JUDGMENT : M. L. Visa, J. - This appeal by the three appellants, namely, Sheo Nath Rai, Anil Kumar Pandey and Oshiwar Manjhi is directed against the JUDGMENT : and ORDER :dated 24.7.1986 passed by the 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge, Saran, Chapra, in Sessions Trial No. 192 of 1982 arising out of Baniyapur (Janta Bazar) P.S. Case No. 73 of 1982 convicting all the three appellants under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to undergo R.I. for life. The brief facts of the case are stated below. 2. The informant Moinuddin Khan (P.W. 10), a resident of Village Basdhi, P.S. Janta Bazar (Baniyapur) district Saran about 20-25 days prior to 10.5.1982 had let out his thrashing machine to one Ram Balak Rai (Master) a resident of Village Dhanesh Chapra and he and his cousin deceased Ekramul Haque used to operate the thrashing machine there and sometime either he or the deceased used to stay in the night in the house of Ram Balak Rai. During that period appellant Sheo Nath Rai used to visit the house of Ram Balak Rai (Master) and he developed friendship with the deceased. Both started visiting the house of each other. The thrashing machine of the informant remained at the house of Ram Balak Rai (Master) for about 12 days and thereafter it was brought by the informant. Even thereafter the friendship and the visits of house of each other between the deceased and appellant Sheo Nath Rai continued. On 9.5.1982 at about 7 P.M. appellant Sheo Rath Rai went to the house of the informant and asked him to call the deceased. The informant called the deceased and the appellant Sheo Nath Rai and deceased thereafter had some talks with them and while leaving appellant Sheo Nath Rai invited the deceased to a dance which was being organised in the Village Basahi by one Ramayan Pandey (not examined) on the occasion of marriage of his daughter. At about 10 P.M. on the same day i.e. 9.5.1982 the informant along with the deceased, Kalamuddin Khan (P.W. 3), Ziaul Haque (P.W. 4) and Abdul Haque (P.W. 5) went at a place towards east of an orchard of Achal Baba where dance was organised and there he saw all the appellants present, who were witnessing the dance by standing in the east south corner of Shamiyana. When they saw the informant and his party the appellant Sheo Nath Rai came near them and took the deceased with him to the place where he was standing from before. After witnessing the dance for two hours, when the informant and his friends wanted to return they asked the deceased to go with them on which the appellants made a request for leaving the deceased for witnessing the dance for some more time. They assured that they themselves would accompany the deceased to his house. On this assurance, the informant and his other friends named above left the place for their respective houses leaving behind the deceased in the company of appellants. On the next day in the morning the informant came to know that the deceased had not returned to his house and he then along with Kalamuddin (P.W. 3) went to appellant Sheo Nath Rai and inquired from him about the deceased but appellant Sheo Nath Rai told that he know nothing about the deceased. Enquiries from other two appellants were also made by the informant but they also told that they know nothing about the deceased. The informant continued search for the deceased and during this course he came to know from one Bhuwar Raut alias Dina Nath Raut (P.W. 9) a resident of his village that when he was returning to his house after witnessing the dance he had seen the deceased along with appellants going towards a Pakhra (Pond) situate near the Bathan of one Sipahi Mahto. The informant thereafter went to the place where the dance had been held and inquired from a number of persons about the deceased but he could not get any clue and lastly one Jag Narain Pandey (not examined) who used to sleep in the night near Pakhara, told him that he had seen blood stain on a place two bighas east from the pond and he had also seen there a pair of hawai chappal (footware slipper) and a glass of wrist watch. The informant thereafter along with Jag Narain Pandey and others went to the place pointed out by Jag Narain Pandey and he also saw blood spots on the ground, a pair of hawai chappal, which he identified to be of the deceased, and a blood stained knife. The informant thereafter along with Jag Narain Pandey and others went to the place pointed out by Jag Narain Pandey and he also saw blood spots on the ground, a pair of hawai chappal, which he identified to be of the deceased, and a blood stained knife. The informant then became convinced that the deceased had been killed and in the meantime a number of villagers assembled there, who by entering into the pond tried to locate the dead body of the deceased, but it was not found and the informant then got his fardbeyan (Ext. 4) recorded by H.P. Tiwary (P.W. 15). On the basis of fardbeyan Baniyapur (Janta Bazar) P.S. Case No. 73 of 1982 under Sections 364/302/201/34 I.P.C. was registered against all the three appellants. During the course of investigation dead body of the deceased was recovered on 11.5.82 from southern bank of a river known Gandaki river situate North of village Mirzapur and inquest report (Ext. 8) was prepared. Haribanshpati Tiwary (P.W. 15), the I.O. also seized a blood stained knife (Material Ext. I), a pair of hawai chappal (Material Ext. III), a lungi and bushirt from the dead body (Material Exts IV and V, respectively and an old under-wear with black spot and blood like stains (material Ext. II) from house of appellant Oshiwar Manjhi. After investigation charge-sheet against all the appellants under Section 364/302/201/34 I.P.C. was submitted and cognizance of this case was taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chapra and he committed the case to the court of Sessions where all the three appellants were put on trial for the charge under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and they were convicted and sentenced as indicated above. 3. The case of the appellants is of complete innocence and false implication. It has been urged on behalf of the appellants that in this case prosecution has not even whispered about any motive on their part for committing the murder of the deceased and on the contrary it is the case of the prosecution that deceased was having friendly terms with the appellants. 4. The prosecution has not adduced any direct evidence on the point of commission of murder of the deceased and the entire case of prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution has examined 15 witnesses. P.W. 1 Jogendra Singh, P.W. 13 Rama Shankar Paswan are formal witnesses who have proved formal F.I.R. (Ext. 4. The prosecution has not adduced any direct evidence on the point of commission of murder of the deceased and the entire case of prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution has examined 15 witnesses. P.W. 1 Jogendra Singh, P.W. 13 Rama Shankar Paswan are formal witnesses who have proved formal F.I.R. (Ext. 1) and fardbeyan (Ext. 4) P.W. 9 Dina Nath Raut @ Bhuwar about whom in the statements of fardbeyan and in the evidence of informant, it has been stated that he was the first man who had told the informant that he had seen the deceased going with the appellants towards a pond on the night of 9.5.82, has not supported this version of the prosecution and he has been declared hostile. P.W. 12 Hadish Khan, father of the deceased, has simply said that the deceased had gone to see dance on the night of 9.5.82 but did not return to the house and on the next day at about 11 a.m. informant, who happens to be his nephew, told him that a pair of hawai chappal and blood stain has been found on a bandh of a pond. P.W. 14 Mirza Israfil Beg is a Police Inspector, who has supervised the investigation of the case and has simply said that he did not influence the investigation of the case in any manner. P.W. 11 Dr. Shambhu Nath in his evidence has said that he held post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and found three incised wounds on the neck and in his opinion death was caused by shock and haemorrhaga due to these injuries and out of these three injuries, the incised wound which was 3" x 1/2" on upper end of the neck below angle of mandible was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and other injuries combined together were also sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The post mortem was held on 12.5.82 at about 8 a.m. and time elapsed since death was within 72 hours. This evidence of the doctor shows that the deceased died of incised injuries which were caused, as per the opinion of the doctor, by sharp cutting weapon which may be a knife. Now we have to see how the appellants are responsible for causing these injuries which resulted into the death of the deceased. 5. This evidence of the doctor shows that the deceased died of incised injuries which were caused, as per the opinion of the doctor, by sharp cutting weapon which may be a knife. Now we have to see how the appellants are responsible for causing these injuries which resulted into the death of the deceased. 5. P.W. 10 Moinuddin Khan, the informant, has supported the statement given by him in his fardbeyan about the friendship developed between appellant Sheo Nath Rai and deceased and has also said that on 9.5.82 appellant Sheo Nath Rai had invited the deceased to come to see a dance and on that day he along with the deceased, P.W. 3 Kalamuddin Khan, P.W. 4 Ziaul Haque and P.W. 5 Abdul Haque went to see the dance, which had been organised on the occasion of marriage ceremony of one Ramayan Pandey where they met all the appellants and two hours after witnessing the dance he and the aforesaid witnesses came back to their house leaving the deceased in the company of the appellants and thereafter the deceased did not return to his house and on the next day he was informed by P.W. 9 Bhuwar that on the last night he had seen the deceased going towards the pond and thereafter he was further informed by Jag Narayan Pandey that a pair of hawai chappal, glass of wrist watch and blood stained knife were seen at a place near the pond. P.W. 3 Kalamuddin Khan, P.W. 4 Ziaul Haque and P.W. 5 Abdul Haque supporting the evidence of informant has said that on the night of 9.5.82 the deceased was left in the company of appellant to witness a dance show but the deceased did not return to his house thereafter and on the next day they went to a place near a pond where they saw a pair of hawai chappal, glass of wrist watch, blood stain and blood stained knife. The evidence of P.W. 2 Samiur Rahman is on the point that on 9.5.82 after witnessing the dance show, when he was returning to his house, he had seen the appellants with the deceased in the way and when he asked the deceased to accompany him for returning to his house, appellant Sheo Nath Rai told him that the deceased would go later on. Similar is the evidence of P.W. 6 Mohammad Alam son of Taiyat Khan and P.W. 7 Md. Yunus, who have said that when they were returning together to their houses after witnessing the dance show, they in the way saw the deceased with the appellants. They have further said that 10-15 minutes after they saw the deceased with the appellants, they heard cries "BACHAO BACHAO" (Help-Help) but they thought that somebody was joking and they did not pay any heed to this cry and went to their houses and on the next day they came to know that deceased had been killed. P.W. 8 Md. Alam Khan son of Safi Ahmad Khan is a witness on the point that on 10.5.82 at about 6 a.m. when he was returning from Pathbhinda Village he saw the appellants with Ram Balak Rai (Master) in an orchard situated towards north of Gandaki river and on seeing him the appellants became nervous and on the same day after reaching home he at about 2 P.M. came to know that the deceased had been killed. P.W. 15 Hari Sans Pati Tiwary, the I.O. of the case, in his evidence has said that on 11.5.82 he recovered the dead body of the deceased from Southern Bank of Gandaki river. He has also said that he recovered an old under-wear with black spot which appeared to be caused by cleaning the glass of a lantern and with blood like stains. He has admitted that he sent that underwear to Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination but the prosecution has not produced any chemical examination report. 6. As stated earlier the case of prosecution is purely based on circumstantial evidence. There are many contradictions in the evidence of witnesses but for the sake of argument if those contradictions are not considered and the evidence of prosecution is taken as it is, the circumstances which surface from the evidence are that the deceased was witnessing dance show with the appellants, the deceased was seen by some witnesses in the way when he was returning to his house along with the appellants, the appellants on 10.5.82 at about 6 a.m. were seen by P.W. 8 Md. Alam Khan son of Safi Ahmad Khan in an orchard situate North of Gandaki river with Ram Balak Rai Master and old underwear containing some black spots blood like stains was recovered from the house of Oshiwar Manjhi. There is nothing unnatural if the deceased was seen with the appellants in a dance show where several other villagers had assembled and if he was seen on the way with the appellants while returning from there, this is also not a circumstance against the appellants because admittedly the deceased was a friend of appellant Sheo Nath Rai. There is no chemical report to prove that the under-wear which was recovered from the house of appellant Oshiwar Manjhi contained even blood stains much less the human blood. About the evidence of P.W. 8 Md. Alam Khan that on 10.5.82 he had seen the appellants with Ram Balak Rai Master in an orchard North of Gandaki river, the evidence of P.W. 15 H.P. Tiwary who is the I.O. of the case, is that the dead body of the deceased was recovered from the southern bank of Gandaki river. Although P.W. 8 Md. Alam Khan has said that the place where dead body was recovered is about one bigha from the place where he had seen the appellants and Ram Balak Rai Master but as stated above this evidence is contradicted by the evidence of the I.O. that the dead body was recovered from the southern bank of Gandaki river whereas the appellants and Ram Balak Rai were seen by this witness in an orchard situated North of Gandak river. He has further said that at the time when he saw appellants and Ram Balak Rai Master he was returning from Pathbhinda village on his bicycle where he had gone to attend the barat of a Bhumihar but he does not know the name of that Bhumihar. This witness had told about direction of the place where he had seen the appellants, the direction from his house of the place where dance was organised, the direction of pond from the place of dance etc. but he is unable to give direction of village Pathbhinda from where he was returning. This witness had told about direction of the place where he had seen the appellants, the direction from his house of the place where dance was organised, the direction of pond from the place of dance etc. but he is unable to give direction of village Pathbhinda from where he was returning. Notwithstanding all these contradictions, his evidence simply shows that the appellants were seen with Ram Balak Rai Master in an orchard near Gandak river on 10.5.82 at about 6 a.m. whereas admittedly the dead body of the deceased was recovered from the southern bank of Gandak river on 11.5.82 at 10.30 a.m. It is not that immediately after the appellants were seen by this witness in an orchard, the dead body of the deceased was recovered. 7. The law is well settled on the point of essential proof required in a criminal case which is based on circumstantial evidence. In ORDER :to prove the guilt of an accused in such type of cases which rest on circumstantial evidence, all the circumstances must form a chain of evidence which must be complete and must reach to only one conclusion that in all probabilities that act must have been committed by the accused. The present case does not stand to this test and in the present case there is no evidence of such circumstances which warrant the conviction of the appellants. 8. For the reasons stated above, this appeal is allowed. The JUDGMENT : and ORDER :of the court below convicting and sentencing the appellants is hereby set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the charge and are also discharged from the liability of their bail bonds. Ram Nandan Prasad, J. - I agree.