Judgment Aftab Alam, J. 1. In Cr. Appeal No. 467 of 1999 there are two appellants Krishna Kumar Das and Hira Das and Cr. Appeal No. 507 of 1999 is at the instance of a single appellant, Prakash Ravidas. Both the appeals are directed against the judgment and order, dated 15/18.9.1999 passed by the 1st Addl. Sessions Judge. Munger in Sessions Case No. 90 of 1998. By the judgment and order coming under appeal the three appellants were convicted under Sections 302/34, 376 (2)(e)/34 and 201 of the Penal Cqde and were sentenced, for the three offences, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, for 12 years and for 2 years respectively. The trial Court directed the sentences to run concurrently. 2. The case was instituted on the basis of the fardebeyan of one Upendra Tanti of village Milki Chak No. 2 (PW 5: father of the victim girl). It was recorded by the officer incharge of Naya Rarnnagar PS at village Milki Chak on 9.5.1997 at 2 in the night. A formal FIR (Ext. 7) was later drawn up on the same day. 3. In his statement before the police Upendra Tartti said that on 8.5.1997 at about 2 in the afternoon he along with his wife Phulan Devi (PW 6) and daughter Sarswati Kumari (the deceased) had gone to Munger for purchasing certain articles. They returned to the village at 6.30 in the evening. His daughters chheka was fixed for 11.5.1997 and the marriage was to take place on 16.5.1997. He was showing the articles brought for his daughters marriage to his relatives and neighbours and at that time appellant Prakash Ravidas had also come to his house. At about 7.30 his daughter Sarswati Kumari, aged about 19 years, went out, taking a Lota, for defecating. When she did not come back for about half an hour, his wife got slightly worried. Then the whole family started looking for her : she was also called out by name but there was no response. Thereafter, the informant along with his elder brother Gurudeo Tanti (PW 13), Chachera Bhai Subit Tanti (PW 9), nephew Lalit Kumar Tanti (PW 14), Sheochandra Tanti, Prakash (not examined) and Sanjay Kumar (PW 2), Ajay Kumar (PW 4) and a large number of villagers went out in her search. Thereafter, the informant along with his elder brother Gurudeo Tanti (PW 13), Chachera Bhai Subit Tanti (PW 9), nephew Lalit Kumar Tanti (PW 14), Sheochandra Tanti, Prakash (not examined) and Sanjay Kumar (PW 2), Ajay Kumar (PW 4) and a large number of villagers went out in her search. Looking for her they went to the primary school at a distance of about 150 yards from the village. Inside the schools premises they found the hawai chappals and steel lota of his daughter thrown away. By its side, at a distance of 5-6 yards towards east a pair of plastic chappals were also lying. There was also a bundle of fake notes : it contained a fake note of Rs. 100/- at the top and another fake note of Rs. 50/- at the bottom with waste papers tagged in between to give the appearance of a bundle of notes. Adjacent east to the thatched khaprail room within the school premises and towards the eastern boundary wall, blood was found fallen on the ground. At that spot, there was also a piece of plastic string and the ground there bore the marks of dragging which made it clear that his daughter had been killed. Then they started searching for her body in the out-lying lands of the village (baniyar) and wells. At a distance of about 500 yards, towards north-east from the village, they found the dead body of his daughter floating in the well in the orchard of Mahendra Yadav of village Milki Chak No. 1. The body was seen in the torch-light and it was identified as his daughters. In the mean-time the Officer Incharge (recording the fardebeyan) arrived there on getting information and, with the help of the villagers, the body of his daughter was taken out of the well. It was identified as that of his daughter Sarswati Kumari. On her neck there was the mark of thin string and there was also sign of bleeding from the nose; seminal fluid was oozing out from her genitals. That showed that the culprits first violated her and then killed her by strangulating her neck by the string. There were bruise marks on her neck. 4. On her neck there was the mark of thin string and there was also sign of bleeding from the nose; seminal fluid was oozing out from her genitals. That showed that the culprits first violated her and then killed her by strangulating her neck by the string. There were bruise marks on her neck. 4. He further stated that Prakash Ravidas aged 22 years of village Milki Chak No. 2 @ Mustafachak was a friend of his son Tapesh Kumar Tanti (PW 10) and thus he used to come to their house frequently. He together with his friends, appellants Krishna Kumar Das and Hira Das and another accused Amod Das committed rape on her daughter and fearing exposure and in the frenzy to over-come the resistance put by the girl they killed her and threw away her dead body inside the well with the intent to hide the crime. At this point in his statement the informant said that the pair of plastic chappal found in the school were identified by him and other villagers as belonging to the appellants Prakash Ravidas. On search he was found absconding from his house. Prakash Ravidas had with him his aforementioned friends but after the occurrence they too were absconding from their house. He also said that on the bundle of fake notes Prakash was written in faint ink. 5. The fardebeyan concludes with the informants allegation that the accused persons first committed rape on her daughter and on her resistance killed her and in order to hide the body threw it in the well. The recorded statement was read out to him and on finding it correct, he put his signature (Ext. 1/2) on it. 6. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against all the four accused, including the three appellants, and they were committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. But the trial Court found that the fourth accused Amod Das was a juvenile and, his case was, therefore, separated from the rest of the three appellants and, he was sent for trial to the Juvenile Court by order, dated 21.5.1998. The trial Court then proceeded with the trial of the three appellants who were finally convicted and sentenced as noted above. 7. It is a deeply distressing case in which a young girl was killed shortly before her marriage in a gruesome and savage manner. The trial Court then proceeded with the trial of the three appellants who were finally convicted and sentenced as noted above. 7. It is a deeply distressing case in which a young girl was killed shortly before her marriage in a gruesome and savage manner. That Sarawati Kumari, the 19 years old daughter of the informant was killed on 8.5.1997 is unquestionable further, that she was raped before being killed is also beyond doubt in view of the evidence of the doctor who held post-mortem over her body. The doctor was examined in this case as PW 15 and he proved the post-mortem report that was marked as Ext. 3. The nine ante-mortem injuries found by the doctor on the person of Sarswati Kumari included the following : 1. vi A tear of size 1 cm x 1/2 cm over posterior faucette of vagina. 1. vii Contusion of size 1 cm x 1/3 cm over right labia majora. 1. viii Contusion of size 1-1/2 cm x 1/2 cm over left labia majora. 8. On dissection trachea was found fractured; hymen was found freshly torn. 9. As regards cause of death the doctor said that it was due to forceful pressure over the front of neck causing asphyxia. The doctor also stated quite definitely that rape was committed before she was killed. 10. In view of the medical evidence there is no room for doubt that Sarswati Kumari was brutally raped and killed and what remains to be considered in this appeal is the question of the appellants hands in the commission of the crime. 11. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 18 witnesses, apart from the doctor, PWs 1 and 3, though they also claimed to be members of the party that had gone in search of Sarswati Kumari, are mainly relevant on the point of seeing the three appellants and the other accused together after commission of the offence. PWs 2 and 4 had seen the appellants and the fourth accused following Sarswati Kumari when she had gone out for relieving herself. PW 5, the informant is the father of the victim girl. PWs 2 and 4 had seen the appellants and the fourth accused following Sarswati Kumari when she had gone out for relieving herself. PW 5, the informant is the father of the victim girl. He, inter alia, stated about the objective findings at the place of occurrence (the presence of a pair of plastic chappals said to belong to Prakash Ravidas), PW 6 is the mother of Sarswati Kumari and according to her, she was also among the persons who had gone out to search for her daughter. PW 9 is the informants chachera brother. PW 13 is the informants own elder brother and PW 14 is a co-villager. They were members of the search party and their deposition before the Court is mostly repetition (with some minor additions or omissions) of what was earlier stated by the informant. PW 10 is the brother of the victim girl. His evidence is very brief and there is nothing of any significance in it. PW 15 as already noted above is the doctor who held post-mortem over the body of the deceased. PW 17 is the IO and PW 18 is another police officer who, after the transfer of PW 17, concluded the investigation and submitted the charge-sheet. He had also prepared a sketch map of the different sites relating to the occurrence. He proved the sketch map and it was marked as Ext. 8. The remaining five witnesses are formal. PWs 7 and 8 proved their respective signatures on the fardebayan. PWs 11 and 12 proved their signatures on the seizure lists. PW 16 was a police-man who produced and proved before the trial Court the material exhibits in the case. 12. As indicated by the fardebayan and as would appear from the brief description of the witnesses given above, the case against the appellants rests purely on circumstantial evidence. The facts and circumstances cited against the appellants comprise, apart from the objective findings at the place of occurrence, (a pair of plastic chappals said to belong to appellant No. 1 Prakash Ravidas and a bundle of fake notes on which Prakash was written), their being seen following the girl when she had gone out for relieving herself and their being seen together again at a time that would fall after the commission of the offence. For the sake of convenience, therefore, it is proposed to discuss together prosecution witnesses who were examined on the same point regardless of the order in which they appeared before the trial Court. 13. PW 5, the informant made the same statement before the Court as contained in the fardebeyan/FIR. He said that at the time he was showing the articles purchased that day for his daughters marriage to his relatives and neighbours, appellant Prakash had also come to his house; that his son Tapesh Kumar had friendship with Prakash and, therefore, he used to come to their house frequently : along with Prakash, Krishna Kumar Das. Hira Das and Amod Das also used to come to his house some times; that at about 7.30 in the evening his daughter Sarswati Kumari took a lota and went out for relieving herself; that when she did not come back after half an hour, his wife informed him in that regard; that when she was not found on search, the informant along with his elder brother Gurudeo Prasad Tanti (PW 13), Subir Tanti (PW 9). Lalit Kumar (PW 14). Hari Shankar Tanti (not examined), Sanjay (PW 2), Ajay Tanti (PW 4) and a large number of others went out in her search. The informant then gave the details regarding the place of occurrence in the primary school grounds and the articles found there. Here, though he stated about the pair of plastic chappals, he omitted to mention the bundle of fake notes. He stated that the pair of plastic chappals found in the school belonged to Prakash. 14. After the plastic chappals along with the other objects were produced and marked as material exhibits before the Court, he was recalled for examination and he identified the plastic chappals, material exits. 2 and 2/1., as belonging to appellant Prakash Ravidas. 15. He further stated in his deposition that on 3.6.1997 he had filed a protest petition before the CJM complaining that the case was not being properly investigated by the police, and further that he had got his own statement and the statements of other witnesses recorded before the Magistrate under Section 164, Cr PC. In his cross-examination he stated that PWs 1 and 3 were not among the search partly. 16. In his cross-examination he stated that PWs 1 and 3 were not among the search partly. 16. Though PW 5 did not say that his wife Phulan Devi was also among the search party, she came before the Court as PW 6 to say that she had also gone to the school along with others in search of her daughter and that the body of her daughter was found floating in the well. Her deposition in the Court is a very brief summary of the deposition of her husband, PW 5. In her cross-examination she stated that Prakash Ravidas used to come to her house. She curiously added that at that time he treated Sarswati as his sister and some times he made jokes with her. She said that Amod Das, Krishna and Hira Das did not come to her house. 17. PW 9 is the chachera brother of the informant. He was named as one of the members of the search party in the fardebeyan. He stated about seeing a pair of plastic chappals at the primary school grounds but did not say that those belonged to Prakash Ravidas. He also mentioned the bundle of fake notes on which Prakash was written. 18. PW 13 is the elder brother of the informant. He too was named as a witness in the fardebayan. He spoke about seeing the pair of plastic chappals which, according to him, were recognised by his nephew Tapesh Kumar Tanti as belonging to appellant No. 1 Prakash (Tapesh Kumar Tanti, PW 10 himself did not say in his deposition that he identified the pair of plastic chappals as belonging to Prakash). He also spoke about the bundle of fake notes on which Prakash was written. He also said that there was friendship between Prakash and Tapesh. 19. PW 14 is a co-villager who had joined the group that had gone out in search of Sarswati Kumari. He stated about seeing the pair of plastic chappals but said that the chappals were identified by the villagers as belonging to Prakash Ravidas. 20. The depositions of PWs 9, 13 and 14, of course with little additions and/or omissions, are simply the summarised version of the statement of PW 5. 21. PW 10 as already noted is the brother of Sarswati Kumari. His deposition is very brief. 20. The depositions of PWs 9, 13 and 14, of course with little additions and/or omissions, are simply the summarised version of the statement of PW 5. 21. PW 10 as already noted is the brother of Sarswati Kumari. His deposition is very brief. He simply said that he had seen the dead body of his sister; that she was first raped and then killed. He also said that Prakash used to come to his place and he treated his sister Sarswati as his own sister. He also said that he had not named anyone as accused before the police. 22. The aforementioned five witnesses PWs 5, 6, 9, 13 and 14 (apart from PWs 1 to 4) were members of the search party. They deposed before the Court on the point that appellant No. 1 was on friendly terms with Tapesh, the brother of the victim girl and he, therefore, used to come to the informants house quite often; that in the evening of 8.5.1997 when the articles purchased on that day for the marriage of Sarswati Kumari were being shown to relatives and neighbours of the informant, Prakash had come to his house and further that at the scene of the crime in the school grounds, apart from the hawai chappals and steel lota of Sarswati Kumari, a pair of plastic chappals belonging to Prakash and a bundle of fake notes on which Prakash was written were also found. 23. We next come to the other circumstance, that is, the accused being seen following the victim girl when she had gone out for relieving herself. On this point PWs 2 and 4 are the relevant witnesses. PW 2 is a co-villager. He stated in his deposition that on 8.5.1997 at about 7 he had gone to the house of the informant (PW 5). At that time he was showing the Tilak articles, clothes etc. for his daughters marriage that was to take place on 16.5.1997. At that time Sarswati Kumari told her mother that she was going for defecating and taking a lota she went out. After some time he also came out and proceeded to a little distance for urinating. He saw Sarswati going away carrying the lota and Prakash following her. He also saw Krishna Das, Hira Das and Amod Das sitting by at the tri-junction in the path (Teen Mohani Par). After some time he also came out and proceeded to a little distance for urinating. He saw Sarswati going away carrying the lota and Prakash following her. He also saw Krishna Das, Hira Das and Amod Das sitting by at the tri-junction in the path (Teen Mohani Par). After urinating he went to his home. About half an hour later the family members of Sarswati stated looking for her. On hulla he also came out of his house and joined others in her search. He then gave the details of the place of occurrence in the school grounds and stated about the articles found there, including the pair of plastic chappals which he recognised as belonging to Prakash Ravidas. He along with others went on to the well from where the body of the victim was recovered. In cross-examination he said that his statement was not taken by the police but he made a statement before the Magistrate. 24. The statement of PW 2 made earlier before the Magistrate on 18.6.1997 under Section 164, Cr PC is on record. In his statement under Section 164 PW 2 stated that after some time when he came out (of the house of the informant), he saw Sarswati going away carrying the lota and Krishna Deo Das, Hira Das and Amod Das sitting by the way. He himself sat down for urinating and he also saw Prakash going behind her. After urinating he came to his house. 25. PW 4 stated in his deposition that at about 7 in the night on 8.5.1997 he had gone out for defecating in an orchard behind the school. When he was returning, he saw Sarswati Kumari going for defecating carrying a lota with her. Four boys of the village Prakash Ravidas. Hira Das Krishna Das and Amod were following her at a distance of 20-25 paces. He went to his house. At about 11-12 in the night he heard the hulla that Sarswati who had gone out for relieving herself had not come back. He then joined a number of other villagers in her search. He said that he went to the school and then gave a description of the place of occurrence and the articles found there; that the plastic chappals were identified as belonging to Prakash Ravidas. He also went to the well from where the body of Sarswati was taken out. He then joined a number of other villagers in her search. He said that he went to the school and then gave a description of the place of occurrence and the articles found there; that the plastic chappals were identified as belonging to Prakash Ravidas. He also went to the well from where the body of Sarswati was taken out. He further said in the Court that he had stated before the police that the plastic chappals were identified as belonging to Prakash and that when he was returning after defecating, he had seen Sarswati Kumari going for defecating carrying of lota and she was being followed at a distance of 20-25 paces by the four boys of the village, Prakash Ravidas, Hira Das, Krishna Das and Amod Das. 26. The IO (PW 17) corroborated thai PW 4 had stated before him that the plastic chappals were identified as belonging to Prakash but contradicted him on the point of seeing the accused following Sarswati. The IO said that PW 4 had not stated before him that he had seen Sarswati Kumari when she was going for defecating being followed at a distance of 20-25 paces by the four boys of the village, Prakash Ravidas, Hira Das, Krishna Das and Amod Das. 27. The statement of PW 4 was also recorded by the Magistrate under Section 164, Cr PC on 18.6.1997. In his statement before the Magistrate he said that he had seen Sarswati going for defecating carrying a lota and four boys were going behind her at a distance of 20 paces. They were Prakash Ravidas, Hira Das, Krishna das and Amod Das. 28. On behalf of the appellants it was argued that the story regarding the accused being seen following Sarswati Kumari when she had gone out for defecating is plainly an after-thought. Neither PW 2 nor PW 4 had stated this fact before the IO and for the first time the statement was made before the Magistrate on 18.6.1997, that is to say, about a month and a half after the occurrence. I am unable to accept the submission made on behalf of the appellants. The statement of the IO on this point does not carry much weight as in any event this Court is quite unhappy with the manner in which investigation of the case was made. I am unable to accept the submission made on behalf of the appellants. The statement of the IO on this point does not carry much weight as in any event this Court is quite unhappy with the manner in which investigation of the case was made. It can not be over-looked that the informant was forced to file a protest petition in regard to the investigation of the case and was constrained to marshal evidences concerning the case, on his own, by getting witnesses examined before the Magistrate. It is also not true to say that the names of the four appellants were taken for the first time in the statements made by the witnesses before the Magistrate on 18.6.1997. There is sufficient evidence on the record to show that the names of the four appellants had come up on the night of the occurrence itself and in fact a group of villagers along with the IO had gone to the house of Prakash Ravidas searching for him but he and the other three appellants were found absconding. 29. Coming now to the third circumstance, that is, the accused being seen together at the time that falls after the commission of the offence. On this aspect PWs 1 and 3 are the two relevant witnesses. PW 1 states that on 8.5.1997 at abut 8.30 he along with Ranjeet Tanti (PW 3), was coming back from the hill (near which the village is situate). At a little distance from the village, near the grounds of the graveyard, they saw four persons fleeing away. In torch-light he identified them as Prakash Ravidas, Krishna Das, Amod Das and Hira Das. He asked them what was the matter. Prakash said nothing was the matter and they all hurriedly went towards south. He came to his house, took his meal and lay down. At about 7 his wife told him that the family members of Sarswati were searching for her. He again lay down at about 11-12 in the night he heard the hulla that people were going to search for Sarswati. He joined them. He came with them to the school grounds and then he described the place of occurrence in as much details as the informant himself. He mentioned the pair of plastic chappals which were identified by the informant and others as belonging to Prakash. He joined them. He came with them to the school grounds and then he described the place of occurrence in as much details as the informant himself. He mentioned the pair of plastic chappals which were identified by the informant and others as belonging to Prakash. He, along with others then came to the well from where the body of Sarswati was recovered. 30. This witness (PW 1) identified Prakash Ravidas and Krishna Das in the dock but as regards Hira Das (appellant No. 2 in Cr. Appeal No. 467 of 1999), he said that he did not know him. 31. In his deposition in Court he stated that it was the police to whom he first informed regarding seeing the accused. The IO (PW 17), however, contradicted him on this point. PW 17 stated that Pole Nath Tanti, PW 1 had not stated before him that he had seen four persons fleeing away who were Krishnadeo Das, Amod Das, Hira Das and Prakash Ravidas and that Krishna Ravidas had spoken to him. 32. It may be noted that the statement of PW 1 was also recorded under Section .164 of the Cr PC on 18.6.1997. 33. PW 3 is the other witness on this point. He said that on 8.5.1997 at about 8.30 in the night, he was returning from the hill along with Pole Nath, PW 1. When they reached the grounds of the graveyard, they saw in the torch-light Prakash Ravidas, Krishna Das, Hira Das and Amod Das going hurriedly in the southern direction. He asked them what was the matter but they did not respond and went away towards south. He came to his house. In the night he came to learn that Sarswati Kumari had not returned to her house. He along with Upendra Tanti, PW 5 and a number of others went in her search towards the school. He then described in detail the place of occurrence in the school grounds and the recovery of the body from the well. He further said that the accused were searched along with the police at the house of Prakash but they were not found. 34. He then described in detail the place of occurrence in the school grounds and the recovery of the body from the well. He further said that the accused were searched along with the police at the house of Prakash but they were not found. 34. From the statement of the IO, (PW 17) and from the case diary it appears that he had taken the statement of this witness jointly with a number of other witnesses and it is, therefore, not clear whether this witness had stated before the police regarding seeing the accused near the grave-yard grounds at about 8.30 in the night of 8.5.1997. But he said so in his statement under Section 164 Cr. P.C. recorded on 18.6.1997. 35. On behalf of the appellants, it was contended that the story regarding the accused being seen after the commission of offence was aqually an after-thought because this fact was not stated either before the police. It was pointed out that PW 1 failed to recognise Hira Das in Court and PW 3 was not called upon to identify any of the accused in Court. 36. It is noted above that a search for the four appellants was made on the night of the occurrence itself but they were absconding from their house. I am, therefore, unable to accept the contention that the evidence regarding the appellants being seen near the village grave yard fleeing towards south is not reliable. On a careful consideration of the entire materials on record. 1 am satisfied that the prosecution has been able to fully establish the following facts and circumstances : (i) Tapesh (PW 10), the brother of the victim girl had friendship with appellant Prakash Ravidas and he, therefore, used to come to their house frequently. (vide PWs 5, 6, 10 and 13). (ii) In the evening (about 7 p.m.) of 8.5.1997 when the tilak articles brought that day for the marriage of the victim girl were being shown to relatives and neighbours, Prakash Ravidas had also come to the house of the informant. (vide PWs 2,5 and 6). (iii) When the victim girl went out of the house for. relieving herself, PW 2 saw Prakash going after her. At that time the other two appellants and the third accused were sitting by at the tri-junction on the way; a little later. (vide PWs 2,5 and 6). (iii) When the victim girl went out of the house for. relieving herself, PW 2 saw Prakash going after her. At that time the other two appellants and the third accused were sitting by at the tri-junction on the way; a little later. PW 5 saw the victim girl going with a lota for relieving herself and at a distance of 20-25 paces behind her, the four accused were also going in the same direction. (iv) At the scene of the crime in the school grounds the presence of the pair of plastic chappals belonging to Prakash Ravidas and a bundle of fake notes on which Prakash was written. (vide PWs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 13, 14 and 17). (v) At 8.30 in the evening of 8.5.1997 all the four accused were seen together fleeing near the grave yard grounds and from there they went in the southern direction. (vide PWs 1 and 3). 37. It is evident that the facts and circumstances enumerated at serials (i), (ii) and (iv) concern only Prakash Ravidas and those do not concern at all the other two appellants Krishna Kumar Das and Hira Das. Thus, in the case of Krishna Das and Hira Das, the only two circumstances established by the prosecution evidence are those enumerated at serial Nos. (iii) and (v). Though the two circumstances create a suspicion against them. I feel that it would be quite unsafe to hold them guilty on that basis alone. The standard and degree of proof required in a case of circumstantial evidence is now well established and has been indicated in a number of decisions of the Supreme Court. Recently in Tanviben Pankaj Kumar Divetia V/s. State of Gujrat, 1997 (2) East Cr C 340 (SC) : (1997) 7 SCC 156 , the Supreme Court, very succinctly summarised the legal position in regard to circumstantial evidence. In para 45 of the decision, it is observed as follows : "45. Recently in Tanviben Pankaj Kumar Divetia V/s. State of Gujrat, 1997 (2) East Cr C 340 (SC) : (1997) 7 SCC 156 , the Supreme Court, very succinctly summarised the legal position in regard to circumstantial evidence. In para 45 of the decision, it is observed as follows : "45. The principle for basing a conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidences has been indicated in a number of decisions of this Court and the law is well settled that each and every incriminating circumstance must be clearly established by reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances so proved must form a chain of events from which the only irresistible conclusion about the guilt of the accused can be safely drawn and no other hypothesis against the guilt is possible. This Court has clearly sounded a note of caution that in a case depending largely upon circumstantial evidence, there is always a danger that conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof. The Court must satisfy itself that various circumstances in the chain of events have been established clearly and such completed chain of events must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused. It has also been indicated that when the important link goes, the chain of circumstances gets snapped and the other circumstances cannot in any manner, establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. It has been held that the Court has to be watchful and avoid the danger of allowing the suspicion to take the place of legal proof for some time unconsciously it may happen to be a short step between moral certainty and legal proof. It has been indicated by this Court that there is a long mental distance between "may be true" and "must be true" and the same divides conjectures from sure conclusion (Jaharlal Das v. State of Orissa)." (emphasis as in the quotation) 38. I, therefore, come to the conclusion that in this case facts and circumstances established against Krishna Kumar Das and Hira Das fail the stringent test and do not rule out a reasonable likelihood of their innocence. In my view, therefore, the conviction of Krishna Kumar Das and Hira Das cannot be sustained. 39. But the position of the appellant Prakash Ravidas is quite different. In my view, therefore, the conviction of Krishna Kumar Das and Hira Das cannot be sustained. 39. But the position of the appellant Prakash Ravidas is quite different. In his case apart from his being seen following the girl and fleeing away shortly after the occurrence, there is the material finding of his chappals and the bundle of fake notes bearing his name being present at the place of occurrence. All the five circumstances (as enumerated above) taken together bring home his guilt beyond reasonable shadow of doubt and I am of the view that his conviction was well arrived at and he was justly sentenced and his case does not warrant any interference in appeal. 40. In the result, in the case of Prakash Ravidas the judgment and order passed by the trial Court is upheld and his appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 507 of 1999) is dismissed. The conviction and sentence passed against Krishna Kumar Das and Hra Das are set aside and their appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 467 of 1999 is allowed. Krishna Kumar Das and Hira Das are directed to be released forth with unless they are wanted in connection with any other case. C.M.Prasad, J. 41 I agree.