Judgment BRAJ NANDAN PRASAD SINGH, J. 1. A truck laden with timber which left Assam some time on 24th December 1995, did not reach destination. It appears from the circumstances appearing on the record that unidentified miscreants having intercepted the vehicle, killed driver and khalasi sensibly to sell the goods with prospective buyers. Evidences placed on the record do suggest that it was on 30.12.1995, that episode of killing of the occupants of the vehicle near about 28 NH Bachwara, came to notice of Jagdish Jha (PW 1), a police officer attached to Hajipur Police Station, who shortly on receipt of information about there being two dead bodies west to village Chiranjidpur, rushed there and noticed two dead bodies of human being, and from seizure of documents made from their possession, the dead bodies were suspected to be that of the driver and khalasi of the vehicle, with incised injuries on the neck and rest part of the body. He effected seizure of these papers, prepared inquest report of the dead body of the deceased, sent the same to mortuary for post-mortem examination, and also registered police case, pursuant to which investigation commenced. He twice visited place of occurrence, and recorded statements of the witnesses, pursuant to which he received information about apprehension of some miscreants with a truck near Gandhi Bridge Out Post, and having rushed there, he found appellants having been apprehended with a truck bearing registration No. UP 15 C-6771. He took steps to locate owner of the ill fated truck who happened to be Kamlesh Gupta. There was trail of blood near the place of occurrence and blood was noticed near the road. 2. Hardeo Roy (PW 2), Police Officer attached to Gandhi Bridge O.P. too rushed to,the Outpost shortly on precept of information about apprehension of two miscreants with a truck, and while the Officer Incharge was interrogating them, on of them disclosed complicity of other also and on disclosure made by him, he along with other Police Officer and also two miscreants apprehended by the police, came to Kumhrar Pahari at Patna and apprehended appellants Sanjay Mishra, Tuntun Singh, Chunchun Singh, Manoj Singh, Suresh Prasad and Anil Singh on being pointed out by appellant Parwez Alam. Other miscreant who was in the company of six appellants, however, managed good his escape. Other miscreant who was in the company of six appellants, however, managed good his escape. This Police Officer took notice of copius blood in the cabin of the truck, and seized incriminating objects which include police uniform HMT wrist watch, blood-stained knife and also police uniform stained with blood from possession of those who were apprehended near Kumhrar Pahadi at Patna. However, it seems that at trail, this Police Officer did not identify Chunchun Singh, and about Sanjay Mishra too, he showed his reluctance to identify him by his name. Narrations in similar veins and terms were also made by Sri Prakash Singh (PW 5) another Police Officer attached to Gandhi Bridge Out post who sates that acting on tip off, he apprehended Perwez Alam and Ghulam Sarwar with truck bearing registration No. UP 15 C-6711 laden with timber. In cabin, there was copius blood and police uniforms smeared with blood was also seized from cabin of the truck. He interrogated Perwez Alam and recorded his confessional statement, pursuant thereto, on disclosure made by Parwez Alam, he along v ith Police Officer came to Kumhrar Pahari, and on chase, apprehended rest six appellants while Arun Singh managed good his escape. About seizure of incriminating objects from possession of apprehended miscreants at Kumhrar Pahari, evidence of this Police Officer is that from possession of Tuntun Singh, there had been seizure of blood stained knife and from Manoj Kumar Singh, there has been seizure of identity card, and as for Chunchun Singh, evidence of this witness is that from his possession there has been seizure of a police overcoat, and as for Manoj Kumar, that there had been seizure of HMT wrist watch. By the time the Police Officers from Bachchawara, happened to come there, who were entrusted with the seized articles and were given custody of the miscreants apprehended at Gandhi Bridge Out post and also Kumhrar Pahari. Other Police Officer, namely, Valmiki Singh (PW 6), states to have apprehended Parvez Alam and Ghulam Sarwar. On tip off he rushed to Gandhi Bridge Out post, and as for incriminating evidence, he states that there was blood in the cabin of the truck and on disclosure made by Pervez Alam, other appellants too were apprehended at Kumhrar Pahari, while on of them managed good his escape. On tip off he rushed to Gandhi Bridge Out post, and as for incriminating evidence, he states that there was blood in the cabin of the truck and on disclosure made by Pervez Alam, other appellants too were apprehended at Kumhrar Pahari, while on of them managed good his escape. As for seizure of incriminating objects from their possession, evidence against Manoj Kumar Singh is that there has been seizure of police overcoat with blood-stains and also identify card of homeguard personnel. From possession of Tuntun Singh, there has been seizure of police overcoat, and that apart, there was seizure of a blood-stained knife also from his possession. As for the seizure effected from cabin of the truck, evidence of this Police Officer his that blood-stained uniform and wearing apparel were seized from cabin of the truck with copius blood spread on the floor. Police Officer also seized blood stained wearing apparel of Pervez Alam from the cabin of the truck. 3. Sunil Kumar Jha (PW 12), who happens to be Assistant Superintendent of Police, states that the too rushed to Gandhi Bridge Outpost on receipt of information about interception of a truck with blood in the cabin, and when they reached, they noticed a truck with blood in the cabin and also there being uniform of Homeguard personnel, and on disclosure made by one of the appellants, there had been apprehension of other appellants too at Kumhrar Pahari from where there had been seizure of knife and other incriminating objects. His evidence, however, appears to be most cryptic and he does not expressly states about seizure of knife with blood-stains or seizure of police uniform with blood-stains. As investigation of the case seems to have been handed over to the CID in the midst of investigation, evidence of Indu Bhushan Prasad (PW 14) is that after investigation of Bachchwara Police Station case No. 158 of 1995 was entrusted to the Criminal Investigation Department, he took charge of the case from his predecessor Shri Jagdish Jha. He visited place of occurrence when he noticed two dead bodies, got apprised of the seizure of a number of documents from possession of the deceased where he also noticed copius blood. He visited place of occurrence when he noticed two dead bodies, got apprised of the seizure of a number of documents from possession of the deceased where he also noticed copius blood. He recorded statement of witnesses, collected evidence, inspected record of Homeguard office from which it seemed that Manoj Kumar Singh was assigned duty in Barauni Fertilizer Corporation on the date of the incident. As for Chunchun Singh too the document of Homeguard office suggested that he too was assigned duty in Power House, Begusarai, on the date of the incident. 4. As for other appellant Tuntun Singh, record shows that he was assigned duty in Headquarters, Begusarai and this appellant had given wrong address after arrest by the Police. Ho took charge of the material exhibits from his predecessor, which was blood-stained police overcoat, blood stained police uniform, blood-stained cap and full pant, blood stained belt, bloodstained lungi, blood-stained seat cover of truck and blood-stained earth. This Police Officer also received from his predecessor, blood-stained knife and also watch and he sent them to Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination. However, there is no evidence on the record that the finding of the expert was ever received before conclusion of investigation, the Police Officer states to have laid charge sheet before the Court. 5. Mirtunjay Prasad Singh (PW 15) who was at the material time of incident posted at Hajipur, stated that acting on information about interception of truck, laden with timber, and blood in cabin and there being police uniform stained with blood in the cabin of the truck, he rushed and seized blood-stained police uniform and also two lungis, caps and also noticed copius blood in the cabin. There had been recovery of driving licence too from the cabin and on disclosure made by Parvez, he too states to have rushed to Kumhrar Pahari where at the instance of Parvez, he apprehended other five appellants. However, we have noticed that the Police Officer does not name Suresh Singh among those who were apprehended at Kumhrar Pahari and about one miscreant, he stated that he escaped in the process of being chased by the police. However, we have noticed that the Police Officer does not name Suresh Singh among those who were apprehended at Kumhrar Pahari and about one miscreant, he stated that he escaped in the process of being chased by the police. In conformity with the evidence of other Police Officer while witnessing seizure of the incriminating object from possession of the appellant, this witness to says that there had been seizure of police uniform, HMT watch, and identity card from possession of Manoj Kumar, and as for possession of Tuntun Singh, his evidence is that there had been seizure of blood stained knife from his possession. This witness, though, claimed to have identified Tuntun Singh in Court, expressed his inability to identify others due to lapse of time. 6. The doctor who held autopsy over the dead body of the deceased noticed incised injuries on their persons which were anti-mortem in nature. Though there has been evidence of other witnesses also but they are not material as while some of them turned volte face to the state, evidence of some of them were not much significance. 7. We have also noticed defence of the six appellants. Defence of Sanjay Mishra was that he was apprehended from Exhibition Road, Patna, Likewise, defence of Chunchun Singh was that he was apprehended by police near Nalanda Medical College and defence of Anil Kumar Singh and Suresh Prasad Singh was that they were apprehended from their houses. Further defence of Sanjay Mishra was that while he has in his shop in Raghubansh Market, the police arrested him there. Other defence of Manoj Singh as that while he was going for appointment in the Police Department, which was subsequently cancelled, he was apprehended by the police. 8. Lot of arguments were canvassed at Bar to assail the propriety of findings recorded by the Court below and it is sought to be urged on behalf of other appellants except appellant Pervez Alam and Ghulam Sarwar that since confessional statement allegedly, rendered by Pervez Alam was not brought on the record, which happens to be the sheet anchor of the prosecution case, suggesting, inter alia, complicity of other appellants, there has been no good evidence against them. Yet contentions are raised that even accepting the prosecution case to be true on face value about seizure of incriminating objects including blood stained knife, police uniform and also blood stained watch from possession of other appellants than Pervez Alam and Ghulam Sarwar, there was no evidence of clinching nature which could establish proximity of these appellants with the killing of the deceased and only because there was presence of blood-stained wearing apparel of knife, that did not necessarily ipso facto lead to the conclusion that the appellants were authors of the killing of the deceased. Our attention has also been drawn by the learned counsel for the appellants to the narrations made by the witnesses and it is urged that as PW 6 did not make parallel statement before the police, on that score too credibility of this witnesses suggesting complicity of the appellants was open to question. 9. To bring these arguments to their logical end, learned counsel would urge that there was no finding of chemical examiner as to the blood to be that of human origin, on wearing apparel or other incriminating objects allegedly seized from possession of the appellants. It was also sought to be argued that there has been no consistent narration of all the eye-witnesses about means of conveyance of the Police Officer to reach Kumhrar Pahari but in our view they are not of material significance to befog the real issue. Contentions were raised that evidence on the circumstances, under which appellants other than Ghulam Sarwar and Pervez Alam were arrested from Kumhrar Pahari, were also incoherent, as while some witnesses were stating that they were sitting on a two wheeler, other witnesses made incoherent statement that when they approached near the vehicle they were apprehended. Since these matters do not affect the material feature of the prosecution, we do not give much significance to them. Yet, it is urged that apprehension of six appellants at Kumhrar Pahari, Patna will not connect them with the crime which allegedly happened at Bachchwara Begusarai, and as for admissibility of evidence, which is confined to Pervez Alam, it was contended that there has been express narration made by Pervez Alam about there being incriminating object in possession of other appellants and in that backdrop too application of Section 27 of the Evidence Act was most ill-conceived. Our attention was also drawn to the narrations made by the witnesses and it is urged that while some were stating that there was blood- stained watch of the appellant, there was otherwise version by other witness. 10. Admittedly there has been no ocular witness to the killing of the deceased who happens to be driver and khalasi of the vehicle. Circumstances and also evidences placed on the record do unerringly suggest that after vehicle left Assam with timber, some time on 24th December, 1995, that was intercepted near about Bachchwara NH 28 when the miscreants having intercepted the vehicle, killed occupants, and in order to dispose of the timber proceeded further, pursuant to which the vehicle was intercepted at Gandhi Bridge outpost. The case against the accused was sought to be established by the prosecution with the aid of circumstantial evidence. Large number of circumstances were projected by the prosecution which appear to be prominent to fasten the guilt against some of the appellants. We are not oblivious that in a case where prosecution case was sought to be established with the aid of circumstantial evidences, circumstances must be in consistent with hypothesis of innocence and there must be unbroken chain which could establish conclusively guilt of the accused. As evidences suggest barring seizure of some incriminating objects with bloodstains from possession of Chunchun Singh, Tuntun Singh, Manoj Kumar Singh, Suresh Prasad Singh and Anil Kumar Singh, there was no evidence of clinching nature to establish their proximity with the killing of the driver and khalasi of the vehicle, and as has been urged at Bar, these evidences were so fragile that cannot establish their complicity with the charge with which they were saddled at trial. We find substance in the argument advanced on behalf of these appellants and we are of the view that verdict of guilt recorded by Court below against appellants cannot be sustained in law. 11. Now this leaves us to the case of other aDDellants, namely, Parvez Alam and Ghulam Sarwar. As we have noticed, these two appellants were apprehended with truck laden with timber and copious blood in the cabin of the truck, police uniforms stained with blood in the cabin and wearing apparels of Parvez Alam with blood-stains were found for which no other but these two appellants were accountable. As we have noticed, these two appellants were apprehended with truck laden with timber and copious blood in the cabin of the truck, police uniforms stained with blood in the cabin and wearing apparels of Parvez Alam with blood-stains were found for which no other but these two appellants were accountable. These two appellants in their examination before Court under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, except bald denial made by them, about the incriminating evidence which operates adverse to them, did not expressly deny their involvement, and for involvement of those two appellants that we may refer to evidences of Gorakh Nath (PW 4), Sri Prakash Singh (PW 5), Valmiki Singh (PW 6), Sunil Kumar Jha (PW 12) and Mritunjay Prasad Singh (PW 15). We have not taken evidence of Mahendra Nath Singh (PW 8) into consideration for the reason that evidence of this witness at trial was inconclusive. 12. Having given our anxious and deepest consideration to the evidences placed to the record and also circumstances of the case, verdict of guilt recorded by the Court below and also sentence against appellants Chunchun singh, Tuntun Singh and Manoj Kumar Singh (In Cr. Appeal No. 11 of 2000), Anil Kumar alias Anil Kumar Singh (In Cr. Appeal No. 66/2000), Sanjay Mishra (In Cr. Appeal No. 68 of 2000), and Suresh Prasad Singh (In Cr. Appeal No. 70 of 2000) is set aside and they are acquitted of the charges. Since appellants Chunchun Singh, Tuntun Singh and Manoj Kumar Singh are in custody, they are directed to be released from custody forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. As appellants Suresh Prasad Singh and Anil Kumar alias Anil Kumar Singh are on bail, they are discharged from liability of their bail bonds. In the result, while Cr. Appeal Nos. 11, 66, 68 and 70 of 2000 are allowed, Cr. Appeal No. 67 of 2000 is dismissed. About appellant Sanjay Mishra, it is stated at Bar that though this appellant was granted bail by this Court, he still continues to be in custody. In the circumstances, if appellant Sanjay Mishra happens to be in custody, he shall be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. SACHCHIDANAND JHA, J. 13 I agree.