S. C. JAM, J. ( 1 ) THESE two appeals have been preferred by the appellants i. e. Criminal Appeal No. 1537/80 by Sarjoo and Rafiqe and Criminal Appeal No. 1566 of 1980 by Mauji Lal against the same judgment and order dated 15. 7. 1980 passed by 1st Add!. District and Sessions Judge Allahabad in Sessions Trial No. 216 of 1979 (State v. Sarjoo and another) whereby appellants Sarjoo and Rafiq were convicted U/s. 302/34, 392/34, 201 and 404 I. P. C. and were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment, 4 years R. I. , 2 years R. I. and 2 years R. I. on the said counts. All the sentences, however, were ordered to run concurrently. ( 2 ) APPELLANT Mauji Lal was however, convicted U/s 411 I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo R. I. for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo six months R. I. ( 3 ) THE facts giving rise to these appeals are that on 10. 6. 1977 in the morning, allegedly, the dead body of one Niyaz Ahmad son of Karimullah alias Maiku, resident of village Asrawal Kalan, Police Station Puramufti, District Allahabad was found in the river Jamuna near village Bisaunna, police Station Dhoomanganj District Allahabad. It was headless and most of its parts were eatenaway. On this basis, F. I. R. was lodged by Sri Karimullah alias Maiku father of the deceased which was registered as Crime No. 108 under Sections 302, 392 and 201 I. P. C. at 12. 05 P. M. on the same day mentioning therein that three days before 10. 6. 1977 deceased Niyaz Ahmad left his house in the company of Sarjoo and Rafiqe in the night for village Bisaunna where his parents-in-law were residing. He took with him his cycle, licenced gun and belt of cartridges. He did not return for three days and on 10. 6. 1977 his dead body was found in the river near village Bisaunna. ( 4 ) ON the basis of this F. I. R. , Investigation started and on the pointing out of the accused Rafiqe, cycle was recovered from the house of one Tullah. He did not return for three days and on 10. 6. 1977 his dead body was found in the river near village Bisaunna. ( 4 ) ON the basis of this F. I. R. , Investigation started and on the pointing out of the accused Rafiqe, cycle was recovered from the house of one Tullah. The gun and the cartridges were allegedly recovered from the possession of Mauji Lal when he was arrested in a case U/s. 399/402 I. P. C. There is no eye witness in this case and the entire case is based upon the circumstantial evidence. ( 5 ) IT is well settled, as has been laid down by Honble Supreme Court in Jahar Lal Das v. State of Orissa, that circumstantial evidence in order to sustain the conviction must satisfy three conditions; (i) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; (ii) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; (iii) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, 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 none else, and it should also be incapable of explanation on any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused. 5. In view of this legal position, as laid down by Honble Supreme Court, we have-to appreciate the evidence on record to find out whether the crime was committed by the accused persons and none else. Bhakur (P. W. l) Majidun (P. W. 2)and Sri Karimullah (P. W. 4) are the witnesses who had allegedly seen the deceased Niyaz Ahmad leaving in the company of Sarjoo and Rafiqe on that night and that Niyaz Ahmad deceased had taken away with him cycle, gun and belt of a cartridges. Ram Naresh (P. W. 6) and Suraj Prakash (P. W. 5) have deposed about the recovery of cycle on the pointing out Of the accused Rafiqe. Nafis Ali (P. W. 7) did not support the prosecution version and was declared hostile. Shyam Lal (P. W. 8) proved the recovery of gun and cartridges from Mauji Lal. This recovery report was also proved by the Investigating Officer (P. W. 9 ). P. W. 3 Haidar Rizvi is the scribe of the F. I. R. , Dr. Nafis Ali (P. W. 7) did not support the prosecution version and was declared hostile. Shyam Lal (P. W. 8) proved the recovery of gun and cartridges from Mauji Lal. This recovery report was also proved by the Investigating Officer (P. W. 9 ). P. W. 3 Haidar Rizvi is the scribe of the F. I. R. , Dr. L. K. Bhargava (P. W. 14) conducted the post-mortem and prepared the report Ex. Ka. 13. Devi Lal Constable (P. W. 10) stated that he took the dead body in sealed condition alongwith constable-Ram Dularey. He also stated that a sealed bundle containing Bush Shirt, Tahmad, Baniyan and Janghia (Exts. 1 to 4) was given to him by Dr. L. K. Bhargava after-the post-mortem examination. P. W. 1 Bhakur is a chance witness who happened to be at the house of the deceased at that time when the deceased allegedly left the house in the company of Sarjoo and Rafiqe with his cycle, gun and belt of cartridges. In his cross-examination he stated that he was not a regular visitor to, the house of the deceased and he had gone there on that day by chance. His statement was recorded u/s. 161 Cr. P. C. not immediately but after 21/2 months of the occurrence. He did not mentioned about this fact to anyone. He came to know about the death of deceased 2 or 3 days thereafter. It is very unsafe to rely upon such a statement of a witness who did not care to disclose to anyone that the deceased Niyaz Ahmad had left in the company of Sarjoo and Rafiqe with his cycle, gun and carqridges three days ago. The natural course of action would have been that, on knowing about the death of Niyaz Ahmad, he should have stated this fact to the police immediately. Amazingly, he kept silent for 21/2 months and then he made this statement to the police. The statement of Majidun (P. W. 2) wife of the deceased also does not help the prosecution to prove its case that on that date and time, Niyaz Ahmad (deceased) left his house in the company of Sarjoo and Rajiqe. She had not seen Sarjoo and Rafiqe accused before that day. She did not talk to them on that day. She did not go to the place where Sarjoo and Rajiqe were allegedly sitting in the house. She had not seen Sarjoo and Rafiqe accused before that day. She did not talk to them on that day. She did not go to the place where Sarjoo and Rajiqe were allegedly sitting in the house. There is also contradiction on material point in-her statement and in the statement of her father-in-law Karimullah alias Maiku who appeared as P. W. 4. According to her, after 2 or 3 days her brother came from the village Bisaunna, she enquired about her husband who had not returned from that village. Her brother replied that Niyaz Ahmad had not gone to village Bissauna and then her brother went to village Bisaunna to enquire about Niyaz Ahmad (deceased) from Sarjoo (accused) who told him that he had not come alongwith him. Her brother again came back and told that Sarjoo told him that Niyaz Ahmad had not come with them. Karimullah (P. W. 4) however, stated otherwise. According to him, he himself, went to village Bisaunna and made enquiry from Sarjoo as to where Niyaz Ahmad was and he replied that he did not know about Niyaz Ahmad. This is a material contradiction in the statements of these two witnesses on this point making their statements doubtful. There is another factor in this case which makes the case of the prosecution doubtful. When Niyaz Ahmad did not turn up for 2 or 3 days no missing report was lodged and it was only after the recovery of the dead body, the F. I. R. was lodged. Haider Rizvi (P. W. 3) is the scribe of the report. According to him, on the asking of Karimullah he scribed the report on 10. 6. 1977 but according to him, the panchayatama was prepared on 11. 6. 1977. It is contrary to the fact on record. As per the record, the Panchayatnama was prepared on 10. 6. 1977 itself after the recovery of the dead body. ( 6 ) REGARDING the identification of the dead body admittedly it was found headleses and most of its parts were eaten-away. The dead body was identified as that of Niyaz Ahmad on the basis of the clothes which he was allegedly wearing. A Taveez was also allegedly found on his left arm. ( 6 ) REGARDING the identification of the dead body admittedly it was found headleses and most of its parts were eaten-away. The dead body was identified as that of Niyaz Ahmad on the basis of the clothes which he was allegedly wearing. A Taveez was also allegedly found on his left arm. The clothes which were found on the body of the deceased were not got identified by the witnesses in accordance with law, either in the police station or before the Magistrate. Besides this four clothes, another cloth i. e. Langot was also recovered from that place which the prosecution has not been able to establish as to whom it belonged. Admittedly, the deceased was not wearing the Langot when he left the house. To whom the Langot belonged remained a question which the prosecution had not answered. The TTaveez which was allegedly found tied on the arm of the deceased was found missing when the dead body was sent in sealed condition to the Doctor who conducted the post-mortem. There is no explanation as to where that Taveez had gone. As per the statement of the doctor, when the dead body was received by him, there was no TTaveez and there was no mentioning of the Taveez in the inquest report. Neither, the prosecution could satisfactorily prove that the clothes which were found on the dead body, belonged to Niyaz Ahmad nor it could prove that there was any Taveez on the arm of the deteased which belonged to him. The identification of the dead body has not been satisfactory proved by the prosecution. ( 7 ) THE recovery of the cycle from the house of the Tullah also does not help the prosecution to connect these appellants with the guilt. Section 27 of the Evidence Act imposes two limitations for determining how much of the information received from the accused is provable against him i. e. (1) The information must be such as has caused discovery of the fact i. e. the fact must be the consequence, and the information the cause of its discovery, (2) The information must relate distinctly to the fact discovery. Both the conditions must be satisfied. In this case neither any statement of the accused was recorded in writing nor any independent person has been examined to show what exact information the accused. gave leading to the recovery of the cycle. Both the conditions must be satisfied. In this case neither any statement of the accused was recorded in writing nor any independent person has been examined to show what exact information the accused. gave leading to the recovery of the cycle. Only saying by the Investigating Officer that on the Nishandehi of accused Rafiqe, cycle was recovered from the house of Tullah is not sufficient to connect the accused for recovery of the cycle belonging to Niyaz Ahmad from the house of Tullah. In fact the recovery of cycle from the house of Tullah does not connect any of the accused with the guilt. Tullah has neither been made an accused nor a witness. ( 8 ) SIMILARLY, regarding the recovery of the gun and cartridges allegedly belonging to the deceased, from Mauji Lal accused is not in pursuance of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. It was allegedly recovered from the possession of Mauji Lal when he was apprehended in a case U/s. 399/402 I. P. C. In this case, the alleged recovery of the gun and cartridges is not on the basis of the information given by either of the accused persons and as such this recovery of gun and cartridges cannot be used against any of the accused person. There is not a single piece of evidence on record that Mauji Lal accused had knowledge that this gun was stolen property and this was used in the commission of the offences. ( 9 ) FROM the evidence on record and the circumstances taken cumulatively, we do not find that the chain is so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else. The circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established and we, therefore, on the basis of these circumstances, are unable to hold the conviction of all these appellants, namely Sarjoo, Rafiqe and Mauji Lal, we are pained to point out that the investigation in this case is not upto the mark and the Investigating Officer does not know as to how the investigation is to be made when the case is based upon the circumstantial evidence. ( 10 ) BOTH these appeals filed by Sarjoo, Rafiqe and Mauji Lal are hereby accepted. ( 10 ) BOTH these appeals filed by Sarjoo, Rafiqe and Mauji Lal are hereby accepted. The judgment and order passed by the trial court dated 15. 7. 1980 is hereby set aside. !tis pointed out that non- bailable warrants against all these accused have been ordered to be issued by this court as they absconded when the appeals came up for hearing. As the appeals filed by them stand accepted and that they have been acquitted, so they shall be released forthwith if they have already been arrested otherwise the non-bailable warrants ordered to be issued against them shall be withdrawn. Ordered accordingly. Appeals Allowed. Conviction set aside. .