JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant was the accused in session's case No. 21 of 1992 on the file of special Judge, dacoity affected area, Bharatpur. He was found guilty under Section 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, convicted thereunder and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5000/- (in default to further under two years rigorous imprisonment) and rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 1000/- (in default to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment) for the offence Under section 201 of the IPC with direction that the sentences were to run concurrently. 2. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the present action for tiling the appeal has been resorted to. 3. Brief facts are (i) That on 9.3.1991 one Nawab Singh, Sarpanch of village, Panchayat, Dudawali instituted a written report Ex.P. 16 at Police Station Nagar, District, Bharatpur, stating therein that in the well belonging to one Ramswaroop, a dead body was lying. The village children working at the nearby fields communicated this information on 8.3.91. The villagers assembled at the well at it was decided by them to report the matter to police. (ii) This information bearing FIR No. 1/91 came to be registered by police station, Nagar. (ii) The S.H.O., Police Station, Nagar reached at the well for making enquiry and got retrieved the dead body from the well. It was seen after retrieving the dead body that its head and legs were missing. It was further brought out that on the hand of the deceased some words Adi Ram Sharma' or Yadi Ram Sharma were embossed. The case Under section 302 read with Section 201 IPC was registered and FIR No. 19/91 was chalked out and investigation commenced. (iv) On 10.3.91 the police recovered two legs of the deceased from the same well. On 14.3.91 the appellant was arrested and on the basis of information supplied by him Under section 27 of the Evidence Act, head of the deceased was recovered from a field. The recovered parts of body were subjected to post-mortem. Photographs of the trunk, legs and head were also taken by a Photographer. On 14.3.91 the appellant was arrested and on the basis of information supplied by him Under section 27 of the Evidence Act, head of the deceased was recovered from a field. The recovered parts of body were subjected to post-mortem. Photographs of the trunk, legs and head were also taken by a Photographer. (v) That police also recovered blood stained cloths and shoes of the appellant at his instance and after completion of the investigation filed charge-sheet on 19.4.1991 in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Deeg for offences under Section 302 and 201 of the IPC from where the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and ultimately it was transferred to the trial Court. (vi) That the trial Court framed charges under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC against the appellant. The appellant denied the charges and claimed trial. (vii) That Prosecution examined as many as 19 witnesses and produced about 56 documents. Statement of appellant was recorded Under section 313 of the Code of Criminal procedure in which the appellant stated that he was falsely implicated on account of enmity. (viii) The trial Court has, however on consideration of evidence recorded the order of conviction and passed the sentence mentioned herein above. 4. At the out-set it may be mentioned that entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. In a case depending on circumstantial evidence, there should be a definite tendency pointing towards the guilt of the appellant. Chronology of events must be satisfactorily brought on record. A moral conviction, however, strong or genuine, cannot amount to a legal conviction supportable in Law. It must be realised that the well established rule of criminal justice is that "FOULER THE CRIME, HIGHER THE PROOF." We could not rest content without citing, the leading decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1984 Supreme Court 1622 (in the case of Sharad v. The State of Maharashtra). In the above decision, following principles have been laid down : (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 accept 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 accept that the accused is guilty. (iii) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. (vi) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proceed, and (v) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable 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. 5. We are, therefore, to find out how far the prosecution has been able to bring home the charge of murder against the appellant. In this connection the trial Court has considered the following circumstances : (i) Yadi Ram (deceased) and the appellant were last seen together in the evening of 7.3.91 going towards village Dudawali. (ii) Yadi Ram never returned alive. On 9.3.91 a dead body was got retrieved by the police from the well head and legs of the dead body were missing. (iii) On 10.3.91 legs were got retrieved from the well. Brother and son of the deceased identified the trunk and legs as of their deceased brother. (iv) Appellant was arrested on 14.3.91 and on the basis of information supplied by him Under section 27 of the Evidence Act, head of the deceased was recovered from the field. (v) Blood stained clothes and shoes of the deceased and blood stained `Farsa' were recovered at the instance of the appellant. (vi) The appellant confessed before the witnesses that he killed Yadi Ram and cut him into pieces. 6. The prosecution{ examined 19 witnesses to prove the guilt against the appellant. PW 1 Khubi Ram had seen the appellant and the deceased going towards village Dudawal at about 4.45 p.m. and after three days, dead body of Yadi Ram was found in a well of village Dudawal: Only trunk was recovered, the head and legs were missing which were recovered afterwards. Black strings were tied on the legs retrieved from the well. Appellant made confession of guilt before him and told him that he (appellant) killed Yadi Ram and cut him into pieces. Black strings were tied on the legs retrieved from the well. Appellant made confession of guilt before him and told him that he (appellant) killed Yadi Ram and cut him into pieces. Police recovered blood stained cloths and shoes of the deceased in front of him at the instance of the appellant. Pw 2 Basanta was informed by children about a dead body lying in a well. The police got retrieved the body and placed it outside the well, the head and legs of the body were missing. PW 3 Kundan had seen the dead body retrieving by the police from the well of Ramswaroop but he could not identify the dead body. PW 4 Faddelly had also seen the dead body but could not identify it. PW 5 Nawab Khan Sarpanch of the village had seen the dead body retrieving from the well. The head and legs of the body were missing. On one of the hads of the body `Yadi Ram or Adi Ram' was embossed. PW 6 Chhotally and PW 7 Dhore had not supported prosecution case and were declared hostile. PW 8 Than Chand, brother of the deceased, stated that his brother Yadi Ram used to tie black strings on his legs and he identified the legs recovered from the well as his brother's legs. He also stated that appellant confessed before him that he killed his brother Yadi Ram and cut him into pieces. PW 9 Bheem Seri, Police Constable have gone to deposit scaled packets at FSL, Jaipur. PW 10 Harlal, had seen the appellant and the deceased going towards village Dudawal a day before the dead body was recovered from the well. The legs were also got retrieved before him. Legs were tied with black strings. He identified the legs as deceased Yadi Ram used to tie black strings on his legs. Before him the appellant confessed that he killed Yadi Ram and cut him into pieces. Head of the Yadi Ram was also recovered before him and he identified the head of Yadi Ram. PW 11 Govind, brother of deceased Yadi Ram had seen the legs retrieved from the well by the police. Babu Lal dived in the well and retrieved one leg. Then, Tej Singh dived and retrieved another leg. Both legs were of his deceased brother Yadi Ram as they were tied with black strings. PW 11 Govind, brother of deceased Yadi Ram had seen the legs retrieved from the well by the police. Babu Lal dived in the well and retrieved one leg. Then, Tej Singh dived and retrieved another leg. Both legs were of his deceased brother Yadi Ram as they were tied with black strings. He also stated that three upper teeth of the Yadi Ram were missing and on the basis of this identification mark he identified the head as of Yadi Ram, PW 12 Dal Chand, son of deceased, had identified legs of Yadi Ram from the black strings tied over them. He also identified the head of the deceased as-of his father Yadi Ram, on the basis of four missing upper teeth. PW 13 Data Ram has not supported the prosecution case and was declared hostile. PW 14 Mohan Lal is the witness of seizure memo of Dhoti of the appellant. In the presence of PW 15 Uday Bhan `Farsa' was got recovered by the appellant. PW 16 Gordhan Singh I.O. recovered blood stained Kurta, Dhoti and Shoes of the deceased at the instance of the appellant. PW 17 Dr. Mahesh Vidyarthi on 9.3.91 conducted post-mortem of the trunk. He also conducted post-mortem of the head on 14.3.91. It may be mentioned here that Dr. Vishnu Dev Mehta conducted Post- mortem of legs but he was not produced as witness by the prosecution. Post-mortem report drawn by Dr. Vishnu Dev Mehta was exhibited as Ex.P. 29 by PW 17 Dr. Mahesh Vidyarthi as the writing and signatures of Dr. Mehta were known to him. PW 18 Mukh Ram took photographs of the trunk, head and legs. PW 19 Buddhi Ram conducted investigation of the case and arrested the appellant. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Dharam Gopal Chaturvedi, vehemently argued that the trial Court has failed to con ider the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in the proper perspective. The trial court mechanically attached undue emphasis on the testimony of the interested witnesses. Mr. Chaturvedi strongly urged that in this case no direct evidence is available and, therefore, it should be wary and circumspect to find out, if every link in the chain of circumstances has been firmly established. On the contrary, if any link in the chain of events is found missing no conviction can be recorded. Mr. Mr. Chaturvedi strongly urged that in this case no direct evidence is available and, therefore, it should be wary and circumspect to find out, if every link in the chain of circumstances has been firmly established. On the contrary, if any link in the chain of events is found missing no conviction can be recorded. Mr. Chaturvedi has further argued that as per Buddhi Ram (PW 19) who has investigated the case, the dead body was retrieved from the well at 11.30 a.m. and an inquest report (Ex.P. 12) was prepared at the spot and thereafter a written report was sent to the police station at 12.15 p.m. and FIR was chalked out at 2 p.m., hence it is clear that the Panchnama was prepared before lodging of the FIR and the Investigating Officer committed glaring mistake in not mentioning the time of preparing the inquest report. A perusal of FIR reveals that neither any allegation is levelled against the appellant nor any doubt is raised on him, further there is no description of the deceased has been given in the report thus the description of the deceased given out during the investigation is of no worth. The improved version given by the prosecution witnesses during the trial is not at all believable. Investigation Officer Buddhi Ram (PW 19) has stated that at the time of preparing the inquest report he did not reach at the conclusion that what was the name of the person who died. The name embossed on the hand of the dead body was not clear and legible. Further this witness stated that Panchas also could not identify the dead body. Similarly Basanta (PW 2) has stated that when the inquest report was being prepared he could not identify the dead body. The evidence regarding the extra/judicial confession alleged to have been made by the appellant, can not be read upon as there are serious contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses. The extra judicial confession, according to witnesses was made in the evening of 10th March, 1991 but not a single witness reported the matter to the police and no steps were taken to get the appellant arrested. There are serious contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses regarding bringing out the legs of the deceased from the well. The extra judicial confession, according to witnesses was made in the evening of 10th March, 1991 but not a single witness reported the matter to the police and no steps were taken to get the appellant arrested. There are serious contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses regarding bringing out the legs of the deceased from the well. The I.O. (PW 19) stated that he got retrieved the legs outside the well through Babu and Tej Singh but these witnesses have not been produced and no explanation has been given by the 1.0. for not producing these witnesses. The police did not care to take their signatures or thumb impression on the recovery memo. The head of deceased was recovered from open field and the manner in which the recovery was affected is doubtful. 8. The Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the Trial Court and argued that prosecution has proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. 9. We have carefully considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for both the sides and perused the entire evidence and have gone through all the exhibits.EVIDENCE REGARDING CIRCUMSTANCE THAT APPELLANT AND DECEASED WERE LAST SEEN TOGETHER. 10. So far as first circumstance is concerned, the prosecution has produced PW 1 Khubi Ram and PW 10 Harlal. PW 1 Khubi Ram has stated as under : `TARIKH US DIN SAAT THI, SHYAM AUR YADI RAM KO MAINE DUDAWAL KI AUR JAATE DEKHA US SAMAY SHAM KE SADHE CHHAR PONE PAANCH BAJE HONGE, USKE BAAD SHYAM LOTKAR GHAR AA GAYA..........TEEN DIN BAAD YADI RAM KI LAASH KUWEN ME NIKLI DUDAWAL MEIN' (On seventh I had seen Shyam and Yadi Ram going towards Dudawal. The time was about 4.30 or 4.45 p.m. Afterwards Shyam came back towards house .............the dead body of Yadi Ram was found n a well of village Dudawal after three days.) PW 10 Harlal has stated as under : `TARIKH NO YA SAAT THI MUJHEN THEEK SE DHYAN NAHI HAW MAINE UKI TARIKH SE EK DIN PEHLI YADI, RAM KO SHYAM KE SAATH DEKHA THA JO GAON ME .HI DEKHA THA, GAON KE ALAWA MEINE YADI RAM KO DUDAWAL KI TARA.F JAATE HUE JUNGLE MEIN BHI DEKHA THA.......... MAINE YADI RAM KO JIS DIN DEKHA USKE DUSRE DIN YEH SUNA KI YADI RAM KO MAAR DIYA HE.......DUDWALA KI SEEMA PER RAMSWAROOP JATAV KE KHET MEIN KUWAN MEIN YADI RAM KI LAASH KO POLICE NE NIKALWAYA THA (Whether it was 9th or 7th I do not recollect. I had seen Yadi Ram in the company of Shyam, a day before that date in the village. Besides the village I had seen Yadi Ram in a jungle going towards village Dudawal.........a day after I had seen Yadi Ramji heard that Yadi Ram was killed and from the well in the field of Ram Swaroop situated on the boundary of Dudawal police got retrieved the dead body of the Yadi Ram.) A perusal of the statement of Khubi Ram and Harlal reveals that Khubi Ram (PW 1) had seen the deceased and appellant three days before the dead body was recovered whereas according to witness Harlal (PW 10) he had seen deceased and appellant a day before the dead body was recovered. The testimony of these witnesses does not inspire confidence and it can safely be held that the prosecution has failed to prove the first circumstance that deceased and appellant were last seen together going towards village Dudawal.So far as second circumstance is concerned there is ample evidence on record that on 9.3.91 a dead body was got retrieved by the police from the well and head and legs of the dead body were missing. Khubi Ram (PW 1), Nawab Khan (PW 5), Kundan (PW 3), Harlal (PW 10) are the witnesses who have testified second circumstance. 11. With regard to third circumstance the prosecution has proved that on 10.3.91 legs were got retrieved from the well; so far as identification of the legs is concerned it may be mentioned that though there is a testimony of Than Chand (PW 8), Khoobi Ram (PW 1), Harlal (PW 10) and Govind (PW 11) that Yadi Ram used to tie black strings on his legs and they identified the legs on this basis yet only on the basis of tied of black strings on the legs it cannot be believed that the legs retrieved from the well were of deceased Yadi Ram, we will again discuss this aspect ahead with the testimony of Dr. Mahesh Vidyarthi (PW 17). 12. Mahesh Vidyarthi (PW 17). 12. So far as 4th circumstance is concerned there is a memo Ex.P. 24 through which the appellant came to be arrested on 14.3.91. At the time of arrest he was wearing blood stained Dhoti and this blood stained Dhoti was seized by the 1.0. through Ex.P. 25. On 14.3.91 at 12.45 p.m. the appellant informed to I.O. about the head of the deceased. A memo Ex.P. 37 was prepared in which information supplied by the appellant Under section 27 of the Evidence Act was recorded and head of the deceased was recovered on the basis of the said information on 14.3.91. Site plan of the place of recovery of head was prepared by the 1.0. as Ex.P. 24. Govind (PW 11) brother of the deceased Yadi Ram identified the head from three missing upper teeth. Whether the head so recovered by the I.O. was of Yadi Ram or not, we will appreciate this aspect ahead with the testimony of Dr. Mahesh Vidyarthi (PW 17). 13. So far as 5th circumstance of recovery of blood stained cloths and sho-;s of the deceased as well as recovery of `Farsa' is concerned the 1.0. had prepared seizure memos on the basis of information Under section 27 of the Evidence Act supplied by the appellant in which he admitted that he concealed the clothes and shoes of the deceased and also a blood stained `Farsa' and on the basis of the information the I.O. recovered clothes, shoes and `Farsa'.EVIDENCE REGARDING EXTRI JUDICIAL CONFESSION 14. The sixth and last circumstance is with regard fo'extra judicial confession and prosecution has produced Khubi Ram (PW 1), Than Chand (PW 8) and Harlal (PW 10) to prove that the appellant had made extra judicial confession before them. Khubi Ram (PW 1) has stated as under : `MERE SAAMNE SHYAM NE KUCH NAHI BATAYA. MUJHSE KARAM BAN GAYA, GALTI HO GAI MUJHE SHAMA KAR DO. MAINE YADI RAM KO KAAT DIYA (Shyam did not say anything infront of me. Shyam said I committed mistake, I may be excused. I cut Yadi Ram). Khubi Ram (PW 1) has stated as under : `MERE SAAMNE SHYAM NE KUCH NAHI BATAYA. MUJHSE KARAM BAN GAYA, GALTI HO GAI MUJHE SHAMA KAR DO. MAINE YADI RAM KO KAAT DIYA (Shyam did not say anything infront of me. Shyam said I committed mistake, I may be excused. I cut Yadi Ram). Than Chand (PW 8) has stated as under 'SHYAM NE KHUD MUJH SE KAHA THA KI TERA BHAI MAINE MAAR DIYA HAI, IS BAAT KI MAAFI MANGI YE BAAT MUJHSE ABHIYUKT NE MERE BADE BHAI KISHAN AUR KHOOBI RAM AUR BAHOOT SE AADMIYON KE SAAMNE KAHI THF (Shyam himself told me that I killed your brother and I may be excused. He told these words infront of his elder brother Kishan Das. Khubi Ram and many other persons.) Harlal (PW 10) has stated as under : `PHIR HUM, MEIN SWAYAM, GOVIND, THANA RAM AUR EK BABA.II, HARI SINGH, KHOOBI, HARI, MANNA, DAL CHAND VAGEIRAH SHYAM KE PAAS GAYE AUR USASE YADI RAM KE BAARE MEIN PUCHTAACH KI TO EK DAFA TO INKAAR KAR DIYA LEKIN BAAD ME HAAMI BHAR LEE AUR KAHA KI MAINE YADI RAM KO KAAT DIYA HAI AAB TUM LOG MUJHKO BACHALO" (Afterwards we.......I, personally, Govind, Thana Ram, Babaji, Hari, Khubi, Hari Singh, Munna, Dal Chand etc. went to Shyam and ask him about Yadi Rain. He refused initially but afterwards confessed and said that I cut Yadi Ram and now you save me). A perusal of the statements of the witnesses mentioned herein above goes to show that the evidence regarding extra-judicial confession has not been corroborated in material particulars. 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 outright. Therefore, the factum of alleged extra-judicial confession made by the appellant lacks credence and it appears to be devoid of truth. We find no reason as to why the appellant instead of surrendering before the police should have gone to Khubi Ram, Than Chand and Harlal and blurt out a confession before them jointly in the form of chorus. Therefore, in the instant case the evidence of extra-judicial confession is not only of a frail nature it is also lacking in probability and as such the same does not inspire confidence. Therefore, in the instant case the evidence of extra-judicial confession is not only of a frail nature it is also lacking in probability and as such the same does not inspire confidence. Witness Khubi Ram (PW 1) was related to deceased Yadi Ram, Har Lal (PW 10) was the caste fellow of Khubi Ram and resided in a house adjacent to Khubi Ram and Than Chand was the real brother of the deceased. In the cross examination Harlal stated : 'YEH SAHI HAI KI YADI MERE GAON KA RAHANE WALA NAH1 THA. USKI SASURAL KHUBI RAM KE YAHA THI ..........SITYAM DWARA MERE AUR ANAY LOGON KE SAAMANE YADI KI HATYA KARANE KE JURM KO SWEEKAR KAR LINE KE BAAD ME POLICE ME KOI REPORT DARJ NAHI KARAL" (It is correct that Yadi did not reside in my village, he resided at Mathura, Khubi Ram's house was his `in-law- house'....... After Shyam confessed to have committed the murder of Yadi Ram in front of me and other persons, I did not lodge report in the police.) The statement of Harlal reveals that the witnesses of extra-judicial confession are interested witnesses and their conduct was abnormal as they did not lodge any report with the police.In ` Sukha & Ors. v. The State of Rajasthan (1986 RCC page 155) ' This court held as under (para 12) `conduct of the witness whose grand mother has been murdered and before whom extra-judicial confession has been made yet not making a report is un-understandable." In the present case Than Chand was the real brother of the deceased and Khubi Ram was amongst his `in-Laws' yet they did not make report with the police after appellant having confessed before them that he killed the deceased. As such to our mind the trial Judge has committed a grave error in relying on the evidence of extra-judicial confession.EVIDENCE REGARDING `MOTIVE' 15. The aspect of `motive' is very unsatisfactory in the present case. It is perfectly true that law does not require that the element of motive should he proved by the prosecution. Criminals have certainly been punished for apparently motiveless murders, upon proof of crime. But in a case resting entirely upon the probabilities of circumstantial evidence, it may be significant where the `motive' also fails to fit the few circumstances actually established. Criminals have certainly been punished for apparently motiveless murders, upon proof of crime. But in a case resting entirely upon the probabilities of circumstantial evidence, it may be significant where the `motive' also fails to fit the few circumstances actually established. In the present case the prosecution has failed to suggest the motive of brutal murder. The prosecution could not solve the mystery behind murder of deceased Yadi Ram.In Terseem Kumar v. Delhi Administration (1995 Criminal Law Journal 470) the Apex Court has held (para 8):- `normally, there is a motive behind every criminal act and that is why investigating agency as well as the court while examining the complicity of an accused try to ascertain as to what was the motive on the part of the accused to commit the crime in question. It has been repeatedly pointed out by this court that where the case of the prosecution has been proved beyond all reasonable doubts on the basis of the materials produced before the court, the motive loses its importance. But in a case which is based on circumstantial evidence, motive for committing the crime on the part of the accused assumes greater importance.' No motive on the part of the appellant to commit the murder of Yadi Ram has been suggested or established on behalf of the prosecution in this case. EVIDENCE REGARDING RECOVERY OF CORPUS-DELICTI 16. In this case the dead body was recovered in three parts. Firstly police got retrieved the trunk on 9.3.91 from a well. Thereafter legs were recovered from the same well on 10.3.91 and on 14.3.91 `head' was recovered at the instance of the appellant. Than Chand (PW 8), Harlal (PW 10), Govind (PW 11), Dal Chand (PW 12) identified the legs as of the deceased on the basis of black strings tied on them. Dal Chand (PW 12) and Govind (PW 11) the son and brother of the deceased, have identified the head as of deceased Yadi Ram on the basis of missing upper teeth. Dr. Mahesh Vidyarthi (PW 17) conducted post-mortem of the trunk and before anybody could identify, it was creamated. Ex.P. 27 is the post-mortem report of trunk. It was the post/mortem examination of `unknown body of which both lower limbs were amputed at the level of hip joints. Ex. P. 32 is the photograph of the trunk. Dr. Mahesh Vidyarthi (PW 17) conducted post-mortem of the trunk and before anybody could identify, it was creamated. Ex.P. 27 is the post-mortem report of trunk. It was the post/mortem examination of `unknown body of which both lower limbs were amputed at the level of hip joints. Ex. P. 32 is the photograph of the trunk. A perusal of photograph reveals that legs were amputed at the level of hip joints. Ex.P 28 is the post-mortem report of head. Dr. Mahesh Vidyarthi who conducted post/mortem has opined as under:- `The head belongs to human being age 30 to 35 years. I cannot say definitely that the head belongs to deceased Yadi Ram Sharma.' Ex.P. 29 is the post-mortem report of legs, conducted by Dr. Mehta had given parawise opinion as follows:-As I can not have the opportunity of matching the lower extremities in the trunk of Sh. Yadi Ram Sharma so I am not in a position to tell whether, lower extremities parts belongs to him.' Dr. Mehta was not produced by the prosecution and his report was got exhibited by Dr. Mahesh Vidyarthi. A perusal of order sheets of the sessions case file reveals that Public Prosecutor who conducted the case in the trial court did not make attempt to produce the doctor and left him. As such no opportunity was provided to the appellant to cross/examine this medical expert and his opinion can not be read against the appellant. Further a look at the photograph of the legs (Ex.P. 33) goes to show that they were not imputed at the level of hip joints but were imputed at the level of knee joints. Ex.P. 35 is the photograph of `head' held by the appellant., Long hair of the head can be seen in the photograph and it looks like a female head.In Sukha & another v. the State of Rajasthan (RCC 1986 P. 155) this court has held (para 11) "We cannot refrain from observing that the investigation in this case has not been fair and the investigating officer for reason best known, neglected to perform his duties as an investigating officer, which in normal course he ought to have performed. Once the skeleton was recovered at the instance of the accused"it was obligatory upon the 1.0. Once the skeleton was recovered at the instance of the accused"it was obligatory upon the 1.0. to have sent the same to the Anatomical Department of a medical college to have found out whether the same belong to male or female. In this case also the head was not sent to the Anatomical Department in order to ascertain whether it belongs to male or female. The identification of the head on the basis of missing teeth, does not firmly establish that it was Yadi Ram's head. The `trunk' was not subjected to identification and the legs were identified only with the held of black strings tied on them. This identification also does not establish that the legs recovered were of deceased Yadi Ram. Thus the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the parts of the body so recovered, were of the same person. 17. We are aware that this being a conviction exclusively based on circumstantial evidence the law has laid down in the case of Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1984 Supreme Court 1022 (IBID) has to be strictly followed and the various links of the chain of circumstances disclosed in the evidence led by the prosecution have to be satisfactorily proved. The circumstances pointing out to the guilt of the accused alone are to he fully established being the same of conclusive nature and tendency and the said circumstances being only consistent with the hypothesis of accused's guilt, and the same should not be explainable by any other hypothesis except the guilt of the accused, while at the same time they should be exclusive of ever possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. In case of murder when the same rests only on circumstantial evidence the burden of the prosecution will not end by the chain of circumstances but they will also have to prove the continued and unbroken link between the various circumstances clearly pointing out to the guilt of the accused being also a fact that in a case of circumstantial evidence, the motive plays an important role, this was as appears to have been laid down in the case of State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Shrivastav reported in AIR 1992, Supreme Court 841) wherein it was observed that while appreciating circumstantial evidence the court must adopt a very cautious approach and should record a conviction only if all the links in the chain are complete pointing to the guilt of the accused, bearing in the mind that every hypothesis of innocence is always capable of being negatived on evidence. The Supreme Court also cautioned that great care must be taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied on is reasonably capable of two factors, the one in favour of the accused must be accepted. The circumstances relied upon must be found to have been fully established and the cumulative effect of all the facts so established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt.In Ashok Bhargava v. State of Bengal reported in 1995 Cr. Law Journal 2467 (para 30) the Division Bench has held as under : "The cumulative effect of these circumstances appears to us to be not sufficient to hold that the prosecution has proved its case to bring home the charge against the accused. Even at the worst, on consideration of the evidence and circumstances referred to above we are of the view that this is a case where the prosecution did not prove its case un-erringly and conclusively against the appellant and at any rate two views are possible. When two views could he possible from the evidence placed before the Court, one in favour of the accused and the other against him, the view supporting the, accused should, rather, be preferred. Even if we erred the benefit of the doubt must go to the accused." 18. When two views could he possible from the evidence placed before the Court, one in favour of the accused and the other against him, the view supporting the, accused should, rather, be preferred. Even if we erred the benefit of the doubt must go to the accused." 18. The circumstances which are being sought to be used against the appellant for the purpose of his conviction by the prosecution are totally insufficient for proving that the appellant `must' have caused the murder of the deceased. After scrutinising the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution we have found following inherent infirmities in the prosecution case:- (A) The evidence of `last seen' as brought out by the prosecution is not free from doubt. Even if the evidence would have been believed that the appellant was last seen with the deceased, such evidence by itself would not have pointed out to any criminal intention of the appellant. (B) The circumstance of recovery of `head' at the instance of the appellant is not free from doubt. The recovery of `head' was effected on 14.3.91 by the investigating officer. Dr. Mahesh Vidyarthi (PW 17) conducted post-mortem of the `trunk' on 9.3.91. According to the post-mortem report the death might have resulted before 48 hours of the post-mortem. It was only natural that after the death, the dead body will putrefy and would give out worst ever smell and this would attract the attention of the villagers and passers-by, at least vultures in flocks would have been attracted to, it giving another indication. But before 14.3.91, no one from the village had made complaint about `worst ever smell of the dead body'. The owner of the agricultural land from where the `head' was recovered would have been the best person to explain as to how and why the `head' was lying in his field. Chottali (PW 6) and Dhord (PW 7) who have heard the `hue and cry' in the night in nearby field, might have gone there in the morning and could have reported the matter but they did not choose to do so. These witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. (C) The evidence of `extra judicial confession' is also unworthy of belief. In the present case a confession was made by the appellant to such persons with whom he had no intimacy. These witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. (C) The evidence of `extra judicial confession' is also unworthy of belief. In the present case a confession was made by the appellant to such persons with whom he had no intimacy. No logical reason was given from the confession and for the persons selected for the purpose. Even otherwise Khubi Ram (PW 1), Than ('hand (PW 8) were related to the deceased Yadi Ram. Khubi Ram's house was `in-laws house' of the deceased and Than Chand was his brother. These witnesses did not inform the police about this confession. (D) The recovery of `blood stained clothes' of the deceased and `Farsa' (weapon of offence) is also not of much significance. It is difficult to understand as to why the appellant would create `evidence' against him in concealing the above articles. He could have thrown the clothes and shoes of the deceased as well as 'Farsa' with the dead body into well. The evidence seems to be an `after thought'. The witnesses examined to prove the recoveries were not independent witnesses. Recoveries of the above articles, thus, are not such valuable piece of evidence so as to lead to a conclusion that the appellant was the only person who was guilty of offence. (E) The prosecution is successful in proving that trunk, legs and head of a deceased person were recovered but a perusal of post-mortem reports Ex. 27, Ex. 28, and Ex. 29 and photographs and the statement of Dr. Mahesh Vidyarthi (Pw 17) reveals that it cannot be inferred beyond shadow of doubt that all the recovered parts of the body were of the same person. The tatoo-mark Adi Ram or Shadi Ram or Yadi Ram' found on the hand of the trunk casts a suspicion that the `trunk' retrieved from the well might be of the deceased Yadi Ram but in appreciating the evidence the court must not allow the suspicion, however, strong, to take the place of proof. (F) The investigating officer, after registering an FIR on a report of Nawab Khan (P 5) registered yet another delayed report (Ex.P 22) from the relatives of the deceased and attempted to fill up the lacunas of the case. This conduct of 1.0 and relative witnesses of the deceased also 'create doubt in the prosecution story. (G) The prosecution has failed to prove the `motive' behind murder. This conduct of 1.0 and relative witnesses of the deceased also 'create doubt in the prosecution story. (G) The prosecution has failed to prove the `motive' behind murder. (H) The prosecution story, it seems, is not free from doubt. The manner in which the brutal crime of murder was committed could not have been the act of a single person. It is difficult to understand that a single person would cut a dead body into pieces and then cancel `trunk and legs' into a well and 'head' in a field. As signs of dragging the dead body from the agricultural field upto the well, have not found place in the prosecution story, involvement of some more persons- in the crime, can not be ruled out. The prosecution thus has failed to prove the guilt against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The trial Court has not properly appreciated the inherent infirmities of the prosecution case and fell in error in convicting the appellant for committing an offence under Section 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.In the result we allow the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court against the appellant. We acquit the appellant from the charges under sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. He be set at liberty if not required in any other case.Appeal allowed. *******