Judgment Harjit Singh Bedi, J. 1. On 19th August, 1993, Naru Ram, PW-2 got recorded a Daily Diary Report Ex. DA, in Police Post Nangal Bhoor to the effect that his son Vinod Kumar had been missing since 1st August, 1993 and despite a search having been made for him, he had not been found. He also stated that it has been learnt on enquiry that he had last been seen with Ramesh Kumar and Raj Kumar and before the panchayat of village Dhaki Saidan, Babu Ram, father of Ramesh Kumar had admitted that the three had come together to meet him but he had also not seen them since long. As the boys were of the age of majority and it appeared that they had gone away on their own, no cognizable offence was made out and the matter was treated as closed. Naru Ram, however, got recorded an F.I.R. on 13th September, 1993 against Ramesh Kumar and Raj Kumar accused, wherein in addition to the facts given in the D.D.R. he further stated that about four days ago, his wife Sumitra Devi had told him that about two and half months earlier, the two accused had come to their house and had told Vinod Kumar to make arrangement for some money so that they could get him a fake matriculation certificate to facilitate some employment for him and that before leaving the house, Vinod Kumar had taken Rs. 2000/- from her. He also stated that at the time when he had left home, Vinod Kumar had a silver ring, with the name "VK" inscribed on it, and a wrist watch (make Henri Sandoz) on his person and had been riding a bicycle. He further stated that on Kishan Chand Fauji-PW9 had also seen the accused and the deceased on 1st August, 1993 at about 7.00 a.m. and that Waryam Singh PW3 too had seen them going on a bicycle at village Gharota. He expressed his apprehension that Vinod Kumar had been lured from his house and, thereafter, murdered with the intention of robbing him of his money and other possessions. Raj Kumar was arrested on 2nd October, 1993, whereas Ramesh Kumar was produced before the police on 6th October, 1993 when he too was arrested. The two accused were interrogated and on the disclosure statement made by Raj Kumar, a wrist watch was recovered on 5th October, 1993. Raj Kumar was arrested on 2nd October, 1993, whereas Ramesh Kumar was produced before the police on 6th October, 1993 when he too was arrested. The two accused were interrogated and on the disclosure statement made by Raj Kumar, a wrist watch was recovered on 5th October, 1993. Ramesh Kumar was likewise interrogated and a bicycle and a ring were recovered at his instance on 8th October, 1993. They were identified by the witnesses as having belonged to the deceased. On the completion of the investigation, the accused were charged for offences punishable u/S 302/201/404 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and as they pleaded not guilty, were brought of trial. 2. The prosecution in support of its case relied on the evidence of Naru Ram PW-2, the complainant with regard to the motive; Waryam Singh PW-3 and Kishan Chand PW-9 with respect of the last seen, Gur Parshad PW-4 and Nand Lal PW-5 before whom Raj Kumar and Ramesh Kumar accused respectively had made extra judicial confessions admitting the commission of the murder. Tarsem Lal PW-8 brother of the deceased who had witnessed the recovery of the bicycle, watch and silver ring at the instance of the two accused and Prem Singh A.S.I. PW- 10, the main Investigating Officer. 3. The prosecution case was then put to the accused in their statements u/S 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and they denied all the allegations leveled against them and pleaded false implication. They also produced three witnesses in their defence; Dalwar Singh - DW 1, Kishan Chand DW2 and Kartar Chand DW3. 4. The trial Court observed that the matter rested on circumstantial evidence alone but the chain of circumstances against the accused was so complete that there was no doubt as to their involvement in the murder. It was noted that the motive stood proved from the evidence of Naru Ram and the last seen evidence of Kishan Chand and Waryam Singh, the extra judicial confessions made by the accused before Gur Parshad and Nand Lal and the recoveries witnessed by Tarsem Lal and the police officer made a complete chain of circumstances inculpating the accused. The accused were, accordingly, convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. The accused were, accordingly, convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/- each and in default thereof to further undergo R.I. for six months for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C., and to undergo R.I. for a period of three years and a fine of Rs. 1000/- each and in default thereof to further undergo R.I. for a period of three months each for the offence punishable u/S 201 of the I.P.C. 5. Criminal Appeal No. 570-DB of 1998 has been filed by Raj Kumar and Criminal Appeal No. 571-DB of 1998 by Ramesh Kumar arising out of this judgment. Both the appeals are being disposed off by us today. 6. Mr. Rajiv Vij, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, has, at the very outset, pointed out that in a case of circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances inculpating an accused were to be so complete that the only inference that could be drawn was that the accused alone was guilty of the offences for which they stood charged. He has urged that the delay in the lodging of the F.I.R. and the manner in which it came about was, in the circumstances, fatal to the prosecution story. Mr. Randhawa, the learned Deputy Advocate General, has however, stated that there was no reason whatsoever for Naru Ram to have involved the two appellants in a false case as there was admittedly no animosity between the two parties and in fact as per the admitted position, they were well known to each other. 7. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel. The first informant Naru Ram, the father of the deceased, has sworn to the motive for the crime. In the Daily Diary Entry Ex. DA recorded on 19th August, 1993, there is admittedly a reference to the fact that the deceased had not been seen after 1st August, 1993, though enquiries had revealed that he had been seen with the two appellants. In the First Information Report, however, recorded after a gap of 25 days, substantial additions have been made by Naru Ram to the earlier information. In the First Information Report, however, recorded after a gap of 25 days, substantial additions have been made by Naru Ram to the earlier information. He has stated that four days before the date of the lodging of the F.I.R. (on 13th September 1993), his wife Sumitra had told him for the first time that the two appellants had come to their house about two and half months earlier and had taken Vinod Kumar away with them with a promise that they would get him a fake Matriculation Certificate and also arrange employment for him and that while leaving the house, Vinod Kumar had taken Rs. 2000/- from her. We find it difficult to believe that in the light of the fact that the family had been making strenuous enquiries with regard to the whereabouts of the deceased for over two months, the story that Sumitra Devi had suddenly remembered that the boy had been lured away from his house, cannot be believed, as her silence is inexplicable. We find that in the F.I.R., reference to the wrist watch, the ring and the cycle and the fact that the deceased and the appellants had been last seen by Waryam Singh and Kishan Chand has, for the first time, found mention. It is in this background that the evidence would have to be scrutinised. The evidence of Waryam Singh is only to the fact that on 3rd August, 1993, he had seen the two appellants going on one bicycle. There is no reference at all as to the presence of the deceased. The evidence of PW-9 Kishan Chand with regard to the last seen is equally tenuous. This witness stated that on 1st August, 1993 when he was going from village Nangal Bhoor to village Jandi Chaunta, he had seen the appellants and the deceased going on two bicycles. He further stated that after one month, he had come to know that the deceased had been murdered and he had then voluntarily gone to the police and given his statement. This story sounds improbable for the reason that Naru Ram and his family members had made efforts over several months to locate the deceased and as such, his disappearance would have been well within the knowledge of this witness much earlier. The extra judicial confessions made to Gur Parshad and Nand Lal are equally unbelievable. This story sounds improbable for the reason that Naru Ram and his family members had made efforts over several months to locate the deceased and as such, his disappearance would have been well within the knowledge of this witness much earlier. The extra judicial confessions made to Gur Parshad and Nand Lal are equally unbelievable. In his cross-examination, Gur Parshad PW 4 stated that he has not known the appellant Raj Kumar earlier and that he had never visited his village and that it was only after the 4th August, 1993 when the suspicion arose that the two appellants had a hand in the murder that Raj Kumar had started visiting his village. Even Nand Lal PW-5 admitted in his cross- examination that he had never visited Ramesh Kumars village, but this appellant had nevertheless made an extra judicial confession to him. The statements of these two witnesses given in their examination-in-chief with regard to their familiarity with the two appellants have been dislodged in their cross-examination. We find that there was absolutely no reason whatsoever as to why the appellants would have made extra judicial confessions to Gur Parshad and Nand Lal aforesaid. The recoveries made at the instance of the appellants and witnessed by Tarsem Lal PW-9 and Prem Singh ASI PW-10 are equally lacking in credibility. The fact that the deceased was wearing a wrist watch and a ring and riding an A\-tlas bicycle when he had left home, had for the first time, come in the F.I.R. We are further of the opinion that the statement that the deceased had been wearing a ring inscribed with the letters "VK" and a wrist watch (make Henri Sandoz) and also riding a bicycle with "VK" written on the chain over were details which were beyond the capacity of an illiterate villager like Naru Ram and were apparently a contribution of the police officer. Tarsem Lal PW-8 was the brother of the deceased and the answers given by him in his cross-examination as also by Prem Singh ASI PW-10 equally bring out that both these witnesses had never visited the houses of the two appellants from which, (as is the prosecution case), the recoveries had been made. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the prosecution story suffers from serious infirmities. We, therefore, allow both the appeals, set aside the conviction of the appellants and order their acquittal.