This appeal arises out of judgment and order dated 9-6-1980 passed by the then V Additional Session Judge, Agra in Session Trial No. 476 of 1979 whereby the above mentioned appellants have been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The murder of a boy aged about 8 years Nand Lal, led to the prosecution of the appellants Bhuri Singh and Summera. Nand Lal was the only son of Yad Ram PW-1 and at the relevant period he was studying in Primary School, Lal Darwaza, Fatehpur Sikri. It is said that on 5-3-79 he had gone to his school at 10 in the morning and when he was coming back home at about 4p. m. after the closure of school and had reached near the temple of Hanumanji, Kunwar Sahab son of Mehi Lal, appel lants Summera son of Jyoti Kachchi and Bhuri Singh son of Kesaria met him and they called Nand Lal and took him with them. This was seen by Ram Bharose and Churamani. When the child did not reach home upto 5 p. m. his father Yad Ram went out in search of his son alongwith some other persons and when he was not found he lodged a written report Ex. Ka-1 on the next morning on 6-3-79 at 9. 05 a. m. about the missing of his child. Constable clerk Shyam Lal PW-7 prepared check report Ex. Ka-5 on the basis of the written report of Yad Ram and registered the case in the General Diary whose copy is Ex. Ka-5. Sub-Inspector Jorawar Singh PW-8 was present at the police station when the FIR was lodged. He recorded the statement of First informant Yad Ram at the police station and of other witnesses on reaching the village of incident. At about 2 p. m. he got an information that accused Bhuri Singh was present near the crossing of Bharatpur road. He immediately rushed to that place and arrested accused Bhuri Singh. On interrogation the investigating officer came to know of the complicity of the said accused and other accused per sons. It is further alleged that Bhuri Singh appellant told the investigating officer that he could get the dead body of Nand Lal recovered from the place where the same was buried. On interrogation the investigating officer came to know of the complicity of the said accused and other accused per sons. It is further alleged that Bhuri Singh appellant told the investigating officer that he could get the dead body of Nand Lal recovered from the place where the same was buried. The investigating officer then came to that place alongwith accused and witnesses from where the dead body of Nand Lal was recovered at the instance of accused Bhuri Singh. Inquest was held and necessary papers were prepared. One wooden Takhti (a wooden plank used for writing purpose), one bag, two books, two holders, chalk sticks were also found with the dead body. These articles were taken into possession by the IO through memo Ex. Ka-8. The Investigating Officer then visited the place where Nand Lal was said to have been murdered and from there he took into his possession blood stained and plain earth through memo Ex. Ka-4. The Investigating Officer also made a site map Ex. Ka-11. He thereafter recorded the statements of Yad Ram PW-1, Bhagwant Singh PW-2, Sahib Singh PW-4, Pooran PW-5 and others. The investigation was then taken over by Station Officer Virendra Singh who on 21-3-79 submitted charge-sheet against Bhuri Singh, Soni, Babu Lai, Kunwar Sahab and Summera. 3. From the evidence collected during investigation it was revealed that accused Soni alias Kishan Singh told accused Kun war Sahab at the hotel of Bajrang Baba that he had a dream that ten maunds of gold was lyingburied in the mahal of Jodha Bai and who so ever makes sacrifice of the only son of a person shall get that gold. Accused Kunwar Sahab talked about this dream to accused Bhuri Singh and Sum mera and thereafter they planned to kid nap and kill Nand Lal the only son of Yad Ram for that purpose. When Nand Lal on 5-3-79 was returning from his school the aforesaid three accused persons inter cepted him near the temple of Hanumanji. Nand Lal at that lime was accompanied by two other children Pooran P W 5 and Wazir. Accused Kunwar Sahab gave ten paise each to Pooran and Wazir to bring cigarettes and also allured Nand Lal by giving him 4 annas. Nand Lal at that lime was accompanied by two other children Pooran P W 5 and Wazir. Accused Kunwar Sahab gave ten paise each to Pooran and Wazir to bring cigarettes and also allured Nand Lal by giving him 4 annas. On this pretext the accused persons took Nand Lal to Ghora Mahal and there Bhuri Singh and Sum mera caught hold of Nand Lal while Kun war Sahab stabbed him in his abdomen as a result of which he met spontaneous death. Since his murder was committed in conse quence of the dream told by Soni alias Kishan Singh, the accused persons cut off both the ears of Nand Lal and thereafter placed the dead body in a pit over the hillock at a distance of about 100 paces from ghora Mahal and covered the dead body with stones from where the same was got recovered by accused Bhuri Singh after he was arrested by the investigating officer on 6-3-79. 4. The post mortem on the dead body of Nand Lal was conducted by Dr. K. P. Singh PW-9 who found a stab wound 1-1/2" x 1" x abdominal cavity deep on the left side abdomen on upper part 1/2" above um bilicus, through the wound loops of intestines were protruding. One stab wound was also found on the left lower back side which was corresponding to the stabbed injury caused on the abdomen. One Lacerated wound measuring 4/10" x 3/10" x bone deep on left side temple was also found. The doctor also found the fol lowing post mortem injuries: (1 ). Irregular lacerated wound 1" x 2/10" x 1 /10" on the right ear pinna. (2 ). Lacerated wound irregular in an area 2-1/2" x 1" x around the root of the left ear with complete absence of the left ear pinna. (3 ). Lacerated wound irregular 2" x 1/2" x muscle deep on the front the left down part of the foot and toe and fingers. 5. In the opinion of the doctor death had occurred due to shock and hemor rhage as a result of ante mortem injuries, post mortem report is Ex. Ka-13. 6. Only accused Bhuri Singh and Summera were committed to the Court of Session to stand their trial because ac cused Kunwar Sahab could not be arrested as he was absconding. 7. In the opinion of the doctor death had occurred due to shock and hemor rhage as a result of ante mortem injuries, post mortem report is Ex. Ka-13. 6. Only accused Bhuri Singh and Summera were committed to the Court of Session to stand their trial because ac cused Kunwar Sahab could not be arrested as he was absconding. 7. To substantiate charges against the appellants, the prosecution relied upon a number of circumstances which we may narrate as follows: (1 ). that the accused Bhuri Singh, Summera and Kunwar Sahab had planned to commit the murder of the only son of Yad Ram with the hope that they would get about 10 maunds of gold buried in the Mahal of Jodha Bai as has been seen by Soni alias Kishan Singh in his dream: (2 ). that accused Bhuri Singh, Sum mera and Kunwar Sahab were seen sitting together in the lawn of record office at about 12 or 12. 30 noon on 5-3-79 by PW-4 Sahib Singh when he was returning from Seikh Salim Chishti School after noting down the examination scheme; (3 ). that Nand Lal had gone to his school in the morning at about 10 a. m. and was returning form there at about 4 p. m. alongwith his school mates Pooran Singh P W-5 and Wazir and at that time Nand Lal was carrying with him a bag containing Takhti, Pen etc. and when they came near the temple of Hanumanji at Lal Darwaja, Kunwar Sahab, appellants Bhuri Singh and Summera came there and Kunwar Sahab allured Nand Lal, giving him annas and also gave 10 paise each to Pooran and Wazir to bring cigarettes from a nearby shcjj and when they came back Kunwar Sahab falsely told Pooran and Wazir that Nand Lal had already left for home though in fact Nand Lal had been kidnapped by him and his associates; (4 ). that Nand Lal was last seen in the company of Kunwar Sahab, Summera and Bhuri Singh while entering into the temple from its northern gate by PW-2 Bhagwant Singh, Churamani and Ram Bharose; (5 ). that after sometime Bhagwant Singh PW-2 and Churamani saw all the three accused persons going with Nand Lal towards the hillock from the temple; (6 ). that after sometime Bhagwant Singh PW-2 and Churamani saw all the three accused persons going with Nand Lal towards the hillock from the temple; (6 ). that Bhagwant Singh then told the above facts to Yad Ram whereupon they went to the house of Bhuri Singh, Summera and Kunwar Sahab but they were not found there; (7 ). that when Nand Lal was not found in the nigh t despite a search made by his father Yad Ram and others. Yad Ram lodged a written report Ex. Ka-1 at the police station against Kunwar Sahab, Summera and Bhuri Singh and a case under Section 363 IPC was registered at the police station; (8 ). that when Bhuri Singh was ar rested at about 2 p. m. on 5-3-79 he led the police party to the recovery of dead body of Nand Lal alongwith his school bag irom a pit on the hillock and blood stained earth was also recovered from ghora Mahal; (9 ). that accused Bhuri Singh burnt his blood stained clothes and threw their ash in river Terahmorai; (10 ). that the accused persons have changed their defence from time to time. 8. In order to prove guilt of the ac cused persons prosecution before the trial Court produced 1 witnesses in all. They are PW- 1 Yad Ram, PW-2 Bhagwant Singh, PW-3 Ram Singh, PW-4 Sahib Singh, PW-5 Pooran, PW-6 Constable Sukhvir Singh who escorted the dead body of Nand Lal for post mortem examination, PW-7 Con stable Clerk Shyam Lai who registered the case at the police station on the basis of written report Ex. Ka-1 lodged by Yad Ram, PW-8 S. I. Jorawar Singh who did the initial investigation and also arrested accused Bhuri Singh and recovered the dead body of Nand Lal on the pointing out of accused Bhuri Singh from a pit on the hil lock, PW-9 Dr. K. P. Singh who conducted the post mortem examination and proved post mortem report as Ex. Ka-13, PW-10 Amar Singh is the formal witness who proved relevant general diary entries regard ing the sending of case property for chemical examination and PW-11 Hori Lai. 9. The accused persons in their state ments recorded under Section 313 Crpc denied the prosecution allegations and stated of their false implication on account of enmity with the first informant. Ka-13, PW-10 Amar Singh is the formal witness who proved relevant general diary entries regard ing the sending of case property for chemical examination and PW-11 Hori Lai. 9. The accused persons in their state ments recorded under Section 313 Crpc denied the prosecution allegations and stated of their false implication on account of enmity with the first informant. They produced Narendra Singh DW-1 and Sum mer Singh DW-2 in defence. 10. Learned Session Judge came to the conclusion that from the circumstan ces established the guilt of both the ac cused persons is proved beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly the learned Sessions Judge has convicted both the appellants under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced each of them to life im prisonment. 11. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned AGA appearing for the State. 12. Learned Counsel for the appel lants submitted before us that the entire case depended upon circumstantial evidence and the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution to connect the appellants with the murder of Nand Lal have not been established beyond doubt. It was further submitted that the evidence with regard to the recovery of dead body of Nand Lal are the instance on accused Bhuri Singh cannot be treated as an in criminating circumstance as it has not been shown by any evidence that the ac cused had himself concealed then dead body in the pit from where the same was recovered. At best it could be said that the accused had the knowledge where the dead body of Nand Lal was lying. It has also been argued by the appellants, Counsel that the learned Session Judge has committed grave error of law in taking into considera tion the confessional statement of accused Bhuri Singh alleged to have been made by him to the investigating officer while in police custody. In short the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that the case against the appellants is not free from doubt and they are entitled to acquittal. On the other hand learned AGA tried to support the order of the learned Sessions Judge by urging that the cir cumstance which have been established from the evidence on record are conclusive in nature and are not capable of being explained by any other hypothesis except ing guilt of the accused. 13. On the other hand learned AGA tried to support the order of the learned Sessions Judge by urging that the cir cumstance which have been established from the evidence on record are conclusive in nature and are not capable of being explained by any other hypothesis except ing guilt of the accused. 13. Before we start discussion on the evidence adduced at the trial, we may just point out the principles governing convic tion on the basis of circumstantial evidence. 14. In the case ouavsahar Lai Dass v. State oforissa 1991 (3) SCC 27 , the apex Court enumerated following principles: (1 ). that the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly estab lished; (2 ). that those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly point ing towards the guilt of the accused; (3 ). that the circumstances taken cumulatively should from a chain so com plete that there is no escape from the con clusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else and it should also be incapable of explanation on any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused. 15. The Apex Court in the case of Dhanjoy Chatterji v. State of West Bengal, JT1994 (1) SC 33,1994 JIC 260 (SC) held that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the Court has to be satisfied that the circumstances from which the con clusion of guilt is to be drawn have not only been fully established but also that all the circumstances so established should be of a conclusive nature and consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Those circumstances should not be capable of being explained by any other hypothesis except the guilt of the accused and the chain of the evidence must be so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the belief consistent with the innocence of the accused. It needs no reminder that legally established cir cumstances and not mere indignation of the Court can form the basis of conviction and the more serious the crime, the greater care should be taken to scrutinize the evidence lest suspicion takes the place of proof. 16. It needs no reminder that legally established cir cumstances and not mere indignation of the Court can form the basis of conviction and the more serious the crime, the greater care should be taken to scrutinize the evidence lest suspicion takes the place of proof. 16. It is thus well settle that each circumstances relied upon by the prosecu tion must be established by cogent succinct and reliable evidence ; and if the cir cumstances established are such as cannot be explained on any hypothesis except the guilt of the accused, conviction of the ac cused can be based. In other words the circumstances should be of an incriminat ing character and all the proved cir cumstances must provide a complete chain, no link of which should be found missing and the circumstances must une quivocally point to the guilt of the accused and must be entirely incompatible with the hypothesis of innocence of the accused and this responsible duty has to be discharged by the Court with utmost care and caution. 17. Before launching a discussion on the merits of the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution we may painfully pint out that despite some of the important and vital circumstances having been not found proved and the chain being not completed the learned Session Judge yet has come to the conclusion that the appellants were guil ty of the offences charged for. 18. We have already set out above, the circumstances relied upon by the prosecu tion. We now propose to examine each one of the circumstances relied upon by the trial Court in the order under appeal in which they have been set out. Motive: 19. The prosecution alleged as a background of this case and also its motive that one Soni alias Kishan Singh had a dream that about 10 maunds of gold was lying concealed in the jodha Bai Mahal and any one who would kill a minor and only son of his parents would get the same. He told about this dream to accused Kun-war Sahab at the hotel of Bajrang Baba. Thereafter Kunwar Sahab talked to the present appellants and they decided to eliminate Nand Lal the only child of Yad Ram, First Informant. 20. He told about this dream to accused Kun-war Sahab at the hotel of Bajrang Baba. Thereafter Kunwar Sahab talked to the present appellants and they decided to eliminate Nand Lal the only child of Yad Ram, First Informant. 20. The learned Sessions Judge has found that this motive has been proved from the oral evidence and murder was committed with a view to sacrifice the only child of Yad Ram so that the accused might get 10 maunds of gold lying hidden in jodha Bai Mahal. According to the learned Session Judge accused Bhuri Singh himself disclosed about this motive when he was interrogated after his arrest by the investigating officer on 6-3-79 near the Tiraha of Bharatpur. We have carefully gone through the statements of the inves tigating officer and Hori Lai PW-11 who were examined to prove the motive. Even as per the prosecution case accused Bhuri Singh gave the said statement while he was in police custody and his statement square ly falls within the category of "confession" which is not receivable in evidence because of the bar created under Section 26 of the Evidence Act. For the same reason the recitals made in Panchayatnama Ex. Ka-2, in the general diary on 6-3-79 cannot be read in evidence, being repetition of the statement of the accused which he is al leged to have made to the investigating officer in police custody. Apart from this confessional statement no evidence of any kind whatsoever has been brought on record to prove the alleged motive. During the interrogation of accused Bhuri Singh the investigating officer is alleged to have come to know that a conspiracy was hatched at the hotel of Bajrang Baba to kill Nand Lal, when Soni alias Kishan Singh has told accused Kunwar Sahab about the dream which he had in the preceding night yet no evidence was collected by the inves tigating officer in this regard. In a case based upon circumstantial evidence mo tive is of vital importance. In the present case the investigating officer even after having interrogated accused Bhuri Singh did not think it necessary for reasons best known to him to collect any evidence regarding the motive for committing the murder of an innocent child of about 8 years of age. In a case based upon circumstantial evidence mo tive is of vital importance. In the present case the investigating officer even after having interrogated accused Bhuri Singh did not think it necessary for reasons best known to him to collect any evidence regarding the motive for committing the murder of an innocent child of about 8 years of age. We therefore, find that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the present appellants had any motive to commit the murder of the deceased child Nand Lal. 21. The next circumstance which has been found established by the learned Ses sion Judge is that on 5- 3-79 Sahib Singh PW-4 saw the present appellants sitting in the lawn of the record room alongwith Kunwar Sahab at about 12 noon. To establish this circumstance we have the solitary evidence of Sahib Singh PW-4, a boy of about 16-17 years of age. He simply stated that on 5-3-79 at about 12-12. 30 noon when he was coming back from his school he saw Summera, Bhuri Singh and Kunwar Sahab sitting in the lawn of the record office. He admitted in his cross-examina tion that he had told this fact to Yad Ram and others on that very evening at about 6-6. 30 p. m. Yet this fact is neither men tioned by the first informant Yad Ram in his report Ex. Ka-1 nor such a fact was stated by him in his statement recorded in the trial Court. In any view of the matter this circumstance was in no way in criminating. 22. The next circumstance relied upon by the prosecution was that on 5-3-79 when deceased Nand Lal was returning from his school alongwith Pooran PW-5 and Wazir, accused persons met them near the temple where Kunwar Sahab gave Pooran and Wazir 10 paise each and asked them to bring cigarettes, while this witness when Kunwar Sahab gave 4 annas to Nand Lal and 10 paise each to Pooran and Wazir, he was near the house of Indu while ac cused Summera and Bhuri Singh at that time were standing near the temple and the house of Summera was very close to the temple. It is significant to note that in the First Information Report it was not stated by Yad Ram that the deceased was coming back from his school alongwith Pooran and Wazir and in the way they met the accused persons. In any view of the matter from his statement only this much could be inferred that accused Summer and Bhuri Singh were not present alongwith accused Kunwar Sahab when the later gave allure ment to Nand Lal deceased and asked the two witnesses to bring cigarettes for him and accused Bhuri Singh and Summera were standing near their house by the side of the temple which was situated at a far distance from the place where accused Kunwar Sahab was present. This cir cumstance therefore, is not at all in criminating at least against accused Sum mera and Bhuri Singh. 23. Now we come to the next cir cumstance which has been found estab lished by the learned Session Judge. The circumstance is that Nand Lal deceased was last seen in the company of the present appellants and Kunwar Sahab by PW-2 Bhagwant Singh when they were entering in the northern gate of the templer at about 4 p. m. PW-2 Bhagwant Singh stated that on -the date of occurrence he and Churamani had gone to Fatehpur Sikri to purchase domestic articles and when they were returning home and had reached near the temple they saw Kunwar Sahab, Bhuri Singh and Summera with Nand Lal and all the three accused persons then proceeded towards hillock after entering through the gate of the temple. He further stated that when he met Yad Ram at about 6 p. m. on the same evening he told this fact to Yad Ram. Yad Ram however did not disclose in his FIR that Nand Lal was so seen by this witness in the company of the three ac cused persons going towards hillock through the gate of the temple. In cross examination he admitted that when he saw these persons going towards hillock, their faces were towards the hill and he could not say as to which of the accused was in the last. In cross examination he admitted that when he saw these persons going towards hillock, their faces were towards the hill and he could not say as to which of the accused was in the last. He further stated that he saw the accused persons entering into the temple alongwith Nand Lal and he could not say for how much time they stayed inside the temple as he had soon left that place for his house which was situated at a distance of about 20 paces. He further admitted that he had not told to the investigating officer that he had seen accused persons alongwith Nand Lal going towards hillock from the temple. It would thus appear that this witness in his examination-in- chief developed the case for the first time at the trial that he saw accused persons in the company of Nand Lal going towards hil lock. Apart from the fact that this has been a development made at the trial if we ex amine the statement of this witness closely the possibility of his having seen the deceased going in the company of the ac cused persons towards the hill is excluded as he very categorically admitted that when the accused persons entered into the temple he left that place and did not know upto what time the accused persons remained inside the temple. He further admitted that he had only seen Kunwar Sahab and others entering into the temple and not before that. He further admitted that at about 5-6 p. m. Yad Ram the father of the deceased child met him and in cross-examination he in specific words admitted that he had riot told Yad Ram about the above fact before FIR was lodged. Had he seen Nand Lal in the company of the present accused persons, it looks most un natural that he would not have told this fact to Yad Ram, the father of the child when he was running from pillar to post in search of his son and the witness himself had gone with him for making a search of the missing child. He, thus appears to be a got up witness who for the first time at the trial stated of his having seen the deceased Nand Lal going in the company of three accused persons towards the hillock from the temple. He, thus appears to be a got up witness who for the first time at the trial stated of his having seen the deceased Nand Lal going in the company of three accused persons towards the hillock from the temple. This circumstance relied upon by the prosecution thus is also not estab lished by cogent evidence. It may not be out of place to mention here that even the learned Session Judge himself has not believed Bhagwant Singh PW-2 on this part of his statement that the three accused alongwith Nand Lal were seen going towards hillock. 24. The prosecution has also relied upon the circumstance that Kunwar Sahab, Bhuri Singh and Summera were not found at their houses when Yad Ram, Bhagwant Singh and others went to search them. Only PW-2 Bhagwant Singh stated of this circumstance. He stated that when Yad Ram met him about 5-6 p. m. on the same day, he alongwith Yad Ram went to the houses of Kunwar Sahab, Bhuri Singh and Summera but they were not found at their houses. Significantly no such fact was mentioned in the FIR nor PW-1 Yad Ram in his statement before the Court stated that he and Bhagwant Singh and others had gone to the houses of all the three accused persons. He simply stated to have gone at the house of Summera alongwith Hori Lai and Lala Ram and he did not state of the presence of Bhagwant Singh. It is therefore, not safe to place implicit reliance on the testimony of PW-2 which he developed at the trial for the first time. In any view of the matter the mere fact that the appellants were not found at their residences in late hours of the evening by itself could not be taken as an incriminat ing circumstance of conclusive rature. 25. The next circumstance which has been relied upon by the learned Session Judge is about the location of temple Chora Mahal pit and the rasta by which Nand Lal used to go back from his school. The location of these places is not disputed but for the mere topography of these places an inference of guilt against the appellants cannot be drawn. 26. The location of these places is not disputed but for the mere topography of these places an inference of guilt against the appellants cannot be drawn. 26. The learned Session Judge has considered the circumstance of recovery of dead body with the school bag of Nand Lal on the pointing out of accused Bhuri Singh as the most crucial incriminating cir cumstance. While recording this finding the learned Session Judge has referred to the statement of PW-3 Ram Singh, PW-8 Jorawar Singh, the Investigating Officer and PW-11 Hori Lai PW-3, Ram Singh stated before the Court that on the date when appellant Bhuri Singh was arrested he was present at the by- pass road near his village. According to him accused Bhuri Singh was already in police custody and one Sub-Inspector, some police personnel and Hori Lai and others were with him. Seeing this he also reached there. Bhuri Singh said that he would get the dead body of Nand Lal recovered and thereafter he took them to hillock and took out the dead body of Nand Lal from a pit. In cross-examination he stated that Churamani, Bhagwant Singh and Hori Lal and others were also present when accused made the above disclosure. However, Bhagwant Singh PW-2 in his statement before the Court did not state even a word about the recovery of the dead body at the instance of accused Bhuri Singh, PW-3 Ram Singh further stated in cross-examination that the pit was about 10 feet deep and 20 feet wide. It was a man made pit as it was created due to excavation of stones etc. From his statement it is, therefore, clear that the dead body of Nand Lal was thrown in the pit and thereafter some stone pieces were also thrown in the pit which is also corroborated by the post mortem injuries. PW-8 S. I. Jorawar Singh also stated that when accused Bhuri Singh was arrested at about 2 p. m. on 6-3-79 he stated that he could take them to the place where the dead body of Nand Lal had been lying and thereafter he took the police party to the pit on the hill top and took out the dead body from the pit. The IO in his cross- examination admitted that when he ar rested accused Bhuri Singh no public wit ness was present. The IO in his cross- examination admitted that when he ar rested accused Bhuri Singh no public wit ness was present. The fact of recovery of dead body of Nand Lal was mentioned by the IO in the inquest report but no separate recovery memo was prepared. PW-11, Hori Lai has also testified that after accused Bhuri Singh was arrested by the Investigating Officer he had also reached there and in his presence accused stated that he would get the dead body of Nand Lal recovered and thereafter he got the dead body recovered from a pit. It was argued by the learned Counsel for the ap pellants that Hori Lai PW-11 is the brother of first informant Yad Ram and Ram Singh PW-3 is also related to Yad Ram, as such they are highly interested witnesses and there is old enmity of the accused with them as such non-production of independent witnesses who were admit tedly present at the time of arrest of the accused is fatal to this part of the prosecu tion story. It has came in evidence that a petrol pump and a number of shops were situated at a little distance from the place of arrest of Bhuri Singh, thereofore, any one of them could have been called to be a witness of the accused and of the recovery of the dead body. In any view of the matter assuming for the sake of argument that the dead body of Nand Lal was got recovered by accused Bhuri Singh, it does not con clusively connect the appellant with the murder of Nand Lal. It is well settled that if the authorship of concealment is not clear ly borne out by cogent and incontrovertible evidence but is left to be inferred by im plication, it is not safe to rely upon the same. The recovery of dead body becomes incriminating not because of its recovery at the instance of the accused but the ele ment of criminally tending to connect the accused with the crime lies in the author ship of concealment namely that the ac cused who gave information leading to its discovery was the person who concealed it. To make such circumstance incriminating it must be shown that the accused himself concealed the dead body and on this point the evidence led by the prosecution should be free from doubt. To make such circumstance incriminating it must be shown that the accused himself concealed the dead body and on this point the evidence led by the prosecution should be free from doubt. For this proposition we may refer to the decision of apex Court in the case of Pohalya Motya Valvi v. State of Maharashtra, (1980) 1scc530. 27. In the present case it is admitted to the witnesses that the pit from where the dead body was got recovered by the ac cused was a man made on naving a depth of 10andwidthof20feetx20feet. Thepitwas therefore, a big one and anything lying in that pi t could easily be seen by passers by. It is nowhere stated by any of the three wit nesses examined by the prosecution while deposing the fact of recovery of the dead body that at any point of time accused admitted to have himself concealed or thrown the dead body of Nand Lal in the pit in question. As already pointed out above the deceased was seen only in the company of accused Kunwar Sahab when two other children namely Pooran PW-5 and Wazir had gone to bring cigarettes as other persons were at that time standing near their house far removed from the place where accused Kunwar Sahab was talking to the deceased, therefore, the pos sibility of the murder having been com mitted by Kunwar Sahab alone and of the accused Bhuri Singh having the knowledge of the dead body being thrown by Kunwar Sahab in the pit cannot be ruled out. From the mere fact that dead body was recovered at the instance of accused from the pit at the hillock which was an open place and accessible to all, inference of guilt cannot be drawn against accused Bhuri Singh or at any rate against accused Summera. In the absence of evidence of authorship of con cealment, the fact of recovery of dead body of the instance of accused Bhuri Singh could at best lead to an inference that the accused had knowledge of the place where the dead body of Nand Lal was lying and not that he himself had concealed the dead body. That circumstance, being consistent with many hypothesis, therefore, would not lead to the conclusion that the murder of Nand Lal was committed by accused Bhuri Singh. 28. That circumstance, being consistent with many hypothesis, therefore, would not lead to the conclusion that the murder of Nand Lal was committed by accused Bhuri Singh. 28. For the reasons stated above we therefore find that it will be highly un reasonable to rely on these distorted and scanty pieces of circumstantial evidence that too brought on record in a most un satisfactory and loath some manner. In any view of the matter even if some of the circumstances are taken as proved, they do not complete the chain so as to lead to a reasonable conclusion wholly inconsistent with the innocence of the accused. Though an innocent child aged about 8 years was undoubtedly slaughtered and sacrificed at the altar of lust but the prosecution agency itself is to be blamed for not securing con viction as vital pieces of evidence and cir cumstances to complete the chain were not collected and brought on record. Material witnesses with regard to the mo tive were not examined and the investiga tion was conducted in a most perfunctory manner. The resultant effect of what we have said above is that the evidence and material brought on record do not have a cutting edge as to penetrate the fortress of innocence built around the appellants and the needle of suspicion vacilates towards the appellants and nothing more. Suspicion, howsoever strong it may be, is no substitute for the proof and in criminal law an accused can only be convicted if his guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt and not otherwise certainly not on mere suspicion. 29. For the reasons stated above, this appeal is allowed. The order of the learned Session Judge convicting and sentencing the appellants is set aside and appellants are acquitted of the offences charged for. The appellants are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged. Appeal allowed. .