Judgment M.L.Singhal, J. 1. This judgment will dispose of criminal appeal No. .19-DB of 2001 (Chhotu Ram @ Bakru alias Surinder and others v. State of Haryana), criminal Appeal No. 105-DB of 2001 (Harish Kumar v. State of Haryana) and Criminal Appeal No. 144-DB of 2001 Sher Singh @ Sheru v. State of Haryana) as these criminal appeals have arisen from the same judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, dated 5/9.12.2000 delivered in Sessions case No. 48 of 2000 (Sessions Trial No. 126 of 2000) FIR No. 469 dated 20.10.1995 under Sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code of Police Station City, Panipat convicting and sentencing all the six accused to under go rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- each under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code or in default of payment to fine, the defaulter to under go further rigorous imprisonment for three years. They were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 3000/- each under Section 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code or in default of payment of fine, the defaulter to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. Substantive sentences were to run concurrently. 2. Facts : Tilak Raj Sehgal was running a dairy in Murti Colony, Panipat. He was keeping buffaloes and cows for the sale of their milk. Sheru son of Ram Bharose, caste Ahiria (Bahelia) of village Junedpur, PS Aliganj UP and Surinder alias Chhotu Bihari of village Manibela PS Chirana, UP were working in that dairy as servants. They were looking after cattle. They used to put up in the dairy itself. Tilak Raj Sehgal used to leave for his house situated in Insar Chowk, Street of Central Bank, Panipat at about 8.00 p.m. after getting free from work for stay at night. It was daily routine with him. At about 4/4.30 a.m. he used to leave for the dairy and awake the servants also that they fed fodder etc. to the cattle and milched the cattle. After putting them to feeding fodder etc. to the cattle and milching them, he used to leave for walk (morning walk). On 22.10.1995 at 4.30 a.m. as usual he got up and left for the dairy. to the cattle and milched the cattle. After putting them to feeding fodder etc. to the cattle and milching them, he used to leave for walk (morning walk). On 22.10.1995 at 4.30 a.m. as usual he got up and left for the dairy. At about 5/5.15 a.m. daily, his son Deepak Sehgal used to come to the dairy with a view to assisting his father in the dairy work. On 22.10.1995 at about 5.30 a.m. as usual, Deepak Sehgal, reached the dairy. His father Tilak Raj Sehgal was not found at the dairy nor was any servant found at the dairy. Thereupon, Deepak Sehgal returned to his house and told the members of the family that none was there in the dairy. He brought candle from his house and reached the dairy. He switched on the light and searched for Tilak Raj Sehgal but could not find him. He then went to the dairy of Gulshan Wadhawan which adjoins his dairy and asked for the help of his servant, thinking that his father might have gone in search of their servants but to no effect. Thereafter, he went to the dairy of Satish Nanda in Ghere Araiya for the search of his father and their servants, but to no effect. Thereafter, he went to the house of his fathers friend Sh. Prem Miglani and brought him to their dairy. After sometime, Insar servant of Gulshan Wadhawan and his friend came to their dairy and helped them in milching the cattle. At about 8.30/8.45 a.m. he became free from milching all the cattle. Insar asked him to feed the cattle. Thereupon he, Insar and his friend entered the fodder room. Prem Miglani also entered the fodder room simultaneously with them. As Deepak Sehgal entered the fooder room, his foot fell on something hard in the dry fooder (turi). He asked Insar that there was something hard in the dry fodder/turi. He and Insar removed turi with their hands and found the dead body of Tilak Raj with face thickly stained with blood. Deepak Sehgal called his fathers uncle Bansi Lal Sehgal from the neghbourhood to the spot. The dead body of Tilak Raj was brought out of the dry fodder/turi. A look at the dead body revealed that front portion of the neck had been chopped off completely. Deepak Sehgal called his fathers uncle Bansi Lal Sehgal from the neghbourhood to the spot. The dead body of Tilak Raj was brought out of the dry fodder/turi. A look at the dead body revealed that front portion of the neck had been chopped off completely. There were injuries with sharp edged weapon on the stomach, back of head, waist and the right side of the body. On 21.10.1995 at about 6.00 p.m. a boy came to their dairy, who was telling that he was brother of their servant Chhotu alias Surinder and was dealing in the sale of vegetables on a rehri at Assandh Road across the railway crossing under the bridge and was asking for a sum of Rs. 2500/-. When he could not give satisfactory account as to his antecedents, his father threatened him to be taken to the police. On apology being tendered, he was let off by his father. Deepak Sehgal firmly believed that his father had been done to death by their servants Sheru, Surinder in conspiracy with their other friends/servants who, were working as servants elsewhere in Panipat by causing him injuries with sharp edged weapon and buried the dead body in their fodder room and themselves absconded. Matter was reported to the police by Deepak Sehgal vide statement Ex.PD, which was recorded by SI Zile Singh of PS City, Panipat, who put endorsement Ex.PD/1 on that statement. He sent statement Ex.PD to Police Station City, Panipat where FIR No. 469 dated 22.10.1995 was registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, Chhotu alias Bakru alias Surinder, Harish Kumar, `Sher Singh @ Sheru alias Nandu, Ziledar @ Langra, Sohan Lal alias Sonu and Sat Pal were challaned. 3. Case was committed to the Court of Session by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat vide order dated 12.2.1996. 4. Chhotu alias Bakru alias Surinder and others accused were charged under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and they were further charged under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat vide order dated 18.11.1996. 5. At the conclusion of the trial, vide order dated 5/9.12.2000, Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat found the aforesaid charge proved against Chhotu alias Bakru alias Surinder etc. She accordingly convicted and sentenced them as indicated above. 6. 5. At the conclusion of the trial, vide order dated 5/9.12.2000, Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat found the aforesaid charge proved against Chhotu alias Bakru alias Surinder etc. She accordingly convicted and sentenced them as indicated above. 6. Aggrieved by their conviction and sentence Chhotu alias Bakru alias Surinder and others have come up in appeals, to this Court namely criminal appeal No. 19-DB of 2001, criminal appeal No. 105-DB of 2001 and criminal appeal No. 144-DB of 2001. 7. We have heard Shri Amrik Singh Bhopal, Advocate-counsel for the appellants in all these criminal appeals as also the learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana, and have gone through the record. 8. In this case, there is no direct evidence. Case rests upon circumstantial evidence. 9. In Rup Lal v. State of Punjab, 1998(1) RCR(Crl.) 796 (P&H) : 1998(1) RCR 796, the following tests have been laid down if conviction is to be recorded on the basis of circumstantial evidence : 1. Circumstances from which inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; 2. Those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; 3. Circumstances taken cumulatively should form chain so complete that there is no escape from conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; 4. Circumstantial evidence must be complete and incapable of explanation on any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused; 5. Circumstantial evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of accused, but should be inconsistent with innocence of accused. In order to sustain conviction on circumstantial evidence alone, we have to see whether the circumstantial evidence is complete and is incapable of explanation on any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused. Circumstantial evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of accused, but should be inconsistent with innocence of accused. In order to sustain conviction on circumstantial evidence alone, we have to see whether the circumstantial evidence is complete and is incapable of explanation on any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused. Regarding appreciation of circumstantial evidence the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Annappa Bandu Kavatage, AIR 1979 SC 1410, State (Delhi Administration) v. Gulzari Lal Tandon, AIR 1979 SC 1382, Pohaly Motya v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1979 SC 1949, Gampvir v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1982 SC 1157 and Prem Thakur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1983 SCC 61, is as follows : "It is well settled that before a Court can act on circumstantial evidence the circumstances proved must be complete and of a conclusive nature so as to be fully inconsistent with the innocence of the accused and are not explainable on any other hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. It is also well settled that the accused can be convicted on circumstantial evidence only if every other reasonable hypothesis of guilt is completely excluded and the circumstances are wholly inconsistent with the innocence of the accused. The principles are that each circumstance relied upon by the prosecution must be established by cogent, succinct and reliable evidence; that the circumstances relied upon must be such as cannot be explained on any hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. In other words, the circumstances must be of an incriminating character. All the proved circumstances must provide a complete chain no link of which must be missing and they must unequivocally point to the guilt of the accused and exclude any hypothesis consistent with his innocence. The law regarding circumstantial evidence is well settled. When a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy three tests : (1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; (2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; (3) the circumstances taken cumulatively should form chain so complete that there is no escape from conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and noose else". 10. 10. In this case, we are required to find out as to whether circumstances brought on the record suggesting the complicity of the accused in the commission of murder of Tilak Raj are of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused. 11. Om Parkash PW-4 has stated that he used to go for morning walk daily. On 22.10.1995 at about 5.00 A.M., he had seen all the accused coming out of the dairy of the deceased, Sandeep Kumar PW-5 stated that his house is just opposite to the house of deceased Tilak Raj. He used to take milk from the dairy of Tilak Raj. On 21.10.1995 at about 9.10 P.M., he went to meet Tilak Raj at his house and since he was not there, he went to his dairy. He did not find Tilak Raj even in his dairy. Chhotu and Sheru, the servants of the deceased alongwith the remaining accused Harish, Sohan Lal, Sat Pal and Ziledar were found taking liquor. He had known the aforesaid four accused as he had seen them many times at the dairy of the deceased. Sometimes, one of them and sometimes another of them was found present at the dairy of the deceased. As the accused Sheru told him that Tilak Raj was not present, he came back to his house. He came to know of the murder of Tilak Taj on the following day at about 11.00 a.m. Statement of Om Parkash PW-4 leads us nowhere as he has not stated that he saw Sheru, Chhotu, Harish and Sat Pal etc. accused carrying any weapon stained with blood with them. He has not stated that he saw their hands smeared with blood or their clothes stained with blood. No inference can be drawn from the statement of Om Parkash PW-4 that Sheru, Chhotu etc. were coming from the dairy of Tilak Raj at about 5.00 a.m. on 22.10.1995 after committing his murder. 12. Nothing turns on the statement of Sandeep Kumar PW-6 so far as the commission of murder of Tilak Raj is concerned. Assuming that Sheru, Chhotu, etc. were taking liquor together on 21.1.1995 at about, 9/10.00 p.m., it cannot be said, that they were conspiring to commit murder of Tilak Raj. 12. Nothing turns on the statement of Sandeep Kumar PW-6 so far as the commission of murder of Tilak Raj is concerned. Assuming that Sheru, Chhotu, etc. were taking liquor together on 21.1.1995 at about, 9/10.00 p.m., it cannot be said, that they were conspiring to commit murder of Tilak Raj. All of they were servants eking out their living by working with one or the other at Panipat and if they joined together for enjoying and took liquor, no inference can be drawn that they were conspiring to murder Tilak Raj and that they murdered Tilak Raj. It is not shown that gold chain alleged have been recovered from the possession of Sheru accused belonged to the deceased as gold chain Ex. P-10 does not bear any identification mark which, could suggest that this gold chain belonged to the deceased. Gold chain Ex. P-10 was not the only gold chain manufactured by Vishamber Kumar Jeweller PW-7. Vishamber Kumar PW-7 has stated that they prepare such chains in numbers. No stamp is affixed on the jewellery manufactured in his shop. Vinod Khanna PW-8 has stated that about the extra-judicial confession said to have been made before him by Chhotu and Harish on 4.11.1995. He stated that Chhotu and Harish confessed before him that they alongwith Sher Singh, Sohan Lal, Sat Pat and Ziledar committed the murder of Tilak Raj as Tilak Raj used to beat accused Chhotu and Sher Singh, besides they were actuated by greed in the commission of murder of Tilak Raj. Vinod Khanna PW-8 cannot be believed as he was not new to the police. He had appeared as a witness in two cases before. One of the cases relates to the rape of a minor who was the daughter of Satish. Other was a case under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. He was made a witness in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act of PS City, Panipat. He had gone to PS City, Panipat and the Inspector of Police had asked him to sign on a paper and he signed on blank paper. Officers of the Electricity Board raided his business premises and a case under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against him. 13. He had gone to PS City, Panipat and the Inspector of Police had asked him to sign on a paper and he signed on blank paper. Officers of the Electricity Board raided his business premises and a case under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against him. 13. Vinod Khanna PW-8 was introduced by the police with a view to provide fillip to the prosecution case which was otherwise on weak wicket. Why should Chhotu and Harish have gone to Vinod Khanna PW-8 and make extra-judicial confession before him when they could not expect any favour from him as he was not holding any position of authority. It is not shown that Chhotu and Harish had any intimacy with Vinod Khanna PW-8 so that they could confide in him. 14. It was held in Hari Kant v. State of Haryana, 1999(2) RCR (Criminal) 91 (P&H), that confession made by the accused to the person who had no intimacy is devoid of credibility. Even otherwise extra-judicial confession is a weak type of evidence. It cannot be acted upon unless it is corroborated in material particulars by other pieces of evidence. 15. There was thus no occasion for Chhotu and Harish to have gone to Vinod Khanna PW-8 and to make confession before him. Even otherwise, how could confession made by the bind Sohan Lal etc. 16. Recovery of the knives from the possession of the accused in pursuance of their disclosure statements on 9.11.1995 does not further the case of the prosecution as it cannot be believed that they kept the knives bearing stains of blood till 9.11.1995. Usual human tendency is that after the commission of crime, one will try to destroy the evidence, instead of keeping evidence alive so that it could recoil upon them at a later stage. It cannot be believed that the accused kept their clothes strained with blood during the course they committed murder because if they had got their clothes stained with blood during the commission of murder, Om Parkash PW would have stated that he saw them coming from the diary on 22.10.1995 and that their clothes were stained with blood. It cannot be believed that the accused kept their clothes strained with blood during the course they committed murder because if they had got their clothes stained with blood during the commission of murder, Om Parkash PW would have stated that he saw them coming from the diary on 22.10.1995 and that their clothes were stained with blood. Om Parkash PW-4 has nowhere stated that when he saw the accused coming out of the dairy on 22.10.1995 at about 5.00 a.m. there were stains of blood on their clothes or they were carrying any weapons stained with blood. 17. In this case thus we cannot feel that the circumstantial evidence is so complete and is incapable of explanation on any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused. It is cardinal rule of criminal jurisprudence that "graver the offence, the stricter the proof". On the basis of such a weak circumstantial evidence, we cannot but noose around the neck of six persons and sentence them to imprisonment for life. 18. For the reasons given above, we are of the opinion that learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat was not justified in convicting and sentencing the accused-appellants. We therefore, accept these appeals, set aside the conviction and sentence passed upon the appellants by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, and acquit them of the charge framed against them. They shall be released forthwith if in jail and not required in any other case. Appeal accepted