JUDGMENT 1. - The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, No. 1, Udaipur by his judgment dated 3.12.1994 has convicted the three accused appellants viz., Motu @ Harcharan Singh, Gurmej Singh and Major Singh for offences under sections 302 rule with 120-B, 201 & 379 IPC. For the offences under section 302 rule with 120-B IPC each accused has been sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. For offences under sections 379 & 201 IPC, each of the accused has been sentenced to 3 years' rigorous imprisonment together with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. The prosecution case as presented by the prosecution may be stated as follows. On 28.12.1991, two trucks bearing Nos. DIG-1924 and DL-14 /4306 loaded with the consignment of bags of plastic granules started from Bombay. The consignments were to be delivered at Delhi. The first truck belonged to M/s. Frozen Food Carrier, Delhi and the second truck belonged to M/s. Nirmal Frozen Food Corporation, D-7, Kalka, Delhi. Deceased Dharampal and deceased Ranveer Singh were driver and cleaner respectively of truck No. 1924. Similarly, Motu Harcharan Singh and Major Singh were driver and cleaner respectively on the second truck No. 4306. Accused-appellants Major Singh and Gurmej Singh also accompanied the driver and cleaner of this truck. The transportation of the above commodity was undertaken by M/s. Bharti Parivahan, Bombay. Both the trucks, with the consignment of the above commodity, reached Khairwada (Distt. Udaipur) on 30.12.1991 and from there they proceeded to Godawari Ashram managed by Gordhan Giri. It is alleged that the drivers and cleaners of the above two vehicles took charas there and enjoyed some liquor and some intoxicating substances. As a result of which driver Dharam Pal and cleaner Ranveer Singh became unconscious. It is further alleged that the driver and cleaner of truck No. 4306 disposed of illegal part of the consignment of the bags of plastic granules on way before reaching to Khairwada and Godawari Ashram. After reaching Godawari Ashram, accused Harcharan Singh and his friends replenished the stock of granules bags which they had clandestinely sold on the way by lifting the above bags from the other truck No. 1924. Even after the above act, some 380 bags of plastic granules remained in vehicle No. 1924. After reaching Godawari Ashram, accused Harcharan Singh and his friends replenished the stock of granules bags which they had clandestinely sold on the way by lifting the above bags from the other truck No. 1924. Even after the above act, some 380 bags of plastic granules remained in vehicle No. 1924. The accused who were incharge of vehicle No. 1306 had a plan to commit theft in respect of the whole consignment contained in another vehicle No. 1924. With that object, after partly transferring the stock from vehicle No. 1924 to their own vehicle, they, with the help of Lehrulal, took a room on rent from Maganlal (PW 4) at Khairwada. Thereafter, the accused drove vehicle No. 1924 to Khairwada from Godawari Ashram and with the help of other persons deposited the above 380 bags in the above room by engaging a tractor and some labourers. 2. The further story of the prosecution is that after unloading the total bags from vehicle No. 1924, the accused wanted to drive both the vehicles towards Udaipur. Before proceeding towards Udaipur, the accused called Lehrulal and asked him to render help to them in placing the driver of vehicle No. 1924 in the truck. On Lehrulal's inquiry, the accused replied that he has become unconscious on account of smoking charas. There-after, Lehrulal helped in lifting and placing the so called driver of vehicle No. 1924 in the truck. One another person was also lifted and placed near the so called driver. Lehrulal then put a blanket over these two persons. Thereafter, both the trucks started towards Udaipur. Truck No. 1924 was being driven by Harcharan Singh and the other vehicle by Major Singh. On 31.12.1991, the dead body of Ranveer Singh was found in Morya Talai and that of Dharampal in the Dabok Area, P.S. Bhatewer on 1.1.1992. The police was informed and the above two dead bodies were collected and after usual formalities, the identity of the above two persons was established. Truck No. 1924 was also found at some distance where the dead body of Dharampal was lying in an abandoned condition. The police also seized the same. 3. The Investigating Officer, after registering a case vide FIR Ex. P/44 got the post-mortem conducted of Ranveer Singh and Dharampal by Dr. Anis Ahmed (PW 30) Dr. Mohan Lal. Dr. Truck No. 1924 was also found at some distance where the dead body of Dharampal was lying in an abandoned condition. The police also seized the same. 3. The Investigating Officer, after registering a case vide FIR Ex. P/44 got the post-mortem conducted of Ranveer Singh and Dharampal by Dr. Anis Ahmed (PW 30) Dr. Mohan Lal. Dr. Anis Ahmed found the following antimortem external and internal injuries on Ranveer Singh:- 1. Ranveer Singh (external injuries): (a) Abrasion 13 x 4 cm. on the anterior aspect of neck. (b) Abrasion 1 x 1 cm. on forehead. (c) Abrasion 6 x 2 cm. on right lumber region of back. (d) Abrasion 5 x 2 cm. on left lumber region of back. (internal injuries): Fracture of right temporal bone 2. Dharampal (external injuries): (a) Abrasion right frontal emminence 2 x 1 cm. on right side. (b) Abrasion 1 x 1 cm. just near injury (a). (c) Abrasion 2" x 1" lateral to right hip joint. (internal injuries): There was accumulation of blood under scalp left side as a result of head injuries. According to Medical Officer, both the persons died on account of head injuries. 4. The time of death was between 12 to 24 hours. The postmortem was conducted on 1.1.1992 at 12:15 p.m. and 4.1.1992 at 12:40 p.m. respectively. Harcharan Singh delivered the consignment being transported in his truck No. 4306 at Delhi on 2.1.1992. The above truck belonged to Smt. Naini Mehta, mother-in-law of Arun Seith. Harcharan Singh remained driver on the above vehicle up to 25.1.1992. It is alleged by the prosecution that Harcharan Singh and the other accused made two trips thereafter to Khairwada for the purpose of lifting the 380 bags kept in the room of Maganlal (PW 4). The accused kept 149 bags at Bombay and 18 bags at Delhi. During the investigation, the Investigating Officer arrested Major Singh, Gordhan Giri, Gurmej Singh and Motu 6 Harcharan Singh on 30.1.1992, 6.2.1992, 8.2.1992 and 15.2.1992 respectively and prepared arrest memos. It is alleged that while in police custody, Major Singh and Harcharan Singh made disclosure statement that each accused was prepared to get the plastic granules bags recovered and in pursuance of the above information, the police recovered 149 bags vide seizure memo Ex. P/7 and 18 bags vide seizure memo Ex. P/53 from Bombay and Delhi respectively. It is alleged that while in police custody, Major Singh and Harcharan Singh made disclosure statement that each accused was prepared to get the plastic granules bags recovered and in pursuance of the above information, the police recovered 149 bags vide seizure memo Ex. P/7 and 18 bags vide seizure memo Ex. P/53 from Bombay and Delhi respectively. With this evidence, the police filed a charge-sheet against the accused and the accused were committed to the Court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges under sections 302 rule with 120-B, 201 & 379 IPC against each accused. The plea of the accused was recorded. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution, in order to prove the above offences, examined as many as 39 witnesses and produced several documents. The learned Sessions Judge, after considering the prosecution evidence, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubts that both the above trucks started from Bombay with the consignment of plastic granule bags to be delivered at Delhi on 28.12.1991 and they reached Khairwada on 30.12.1991 without any difficulty. From there, both the trucks reached Godawari Ashram which was managed by Gordhan Giri. There, the deceased driver and cleaner viz., Ranveer Singh and Dharampal were duped. They became unconscious. The accused before reaching Khairwada clandestinely disposed of several bags of plastic granules on the way. After making Ranveer Singh and Dharampal unconscious, the accused shifted some bags from truck No. 1924 to the other truck and made the consignment complete. Still 380 bags remained on the truck. They removed the above bags and kept them in the room hired from Maganlal. He further found that the prosecution proved that the accused put the unconscious bodies of Ranveer Singh and Dharampal in truck No. 1924 with the help of Lehrulal. Both the truck then proceeded towards Udaipur. Truck No. 1924 was driven by Harcharan Singh and the other by Major Singh. Thereafter, the accused murdered Ranveer Singh and Dharampal and threw the dead bodies on way and also abandoned the truck. After making delivery of their consignment at Delhi, the accused further made two return trips and removed the 380 bags kept in the room of Maganlal. 5. The learned Sessions Judge, therefore, held the accused guilty and passed the above sentence. 6. After making delivery of their consignment at Delhi, the accused further made two return trips and removed the 380 bags kept in the room of Maganlal. 5. The learned Sessions Judge, therefore, held the accused guilty and passed the above sentence. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the accused and the learned P.P. for the State at length. After a thorough scrutiny of the prosecution evidence, we are convinced that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove any of the charges against the accused. First, we may deal with the offence under section 379 IPC. Admittedly the case of the prosecution was that the above two trucks, each having the consignment of plastic granule bags, started from Bombay for making delivery at Delhi. According to the prosecution, the accused while driving vehicle No. 4306 disposed of several bags dishonestly on the way. The prosecution has, however, not produced an iota of evidence as to whom the accused sold the above commodity. The case was investigated by two Investigating Officers viz., Mool Chand (PW 32) and Ratanlal (PW 39). Neither of the Investigating Officers took pains to ascertain the identity of the consigner or the consignee of the above consignment. Further, no efforts were made to identify the commodity comprised in the above two consignments. From the seizure memos Ex. P/7 and Ex. P/53, it is clear that according to the Investigating Agency, the above commodity comprised granule bags having distinct identity and the containers contained the description of the commodity. In order to show that the goods recovered at the instance of the accused presumably from their possession were stolen property. It was absolutely necessary for the prosecution to establish the nexus between the goods consigned and the goods recovered at the instance of the accused from their possession. Both the goods must be identical. Both the above Investigating Officers have stated that 149 bags vide seizure memo Ex. P/7 and 18 bags vide seizure memo Ex. P/53 were recovered from Bombay and Delhi respectively in pursuance of the information furnished by Major Singh and Motu Harcharan Singh respectively. The prosecution has not produced any connecting evidence to show that the above bags recovered vide Ex. P/7 and Ex. P/53 were stolen property, inasmuch as both the Investigating Officers were totally indifferent to establish the essential link of the goods consigned in the above trucks. The prosecution has not produced any connecting evidence to show that the above bags recovered vide Ex. P/7 and Ex. P/53 were stolen property, inasmuch as both the Investigating Officers were totally indifferent to establish the essential link of the goods consigned in the above trucks. The Investigating Officers ought to have obtained the consignment receipt in respect of both the vehicles which could have shown who was the consigner and who was the consignee. Normally, in the consignment receipt, the details of the goods consigned are given. If the above evidence would have been procured, the prosecution could have succeeded in establishing with reference to the property recovered whether the same was stolen or not. 7. The prosecution has also not proved that the goods comprised in each consignment carried by the above two trucks were interchangeable. This was absolutely necessary because according to prosecution, at Khairwada the accused unloaded a few bags from truck No. 1924 and put into their own truck No. 4306 and according to Arun Seith, Motu @ Harcharan Singh duly delivered the consignment transported by truck No. 4306 at Delhi on 2.1.1992. This shows that the consignment carried by Harcharan Singh in vehicle No. 4306 to Delhi was in proper order. This clearly shows that both the trucks carried bags of plastic granules having the same description on the container. As we have already stated that the prosecution totally failed to prove the identification of the consigned bags.Even for the sake of argument, it may be assumed that the accused emptied vehicle No. 1924 and usurped part of the consignment by transferring it into their own vehicle and the remaining lodging in the rented room on Khairwada, it has not been proved that the above goods were stolen property. The Investigating Officer ought to have interrogated the consigner who could depose about the identity of the consigned goods. Hence, in our opinion, the recovery of granule bags by Ex. P/7 and Ex. P/53 has got no relevancy and the above recovery cannot be proved against the accused. The Investigating Officer ought to have interrogated the consigner who could depose about the identity of the consigned goods. Hence, in our opinion, the recovery of granule bags by Ex. P/7 and Ex. P/53 has got no relevancy and the above recovery cannot be proved against the accused. Regarding appreciation of the nature, character and essential proof required in a criminal case which rests on circumstantial evidence, the Supreme Court in Hanumant v. State of M.P., AIR 1952 SC 343 observed : "It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance, be fully established and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances would be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused." In the instant case, all the necessary links to prove the essential ingredients of the offence under section 379 are missing. At the risk of repetition, we may state that the prosecution has failed to prove who was the consigner, what was the particular description of the goods consigned, who was the consignee and to whom the accused sold part of the goods on way before reaching Khairwada. How the goods recovered has any connection with the stolen goods. The Investigating Officer has conceded that such consignment of plastic granule bags is common. Hence, we hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence under section 379 IPC. 8. Regarding the offence under section 302 IPC, first we may deal with the medical evidence. From the prosecution evidence, it has been proved that the dead bodies were those of Ranveer Singh and Dharampal. We have also stated the external injuries found on the persons of Ranveer Singh and Dharampal. 8. Regarding the offence under section 302 IPC, first we may deal with the medical evidence. From the prosecution evidence, it has been proved that the dead bodies were those of Ranveer Singh and Dharampal. We have also stated the external injuries found on the persons of Ranveer Singh and Dharampal. Even a perusal of the external and the internal injuries sustained by the above deceased persons would show that the internal injuries do not correspond with the external injuries. The prosecution has not tried to prove and did not ask a single question from the Medical Officer as to whether the above external injuries could cause the internal injuries resulting in their death. The prosecution even did not examine Dr. Mohanlal who conducted the postmortem of Dharampal. The signature of Dharampal on post-mortem report Ex. P/41 was proved by Dr. Anis Ahmed (PW 30). According to the postmortem report, the time of death also did not tally with the prosecution evidence. It was the duty of the Investigating Officer to have ascertained how the deceased died, what was the cause of death and what were the circumstances in which their murder was committed. Moolchand (PW 32) gave a very irresponsible statement when he says that according to his investigation either the deceased were thrown from the truck or they were strangulated. This clearly shows that he was not certain about the manner in which both the deceased died. It is the duty of the Investigating Officer to solve the murder by making thorough investigation. He even did not try to elicit the relevant information from the Medical Officers. If he was not certain, he ought to have taken the expert opinion of the Medical Officers who conducted the post-Mortems of the above deceased persons. It is, therefore, very difficult to ascertain the cause of death. It may be conceded that both the deceased died on account of head injuries but the question that calls for determination is how the above injuries were caused. If the deceased were thrown out from the truck, they ought to have sustained external injuries which caused the corresponding internal injuries we have already stated that the external injuries noticed by the Medical Officers, though antimortem in nature, do not at all correspond with the external injuries. The prosecution, therefore, failed to prove how the deceased sustained the above head injuries. 9. The prosecution, therefore, failed to prove how the deceased sustained the above head injuries. 9. The main allegation of the prosecution is that with the help of Lehrulal, the unconscious bodies of the deceased were put in vehicle No. 1924 and it was driven by Harcharan Singh. The other vehicle No. 4306 was being driven by Major Singh. According to the statement of Lehrulal, both the persons became highly intoxicated by smoking charas. Lehrulal told that the accused were telling that the first person who was put in the vehicle was the driver of vehicle No. 1924. However, except this statement, there is nothing to indicate the identity of the first person. Lehrulal has clearly stated that on account of darkness he could not see faces of the two persons who were put in the above vehicle. In fact, regarding the second person there is nothing on record to show who was that man. In other words, in our opinion, the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused persons put both the deceased in the above vehicle. The above two persons, according to Lehrulal, were brought from the Ashram. Lehrulal was not knowing the driver Ranveer Singh from before. Hence, it is not safe to hold that the first person who was put into the vehicle was Ranveer Singh. In our opinion, the prosecution has not produced any satisfactory evidence regarding the identity of the persons who were kept in the above vehicle No. 1924 which was allegedly driven by Harcharan Singh. It was the duty of the prosecution to prove this fact beyond all reasonable doubt. From the statement of Lehrulal a doubt remains whether the first person put in the vehicle was Ranveer Singh. Regarding the second person, there is not even a iota of evidence who that man was. From the later evidence, when both the bodies were found lying on the road and truck No. 1924 in an abandoned condition, only a possibility indicated that perhaps the death of the above two persons was related to the above truck but still the doubt remains and the accused are entitled to the benefit of doubt. 10. For the above reasons we hold that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the above offences against the accused. 10. For the above reasons we hold that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the above offences against the accused. Before parting with the case, we would like to point out that it is the duty of the Investigating Officer to understand the nature of case and then take essential steps to unveil the circumstances responsible for the offence. He must collect the necessary evidence and highlight the circumstances from which an inference of the guilt against the accused can be proved. It is his duty to book the culprits and spare the innocents. In the instant case, we find the role of both the Investigating Officers wholly dubious and speaks of their connivance with the accused persons inasmuch as they woefully ignored to make proper investigation about the genesis of the occurrence and the participation of the accused therein. We, therefore, accept the appeal set aside the conviction and sentence of the accused. The accused are hereby acquitted of the offences under sections 302 rule with 102-B & 379 IPC. The accused be set at liberty forth with' if not required in any other case.Appeal allowed. *******