JUDGMENT 1. - The appellants were indicted before the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu in Sessions Case No. 43/1980 for having committed murder of deceased Hukma Ram. The appellants were convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Judge, Jhunjhunu vide its judgment dated August 6, 1981 as under 1. U/Ss. 302 or 302/149 or 302/34 IPC To suffer imprisonment for life, 2. U/Ss. 364 or 364/149 or 364/34 IPC To suffer seven years imprisonment. 3. U/s. 147 IPC To suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. 4. U/s. 201 IPC To suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years. 2. All the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. Against this judgment that the present action for filing the instant appeal had been resorted too by the appellants. 4. During the pendency of the appeal, appellant Birbal Ram expired and the proceedings pending against him stood abated. 5. The prosecution case as unfolded during trial is that on or about mid night intervening on 5th and 6th October, 1980 accused Sher Singh, Phool Singh, Birbal and Om Singh had arrived at the house of Hukma Ram Jat (Now deceased).They represented to Hukma Ram that their liquor has been seized and Hukma Ram should stand surety for them. Hukma Ram accompanied those people. Dariya Singh son of Hukma Ram after sometime out of curiosity had followed them. On the way Bhana Ram joined him. Darya Singh and Bhana Ram together saw a tractor standing on the road facing Pilani side. In its neighbourhood stood 15 to 20 persons. Hukma Ram was forcibly abducted in the trolley of the tractor. Jai Narain was also the witness of the incident. Darya Singh and Bhana Ram pursued the tractor on foot upto Dulania but in vain they returned to their village in the morning. Sarpanch and others were collected and apprised with this development. The relatives of Hukma Ram set out in search for him and ultimately a report was lodged at police station, Surajgarh where a case under section 365 IPC was registered at 4.00 p.m. In the evening Bhana Ram returned from Chandkothi village and intimated that the dead body of deceased Hukma Ram was lying on the road between Chandkothi to Rajgarh (Churu). The case was converted under section 302 IPC including other offences. The motive behind the crime was that Mst. The case was converted under section 302 IPC including other offences. The motive behind the crime was that Mst. Narayani wife of Dariya Singh used to have quarrelled with her father-in-law Hukma Ram. On such incident had taken place on October 5, 1981 prior to the murder of Hukma Ram. This had incensed and infuriated Phool Singh and Sher Singh the brothers of Mst. Narayani. On that count Phool Singh and Om Singh during the day time on 5.10.1980 had held out threat to Hukma Ram. This is how Hukma Ram lost his life. 6. Sections 147, 364, 364/149, 302 or 302/34 IPC were framed. The appellants denied the charges and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 10 witnesses. The explanation of the appellants under section 313 Cr.RC. was recorded and the appellants claimed innocence. It was admitted that Smt. Narayani sister of accused Sher Singh and Phool Singh, had been married Dariya Singh about 15 years ago. Sher Singh and Phool Singh accused have also accepted that off and on cordiality of relationship between Smt. Narayani, Dariya Singh and Hukma Ram used to get upset and disturbed. Phool Singh and Om Singh accused did concede that on 5.10.1980 in the evening at about 4.30 p.m. they had stayed at Village Pipli and met Mst. Narayani in the field. Singari was not present there. Hukma Ram told him that he will go to village Nawa to meet Phool Singh's father Phool Singh has state that Hukma Ram used to make complaint about Smt. Narayani. Sher Singh and Phool Singh had adopted a defence of alibi and have disclosed that they had gone to Rana- Ka-Bas or Pangla-Ka-bas from Pipli but had no tractor with them. They spent night with Deepa Ram at their maternal uncle's house. At night they did not come to village Pipli. They had not carried the tractor to Pipli at night. Accused Shivlal was known to Dariya Singh from before as he was the real uncle of Sher Singh. Man Singh, Ved Prakash, Dheer Singh @ Randheer Singh, Meuram, Surat Singh, Ummed Singh, Dharmpal and Birbal have uniformly disowned having any relation-ship with Sher Singh and his family. As many as two defence witnesses were examined by the appellants. Learned trial Judge on hearing the final submissions, convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated herein above. 7. Man Singh, Ved Prakash, Dheer Singh @ Randheer Singh, Meuram, Surat Singh, Ummed Singh, Dharmpal and Birbal have uniformly disowned having any relation-ship with Sher Singh and his family. As many as two defence witnesses were examined by the appellants. Learned trial Judge on hearing the final submissions, convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated herein above. 7. We have heard the submissions of Mr. A.K. Gupta the learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.S.S.Rathore, learned PR and Mr. R.S. Rathore, learned counsel for the complainant and with their assistance scanned the material on record. 8. Admittedly, the case of the prosecution rests on the circumstantial evidence. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhananjoy Chatterjee @ Dhana v. State of W.B., (1994) 2 SCC 220 indicated that "in case, based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances, from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn have not only to be fully established but also that all the circumstances so established should be of a conclusive nature and consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilty of the accused. Those circumstances should not be capable of being explained by any of the hypothesis except guilt of the accused and the chain of 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 legality established circumstances and not merely indignation of the court and from basis of conviction and the more serious the crime, the greater should be the care taken to be scrutinised the evidence lest suspicion takes the place of proof." 9. it would, therefore, be necessary for us to examine the circumstances relied upon by the learned trial Judge and to find out whether on the material on record, it is possible to hold on such circumstances taken together can be said to be complete which points to the guilt of the appellants rather than their innocence. 10. The learned trial Judge based the conviction of the appellants only on the basis of circumstances that the appellants were last seen in the company of deceased. In para 75 of the impugned judgment the learned trial Judge observed that evidence against the appellants consists of motive then ocular eye witnesses direct evidence of Singari and Dariya Singh. 10. The learned trial Judge based the conviction of the appellants only on the basis of circumstances that the appellants were last seen in the company of deceased. In para 75 of the impugned judgment the learned trial Judge observed that evidence against the appellants consists of motive then ocular eye witnesses direct evidence of Singari and Dariya Singh. These appellants having come to the house of Hukma Ram at mid night and had abducted him on a false pretext to help them in some illicit liquor case. Thereafter, they were seen going towards the tractor parked on Pilani Road by Dariya Singh. Jainarain and Bhana Ram. They had also been a witness to forcibly lifting of Hukma Ram in the Tractor and drawn away with it in the teeth of cries made by the witnesses and objection raised by the Hukma Ram. The other accused persons had been acquitted of the charges on the ground that they were not satisfactorily identified, the basis of the said observations, the appellants were convicted for offences under sections 147, 364 or 364/149 or 364/34, 302 or 302/34 and 201 IPC. It thus, appears that the learned trial Judge, was not sure as to under which section the offence was committed by the appellants. 11. Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance upon a decision rendered in Eradu & Ors. v. State of Hyderabad, AIR 1956 SC 316 wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court indicted thus:- "It is a fundamental principle of Criminal Jurisprudence that the circumstantial evidence should point inevitable to the conclusion that it was the accused and the accused only who were the perpetrators of the offence and such evidence should be incompatible with the innocence of the accused. Where the accused enticed away the deceased on the evening of the day of murder and the deceased was found hanging in the backyard of his house. These circumstances by themselves are not enough without anything more, to connect the accused with the crime." 12. The facts of the instant case are akin to the facts of Eradu & Ors. v. The State of Hyderabad (Supra). Here also the prosecution could only able to establish that the deceased was taken by the appellants on a false pretext and thereafter, the dead body of the deceased Hukma Ram was found lying on the road. The facts of the instant case are akin to the facts of Eradu & Ors. v. The State of Hyderabad (Supra). Here also the prosecution could only able to establish that the deceased was taken by the appellants on a false pretext and thereafter, the dead body of the deceased Hukma Ram was found lying on the road. Therefore, the circumstance, established by the prosecution without anything more, is not sufficient to connect the accused with the crime. The learned trial Judge has not properly considered the material on record and committed illegality in convicting the appellants as aforesaid. Suspicion howsoever strong can not take the place of proof. The circumstance established by the prosecution could not point inevitably to the conclusion that it was the appellants and the appellants only who were the perpetrators of the offence. 13. In view of the discussions made herein above, we have no option but to set-aside the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants for offences under Sections 302 or 302/149 or 302/34, 364 or 364/149 or 364/34 IPC or 147 and 201 IPC. 14. In the result, the appeal stands allowed. The impugned judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu, is set-aside and the appellants shall stand acquitted from the charges under sections 147, 364 or 364/149 or 364/34, 302 or 302/149 or 302/34 and 201 IPC the appellants Sher Singh, Om Singh and Phool Singh are on bail, they need/rot surrender and their bail bonds shall stand discharge. .Appeal allowed. *******