JUDGMENT R.D. Shukla, J.--1. Appeal is directed against the judgment arid order dated 12.5.89 of the IVth Addl. Sessions Judge, Indore passed in S.T. No. 282/85 whereby accused-respondents have been acquitted of the offences punishable Vis. 364, 302 and 201/34 IPC for having committed abduction for murder and murder of Jayasingh alias Pinki on the evening of 18.9.85 and for causing disappearance of evidence for screening the offender by throwing the dead-body in the forest of Manpur. 2. It is not in dispute that Jayasingh alias Pinki was daughter of one Jaisingh (PW. 1) and P.W. 23 Krishnasingh. Madhulika (PW. 4) and Jitendrasingh (PW. 8) are sister and brother of Jayasingh. Jaya alias Pinki was a student of B.Sc. Pt. I and was studying in Holkar Science College, Indore. She was aged 17 to 18 years at the time of her death, her birth being of 7th Dec. 1967 (Ex. P/55). 3. Accused Manoj Gupta was studying in Class XI in New Look School. Earlier to it, both were studying in the same school. Accused Ramdeen was the driver of accused Manoj at the time of incident. P.W. 1 Jaisingh and Teluram (father of accused Manoj) are neighbours. It is alleged accused had intimacy with Jaya alias Pinki (indirectly it is also suggested that probably they had illicit relations as such Jaya alias Pinki became pregnant). On the date of incident accused and Jaya were seen talking something privately by the side of the house. Thereafter Jaya alias Pinki left the house with a bag and dressed up with Kurti, Pajama and Dupatta. It was festival of Ganesh Chaturthi as such her mother Krishna Singh had applied Mehdi and Mahavar on her feet. Jorawarsingh (PW. 18) who was a servant in the house of Jaisingh heard the sound of starting of mother-car in the house of accused. 4. It is alleged that both the accused i.e. Manoj and Ramdeen met her (Jaya) on the way. They took her in the car in the jungle of Manpur. She was strangulated and the body was thrown in jungle. 5. As Jaya did not return in the night a search was made. Accused Manoj and the relations of Jaisingh participated in the search. Jaisingh inquired about Jaya from Manoj who denied about having any knowledge of her. It is alleged that his conduct was abnormal. He was up-set. She was strangulated and the body was thrown in jungle. 5. As Jaya did not return in the night a search was made. Accused Manoj and the relations of Jaisingh participated in the search. Jaisingh inquired about Jaya from Manoj who denied about having any knowledge of her. It is alleged that his conduct was abnormal. He was up-set. His look was indicating as if he has consumed liquor as his eyes were red. Jaya could not be traced, as such a report regarding her 'Gumshudgi' was made by Jaisingh on 19.9.85 vide Rojnamcha No. 2212 vide Ex. P/1. Her marks of identification - white complexion, thin body, height 4'10" was also disclosed. It was also informed that while leaving the house she was wearing white Pajama, orange printed Kurti and Chunni (Dupatta). She was having a brown-coloured purse and wearing a wrist-watch. 5. Since Jaya could not be traced an offence V/s. 363/366 IPC vide Crime No. 554/85 (Ex.P/50) was registered by M.L. Kalme, S.L, Police Station-MIG Colony, Indore. 6. On 20th Sept. 85 Punja (PW. 3) Chowkidar received information about dead-body of a woman lying in the jungle near village Kali Kiray. This information was passed to him by Forest-guard Rajaram (PW. 20). He (Punja), therefore, lodged a report in Police-station Manpur vide Ex. P/6. The same was recorded by P.W. 12 Harnamsingh who registered a Marg No. 44/85. P.W. 25 Charansingh - Police Inspector, visited the spot on 21.9.85 at about 8.30 a.m. It was in the forest of Kali Kiray. The dead-body was of a woman who was wearing Kurti Salwar and was having a Dupatta. She was wearing Pajeb in her feet. There was a big stone kept over her mouth. She had marks of Mehdi and Mahawar on her hands and feet. As such, Shri Charansingh prepared inquest Report Ex. P/7 and sent the body for post-mortem examination with a letter of request Ex. P/11. 7. On 21.9.85 Dr. Prakash Chandwaskar (P.W. 6) conducted autopsy on the body, and found as follows:- Body of an average built lady, foul smelling coming out from her body. Body was highly decomposed. Meguts were present all over the body. There was distention of the abdomen. Eyes were swollen. Greenish discoloration of the body on both the illiac fossae. There were no hair on the scalp. Skin of the body could be pilled off easily. Body was highly decomposed. Meguts were present all over the body. There was distention of the abdomen. Eyes were swollen. Greenish discoloration of the body on both the illiac fossae. There were no hair on the scalp. Skin of the body could be pilled off easily. Blister formation all over the body. After dissection and internal examination Dr. Chandwaskar could not express any opinion as to the cause and duration of death and prepared report Ex. P/12. 8. The information regarding the dead-body of woman found in the jungle was received by Station House Officer, M.I.G., Indore. He, therefore, made a request for further post-mortem examination of dead-body. The same was conducted on 22.9.85 by Dr. Ashok Sharma (PW. 19) and Dr. Hireshchandra (PW. 22). Dr. Sharma on detailed examination found ligature marks over the neck at the leval of thoiroid cartilage having a width of 2.5 cm x 5 cm below the chin and mid line at full extension of the neck. Gradually the mark travelled horizontally round the neck with gradual reduction in the width. The acoymosis were also visible. The hyoid bone was separated from the thoroid cartilage. He also examined Salwar, Kurti, under-wear and bra of the dead-body and opined that the death was due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation by the ligature and homicidal in nature. The ligature used was soft. The death was within 3 to 5 days. Dr. Sharma (PW. 19) prepared Report Ex. P/37. He also examined veginal smear and clothes as well and prepared Report Ex. P/35. The report of examination of articles were also prepared vide Ex. P/38. Dr. Sharma prepared diagrams Ex: P/39, P/40 and P/41 and got the photographs taken Ex. P/42 to 49. The Post-mortem Report was countersigned by Dr. Hireshchandra as well. 9. Jaisingh (PW. 1), father of Jaya alias Pinki, identified the body and the clothes to be of Jaya. The identification of articles was also conducted during investigation. 10. P.W. 26 Daulatsingh Bhadoria, Inspector Police, took-up the investigation of the case on 22.9.85 and arrested two accused persons Manoj Gupta and Ramdeen vide EX'. P/20. On interrogation accused Manoj gave information about sandals vide Ex. P/21. He also gave information about the clothes having been thrown in the rivulet near Umaria. Same was recorded vide Ex. P/22. Thereafter he gave information about car vide Ex. P/23. 11. P/20. On interrogation accused Manoj gave information about sandals vide Ex. P/21. He also gave information about the clothes having been thrown in the rivulet near Umaria. Same was recorded vide Ex. P/22. Thereafter he gave information about car vide Ex. P/23. 11. Accused Ramdeen gave information about hair-band vide Ex. 25. Manoj gave information about the shop wherefrom petrol was taken vide Ex. P/52. One pair of ladies sandal, as pointed out by Manoj was seized vide Ex. P/28. It was in a drum fixed on the side of the road. Ramdeen pointed hair-pin below one stone. The same was seized vide Ex. P/29. One jerry-can was seized from one Sharma Shop-keeper vide Ex. P/26. Clothes wrapped in paper were seized from the rivulet near Umariya vide Ex. P/30. Car bearing No. MBN 9554 was seized from the house of Manoj vide Ex. P/33. Permit of the Car Ex. D/27 and driving Licence Ex. P/53 was also seized. 12. Accused gave information about the photographs of Jaya vide Ex. P/24. Accused Ramdeen pointed out the shop wherefrom Jerry-can was taken. Thereafter Panchnama Ex. P/32 was prepared. Manoj produced photographs Ex. P/14 and 15 the same were seized vide Ex. P/31. 13. According to prosecution story Jitendra Dwivedi (PW. 9) had intercepted the car drven by Ramdeen and occupied by Manoj Gupta and Jaya alias Pinki. Challan papers Ex. P/16 and challan-book Ex. P/20 were seized vide Ex. P/34. 14. During investigation the School Certificate of accused Manoj and Jaya were also obtained y the police-officer Request for identification of articles was made to Naib-Tahsildar on 5.10.1985. Naksha was got prepared from Patwari on 6.10.1985. 15. The property seized during investigation i.e. pair of Chappal, bra, under-wear, shirt, hair-pin, pair of silver Pajeb, wrist watch, handkerchief, iron bangle and purse were sent for identification. P.W. 21 Sudhir Tare conducted test Identification of articles vide Ex. D/25. Jaysingh and Smt. Krishnasingh, father and mother of deceased Jaya alias Pinki identified those articles. 16. The dead-body of deceased was identified mainly on the basis of clothes and the white spot on the body. Jerry-can seized at the instance of accused persons was also got identified. Shri K.R. Rathore (PW. 5) conducted test identification. P.W.10 Rajendra Sharma correctly identified the jerry-can Ex.P/10. 17. After investigation both accused-appellants were prosecuted. Both of them have denied the guilt and pleaded false implication. 18. Jerry-can seized at the instance of accused persons was also got identified. Shri K.R. Rathore (PW. 5) conducted test identification. P.W.10 Rajendra Sharma correctly identified the jerry-can Ex.P/10. 17. After investigation both accused-appellants were prosecuted. Both of them have denied the guilt and pleaded false implication. 18. Learned trial Judge has acquitted both of them as above. Hence, this appeal. 19. The contention of learned counsel for appellant State is that learned trial Judge has not correctly appreciated the circumstantial evidence adduced against accused-respondent. Shri Desai, learned counsel for State has relied mainly on the following circumstances. (i) The intimate relation between Manoj and Jaya alias Pinki (deceased).It has been submitted that learned trial Judge has wrongly rejected the circumstance in the absence of negative proof holding it to be that it has not been proved that Jaya had no relation with any other person. (ii) The evidence of last seen. (a) deceased Jaya alias Pinki and accused were talking in the corner of the house. Jaya alias Pinki left the house after dressing her with Kurti, Pajama, Dupatta, wrist-watch and silver Pajeb and a purse in hand. (b) Jorawarsingh, servant of Jaisingh heard the sound of starting of motor-car in the house of accused. (c) Jaya alias Pinki did not return in the night. (d) accused was seen in the night with red and swollen eyes indicating as if he has consumed liquor. Both accused persons were seen travelling in the motor-car while going towards Manpur and the car was challenged for fast driving and absence of number plate, by Jitendra Dwivcdi (PW. 9). Both the accused persons purchased petrol from the hotel of Rajendra Sharma who thereafter identified the jerry-can seized at the instance of accused persons. (e) The dead-body of woman was found in the forest of Manpur. (i) on initial examination cause of death was not known but on second examination the cause of death was disclosed as strangulation. (ii) The dead-body was identified to be of Jaya alias Pinki by her father Jaisingh and mother Smt. Krishnasingh mainly on the basis of clothes and alleged white spot on the thigh. 20. As against it learned counsel for the accused-respondents has submitted that learned trial Judge has disbelieved the circumstantial evidence after close scrutiny and detailed analysis of each of the facts. 21. 20. As against it learned counsel for the accused-respondents has submitted that learned trial Judge has disbelieved the circumstantial evidence after close scrutiny and detailed analysis of each of the facts. 21. It has further been submitted that the accused himself participated in the search of Jaya alias Pinki. In the night red and swollen eyes of accused-respondent Manoj was because of consumption of liquor. Merely because the car was' started some time after Jaya alias Pinki has left the house no inference can be drawn that they left together. 22. Jitendra Dwivedi (PW. 9) has fabricated the document as the fine-amount has neither been deposited in the treasury nor it finds place in the entry of Rojnamcha Sanha. The number of challan paper also do not tally with the copy found in the book. 23. The alleged identification of Jerry-can by Rajendra Sharma (PW. 10) is wholly unreliable. Rajendra Sharma and his associate did not know the accused persons from before and, therefore, in the absence of test-identification by them, the dock-identification has rightly been rejected. 24. Lastly. it has been submitted that the dead-body found in the forest of Manpur has not been proved to be of Jaya alias Pinki as according to Jayasingh (father) the height of Jaya, as reported by him, was 4'10" while the height of dead-body of woman found in the Manpur forest was 5'1". The fact of white spot has never been stated earlier and appliance of Mahavar is a subsequent addition and does not find place in the initial story of the prosecution and identity marks of Jaya alias Pinki disclosed by her parents. It has also been submitted that Jaya alias Pinki was unmarried and according to Hindu custom, Mahavar is generally applied by married women. 25. It is an established principle of law that in cases of appeal against acquittal Court should attach greater weight to appreciation of evidence by the trial Judge who had the occasion to watch the demeanour of witnesses. 26. Even if the appellate Court can come to a different conclusion on close scrutiny of the evidence the finding arrived at by the trial Court ought not to be interfered with if the same is probable. The finding of fact normally ought not to be disturbed unless the same is found to be perverse and based on rejection of some material evidence. 27. The finding of fact normally ought not to be disturbed unless the same is found to be perverse and based on rejection of some material evidence. 27. Although the powers of the High Court to reassess the evidence and reach its own conclusion are as extensive as in an appeal against the order of conviction, yet, as a rule of prudence, the High Court should always give proper weight and consideration to matters e.g. (i) the view of the trial judge as to the credibility of the witnesses; (ii) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at the trial; (iii) the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt, and (iv) the slowness of an appellate Court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses. If on appraisal of the evidence and on considering relevant attending circumstances it is found that two views are possible, one as held by the trial Court for acquitting the accused, and the other for convicting the accused, in such a situation the rule of prudence should guide the High Court not to disturb the order of acquittal made by the trial Court. Unless the conclusions of the trial Court drawn on the evidence on record are found to be unreasonable, pervese or unsustainable, the High Court should not interfere with the order of acquittal. . . . ( AIR 1988 SC 1158 ) 28. We will examine each of the circumstances independently and see as to whether the finding of trial Court is probable and whether there is any perversity in the conclusions drawn by the learned trial Judge. 29. Learned trial Judge in para 50 to 56 of the Judgment discussed the fact of intimacy between deceased Jaya alias Pinki and accused Manoj. Some suggestion about her intimate relation with one Balraj Patel was also given. Learned trial Judge has disbelieved the story of intimacy between accused Manoj and Jaya alias Pinki (deceased) as there is no mention of the fact in Gumshudgi Report Ex. P/1. Some suggestion about her intimate relation with one Balraj Patel was also given. Learned trial Judge has disbelieved the story of intimacy between accused Manoj and Jaya alias Pinki (deceased) as there is no mention of the fact in Gumshudgi Report Ex. P/1. Though we do not agree with the inference of learned trial Judge regarding the requirement of the proof that she had no intimacy with any other person but the prosecution is bound to prove the fact of intimacy and their (Manoj and Jaya) leaving together. There is absolutely no evidence to show that they left the house together. The only evidence adduced is as stated by Madhulika (PW. 4), sister of deceased and Jorawarsingh (PW. 18), servant of the father of deceased that accused and deceased were talking in a lonely place in the comer and in between the two house. 30. It is not in dispute, as has been stated by P.W. 1 Jaysingh, P.W. 4 Madhulika and P.W. 23 Smt. Krishnasingh that Jaya alias Pinki left the house all alone. 31. Jorawarsingh (PW. 18) has only stated abotu the hearing of sound of starting of the motor-car. He has nowhere stated that he saw accused Manoj or driver Ramdeen taking the vehicle out of their house. It is only on the basis of conjecture that the fact of taking of vehicle was stated by Jorawarsingh. There is no evidence to show that Pinki was picked in the car. 32. It has come in the evidence of Jaysingh, Madhulika Jitendrasingh Dwivedi and Smt. Krishnasingh that accused himself participated in search of Jaya alias Pinki. This is a conduct against the normal conduct of a criminal who has participated in the ghastly crime of murder. Even if this argument of prosecution is accepted that accused was behaving that way, to falsely show his innocence, but that by itself would in no way connect the accused with the crime and if the two inferences of a fact can be drawn the inference in favour of the accused will have to be drawn and, therefore, learned trial Judge was right in rejecting that part of evidence for the proof of the conduct of a participis criminis. 33. P.W. 1 Jaysingh while making a report of Gumshudgi (Ex. 33. P.W. 1 Jaysingh while making a report of Gumshudgi (Ex. P/1), which was definitely made after he, his members of the family and accused Manoj have tried to search Jaya alias Pinki and have failed in tracing her out, there is no mention of the unusual and abnormal behaviour of Manoj Gupta. 34. Even otherwise the conduct stands explained as accused Manoj has admitted having consumed some liquor in the night. Under the circumstance it cannot be said that the trial Judge has committed any perversity in not accepting the conduct against the accused. 35. The prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of Jitendra Dwivedi who allegedly saw both the accused persons and Jaya alias Pinki travelling in a car on the same night. Learned trial Judge has discussed this part of evidence in paras 77 to 86 of his judgment. 36. Jitendra Dwivedi (PW. 9) has stated that he was working as a Station House Officer of P.S. Rajendra Nagar Police-Station. During checking he found that a Fiat Car bearing No. MBN 9554, (admittedly, belonging to the father of accused Manoj and seized from the house of accused) was moving with a fast speed. It was not having number-plate as such the driver was fined Rs. 5/-. He has further stated that Ramdeen was driving the vehicle. Accused Manoj and one girl who on the basis of photograph, later identified as Jaya alias Pinki (deceased) were sitting on the rear side of the vehicle. 37. Accused Ramdeen has denied his signature on the challan papers. Copy of the original Rojnamcha Sanha and the copy of the Rojnamcha Sanha sent to Supdt. of Police was got produced in the Court. This document Ex. D/30 does not contain any such entry. No receipt of penalty was given. 38. This witness had admitted that he never saw the accused persons earlier. He saw them only on the date of incident. Similarly he had further admitted that he did not know the girl (allegedly Jaya alias Pinki) from before. He gave the identification mark only during his statement in the Court. In his police-statement Ex. D/19 the description about the identification mark does not find place. We have examined the document ourselves, as it was hotly contested by both the parties. 39. There appears to be interpolation in the last line of Rojnamcha Sanha No. 1186. He gave the identification mark only during his statement in the Court. In his police-statement Ex. D/19 the description about the identification mark does not find place. We have examined the document ourselves, as it was hotly contested by both the parties. 39. There appears to be interpolation in the last line of Rojnamcha Sanha No. 1186. The space between the earlier six lines is much more as compared to the last lines entered therein. 40. Ex. D/20-A (Carbon copy of Ex. P/16) though shows an entry of fine of Rs. 5/- with receipt No. 126/18.9.85 but there is no entry of receipt number in the original document Ex. P/16. This goes to show that there has been some subsequent interpolation in the document of recovery of fine. The original document Ex. P/16 shows serial No. 488 - Book No. 10 and Challan No. 38. But the carbon copy of the document of challan kept with the Supdt. of Police and produced in the Court at the instance of accused persons, shows that all the three documents with serial number 488 are in the book while only one carbon copy of challan book Sr. No. 487 and two carbon copy of Sr. No. 486 are present in the book. The absence of receipt number in the original document Ex. P/16; presence of three carbon copies with the same serial number in the book creates a suspicion as to whether the challan was really done on 18.9.85. Learned trial Judge has disbelieved this document and the fact of collection of fine because of these discrepancies. The finding of learned trial Judge is not only probable but appears to, be reasonable and it cannot be termed to be perverse. 41. Rule 638 of Police Manual requires that the fact of receipt including the fine and balance ought to be written in the Rojnamcha Sanha. P.W. 9 Jitendra Dwivedi has admitted in para 4 that there is no mention of recovery of fine in the Rojnamcha. 42. Not only this, the challan number 488 is in the name of two persons i.e. Ramdeen (accused-respondent No.2) and one Gopal S/o Kanhaiyalal. This further creates suspicion about the genuineness of the document and the imposition of fine including checking of vehicle No. MBN 9554 done by Jitendra Dwivedi. 42. Not only this, the challan number 488 is in the name of two persons i.e. Ramdeen (accused-respondent No.2) and one Gopal S/o Kanhaiyalal. This further creates suspicion about the genuineness of the document and the imposition of fine including checking of vehicle No. MBN 9554 done by Jitendra Dwivedi. Shri Jitendra Dwivedi identified the photograph of deceased after one year "during the course of statement in the Court" that she was the other woman occupant in the car on the date of incident. No test identification was arranged. Such identification in the dock cannot be accepted with all certainty. The purpose of this observation is that the Investigating Officer in the mistaken zeal for the success of his case was prone to resort to "padding" and suppression or distortion of facts. It is in this back-ground of suspicion that this piece of circumstantial evidence collected by him had to be evaluated. ... AIR 1976 SC 69 . 43. Such identification made by Jitendra Dwivedi (PW. 9) cannot be accepted and it would be highly unsafe to base conviction on such identification. "Where a witness identifies an accused who is not known to him in the Court for the first time, his evidence is absolutely valueless unless there has been a previous T.I. parade to test his powers of observations. The idea of holding T.I. parade under section 9 is to test the veracity of the witness on the question of capability to identity an unknown person whom the witness may have seen only once. If no T.I. parade is held then it will be wholly unsafe to rely on his bare testimony regarding the identification of an accused for the first time in Court." ... AIR 1979 SC 1127 . 44. "Identification of a person by witness for first time in Court without being tested by a prior test-identification parade is valueless." .. ( AIR 1980 SC 1382 ). 45. This fabrication and interpolation in the document as referred above, would create a suspicion in other piece of evidence collected by the prosecution and unless the same is found proved by cogent reliable and reasonably probable evidence, the same cannot be relied for basing conviction. 46. The next evidence relied on by the prosecution is the fact of purchase of petrol by two accused persons from Rajendra Sharma (PW. 10). Rajendra Sharma (PW. 46. The next evidence relied on by the prosecution is the fact of purchase of petrol by two accused persons from Rajendra Sharma (PW. 10). Rajendra Sharma (PW. 10) has stated that on the fateful night (festival day of Ganesh Chaturthi) these two accused persons came to his shop and demanded five litres of petrol which he supplied them on a price of Rs. 50/- and he supplied the petrol in a jerry-can. He further states that he identified the jerry-can (Art. 'Q') in the test-identification. 47. The fact of purchase of petrol in a jerry-can on the fate-ful night of Ganesh Chaturthi of 1985, does not find place in his police-statement. 48. The presence of a vehicle at a distance also does not find place in his police-statement Ex. D/22. The test identification of jerry-can also appears to be suspicious 'as there was mark of cross by red-pen on the bottem of jerry-can but this identification mark does not find place in the test identification. That appears to be a subsequent improvement. He has further admitted during cross-examination that four other jerry-cans mixed with Article 'Q', were not having any paper-slip, while paper-slip was pasted on this jerry-can. This further creates doubt as to the genuineness of the identification. It appears no test identification of two accused persons was got done from this witness. This identification in the dock would be highly unsafe to be acted upon. (.. AIR 1979 SC 1127 (supra). 49. Dineshchandra (PW.7) has corroborated the story disclosed by Rajendra Sharma (PW. 10). He has also stated that he has never seen the two accused-persons earlier and thereafter. He also identified them only in the Court. As observed earlier no test-identification was held and therefore, it would be highly unsafe to act upon the statement of these witness [i.e. Dineshchandra (PW. 7) and Rajendra Sharma (PW. 10)]. 50. Learned trial Judge has discussed this evidence and rejected the test-identification. We do not find any perversity in the conclusion and the inference drawn by the learned Trial Judge. 51. Thus, the evidence of accused persons being last seen with deceased Jaya alias Pinki has righty been disbelieved. As observed earlier we find no perversity in it. It must further be observed that the conclusion and inference drawn by the learned trial Judge on this aspect of circumstantial evidence is not only probable but cogent and reasonable. 52. 51. Thus, the evidence of accused persons being last seen with deceased Jaya alias Pinki has righty been disbelieved. As observed earlier we find no perversity in it. It must further be observed that the conclusion and inference drawn by the learned trial Judge on this aspect of circumstantial evidence is not only probable but cogent and reasonable. 52. Learned counsel for the State has referred to a case reported in AIR 1990 SC 2134 Ashok Kumar v. State of Rajasthan and AIR 1995 SC 280 ; Ramkumar v. State of Haryana, in support of his contention and submitted that the appellate Court has got powers to reappreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion. We respectfully agree with the principle enunciated therein. There is no dispute about the power of reappraisal of evidence by the High Court (which we have also tried to do) but if on appraisal of evidence the conclusion and inference drawn by the trial Judge appears to be probable the same ought not to be reversed, even if the other view is possible. 53. Learned counsel for respondent has disputed the identification of the body as well. The body has been identified mainly on the basis of clothes. The fact of presence of Mahavar on the feet of Jaya alias Pinki does not find place in the original Gumshudgi report. However, that mark has been found on the dead-body found in the Manpur Jungle. Similarly, there is no mention of white spot on the body of Jaya alias Pinki as per original report while the white spot was detected during the second post-mortem examination conducted by Dr. Ashok Sharma and Dr. Hireshchandra. 54. Dr. A.K. Sharma has admitted that the height of the woman whose dead-body was examined by him was 5' 1" (Ex. P/42). The photograph shows the measurement done with the help of a tape. Jaysingh has stated the height to be 4' 10". Thus, there appears to be discrepancy on the point of height, application of Mahavar and the white spot, but as the body has been identified with the help of clothes recovered, the finding of learned trial Judge as to the' body being of deceased Pinki (Jaya) can reasonably be accepted. Jaysingh has stated the height to be 4' 10". Thus, there appears to be discrepancy on the point of height, application of Mahavar and the white spot, but as the body has been identified with the help of clothes recovered, the finding of learned trial Judge as to the' body being of deceased Pinki (Jaya) can reasonably be accepted. The discrepancies as referred above do create a suspicion but there does not appear to be any reason as to why the relations of Jaya alias Pinki (deceased) would identify that body to be of Jaya alias Pinki, if the same belongs to other woman. 55. The fact of recovery of Chappals and clothes at the instance of accused Manoj and hair-pin at the instance of accused Ramdeen, has been disbelieved by the learned trial Judge. The same has been discussed in paras 63 to 76 of the judgment. The recoveries had been made from a open place accessable to all. Chappals were found from a drum fitted by the side of the road. Clothes were found in the rivulet. Similarly her (Jaya's) hair-pin were also found from the open place. 56. The witness of recovery and seizure P.W. 17 Devkaran has admitted his signature on document Ex. P/20, Memo of arrest Ex. P/21, Memo about the shop wherefrom petrol was purchased, Ex. P/23 Memo of Manoj regarding car inside the house Ex. P/24, memo of photograph of Jaya alias Pinki, Ex. P/25, Memo of Ramdeen about hair-pin beneath the stone and Ex. P/26 memo about jerry-can being in 'the garage and Ex. P/27 about the seizure. But in para 11 of his examination in-chief he has stated that all these investigation and proceedings were under-taken in the Police-station and thereafter he alongwith police-inspector Bhadoriya proceeded for recovery and seizure of articles. At a later stage he has accepted that he has signed documents Ex. P/21 to Ex. P/32 - memorandums and seizures as above on the same day. But on perusal of the documents Ex. P/21, P/22, P/23 and Ex. P/25, it is evident that these were prepared on 22.9.85 while document Ex. P/24 and Ex. P/26 are shown to have been prepared on 23.9.85 and document Ex. P/27 has been prepared on 24.9.85. Thus it appears that all these documents were prepared at one time and spreed over on different dates. P/21, P/22, P/23 and Ex. P/25, it is evident that these were prepared on 22.9.85 while document Ex. P/24 and Ex. P/26 are shown to have been prepared on 23.9.85 and document Ex. P/27 has been prepared on 24.9.85. Thus it appears that all these documents were prepared at one time and spreed over on different dates. This creates a doubt as to the impartiality of investigation. The duty of investigating officer is not merely to bolster up a prosecution case with such evidence as may enable the Court to record a conviction but to bring out the real unvarnished truth. .. AIR 1974 SC 1822 . 57. Thus, on examination of circumstances for showing the complicity of the accused in the crime we also find discrepancy in it. 58. It is an established principle of law that for basing a conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence the chain of circumstantial evidence, should be so complete that it is not only consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused but is shown to be totally inconsistent with the innocence of the accused. , If circumstances alleged in this case are examined with this angle, we find the chain not only incomplete but broken at many places. There is no clear and cogent evidence' that accused persons accompanied Jaya alias Pinki on the date of fate-ful night. The evidence of their travelling together as stated by Jitendra Dwivedi (PW. 9) is wholly unreliable. It appears the documents have been subsequently fabricated. Similarly the evidence as to the presence of these two witnesses somewhere between Indore and Forest of Manpur on the A-B. Road, as stated, by Rajendra Sharma and Dinesh Chandra is also not reliable. 59. It is also noteworthy that both of them have not stated about the presence of Jaya alias Pinki (deceased) in the car. 60. The following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused based on circumstantial evidence can be said to be fully established: (i) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. (ii) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. (ii) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. (iii) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. (iv) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved and; (v) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonble ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. ... AIR 1984 SC 1622 . 61. Almost similar view has been taken by their Lordships in other case reported in AIR 1993 SC 2641 Padmanabham Vijaykumar & others v. State of Kerala. 62. In view of discussion above, we do not find any perversity or even improbability 'in the findings and conclusion of learned trial Judge, the same appears to be cogent and reasonable and, therefore, the appeal filed by the State deserves dismissal. 63. As a result appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Accused persons are on bail. Their bail-bonds are discharged.