JUDGMENT : Kuldip Chand Sood, J. This appeal against acquittal is directed the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge (2) Kangra at Dharamshala dated January 14, 1993. 2. In brief, the prosecution case is : 3. Jito Devi aged about 26 years was living with her father Nanak Chand (PW2) at village Belalnodora in Tehsil Indora of District Kangra. Jito Devi was unmarried. On July 24, 1990, she left her village in the company of Kamlesh, her brother's wife and daughter of Kamlesh aged about 8 years for Hajipur to purchase cloth for the uniform of children of Kamlesh. Kamlesh returned back home in the evening. However, Jito accompanied by her niece, (daughter of Kamlesh) went to the house of her elder sister Tarsemo Devi (PW12) in village Bhagnal, Tehsil Dasuya in Punjab. She spent the night with her sister. On the next morning, Bahadur Singh (PW 13) gave lift to Jito Devi on his bicycle and left her at Tanda Moar at about 8.30 a.m. Jito Devi did not reach home. On July 28, 1990, a female dead body was noticed by Lal Chand (PW8) in river Beas at old Pattan near Bakrarwan on the banks of river Beas. Lal Chand informed the Police. The dead body was fished out by A.S.I. Suresh Chand, Incharge of Police Post Thakurdwara (PW18). In quest report was prepared by him. He informed the nearby villagers about the discovery of female dead body. Dead body was unidentifiable and was not identified by any person. Assistant Sub Inspector Suresh Kumar sent the dead body for post-mortem to Nurpur Hospital and thereafter cremated the dead body. On August 5, 1990, Nanak Chand, father of the deceased, lodged a report with the Police in terms of "Exhibit P8" on the basis of which formal F.I.R. "Exhibit P19" was recorded by the Station House Officer, P.S. Indora. The photographs of the dead body, recovered by the Police on July 28, 1990 from River Beas identified by Nanak Chand to be that of Jito Devi were taken. He suspected that some unidentified person murdered his daughter Jito Devi and threw her body in the river Beas. 4. The case was investigated by A.S.I. Bhag Chand, then additional S.H.O. Police Station, Indora. 5. According to the prosecution case, Jito Devi was carrying pregnancy of six weeks from A-3 Kewal Krishan, at the time of her death. He suspected that some unidentified person murdered his daughter Jito Devi and threw her body in the river Beas. 4. The case was investigated by A.S.I. Bhag Chand, then additional S.H.O. Police Station, Indora. 5. According to the prosecution case, Jito Devi was carrying pregnancy of six weeks from A-3 Kewal Krishan, at the time of her death. Jito Devi insisted on Kewal Krishan to marry her. Kewal Krishan wanted the pregnancy to be aborted. On July 25, 1990, Kewal Krishan with the help of his co-accused Al and A2 killed her by hitting her head with a stone and thereafter threw the dead body in the river Beas at the very place from where the dead body was recovered by the Police. It is the case of the Police that Al and A2 were engaged by A3 as labourers for the purpose of loading and unloading the truck of Al in which he used to carry boulders. It is also the case of the prosecution that A3 used to frequent the house of complainant Nanak Chand. He became intimate with Jito and developed illicit relations. 6. Learned trial Judge after appreciating the evidence on record concluded that the prosecution failed to link any of the accused with the killing of Jito Devi. He observed that the only evidence led by the prosecution was that deceased was last seen alive in the company of the accused on the evening of July 25, 1990 at Bakrarwan Pattan of river Beas at about 8.30 p.m. This circumstance observed learned District Judge was "open to suspicion". He also noticed that Dr. Sushma Sharma (PW1) who conducted the post-mortem did not rule out the death of Jito Devi by drowning. 7. Dis-satisfied with the acquittal, the State is in this appeal. 8. We heard Mr. P.M. Nego, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and Assistant Advocate General for the State and Pt. Om Parkash, Advocate, vice counsel for the respondents. We were also taken through the record. 9. Indisputedly, the entire case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. There is no ocular evidence. 8. We heard Mr. P.M. Nego, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and Assistant Advocate General for the State and Pt. Om Parkash, Advocate, vice counsel for the respondents. We were also taken through the record. 9. Indisputedly, the entire case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. There is no ocular evidence. The circumstances on which conviction is sought are : (a) Deceased was carrying pregnancy from A3 Kewal Krishan; (b) Deceased was last seen alive in the company of the accused and on the same day, accused were seen in wet clothes; (c) Cloth purchased by Kamlesh and deceased including one salwar of deceased were kept by two of the accused with Atma Ram Tailor Master on 25.7.1990; and (d) Recovery of a stone used to kill the deceased at the instance of the accused. 9. It is well settled that when a conviction is sought, particularly for an offence so heinous as murder, on the basis of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution is obliged to prove those circumstances with cogent and unimpeachable evidence. The following conditions, as observed by the Apex Court in Sharad Bidhi Chand Sardeca v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622 , must be fulfilled before a case against the accused based on circumstantial evidence can be said to be established : (a) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned 'must' or 'should' and not 'may be' established; (b) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of accused that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; (c) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; (d) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and (e) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to have any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. 10. We may now examine the evidence on record to see whether or not the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are established. If established, whether such circumstance(s) are consistent with the guilt of the accused and are conclusive in nature and tendency. 11. 10. We may now examine the evidence on record to see whether or not the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are established. If established, whether such circumstance(s) are consistent with the guilt of the accused and are conclusive in nature and tendency. 11. Before we deal with each of the circumstance, we may notice the evidence in general and sequence of events. It is the evidence of A.S.I. Suresh Chand (PW18) that on July 28, 1990, he was on routine patrol in village Bakrarwan. Lal Chand (PW8), Nambardar of village Bakrarwan reported to him that a female dead body was seen by him in river Beas at Bakrarwan Pattan. Suresh Chand visited the spot along with photographer. The dead body was fished out and photographs of the dead body were taken. A.S.I. Suresh Chand prepared the inquest report Exhibits P2 and P3. He kept the dead body for the purpose of identification for some time but no body came forward to identify the same. He thereafter sent the dead body for post-mortem to Nurpur Hospital through Constable Dina Nath and Gian Chand. 12. Dr. Sushma Sharma (PW1) then Medical Officer of Civil Hospital, Nurpur conducted post-mortem on the dead body. According to her, an unidentified female body was brought to her July 29, 1990 for the purpose of post-mortem. The dead body was accompanied by Inquest Report, it is her evidence that the body was that of a moderate built female of 5' 2". Maggots were present. Eyes were closed and mouth was open. Tongue was swollen and bitten with teeth. There were scratch marks all over the body. She detected blood oozing from mouth and nose. The body was clothed in one green salwar, a green kamij, red under-wear, a bra. The body wore a nose pin. The body had washer-woman hand with blue coloured stains on fingers. Grass twigs was seen on the chest and hair. Following injuries were noticed on the dead body : (a) Multiple abrasions 1 cm to 2 cms. on right hand between elbow and shoulder; (b) Abrasion on right ankle 3 cm x 1 cm; (c) Fracture of right parietal bone. Blood was found in the corresponding cranial cavity. However, the lungs were normal. Uterus was found with 16 weeks Foetus. 13. According to Dr. Sharma, the period between the injury and death could not be ascertained. on right hand between elbow and shoulder; (b) Abrasion on right ankle 3 cm x 1 cm; (c) Fracture of right parietal bone. Blood was found in the corresponding cranial cavity. However, the lungs were normal. Uterus was found with 16 weeks Foetus. 13. According to Dr. Sharma, the period between the injury and death could not be ascertained. However, deceased, according to her, died more than 72 hours before the post-mortem was conducted. The viscera was sent to the Chemical Examiner. On receipt of the report of Chemical Examiner, she opined that the death took place because of shock and haemorrhage due to head injury. 14. It may be pertinent to note that this stage that it was the case of the prosecution that the deceased was hit by A3 with a stone. A stone was recovered at the instance of the accused by the Police and according to the Doctor, the injury was possible if deceased was forcibly hit with the stone (Ext. P5). In cross-examination, however, the Doctor was categorical that injury noticed by her on the dead body could have also been caused by fall on a stone. She also agreed with the suggestion of the accused that the death of the deceased could also be due to drowning. 15. Thus the evidence of the Doctor is of no assistance to the prosecution, it cannot be said with certainty whether the death was caused due to drowning or injury found on the head of the deceased. The Doctor could not say whether the injury was ante mortem or post mortem. 16. Learned Counsel for the accused submitted that father of the deceased Shri Nanak Chand along with his daughter-in-law Kamlesh visited the Police Post on July 30 or 31, 1990. As admitted by Nanak Chand, he did not identify from photographs the dead body to be that of his daughter. He particularly referred to the testimony of Nanak Chand who in his cross-examination categorically stated that he visited the Police Post Thakurdwara on July 30 or 31, 1990 and on that day, he lodged the report that he suspected all the three accused, he was confronted with his statement, recorded under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Ext. P8) wherein he has not suspected any person. On the other hand, in this respect, he categorically stated that some unidentified persons killed his daughter. 17. P8) wherein he has not suspected any person. On the other hand, in this respect, he categorically stated that some unidentified persons killed his daughter. 17. Nanak Chand, we notice, was informed by his son-in-law Bahadur Singh on July 28, 1990 itself that he left his daughter at Budabar-Tanda on a bicycle. Though admittedly on that day, he was aware that one dead body of female was recovered from river Beas. According to him, he went to the Police Post Thakurdwara after four or five days whereas, in cross-examination he was categorical that he visited Police Post on 30 or 31st July, 1990. It is curious that having known that a female dead body was recovered from Budabar, and having seen the photographs he was unable to identify the dead body in photographs to be that of his daughter. He did not even lodge a report about his daughter Jito being missing till August 5, 1990. Kamlesh (PW4) daughter-in-law of Nanak Chand is categorical that her husband Bahadur Singh informed Nanak Chand about he having left the deceased Jito on the road near Pattan on July 25, 1990, it is her evidence that she had gone to Police Post but, according to her, dead body had been cremated by then. She however guessed that dead body was that of Jito. Had the dead body been suspected to be that of Jito on July 30 or 31, it would have been natural for A.S.I. Suresh Chand (PW18) to have recorded necessary report and carried Investigation in that direction. 18. Bhag Singh ASI who had investigated the case is categorical in his cross-examination that ASI Suresh Chand had interrogated Nanak Chand, father of the deceased earlier, i.e. before August 5, 1990. Nanak Chand and his son, i.e., brother of the deceased were shown the dead body but they did not identify the same to be that of Jito Devi. Relevant part of evidence of Bhag Singh reads : ......."However, ASI Suresh Chand had interrogated him earlier also in the inquiry. When the father and brother of deceased saw the dead body, they did not identify the dead body of their daughter or sister. However, subsequently, when clothes of the deceased were shown to them, only then they identify the clothes belonging to their daughter/sister which she had brought from Hazipur." 19. When the father and brother of deceased saw the dead body, they did not identify the dead body of their daughter or sister. However, subsequently, when clothes of the deceased were shown to them, only then they identify the clothes belonging to their daughter/sister which she had brought from Hazipur." 19. This apart, the clothes found on the dead body at the time of the recovery, must have also been seen by Nanak Chand and his daughter when they admitted visited the Police Post on July 30 or 31, 1990, if the dead body could be identified from clothes, then they would have identified the dead body on the day when they were shown the dead body by the Police as disclosed by the Investigating Officer Bhag Singh (PW18). It is significant to note that Nanak Chand did not lodge the report, with the Police voluntarily. In fact, as stated by the Investigating Officer, he was summoned to the Police Station for inquiry. It is only when faced with this situation that he lodged the report. Even at that point of time he did not suspect any person as perpetrator of the crime. 20. In the circumstances, the identify of the dead body as that of Jito Devi becomes suspect. The possibility of dead body being of another female cannot be entirely ruled out. 21. It is true that Corpus elicit is not necessary for a conviction for murder. However, in the absence of Corpus delicit, the prosecution must prove by direct or circumstantial evidence, leading to the inescapable conclusion, that the person for whose death accused faced trial has died and the accused are the only persons who committed the murder (See : Ram Gulam Chaudhary and others v. State of Bihar, 2001 (8) SCC 311 . 22. We may now discuss the circumstantial evidence on record. (a) Deceased was carrying pregnancy from A3 Kewal Krishan. 23. There is unrebutted evidence of Dr. Sushma Sharma (PW1) that the body, which was discovered, was pregnant by sixteen weeks. We have already observed that there is no reliable evidence to show that the body, which was discovered in the river, was that of Jito Devi and identity of the dead body is suspect. 23. There is unrebutted evidence of Dr. Sushma Sharma (PW1) that the body, which was discovered, was pregnant by sixteen weeks. We have already observed that there is no reliable evidence to show that the body, which was discovered in the river, was that of Jito Devi and identity of the dead body is suspect. Assuming that the dead body recovered was that of Jito Devi, we find no reliable evidence to show that pregnancy carried by Jito Devi was in fact from A3 Kewal Krishan. It is the evidence of Smt. Shakri (PW3), mother of deceased that three days prior to Jito going to village Hazipur to purchase cloth, i.e., somewhere on July 21, 1990 she had disclosed that she was carrying two and half months pregnancy of Kewal Krishan (A3) who had promised to marry her. In cross-examination, she stated that she did not disclose this fact to any person including her husband and police. She stated it was for the first time in the Court that she disclosed this fact. Had Jito Devi really told her mother Shakri that she was carrying pregnancy from Kewal Krishan (A3), she would have naturally disclosed it to the Police or at least to her husband after it was found that the dead body recovered from the river was that of Jito Devi. The evidence of Shakri Devi is neither reliable nor convincing on this aspect of the case. 24. The other witness who speaks about pregnancy of Jito Devi in Tarsemo Devi (PW12). Tarsemo is the real sister of Jito Devi, it is her evidence that on July 24, 1990, Jito Devi visited her house and stayed with her for the night. Jito told her that she was carrying two and half months pregnancy of Kewal Krishan (A3). She also told her that Kewal Krishan had promised to marry her out "now, he is unwilling to marry her and is insisting for abortion of the pregnancy". It is difficult to believe her. This is an incriminating circumstance. Admittedly, she was aware that her sister Jito was missing. She was also aware that dead body of female has been recovered from river Beas from the place near the road where her husband had left Jito. It is difficult to believe her. This is an incriminating circumstance. Admittedly, she was aware that her sister Jito was missing. She was also aware that dead body of female has been recovered from river Beas from the place near the road where her husband had left Jito. In this background she was expected at least to disclose this fact to her father Nanak Chand and to the Police when she accompanied her father to the Police Post admittedly on 30th or 31st of July, 1990. It appears, as observed by the learned trial Judge, the story of pregnancy of Jito from accused was introduced at a later stage to make out a case against the accused. (b) Deceased was last seen alive in the company of the accused and on the same day, accused were seen in wet clothes; 25. So far the circumstance of Jito Devi having been seen alive last in the company of accused is concerned, we find the evidence, on this aspect of the case shaky, unreliable and not worthy of credit. The evidence to this effect consists of the statement of Balwant Singh (PW6). It is the evidence of Balwant Singh that on July 25, 1990, he was coming from Sansarpur Terrace to his house in village Mand Sanour. At about 8.30 p.m., he parked his tractor in village Bakrarwan. While he was walking to his village along the riverside, he saw all the three accused and Jito Devi standing and talking to each other. It is his evidence that after 4/5 days, he came to know that a dead body of a female was found in the river and on that very day Nanak Chand, father of Jito Devi also met him and informed him and his son-in-law that his daughter was missing. He in turn informed Nanak Chand that he had seen his daughter in the company of the accused on July 25, 1990. If this witness is to be believed, then the father of Jito Devi, Nanak Chand being aware of this fact would have told the Police at least on August 5, 1990 when he got the First Information Report recorded. If this witness is to be believed, then the father of Jito Devi, Nanak Chand being aware of this fact would have told the Police at least on August 5, 1990 when he got the First Information Report recorded. This apart, Balwant Singh candidly admitted in cross-examination that within three days of July 25, 1990, i.e., 28th or 29th July, 1990, he came to known that Jito Devi was missing and he had disclosed this fact to Nanak Chand, but surprisingly, his statement was recorded by the Police only on August 11, 1990. It is his evidence that he went to the Police Station of his own. Silence on the part of this witness, after having been informed by the father that Jito Devi was missing, for more than fifteen days is unexplainable more so when according to him, he went not to the Police of his own. It is not understood what impelled him after a fortnight to disclose this fact to the Police. Such an evidence on the face of it is suspect and cannot be relied upon without corroboration. The evidence of this witness does not inspire confidence. It cannot be said beyond doubt that deceased was last seen alive in the company of the accused 26. We may also notice at this stage the evidence of Sat Pal (PW5) who stated that at about 9.30 p.m. on July 25, 1990, he was going to water his fields. On his way, near Kuhal, in a torchlight, he saw two of the accused namely, Sita Ram and Kewal Krishan coming from the riverside. Their clothes were wet. He enquired from them but they did not say anything. According to him, these two accused were little perplexed. Now this witness is an Home Guard employee and was posted at Police Post Thakurdwara itself at the relevant time. He admitted so in his cross-examination when he stated : "I was posted at Police Post Thakurdwara at the relevant time." He also admitted that he came to know about the death of Jito Devi on or about July 27, 1990, yet he did not disclose this fact to the Police on that day or even on the date when F.I.R. was recorded on August 5, 1990. It was only according to this witness, after 10 to 12 days that he disclosed this fact to the Police. It was only according to this witness, after 10 to 12 days that he disclosed this fact to the Police. The conduct of this witness is not only un-natural but is suggestive of padding in the case. Here is a witness who is posted in the Police Post, was witness of the two accused coming from the river side at the very place where dead body was recovered, yet he does not disclose this to any of his superiors in the Police Post, he claims to have known Jito Devi, yet, he did not recognise her dead body, which was kept in the Police Post where he was posted. Now reliance can be placed on the evidence of such a witness. 27. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to establish these two circumstances against the accused. 28. This apart, mere fact that deceased was last seen alive in the company of the accused in itself is not a circumstance on which conviction can be based without any other evidence to complete the chain. The Supreme Court in Inderjit Singh and another v. State of Punjab, AIR 1991 SC 1674 , observed : "....In number of cases it has been held that the only circumstance namely, that the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused by itself is not sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused. It is no doubt true that the deceased's death was homicidal but since there is no direct witness connecting any of the appellant with the crime, we should fall back on the circumstantial evidence and we are of the view that circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are hardly sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused." (d) Cloth purchased by Kamlesh and deceased including one salwar of deceased were kept by two of the accused with Atma Ram Tailor Master on 25.7.1990. 29. The prosecution case is that the deceased in the company of her brother's wife Kamlesh had gone to Hazipur to purchase clothes for the uniform of the two children of Kamlesh. Deceased Jito Devi kept this cloth with her when she went to the house of her sister Tarsemo Devi (PW12). 29. The prosecution case is that the deceased in the company of her brother's wife Kamlesh had gone to Hazipur to purchase clothes for the uniform of the two children of Kamlesh. Deceased Jito Devi kept this cloth with her when she went to the house of her sister Tarsemo Devi (PW12). While leaving the house of Tarsemo Devi, next day, she was carrying the cloth and her one salwar, which was kept by two of the accused namely, Pawan Kumar and Kewal Krishan with Atma Ram who runs a Tailoring shop at Budabar. The contention is that if this cloth and salwar was kept by the accused then it was for the accused to explain how they came in possession of the cloth and salwar and what they did with deceased Jito Devi. Before we discuss the evidence of Atma Ram, we may notice the evidence of Jagdish Kumar (PW7) from whom the cloth was allegedly purchased by Jito Devi and Kamlesh. It is the evidence of Jagdish Kumar that on July 24, 1990, deceased and her Bhabi came to his shop and purchased cloth for two shirts and two pants. He issued them a receipt. The original bill is Ex. P9. This bill, according to Jagdish Kumar, was given to the deceased. The police visited him and obtained duplicate copy of the bill Ext. P10. He admitted in cross-examination that bill book or the bill does not bear the name and style of his shop, he admits that this bill has been written in hand. He also admitted that the bill was issued under carbon copy but such carbon copy was not produced in the Court. Perusal of bills/cash memos Exts. P9 and P10 shows that the bill or the cash memo is neither dated nor numbered. The name of the firm is also not printed. The name of the firm Jagdish Cloth House, Hazipur is written in hand. In one of the bills (Ext. P10), Jito is named to whom the cloth is sold whereas in the other bill Ext. P9, no name is given. If the bill, i.e., Ext. P10 was prepared from the carbon copy, then it would not have contained the name of Jito as original Ex. P9 does not contain any name. Evident as it is no reliance can be placed on these bills. P9, no name is given. If the bill, i.e., Ext. P10 was prepared from the carbon copy, then it would not have contained the name of Jito as original Ex. P9 does not contain any name. Evident as it is no reliance can be placed on these bills. The possibility of these bills having been manipulated after the registration of the case cannot be ruled out. 30. So far the evidence of Atma Ram (PW.14) is concerned, it is his evidence that he knew Jito Devi. He also knows all the three accused. According to him, on July 25, 1990, Pawan Kumar and Kewal Krishan came to his shop and gave to him one piece of Khaki cloth, one piece of white cloth, one bed sheet and pillow covers, one lady suit and one salwar, it is his evidence that these pieces of cloth were in two packets. Pawan Kumar and Kewal Krishan asked him to keep these packets with him till they return back from the Bazar. However, they did not return. He waited for 4/5 days. There was a rumour in the area that Jito was killed and she was carrying some cloth and chaddar with her. It is thereafter that he opened the packet(s) and saw the pieces of cloth and also one salwar of red colour, which he had stitched for Jito. On July 30, 1990 he went to the Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Budabar. Pradhan was not available. On July 31, 1990 he again went to him and told him about the cloth kept by the accused in his shop. On August 1, 1990 he handed over these pieces of cloth to Pradhan who in turn handed them over to the Police, it is noticed that he did not disclose the name of either Kewal Krishan or Pawan Kumar when his statement was recorded by the Police under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He was confronted with his statement Exhibit DC but could not explain the omission. According to him, he found a red colour salwar stitched by him for Jito Devi deceased but his statement record, by the Police under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code Ext. DC does not records, so, it is difficult to believe the evidence of this witness. He was confronted with his statement Exhibit DC but could not explain the omission. According to him, he found a red colour salwar stitched by him for Jito Devi deceased but his statement record, by the Police under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code Ext. DC does not records, so, it is difficult to believe the evidence of this witness. If the accused were to kill Jito Devi, they would not keep the cloth carried by her with a Tailor who had known both accused and Jito Devi. This apart, this witness stated that two of the accused kept with him a piece of khaki cloth, a piece of white cloth, bed sheet and pillow cover and a lady suit, and salwar. It is his further evidence that he opened the packet(s) only after three four days. Evident as it is he could not discover or know the contents of the packets kept by the accused without opening it. This witness would have us believe that he could identify the salwar to be one stitched for Jito Devi. He was a tailor and must have stitched clothes for several persons. Ordinarily, he would not remember for whom a particular clothe was stitched. The evidence of this witness cannot be relied upon, without corroboration, to prove that the cloth and clothes allegedly carried by deceased were kept by the accused with this witness. The witness has prevaricated himself as noticed earlier. 31. It is the evidence of Dhian Singh (PW15) that he is Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Budabar. On July 31, 1990, Atma Ram came to his house and informed him that four or five days back, accused Pawan Kumar and Kewal Krishan came to his shop and left two packets of cloth and thereafter they did not return to collect the same. He also informed him that there was a rumour of death of a girl and possibly the clothes may be of that girl. Alma Ram also told him that salwar in the packet was that of Jito Devi which he had stitched, he went to the shop of Atma Ram, collected the cloth and handed over the same at Police Post Thakurdwara on August 4, 1990 where Kamlesh, daughter-in-law of Nanak Chand was also present and thereafter those cloths were taken into possession by the Police. 32. 32. We have already observed that it is difficult to believe that accused who intended to kill the deceased kept the packet of clothes as carried by deceased as evidence, with a person who had known Jito Devi as well the accused. The cloth was purchased for uniform of the children of Kamlesh Kumari. Kamlesh had returned to her own house after the purchase of cloth, it would have been natural for her to carry the cloth for stitching of the uniform of her children to her house. We have already observed that evidence of Atma Ram does not inspire confidence. 33. This circumstances in our view, is not established. The circumstance, as pointed out by the Supreme Court in Sharad Bidhi Chand must be established and not may be established. It cannot be said that this fact unerringly points to the guilt of the accused and is not explainable by any other hypothesis. The circumstance is not conclusive in nature and tendency. (d) Recovery of a stone used to kill the deceased, at the instance of the accused. 34. It is the case of the prosecution that stone with which Jito Devi was killed, was recovered at the instance of accused Kewal Krishan. This circumstance is sought to be proved from the evidence of learned Counsel (PW8) and Bansi Lal (PW9). Lal Chand is the Nambardar of village Bakrarwan and Bhagnal. He does not support the prosecution case. It is his evidence, that he found a dead body of female floating at Bakrarwan Pattan and he informed the Police. Thereafter about 8/9 days, the Police came to the spot along with accused Kewal Krishan. However, accused did not make any statement in his presence nor got any stone recovered. He was cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor but without any result. He denies the suggestion of the prosecution that Pawan Kumar in fact made a disclosure statement in his presence. He also denies that any stone was discovered from the place near Bakarawan. Pattan at the instance of the accused. Bansi Lal (PW9) was Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Thakurdwara. It is his evidence that on August 11, 1990, he was associated with the investigation. In his presence, accused Kewal Krishan made a disclosure statement that he can get the stone discovered. Thereafter, accused led the police party to old Bakrarwan Pattan and got the stone Ext. Bansi Lal (PW9) was Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Thakurdwara. It is his evidence that on August 11, 1990, he was associated with the investigation. In his presence, accused Kewal Krishan made a disclosure statement that he can get the stone discovered. Thereafter, accused led the police party to old Bakrarwan Pattan and got the stone Ext. M5 recovered which was taken into possession by the police by memorandum Ext. P12. In cross-examination, he admits at Bakararwan Pattan, there were several stones like Ext. M5. The place from where the stone was recovered was open. There is no special mark of identification on stone Ext. M5 and that this stone is like any other stone. The recovery of a stone from a open place accessible to one and all, which stone was like any other stone lying on the river bank cannot be said to have been discovered on the information received from the accused particularly when one of the witnesses does not support the prosecution on this aspect of the case. 35. This apart, the stone Exhibit M5 is not linked with the death of Jito Devi. 36. We have already noticed the statement of Dr. Sushma Sharma (PW1) who conducted the post-mortem on the dead body. She did not rule out the possibility of the deceased having met with death by drowning. She also admitted that the injury found on the deceased could also be caused by fall on the stone. It is true that in the examination-in-chief she did state that head injury could be caused with a "forcible blow of the stone" Ext. M5. In these circumstances, as already observed by us, the possibility of the deceased having met with death by drowning cannot be ruled out, particularly when dead body recovered from river Beas was unidentifiable. It cannot be said with certainty that the deceased met with death due to head injury which could have been caused by a rock in the river. More so, when it is not known whether the injury was post-mortem or ante mortem. Even if it is assumed that this circumstance is proved, it does not correct the accused with the killing of Jito Devi as it is not firmly established that the deceased was killed with the stone allegedly discovered at the instance of the accused. This circumstance is of no assistance to the prosecution. 37. Even if it is assumed that this circumstance is proved, it does not correct the accused with the killing of Jito Devi as it is not firmly established that the deceased was killed with the stone allegedly discovered at the instance of the accused. This circumstance is of no assistance to the prosecution. 37. We have no hesitation to conclude that the prosecution has failed to establish that Jito Devi was killed with stone Ext. M5. 38. All the circumstances discussed above, taken cumulatively, do not complete the chain to conclude that in all human probability, Jito Devi was-killed by the accused and none else. The hypothesis, that the dead body discovered from the river could be of a woman other than Jito is also not ruled out. 39. At the most, the evidence led by the prosecution raises a suspicion but suspicion cannot take the place of proof. 40. The Supreme Court in Hanumant v. State of M.P., 1952 SCR 1091 , observed : "In dealing with circumstantial evidence there is always the danger that conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof. It is therefore right to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete at not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused." 41. The Apex Court in Jaharlal Das v. State of Orissa, 1991 (3) SCC 27 quoting with approval the observations in Hanumant observed in Para 9 of the judgment : "9. The Apex Court in Jaharlal Das v. State of Orissa, 1991 (3) SCC 27 quoting with approval the observations in Hanumant observed in Para 9 of the judgment : "9. It may not be necessary to refer to other decisions of this Court except to bear in mind a caution that in cases depending largely upon circumstantial evidence there is always a danger that the conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof and such suspicion howsoever strong cannot be allowed to take the place of proof. The court has to be watchful and ensure that conjectures and suspicions do not take the place of legal proof. The Court must satisfy itself that the various circumstances in the chain of evidence should be established clearly and that the completed chain must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused. Bearing these principles in mind we shall now consider the reasoning of the courts below in coming to the conclusion that the accused alone has committed the offence." 42. In Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2001 (3) SCC 628 , the Supreme Court reiterated that conviction of an accused, on circumstantial evidence, would depend upon the availability of a complete chain of events so as not to leave any doubt for the conclusion that the crime must have been committed by the accused person. The circumstantial evidence should lead to only one inference that is guilt of the accused, which is incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person though some of the links may be inferred from the proven facts. The Supreme Court impression that circumstances of strong suspicion, without conclusive evidence, would not be sufficient to justify the conviction and therefore, great care and caution should be taken in evaluating the circumstantial evidence. 43. We may also refer to Akhilesh Hajam v. State of Bihar, 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 357, for the view we have taken. 44. To conclude we do not find any acceptable and reliable evidence against the accused except conjectures and suspicion. The circumstances are neither established firmly nor do they point unerringly to the guilt of the accused. We do not find any reason to differ with the findings arrived at by the Learned trial Court. 45. No other point was urged before us. 46. The circumstances are neither established firmly nor do they point unerringly to the guilt of the accused. We do not find any reason to differ with the findings arrived at by the Learned trial Court. 45. No other point was urged before us. 46. In result, appeal fails and is dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the accused shall stand discharged. The case property shall be dealt with in accordance with the orders of learned Sessions Judge.