Judgment MOHD. YAMIN, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against acquittal of Bhupendra Joshi preferred by the State. ( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution before the learned Sessions Judge was that deceased Ramdhan Sharma was a Journalist in Sriganganagar. He was the owner of Times Printing Press situated in Lakarmandi. His residence was just behind the Press in a lane. His office was behind Gurudwara in a lane. Uddeshya Singh PW-1 was the Manager of Press. On 22-3-80 at about 10 p. m. Uddeshya Singh closed the Press, locked its premises and handed over key at the residence of Ramdhan Sharma to his wife. On 23-3-80 at about 8. 30 am. when Uddeshya Singh went to the residence of Ramdhan Sharma to obtain Key, he found that the wife of Ramdhan Sharma was waiting for him. She told that Ramdhan did not return on the preceding night. Then Uddeshya Singh took they key from the wife of Ramdhan Sharma and assured her to enquire. It is pertinent to mention that the duplicate key of the office room of Ramdhan Sharma was in possession of PW-10 Kallu Ram who was a class-IV servant in S. D. College and was working as a part time servant with Ramdhan Sharma. PW-1 Uddeshya Singh went to Kallu Ram and then went to the office of the Press. On opening the office he found the dead body of Ramdhan Sharma. The body was tied with an electric wire. Blood was also found at the spot. The moped of Ramdhan Sharma was lying in the lane. Then Uddeshya Singh locked the room and went to the police station Kotwali, Sriganganagar, FIR Ex. P/1 was lodged. A case under Sec. 302 IPC was registered. ( 3 ) PW-26 Bhopal Singh was informed on telephone and he immediately came to the Kotwali. Bhopal Singh PW-26 immediately went to the site and got photographs snapped. Site plan Ex. P/2 and memo were prepared. Two tumblers, a jug and a packet of cassette were seized by Ex. P/3. Lock of the room was seized by Ex. P/4. Certain other items were also seized vide Ex. P/7. Panchnama of the dead body was also prepared. On 23-3-80 Bhupendra Joshi, respondent, was arrested vide Ex. P/29. He made a disclosure statement for recovery of key ring, tape recorder, pieces of video tape. It was recorded as Ex. P/30. P/3. Lock of the room was seized by Ex. P/4. Certain other items were also seized vide Ex. P/7. Panchnama of the dead body was also prepared. On 23-3-80 Bhupendra Joshi, respondent, was arrested vide Ex. P/29. He made a disclosure statement for recovery of key ring, tape recorder, pieces of video tape. It was recorded as Ex. P/30. Key ring was recovered from a drain situated near the house of Harbans. Ex. P/14, seizure memo, was prepared. Accused respondent also got tape recorder and pieces of half burnt audio tapes recovered from his house. Recovery memo Ex. P/15 was prepared. On 24-3-80 an iron rod was recovered at the instance of the respondent vide Ex. P/9. On 25-3-80 an iron rod was recovered at the instance of the respondent vide Ex. P/9. On 25-3-80 the respondent made a disclosure statement about a watch. It is Ex. P/32. The watch was recovered vide Ex. P/10. Autopsy of deceased was done by Dr. R. K. Gupta, PW-15, who prepared Ex. P/22 postmortem report. Deceased Ramdhan Sharma died due to asphyxia which was caused by stangulation. Accused was put to trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sriganganagar before whom the prosecution examined as many as 25 witnesses. Respondent was examined under Sec. 313 Cr. P. C. He did not produce any defence. ( 4 ) AFTER hearing both the parties, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sriganganagar acquitted the respondent of the charges of offences under Sections 302 and 404 IPC. ( 5 ) WE have heard the learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the respondent at length and have also gone through the entire record. ( 6 ) LEARNED trial Judge, since the case is based on circumstantial evidence, divided circumstances into different categories and they are four in number as follows :- (1) PW-4 Gangadhar went to the office of Ramdhan Sharma at about 8. 30 p. m. on 22-3-80 to invite the deceased for some function. Respondent was seen in the office of Ramdhan Sharma alongwith Vinay Kumar and Ramesh. After extending invitation he came down stairs and while he was urinating he heard two persons calling Bhupendra and telling that they had finished the work. Thereafter the respondent Bhupendra and those two persons went in a jeep. Respondent was seen in the office of Ramdhan Sharma alongwith Vinay Kumar and Ramesh. After extending invitation he came down stairs and while he was urinating he heard two persons calling Bhupendra and telling that they had finished the work. Thereafter the respondent Bhupendra and those two persons went in a jeep. (2) On a disclosure statement and at the instance of respondent, tape recorder, burnt and half burnt pieces of film and plastic of audio cassettes and a key ring were recovered. An iron rod and a watch were also recovered at the instance of the respondent. (3) Tape recorder and watch were identified by Anupama Devi PW-6, PW-9 Kesri Chand and PW-21 Om Prakash. The watch was sold to Ramdhan Sharma PW-12. Premchand and Ramdhan Sharma identified the watch. (4) PW-19 Kallu Ram has stated that Bhupendra Joshi used to visit the office of Ramdhan Sharma. ( 7 ) OUT of all these circumstances, learned Sessions Judge found only one circumstance proved that the above articles were recovered at the instance of respondent. But there was no evidence that the tape recorder, watch and key rind were in possession of Ramdhan Sharma before his death and, therefore, he held that this circumstance did not connect the respondent with the crime. All other circumstances were not proved. So the circumstance of recovery of articles did not connect the respondent with the crime. ( 8 ) IT is well settled that in a case based on circumstantial evidence the following tests should be satisfied :- (1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; (2) though circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; (3) the circumstances taking cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis then that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence Padala Veera Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1990 SC 79 : (1990 Cri LJ 605 ). ( 9 ) WE have scrutinised the evidence on these points. According to PW-4 Gangadhar, he was in the office of Ramdhan Sharma on 22-3-80 at about 8. 30 p. m. He saw the respondent in the office of Ramdhan Sharma but he cannot be believed on this count as he has not identified the respondent even in the Court. He did not tell this fact to the Investigating Officer during investigation as he has himself admitted in his cross-examination. So this version of the witness came for the first time before the learned Sessions Judge. Had the things transpired in the way this witness has stated in examination in chief he would have definitely told to the police. The story appears to be after thought. ( 10 ) SO far as recovery of articles is concerned, it may be stated that the recovery of iron rod does not connect the respondent with the crime in view of the scientific investigation. It may be stated that an iron rod was recovered from the place of occurrence and it was seized and sent for chemical examination. We have perused reports Ex. P/36 and P/37. The metalic bar was about two feet in length and was having smears of foreign white and green materials. It was found to have a few fibres sticking over its entire length. The fibers recovered from the metalic bar were of cotton and on further examination did not tally with the fibres of fabric of coat and pant which were worn by Ramdhan Sharma deceased. The recovery of iron bar is of no use to the prosecution. ( 11 ) SO far as recovery of watch is concerned, it is testified by PW-23 Abdul Aziz and PW-26 Bhopal Singh. Both of them are police officers. But the motbir PW-10 Radheyram does not support the recovery. According to PW-9 Kesrichand, the watch was recovered by Abdul Aziz, Sub-Inspector but he admitted that he put his signatures on Ex. P/10 which mentions that it was the respondent who took out the watch. However, since he has put his signatures on Ex. P/10, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was right in believing that the watch was recovered at the instance of the respondent. P/10 which mentions that it was the respondent who took out the watch. However, since he has put his signatures on Ex. P/10, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was right in believing that the watch was recovered at the instance of the respondent. ( 12 ) SO far as recovery of key ring, tape recorder and pieces of half burnt and half burnt films of audio tapes are concerned, PW-23 Abdul Aziz and PW-26 Bhopal Singh have been corroborated by PW-20 Ghananshyam Das though they have contradicted each other but those contradictions are natural. The lower Court was right in holding that the prosecution was able to prove the recovery of tape recorder, watch and key ring. But there is no evidence to the effect that they were seen with the deceased before his death. Instead PW-19 Kallu Ram though stated in police statement that these articles were seen with Ramdhan Sharma during his life time yet when he was examined in the Court, he did not support it. Therefore it cannot be held that these articles were taken away by the respondent after committing the murder of Ramdhan Sharma. ( 13 ) LEARNED Public Prosecutor contended that the respondent should have been convicted under Section 411 IPC. But we do not agree as the prosecution has not been able to prove that the watch and tape recorder were in possession of deceased Ramdhan Sharma and were stolen from his possession. It is admitted by the prosecution that the respondent used to visit the deceased very often and the probability that the deceased might have handed over these articles to the respondent cannot be ruled out. The prosecution started with the plank that Ramdhan Sharma was a sodomite (active) and a prosecution witness named Kallu Ram had seen the deceased and the respondent indulging in sodomy. Therefore, the deceased might have himself given these articles to the respondent himself. ( 14 ) SO far as recovery of key ring is concerned, we are of the opinion that it does not connect the respondent with crime. No criminal would keep an incriminating piece of evidence with him as a trophy in such circumstances. Therefore, the deceased might have himself given these articles to the respondent himself. ( 14 ) SO far as recovery of key ring is concerned, we are of the opinion that it does not connect the respondent with crime. No criminal would keep an incriminating piece of evidence with him as a trophy in such circumstances. If the key ring was having a key of lock by which room of deceased was closed, prosecution should have proved it by positive evidence by demonstrating or otherwise that the lock could be opened and closed by a key found in the key ring recovered from the possession of the respondent. The key ring recovered at the instance of the respondent is not going to connect the respondent with the crime because there appears to be no reason why the respondent after having done such a gruesome crime would try to flee as early as possible without seeing behind. Secondly, he would not keep the incriminating evidence with him and would like to part with as early as possible. Though investigation could have been done in a better way by lifting finger prints from the place of occurrence and getting them compared with the finger prints of the respondent which were taken during the investigation, we are constrained to say that no attempt was made to submit a report of their comparison. Therefore, the recovery of these articles does not connect the respondent with the crime. ( 15 ) THE third circumstance enumerated by learned Sessions Judge was about identification of tape recorder and watch by the prosecution witnesses to the effect that they did belong to the deceased. We have already discussed about this circumstance above and presuming that two articles belonged to the deceased yet there is no evidence that they were stolen by the respondent. ( 16 ) THE fourth circumstance that the respondent used to visit the deceased is also of no help to the prosecution. PW-19 Kallu Ram has stated that respondent Bhupendra Joshi used to visit Ramdhan Sharma like other persons in his office. Prosecution indicated special relationship of deceased with respondent. But Kallu did not support the case of prosecution relating to carnal relations of deceased with espondent. PW-19 Kallu Ram has stated that respondent Bhupendra Joshi used to visit Ramdhan Sharma like other persons in his office. Prosecution indicated special relationship of deceased with respondent. But Kallu did not support the case of prosecution relating to carnal relations of deceased with espondent. ( 17 ) LEARNED Public Prosecutor relied upon decision reported in Baijur v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 522 (1978 Cri LJ 646)and contended that unexplained possession of stolen property leads to the presumption that the accused committed offence of murder. We have found that in this decision it has been held that since the murders and robbery form a part of one transaction, the recent and unexplained possession of the stolen property by the accused appellant justifies the presumption that it was the accused and none else who had committed murder. It is necessary that all the offences alleged should be integral part of the same transaction. We do not find so in the case in hand. In AIR 1980 SC 1753 : (1980 Cri LJ 1270) Nagappa Dondiba v. State of Karnataka, it was held that from mere recovery of ornaments of deceased at the instance of accused it cannot be inferred that accused must have murdered deceased in absence of any evidence to connect him with murder. ( 18 ) IN the present case the prosecution has not been able to connect the crime at all with the respondent. It has also not been able to prove that the watch and tape recorder were seen in possession of the deceased. So the question of presumption also does not arise. We have already held that the articles were probably handed over by the deceased himself to the respondent. ( 19 ) WE find that the conclusions drawn by the learned Sessions Judge are not perverse. In a case of acquittal the finding of the lower Court can be interfered only when we come to the conclusion that the finding is perverse. There is no miscarriage of justice. ( 20 ) IN view of above discussion, we agree with the judgment of learned Sessions Judge and we hereby dismiss the appeal.