JUDGMENT 1. - The appellants Plaja @ Subi @ Mahesh and Ramu were indicted before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Bayana (Bharatpur) in Sessions Case No. 1/96 for having committed murder of Harish Chandra. They were found guilty for the offences u/ss. 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced as under: Sec. 302 IPC To suffer imprisonment for life and fine Rs. 500/-, in default further suffer three months rigorous imprisonment. Sec. 201 IPC To suffer three months rigorous imprisonment and fine Rs. 100/- in default further suffer fifteen days rigorous imprisonment. Assailing this judgment that the appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal. 2. In nutshell the prosecution case is that the informant Ram Bharosi PW-8 submitted a written report Ex.P/7 on 26.10.1995 with the Police Station Gadhi-Bajna at around 2.00 p.m. to the effect that his son Harish Chandra (now deceased) had gone to fetch instruments to one Champa Pandit of Bandh Bareth. When he did not come back the informant made enquiry and was told that his son who was wearing pant, shirt and wrist watch, came on a cycle and stayed with Shiv Singh and Vikky Kahar. The informant carried on his search and went to the Police Station on knowing the fact that a dead-body was found by the police. At the Police Station the informant got identified clothes, shoes and swafi of his son. The informant had suspicion against Babulal, Than Singh Pradhan, Pooran, Karam Singh and Lohra who had openly declared their intention to kill Harish Chandra. The informant named these persons in the report. 3. The SHO, Police Station Gadhi Bajna registered FIR No. 71/95 for the offences u/ss. 302 and 201 IPC. On receiving the unknown dead body in a decomposed condition, the police already got the autopsy conducted at the spot and the dead body was cremated. The photographs of the dead body were however got snapped and clothes, shoes and swafi by which the dead body was tied with a tree, were got sealed and site plan was,drawn. After registration of the criminal case the police recorded the statements. At the instance of accused appellants part of swafi, wrist-watch and cycle were recovered and recovery- memos were drawn. The accused appellants were medically examined and healing wounds were found on their person. On conclusion of investigation the charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial. At the instance of accused appellants part of swafi, wrist-watch and cycle were recovered and recovery- memos were drawn. The accused appellants were medically examined and healing wounds were found on their person. On conclusion of investigation the charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial. The charges u/ss. 302 and 201 IPC were framed against the accused appellants. The appellant denied the charges and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses in support of its case. In the explanation u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. the appellants pleaded innocence and stated that they were falsely implicated in the case. On hearing final submissions the learned trial Court found the appellants guilty and convicted and sentenced them as indicated herein above. 4. The prosecution case depends on circumstantial evidence which broadly speaking is two fold. In the first category comes the testimony of Ramdhan PW-2, Vijay Singh PW-3 and Shiv Singh PW-4, who had last seen the deceased in the company of the accused appellants and the evidence of second category comprises the disclosure statements of the accused appellants and recovery memos of swafi, wrist-watch and cycle. 5. We have heard the rival submissions advanced before us and carefully scanned the material on record. 6. Before analysing the material on record it will be useful at this juncture to consider the ratio indicated by their Lordships in Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal, (1994) 2 SCC 220 , wherein it was held that in a 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 guilt of the accused. Those circumstances should not be capable of being explained by any other hypothesis except the guilt of the accused and the chain of the 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 legally established circumstances and not merely indignation of the Court can form the basis of conviction and the more serious the crime, the greater should be the care than so scrutinise the evidence 1st suspicion taken the place of proof. 7. It needs no reminder that legally established circumstances and not merely indignation of the Court can form the basis of conviction and the more serious the crime, the greater should be the care than so scrutinise the evidence 1st suspicion taken the place of proof. 7. Bearing these principles in mind we now proceed to examine the circumstances that were found established against the accused appellants. 8. The learned trial Judge found following circumstances proved against the accused appellants: (i) The deceased Harish Chandra was last seen in the company of accused appellants; (ii) The accused appellants gave information u/s. 27 of the Evidence Act, on the basis of which swafi, wrist-watch and cycle of the deceased were recovered; (iii) The injuries found on the person of accused appellants connected them with the crime. 9. Coming to the evidence of Champa Lal PW-1, it may be noticed that he did not know the deceased. He only stated that one boy came to him and disclosed that he was the son of Ram Bharosi and requested him to arrange for the instruments. That boy came to him in the afternoon of 11.10.1995. He again came on next day along with Bijjo and Shiv Singh, but as the forester was not there all of them went away. 10. According to witness Vijay Singh, PW-3 Harish Chandra came to him in the evening of 11.10.1995 and his brother Shiv Singh took Harish Chandra to Champa Pandit for fetching instruments, on not finding Forester when they were coming back Ramu and Plaja met them on the way and took Harish Chandra with them for making arrangements of instruments. At that time Harish Chandra was having Atlus cycle. He further stated that Ram Bharosi in search of Harish Chandra came to him and on being asked about Harish Chandra, he informed Ram Bharosi that Harish Chandra had gone with Plaja and Ramu. He also deposed that father of accused appellants and Ram Bharosi had inimical relations. 11. Shiv Singh PW-4, who was declared hostile, in his deposition stated that Harish Chandra stayed with him whole night and on next day he, Harish Chandra and Bijjo had gone to the shop of Champa Pandit for fetching instruments. Champa Pandit promised to arrange for the instruments with the help of Forester but as the forester was not there they came back. Champa Pandit promised to arrange for the instruments with the help of Forester but as the forester was not there they came back. On the way Plaja and Ramu met them but he did not know as to what transpired between Plaja, Ramu and Harish Chandra. 12. The learned trial Court placing reliance on the testimony of Vijay Singh PW-3 found the circumstance of `last seen' established but in our opinion the evidence of Vijay Singh is unconvincing. Had he informed Ram Bharosi that Plaja and Ramu took Harish Chandra with them, this fact would have been found place in the FIR. But this fact dismissing from the FIR. Even the statement of Vijay Singh that when his brother Shiv Singh and Harish Chandra were staying with Champa Pandit, Plaja and Ramu came over there, was not supported by Champa Pandit. Shiv Singh PW-4 also did not say that he had seen Plaja and Ramu taking Harish Chandra with them. We thus find that circumstance of `last seen' could not be established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. 13. Insofar as the circumstance of recovery of swafi is concerned we find that in the Inquest-report Ex.P/9 drawn on 25.10.1995 it was mentioned that dead body was tied with the tree by `swafi'. Because of the foul smell the whole of `swafi' could not be untied and in a process of removing the dead body, a part of `swafi' left tied with the tree. This part of `swafi' was allegedly recovered vide recovery memo Ex.P/5 drawn on 29.10.1995. As the police had already known that part of `swafi' already left tied with the tree, the recovery of `swafi' is farce which cannot help the prosecution in any way. The recovery of cycle and wrist-watch admittedly was affected from the open place vide recovery memo Ex.P/3. The cycle was recovered at around 12.00 Noon on 29.10.1995 at the instance of Plaja from the bushes, whereas the wrist-watch was recovered vide Ex.P/4 at 12.30 p.m. on the same day at the instance of Ramu from the same place. The Motbirs of recovery of wrist-watch and cycle are Patiram PW-6 and Kallu PW-7. Both Kallu and Pati Ram in their deposition stated that the recovery-memos were drawn at the police station. In view of these facts, no importance can be attached to the alleged recovery of wrist-watch and cycle. 14. The Motbirs of recovery of wrist-watch and cycle are Patiram PW-6 and Kallu PW-7. Both Kallu and Pati Ram in their deposition stated that the recovery-memos were drawn at the police station. In view of these facts, no importance can be attached to the alleged recovery of wrist-watch and cycle. 14. There is yet another infirmity in the prosecution case. The Investigating Officer Jai Prakash PW-12 did not make investigation about the persons named in the FIR as probable killers by the informant Ram Bharosi. In his deposition he only stated that he made efforts to contact those persons, but could not find them. This statement only shows that I.O. Jai Prakash did not investigate the case fairly. 15. In regard to last circumstance that the accused appellants themselves sustained injuries at the time of incident, we find from the injury-reports Ex.P/14 and Ex.P/15 that old healing wounds could be detected on the right leg of Plaja and on right Maxillary area of Ramu. But merely from the fact that old healing wounds were detected on the person of the accused appellant, it could not be inferred that they had sustained injuries at the time of incident. 16. There is another weak link of the prosecution case. The dead body was not identified by any body. Even the photographs of the dead body were not shown to Ram Bharosi and they were not placed on record. Father of deceased Ram Bharosi could only identify the pant, shirt and shoes of the deceased. The identification of these articles was not conducted in the presence of Magistrate. Even no evidence was adduced to establish that whose presence the dead body was recovered, identified and cremated. 17. After having scanned the enter material on record, we are of the view that the Investigating Officer in the instant case failed to adduce the evidence that has rhythm explaining step by step how the investigation proceeded leading to detection of the offender and collection of evidence against them. The investigating officer could not collect the threads of evidence finding out the path which leads to the culprit. There are many missing links in the prosecution evidence. 18. In Subhash Chand v. State of Rajasthan, 2001 Cr.L.R. (SC) 670 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed as under in para 24 : "....... The investigating officer could not collect the threads of evidence finding out the path which leads to the culprit. There are many missing links in the prosecution evidence. 18. In Subhash Chand v. State of Rajasthan, 2001 Cr.L.R. (SC) 670 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed as under in para 24 : "....... Though the offence is gruesome and revolts the human conscience but an accused can be convicted only on legal evidence and if only a chain of circumstantial evidence has been so forged as to rule out the possibility of any other reasonable hypothesis excepting the guilt of the accused. In Shankar Lal Gyarsi Lal Dixit's case, AIR 1981 SC 765 this Court cautioned `human nature is too willing, when faced with brutal crimes, to spin stories out of strong suspicious'. This Court has held time and again that between "may be true' and `must be true' there is a long distance to travel which must be covered by clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence by the prosecution before an accused is condemned a convict." 19. For the reasons already indicated above, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has utterly failed to bring home the charges u/ss. 302 and 201 IPC against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. We, therefore, set aside the conviction and sentence passed by learned trial Court vide judgment dated 6.2.1997 against the appellants and acquit the appellants Plaja @ Subi @ Mahesh and Ramu from the said charges. The appellants are in jail. They shall be set at liberty, if not required in any other case. The appeal stands allowed accordingly.Appeal allowed. *******