Judgment Prabhat Kumar Sinha and Chandra Mohan Prasad JJ. 1. Both the appellants, full brothers, stand convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the India Penal Code ("the Code", in short) and sentenced to imprisonment for life. First information report (Exhibit-1) was lodged by informant Ram Pravesh Ram (P.W. 9), father of the deceased Deep Narain aged about nine years, on 18.10.1995 at 7.45 p.m. 2. Briefly stated, the informant in Exhibit-1 alleged that on 17.10.1995 the deceased had gone to field with she buffalo where he met with appellant Murari Singh who asked him to caress his private part which his son did out of fear, but related the incident in the evening to his parents at which the informant with Arun Kumar (P.W. 2) and Dukhan Ram (P.W. 3) visited appellant Murari Singh to lodge his complaint at which Murari Singh, in rage, abused him and threatened to eliminate his son whereafter they returned back. On the date of occurrence in tne afternoon at about 4.30 p.m. when the she buffalo returned back but not his son, he started searching for him along with the aforesaid two witnesses, Tun Tun Kumar (P.W. 6) and others. After some time P.W. 3, Dukhan Ram, P.W. 5 Rarnraj Prasad, and P.W. 6 Tun Tun Kumar informed him that they had seen the appellants carrying his son from their house and throwing the dead body in the nearby river. Informant claimed that then he and co-villagers went there and fished out his dead body from the river which he found bleeding from nose and from the left temple. On careful scrutiny they also located a small hole in the left temple. The claim was that the appellants had killed his son with fire-arm and had thrown the body. 3. The defence, as emerging from the suggestion thrown to P.W. 2 would appear to be that appellant Murari Singh had a fair price shop and the witnesses wanted goods from the shop and implicated the appellant when they did not succeed. P.W. 6 was suggested that a day earlier the deceased was assaulted in the School by the teacher whereafter he had fled away from the house. P.W. 6 was suggested that a day earlier the deceased was assaulted in the School by the teacher whereafter he had fled away from the house. This witness was also suggested that the witnesses of the case including Dukhan Ram, and others were accused in Chandi P.S. Case No. 282 of 1994 which case was being looked after by the appellants and for these reasons the witnesses in collusion with each other had falsely implicated the appellants. 4. It may be mentioned that as many as eight defence witnesses were examined by the appellants but Sri Kanhaiya Prasad Singh, the learned counsel arguing on their behalf stated that he would not base arguments upon their evidence but upon the evidence adduced by the prosecution. The State also did not refer to the evidence of defence witnesses. 5. From the record it will appear that P.Ws. 2, 3, 5 and 6 have emerged as eyewitness so much so that they have claimed that while searching the missing boy they had seen the appellant carrying the dead body and throwing the same in the river. There is no evidence that anybody had seen them killing the deceased or in any way harming his physically. Before adverting to the evidence of these witnesses first the medical evidence brought on record by P.W. 7, Dr. Atma Nand Kumar, may be refereed to. He had conducted post mortem on 19.10.1995 at 3.00 p.m., i.e., within twenty four hours of finding of the body and found the following as per his evidence: "Rigor mortis was absent in all the four limbs, face cynosed and few petechial haemorrhage were present, conjucntiva was red. lips were blue, bloody foam present in nostril. One abrasion 1.4" x 1/6" on the upper part of the neck behind the left ear. (2) Extra vasculated blood was present in subcutaneous tissues of neck and adjacent muscle, larynx and trachea were congested, lungs congested, Right side of heart was full of blood, left side of heart was empty, stomach empty, spleen, liver and kidney congested. Small intestine contained semi digested food. Large intestine contained gas and foul matter, rectum half fall, urinary bladder empty, brain and meninges congested. OpinionDeath has been due to Asphyxia, as a result of strangulation. Time elapsed since death within 48 hours." 6. The post-mortem report was marked Exhibit-2. Small intestine contained semi digested food. Large intestine contained gas and foul matter, rectum half fall, urinary bladder empty, brain and meninges congested. OpinionDeath has been due to Asphyxia, as a result of strangulation. Time elapsed since death within 48 hours." 6. The post-mortem report was marked Exhibit-2. So, in the opinion of the doctor the victim had died of strangulation, within forty eight hours which, in the cross- examination, he explained to be meaning thirty six to forty eight hours, the doctor did not find any fire-arm injury anywhere on the body. 7. Obviously, this is a case, so far the murder is concerned, of circumstantial evidence. As is well established, the prosecution before obtaining a verdict of guilt is supposed to prove by evidence that the murder was committed, and none else but the appellant could have committed that, completing all the links in the chain of circumstantial evidence. 8. Motive plays a very important role in a case of circumstantial evidence. It is not that in a case of circumstantial evidence motive, even if not know, must be proved so as to complete the chain if other evidence on record conclusively bring home the charge. But when motive is known and has been spelt, the prosecution must prove that and establish that link in the chain. A lot has been argued on this point by Sri Kan- haiya Prasad Singh as well by Sri G.P. Jaiswal, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. In so far as the first information report is concerned, a clear motive is alleged that the preceding day deceased was forced to caress the private part of the appellant Murari Singh and when that was object to (in the evening), Murari Singh had got so enraged that he threatened to kill the boy. As per the first information report P.Ws. 2 and 3 had accompanied the informant the last evening when he had gone to protest. However, in the evidence only P.W. 2 supported that but P.W. 3 said nothing on that account. But in their evidence the informant and his wife Sunaina Devi (P.W. 8) have given a go by to that motive and they told a new story. 2 and 3 had accompanied the informant the last evening when he had gone to protest. However, in the evidence only P.W. 2 supported that but P.W. 3 said nothing on that account. But in their evidence the informant and his wife Sunaina Devi (P.W. 8) have given a go by to that motive and they told a new story. Sunaina Devi said that her son was murdered because a day earlier appellant Bihari Singh had taken her son to his house and assaulted him but when people assembled, he left him whereafter the informant said indulged into abuses, for which reason son was killed. Even informant, P.W. 9. said (Paragraph 5) that before the occurrence his son, Deep Narain, was assaulted which he had complained, for which reason he was killed. P.W. 8 has claimed in her evidence that she had told the investigating police officer about the reason for murder same as she had said in her testimony but P.W. 10, Bhola Prasad Singh, the investigating police officer in his evidence (Paragraph 13) said that she had not said so. 9. Now coming to the evidences of the eye-witnesses, P.Ws. 2, 3 and 5 were asked in cross-examination as to whether they had told the police in their statements as to whether they themselves has seen the occurrence and throwing of the dead body in the river to which they claimed in affirmative. This was put to the investigating police officer when he took the witness stand (Paragraphs 26, 28 and 31) who said that these three witnesses had not told him that they had seen appellants carrying the dead body and throwing that in the river. As will be seen that, according to the investigating police officer, though in the night when he come to the village of occurrence he had searched for the witnesses but since he could find none, he had failed to record their statements that day. Obviously, therefore, the police officer had recorded their statements the next day or thereafter. There was enough time for them to recall every bit what they had seen. But even then not having stated before the police the most important piece of information that has come in their testimony by itself exposes their evidences to doubts. It was only P.W. 6 who had claimed that he had said that which was affirmed by the police officer. But even then not having stated before the police the most important piece of information that has come in their testimony by itself exposes their evidences to doubts. It was only P.W. 6 who had claimed that he had said that which was affirmed by the police officer. Therefore, is appears that when statements of witnesses were noted down, he alone was the witness to claim that. As will be seen these witnesses claimed that they had gone together and had seen the occurrence, as aforesaid, Moreover, though some minor variations in the testimonies of the witnesses may not discredit the evidences but if such contradictions abound, then the evidences of those witnesses have to be treated with suspicion. It will appear that on a number of points the witnesses have contradicted themselves. 10. In the first information report itself the informant had claimed that subsequently he came to know from P.Ws. 3, 5 and 6 and another that the appellants had thrown the dead body in the river and then he claimed that he went with the Covillagers and searched out the dead body from the river. Learned counsel for the appellants first pointed out that P.W. 9 in his evidence had said that these three witnesses had raised hulla that the appellants had killed his son at which he went running to the bank of the river he saw the dead body of his son. It may also be noticed here that in course of cross-examination, this witness had said that he had heard that at about 4.00 p.m. He further said (Paragraph 6) that when he heard hulla he and his wife came out of his house and he was P.Ws. 2, 3 and 6 and with them he went to the bank of the river (Paragraph 7) and saw his son kept on the bank of the river. It was pointed out that neither P.W. 8 nor his wife had claimed that these witnesses had told them that they had seen the appellants carrying the dead body and throwing that in the river. P.W. 3, however, had said that when they had raised hulla, the informant and others had come there. This witness further said (Paragraph 17) that when he had taken out the dead body from the river, no one from the village was there. P.W. 3, however, had said that when they had raised hulla, the informant and others had come there. This witness further said (Paragraph 17) that when he had taken out the dead body from the river, no one from the village was there. He said that keeping the dead body on the bank he had raised hulla at which many people including the father and mother of the deceased had come. P.W. 5 said that he along with P.Ws. 2, 3 and 6 had taken out the dead body from the river and then the parents of the deceased also came. Further clarifying (Paragraph 12), this witness said that when he and three others with him raised hulla first came one Sudhir Ram followed by P.Ws. 8 and 9 and others. He further clarified (Paragraph 14) that the parents had come there five to ten minutes after the hulla. This witness claimed that no sooner the parents came there, he told all that they had seen about the appellants coming with the dead body, P.W. 6 also claimed that after they had raised hulla the parents of the deceased and others had come. In further cross-examination he clarified that the parents had not heard their hulla but were informed by the village people. It was pointed out that though in the examination-in-chief this witness had claimed that having seen the appellants throwing the dead body; they had raised hulla and took out the body from the river whereafter on their hulla others came, - but in cross-examination he said that the people came after ten minutes of making hulla and after they came P.Ws. 2, 3 and 5 had entered into the water. But he again resiled from the aforesaid statement and said that after the dead body was kept at the bank, the parents had not come and thereafter they took the dead body to his house. Soon thereafter this witness claimed that the witnesses had come after ten to fifteen minutes immediately contradicting himself again stating that the parents had not come. P.W. 8 said in examination-in- chief that when she went there crying, she was dead body kept at the bank of the river. Soon thereafter this witness claimed that the witnesses had come after ten to fifteen minutes immediately contradicting himself again stating that the parents had not come. P.W. 8 said in examination-in- chief that when she went there crying, she was dead body kept at the bank of the river. This witness, about timing, said that when she had gone to see the dead body of her son the night had dawned and darkness had come about one hour ago, the night being dark one. It was in this context that it was pointed out that the witnesses had claimed to have seen the occurrence when there was light and the informant claimed that he had gone to the river, on hearing hulla at about 4.00 p.m. 11. How the dead body was taken to the Police Station, in that regard different versions have come. P.W. 9 said (Paragraph 15) that they had come with the dead body at his darwaza at about 5.00 to 6.00 p.m. and the body was kept in the gali itself. He said (Paragraph 16) that the dead body was kept for ten to fifteen minutes. He denied that the dead body was taken directly to the police station from the river. P.W. 5 had said that after the witnesses came to the bank of river the informant asked them to the body to the police station whereafter the dead body was taken there. This witness further said (Paragraph 14) that they had asked the parents to go to the police station but they had asked them to go to the police station whereafter they had gone to the police station. Likewise P.W. 6 said (Paragraph 2) that when the parents, came, they had taken the dead body to the police station but in course of cross-examination this witness, as already seen, while giving out accounts as to whether or not parents had come, again claimed that they had taken the dead body to the house and then he saw that the parents had started crying. He also said that he did not tell as to how the dead body was recovered. He stayed at his darwaza for three minutes and thereafter they proceeded to the police station. He also said that he did not tell as to how the dead body was recovered. He stayed at his darwaza for three minutes and thereafter they proceeded to the police station. But the mother of the deceased, P.W. 8 said (Paragraph 16) that from the bank of the river the dead body, with her husband, was taken to the police station but she came back to her house. 12. About giving their statement at the police station, the witnesses again had differences, P.W. 2 in that regard had said (Paragraph 8) that the dead body was not brought to the village but with both mother and father that had been brought to the police station. P.W. 2 in his evidence said that at the police station they had stayed for about four to five hours and had met the police officer but he did not make any enquiry from them. He named P.Ws. 2, 5 and 6 along with others who had gone to the police station. But this witness claimed (Paragraph 10) that after the date of occurrence he had not met the police officer again. P.W. 9 also had said that P.Ws. 2,3, 4 and 6 had gone to the police station with him along with one Muni Ram and also claimed that the Daroga had inquired from everyone about the dead body, also claiming that other witnesses had told the police officer there as to how the boy was killed. 13. P.W. 5 claimed that his statement was taken on 18.10.1995, i.e., on the date of occurrence itself at about 7.30 p.m. at the Police Station where he had gone with the informant and P.Ws. 2, 3, 4 and 6. He said that he had told Daroga about the occurrence which was written by him, whereafter P.W. 6 gave his statement though he did not remember which others were then examined. He said that the statements of other witnesses were recorded ten minutes after recording of his statement. 14. P.W. 6 also claimed that at about 8.00 p.m. at the Police Station itself his statement was taken, along with other co- villagers when P.Ws. 2, 3, 4 and 5 were also there. He also claimed that at the police station the police officer had made enquiries from P.Ws. 2, 3 and 5 also. 15. 14. P.W. 6 also claimed that at about 8.00 p.m. at the Police Station itself his statement was taken, along with other co- villagers when P.Ws. 2, 3, 4 and 5 were also there. He also claimed that at the police station the police officer had made enquiries from P.Ws. 2, 3 and 5 also. 15. When P.W. 10, the Investigating Officer, was cross-examined he categorically said that he had proceeded for the place of occurrence at about 10.00 p.m. and he searched for the witnesses in the night but they could not be found. Further clarifying he said that had any witness been present at the police station before he had proceeded for the place of occurrence, he must have recorded his statement, but since no witness was so available at the police station, he had to search for them during the night at the place of occurrence. However, this witness admitted (Paragraph 33) that he had taken the statement of Sunaina Devi at her house on the date of occurrence itself. 16. Therefore, it is seen that on manv points the witnesses have given contradictory statements including about timing. 17. As seen, in the first information report it was claimed by the informant that. a small hole was found on the left temple. P.W. 2 also supported that the deceased was bleeding from his left temple. But, subsequently, while giving evidence, the informant said that then the dead body was found and was taken to the police station he got the impression that he was strangulated. Even the Investigating Police Officer in the inquest report (Exhibit-4) had noted that on the left temple he had found one small hold like bleeding injury. But as seen, the medical evidence did not find that. 18. As already noticed, the eye-witnesses have claimed in evidence that they had seen the appellants going with the dead body when they together were searching for the boy. P.W. 6, Tun Tun Kumar, also had claimed that he along with P.Ws. 2, 3, and 5 when was searching for the missing boy, he had seen the dead body being thrown by the appellants. But the other three witnesses, as claimed by the Investigating Police Officer, had not made that claim when they first gave their statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2, 3, and 5 when was searching for the missing boy, he had seen the dead body being thrown by the appellants. But the other three witnesses, as claimed by the Investigating Police Officer, had not made that claim when they first gave their statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This makes not only evidence of those three witnesses, but also evidence of P.W. 6, suspect. 19. About other witnesses, P.W. 4 Sudhir Ram, had said that on hearing hulla he had gone to the bank of river where he found the dead body kept at the bank and he heard that P.Ws. 2, 3 and 6 had seen the appellants throwing the dead body in the river but, as already seen, P.Ws. 2 and 3 did not claim that in their statement before police. 20. All the points, discussed above, coupled with the failure of the prosecution to prove the motive, as was initially claimed, do not make the prosecution case free from doubts. This was a case in which the only evidence was that some witnesses had seen the appellants throwing the dead body into the river. Any motive to kill the boy not having been proved, and there being no evidence on records that on the fateful day anyone had earlier seen the appellants anywhere near the deceased, even if, for arguments sake, they were seen throwing the body in river, there is nothing to prove that they earlier had killed the boy, Throwing the body may raise suspicion which, howsoever strong, cannot replace evidence. Even the aforesaid story of throwing the dead body is not free from doubts, as already discussed. The appellants, therefore, deserve benefit of doubt. 21. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the judgment of the lower court is hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charge framed against them and are ordered to be set at liberty, if not required to be detained in custody in any other case.