JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated September ,6 1995 passed by Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur in Sessions Case No. 79/92 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under: U/s. 302 IPC Imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 200/- U/s. 279 IPC 6 months R.I. and fine of Rs. 500/- U/s. 414 IPC 6 months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 200/- All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The incident is said to have taken place on 24.12.90 and it is alleged that Smt. Kani wife of Ram Kishan (now deceased) had gone to her field for bringing fodder for the cattle in the morning after 8.00 a.m. and when she did not return her mother-in-law Smt. Birdhi started her search. Her dead-body was recovered from her field and it was found that her legs and hands were cut-down and she was also having injuries with pellets on her abdomen. According to prosecution, some one had committed murder of Smt. Kani for her ornaments she was wearing before her death. The report of incident was made at 6.30 p.m. on the same day and Crime N. 184/90 was registered under Sections 302 and 379, IPC at Police Station Jamua-Ramgarh. It appears that investigation changed hands from one Investigating Officer to another and ultimately the appellant was arrested on 3.9.92. The prosecution case further is that on the information of the appellant silver `Kadas' were recovered vide recovery memo (Ex.P. 5) on 7.9.92. A gun and a `Chhuri' is also stated to have been recovered at the instance of the appellant. After completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the appellant in the Court of concerned Magistrate and ultimately he was put on trial in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur District Jaipur for offences punishable under Section 302, 379 and 414 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. During trial 27 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. The accused denied his involvement in the crime and the prosecution evidence in his statement under Section 313 Cr.PC and examined 4 witnesses in defence. 3. At the outset it may be stated that there was no direct evidence to connect the appellant with the crime. The learned Trial Judge has recorded conviction of the appellant relying on circumstantial evidence. The accused denied his involvement in the crime and the prosecution evidence in his statement under Section 313 Cr.PC and examined 4 witnesses in defence. 3. At the outset it may be stated that there was no direct evidence to connect the appellant with the crime. The learned Trial Judge has recorded conviction of the appellant relying on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution has mainly relied upon the following circumstances to seek conviction of the appellant (i) that the appellant was seen roaming near the place of incident with a gun; (ii) recovery of silver `kadas' at the instance of the appellant; (iii) recovery of a `chhuri' as a crime weapon' (iv) recovery of a gun; So far as the last two circumstances are concerned, suffice it to say that the gun so recovered is a licenced gun and by mere recovery of a gun it cannot be said that it was in any way connected with the crime. The report of Deputy Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Rajasthan (Ex.P29), in our opinion, does not connect the gun that it was the same gun which was used in causing pellet injuries to the decease. Similarly, no blood has been detected on the `chhuri', as such, it is also not connected with the crime. We, therefore, safely reject these two circumstances relied upon by the learned trial Court. 4. The most important circumstance against the appellant is the recovery of silver `kadas' at the instance of the appellant vide seizure-memo (Ex.R5). Curiously, the silver 'Kadas' have not been exhibited in Court, nor they have been got identified by any witness in Court. The recovery of `kadas' is said to have been made on 7th September, 1992 near the house of one Ganglya. The prosecution comes with a case that silver `kadas' were mortgaged by the appellant with Ganglya, but no evidence has been produced by the prosecution to prove this fact. Thus, the recovery of silver `kadas' also does not connect the appellant with the crime. More so, the recovery made after more than 21 months can hardly lead to any inference of committing murder by the appellant. The witnesses have admitted that the silver `kadas' are of common description, which are generally worn by the village ladies.The last circumstance is that the appellant was seen roaming near the place of occurrence at the time of the incident. The witnesses have admitted that the silver `kadas' are of common description, which are generally worn by the village ladies.The last circumstance is that the appellant was seen roaming near the place of occurrence at the time of the incident. We have examined the statements of the prosecution witnesses. It is note-worthy that the name of the appellant was not disclosed by any of the witnesses immediately after the incident and appellant's name does not find place in FIR, which was made after deliberation at 6.30 p.m. The argument of the learned Public Prosecutor that the name of the appellant was not known to the witnesses and they knew him by face is not convincing. Otherwise in that situation, the prosecution should have held an identification parade, which has not been done in the present case. Further, there are material contradictions in the statements of the witnesses about the time of seeing the appellant and the witnesses have also admitted that the boys of `Bawariya' community remain roaming in the jungle with gun for shooting birds or animals. Even if for argument's sake we accept this circumstance to be proved against the appellant, it can hardly lead to the conclusion that the appellant had committed the murder of Smt. Kani.The law of circumstantial evidence is well settled by now. In order to sustain the conviction, it must satisfy the following three conditions : (i) The circumstances from which as inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be proved by cogent and reliable evidence; (ii) The circumstances should be of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; (iii) The circumstances taken jointly should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and non else and it should also be incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused. In the present case non of the above conditions is fulfilled. 5. Consequently, we find that the conviction and sentence of the appellant for any of the offence cannot be sustained.The appeal is, therefore, allowed. The appellant is acquitted of all the charges. He is in judicial custody and, as such, he shall be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. *******