U. S. TRIPATHI, J. This appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 29-4-1981 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Rampur in Sessions Trial No. 45 of 1980 convicting the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 and sentencing each of them to imprisonment for life and further convicting them under Sections 120-B and 201 I. P. C. and sentencing each of them to undergo R. I. for a period of two years and three years respectively. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution story, briefly stated, was as under: Naeem Khan (20) deceased was working as clerk in Fida Cold Storage and Ice Factory, Rampur, owned and run by the appellants. It is alleged that after his duty hours the deceased was engaged as tutor to teach daughters of appellants Babbu and Fida Hussain. The duty hours of the deceased in the cold storage were from 8. 00 a. m. to 12. 00 noon and from 1. 00 p. m. to 5. 00 p. m. It was routine of the deceased to come to his house to take his lunch between 12. 00 noon and 1. 00 p. m. On 21-4-1979 at about 7. 30 a. m. Naeem Khan deceased went from his house on bicycle to join his duty to the above cold storage. He reached the above cold storage at about 8. 00 a. m. On that day he did not return to his house in lunch hours. It is alleged that on said day Ahmad Jan Khan (P. W. 5) and Safi Ahmad (P. W. 6) had gone, to the said cold storage in connection with storage of their potato. There they saw that appellants Babbu and Sajjad Hussain were scolding of and abusing the deceased and thereafter they dragged him towards a Kothri in front of the office of the cold storage. When the deceased did not come to his house in the night up to 8. 30 p. m. his father Mohammad Hussain came to the cold storage at about 9. 00 p. m. along with Dulha Khan and Mehandi Husan (P. W. 2) to know about the whereabouts of his son. They enquired about the deceased from Babbu and Sajjad Hussain appellants who told that at about 12-12. 30 p. m. his father Mohammad Hussain came to the cold storage at about 9. 00 p. m. along with Dulha Khan and Mehandi Husan (P. W. 2) to know about the whereabouts of his son. They enquired about the deceased from Babbu and Sajjad Hussain appellants who told that at about 12-12. 30 p. m. deceased had gone to the water tank for taking water and thereafter he did not return. Mohammad Hussain (P. W. 1) went to the tank of the cold storage but the deceased could not be traced. After searching deceased at his relations Mohd. Hussain (P. W. 1) again came to cold storage of the appellants. The Kothri in front of the office of cold storage was locked. Mohammad Hussain and others asked the appellants Babbu and Sajjad Hussain to open the above Kothri. They told that the key of the lock was lying with the deceased. Mohammad Hussain (P. W. 1) searched the deceased at other places but he could not be traced. Consequently, on 22-4-1979 he moved an application to police of P. S. Ganj about missing of his son. The above report was endorsed at G. D. report at 12. 05 p. m. S. I. Devi Singh Pawar (P. W. 11) was entrusted with enquiry regarding above report. He reached at the cold storage of the appellants and made enquiry. On 23. 4. 1979 at about 5. 00 a. m. appellant Sajjad Hussain came to the police station Ganj and handed over a written report mentioning that dead body of Naeem Khan deceased, who was missing since midday of 21. 4. 1979, was found floating in the tank of cold storage at about 3. 00 a. m. , the information regarding which was given to him by his operator Sri Jagdish Chandra Sharma. The above report was endorsed at G. D. report and S. I. Devi Singh (P. W. 1 1) reached at the cold storage along with other police officers. The dead body of the deceased was removed from the tank and he conducted inquest of the dead body and after sealing the same sent for post-mortem. The I. O. also inspected the place of occurrence, prepared site plan, recovered one key of the cycle lock and a pen from the dead body and prepared recovery memo. Some broken pieces and handle of glass jug were also recovered from the tank. The I. O. also inspected the place of occurrence, prepared site plan, recovered one key of the cycle lock and a pen from the dead body and prepared recovery memo. Some broken pieces and handle of glass jug were also recovered from the tank. 3. Autopsy on the dead body of the deceased was conducted on 23. 4. 1979 by Dr. R. N. Bhardwaj (P. W. 10) who found following facts. 4. Palms and soles of the deceased have washer man skin. Rigor mortis passing down from lower extremities and absent in upper extremities. There was greenish discoloration of iliac fossa. Face, neck and upper part of chest were cyanosed. There was bleeding from both nostrils. Conjuctivita congested with petichae. Eyes were closed but slightly bulging. 5. The following ante-mortem injuries were found on the person of the deceased: (1) Abrasion 1. 5 x 1 cm on right side neck 3 cm & outward to adam promoni. (2) Abrasion three in number one left side neck below angle of jaw (4 cm) and rest two below it. (3) Contusion 3 cm x 2 cm on the angle of left jaw. (4) Two abrasions 1. 5 cm x 1 cm on both side of nose middle. (5) Abrasion 1 x 1 cm on front middle of forehead. 6. On cutting open the skin of neck the subcutaneous was congested and muscle lacerated & blood clot present. 7. Internal examination showed that wall of thorax were congested and left 3rd rib was fractured from its curvature. Pleura was congested. Larynx and trachea were congested and contained frothy mucus and blood. Both lungs had emphysemation patches. On sectioning they excuded fluid blood and air. Pericardium and heart were congested. Stomach contained about 50 ml of digested fluid. Liver, pancreas, spleen and kidney were congested. The cause of death was asphyxia as a result of strangulation. 8. The remaining investigation was conducted by Sri Surat Singh, I. O. (P. W. 13), who interrogated other witnesses. Arrested the appellant Sajjad Hussain on 24-4-1979 at about 8. 30 a. m. and appellant Babbu on 25-4-1979 at 8. 00 p. m. and on completion of investigation submitted charge sheet against the appellants. 9. Cognizance of the case was taken by the Magistrate who committed the case to the Court of Sessions. 10. Arrested the appellant Sajjad Hussain on 24-4-1979 at about 8. 30 a. m. and appellant Babbu on 25-4-1979 at 8. 00 p. m. and on completion of investigation submitted charge sheet against the appellants. 9. Cognizance of the case was taken by the Magistrate who committed the case to the Court of Sessions. 10. All the appellants were charged with the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 201 and 302 I. P. C. They pleaded not guilty and contended that they were falsely implicated. 11. The prosecution in support of its case examined Mohammad Hussain (P. W. 1), Mehandi Husan (P. W. 2), Sajid Miya (P. W. 3), Manju Khan (P. W. 4), Ahmad Jan Khan (P. W. 5), Safi Ahmad (P. W. 6), Mustaq Ali (P. W. 7) Fahimuddin (P. W. 8), Constable Jagat Singh (P. W. 9), Dr. R. N. Bhardwaj (P. W. 10), S. I. Devi Singh Pawar, (P. W. 11) Head Constable Chandra Pal Singh (P. W. 12) and Surat Singh, I. O. (P. W. 13 ). The appellants examined Ibadat Husain Khan (D. W. 1) Clerk of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur in their defence. 12. The learned Sessions Judge on considering evidence of the prosecution held that circumstantial evidence led by the prosecution established the guilt of the appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 302 read with Sections 34 and 201 I. P. C. With these findings he convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above. 13. Aggrieved with the above conviction and sentence the appellants have preferred this appeal. 14. We have heard Sri Amar Saran (as then he was) learned counsel for the appellant and learned A. G. A. for respondents and have gone through the evidence on record. 15. There is no direct evidence in this case. The case is based on the circumstantial evidence. 14. We have heard Sri Amar Saran (as then he was) learned counsel for the appellant and learned A. G. A. for respondents and have gone through the evidence on record. 15. There is no direct evidence in this case. The case is based on the circumstantial evidence. It is, therefore, to be considered whether circumstances are fully proved and such circumstances are conclusive in nature and are of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the appellants and chain of the circumstances is so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the appellants and none else and that circumstances are complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of guilt of the accused and such circumstantial evidence is not only consistent with the guilt of the accused but inconsistent with the innocence of the appellant. 16. The trial Court has relied on the following circumstances: (1) The appellants had an adequate and immediate motive as well as an ample opportunity of committing the murder of the deceased. (2) The deceased attended the office on 21-4-1979 at 8. 00 a. m. was found present till 12 or 12. 30 p. m. (3) The deceased was last seen in the company of the appellants on 21-4-1979 at about 12 or 12. 30 p. m. by Ahmad Jan Khan (P. W. 5) and Shafi Ahmad (P. W. 6) and at that time heated discussions were going on between them. The deceased was dragged by the appellants inside the kothari. (4) The appellants gave wrong information to Mohd. Hussain (P. W. 1) that deceased had gone to the tank to take water and when Mohd. Hussain (P. W. 1) asked appellants to open the Kothri, they refused on the pretext that its key was lying with the deceased. (5) The appellants were seen by Manju Khan (P. W. 4) carrying something like a dead body on their hands from the same kothri and the dead body was thrown in the water tank of the cold storage. (6) The dead body of the deceased was found floating in the water tank owned by the appellants. (7) The appellants made several successive false declarations touching the offence and with the intent to screen the offence and to prevent themselves from legal punishment. (6) The dead body of the deceased was found floating in the water tank owned by the appellants. (7) The appellants made several successive false declarations touching the offence and with the intent to screen the offence and to prevent themselves from legal punishment. (8) Bicycle of the deceased was found locked near the office of the cold storage of the appellants. (9) Appellants Babbu and Fida Hussain made extra judicial confession. (10) Appellants Fida Hussain and Jamil Ahmad absconded from 21-4-1999 to 8-5-1979. (11) The appellants set up a false plea of alibi and failed to give any reasonable explanation regarding the above circumstances. 17. We would like to discuss the above circumstance in order to see whether the circumstances have been cogently proved and taken together leads to the hypothesis of the guilt of the appellants. Circumstance No. 1 In the F. I. R. no motive was alleged and it was mentioned by the father of the deceased that the deceased had no enmity with any person. However, in his evidence Mohammad Hussain (P. W. 1) stated that Naeem deceased was teaching daughters of appellant Babbu and Fida Hussain. The deceased was unmarried and he expressed his desire to his mother to marry with the daughter of appellant Babbu. That the mother of the deceased scolded him of saying that they were rich person and he was poor. On it Naeem kept silence. The mother of the deceased told the deceased that he would not go to teach the daughter of Babbu. Prior to 20-25 days of the occurrence the deceased had stopped tuition of daughter of appellants and on account of it appellants were having enmity with the deceased. In his cross- examination Mehandi Hasan (P. W. 2) stated that Annu Khan (Mohammad Hussain P. W. 1) had told him that Naeem used to teach the children of the appellants. That Naeem had also told this fact to him. Sajid Miya (P. W. 3) stated that at about 4. 00 a. m. in the morning of the month April while he was sleeping at his house one Ahmad Jafar Khan called him and he came out of his house. There was one person alongwith him whom Jafar Khan told as Babbu. Jafar Khan told him to settle the matter of Babbu with Annu (Mohammad Hussain P. W. 1 ). 00 a. m. in the morning of the month April while he was sleeping at his house one Ahmad Jafar Khan called him and he came out of his house. There was one person alongwith him whom Jafar Khan told as Babbu. Jafar Khan told him to settle the matter of Babbu with Annu (Mohammad Hussain P. W. 1 ). When he enquired that what was the matter Babbu Khan told that on 21st he had murdered his clerk Naeem as it was matter of his honour otherwise Naeem would have kidnapped his daughter. From the above evidence the trial Court concluded that the deceased fell in love with the daughter of Babbu appellant and was planning to marry with her and when it came to the knowledge of appellants they must have decided to remove him from the way to her daughter and therefore, they conspired to commit murder of the deceased. Having considered the evidence of witnesses of this circumstance we find that alleged motive was subsequently introduced and was not cogently and satisfactorily proved. There is no mention of above motive in the F. I. R. Mohammad Hussain (P. W. 1), father of the deceased simply stated that the deceased had told his mother that he desired to marry with the daughter of Babbu. The mother of the deceased was not examined by the prosecution and evidence of Mohammad Hussain (P. W. 1) in this regard is hearsay one as he had no personal knowledge about alleged proposal of the deceased to marry with the daughter of Babbu appellant. It was also stated by Mohammad Hussain (P. W. 1) that the deceased used to teach the daughters of Babbu and Fida Hussain, but he admitted in his cross examination that the deceased himself had left tuition and he also admitted that he had not stated before the I. O. that the appellants had stopped the deceased from teaching their daughters. He further stated in his cross-examination that when the deceased left tuition of the daughters of Babbu and Fida Hussain the appellants started having grudge against him. It is not disputed that the deceased was in service of the appellants till his death and no steps were taken by the appellants to remove him from service. He further stated in his cross-examination that when the deceased left tuition of the daughters of Babbu and Fida Hussain the appellants started having grudge against him. It is not disputed that the deceased was in service of the appellants till his death and no steps were taken by the appellants to remove him from service. Assuming that the deceased was teaching the daughters of Babbu and Fida Hussain, it cannot be inferred that he fell in love with the daughter of appellant Babbu as there is no satisfactory evidence on this point and the evidence led by the prosecution are hearsay. Contrary to it the evidence of the father of the deceased shows that the appellants were inimical with the deceased because he had left teaching their daughters. Therefore, the alleged motive has not been successfully established and the learned Sessions Judge wrongly treated it prove on guess and surmises. Circumstance No. 2 The next circumstance relied on by the trial Court was that the deceased attended the office on 21. 4. 1979 at 8. 00 a. m. and was present there till 12. 00-12. 30. This circumstance cannot be treated against the appellants as admittedly the deceased was employee of the cold storage and used to attend the office. Circumstance No. 3 The next circumstance relied on by the trial Court was that the appellants were last seen in the company of the deceased on 21-4- 1979 at about 12. 00 - 12. 30 p. m. by Ahmad Jan Khan (P. W. 5) and Safi Ahmad (P. W. 6 ). According to evidence of Ahmad Jan Khan (P. W. 5) and Safi Ahmad (P. W. 6) on 21-4-1979 they had gone to the cold storage of appellants in connection with storage of their potato. At about 12. 00- 12. 30 noon they saw that heated discussions were going on between appellants and deceased and the appellants dragged the deceased towards Kothri. It is not the case of the prosecution that the cause of murder of the deceased arose to the appellant only on 21-4-1979 at about 12. 00-12. 30. At about 12. 00- 12. 30 noon they saw that heated discussions were going on between appellants and deceased and the appellants dragged the deceased towards Kothri. It is not the case of the prosecution that the cause of murder of the deceased arose to the appellant only on 21-4-1979 at about 12. 00-12. 30. In case the appellants wanted to commit the murder of the deceased they would have not chosen such time for the same that too in the presence of several employees as well as in the presence of Ahmad Jan Khan (P. W. 5) and Safi Ahmad (P. W. 6) to afford opportunity to the witnesses and employees of the cold storage to become witness against them. Moreover, the presence of Ahmad Jan Khan (P. W. 5) and Safi Ahmad (P. W. 6) at the cold storage at that time was just a chance as they had not gone to the cold storage along with potato and they had gone to cold storage simply to talk with the appellants whether their potato could be stored or not. The above witnesses stated that they did not know on what point heated discussion was going. They had also not enquired from the appellant on what point the heated discussions were going on. In these circumstances the evidence of above witnesses does not inspire confidence. Circumstance No. 4 The next circumstance relied on by the trial Court was that the appellants gave wrong information that deceased had gone to take water at the tank and the Kothri near the office was closed. When Mohammad Hussain (P. W. 1) and Mehandi Hasan (P. W. 2) asked the appellants to open the Kothri they refused on the pretext that the key of the lock of the Kothri was lying with the deceased. According to evidence of Mohammad Hussain (P. W. 1) he came to the cold storage of the appellants at about 9. 00 p. m. on 21-4-1979 and enquired about the deceased from the appellants. They told that deceased had gone to the water tank to take water. Thereafter, he came to water tank but nothing was found. The Kothri near the office was locked. The appellants did not open the Kothri on the pretext that it was lying with the deceased. Mehandi Hasan Miya (P. W. 2) stated that at about 8. They told that deceased had gone to the water tank to take water. Thereafter, he came to water tank but nothing was found. The Kothri near the office was locked. The appellants did not open the Kothri on the pretext that it was lying with the deceased. Mehandi Hasan Miya (P. W. 2) stated that at about 8. 30 p. m. he went to cold storage of appellant alongwith Annoo Khan (Mohd. Hussain) where Babboo and Sajjad Hussain appellants were present. On enquiries above appellants told that deceased would have gone to take meals or would had gone to relatives. Except it they did not tell any thing. The above appellants did not give key of the Kothari saying that its key was with the deceased. On the own showing of the prosecution report about missing of the deceased was lodged by Mohammad Hussain (P. W. 1) on 22-4-1979 and the informant admitted that prior to lodging of report he had gone to the cold storage of the appellants but this fact is not mentioned in the F. I. R. Mohammad Hussain (P. W. 1) had also not told this fact before the I. O. Mehandi Hasan gave different version. There is no sufficient explanation for omission of above facts in the F. I. R. and it leads to infer that this fact was subsequently introduced after recovery of dead body of the deceased in cold storage owned by the appellants. In case such enquiries were made from the appellants by the witnesses and they refused to give the key of lock of Kothri, this fact ought to have been mentioned in the F. I. R. In these circumstances the evidence of Mohammad Hussain (P. W. 1) and Mehandi Hasan (P. W. 2) on this circumstance does not inspire confidence and there above evidence is not worthy of credence. The trial Court has also observed that the Kothari was found locked on the night of 21-4-1979 and on the next morning. It was seen by the Mohammad Hussain (P. W. 1), Mehandi Hasan (P. W. 2) and S. I. Devi Prasad Singh Pawar (P. W. 11 ). The evidence of Devi Prasad Singh Pawar (P. W. 11) shows that he visited the cold storage of the appellant on 22-4-1979 and he has nowhere stated that he visited the Kothri and found it locked. The evidence of Devi Prasad Singh Pawar (P. W. 11) shows that he visited the cold storage of the appellant on 22-4-1979 and he has nowhere stated that he visited the Kothri and found it locked. Dead body of the deceased was recovered on 23. 4. 1979. In case Mohammad Hussain (P. W. 1) and Mehandi Hasan (P. W. 2) had told this fact to Devi Singh Pawar (P. W. 11) he would have got the Kothri opened and if the dead body of the deceased was lying there it could be noticed on 22-4- 1979. Making no attempt to open the Kothri on 22-4-1979 by S. I. Devi Prasad Singh Pawar again leads to infer that the theory of lock of Kothri and dragging the deceased inside the Kothri was not in the knowledge of any of witness till the recovery of the dead body of the deceased and this fact was subsequently introduced to suit the prosecution case. Circumstance No. 5 The next circumstance relied on by the trial Court was that the appellants were seen by Manju Khan (P. W. 4) carrying something like dead body from the Kothri and threw the sameinto the tank of the cold storage and on enquiry made by Manju Khan (P. W. 4) they gave a false explanation that they have thrown unprepared ice slab. Manju Khan (P. W. 4) stated that on the midnight of 22/23-4-1979 he was on the roof of his house as he had stored his Masoor crop over his roof. On account of mosquitoes he could not get sleep. He heard some voice near the cold storage and he along with Jahid saw that light of cold storage was on and the appellants were bringing something on their hands. When he enquired from them as to what they were carrying they scolded him of and asked to keep silence. They threw something in the tank and on enquiry they told that they had thrown a slab of unprepared ice. Thereafter, at about 3. 00 a. m. employees of cold storage raised alarm that dead body was floating in the tank. They threw something in the tank and on enquiry they told that they had thrown a slab of unprepared ice. Thereafter, at about 3. 00 a. m. employees of cold storage raised alarm that dead body was floating in the tank. The witness stated that he had told before the I. O. that the appellants were taking something but this fact was not written by the I. O. He further stated that he himself had gone before then I. O. and told this fact to him but his statement under Section 161 Cr. P. C. was to the effect that he kept silence as the matter related to big persons and when the I. O. enquired he told this fact to him. He also admitted that 8-10 labours were working in the cold storage in the night. It is also clear from his evidence that after 2- 1/2 hours the labours raised alarm that the dead body was floating in the tank. Thus, according to evidence of Manju Khan (P. W. 4) the appellants took out the dead body of the deceased from the Kothri in the presence of 8-10 labours and light of cold storage and also replied the quarry made by the witnesses. The circumstance stated by the witness, therefore, also appears improbable. Circumstance No. 6 The next circumstance relied on by the trial Court was that dead body of the deceased was floating in the tank owned by the appellants. The presence of the dead body of the deceased in the tank of the appellants is not a circumstance through which the guilt of the appellants could be inferred. The water tank was accessible to several persons. There is no evidence to show that dead body was recovered on the pointing out of any of the appellant. Contrary to it the evidence on record shows that appellant Sajjad Hussain himself informed the police on 23-4-1979 at 5. 00 a. m. that at about 3. 00 a. m. in the night he was informed by operator Jagdish Chandra Sharma that dead body of Naeem was floating in the tank of cold storage. This shows that the moment appellant Sajjad Hussain came to know about the presence of dead body in the tank he informed the police. At the time of above information appellant Sajjad Hussain was not in police custody nor he was accused. This shows that the moment appellant Sajjad Hussain came to know about the presence of dead body in the tank he informed the police. At the time of above information appellant Sajjad Hussain was not in police custody nor he was accused. His above information does not come within the perview of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, this circumstance cannot be taken against the appellants. Circumstance No. 7 The trial Court has observed that appellant Sajjad Hussain gave false information that deceased died due to drowning while he died due to strangulation. This observation and conclusion is against the evidence on record. An Urdu written report submitted by appellant Sajjad Hussain at police station Ganj on 23-4- 1979 at 5. 00 a. m. , transcribed in Hindi in G. D. report Ex. Ka-15 simply shows that Sajjad Hussain appellant informed the police that dead body of Naeem Khan, who was clerk in his cold storage and missing since 21-4-1979, was found floating in tank and he was informed about it by his operator Jagdish Chandra Sharma. There is nothing in the above report that Sajjad Hussain gave a false information that deceased had died due to drowning and there is also no evidence to show that appellant Sajjad Hussain or any other appellant had pointed out the recovery of dead body of the deceased. Contrary to it the evidence on record shows that appellant Sajjad Hussain himself was informed about the presence of dead body of the deceased in the tank by his operator and it is also in the evidence of Manju Khan (P. W. 4) that at about 3. 00 a. m. in the night labours raised alarm that dead body was floating in the tank. Therefore, the above observation of the trial Court is against the evidence on record. Circumstance No. 8 The trial Court has also relied on the circumstance that cycle of the deceased was found locked near by the office of cold storage. This circumstance does not in any way connect the appellants with the 1 murder of the deceased as admittedly the deceased used to go to the office of the cold storage on bicycle and used to park his cycle near the office. This circumstance does not in any way connect the appellants with the 1 murder of the deceased as admittedly the deceased used to go to the office of the cold storage on bicycle and used to park his cycle near the office. Circumstance No. 9 The prosecution has also led evidence on the circumstance that the appellant Babbu made extra-judicial confession before Sajid Miya (P. W. 3) and appellant Sajjad Hussain made extra-judicial confession before Mustaq Ali (P. W. 7 ). Sajid Miya (P. W. 4) stated that in the month of April at about 4. 00 a. m. while he was sleeping at his house Jafar Khan called him. One other person was also with Jafar Khan, whom Jafar Khan told that he was Babbu. That Jafar Khan asked him to settled the matter of Babboo as he was an influential person. When he asked Babboo as to what was the matter he told that on 21st he killed Naeem deceased, as it was prestige of his daughter otherwise Naeem would have kidnapped his daughter. That when he enquired as to how he murdered then Babbu told that he had strangulated him to death. Then he enquired about the dead body and Babbu told that he kept the body for one day in chambers and thereafter threw in the tank. Mustaq Ali (P. W. 7) stated that he was Up Pradhan of the village and he had acquaintance with Fida Hussain. After 4-5 days of the murder of Naeem and arrest of Sajjad, Babbu and Jamil in connection with above murder, he was sitting at Chungi (octroi post) near Pahari. Chhotey Khan was also sitting with him. At about 4-5 p. m. appellant Fida Hussain came there and told him that on account of honour of his daughter he asked his brother to eliminate Naeem deceased instead of removing him from service. That Fida Hussain also told that after killing Naeem his dead body was thrown in the tank. He asked him to obtain pardon from Daroga (Sub Inspector ). Sajid Miya (P. W. 3) admitted in his cross-examination that he was not knowing Babbu from before. Therefore, it was highly improbable that appellant Babbu would have made extra-judicial confession before an unknown person. He asked him to obtain pardon from Daroga (Sub Inspector ). Sajid Miya (P. W. 3) admitted in his cross-examination that he was not knowing Babbu from before. Therefore, it was highly improbable that appellant Babbu would have made extra-judicial confession before an unknown person. Mustaq Ali (P. W. 7) admitted in his cross-examination that status of all the appellants was much higher than him and he had no influence on the Sub Inspector. He had also not told about the above extra-judicial confession to the I. O. That I. O. came to his house after 20-25 days of the arrest of the Fida Hussain and then he told about the extra-judicial confession made by Fida Hussain. On the own showing of Mustaq Ali (P. W. 7) he had no influence on the police. It is also clear that prior to alleged extra-judicial confession appellants Sajjad Hussain, Babbu and Jamil were arrested by the police. Therefore, there was no occasion for Fida Hussain to make extra-judicial confession after arrest of his three brothers. As held by the apex Court in the decision of State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram, 2003 (2) JIC 755 (SC) : JT 2003 (7) SC 399, an extra-judicial confession, if voluntary and true and made in a fit state of mind can be relied upon by the Court. The confession will have to be proved like any other fact. The value of evidence as to confession like any other evidence, depends upon veracity of the witness to whom it has been made. The value of evidence as to confession depends on the reliability of the witness who gives the evidence. It is not open to any Court to start with a presumption that extra-judicial confession is weak type of evidence. It would depend on the nature of the circumstance, the time when the confession was made and the credibility of witness who speaks to such confession. It was also held in the said decision that after subjecting the evidence of witness to rigours on the test of the touch stone of credibility the extra-judicial confession can be accepted and can be the basis of conviction, if it passes the test of credibility. It was also held in the said decision that after subjecting the evidence of witness to rigours on the test of the touch stone of credibility the extra-judicial confession can be accepted and can be the basis of conviction, if it passes the test of credibility. As mentioned above Sajid Miya (P. W. 3) and Mustaq Ali (P. W. 7) were not such influential persons who could help the appellants Babbu and Fida Hussain and therefore, there was no occasion for these appellants to make extra-judicial confession before such ordinary person who were of no use. Thus, the circumstances of the case indicate that these two witnesses were subsequently introduced to concoct a false theory of extra-judicial confession and evidence of extra-judicial confession is not credible. Circumstance Nos. 10 and 11 Lastly the trial Court had relied on circumstances that the appellants absconded after the occurrence and made false plea of alibi that on 21-4-1979 they had attended the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur in connection with a criminal case pending against them. Absconding of the appellants after the occurrence cannot be a circumstance against them as even innocent person avoid his arrest by the police because of ill treatment by the police. Ibadat Hussain Khan (D. W. 1) Reader of the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur stated that a criminal case under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate against appellants Fida Hussain and Sajjad Hussain and on 21-4-1979 it was a date in the case for their appearance. That they appeared before the Court on said date. The appearance of appellant Sajjad Hussain and Fida Hussain in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur on 21-4-1979 is proved by the evidence of Ibadat Hussain (D. W. 1) and therefore, it cannot be said that they made a false plea of alibi. What would be the effect of that alibi would be considered in the light of other circumstances. 18. In view of our above discussions we find that the prosecution was not able to prove the circumstances relied on by it and those circumstances are not sufficient to lead the hypothesis of the guilt of the appellants. There is no complete chain of circumstances. 18. In view of our above discussions we find that the prosecution was not able to prove the circumstances relied on by it and those circumstances are not sufficient to lead the hypothesis of the guilt of the appellants. There is no complete chain of circumstances. The above circumstances were not 3 consistence with the hypothesis of the guilt of the appellants and therefore they could not be held guilty. Thus, the appeal succeeds. 19. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. Conviction and sentence of the appellants recorded by the trial Court are set aside and they are acquitted of the offences to which they stood charged with. 20. All the appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. They need not surrender. Appeal allowed.