Judgment Gopal Lal Gupta, J.-Through this appeal, appellant Jaffar Khan has challenged his conviction under Sections 302 and 201, IPC and sentence of imprisonment for life and Rs. 100/-fine; and one year R.I. and Rs. 100/-fine, respectively recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhilwara vide Judgment dated 29-9-198 1. 2. Thefacts are that deceased Paliya and Jagdish, PW. 9 used to work in the field of Jaffar Khan (accused). In the evening of 28-9-1980 he did not turn up from Lorda Ghata, working place. Therefore, Jaffar Khan lodged a report (Exhibit-P-1) on 30-9-1980 stating therein that as Paliya did not return, so he along with Ramdev and Babulal made a search and it was found that there were some blood marks on the stone wall of a room situate in Jungle. It was further stated that when Paliya left for work he was wearing white clothes. This report was recorded in Rojnamcha. SHO Hardayal Singh on 1-10-1981 went towards the, place where the blood marks were noticed by the first informant. He found that a dead body was lying under the heap of stones and severed foot of the dead body was lying at a separate place. He registered a case under Section 302, IPC on 1-11-1981. During investigation, the police inspected the site and arrested accused Jaffar Khan (first informant) and one Ramdev and recovered some articles at their instance. After the usual investigation a challan was submitted. 3. Thelearned Additional Sessions Judge framed charges under Sections 302 and 201, IPC against both the persons. They pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined PW. 1 Nathuram, PW. 2 Ratanlal, PW. 3 Mege Singh, PW. 4 Kesar Lal, PW. 5 Dr. Davendra Kumar Ramawat, PW. 6 Swaroopa, PW. 7 Suresh Kumar, PW. 8 Jasveer Singh, PW. 9 Jagdish, PW. 10 Babulal, PW. ii Lalit Prasad, PW. 12 Hardayal Singh and PW. 13 Balwant Singh. The accused in their statements denied the recovery as also the correctness of the other facts. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted Ramdev but convicted Jaffar Khan and sentenced him as above. 4. Thecontention of Mr. Mathur, learned counsel for the appellant was that the trial Court has erred in convicting the appellant on the basis of circumstances relied on by the prosecution. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted Ramdev but convicted Jaffar Khan and sentenced him as above. 4. Thecontention of Mr. Mathur, learned counsel for the appellant was that the trial Court has erred in convicting the appellant on the basis of circumstances relied on by the prosecution. He took us through the statements of the witnesses and urged the reliance should not be placed on the testimony of the 10 as also the Motbirs. According to him the evidence of last seen is not worthy of credence and the evidence of recovery of stone, shirt and pair of shoes does not connect the accused with the crime. 5. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has tried to support the Judgment of the trial Court. 6. The case hinges on the circumstantial evidence only. It is the cardinal principle of criminal law that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the charges beyond all reasonable doubts. It is further well established principle that when the prosecution case rests on the circumstantial evidence, each circumstance should be proved by cogent and convincing evidence and there should be complete chain to connect the accused with the crime and no other reasonable hypothesis can be drawn except that the accused could be the only person to commit the crime. 7. We shall first consider the evidence of last seen. The prosecution in this connection has examined PW. 7 Suresh Kumar, PW. 10 Babulal, PW. 9 Jagdish and PW. 13 Balwant Singh. 8. PW. 7 Suresh Kumar simply says that he had seen the accused at ‘Lorda Ghala’ on 28th of some month in 1980. He has nowhere stated that at that time Paliya deceased was also there. Therefore, his statement is of no use. 9. PW. 10 Babulal says that on Saturday evening deceased Paliya and Jagdish visited his hotel to take tea and in the evening they had proceeded towards their houses. According to him, on the next day i.e. Sunday Jagdish, deceased Paliya and Jaffar Khan visited his hotel and thereafter Jaffar Khan became busy in getting the Tilli’ crop harvested and deceased Paliya and Jagdish left for the job and thereafter he did not see Paliya. The statement of Babulal thus indicates that deceased Paliya was in the company of Jagdish (PW. The statement of Babulal thus indicates that deceased Paliya was in the company of Jagdish (PW. 9) when he was last seen. Therefore, the evidence of Babulal does not establish that the deceased was last seen in the company of accused. 10. PW. 13Balwant Singh is the brother of the deceased. He deposes that Paliya used to work in the ‘Lorda Ghata’ and he saw him last with Jagdish and accused Jaffar Khan. In his cross-examination he deposes that on Sunday when Paliya was cooking food Jagdish was going towards him. His statement further indicates that he saw deceased along with Jagdish in the ‘Ghata’ and thereafter he did not see Paliya. By his statement it cannot be inferred that he had seen deceased going in the company of the accused. Therefore, his statement is also of no help to the prosecution. 11. Now we may come to the statement of Jagdish. PW. 9. He deposes that in the evening when he left for “Khera” accused Jaffar Khan, Ramdev and Paliya were there in the, ‘Bija Ka Nala’. He further deposes that on Sunday Paliya was sitting on the mud wall (PAL,) along with Balwant Singh. It is thus obvious that according to Jagdish he saw deceased alive upto 5 p.m. on Sunday and at that time he was sitting on the ‘Pal’ along with his brother Balwant Singh. Thus, by his statement also it cannot be found proved that the deceased was last seen along with the accused. 12. In our opinion, the evidence produced by the prosecution does not establish that the deceased was last seen in the company of the deceased. 13. Now, we switch over to the recovery evidence. 14. Thestatement of Hardayal Singh, PW. 12 is that he arrested the accused on 28-10-1980 and on 29-10-1980 and on 29-10-1980 the accused gave him information Exhibit-P-2 for the recovery of the shoes and the clothes of the deceased and thereafter on 3 1-10-1980 he recovered a pair of shoes in the presence of Bhagwan Swaroop and Ratanlal. The prosecution has not examined Bhagwan Swaroop, Motbir. Ratanlal PW. 2 has been examined. What Ratanlal deposes is that the police took Jaffar Khan on the pond and there Hajari and one constable get down in the water and took out two shoes from the pond which were sealed by the police. The prosecution has not examined Bhagwan Swaroop, Motbir. Ratanlal PW. 2 has been examined. What Ratanlal deposes is that the police took Jaffar Khan on the pond and there Hajari and one constable get down in the water and took out two shoes from the pond which were sealed by the police. It is thus obvious that the shoes were taken out by Hajari and one constable whose name was also Ratanlal. The prosecution has not examined both these witnesses. It is only those witnesses who could say as to in what condition the shoes were lying in the water, whether they were lying at one place or at different places. Their non-examination is fatal to the prosecution. 15. Besides that, the crucial question for consideration is whether the pair of shoes recovered from the pond belonged to the deceased. To prove this fact, Balwant Singh who is the brother of the deceased was the best witness. However, not a single question was asked to Balwant Singh in this regard. Jagdish, PW. 9 who used to work along with the deceased at the establishment of the accused also does not say that the deceased used to wear the shoes articles and 2. He simply says that Paliya used to wear plastic shoes. He deposes that he had identified the shoes before some officers at Mandalgarh. Identification memo Exhibit-P-l1 indicates that the shoes were correctly identified by Balwant Singh and Jagdish. However, when Balwant Singh does not say a word in his statement that the shoes articles 1 and 2 belonged to the deceased and he used to wear them and Jagdish also does not depose that Paliya used to wear shoes Articles 1 and 2 and he was wearing those shoes on the day, he was last seen, the evidence of identification is not of much consequence. 10.16. At this juncture it is relevant to notice the conduct of the Investigating Officer. Jagdish deposes that he was kept in the Police Station for 10 days. He further deposes that after he was kept for 10 days at the police station he was interrogated. Not only this according to him the SHO had threatened him to implicate in the murder case. It-has further come in his statement that the SHO had told him that he should identify’ the shoes of Paliya. He further deposes that after he was kept for 10 days at the police station he was interrogated. Not only this according to him the SHO had threatened him to implicate in the murder case. It-has further come in his statement that the SHO had told him that he should identify’ the shoes of Paliya. Furthermore, he admitted that these shoes were shown to him in the police station. It is thus obvious that neither it is proved that these shoes belonged to the deceased nor it is proved that the police had taken precautions to keep the shoes in the sealed condition before the identification proceedings was held. In the premise, in our opinion, the circumstance of recovery of the shoes at the instance of the accused cannot be given any weight. 17. Thenext recovery is of shirt. According to the 1.0. the accused gave information Exhibit-P-14 on 1-11-1980 and thereafter on 3-11-1980 he recovered the shirt in the presence of Swaroopa and Ramchander. Ramchander has not been examined by the prosecution. Swaroopa, PW. 6 first deposes that the accused took out the shirt and then he corrects himself and says that the police people took out the shirt at the instance of the accused. He further deposes that it is the SHO who told him about the recovery of shirt at the instance of the accused and at that time both the accused (Jaffar Khan and Ramchander) were present. 18. According to the prosecution, this shirt belonged to the accused. However, there is no evidence worth the name to prove this fact. Not a single witness deposes that the shirt recovered in the case was ever used by the accused. It may be that human blood was found on the shirt. But there is no evidence to this effect that blood found on shirt was of the same group which was that of the deceased. 19. We have already discussed the conduct of the Investigating Officer who forced Jagdish to become witness in this case. It is difficult to place reliance on the recovery of shirt on the basis of the recovery made by Hardayal Singh. In our view there could not be any necessity for the accused to keep the shirt which was torn and useless concealed there. The accused was arrested more than one month after the occurrence. It is difficult to place reliance on the recovery of shirt on the basis of the recovery made by Hardayal Singh. In our view there could not be any necessity for the accused to keep the shirt which was torn and useless concealed there. The accused was arrested more than one month after the occurrence. The accused had enough opportunity to finish the incriminating evidence by setting it to ablaze. No sensible person would think of preserving such type of evidence against him. 20. Now we come to the recovery of two stones marked E & F. Hardayal Singh deposes that after the accused gave information on 31-10-1980 he recovered two stones in the presence of Hajari and Ratanlal. Ratanlal, PW. 2 says that after the shoes were recovered, the SHO asked the accused to tell about the stone which he used to cause injury to the deceased and on this the accused took him to a place at a distance of one and half’ zarib’ away and recovered one stone. The statement of Ratanlal indicates that when the accused gave information Exhibit-P-13 to the police he was present. But neither Hardayal Singh says that when the information was given to him Ratanlal was present nor the contents of the information memo Exhibit-P-13 are to this effect. This shows that information was never given by the accused and the SHO has created this evidence to connect the accused with the crime. Then the statement of Ratanlal indicates that only one stone was recovered. Whereas the SHO has shown recovery of two stones. 21. In the background of the conduct of the Investigating Officer, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that the 1.0 has planted this recovery, cannot be lightly brushed aside. 22. Be that as it may there is no medical evidence on record to hold that the injuries found on the person of the deceased could be caused by stone. A look at the statement of Dr. Davendra Kumar Ramawat, PW. 5 reveals that he was not sure as to whether the injuries were caused by blunt weapon or sharp edged weapon. He has not been even able to state as to whether the six injuries found on the person of the deceased were ante-moterm in nature or post-mortem. The said stones were recovered near the place from where the dead body was found. He has not been even able to state as to whether the six injuries found on the person of the deceased were ante-moterm in nature or post-mortem. The said stones were recovered near the place from where the dead body was found. In these circumstances, the recovery of stones, in our opinion, does not connect the accused with the crime. 23. Theprosecution has also relied on the evidence of enmity PW. 9 Jagdish deposes that there was dispute between the accused and the deceased about the wages of three months and Jaffar khan had told him that he would see him on some day. We have already noticed that Jagdish is the person who was kept at the police station for ten days and thereafter his statement was recorded. We have also seen that he is the person who was threatened to be roped in the murder case. No reliance can be placed on the testimony of such witness. Even on assuming that some amount was due against Jaffar Khan and Paliya wanted to recover that amount, it cannot be inferred that the accused could bear such enmity as to cause the death of Paliya. In that event, it was the deceased who could have grievance against the accused as he was not paying his due amount. At least the accused in that situation could not have any reason to take the life of Paliya. 24. In our opinion, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has erred in convicting the appellant on the basis of the circumstantial evidence produced in the case. At any rate, the case is not free from doubt and the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt. 9.25. Consequently, this appeal succeeds. Conviction and sentence are set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the offence under Sections 302 and 201, IPC. He is on bail. He shall not surrender to the bail bonds. Fine recovered, if any, shall be refunded to the accused.