Judgment S.P. Pathak, J.-These three appeals have been filed by the accused-appellants namely, Shah Nawaj, Bashir Khan, Kalu Khan and Munshi Khan alias Munsif Ali against the Judgment and order dated 011.2001 passed by Addl. District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No.69/2001 -State vs. Kalu Khan & Ors., whereby the accused appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:- Accused Appellants Sentence awarded Shah Nawaj, Bashir Khan & Kalu Khan Under Section 302/34, IPC Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.100/-, in default three months R.I. Under Section 201 IPC - 7 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.100/-, in default three months R.I., and Under Section 120-B IPC - Imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.100/-, in default three months R.I.. Munshi Khan alias Munsif AliUnder Section 302 read with Section 120-B IPC- Life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.100/-, in default three months R.I. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present case are that PW. 4 Fareed Khan lodged a written report Exhibit P/1 in the police station, Hanumangarh Junction on 212.1998 at about 5:30 pm stating inter-alia therein that on 212.1998 while he was at home, Shah Nawaz, Kalu Khan and Bashir Khan (hereinafter to be referred as the accused) came there and took with them his son Asgar Ali (to be referred hereinafter as the deceased), to see a movie in Shiv Mandir Theater. At that time his wife and relative Yasin Khan were sitting there in the house. Asgar Ali did not return that night, as such the informant got worried and made search for him in the town but he could not be traced. The accused were also not available in the town and on 212.1998 his nephew PW. 1 Allah Bux told him that on the previous night he had seen accused persons alongwith deceased in the Shiv Mandir Theater, who after the end of the movie was seen going alongwith the accused towards village Jorkia. It was further averred that the informants brother-in-law Barkat Ali (PW. 2) told him that in the noon of 212.1998 accused Kalu Khan met him and told that they have killed Asgar Ali and thrown him in the canal near village Jorkia. He alongwith his relatives made search near the Sadul branch canal but his dead body could not be traced. 2) told him that in the noon of 212.1998 accused Kalu Khan met him and told that they have killed Asgar Ali and thrown him in the canal near village Jorkia. He alongwith his relatives made search near the Sadul branch canal but his dead body could not be traced. It was further stated that his son was betrothed with the daughter of Gulam Nabi and that was the reason for internal enmity of one of the accused namely Munshi Khan because he wanted to marry with Gulam Nabis daughter and therefore they have killed his son and thrown the dead body in the canal. All the accused conspired and murdered his son. 3. On this report Exhibit P/1, Criminal Case No. 562 dated 212.1998 was registered in the police station under Sections 302, 201, and 34 IPC. A regular FIR Exhibit P/2 was chalked out and investigation commenced. 4. During the course of investigation, PW. 15 Hema Ram, the Investigating Officer, arrested the accused persons on 212.1998 in presence of Harlal Singh and Bagi Khan through arrest memo Exhibit P/21 to 23 respectively. The accused appellants in their disclosure statements Exhibit P/24 to P/26 stated that they after seeing the movie killed Asgar Ali by throttling and thereafter threw the dead body in a canal near village Jorkia railway bridge. The body of the deceased was got recovered as per the information of accused through memo Exhibit P/3 in presence of Gulam Nabi, Mohd. Yaar and Gurmel Singh and others, and Exhibit P/4 Fard Surat Hall Lash and Exhibit P/5 Panchayatnama were prepared on 212.1998. Postmortem of the dead body was conducted by PW. 11 Dr. R.K. Gupta. He found ante-mortem injuries on the neck and eye brows of the deceased. The cause of death according to PW. 11 Dr. Rajendra Kumar was asphyxia due to throttling. The Postmortem report is Exhibit P/8. 5. After Postmortem, the dead body was handed over to PW. 4 Fareed Khan -father of deceased through Exhibit P/6. The snaps of the dead body taken by photographer PW. 3 Vijay Kumar are Exhibit P/14 to P/19 and its negatives are Exhibit P/9 to P/13. Site-plan Exhibit P/27 and P/27A were prepared in presence of Gulam Nabi and Mohd. Yaar. The clothes of the deceased were taken, seized and sealed by the police through memo Exhibit P/28. 6. The snaps of the dead body taken by photographer PW. 3 Vijay Kumar are Exhibit P/14 to P/19 and its negatives are Exhibit P/9 to P/13. Site-plan Exhibit P/27 and P/27A were prepared in presence of Gulam Nabi and Mohd. Yaar. The clothes of the deceased were taken, seized and sealed by the police through memo Exhibit P/28. 6. On completion of investigation, challan under Sections 302, 201/34 and 120-B IPC against accused Kalu Khan, Shah Nawaj, Bashir Khan and Munshi Khan was submitted in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh Junction. Munshi Khan was added subsequently as an accused on the charge of conspiracy. The matter came for trial ultimately in the Court of Addl. District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Hanumangarh, where Charges under Sections 302, 201/34 and 120B IPC were framed against accused Kalu, Shah Nawaj and Bashir Khan and a charge under Section 302 read with Section 120-B IPC was framed against Munshi Khan. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial. In support of its case, prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses and tendered 29 documents in evidence. 7. After close of the prosecution evidence, in the statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC accused have stated that they have falsely been implicated in the case. In defence, DW.1 Manoharlal - Assistant Manager of Shiv Mandir Theater has been examined. He has stated that no enquiry was made by the police in relation to the night show dated 212.1998. DW. 2 Bhagirath, who was a person employed at Sadul Canal, in his examination, has stated that police did not make any enquiry from them. DW.3 Hakam Ali is also an employee of Sadul Branch canal. He has stated that no dead body was recovered in his presence. 8. The learned trial Court after hearing both sides, by its impugned Judgment dated 011.2001 in Sessions Case No. 69/2001 convicted and sentenced the accused appellants as indicated hereinabove. 9. Aggrieved by the aforesaid Judgment and order dated 011.2001 three appeals have been filed by the four accused appellants. Since all the appeals arise out of the same Judgment and order dated 011.2001, as such the same are being disposed of by this common Judgment . 10. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellants and also carefully perused and scrutinized the material available on record. Since all the appeals arise out of the same Judgment and order dated 011.2001, as such the same are being disposed of by this common Judgment . 10. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellants and also carefully perused and scrutinized the material available on record. Following submissions were made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-appellants:- 1. There is no eye-witness and the entire case hinges on the circumstantial evidence. 2. The complete chain of circumstances is missing. 3. The learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence brought on record in presuming that since the deceased was seen last in the company of accused persons, the accused were responsible for the murder of the deceased. 4. The statement of PW. 1 Allah Bux is not reliable one as the deceased used to live in the company of the accused persons and they also used to visit the house of the deceased, therefore, to draw an adverse inference against the accused appellants only on the basis that accused alongwith the deceased had gone to see a movie is not correct. 5. No credence is required to be given to the testimony of PW. 1 Allah Bux who has stated that on the day of incident they had seen film “Vajood” whereas as per the Assistant Manager of the theater DW.1 Manoharlal on the day of incident movie “China Gate” was being shown in the theater. 6. There is no basis for alleged extra-judicial confession made by co-accused Kalu before PW. 2 Barkat Ali, who is real maternal uncle (Mama) of Asgar Ali or for that matter Barkat Ali was not a person of that status to whom accused Kalu Khan would make a confession particularly when he was knowing well that Barkat Ali would not be of any help or assistance to him. 7. PW. 8Madad Ali, the another witness regarding extra-judicial confession, is also a cousin of informant PW. 4 Fareed Khan, has cooked up the alleged story of extra-judicial confession. 8. It is unbelievable that all the three accused persons will go and make a joint extra-judicial confession before PW. 8 Madad Ali. 9. There is not an iota of evidence brought on record by the prosecution regarding conspiracy hatched by the accused appellants to commit murder of the deceased. 8. It is unbelievable that all the three accused persons will go and make a joint extra-judicial confession before PW. 8 Madad Ali. 9. There is not an iota of evidence brought on record by the prosecution regarding conspiracy hatched by the accused appellants to commit murder of the deceased. There is no mention of the name of Munshi Khan in the first information report Exhibit P/1 lodged by PW. 4 Fareed Khan, who is said to have conspired with other accused persons, Munshi Khan could not have been convicted with the aid of Section 120-B. 10. It isnot believable that only because of the engagement of the deceased with the daughter of Gulam Nabi, accused Munshi Khan would go to that extent to hatch a conspiracy to kill the deceased and other accused persons will blindly follow accused Munshi Khan even without his presence at the time of committing offence. 11. The learned Counsel for accused appellants in the end of arguments submitted for quashing and setting aside the impugned Judgment of conviction and order of sentence. .12. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the Judgment of learned trial Court and submitted that since the chain of circumstance in the present matter is complete and the findings of guilt recorded with cogent reasons against the accused-appellants, no interference is required to be made by this Court. 13. We have carefully considered the rival submissions made before us. 14. In the present case, the learned trial Court has found that prosecution was able to prove that the deceased was last seen in the company of accused and thereafter the he did not turn up and the extra-judicial confessions made by accused Kalu Khan before PW. 2 Barkat Ali, and by the three accused persons excepting Munshi Khan, jointly before PW. 8 Madad Ali completes the chain of circumstances. 15. Before we proceed with the case, we must see as to what law has developed on the point of circumstantial evidence. 16. In the case reported in 2002 (6) SCC 757 Kuldip Singh & Anr. vs. State of Punjab, an extra-judicial confession was considered to be a weak type of evidence. 8 Madad Ali completes the chain of circumstances. 15. Before we proceed with the case, we must see as to what law has developed on the point of circumstantial evidence. 16. In the case reported in 2002 (6) SCC 757 Kuldip Singh & Anr. vs. State of Punjab, an extra-judicial confession was considered to be a weak type of evidence. In that case the extra-judicial confession was said to be made before a witness who thoroughly stood discredited in his cross-examination and resiled from the version disclosed by him in the course of investigation and recorded under Section 161 and his evidence did not inspire confidence. In addition to that, his evidence when read together with the evidence of the investigating officer created considerable doubt as regards the date on which the accused confessed his guilt and in the circumstances came to the conclusion that prosecution failed to establish the first circumstance in the circumstantial chain. 17. In the case reported in 2003 (8) SCC 180 State of Rajasthan vs. Raja Ram, the Honble Apex Court has observed that circumstantial evidence is not direct to the point in issue but consists of evidence of various other facts which are so closely associated with the fact in issue that taken together they form a chain of circumstances from which the existence of the principal fact can be legally inferred or presumed. It has futher been observed that for a crime to be proved it is not necessary that the crime must be seen to have been committed and must, in all circumstances be proved by direct ocular evidence by examining before the Court those persons who had seen its commission. The offence can be proved by circumstantial evidence also. The principal fact or factum probandum may be proved indirectly by means of certain inferences drawn from factum probans, that is, the evidential facts. Where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or to the guilt of any other person. The circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. The circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. The Honble Court further observed:- “. . . The confession will have to be proved like any other fact. The value of the evidence as to confession, like any other evidence, depends upon the veracity of the witness to whom it has been made. The value of the evidence as to the 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 a weak type of evidence. It would depend on the nature of the circumstances, the time when the confession was made and the credibility of the witnesses who speak to such a confession. Such a confession can be relied upon and conviction can be founded thereon if the evidence about the confession comes from the mouth of a witness who appears to be unbiased, not even remotely inimical to the accused, and in respect of whom nothing is brought out which may tend to indicate that he may have a motive of attributing an untruthful statement to the accused, the words spoken to by the witness are clear, unambiguous and unmistakably convey that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime and nothing is omitted by the witness which may militate against it. After subjecting the evidence of the witness to a rigorous test on the touchstone of credibility, the extra-judicial confession can be accepted and can be the basis of a conviction if it passes the test of credibility. . . The requirement of corroboration is a matter of prudence and not an invariable rule of law. . . . It is improbable that the accused would repose confidence in a person who is inimically disposed towards him, and confess his guilt. 18. In the case reported in 1994 CrLJ 140 State of Haryana vs. Ved Prakash, the circumstance that deceased and accused with spade were seen going towards direction of field at the relevant time and the bodies of deceased were recovered from the field, the Honble Supreme Court observed that such circumstance is not sufficient to connect accused with murder of deceased. The extra-judicial confession made to a stranger was held to be insufficient to establish offence and the accused were acquitted. 19. In AIR 1997 SC 496 Bandlamuddi Atchuta Ramaiah & Ors. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, the Honble Apex Court has observed that a statement contained in the FIR furnished by one of the accused in the case cannot, in any manner, be used against another accused. Even as against the accused who made it, the statement cannot be used if it is inculpatory in nature nor can it be used for the purpose of corroboration or contradiction unless its maker offers himself as a witness in the trial. The very limited use of it is as an admission under Section 21 of the Evidence Act against its maker alone unless the admission does not amount to confession. 20. In the case reported in 2002 (3) RCrD.578 (Raj) Manoj vs. State of Rajasthan, this Court has observed:- “Whether there is any motive or not comes wholly irrelevant and academic when the evidence of eye-witness is credit worthy and is believed by the Court. Presence of motive satisfies judicial mind but its absence only demands deep forensic search and cannot undo the effect of evidence. The motives of man are often subjective, submerged and unamenable to easy proof . In the matter at hand motive for committing crime has been alleged but not proved to our satisfaction. The motive of killing as disclosed by PW. 6 Surendra that deceased had an evil eye on the sister-in-law (Bhabhi) of the accused is also not proved because the deceased was in his teens and age of sister-in-law (Bhabhi) has not been disclosed nor the factum of having illicit relations of deceased with his sister-in-law (Bhabhi) being probed by Investigating officer nor proved in the Court below. Though motive for committing crime is always not necessary but when motive is alleged by the prosecution then if the same is not proved, it adversely affects the case of the prosecution. 21. The Court has further observed: - “Such type of detailed confessions are ordinarily not made by the accused person and more so to the close relatives of deceased. The witness has exaggerated in the Court statement and was confronted with his previous statement Exhibit D/5 and there were material omissions affecting his testimony. 21. The Court has further observed: - “Such type of detailed confessions are ordinarily not made by the accused person and more so to the close relatives of deceased. The witness has exaggerated in the Court statement and was confronted with his previous statement Exhibit D/5 and there were material omissions affecting his testimony. In the Court statement he states that on the day of occurrence Manoj and Hanuman did not go to school which fact was missing in Exhibit D/5. Similarly it was also not mentioned in Exhibit D/5 that 15 days before the occurrence Hanuman deceased came to the house of Manoj where the deceased saw Manoj and his sister-in-law (Bhadhi) joking with each other. This witness has made significant improvements in the Court statement contrary to police statement Exhibit D/5 and being close relative of the deceased his testimony require close scruitiny. In our view both these witnesses are not wholly reliable. Therefore, the extra judicial confession alleged by the prosecution and relied by the Court below is not of sterling worth to base the conviction.” 22. This Court in that case which dealing with last seen evidence observed that the accused immediately prior to the occurrence was seen going with deceased to the school and in proof thereof PW. 9 Prithvi Singh, was examined to prove the above fact who was also admittedly close relative of the deceased and had seen the accused and deceased going together and PW. 10 Phoolaram was examined to prove that the accused alone was coming back to the village. As the witnesses did not disclose the fact to police or anybody else, the Court did not believe the evidence led in that case regarding the last seen. 23. After carefully examining the principles laid down regarding extra-judicial confession and last seen evidence, we now propose to examine the present matter. 24. First we take up the circumstances relied on by the learned trial Court regarding extra-judicial confession. 26. PW. 2 Barkat Ali has stated that five months before recording of his statement in the Court, accused Kale Khan met him near the bus stand Hanumangarh Town in the noon. He asked Kale Khan about Asgar Ali, who had gone with him alongwith other accused person to see a movie previous night. 26. PW. 2 Barkat Ali has stated that five months before recording of his statement in the Court, accused Kale Khan met him near the bus stand Hanumangarh Town in the noon. He asked Kale Khan about Asgar Ali, who had gone with him alongwith other accused person to see a movie previous night. Accused Kale Khan on this got frightened and said that he alongwith other accused killed Asgar Ali and threw him in the canal towards Jorkia. The witness has stated that he told Kale Khan to accompany him but the accused did not accompany him and left the place and boarded in a local bus. This witness has also stated that thereafter he went to his home and when Fareed Khan met him he narrated him whatever was stated by Kalu Khan. The witness has further stated that they made search of the dead body of the deceased but could not find the dead body of deceased. In cross-examination, the witness has stated that the distance between his house and the house of Fareed Khan is very little i.e. only one house is in between their houses. He further stated that on the day Kale Khan made extra-judicial confession before him, he had gone to bus stand without any purpose and was standing there for 15-20 minutes on the outside gate of bus stand near Jain Hospital. Kale Khan himself came to him and he did not ask him from where he had come. It has further been stated by him that the confession made by accused Kale Khan was not conveyed by him to anybody else and he even did not report to the police at the Chowki which was near to the bus-stand. He also stated that PW. 4 Fareed Khan is his real brother-in-law. He has stated that he does not remember the time of coming of Farid Khan and has stated further that they did not go to the police station but made search of the deceased and that the first information report was got written at some other place. When the witness was confronted with the police statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC, he has stated that the deceased was searched alongwith Allah bux and Pappu but why this fact is not mentioned in Exhibit D/1 is not known to him. When the witness was confronted with the police statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC, he has stated that the deceased was searched alongwith Allah bux and Pappu but why this fact is not mentioned in Exhibit D/1 is not known to him. He also stated that no police personnel ever came to him after the FIR was lodged in the police station. 27. After carefully examining the evidence of this witness, it is evident that he is the real brother-in-law (Sala) of PW. 4 Fareed, who is father of the deceased and there appears no reason why accused Kale Khan will confess the guilt before to a close relative of the deceased. It does not sound reasonable that a person without any work at noon time will go to the bus-stand away from his house, stay there for 20 to 30 minutes and will wait till somebody comes there for making a confessional statement. It also creates a doubt in the mind that when there is a very little negligible distance between the houses of PW. 4 Fareed Khan and this witness PW. 2 Barkat Ali, why instead of going straightway to Fareed Khans house he went to his house, which is not a normal conduct in the circumstances. Further, the incident was not reported immediately to the police and it has also not come on record that this witness was ever kept in high esteem by the accused persons so that the accused Kale Khan will depose confidence in him particularly knowing the fact that he was a close relative of the deceased. It also does not appear that accused had any reason to believe that making a confessional statement before him he would be of some help and assistance in the matter to them. In the statement Exhibit D/1 he has not stated the name of other accused persons which he has stated in his statement before the Court. He has not even stated a word about the internal enmity of the accused Munshi Khan with PW. 4 Fareed Khan on account of Gulam Nabis daughters engagement with the deceased particularly in the circumstances he being the closest relative of the deceased. 28. Another witness regarding extra-judicial confession is PW. 8 Madad Ali. He has not even stated a word about the internal enmity of the accused Munshi Khan with PW. 4 Fareed Khan on account of Gulam Nabis daughters engagement with the deceased particularly in the circumstances he being the closest relative of the deceased. 28. Another witness regarding extra-judicial confession is PW. 8 Madad Ali. He has stated in the Court that before 10 months of recording of his statement in the Court, in the morning at about 8 am accused Shah Nawaj, Kale Khan and Bashir came to him and stated that they have committed a mistake. On this, the witness asked him as to what was the mistake. The accused then replied that they have killed Asgar Ali S/o Fareed Khan. It has also been stated by him that accused told that on 212.1998 deceased was done to death by them. The witness when further asked as to what was the reason of killing, the accused persons replied that they have murdered Asgar Ali at the instance of accused Munshi Khan. The witness has stated that the accused persons asked him to help them. He has further stated that accused were asked to accompany him up to the police station but the accused persons got annoyed with the suggestion. The conversation which took place between him and accused persons was conveyed to PW. 4 Fareed Khan by the witness. In cross-examination, he has stated that whatever the accused confessed before him was conveyed to PW. 4 Fareed Khan and Pappu after 5-7 minutes of making the confession by the accused. It has further been stated in the cross-examination that they did not go to police station at that time. He further stated that all the accused came together and confessed the guilt before him. When the witness was confronted with his police statement Exhibit D/4 regarding conveying the entire conversation to PW. 4 Fareed and Pappu which took place between accused and him not being available there, he stated that he did not know why it was not there. The witness has further stated that immediately thereafter they did not go to the police station. This witness is also a close relative of Fareed Khan (PW. 4) but this fact does not find place in his statement Exhibit D/4. The witness has further stated that immediately thereafter they did not go to the police station. This witness is also a close relative of Fareed Khan (PW. 4) but this fact does not find place in his statement Exhibit D/4. The explanation offered in this regard is that when police recorded the statement, he forgotten to tell about the relationship but while giving statement in the Court he could remember it. In the later part of the cross-examination, the witness has stated that he got information about the murder of Asgar Ali in the night at about 10-11 pm. He has stated further that he did not know where the dead body was found. He has also stated that the police statement recorded was not read over to him. In the police statement the detail about what was the mistake committed by the accused does not find place. In the police statement accused asked for help from the witness as stated in the Court also does not find mention. 29. A perusal of the statement of this witness clearly indicates that this witness has not given the correct version before the Court because whatever was stated by the accused while making confession to him has not been stated to have been communicated to PW. 4 Fareed or to anybody else. A detailed enquiry was made by him as stated in the Court from the accused but no communication of the same was made to anybody creates doubt about the correctness of the statement before the Court. In the cross-examination, it has come that in the night of 212.1998 he came to know about the murder of Asgar Ali. This witness has shown ignorance about the fact of post-mortem conducted on the dead body of the deceased, which creates doubts about