Judgment 1. When a criminal trial entirely depends upon the circumstantial evidence and there is absolutely no eyewitness account, the chain of events which lead to a particular circumstance must be a complete one and inspiring confidence before conviction can be based upon such an evidence. 2. In the case in hand one Dr. Bhagwan Dass Bhatia, a private Medical Practitioner, in a town known as Tohana, was found in an injured condition in his residential house on 23.12.1993 at 9.00 P.M., by his son Angad Kumar PW8, who allegedly made a statement Ex. PH before SI Mahinder Singh PW 16, at about 2.20 A.M. on 24.12.1992. When the son found the father in such an injured condition lying on the ground and bleeding profusely, the father could neither tell about the two persons, who had inflicted knife injuries to him who had fled away nor could name them. On the statement contained in Ex. PH, formal F.I.R. Ex. PH/2 was recorded at 2.45 A.M. on 24.12.1993 and special report reached the Ilaqa Magistrate at 4.45 A.M. on the same night. Ultimately Dr. Bhagwan Dass Bhatia succumbed to the injuries. SI Mahinder Singh PW16 thereafter went to the scene of occurrence where the dead body of the deceased was lying. He prepared inquest report Ex. PB and sent the dead body for post mortem. He got the scene of occurrence photographed. The negatives of the photographs are Ex. PII to P18 and the positives are Ex. P19 to P26. The Investigating Officer lifted blood stained earth and blood stained woolen hand glove of white colour from the scene of occurrence vide memo Ex. P1. He also prepared rough site plan Ex. PR of the scene of occurrence. After post mortem the clothes of the deceased were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PQ. 3. During further investigation by Inspector Rohtash SIngh PW 12, it transpired that Gurkirat Singh alias Guri had some enmity with the deceased. Some English Whisky was bought by the said Medical Practitioner. Gurkirat Singh had some telephonic conversation with him which was heard by Gulshan Kumar PW9 while he was present in the shop of Dr. Bhagwan Dass Bhatia. So in a nut shell, it was expected that 4. Ram Phal, Sultan, Ganesh and Ram Chander appellants were produced before Inspector Rohtash Singh PW 12 on 10.1.1994 and they were taken into custody. Bhagwan Dass Bhatia. So in a nut shell, it was expected that 4. Ram Phal, Sultan, Ganesh and Ram Chander appellants were produced before Inspector Rohtash Singh PW 12 on 10.1.1994 and they were taken into custody. In pursuance of his disclosure statement Ex. PJ Ganesh accused got recovered knife Ex.P8 while Ram Chander accused got recovered Chhuri Ex. P7 both of which were taken into possession vide memos Ex. PJ/2 and PK/2 respectively. Darshan Lal and Dulia accused were arrested on 12.1.1994 whereas Gurkirat Singh accused surrendered in Court on 19.2.1994 and was formally arrested on 21.2.1994. After completion of the investigation, all the accused were put to trial. 5. Dr. H.L. Gupta PW 1 conducted autopsy on the dead body of Bhagwan Dass Bhatia on 24.12.1993 at 10.00 A.M. and vide post mortem report Ex. PC opined that the injuries were anti mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 6. At the trial, the appellants claimed that they were totally innocent. Gurkirat Singh accused claimed that he was a respectable person of the town and was heading various social organisations. He did not have any enmity with the deceased. Dr. B.B. Lala DWI, Pritam Pal Singh DW2, Dr. S.S. Garg DW3, Dr. H.L. Gupta DW4, Pardeep Kumar Sharma DW5 and Jasbir Singh DW6 were produced in defence. Jasbir Singh DW6 deposed that in the year 1993-94 Gurkirat Singh was not a partner in the firm, namely, M/s Baldev Singh and Company. This firm was doing the liquor business. The learned trial Judge acquitted Gurkirat Singh, Darshan Lal and Dulia accused with the observations that they had no hand in the crime. However, Ram Chander and Ganesh appellants were convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code whereas Ram Phal and Sultan appellants under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each. In default of payment of fine each of them was ordered to. undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two years. 7. 10,000/- each. In default of payment of fine each of them was ordered to. undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two years. 7. So the case of the prosecution had been that in fact Gurkirat Singh accused (who has since been acquitted) had a liquor business and since the deceased was importing English liquor from Hissar, it was affecting the business of the said accused adversely and he was determined to kill Dr. Bhagwan Dass Bhatia and, therefore, he hired the persons to get the job done. So on the entire record the only testimony is that of Sham Sunder PW 11 before whom the alleged extra judicial confession was made. 8. With the assistance of the counsel, we have gone through the entire statement of this witness minutely and one can find out that these persons made the extra judicial confession before him and they had told the details that Gurkirat Singh alias Guri got the entire plan executed and that this witness asked all the four one by one as to what had happened and they explained that they were armed with knives and Chhuri and did their job. This extra judicial confession is allegedly made after about 16 days of the occurrence. So as per deposition by this witness Ram Chander, Sultan and Ganesh did not make the extra judicial confession of their won. Sham Sunder PW11, stated that he had gone to the Police Station earlier to get certain disputes resolved. He claimed that there was a dispute of a person by the name of Surinder Kumar son of Jai Gopal Bhatia, who was his cousin. The witness did not know whether Gurkirat Singh was a liquor contractor in the year 1992-93. He was asked in cross- examination whether he belonged to Bhatia clan and community to which he answered in affirmative but he denied that he was ever on visiting terms with the deceased. He was out of station till 5th of January, 1994 and came to know about the murder of Dr. Bhagwan Dass on that day. He had gone to Bombay and had stayed in a hotel in Andheri. He denied that he was President of Bhatia Community Association of Tohana. Earlier he claimed that the case was registered with Police Station, Tohana, but later stated that in fact he did not know as to where the case was registered. Bhagwan Dass on that day. He had gone to Bombay and had stayed in a hotel in Andheri. He denied that he was President of Bhatia Community Association of Tohana. Earlier he claimed that the case was registered with Police Station, Tohana, but later stated that in fact he did not know as to where the case was registered. He claimed that his extra judicial confession was made by the appellants in a shop where they stayed for about one hour and 15 minutes. During that period neither any customer came to his shop nor any person from the neighbouring shops came to him. He claimed that he had narrated the extra judicial confession made before him by the appellants to the police orally. He did not know anything about the back ground of the members of the family of the accused and did not know any of them. Neither any one of them was acquainted with him; nor the appellants and this witness were on visiting terms with each other. At the time of further investigation by the CIA Staff no public person was joined. He earlier did not claim that he was the President of any Institute of the town. Later on he claimed that he was President of Nehru Market and was member of the Lion Club and was an ex-President of the said Club. It appears that may be that he is a prominent person but the question remains that he was not known to any of the appellants earlier to the making of the said extra judicial confession. There was absolutely no occasion for the appellants to have met this witness. They never exchanged visits. Sultan and Ram Chander appellants are labourers of Tohana and Jhakhar while Ram Phal is a tailor. The situation does not inspire confidence that these persons would go to this witness who is already known to the deceased so well as would make an extra judicial concession after 15 days of the occurrence. These appellants did not know that the witness was to return from Bombay and were to make any extra judicial concession before him. There is no such version offered by Sham Sunder PW11. Gurkirat Singh and other two accused already acquitted never approached the appellants and never allegedly made any extra judicial confession. These appellants did not know that the witness was to return from Bombay and were to make any extra judicial concession before him. There is no such version offered by Sham Sunder PW11. Gurkirat Singh and other two accused already acquitted never approached the appellants and never allegedly made any extra judicial confession. The learned trial Judge already did not believe the version that Gurkirat Singh had a hand in the crime. There is hardly any doubt that in fact this was a cold blooded murder of Dr. Bhagwan Dass Bhatia in the said town, but the aforesaid evidence of extra judicial confession which the appellants allegedly made before him and in the presence of one Harbans Singh, who was also said to be sitting in the shop of this witness is not believable. Such an extrajudicial confession would not bind any of the co-accused and by itself is not believable and does not inspire confidence in its truthfulness. 9. Gulshan Kumar, the alleged, eyewitness was given up as won over by a statement made by the Public Prosecutor on 6.11.1999. The mere evidence of recoveries of the weapons of offence would not connect the appellant with the occurrence. 10. Dr. Subhash Chander Bhatia PW 10 to whom Angad Kumar had come immediately on seeing his father lying in an injured condition, had gone long with Angad Kumar to the house of the deceased and claimed that two persons caused him knife blows and ran towards the market and the deceased ultimately expired in Civil Hospital, Tohana. This witness deposed that they had suspicion that Gurkirat Singh got the offence committed. He, however, admitted that there were 300/400 houses of Bhatia community in the town. Angad Kumar is PW8 himself and he did not go beyond what he stated in the first information report. The witness, however, admitted that Gurkirat Singh was Chairman of Market committee as well as held some position in Literacy Mission at Tohana. 11. So we had no option but to mention even the evidence which was recorded for and against Gurkirat Singh, though he has been acquitted, so as to see the role of the present appellants. The witness, however, admitted that Gurkirat Singh was Chairman of Market committee as well as held some position in Literacy Mission at Tohana. 11. So we had no option but to mention even the evidence which was recorded for and against Gurkirat Singh, though he has been acquitted, so as to see the role of the present appellants. The present appellants had only extra judicial confession against them which, as indicated above, has not been believed and the learned trial Judge had committed error to rely upon such an evidence as the evidence of the extra judicial confession in the case in hand is unnatural and unbelievable and the witness Sham Sunder PW 11 appears to have been introduced to connect such a type of evidence. There could not be any sufficient ocular testimony and the Investigating Officer was presuaded by the people of the community to do so. 12. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is allowed and the appellants are acquitted of the charges framed against them.