JUDGMENT 1. -Appellants Pratap Singh and Vikram Singh were tried for offence under section 302/34 IPC for murder of Suresh Chandra aged 22 years by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Hanumangarh. Both of them were convicted and each one of them was sentence to undergo life imprisonment and a tine of Rs. 500/-. In default of fine each one of them was awarded three months R.I. These two appeals have been preferred separately by each of them. Both of them are being disposed of by this single judgment. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Maniram Foot Constable No. 8 13 reported at Police Station, Hanumangarh at 8.00 a.m. on 22.6.1992 that he had gone for a morning walk in open jungle and found a dead body of a boy. On this information Sub-Inspector Shri Govind Ram along with the police personnel went at the site after making an entry in Rojnamcha which is Ex.P/22. A written report Ex.P/23 was sent tollanumangarh Junction Police Station by Shri Govind Ram mentioning that he visited the site and found a dead body of a 22 years old young boy at an open place in between Shiv Mandir Cinema and Milk Dairy. The dead body was having injuries by knife on chest, stomach and back. The clothes worn by the young boy were also blood stained. It was also mentioned that a scarf was lying at a distance of about 100 yards. In between this space drops of blood were found on some spots. It was mentioned in the report that it indicated that the deceased was being followed by some persons and was stabbed with knife during the night. FIR No. 251/92 under section 302 IPC was registered at the Police Station Hanumangarh Junction. Sub Inspector Govind Ram started investigation. During the investigation, site plan Ex.P/2 I was prepared, photographs of deceased were snapped which are Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/8. Post-mortem of the dead body was conducted by Dr. Narendra Godara, PW 2. He found as many as 24 incised wounds on different parts of the body of the deceased. He prepared post mortem report Ex.P/9. The cause of death was internal haemorrhage as a result of injuries to lungs and liver. It is alleged ' that the public of Hanumangarh started a movement as the police was not able to arrest murderers. He found as many as 24 incised wounds on different parts of the body of the deceased. He prepared post mortem report Ex.P/9. The cause of death was internal haemorrhage as a result of injuries to lungs and liver. It is alleged ' that the public of Hanumangarh started a movement as the police was not able to arrest murderers. Pratab Singh was arrested on 2.6.1992 and Vikram Singh was arrested on 24.6.1992. It is further alleged that a knife was recovered from Pratap Singh which was blood stained. His pant and shirt were also recovered which were blood stained. A razor was recovered at the instance of Vikram Singh. His pant and shirt were also recovered. After investigation challan was presented before concerned Magistrate who committed the accused persons to learned Sessions Judge to face trial. He framed and read over charges under section 302/34 against both the appellants who denied them and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses. Appellants were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. They produced four witnesses in defence. After hearing the parties, the learned Sessions Judge convicted both the appellants as stated above. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant. 4. According to the learned counsel for the appellants the case is based on circumstantial evidence as there is no eye witness. They stated that there is no motive. According to them it was a blind murder and the police wanted to book somebody in view of movement by public. The appellants were falsely roped in. Their submission is that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, whole link of chain must be established beyond reasonable doubt. They have submitted that the case is based on three circumstances. They are that the accused persons were last seen with the deceased, that they made extra-judicial confessions and blood stained knife was recovered at the instance of Pratap Singh and his shirt was also stained with blood. On the information of Vikram Singh a razor was recovered and his pant and shirt were recovered. They have submitted that the chain in the circumstances of this case is not consistent and the accused persons deserve acquittal. 5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has tried to support the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge. 6. On the information of Vikram Singh a razor was recovered and his pant and shirt were recovered. They have submitted that the chain in the circumstances of this case is not consistent and the accused persons deserve acquittal. 5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has tried to support the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge. 6. Regarding a case which is solely based on circumstantial evidence, the principles laid down by the Apex Court are definite. It has been held in number of cases that the charge of murder can also be established by inference to be drawn from the circumstances available in the case like the charge of any other offence. So when the only evidence available is circumstantial in nature, the facts and circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is required to be drawn by the prosecution must be fully established beyond reasonable doubt and the facts and circumstances so established should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should also entirely be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and must exclude every reasonable hypothesis consistent with his innocence. All links in the chain of events must be established beyond reasonable doubt. Suspicion or emotional consideration should not be allowed to take the place of legal proof. The Court is, therefore, required to be watchful to avoid the danger of suspicion or emotional considerations. Reference in this connection may he made to Suresh Chandra v. State of Bihar, 1995 SCC (Cr.) 60 and Balvinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 1996 SCC (Cr.) 59 . 7. We will scrutinise the evidence led by the prosecution. Dead body of deceased Subhash was found by PW 8 Head Constable Maniram on 22.6.1992 when he went to ease himself near Shiv Mandir Cinema. He went back to the Police Station and informed the SHO Govind Ram. Report was mentioned in Ex.P/22, Rojnamcha which bears the signature of this witness. Then Govinidram: SHO and Maniram went to the site. Maniram was handed over Ex.P/23 (Written report) by the SHO which was registered at the Police Station. PW 10 SHO Govindram has corroborated that Maniram gave an information at 8.00 a.m. which was recorded as Ex.P/22 and he proceeded to the site recording his departure from the Police Station. Then Govinidram: SHO and Maniram went to the site. Maniram was handed over Ex.P/23 (Written report) by the SHO which was registered at the Police Station. PW 10 SHO Govindram has corroborated that Maniram gave an information at 8.00 a.m. which was recorded as Ex.P/22 and he proceeded to the site recording his departure from the Police Station. He started proceeding at the site and then he prepared Ex.P/23, handed it over to Maniram and ordered him to go to the police station. FIR was registered and Maniram came hack with Ex.P/23 to him at the site. He has also stated that post-mortem of the dead body was got conducted. PW 2 Dr. Narendra Godara has stated that on 22.6.1992 he performed post-mortem of Subhash at 6 p.m. As many as 24 injuries were found on the body of the deceased. They were caused by sharp weapon and out of them injuries No. 11,13,14,15,17 and 18 were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature signally as well as cumulatively. They were caused by sharp edged weapon such as knife and razor (ustara). From his statement we find that the death of Subhash was homicidal and it has not been challenged by the learned counsel for the appellants. 8. The first circumstance against the accused appellants is that the deceased was lastseen alive with them. According to PW 7 Dinesh Kumar. he saw Subhash and Pratap together at Sadulshar bus stand 21.6.92 He enquired from Subhash as to where he was going. Then Subhash told that he and Pradeep were going to Hanumangarh where Vikram Singh Cad invited them. He was cross examined at length. We find from his evidence that he is a reliable witness. PW 3 Surendra Kumar, who has been subjected to a very lengthy cross examination, has stated that Subhash was his brother-in-law. The witness was going from Anaj Mandl Hanumangrah to Sangaria. He found Subhash and the accused appellants going together ona scooter. Vikram and Pradeep are the friends of Subhash. He asked Suhhash to accompany him to Sangria but the appellants told that Subhash would leave them. Then all the three went on the scooter towards Shiv Mandir Cinema. It was at about 7 or 7.30 p.m. He has further stated that the scooter was being driven by Vikram. Vikram and Pradeep are the friends of Subhash. He asked Suhhash to accompany him to Sangria but the appellants told that Subhash would leave them. Then all the three went on the scooter towards Shiv Mandir Cinema. It was at about 7 or 7.30 p.m. He has further stated that the scooter was being driven by Vikram. The witness went to Sangaria from Hanumangrah by bus and next day he came to know that Suhhash was murdered. He thereupon went to Sadulsahar and told about it to Satish. He has stated that the Police recorded his statement on the third day of the occurrence at about 10.00 a.m. at the residence of Satish where he was present. He stated that when the Police came ten or twelve persons were present in the house. His statement was recorded. It has been argued that the statement of this witness was recorded late by the police and, therefore, he should not be believed. In the facts and circumstances of this case it cannot be said that his statement Ex.D/2 was recorded late because incident had taken place on 21.6.1992 and the witness reached from Sangaria to Hanumangarh next day in the night at about 10.00 p.m. He was examined by the police next day i.e. 23.6.1992 As soon as he reached Hanumangarh he told PW 1 Satish that he hadseen the deceased alive with accused appellants. PW 1 Satish Kumar has stated that Surendra Kumar came from Sangaria and told that he had seen the accused appellants along with Subhash on 21.6.1992 at about 8 or 8.30 p.m. on the Katcheri Road and that they had gone towards Shiv Mandir Cinema Hanumangarh Junciton. According to this witness Surendra Kumar had told him about it at about 8.30 or 9.00 p.m. when he reached the house of Satish Chandra. He has also stated that Surendra did not attend the funeral. It means that Surendra had come after funeral had taken place. Surendra is a reliable witness and we believe him. From the evidence of these witnesses it is well proved that the deceased was last seen alive with the appellants on 21.6.1992 in the night when all three were going on a scooter towards Shiv Mandir Cinema in Hanumangarh. 9. Now we will take up the evidence regarding recoveries and extra judicial confession. From the evidence of these witnesses it is well proved that the deceased was last seen alive with the appellants on 21.6.1992 in the night when all three were going on a scooter towards Shiv Mandir Cinema in Hanumangarh. 9. Now we will take up the evidence regarding recoveries and extra judicial confession. PW 10 Govindram, Investigating Officer, has stated that he arrested Pradeep Singh on 23.6.1992 at about 8.00 p.m. and arrest memo Ex.P/38 was prepared. On 28.6.1992 he made a disclosure statement on the basis of which knife was recovered. According to him it was blood stained. The knife was recovered vide Ex.P/19. This knife was dug out from soil where it was buried by the accused appellant. This knife was sent to the FSL. Report of the FSL is Ex.P/49 which proves that the knife was stained with human blood. This evidence of recovery is sufficient to connect accused appellant Pradeep Singh with the crime as he had made extra judicial confession before two witnesses. 10. PW 5 Gyan Chand has stated that he had gone to Ganganagar for his personal work. The accused appellant Pradeep met him at about 5.00 p.m. He was in pensive mood. He confessed his guilt before him and also told that he had killed Suhhash with a knife. Then the witness went to Sadulsahar and told this story to Satish Kumar. Learned counsel for the accused appellant has contended that the statement of witness is not reliable because the witness was not of confidence to whom the accused appellant could have confessed his guilt. He has contended that Gyan Chand was neither a relation of the accused appellant nor was in a position to save him. He has, therefore, submitted that Gyan Chand should not be believed. But we do not agree with this argument. We have read the statement of Gyan Chand with caution and we find that the accused appellant did confess the guilt before him. It was also contended that the witness again went on the same day to Ganganagar for his official work. This was not possible that the witness would go to Ganganagar twice on the same day as it is against human conduct. Our attention has been drawn to his T.A. bill Ex.D/5 which is proved by DW 3 Makkhan Singh. It was also contended that the witness again went on the same day to Ganganagar for his official work. This was not possible that the witness would go to Ganganagar twice on the same day as it is against human conduct. Our attention has been drawn to his T.A. bill Ex.D/5 which is proved by DW 3 Makkhan Singh. It has also been contended that the witness did go to Ganganagar for official work as well. The witness has admitted that he went to official work on 22.6.1992 to Ganganagar but he came on the same day back but later on he went to Ganganagar again in order to meet his maternal uncle with whom his father had some urgent work. We are of the view that this is not improbable because Sadulsahar is very near and is at a distance of one hour's drive from Ganganagar. Therefore. the witness could have very well gone twice. It is not such a circumstance that may make the witness unreliable. Learned Sessions Judge has discussed his evidence in detail and has come to the conclusion that the witness was reliable. We agree with the learned Sessions Judge. 11. Secondly we find that the conduct of the witness PW 5 Gyan Chand is very natural. He went to Subhash and told him about admission of guilt made by the accused appellant before him calling Subhash in a corner of the house. The story of extra judicial confession made by this witness is further corroborated by PW 1 Satish Kumar. PW 1 Satish Kumar has also stated that Gyan Chand told him on 22.6.1992 that the accused appellant made a confession. Then he went to Pradeep Singh's house on the same night but Pradeep Singh was not available. Satish Kumar PW I again went to Pradeep Singh next day and when he enquired from Pradeep Singh, at that time, at the appellant did make a confession before him. This was not under any threat, coercion or fear. Accused appellant did want a pardon and wanted that he should be saved and, therefore, he had made a confession before Satish Kumar himself who could help him. In view of this evidence on record, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has been able to prove that it was accused Pradeep Singh who had made extra judicial confession before these two witnesses. In view of this evidence on record, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has been able to prove that it was accused Pradeep Singh who had made extra judicial confession before these two witnesses. A blood stained knife was recovered at his instance and we are of the view that this evidence is sufficient to connect the accused appellant with the crime. Our view is forfeited by the fact that the accused appellant Pradeep Singh made a disclosure statement Ex.P/40 and a bushtit and pant were recovered at his instance. They were blood stained. They were recovered vide Ex.P/41. According to the FSL report Ex.P/49 the bushtit Ex.9 was stained with human blood but the origin of stains of blood could not be determined for the reason that it was disintegrated. So the prosecution proved the guilt against Pradeep beyond doubt. 12. So far as the other accused appellant Vikram Singh is converted, Gyan Chand has stated that he also made a extra-judicial confession before him as both the accused appellants had met him together at Ganganager. But he is not corroborated by any other evidence. Even PW 1 Satish Kumar did not go to this accused and inquire anything from him. Statement of Co-accused cannot be read against the other. So the statement of Co-accused appellant Pradeep Singh cannot be read against Vikram Singh. The Investigating Officer Govind Ram stated that he arrested Vikram Singh vide Ex.P/42 on 26.6.1992 and Vikram Singh made a disclosure statement Ex.P/43 on 26.6.1992 about recovery of a razor. It was recovered vide Ex.P/12. PW 4 Nand Kishore has stated that that razor was recovered before him at the instance of the accused appellant. The same was sealed and then sent to the FSL from where' report Ex.P/49 was received. Ex.P/49 states that it did not have any blood stains. In view of these facts, we are of the view that the prosecution has not been able to prove to the hilt the offences against this accused appellant. The evidence of extra judicial confession is not corroborated by any other evidence. 13. It is a case based on circumstantial evidence and motive does play an important role in such cases. PW 1 Satish Kumar has stated that Pradeep had come to his shop some days before the event. He had exhorted Subhash by saying . The evidence of extra judicial confession is not corroborated by any other evidence. 13. It is a case based on circumstantial evidence and motive does play an important role in such cases. PW 1 Satish Kumar has stated that Pradeep had come to his shop some days before the event. He had exhorted Subhash by saying . The result was that Subhash felt enraged and abused Pradeep Singh. This skirmish was sufficient motive on the part of the accused appellant Pradeep Singh. Human nature is very complex. Some times very small things matter even for very big persons. Therefore, that this accused appellant took ill of this quarrel and murdered Subhash. 14. In view of above discussion, we find that the prosecution has not been able to prove the case beyond doubt against Vikram Singh, therefore, he should be acquitted. So far as Pradeep Singh is concerned, prosecution has been able to prove its case against him and his appeal should be dismissed. 15. In the result, the appeal of Vikram Singh (No. 611/94) is allowed and he is acquitted from the charge under section 302/34 IPC. He is in custody and shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. The appeal of Pradeep Singh (No. 610/94) is dismissed.Appeal Partly allowed. *******