JUDGMENT 1. The appellants were indicated in Sessions Case No. 18/99 before the learned Special Judge (Prevention of Sati) and Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur for having committed murder of Chandra Pal. The learned Judge vide judgment dated August 11, 2000 convicted and sentenced the appellants as under: U/s. 302/34 IPC To suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- each. In default of payment of fine to further undergo six months' R.I. U/s. 380 IPC To suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each. In default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the instant appeals are that informant Shripai Yadav PW. 3 on December 10, 1998 submitted the written report Ex.P. 9 to to Suresh Kumar Sub-Inspector of Police Station Mansarover. Jaipur stating therein that Chandra Pal (now deceased) who was his nephew, came from the village some days ago. On December 9, 1998 finding Chandra Pal in search of work, the informant promised to take him to Gaddi (Jewellers place of work) next day. But on December 10, 1998 around 10.30 A.M. when the informant went to the room of Chandrapal he could only see his dead body lying in a pool of blood. The police station Mansarover, on the basis of the said report, registered a case under Section 302 IPC, and investigation commenced. The appellants were arrested. Weapon used in commission of offence, blood stained clothes and money allegedly stolen got recovered. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned trial judge. Charges under Sections 302/31 and 380 IPC were framed. The appellants denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 23 witnesses to prove its case. In their explanation under Section 313 Cr.PC. the appellants claimed innocence. No witness was, however, examined in defence. On hearing final submissions the learned trial judge convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated hereinabove. 3. The superstructure of the prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence which according to the teamed trial judge are as under: (i) Blood found on Katar and clothes recovered at the instance of the appellants, was detected by the FSL as belonged to the blood group of the deceased. 3. The superstructure of the prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence which according to the teamed trial judge are as under: (i) Blood found on Katar and clothes recovered at the instance of the appellants, was detected by the FSL as belonged to the blood group of the deceased. (ii) A sum of Rs. 1,500/- and Rs. 1,800/- allegedly stolen by the appellants was recovered at their instance. (iii) Articles found near the dead body got stained with human blood. (iv) The appellants purchased one Katar immediately before the incident and got it sharpened; (v) The appellants were arrested on the next day of the incident and injuries were found on their fingers; and (vi) The deceased and the appellants had acquaintance and they were involved in jewellery business. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and scanned the record. 5. In so far as recover of weapon, clothes and stolen money is concerned, we find that appellant Suraj Singh allegedly gave information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act on December 15, 1998 at 1.20 P.M. which was recorded in the memo Ex.P 27 on the basis of said information recovery of blood stained pant, Katar and a purse containing Rs. 1500/- was effected. Appellant Babloo gave information under Section 27 of the Evidence at which was recorded in memo Ex.P. 28 and on the basis of the said reformation, recover of blood stained pant and purse containing Rs. 18001- so vas effected vide memo Ex.P 30. Motbirs of recover Devi Singh PW. 10 and fiunna @ Virendra Singh PW. 5 have not supported the prosecution case and were declared hostile. Surendra Singh PW. 21 the investigating officer, although made attempt to establish the recoveries but it could not be proved that the place from where the alleged articles got recovered were in the exclusive possession of the appellants. It appears from the cross-examination of Surendra Singh that the rooms from where the recover was effected were looked from out side and locks were got opened with keys but it could not be established that keys were in the possession of the appellants. In the arrest memos of appellants it was not mentioned that at the time of arrest they had keys with them. In the arrest memos of appellants it was not mentioned that at the time of arrest they had keys with them. Thus, the recoveries of alleged articles at the instance of the appellants becomes doubtful and first and second circumstances could not be established beyond reasonable doubt. 6. There is yet another aspect of the case. Vide memos Ex.P 25 and Ex.P. 26 blood samples of the appellants were taken and the Investigating Officer was directed by the doctor to keep the samples under 1 degree centigrade temperature. But it does not appear form the record that the said direction was ever obeyed by the Investigating Officer. From the record it is not borne out that the blood samples of the appellants were sent for examination to FSL. In order to prove that blood found on the clothes of the appellants was of the deceased the prosecution had to show that blood group of appellants and the deceased was not the same but the prosecution has failed to establish this fact. 7. Third circumstance relates to purchase of Katar by the appellants from Raj Kumar and got it sharpened by Chhotey Lal but Raj Kumar (PW. 11) and Chhotey Lal (PW. 12) did not support the prosecution case and they were declared hostile. Only these witnesses could establish that the appellants had purchased and got it sharpened. 8. Coming to the forth circumstance, we find that in the arrest memos of the appellants Ex.P. 7 and Ex.P. 8 superficial injuries were shown on the fingers of the appellants. The said injuries never got examined by medical officer. But even though we assume that the appellants had injuries this fact hardly connects appellants with the crime as it cannot be inferred that the said injuries were sustained by the appellants at the time of the incident. 9. In so far as the last circumstance is concerned, we are of the view that if the appellants and the deceased were known to each other it does not mean that they were the only persons responsible for the crime. Knowing the deceased prior to the incident, in our opinion hardly any incriminating circumstance against the appellants. 10. 9. In so far as the last circumstance is concerned, we are of the view that if the appellants and the deceased were known to each other it does not mean that they were the only persons responsible for the crime. Knowing the deceased prior to the incident, in our opinion hardly any incriminating circumstance against the appellants. 10. The essential ingredients to prove guilt of an accused by circumstantial evidence are (a) the circumstances from which the conclusion is drawn should be fully proved; (b) the circumstances should be conclusive in nature; (c) all the facts so established should be consistent with innocence; (d) the circumstances should be a moral certainty, exclude the possibility of guilt of any person other than the accused. But the circumstances in the instant case falls short of required standard of proof The learned trial judge in our considered opinion. has not properly appreciated the material on record and thus, committed error in convicting the appellants. 11. As a result of the above discussions, we allow both the appeals, set aside the impugned judgment dated August 11, 2000 of the learned trial Judge and acquit the appellants Suraj Singh and Babloo @ Krishna Kumar of the charges under Sections 302/31 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants Suraj Singh and Babloo @ Krishan are in jail, they shall be set at liberty if not required in any other case.Appeal Allowed. *******