he asked them to go to the police station, and thereafter they went away. He has not faced the cross- examination successfully and given inconsistent replies. Moreover, there was no reason for the appellants to have made such an extra-judicial confession before him jointly. The recoveries of the alleged bottles and lifting of moulds of foot prints have been held by us as highly suspicious and he is a motbir of such recoveries. Hence, in our considered view, P. W. 5 Bhoma Ram is an unreliable witness and no credence can be given to his testimony. The evidence of extra judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and if the same is lacking in probability, it has to be rejected out right. Further, the attempt of the investigating agency to introduce the story about the alleged recoveries of empty bottles and lifting of chance foot-prints near the dead body of Bhanwari have been found to be highly suspicious and doubtful. Therefore, the factum of alleged extra judicial confession made by the appellants lacks credence and it appears to be devoid of any ring of truth. We find no reasons as to why the appellants instead of surrendering before the police should have gone to Bega Ram and Bhoma Ram and blurt out a confession before them jointly in the form of chorus. Therefore, in the instant case the evidence of the extra judicial confession is not only of a frail nature, it is also lacking in probability and as such the same dose not inspire confidence. To our mind the learned trial Judge has committed a grave error in relying on the evidence of extra judicial confession. ( 14 ) THERE is not an iota evidence to establish that Bhanwari was raped. In the F. I. R. there is no allegation regarding rape. P. W. 3 Dr. Narendra Godara has proved the post-mortem report Ext. P. 1. He has not stated any thing to suggest that Bhandari had become a victim of rape. Even on the Salwar Jumpher and Shawl, which were taken out from the dead body of Bhanwari and sent to the F. S. L. for the chemical examination no stain of semen was found. Thus recoveries of under-wears at the instance of the appellants from the Kotha of appellant Manohar Lal and whereon as per F. S. L. report Ext. Even on the Salwar Jumpher and Shawl, which were taken out from the dead body of Bhanwari and sent to the F. S. L. for the chemical examination no stain of semen was found. Thus recoveries of under-wears at the instance of the appellants from the Kotha of appellant Manohar Lal and whereon as per F. S. L. report Ext. P. 44 semen stains were found also do not connect them with the offence of rape. In Rahim Beg v. State of U. P. , it has been held that semen stain on the langot of a young man exist because of a variety of reasons and would not connect him with the offence of rape. The story of extra judicial confession has been disbelieved. In such circumstances, appellants conviction under section 376 LP. C. recorded by the learned trial Judge is perverse and not based on any legal evidence and as such the same cannot be sustained. ( 15 ) P. W. 3 Dr. Godara has opined that the cause of Bhanwarits death was due to strangulation, but there is no convincing circumstantial evidence against the appellants. As mentioned earlier the prosecution story regarding appellants, I chance finger prints on two bottles and foot-prints near the dead body of Bhanwari has been found to be false and a cooked up story. There is no evidence that appellants were last seen in the company of Bhanwari or that they had carried her dead body from the Kothat of appellant Manohar to the field of Milap Chand Sb Nand Ram and buried the same there. The alleged information of appellant regarding pointing out the place where the dead body was buried, is thoroughly useless, because her dead body was found lying there as early as on 4. 10. 1983 and the 1. 0. had already inspected the site on 5. 10. 1983. Therefore, the alleged disclosure of the appellants vide information memos Ext. P. 27 and Ext. P. 28 did not disclose any new facts to the Investigation Officer. The Investigation Officer did not care to examine Bhani Ram Nayak, Nand Ram Brahmin, Hema Ram Meghwal, Shera Ram Meghwal and Chet Ram Meghwal, whose fields were adjacent to the field from where the dead body of Bhanwari was recovered. The names of these persons are shown in site-plan Ext. P. 16 as neighbours. The Investigation Officer did not care to examine Bhani Ram Nayak, Nand Ram Brahmin, Hema Ram Meghwal, Shera Ram Meghwal and Chet Ram Meghwal, whose fields were adjacent to the field from where the dead body of Bhanwari was recovered. The names of these persons are shown in site-plan Ext. P. 16 as neighbours. ( 16 ) FOR the reasons mentioned above, many vital links in the chain of circumstantial evidence are conspicuously missing. The circumstantial evidence in this case is incomplete, vague and inconsistent and on the basis of such weak and unreliable evidence the appellants cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under sections 302 and 201 I. P. C. In our considered opinion the learned trial judge has not correctly discussed, scrutinised and evaluated the evidence recorded in this case an has committed a grave error in convicting the appellants. ( 17 ) THE up-shot of the above discussion is that we allow this appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by his impugned judgment dated 29. 10. 1985 and acquit the appellants Manohar Lal and Hanumana Ram of the offence under sections 302, 376 and 201, I. P. C. They shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case. Appeal allowed. Conviction set aside.