N. B. ASTHANA, J. This appeal has been directed against the judgment and. order dated 20-3-1986 passed by the then Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur in S. T. No. 218/84 convicting Ram Vishal under Section 120-B, I. P. C. , being a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit the murder of Uma Dutt Pandey and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life, convicting Raj Karan and Shyam alias Ishwar Dutt accused under Sees. 364 and 302/34, I. P. C. , and sentencing each of them to undergo R. I. for 10 years under the first count and to imprisonment for life under the second count, convicting accused Pramod Kumar under Sections 120-B and 302/34, I. P. C. , and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment on each of the two counts. 2. The charge against Ram Vishal Pandey was that he along with co-accused Pramod Kumar about 10 days prior to the murder of Uma Dutt Pandey which was committed in the night of 26/27-7-83 after 10- 30 p. m. entered into a criminal conspiracy at the house of accused Ram Vishal Pandey in Mohalla Amarsai, P. S. Kotwali, Fatehpur and in pursuance of this conspi racy the murder of Uma Dutt Pandey was actually committed. 3. Pramod Kumar was charged for entering into a criminal conspiracy and in furtherance of the common intention of all the co-accused of having committed the murder of Uma Dutt Pandey upon the date time and place as above said. 4. The charges against Raj Karan and Shyam are that on 26-7-1983 at about 7. 30 p. m. they abducted Uma Dutt Pandey from the house of Sri D. D. Sharma, Advocate in Mohalla Ismailganj, P. S. Kotwali, Fatehpur in order that he may be murdered and that he was actually murdered upon the anti-time and place as aforesaid. 5. Bhola Prasad accused was acquitted by the trial court. The State has not preferred appeal against that acquittal. 6. The prosecution story in brief was that deceased Uma Dutt Pandey was on inimical terms with Bhola Prasad and for fear of him had shifted from village Toni, his original place of residence to Ismailganj and was living in the upper story of the house of Sri D. D. Sharma accused Raj Karan and Shyam used to visit him. Raj Karan accused was also related to him. The deceased was addicted to liquor. Raj Karan accused was also related to him. The deceased was addicted to liquor. Accused Raj Karan and Shyam used to take liquor with him. On 26-7-1983 at about 7. 00 p. m. accused Raj Karan and Shyam came to the house of Uma Dutt Pandey. They asked the deceased to accom pany them to take a walk. The deceased accompanied them; The deceased was also having a purse (Ext. 1) with him containing some money and an Angocha Ext. 2. These two accused along with Bhola Prasad used to visit the house of accused Ram Vishal Pandey. Accused Pramod Kumar is the son of Ram Vishal Pandey and was living with him in a house in Mohalla Amarzai P. S. Kotwali, Fatehpur. In a portion on this very house PW 3 Km. Karuna Devi along with her mother was residing as tenant. About 1 months prior to the murder of Uma Dutt Pandey, Bhola Prasad come to the house of accused Ram Vishal Pandey at about 4. 00 p. m. and told him that he fears for his life at the hands of Uma Dutt Pandey and that he should be killed. Accused Ram Vishal Pandey told him that accused Raj Karan is the son of his Mausi, that he is on friendly terms with Uma Dutt Pandey and that Raj Karan would abide by what he would say. After that Bhola Prasad came to the house of accused Ram Vishal Pandey at about 8. 30 p. m. in the night. Ram Vishal told Bhola Prasad that he had talked to Raj Karan who is prepared to murder Uma Datt Pandey but he demanded Rs. 7,000/-, Bhola Prasad gave some money to accused Ram Vishal. Both of them took evening meals together and Bhola Prasad stayed at the house of Ram Vishal. On the date of occurrence accused Raj Karan and Shyam along with the deceased came to the house of accused Ram Vishal. Accused Pramod Kumar was also there. Accused Raj Karan and Shyam has brought two bottler of liquor with them. All of them took liquor. Deceased took a heavy dose of liquor and did not take meals. The remaining accused took meals. Accused Raj Karan, Pramod and Shyam along with the deceased then left the house. At about 11. 00p. Accused Pramod Kumar was also there. Accused Raj Karan and Shyam has brought two bottler of liquor with them. All of them took liquor. Deceased took a heavy dose of liquor and did not take meals. The remaining accused took meals. Accused Raj Karan, Pramod and Shyam along with the deceased then left the house. At about 11. 00p. m. accused Pramod Kumar, Raj Karan and Shyam returned to the house of Ram Vishal and told him that they have committed the murder of Uma Dutt Pandey. Accused Shyam and Raj Karan demanded money from Ram Vishal who handed over some money to Raj Karan Raj Karan and Shyam then went away, PW 3, Km. Karuna Devi was in the knowldege of all these activities. Accused Pramod Kumar and Ram Vishal threatened her that in case she opened her mouth she would meat the same fate as Uma Dutt Pandey. In the morning she came to the college where she was taking training of B. T. C. and then went to her village Bindki where her elder brother used to reside. She took leave of about 15 days and thereafter used to go to the college from Bindki. She told about this incident to her brother who informed the police about it and thereafter her statement was recorded by the Investigat ing Officer. PW 3 Km. Karuna Devi in her statement corroborated the above prosecution story. 7. In the morning of 27-7-1983 Head Constable Puttu Lal of Police Out Post Murain Tola, Fatehpur found the dead body of Uma Dutt Pandey near the Mazar of Peer Baba in Mohalla Chaudharana and reported about it to the Police Station Kotwali. This information was entered in the G. D. at serial No. 16 at 7. 00 a. m. 8. The trial Judge in the judgment has stated Ext. Ka-9 to be the copy of this G. D. From the record it is clear that Ext. Ka-9 is the letter of the Investigating Officer addressed to Reserve Inspector Police Lines, Fatehpur for getting the post-mortem examination done. This has been proved by the Investigating Officer (PW 8) Sub-Inspector Basant Lal, The entry at serial No. 16 is Ext. Ka-19. 9. Upon the above information S. I. Basant Lal (PW 8) reached the place where the dead body was lying. He prepared the inquest report and other relevant papers (Exs. This has been proved by the Investigating Officer (PW 8) Sub-Inspector Basant Lal, The entry at serial No. 16 is Ext. Ka-19. 9. Upon the above information S. I. Basant Lal (PW 8) reached the place where the dead body was lying. He prepared the inquest report and other relevant papers (Exs. Ka-6 to Ka-10), sealed the dead body in a cloth and bent it for post-mortem examination through constables (PW 4) Jang Bahadur Singh and Nazir Ali. In his statement Jang Bahadur has stated about it. 10. The post-mortem examination was conducted by Dr. Lal Pratap Singh. The genuineness of post- mortem examination report Ex. Ka-21 has been admitted on behalf of the accused. The doctor found the following ante-mortem injuries on the person of the deceased. 11. Firearm wound of entrance on the right side of back between scapula 6/10" X 7/10" chest cavity deep. Margins inverted and occymoned (sic) 1" towards right from medial plane and 3 1/2" below 7th cervical spine. So blackening and tattooing was present. Upon internal examination pleura and both the lungs were found lacerated, 4oz. of digested food was also present in the stomach. One pellet and one we adding piece was recovered from the chest cavity. According to the doctor the death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of fire-arm injury. The dead body was 18 hours old. 12. The investigating officer prepared the site plan (Ex. Ka-12) took into possession blood stained and simple earth, prepared its memo (Ex. Ka-13), recorded the statements of the witnesses and after completing the investigation submitted the charge-sheet (Ex. Ka-15) on 10-12-1983. 13. Appellants pleaded not guilty and stated that they have been falsely implicated on account of enmity. 14. The prosecution in support of its case examined 8 witnesses (PW 2) Yag Dutta, (PW 5) Narain Dutta, (PW 6) Sant Das and (PW 7) Alia Bux have been examined to prove the ownership of the leather spectacles case and the Angochha alleged to have been recovered at the instance of appellant Pramod Kumar. The evidence of recovery has not been believed by the trial Court. We, therefore, need not discuss the evidence of these witnesses. 15. PW 1 is Kailash Pandey. He has corroborated the prosecution story regarding taking his father Uma Dutt Pandey by appellants Raj Karan and Shyam on 26-7-1983 at 7. The evidence of recovery has not been believed by the trial Court. We, therefore, need not discuss the evidence of these witnesses. 15. PW 1 is Kailash Pandey. He has corroborated the prosecution story regarding taking his father Uma Dutt Pandey by appellants Raj Karan and Shyam on 26-7-1983 at 7. 00 p. m. He has also stated that his father was very friendly with these two appellants and used to take liquor with them. His father did not return in the night but he did not worry about it because his father was in the habit of staying out of the house in the night. On the next day he came to know about the death of his father by Lokendra Singh where upon he reached Chaudharana Mohalla and then to the mortuary where the dead body was handed over to him after the post-mortem examination. PW 3 Km. Karuna Devi has deposed about the extra-judicial confession said to have been made by the appellant and about the criminal conspiracy hatched at the residence of Ram Vishal to murder Uma Dutta Pandey. PW 5 constable Jang Bahadur Singh had taken the dead body for post-mortem examination. PW 8 is Sub-Inspector Basant Lal. His role in the case has already been stated above. 16. Appellant did not adduce any evidence in defence. 17. The trial Court believed the prosecution version of the case regarding the 4 appellants and convicted and sentenced them as stated above hence this appeal. 18. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the material available on record. 19. There is no ocular witness of the incident. The case against the appellants rests upon circumstantial evidence alone. In a case resting on circumstantial evidence chain of evidence must be such at; not to leave any reasonable ground for conclusion consistent with the innocence of the appellant and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the appellant. 20. Circumstantial evidence in order to sustain a conviction, should be of conclusive nature and tendency and should exclude every hypothesis except that sought to be proved. 20. Circumstantial evidence in order to sustain a conviction, should be of conclusive nature and tendency and should exclude every hypothesis except that sought to be proved. The chain of evidence must be so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the inno cence of the appellant and must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the appellant. 21. It has to be seen as to whether in the light of the above the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt. It may be noted at the out set that according to the prosecution story Bhola Prasad was on inimical terms with the deceased and he wanted deceased to be murdered. According to the statement of PW 3 Km. Karuna Devi, Bhola Prasad had approached Ram Vishal appellant to get him murdered. Bhola Prasad has been acquitted by the trial Court. It would thus follow that the appellant had no motive to commit the crime. The trial Judge has laboured hard in the judgment to show that the appellants are related to Bhola Prasad and for that reason they had motive to commit the crime. Since Bhola Prasad according to the trial Court was not involved in the crime, there was no question for the appellants to involve themselves in the crime on account of alleged enmity between Bhola Prasad and the deceased especially when Bhola Prasad according the trial Judge was not involved in the crime. 22. Enmity between the deceased and Bhola Prasad was the foundation of the prosecution story. The trial Judge did not find Bhola Prasad involved in this occurrence. The foundation of the prosecution story has, there fore been shaken and the whole edifice of the prosecution story most crumble unless there is a cogent and convincing evidence to sustain it. 23. The trial Judge has believed PW 1 Kailash Pandey and P\v 3 Km. Karuna Devi in so for as the involvement of Bhola Prasad is concerned as such they are not wholly reliable witnesses. Their testimony has to be judged in the light of the fact that a part of their testimony has been disbelieved by the trial judge. 23. The trial Judge has believed PW 1 Kailash Pandey and P\v 3 Km. Karuna Devi in so for as the involvement of Bhola Prasad is concerned as such they are not wholly reliable witnesses. Their testimony has to be judged in the light of the fact that a part of their testimony has been disbelieved by the trial judge. The circumstances sought to be established by the prosecution were that the deceased Uma Dutta Pandey was brought by Raj Karan and Shyarn appellants from his house to the house of Ram Vishal, that there the appellants made him drunk took him out of the house of Ram Vishal and then after committing his murder returned back to the house of the Ram Vishal where Raj Karan and Shyam appellants were given money by Ram Vishal and that Pramod Kumar and Ram Vishal threatened PW 3 Km. Karuna Devi that in case she told about the incident to any one she would be done to death in the same manner as Uma Dutta Pandey was murdered. 24. PW 3 Km. Karuna Devi appears to be star witness of the prosecu tion story. In her examination-in- chief she gave out that before leaving the house of Ram Vishal appellant Raj Karan had loaded the pistol which he was carrying. Such an important circumstance was not told by her to the Investigating Officer. Her statement was recorded after 24 days of the incident. No satisfactory explanation is forthcoming about this delay in recording her statement. In her cross-examination she gave out that except her brother she did not tell any one about this incident. Her statement was recorded at police out post Morzitola. She stated that she and her mother were present at the time the statement was recorded. PW 8 S. S. I, Basant Lal the Investigating Officer gave out that at the time the stat event was recorded her brother was also present. So do not find anything o n the record which may explain the delay in recording the statement of this witness. In her examination-in-chief the stated that she had told the story to his brother. In the normal course had it been correct then brother would have informed the police at the earliest and there would not have been delay of 24 days in recording her statement. 25. Km. In her examination-in-chief the stated that she had told the story to his brother. In the normal course had it been correct then brother would have informed the police at the earliest and there would not have been delay of 24 days in recording her statement. 25. Km. Karuna Devi and her mother were residing in a room in the house of Ram Vishal. According to her statement this house contained a number of rooms. She stated in her examination-in-chief that in the night in question the appellants and the deceased had assembled in the room which was in her occupation where they took liquor and she served food. Her belongings were also kept in that very room. She could not give any satisfactory explanation as to why these persons assembled in the room in her tenancy and not in any other room in occupation of Ram Vishal and Pramod Kumar appellants. In the normal course they would have taken liquor and made preparation/conspiracy to commit the murder in some inner room so that no other person may have come to know about it. It appears very much improbable that they would have assembled in the room in occupation of this witnesses. It appears this theory was set up in order to enable PW 3 Km. Karuna Devi to depose about their assembly about liquor and then going out of the house together. According to her she prepared food for all of them. She however did not go to serve the food. It was served by appellant Pramod Kumar. There was no difficulty in taking food by appellant Pramod Kumar to any other room of the house. In her statement she gave out that the accused had not taken food because he had become dead drunk. The Doctor at the time of post-mortem explanation found 4 ounces of digested food present in the stomach. This would contradict her statement that the deceased had not taken food in that night. 26. In view of the above it appears extremely improbable that appellant Shyam and Raj Karan came to the house of Ram Vishal along with the deceased and from there they went together after Raj Karan appellant had loaded the country made pistol. 27. Km. Karuna Devi further stated that at about 11. 26. In view of the above it appears extremely improbable that appellant Shyam and Raj Karan came to the house of Ram Vishal along with the deceased and from there they went together after Raj Karan appellant had loaded the country made pistol. 27. Km. Karuna Devi further stated that at about 11. 00 p. m. Pramod Kumar, Raj Karan and Shyam came to the house of Ram Vishal where they told him that they have committed the murder of Uma Dutt Pandey and wanted Ram Vishal to pay to Shyam and Raj Karan the amount agreed upon to be paid for committing the murder. At that time PW 3 Km. Karuna Devi was in her room and studying. These talks are said to have taken place in the room of Ram Vishal. In her cross-examination she gave out that she did not know as to what talks took place in the room of Ram Vishal because the room of Ram Vishal was at some distance from her room. From her statement it appears that Pramod Kumar and Ram Vishal told her about the murder of Uma Dutt Pandey subsequently. In the normal course no culprit would have told about it to a third person unless he wanted some help from that person. Just for the sake of the fun these two persons would not have unfolded their plan of killing the decease to PW 3 Km. Karuna Devi. This was also against normal human conduct. The trial Judge was the opinion since PW 3 Km. Karuna Devi had entered into an agreement of marriage with the appellant Pramod Kumar and that both of them were residing as husband and wife, it was not improbable that Pramod Kumar told all these things to her. There is evidence that a registered agreement was arrived at between PW 3, Km. Karuna Devi and Pramod Kumar for marriage. There is, however, not an iota of evidence on record to show that both of them were residing as husband and wife. It is an admitted fact that the marriage has not so far taken place. It cannot be ruled out as improbable that since Pramod Kumar did not marry this witness she decided to give evidence against the appellant in order to teach a lesson to appellant Pramod Kumar and his father Ram Vishal for not marrying her. The testimony of PW 3 Km. It cannot be ruled out as improbable that since Pramod Kumar did not marry this witness she decided to give evidence against the appellant in order to teach a lesson to appellant Pramod Kumar and his father Ram Vishal for not marrying her. The testimony of PW 3 Km. Karuna Devi in the circumstances does not inspire confidence. She did not see anything with her own eyes what she deposed was only hearsay and what was told to her by some of the appellants. As already stated it appears very much improbable that any of the appellant would have told her about the conspiracy or about the murder of the deceased. 28. There remains the evidence of PW 1 Kailash Pandey showing that Raj Karan and Shy am appellants had taken his father on 26-7-83 at about 7. 00 p. m. At best this could be taken to be the evidence of last seen. We however do not think that this evidence alone in the circumstances of the case would be sufficient to hold Raj Karan and Shyam guilty of the offence of murder. In the normal course when Uma Dutta Pandey did not return in the morning his son should have enquired from Raj Karan and Shyam regarding his whereabouts. His conduct in keeping quite till he was told about the murder of his father by Lokendra Singh at about noon the next day, appears improbable. In his cross-examination he gave out that he did not know as to, whether her mother or any other person of his family tried to contract Raj Karan and Shyam to find out as to how his father was murdered. He himself did not try to contact any of them. He further stated that he asked his mother to enquire from Raj Karan and Shyam but his mother did not make any enquiry. In the normal course he would have rushed to these two appellants to find out the circumstances in which his father was murdered and who were the culprits. His conduct is also against human nature. 29. In view of the discussion made above we are of the opinion that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable and probable doubt. The trial court committed a patent mistake in convicting them. The appeal has to be allowed. 30. In the result the appeal is allowed. 29. In view of the discussion made above we are of the opinion that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable and probable doubt. The trial court committed a patent mistake in convicting them. The appeal has to be allowed. 30. In the result the appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 29-3-86 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur in S. T. No. 218/84 are set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges framed against them. They are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bails are cancelled and sureties are discharged. Appeal allowed. .