JUDGMENT 1. - The appellants Deshraj Singh and Ramratan @ Ratan Saini were indicted before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Sambhar Lake District Jaipur for having committed murder of Fattumal in Sessions Case No. 20/98. Learned trial Judge vide judgment dated March 31, 2001 convicted and sentenced the appellants u/s. 302 read with 32 IPC each to undergo Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to further suffer three Months Simple Imprisonment. 2. Put briefly the prosecution case is that on April 26, 1998 Hajari Lal Head Constable Incharge of Police Chowki Nimeda informed the SHO, Police Station Fagi around 3.45 p.m. that a dead body of unknown person was lying on the way near river Masi. On receiving the said information the police squad rushed to the spot and found a dead body of a person aged about 40 years. Proceedings u/s. 174 Cr.P.C. were initiated and investigation u/s. 302/201 IPC commenced. The inquest report was drawn, statements of witnesses were recorded and the appellants were arrested. At their instance the reading glasses allegedly belonging to deceased Fattumal and one stamp paper got recovered. On completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Sambhar Lake District Jaipur. Charges u/ss. 120B, 302 in the alternate 302 read with 34 and 201 read with 34 IPC were framed against the appellants who denied the charges and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 28 witnesses. In their explanation u/s. 313 Cr.P.C., the appellants claimed innocence. No witness in defence was however examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated herein above. 3. The case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence as there is no direct evidence connected the appellants with the crime. It is settled legal procedure that where the evidence against the accused particularly when he is charged with grave offence like murder consists of only circumstances, it must be qualitatively such that on every reasonable hypothesis the conclusion must be that the accused is guilty, not fantastic possibilities nor freak inferences but rational deductions which reasonable minds make from the probative force of facts and circumstances. 4. 4. In convicting and sentencing the appellants learned trial Judge has placed reliance on the following circumstances: (i) The appellants were last seen in the company of deceased; (ii) At the instance of appellant Deshraj Singh the stamp of Rs. 10/- got recovered and reading glasses belonging to deceased got recovered on the basis of disclosure statement of appellant Ramratan; (iii) The place from where dead-body was found belonged to a relative of appellant Ramratan; (iv) Subsequent conduct of appellants in appearing before the wife and daughter of Fattumal and asking about his whereabouts. 5. The prosecution has examined Gagandas PW-4 and Lalchand PW-2 in support of the circumstance of last seen. Gagandas and Lalchand both did not support the prosecution story and were declared hostile. Lal Chand however deposed that he had seen Fattumal with the appellants Deshraj Singh and Ratan Saini taking tea together around 3-4.00 p.m. on the date of the incident. Smt. Rameshwari PW-5, wife of deceased, supporting the prosecution case stated that accused Ratan initially took on rent a Thadi (small open shop) from her husband, thereafter Ratan agreed to purchase it in consideration of Rs. 60,000/- and a stamp for incorporating the agreement was purchased but the agreement could not be executed and despite possessing the Thadi, Ratan did not pay a single penny to her Husband. On April 20, 1998 when Ratan and, Deshraj Singh came to her house, her husband told them either to pay full amount or vacate the Thadi. On April 25, 1998 around 3.00 p.m. her husband when proceeded to Subji Mandi told her that Ratan made a promise to make payment but her husband never returned. On the next day however Ratan and Deshraj came to her house and asked about her husband. Yashoda PW-6, daughter of deceased, almost corroborated the version narrated by Rameshwari. 6. We thus find that there is no evidence on record to show that the appellants and the deceased had gone together to the place from where the dead body of the deceased was found. It also appears from record that viscera of the deceased was sent for examination to FSL and from the FSL Report Ex.P/41 it was revealed that the deceased before his death had consumed wine as the viscera gave positive test for presence of Ethyle alcohol. It also appears from record that viscera of the deceased was sent for examination to FSL and from the FSL Report Ex.P/41 it was revealed that the deceased before his death had consumed wine as the viscera gave positive test for presence of Ethyle alcohol. In view of this evidence of Lalchand that the appellants and the deceased were seen taking tea together around 3-4 p.m. on the day of the incident does not assume significance and the circumstance of last seen is not established against the appellants. 7. That takes us to the recovery of stamp paper and reading glasses at the instance of the appellants. The statements of Rameshwari and Yashoda in regard to recovery of stamp paper are contradictory to each other. On the one hand while Rameshwari deposed that stamp paper had already been taken by Ratan Saini with him, while on the other hand Yashoda stated that it was with the deceased Fattumal. In so far as the recovery of reading glasses of the deceased is concerned, it also does not inspire confidence. Why would the accused create evidence against himself to conceal the reading glasses of the deceased. The alleged recovery of stamp paper and reading glasses, in our opinion, can not be termed as trustworthy and the prosecution has failed to establish the second circumstance against the appellants. 8. Recovery of dead body from the field of Gyarsilal, who is related to appellant Ramratan, by itself is not sufficient to connect the appellants with the crime. There is no cogent material to show that the appellants and the deceased were seen near the field of Gyarsi Lal. 9. The conduct of the appellants in visiting the house of the deceased and asking about him no doubt creates suspicion but it does not render them liable for committing the offence. Suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof. 10. Thus we do not find a combination of facts creating a network through which there is no escape for the appellants. There are many missing links and chain of circumstantial evidence is not complete. Therefore, we have no option but to give benefit of doubt to appellants. Learned trial Judge in our considered opinion did not properly appreciate the evidence adduced by prosecution and committed illegality in convicting and sentencing the appellants. 11. There are many missing links and chain of circumstantial evidence is not complete. Therefore, we have no option but to give benefit of doubt to appellants. Learned trial Judge in our considered opinion did not properly appreciate the evidence adduced by prosecution and committed illegality in convicting and sentencing the appellants. 11. As a result of above discussion, we allow the appeals of appellants and set aside the conviction and acquit the appellants of the offences u/s. 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The appellant Deshraj Singh and Ramratan @ Ratan Saini are in custody, they shall be ,trat liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.Appeals allowed. *******