JUDGMENT 1. - Mst. Chanda Bai, an old muslim woman was found killed in her house on December 30, 1988. Gafoor Mohd. (PW. 1) her younger brother lodged the First Information Report with the Police Station Khanpur without naming any person as accused. Accused Shafi Mohammed and Liyakat Ali were respectively arrested on March 20, 1989 and March 25, 1989. On the basis of their disclosure statements Ex. P27 and Ex. P28 some ornaments belonging to the deceased were recovered from the shops of Mohan Lal Soni s/o Nand Lal (PW.10) and Mohan Lal Soni s/o Ganesh Lal (PW.11). 2. Upon trial both the accused were found guilty and convicted and sentenced under sections 302, 460 and 380 IPC. They were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of As. 1000/- in default to further suffer one month R.I. under section 302 and under sections 460 and 380 to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and five years and fine of As. 1000/- and Rs. 500/-. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated June 3, 1995 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge Jhalawar, instant criminal appeals have been preferred by the accused Liyakat Ali and Shafi Mohammed. 3. The case of the prosecution is that Chanda Bai lived in a small room all alone and earned her livelihood by selling ready made clothes in the small fare of the village. When she was not seen in the fare continuously for three days, it was thought that she might have gone to Baran to attend some religious ceremony but finding in the evening of December 30, 1988, that Chanda Bai did not go to Baran, her younger brother Gafoor Mohammed visited her room that was locked from outside. In side the room he could see the hand and knee of Chanda Bai in between the scattered clothes. Apprehending that his sister was killed by some body, a written report was handed over by him at the Police Station Khanpur where case under sections 302/456 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. The accused were arrested and on conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial. Charges under sections 302, 460 and 380 IPC were framed. Accused denied the charges and claimed trial.The prosecution examined as many as 20 witnesses and 31 documents. In their statements recorded under section 313 Cr.RC. the accused pleaded innocence. In due course the case came up for trial. Charges under sections 302, 460 and 380 IPC were framed. Accused denied the charges and claimed trial.The prosecution examined as many as 20 witnesses and 31 documents. In their statements recorded under section 313 Cr.RC. the accused pleaded innocence. No witness was however examined in defence. Learned trial judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the accused as indicated hereinabove. 4. Admittedly the prosecution has sought to prove the case against the accused persons by leading circumstantial evidence. The only circumstance that was relied upon by the learned trial judge against the accused person is the recovery of ornaments of the deceased on the basis of disclosure statements of the accused persons. Shafi Mohammed gave information vide Ex.P27 and on that basis recovery of ornaments was effected vide recovery memo Ex.P14 from the shop of Mohan Lai Soni s/o Nand Lai (PW.10). Liyakat Ali's disclosure statement is Ex.P28 and on the basis of said statement recovery of ornaments was effected from the shop of another Mohan Lai Soni s/o Ganesh Lai (PW.11) vide recovery memo Ex.P.15. The recovered ornaments were got identified before Shri Prayag Chand Verma Judicial Magistrate and identification memos Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.8 were drawn. In the disclosure statement Ex.P26, accused Shafi Mohammed also stated that a pair of silver anklet, one white salwar (ladies trouser) and one suit piece of sky blue colour which was stolen by him from the house of the deceased could also be recovered from his house. Recovery of these articles was effected vide recovery memo Ex.P29. Salwar and suit piece were also got identified before the Judicial Magistrate and identification memo Ex.P.9 was drawn. 5. According to post-mortem report Ex.P.18 the cause of death of the deceased was asphyxia due to strangulation and injury to mouth. She sustained following antemortem injuries 1. Incised wound 2" x 1" x 1" over Right Lat. asp. of mouth. 2. Lacerated wound 1.5" x 3/4" over Rt. Patella. 3. Bruise 1" x 3/4" over Lt. Zygomatic area. A look at the site plan goes to show that the room of the deceased was in between the rooms of Chhitar Lai and Yakub (PW.12). In his deposition Yakub (PW.12) stated that he was the next door neighbour of the deceased. He could only know about her murder two days after her death. Zygomatic area. A look at the site plan goes to show that the room of the deceased was in between the rooms of Chhitar Lai and Yakub (PW.12). In his deposition Yakub (PW.12) stated that he was the next door neighbour of the deceased. He could only know about her murder two days after her death. Many persons used to visit her place in connection with purchase of ready made clothes. Mohan Lai s/o Nand Lai (PW.10) deposed that he did not know Shafi Mohammed and no person having name of Shafi Mohammed ever sold gold to him. He was declared hostile. Mohan Lai s/o Ganesh Lai (PW.11) stated that he did not know Liyakat Ali. Neither Liyakat had ever dealt with him nor he sold ornaments to him. The police after threatening him to implicate in false case, got prepared from him the copy of ledger Ex. P11. This witness was also declared hostile. The prosecution did not examine the Judicial Magistrate before whom the witnesses identified the ornaments and clothes. Tabassum (PW.3) who identified the ornaments, in her deposition stated that deceased used to wear ornaments at the time of marriage ceremony and on that occassion she saw the deceased wearing the ornaments but in the next breath she deposed that she never went with the deceased in any marriage and the deceased never came to her house alongiwth the ornaments and clothes. 6. There is nothing on record to show that the accused were last seen with the deceased or they visited her room at the time of her death. Though the deceased sustained incised and lacerated wounds on her person yet no weapon of offence was recovered at the instance of the accused. Even no evidence in regard to conduct of the accused was collected by the investigating agency. The only evidence which finds favour with the learned trial judge is the evidence of recovery of ornaments and on the basis of only circumstance of recovery of ornaments the learned trial judge convicted the accused. 7. Even no evidence in regard to conduct of the accused was collected by the investigating agency. The only evidence which finds favour with the learned trial judge is the evidence of recovery of ornaments and on the basis of only circumstance of recovery of ornaments the learned trial judge convicted the accused. 7. It is well settled that the inference or presumption of guilt, upon the main charge of murder can be safely drawn, where the accused is in unexplained possession of jewels or articles of the victim after the crime and where in addition, there is some evidence at least connecting the movements of the accused with those of the victim, either before or after the crime, and in some manner or another establishing a nexus between- the accused and the offence. The mere unexplained possession or production of the jewels of the victim by the accused may not constitute a safe basis for a conviction upon a charge of murder, when that is the only bare circumstance proved in evidence. The reason for that is fairly obvious. The test of circumstantial evidence must be satisfied; the chain of links in that evidence must lead to only one reasonable inference, namely, that the accused was the murderer, and all other probable hypothesis must be excluded. 8. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Sharad Virdhi Chand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622 had chosen to state the conditions which must be fulfilled before a case against an accused based on circumstantial evidence can be said to be fully established. 9. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have chosen to call five golden principles as panchshil of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence in the case of Sharad Virdhi Chand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (supra). These principles are : (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established, the circumstances concerned "must or should" and not "may be" established. (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. 10. We have tested facts of the instant case in view of the above five golden principles. We find that even the circumstance of recovery of ornaments belonging to the deceased has not been established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Two gold smiths Mohan Lal Soni s/o Nand Lal (PW.10) and Mohan Lal Soni s/o Ganesh Lal (PW.11) have not supported the prosecution case and they have categorically deposed that they did not know Liyakat All and Shafi Mohammed and they have never sold gold or ornaments to them. Mohan Lal son of Ganesh Lal (PW.11) stated that the investigating officer gave him threatening to implicate in a false case and got executed a ledger Ex.P11. Shri Prayag Chand Verma, judicial Magistrate before whom -the ornaments were identified by the witnesses was not produced. Even the statement of Tabassum (PW.3) who identified the ornaments does not inspire confidence. Thus we are satisfied that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges under sections 460, 302 and 380 IPC beyond reasonable doubt against the accused appellants Liyakat Ali and Shafi Mohammed. 11. In the result we allow the instant appeals and set aside the judgment of the learned trial judge and acquit the accused appellants Liyakat All and Shafi Mohammed from the charges under sections 302, 380 and 460 IPC. Both the appellants Liyakat All and Shafi Mohammed are in jail, they shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case. *******