D. P. GUPTA, J. Feeling aggrieved with the order of acquittal dated 27th August, 1997 passed by the Vth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Agra in sessions Trial No. 43 of 1975, State v. Chiraguddin and three others, under Sections 302, 302/109, 302/114, 120,201/109 IPC. PS Rakab Ganj, District Agra, the State of U. P. has preferred this appeal under Section 378 Cr. P. C. 2. Leave to appeal was granted by this by Court vide order dated 7th July, 1980. 3. The facts giving rise to this appeal can be narrated in brief as under: Deceased Saiduddin Qureshi, aged about 52 years, was a practising advocate in the Collectorate, Agra. He used to live with his sons PW 1 Naseem and Shamim at Sadar Bhatti, Agra. He owned a jeep. He said good relations with Haji Muddan, Wahabuddin, Advocate, was the nephew of Haji Muddan, Chhotey Gaewala and very good relations with the deceased Saiduddin and used to treat him as his brother-in- law. Mushtaq was the son of Haji Muddan. Badruddin was a very respected person and had good relations with the deceased. The accused Chiraguddin and Jamil were real brothers. Mohd. Iliyas, accused was a close friend of accused Chiraguddin and accused Intezar Hussain belonged to the group of Chiranguddin. These accused had formed a group and partibandi in the mohalla. The accused and the deceased were residents of the same locality. The relations of Chiraguddin with the deceased were strained. Shamim, PW 1, son of the deceased, Saiduddin, had lodged a report under Section 392 IPC against Chiraguddin, and a case was registered. He was arrested and a case was pending in the Court. The deceased, had also lodged a complaint against the accused Chiraguddin and others in the year 1971. Many more complaints were also filed by the deceased and his brothers Rashiduddin against Chiraguddin. Chiraguddin accused passed his LLB examinations in May, 1972. Then, certain persons got the matter compromised between the deceased and Chiraguddin. Accused Chiraguddin then desired to work as junior to the deceased Saiduddin in legal practice but the deceased refused to accept him as his junior. The accused Chiraguddin took it ill and he started sitting with B. N. Raizada, Advocate. Then, certain persons got the matter compromised between the deceased and Chiraguddin. Accused Chiraguddin then desired to work as junior to the deceased Saiduddin in legal practice but the deceased refused to accept him as his junior. The accused Chiraguddin took it ill and he started sitting with B. N. Raizada, Advocate. The accused Intezar Hussain was maintaining good relations with the deceased during the period of occurrence and they were on visiting terms, but inside his heart Intezar Hussain was not happy. On 23-5-1972 the deceased Saiduddin and his son PW 1 Naseem came from the Collectorate at about 5 p. m. to their house. As usual, they sat down for their meals. A telephone call from the accused Intezar was received by the deceased and conversation was also overheard by PW 1. The accused Intezar Hussain was insisting that the deceased should come to his house that evening. The deceased did not agree on account of illness of his another son Shamim. About half an hour later again Intezar Hussain called on the deceased on telephone and, in the name of Quoran, insisted that the deceased should come to his house that evening. It was about 7 p. m. on 23-5-1972 when Saiduddin, deceased, who was wearing kurta and pyjama left his house telling PW 1 Naseem that after taking betel from Sadar Bhatti he would go to the house of Intezar Hussain, accused. After few minutes thereafter, Munawwar, the son of Intezar Hussain, came and called the deceased. PW 1, Naseem, informed that the deceased had gone to his house. Abdul Saqoor, PW 2, who was sitting at the shop of Abrar, which was in front of the lane of Hamidia school, saw the deceased Saiduddin in the company of the accused Chiraguddin and Mohd. Iliyas at about 9. 30 p. m. going towards Sadar Bhatti, talking to each other. He saw Jamil accused also going behind them at the distance of 8 to 10 paces. After a few minutes he heard the cries of Saiduddin that he had been assaulted and the assailants be caught. He heard the alarm being raised by Chiraguddin that assault by knife had been made on Vakil Saheb. He then saw one person, perhaps he was Jamil accused, running away from the side of noise. This witness did not go on the spot. He heard the alarm being raised by Chiraguddin that assault by knife had been made on Vakil Saheb. He then saw one person, perhaps he was Jamil accused, running away from the side of noise. This witness did not go on the spot. PW 4, Chaggo @ Chiraguddin had his tea shop at Montola near Sadar Bhatti. At about 9. 30 or 9. 45 p. m. on that day, this witnesses was sitting in front of his shop. He saw Saiduddin going with Chiraguddin and Mohd. Iliyas and taking betel from the shop of Saddiq situated at a distance of 20 paces from his shop. He further saw that after moving about 20 paces from the betel shop of Saddiq accused Chiraguddin gave a signal by rubbing his head and seeing the signal the accused Jamil, who was standing near the shop of this witness, started walking behind them at a distance of about 20 to 25 paces. After 10 minutes, he saw Chiraguddin going towards Ghatia crying that somebody had stabbed Vakil Sahib by knife. Sadiq, PW 5, had his betel shop near the culvert of Dholi Khar, near the shop of PW 4 Chhagoo. He stated that the deceased Saiduddin accused Chiraguddin and the accused Mohd. Iliyas took betels from his shop at about 9. 45 p. m. and, thereafter, they went together towards Sadar Bhatti. After about 5 minutes, this witness saw Chiraguddin accused going, crying that someone had stabbed Vakil Sahib by knife. He noticed that kurta of Chiraguddin was stained with blood PW 7, Mohd. Akram, who lived near the place of occurrence, was informed by his younger brother that somebody had stabbed Saiduddin. He came out of his house and saw that some persons were carrying Saiduddin towards his house on a rickshaw. He followed them. The jeep of Saiduddin deceased was creating trouble. In the meantime, an ambassador car belonging to PW 3 Vaidya Amaranth happened to pass from there. It was stopped and the injured was taken in that car to the Emergency Ward of the hospital. The doctor declared him brought dead. On getting the information of the incident PW 1 Naseem, along with Shamim, went to the place of occurrence and to the hospital. When he was coming out the Emergency Ward, Chiraguddin met him whose kurta was stained with blood. The doctor declared him brought dead. On getting the information of the incident PW 1 Naseem, along with Shamim, went to the place of occurrence and to the hospital. When he was coming out the Emergency Ward, Chiraguddin met him whose kurta was stained with blood. Chiraguddin took Naseem to the police station Kotawali where he after scribing the report in his own hand-writing handed it over, where a case was registered at 11. 15 p. m. against Hazi Muddan, Mushtaq, Badruddin, Wahabuddin and Chottey Gaewala for committing the murder of Saiduddin on 23-5-1972 at about 10 p. m. in front of R S. Soda Water Factory, Agra. In the next morning Chiranguddin, Sirajuddin, Hamid and Jamil came to the house of PW 1 Naseem. Chiraguddin gave the blood-stained kurta to him instructing that it be given to the police. This kurta was placed near the takht by Naseem. Chiraguddin went to the mother of Naseem of express sympathy. Other persons who were with Chiraguddin remained in the office, When Naseem came back, he found kurta missing. Upon this, Chiraguddin became angry and said that it would affect the case adversely. On this behaviour of Chiraguddin, Naseem became suspicious about the intention of Chiraguddin. 4. The report lodged by Chiraguddin was sent from police station Kotwali to police station Rakab Ganj, to which circle the case belonged. On the basis of the report, Sub-Inspector Rishipal Singh, PW 15, went to the hospital at 8. 30 a. m. on 24th May, 1972, and prepared inquest report and necessary papers and sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. 5. On 24-5-1972 at 11. 30 a. m. PW 16 Dr. S. C. Gupta conducted post-mortem examination and prepared the report. As per his opinion, time of death was about 12 hours. Rigor mortis was present in upper and lower limbs. He found the following ante-mortem injuries. (1) Stab wound 1" x 2/10" x cavity deep with clean cut margins on the back of the chest left side 1" away from the spine at the level of the 6th thoracic vertebra placed obliquely (medial and being higher) between the 6th and 7th ribs. 6. On internal examination he found that corresponding to injury No. 1 there was an incised opening with clean cut margins of 1" x 2/10 on the 6th intercostal space of pleura. Blood was present in soft tissues. 6. On internal examination he found that corresponding to injury No. 1 there was an incised opening with clean cut margins of 1" x 2/10 on the 6th intercostal space of pleura. Blood was present in soft tissues. Left pleural cavity was full of partially clotted blood (two and a half pounds approximately ). He further found incised cut 1/2" x 1/10 " on the posterior aspect of the left lower lobe in upper part extending in the lung upward, forwards medically, upto the bronchi to the left lower lobe at the root of the lung. An incised opening 1/3" x 1/4" was found on pulmonary artery. 7. In the opinion of the doctor, death was due to shock and hemorrhage resulting from the ante-mortem injury caused by knife. 8. The Investigation was entrusted to Sub-Inspector Roop Singh who visited the spot in the same night and he made a search for the accused named in the FIR, but they were not available. Thereafter, he went to the house, of the house of the witnesses Chiraguddin, Aaquil, Khalifa Chunna, Habibuddin, Intezar Hussain and recorded their statements. On 24-5-1972 in the morning the visited the place of occurrence and prepared site-plan and took simple and blood-stained earth from the spot. After completing the investigation he submitted charge-sheet against the named accused Haji Muddan and others and also took proceedings under Sections 87 and 88 Cr. P. C. (Old) against them. 9. As story goes further, being suspicious, PW 1 Naseem enquired about the occurrence. Chiraguddin and his family members used to surround Naseem and they did not allow him any opportunity to meet anyone in isolation. Chiraguddin and others used to say that they would get the submission of the charge-sheet expedited by meeting higher police officers. The accused Intezar Hussain took PW 1 Naseem to the DIG Agra Range, Sri Shiv Swaroop. At that time, Mohd. Yasin, the brother-in-law of Naseem also was with them. Intezar Hussain talked with the DIG for expeditious submission of the charge-sheet. PW 1 Naseem took permission of the DIG to talk to him in isolation. The DIG agreed and Intezar Hussain and Yasin were required to leave Naseem alone there. Naseem then narrated his suspicion to the DIG against the Chiraguddin and others as being the real culprit of the murder of his father. PW 1 Naseem took permission of the DIG to talk to him in isolation. The DIG agreed and Intezar Hussain and Yasin were required to leave Naseem alone there. Naseem then narrated his suspicion to the DIG against the Chiraguddin and others as being the real culprit of the murder of his father. Upon this, the DIG wrote a letter to the SSP, Agra directing that before investigation was completed he should hear Naseem. The further story, which has come on record is that Naseem tried to find out other facts and reality from Abdul Saqoor and Abrar. Thereafter, he sent an application to the S. P. CBCID narrating all the facts. The investigation of the case was entrusted to CID Branch, Agra, on the letter of the DIG, Agra, on 16-6-1972. Thereafter, the investigation was done by Sri Ramesh Pal Singh, Inspector, CID Crime Branch, Lucknow, who was appointed as the Investigating Officer. He recorded statement of PW 1, Naseem Ahmad, PW 15 Rishi Pal Singh, PW 22 Sub-Inspector Roop Singh, PW 9, Saidullah Khan, Advocate, PW 10 B. N. Raizada, Advocate PW 2 Abdul Saqoor, PW 6 Mohd. Saddiq, PW 4 Chaggo, PW 3 Amar Nath Vidya, PW 21 Surendra Nath Sharma, Advocate PW 7 Mohd. Akram, PW 19 Rafiquddin alias Haji Muddan, PW 18 Narendra Nath Bajaj. 10. PW 9 Saidullah, Advocate saw the accused Chiraguddin on 23-5-1972 at about 10 or 10. 30 p. m. in a rickshaw going towards the police station Rakab Ganj. His kurta was having blood stains. PW 10 B. N. Raizada, Advocate, directed his junior Chiraguddin, accused, to go to Betia in Bihar in a case on 23-5- 1972 but Chiraguddin did not go and on 24-5-1972 Chiraguddin told this witness that due to urgent work he could not go, and would go after sometime. 11. Ramesh Pal Singh, the Investigating Officer, cancelled the charge-sheet submitted by PW 22, Sub- Inspector Roop Singh on 19-5-1973 against Haji Muddan and others. He arrested the accused Chiraguddin. Processes under Sections 87 and 88 Cr. PC (Old) were taken against the accused Intezar Hussain, Mohd. Iliyas and Jamil. They surrendered thereafter in the Court. After completing the investigation, PW 23 Ramesh Pal Singh, Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet against the accused Chiraguddin Intezar Hussain, Jamil and Mohd. Iliyas, who are respondents before us. 12. Processes under Sections 87 and 88 Cr. PC (Old) were taken against the accused Intezar Hussain, Mohd. Iliyas and Jamil. They surrendered thereafter in the Court. After completing the investigation, PW 23 Ramesh Pal Singh, Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet against the accused Chiraguddin Intezar Hussain, Jamil and Mohd. Iliyas, who are respondents before us. 12. The accused denied the charges, Chiraguddin accused stated that he used to sit with Saiduddin for learning legal practice. Subsequently, he was sent to Sri B. N. Raizada, Advocate. He reiterated the facts mentioned in the FIR lodged by him about the incident. He stated further that he had given his kurta to Naseem on the same night while returning from the hospital. On the submission of the charge-sheet by the CBCID, he came to know that Naseem had given an application to the S. P. CID, Lucknow. He denied the enmity with Haji Muddan on account of a broken tie of his engagement with the girl who was later on married to the nephew of Haji Muddan. He stated that Haji Muddan had influenced Naseem and has won over most of the witnesses. He stated that he had no enmity with the deceased, rather Haji Muddan had an immediate motive to commit the murder as in the morning of the fateful day, an FIR was lodged against the deceased by brother of Haji Muddan under Section 395 IPC. The deceased also prepared bail papers but they could not be moved as in the night Saiduddin was murdered. He further stated that he has been falsely implicated as to prevent him from doing pairvi in cross-case against Haji Muddan and others. Haji Muddan is a moneyed and influential person and this case has been concocted and he has been falsely implicated in collusion with the CID. 13. The accused Intezar Hussain had further stated that he had no relationships with other accused persons. On the fateful day he did not make any telephone (calls) to the deceased. The deceased did not come to his house. He did not took Naseem to the house of the DIG on account of the fact that he was interested in expeditious submission of the charge-sheet but he accompanied him being social worker. 14. The accused Jamil stated that he being the real brother of Chiraguddin, who was doing pairvi against Haji Muddan, had been falsely implicated. 15. He did not took Naseem to the house of the DIG on account of the fact that he was interested in expeditious submission of the charge-sheet but he accompanied him being social worker. 14. The accused Jamil stated that he being the real brother of Chiraguddin, who was doing pairvi against Haji Muddan, had been falsely implicated. 15. The accused Mohd. Iliyas stated that has Rs. 700 were due on the younger brother of Haji Muddan, and when he went to demand this amount, Haji Muddan asked him to be the witness. On his refusal he was falsely implicated in this case. 16. The appellants examined DW 1 Bhogi Ram. He proved the application and vakalatnama which Saiduddin deceased wanted to give in the Court for his bail in the case initiated on the report lodged by Haji Ibrahim, brother of Haji Muddan, on 23-5-1972 at 10. 45 a. m. at the police station Rakab Ganj, Agra. DW 2 Mohd. Yasin the son-in-law of the deceased, was examined to prove a draft written on the dictation of the deceased and also he proved the application and vakalatnama and other papers, which were got prepared by the deceased for moving the bail application in the matter of FIR lodged by the brother of Haji Muddan. This witness had also stated that against Haji Muddan he and Naseem were doing pairvi but subsequently Naseem stopped doing pairvi against Haji Muddan. He further stated that the deceased Saiduddin was Counsel for Jiauddin. He also proved certain papers to show that Naseem was opposing bail application of Haji Muddan in the Honble High Court DW 3 Sri B. C. Saxena, Advocate, High Court, Allahabad, was also examined to prove that he filed an affidavit of Naseem Ahmad in the Honble High Court on 24-7-1972 for opposing bail application of Haji Muddan and others. DW 4, Vijaya Nastik, was examined to prove hand writing of Naseem PW 1 and endorsement written in English which Naseem gave to this witness. 17. A number of papers were filed and got proved on behalf of prosecution and defence in Court below. 18. The trial Court after analysing the entire evidence on record found the charges not proved beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted all the accused persons. 19. 17. A number of papers were filed and got proved on behalf of prosecution and defence in Court below. 18. The trial Court after analysing the entire evidence on record found the charges not proved beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted all the accused persons. 19. We have heard the learned AGA for the State (appellant) and Sri Tapan Ghosh, Sri Y. K. Shukla and Sri V. S. Kushwaha, learned Counsel for the respondents and have perused the entire evidence on record and also gone through the judgment of the trial Court. 20. On behalf of the State-appellant it was contended that the findings of the trial Court that Chiraguddin had no immediate motive to commit this crime and the charges were not proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt are against the weight of the evidence on record. It was further argued that there is reliable evidence on record that Chiranguddin, respondent was nursing ill-will towards the deceased, though outwardly he was maintaining cordial relations. By murdering the deceased, he killed two birds by one stone. On the one hand, he eliminated Saiduddin and, on the other, by falsely implicating Haji Muddan and others, he settled score with them. 21. On behalf of the respondents, the judgment and order of the trial Court was supported. 22. We have closely scrutinized the evidence of the witnesses and have taken into consideration all the circumstances and evidence placed on record by the prosecution and defence. This case primarily rests on the circumstantial evidence. 23. For committing a crime, motive may be hidden one. In cases based on circumstantial evidence motive also plays an important role but it cannot substitute the evidence which is required to be produced by the prosecution in bringing home the charges against the accused person. 24. In this case, time place and manner of the murder of Saiduddin Qureshi is not disputed. There was sufficient light. This fact is also not disputed. We have to see whether this murder was planned and executed by the respondents. 25. In this case, there are few important circumstances which have been relied on by the prosecution. We have to see whether these circumstances have been proved by reliable evidence or not. 26. There was sufficient light. This fact is also not disputed. We have to see whether this murder was planned and executed by the respondents. 25. In this case, there are few important circumstances which have been relied on by the prosecution. We have to see whether these circumstances have been proved by reliable evidence or not. 26. The first circumstance in the chain of events which had come in evidence was that in the evening of the fateful day Intezar Hussain made telephonic calls to the deceased, insisting that he should visit him that evening. To prove the circumstances, there is the sole statement of PW 1 Naseem. We have gone through the statement of PW 1 Naseem. His evidence does not inspire confidence. This witness is not a reliable witness. He went to the police station with Chiraguddin and the report was lodged in his presence. He stated that he made a protest to Chiraguddin on the inclusion of the name of Haji Muddan and Chotey Gaewala in the array of the accused of the murder of his father. Yet he was opposing bail application of Haji Muddan in the High Court also. There is no corroboration to the statement of this witness that the accused Intezar called to the deceased at his residence that evening. 27. The other circumstances which was brought on record was that Chiraguddin and Mohd. Iliyas were last seen by PW 2 Abdul Saqoor, PW 4 Chaggo @ Chiraguddin and PW 6 Sadiq in the company of the deceased and also they had seen the accused Jamil going behind them on a signal given by Chiraguddin accused. The statement of PW 2 would show that he did not know the accused persons by names and knew them by only their faces. In reply to a Court question this witness stated that on hearing the noise of murder just thereafter, he saw the back of a person running from that side. Probably, that person was Jamil. There is another important factor which has come in his statement that he did not go to the place of occurrence. He did not go there to help the deceased. He also did not go to the house of PW 1 Naseem to inform him. Therefore, in view of the above discrepancies and improbabilities, his statement does not inspire confidence. 28. He did not go there to help the deceased. He also did not go to the house of PW 1 Naseem to inform him. Therefore, in view of the above discrepancies and improbabilities, his statement does not inspire confidence. 28. The other witness, PW 4 Chaggo @ Chiraguddin admitted that he was involved in a case under Section 307 IPC and the accused Intezar Hussain and Mohd. Iliyas were witnesses against him. This witness is, therefore, not an independent witness and is inimical to the accused persons. He had close association with Haji Muddan and others. He also did not reach on the spot. He saw from his shop accused Chiraguddin giving a signal and on this signal the accused Jamil started going behind him. Thus, the statement of this witness is unreliable and cannot be believed. On this point, the other witness is PW 6 Sadiq. This witness also saw from a distance and did not go to the scene of occurrence. His son was also cited a witness in this case but he was not produced by the prosecution. The statement of this witness also did not help the prosecution. It is not disputed that the deceased was last seen in the company of Chiraguddin. 29. The other chain of circumstance which was sought to be proved by the prosecution was that when PW 7 Mohd. Akram reached on the spot soon after hearing noise, he did not find Chiraguddin there. Further, the other circumstance which was sought to be proved by the statement of PW 9 Saidulla Khan and PW 1 Shamim was that Chiraguddin was having blood-stains on his kurta PW 9 Saidulla Khan has stated that he saw Chiraguddin going in a rickshaw from the site of occurrence towards Ghetia Mama Bhanja soon after the incident, having blood-stains on his kurta PW 1 Shamim complainant, stated that Chiraguddin did not go with the deceased to the hospital. He did not see Chiraguddin in the hospital, but when he was coming out from the hospital he saw Chiraguddin at the gate of hospital and his kurta was blood stained. If we take the evidence of these witnesses together, their statements do not indicate involvement of Chiraguddin. Chiraguddin has himself lodged the report of the incident in the presence of PW 1 Shamim. If we take the evidence of these witnesses together, their statements do not indicate involvement of Chiraguddin. Chiraguddin has himself lodged the report of the incident in the presence of PW 1 Shamim. If we go through the FIR lodged by Chiraguddin, we find that it was mentioned in the report that Chiraguddin tried to lift the injured in his lap but could not. Therefore, presence of blood- stains on the kurta of Chiraguddin would not indicate that Chiraguddin was involved in the murder. PW 1 Shamim had admitted that Chiraguddin handed over the blood-stained kurta to him but he qualified his statement by saying that it was taken away by someone. Therefore, these circumstances also do not form chain of circumstances which may lead to the only inference that Chiraguddin and others planned and committed the murder. 30. It was sought to be proved that Chiraguddin in order of exonerate himself from the murder lodged a false report against Haji Muddan and others. It is the story that the injured deceased was brought in the car of PW 3 Vaidya Amar Nath to the hospital. PW 3 Vaidya Amaranth was examined in the trial Court. He stated that his car was stopped. He carried few persons in his car to the hospital but amongst them none was an injured person. The case of the accused respondent Chiraguddin, was that in the jeep of the deceased he was taken to the hospital. Yet another version was introduced that the injured was kept in a rickshaw when Shamim reached or hearing the noise that his father had been stabbed. PW 1 Shamim was not an eye-witness. Chiraguddin took him to the police station and Chiraguddin himself wrote the report in presence of Shamim. Here, Shamim tried to say that he objected to the inclusion of the names of Haji Muddan and Chottey Gaewala. Here. we may mention that on behalf of the respondent-accused, DW 3 Sri B. C. Saxena, Advocate, was examined who started on 24-7-1972 an affidavit of Shamim was filed in the High Court for opposing the bail application of Haji Muddan. Here, we may take notice of the fact that the application to the S. P. , CBCID against Chiraguddin and others was given by PW 1 Shamim on 25-6-1972. Here, we may take notice of the fact that the application to the S. P. , CBCID against Chiraguddin and others was given by PW 1 Shamim on 25-6-1972. This goes to show that on the one hand PW 1 Shamim was suspicious about Chiraguddin and on the other hand, he was opposing the bail application of Haji Muddan. This conduct of PW 1 is not a normal conduct. He was not sure who committed the murder of his father. If Chiraguddin was privy to the murder, certainly he would not have lodged the report in his own hand writing as the complainant. Chiraguddin was an advocate. He must had known fully well that it would be difficult to come out of it if the report was in his own handwriting showing himself as an eye- witnesses of the occurrence. Therefore, this factor also goes against the case of the prosecution. 31. The other circumstances relied on by the prosecution was the Chiraguddin lodged false report naming Haji Muddan and others due to enmity. It was alleged that Haji Muddan at the time of alleged occurrence was in the meeting of Board of Directors. To prove this fact, Haji Muddan was examined as PW 9 and Narendra Nath Bajaj was examined as PW 18. If it was a fact that on the fateful day and time, there was a meeting of the Board, objective certainly there must have been some agenda of the meeting in writing. No such document was ever produced before the investigating agency or before the trial Court. In the circumstances the oral evidence could not be relied upon when the best available evidence i. e. documentary evidence had not been produced to corroborate the oral testimony. Therefore, this fact also does not help the prosecution. 32. The other circumstance which was sought to be used against respondents was that PW 10 B. N. Raizada, Advocate, asked Chiraguddin to go to Bihar in a commission. Chiraguddin did not go and the next day i. e. on 24-5-1972 Chiraguddin came to the seat of Sri B. N. Raizada, Advocate and informed him that he could not go to Bihar due to an urgent work. The circumstances was brought in evidence in order to show that Chiraguddin planned the murder. Therefore, he did not go to Bihar inspite of directions from his senior, Sri B. N. Raizada, Advocate. The circumstances was brought in evidence in order to show that Chiraguddin planned the murder. Therefore, he did not go to Bihar inspite of directions from his senior, Sri B. N. Raizada, Advocate. From the cross-examination of PW 10 Sri B. N. Raizada, Advocate, nothing has come which may help in drawing such an inference from his statement Sri B. N. Raizada, Advocate, PW 10, was doing pairvi for Haji Muddan also. Being an advocate, naturally he had to watch the interest of his clients and sometimes it so happens that an advocate does pairvi in different matters for two rival groups. Therefore, the statement of PW 10 B. N. Raizada also did not help the prosecution. 33. It was argued on behalf of the appellant that the conduct of Chiraguddin was also relevant as the case is based on circumstantial evidence. Our attention was drawn to the fact that Chiraguddin did not allow Shamim PW 1 to meet any independent person and Chiraguddin was in a hurry to get the charge- sheet submitted against Haji Muddan others. For this he sent Intezar Hussain with Shamim to meet the DIG, Agra. This circumstance also does not help the prosecution because Chiraguddin being the complainant was naturally interested in seeing that the case came to a logical end by submission of the charge-sheet. 34. The circumstances that PW 2 Abdul Saqur saw Jamil running from the lane just after the incident also does not help the prosecution because this witness had qualified his statement by saying that perhaps he was Jamil. This witness did not go to the spot and saw it from a distance as we had discussed earlier. 35. The last circumstance which was relied upon by the prosecution was that Chiraguddin had motive to murder Saiduddin, on one hand, and to falsely implicate Haji Muddan and others on the other. Here we may also look to the case of the respondent accused persons. As per the case of Chiraguddin and others, there was immediate motive for committing murder of Saiduddin to Haji Muddan as on the fateful day in the morning a case under Section 395 IPC was lodged by the brother of Haji Maddan against the deceased. A day prior to the occurrence of this case the brother of the deceased Saiduddin, lodged a report against Haji Muddan. A day prior to the occurrence of this case the brother of the deceased Saiduddin, lodged a report against Haji Muddan. There was another factor that Saiduddin deceased was doing pairvi for Jiauddin against whom Haji Muddan lodged a report. Against Chiraguddin in 1971 Saiduddin deceased and his brother and sons lodged various complaints but when Chiraguddin had completed his LLB and wanted to practise, then all the disputes and cases were not compromised, and, thereafter, Chiraguddin apparently was maintaining good relations with the deceased. Further, the fact that Chiraguddin was engaged with a girl but later on that engagement was broken and the girl was married to the nephew of Haji Muddan, was not such a factor that would bring enmity between Chiraguddin and Haji Muddan. On this point, the statement of PW 10 Sri B. N. Raizada, Advocate, is also relevant. When Chuirauddin was junior to Sri B. N. Raizada during the relevant period, Haji Muddan for whom Sri B. N. Raizada was doing pairvi in a case Chiraguddin was in talking terms with Haji Muddan also. Thus, if we view the circumstances and the evidence on record in this perspective, then the only result that may follow is that the immediate motive was for Haji Muddan and others and not to Chiraguddin. 36. Taking the whole circumstances together and analysing the evidences of the witnesses as a whole, we find that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. As has been laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in various cases that in the cases of circumstantial evidence the circumstances, from which the inference of guilt is to be drawn, should have been fully established by an unimpeachable evidence and circumstances should be of determinative tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt and whole circumstances taken collectively should be incapable of explanation of any reasonable hypothesis save that of the guilt sought to be proved against the accused. Testing the evidence on record on the aforesaid touch-stone we find that the prosecution has failed to bring home charges against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. 37. We do not find any reason to interfere with the finding and the judgment and order of the Court below. The appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed. 38. The respondents are on bail. 37. We do not find any reason to interfere with the finding and the judgment and order of the Court below. The appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed. 38. The respondents are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and their sureties are discharge. Appeal dismissed. .