Judgment J.R. Goyal, J.- Accused appellants Ranglal and Komal Bai have filed this appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging their conviction and sentence under Section 302 read with Sections 120-B and 201, IPC whereunder the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aklera passed the sentence of imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default whereof to suffer sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section 120-B, IPC and seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default one years rigorous imprisonment under Section 201, IPC. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that PW.1 Amar Lal Meena, Sarpanch, Grampanchayat Kamkhera submitted a written report Exhibit P-1 to the SHO, Police Station Jawar on 13.06.1997 that one decomposed body is found in the "Nalah; which is about at a one farlang distance from Kamkhera temple. On this, "Marg report was registered and proceedings under Section 174, CrPC were initiated. Site sketch Exhibit P-2 was prepared. Photographs of the dead body were taken and Panchayatnama of the dead body of unknown person Exhibit P-3 was also prepared on 13.06.1997 and on the same day one pair of plastic shoes was seized from the place of incident vide Exhibit P-4. Other articles including one piece of gullet chain, broken pieces of glass bangles etc. were also seized from the place of occurrence vide Exhibit P-5. Samples of blood stained soil and control soil were also taken vide Exhibit P-5. Autopsy on the dead body was conducted on 14.06.1997 by a team of doctors including Dr. M.S. Khan PW.27 and postmortem report Exhibit P-25 was prepared. During the course of inquest/investigation, extract copy of FIR Exhibit P-34 was received from Police Station Dharnawada, Madhya Pradesh which was submitted by Champalal PW.6 at the outpost Roothiai to the effect that his son Gopal was married with Komal Bai, resident of Rajnakheri. Recently one Ranglal cousin of Komal Bai came in the village Pagara and told Gopal that aunt of Komal Bai is performing religious katha in her village Rampuria. On this Gopal after informing his father left for Rampuria alongwith his wife Komal Bai and Ranglal eight day ago but their whereabouts are not known. 3. After receiving the postmortem report, Police Station Jawar, District Jhalawar registered formal FIR Exhibit P-27 on 27.06.1997 under Sections 302 and 201, IPC. On this Gopal after informing his father left for Rampuria alongwith his wife Komal Bai and Ranglal eight day ago but their whereabouts are not known. 3. After receiving the postmortem report, Police Station Jawar, District Jhalawar registered formal FIR Exhibit P-27 on 27.06.1997 under Sections 302 and 201, IPC. Accused appellants Komal Bai and Ranglal were arrested on 28.09.1997 vide their arrest memo Exhibit P-28 and Exhibit P-29 respectively. On the information of the accused Ranglal Exhibit P-30 and information given by Smt. Komal Bai Exhibit P-31 one wooden saliya of bullock cart was recovered vide Exhibit P-6 and site map of the place of recovery Exhibit P-7 was also prepared. On the information of accused Ranglal one citizen watch was also recovered vide Exhibit P-11. Two silver kari were also seized vide Exhibit P-12 on production by Babu Lal PW. 10. Seized articles, one pair of plastic shoes and wooden saliya of bullock cart were also got identified in the presence of ACJM, Aklera and memo of test identification of the articles Exhibit P-26 was prepared. Accused Komal Bai was medically examined and one bangle of Komal Bai was also recovered vide Exhibit P-3. After usual investigation charge-sheet was filed. 4. The trial Court framed the charges for the offence under Sections 397,302, 201 and 120-B, Indian Penal Code against the accused appellants. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. In support of its case the prosecution examined as many as 28 witnesses namely PW.1 Amar Lal, PW.2 Kanhaiya Lal, PW. 3 Mannalal, PW. 4 Babulal, PW. 5 Kedarlal, PW. 6 Champalal, PW. 7 Govind Singh, PW.8 Murli Manohar, PW.9 Kanhaiya Lal, PW. 10 Babulal, PW. 11 Shyam Kumar, PW. 12 Chautmal, PW. 13 Kahsi Ram, PW. 14 Hari Shankar Bhargava, ASI, PW. 15 Heeralal, PW. 16 Ganga Bai, PW. 17 Gulab Bai, PW.18 Jamna Lal, PW. 19 Babu Lal, PW. 20 Devlal, PW.21 Kalyan Singh, Constable, PW. 22 Dr. Hemant Sharma, PW. 23 Moolchand, PW. 24 Bhanwarlal, PW. 25 Ram Raj ASI, PW. 26 Babulal Vaishnav ACJM, PW. 27 Dr. M.S. Khan and PW.28 Tej Singh Hada. Prosecution also relied on the documents Exhibit P-1 to Exhibit P-34 in support of its case. 6. Statements of accused appellants were recorded under Section 313, CrPC. In defence, Sukhlal DW.1 was examined. 7. 23 Moolchand, PW. 24 Bhanwarlal, PW. 25 Ram Raj ASI, PW. 26 Babulal Vaishnav ACJM, PW. 27 Dr. M.S. Khan and PW.28 Tej Singh Hada. Prosecution also relied on the documents Exhibit P-1 to Exhibit P-34 in support of its case. 6. Statements of accused appellants were recorded under Section 313, CrPC. In defence, Sukhlal DW.1 was examined. 7. Learned trial Judge after trial having acquitted the accused appellants for the offence under Section 397, IPC, convicted and sentenced them as stated here-in-above. 8. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellants and learned Public Prosecutor and have perused the entire material evidence on record. 9. Admittedly, there is no ocular evidence of the incident and the entire edifice of the prosecution case is rested on the circumstantial evidence. 10. It is settled proposition of law that in a case which is purely based on circumstantial evidence, it has to be examined minutely that the circumstances relied upon should be of conclusive nature and they should exclude every possibility of hypothesis except that one of guilt and the chain of evidence is so complete which unmistakably point to the only conclusion that the accused and none other perpetrated the alleged crime. The Honble Supreme Court in the series of Judgment s time and again reiterated the basic principles and parameters for evaluating the circumstantial evidence. .11. Reference may be made to the Judgment rendered by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622 , in which their Lordships have held that following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused based on circumstantial evidence can be said to be fully established. 1. the circumstancesfrom which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned must or should and not may be established; 2. the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; 3. the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; 4. they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and 5. the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; 4. they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and 5. there must be a chain of evidence to complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused." 12. In the case of State of Haryana vs. Ved Prakash, AIR 1994 SC 468 , it has been further observed that the Court should adopt cautious approach for basing conviction on circumstantial evidence. .13. In the instant case the prosecution placed reliance on the following kind of circumstantial evidence. .(i) Pair of plastic shoes of Gopal was found near the dead body. .(ii) Deceased Gopal was last seen with accused Komal Bai and Ranglal. .(iii) The alleged weapon of offence blood stained Kharla was recovered on the information of the accused appellants. .(iv) Broken pieces of bangles were seized from the place of incident. .(v) Accused appellants Komal Bai and Ranglal were having illicit relations. 14. In the light of the settled law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court it has to be examined that whether circumstantial evidence relied upon by the prosecution unmistakably point to the only conclusion that the accused appellants Ranglal and Komal Bai and none other is involved in the crime? 15. First of all crucial point for consideration is whether dead body recovered from the Nalah situated at the outskirt of village Kamkhera was that of Gopal? In this regard one fact is abundantly clear form the Panchayatnama Exhbiit P-3 prepared on 13.06.1997 that the dead body of an unknown person was not only decomposed at a very advanced stage, but also badly damaged by the animals. In this context postmortem report Exhibit P-25 is also very significant which was prepared by a team of the doctors consisting of Dr. M.S. Khan PW. 27, Dr. Nitish Sharma and Dr. S.D. Sharma who conducted postmortem on the dead body on next day i.e. 14.06.1997. Dr. M.S. Khan (PW. 27) deposed that unknown person died on account of fracture of his frontal bone. He also stated that dead body was putrified and highly decomposed. He further stated that marks of identification were not found due to advanced stage of putrification. S.D. Sharma who conducted postmortem on the dead body on next day i.e. 14.06.1997. Dr. M.S. Khan (PW. 27) deposed that unknown person died on account of fracture of his frontal bone. He also stated that dead body was putrified and highly decomposed. He further stated that marks of identification were not found due to advanced stage of putrification. It is also clear that none identified the dead body at the spot as well the photograph of the dead body thereafter. In such a case where dead body was found in the advanced stage of decomposition and badly damaged by the animals, the prosecution is required to established its identity beyond any shadow of doubt. 16. On the point of identification, prosecution relied upon the sole circumstance of recovery of one pair of plastic shoes lying nearby the dead body. The prosecution produced Champalal (PW.6) and Govind Singh (PW.7) to prove the identification of pair of plastic shoes. Champalal (PW.6) did not state that he identified the pair of shoes and the same belonged to his son Gopal. Govind Singh (PW.7) stated that he identified the shoes and watch of Gopal but in cross-examination, he deposed that the shoes and watch were shown to them by the police when they went to Police Station Jawar. The identification proceedings were carried out by PW. 26 Sh. Babulal Vaishnav ACJM who deposed that similar type of shoes could not be mixed with the pair of shoes to be identified on account of non-availability, while contrary to it the Investigating Officer Tej Singh Hada (PW.28) stated that such shoes are ordinarily available in the market. Thus, it transpires that test identification of the shoes was conducted in a casual manner without taking any precaution and following the proper procedure. Thus, in view of above discussion PW. 6 Champalal father of the deceased Gopal, did not identify the said pair of shoes while oral testimony of PW. 7 Govind Singh is not reliable at all. 17. On the basis of above evidence it is not proved that allegedly recovered pair of shoes belongs to deceased Gopal. As such, in our opinion it is not safe to hold that the dead body recovered from the Nalah was that of Gopal. 18. 7 Govind Singh is not reliable at all. 17. On the basis of above evidence it is not proved that allegedly recovered pair of shoes belongs to deceased Gopal. As such, in our opinion it is not safe to hold that the dead body recovered from the Nalah was that of Gopal. 18. Next circumstance on which the prosecution relied upon was that the deceased was last seen with the accused appellants as they went together from village Pagara to attend the programme of religious Katha at village Rampuria. To prove this circumstance the prosecution placed reliance on the evidence of Champalal (PW.6), Govind Singh (PW.7), Heeralal (PW.15) and Ganga Bai (PW.16). Champalal (PW.6) deposed that his son Gopal was marred with Komal Bai according to Nata system, that Komal Bai after marriage stayed in their house for two days. Thereafter, Ranglal came and told about the programme of religious Katha at the residence of his aunt and persuaded Gopal to go there alongwith his wife Komal. On this, Gopal, Komal and Ranglal went together from the village but in cross-examination Champalal deposed that Ranglal did not go alongwith Gopal and Komal. Further, he stated that Ranglal left village Pagara two days before the departure of Gopal and Komal. He also admittd that he did not see Gopal and Komal going by bus. Another star witness of prosecution Govind Singh (PW.7) deposed that only one week ago Komal Bai was brought in their house after performing Nata marriage with his brother Gopal. Komal Bai stayed in their house for two nights and went back to her maternal house. Thereafter, Ranglal came in their village and told Gopal to bring Komal. On this, Gopal went and brought Komal at his residence in village Pagara. He further stated that two days thereafter on saying by Ranglal about the programme of religious Katha at the residence of their aunt Gopal, Ranglal and Komal went from Pagara. In his cross-examination, changing the earlier version Govind Singh deposed that only Gopal and Komal went from their house and Ranglal was not with them. Further, he stated that Ranglal went form the village Pagara two days ago. Next prosecution witness Heeralal (PW.15) who is uncle of Gopal also stated about the Nata marriage of Gopal with Komal Bai. In his cross-examination, changing the earlier version Govind Singh deposed that only Gopal and Komal went from their house and Ranglal was not with them. Further, he stated that Ranglal went form the village Pagara two days ago. Next prosecution witness Heeralal (PW.15) who is uncle of Gopal also stated about the Nata marriage of Gopal with Komal Bai. He further narrated the same story that Ranglal came and persuaded to go to attend the religious Katha being performed at the residence of their aunt. He also stated that when he was going to village Ghaghari he saw Gopal sitting on the road alongwith Komal Bai. On his asking, Gopal told that on arrival of Ranglal they will go. In cross-examination, Heeralal admitted that he did not see Ranglal in their village. Further, he stated that Ranglal did not speak in his presence anything about the programme of religious Katha. The last witness of this circumstance is Ganga Bai (PW.16) who was declared hostile and she did not support to the prosecution case. Thus, on the minute evaluation of the statements of the above witnesses it is clear that their statements were self contradictory and also not supported by any independent witnesses. Further, from their statements it transpires that Ranglal did not accompany Gopal and Komal, rather he was not in the village Pagara on the day when Gopal and Komal are said to have left village Pagara. It is also significant to note that Champalal (PW.6), Govind Singh (PW.7) who are father and brother of Gopal respectively did not narrate the exact date when Gopal went from the village Pagara alongwith the accused appellants. Champalal (PW .6) in his report given at the outpost Roothiai, Police Station Dharnawada on 18.06.1997 revealed that his son Gopal left the village Pagara with Ranglal and Komal Bai on Wednesday i.e., eight days ago. Thus, according to Champalal, Gopal and other accused appellants went from the village Pagara on 11.06.1997 while as per the postmortem report Exhibit P-26 dated 14.06.1997 the duration of the death of the deceased was about 5 to 7 days ago. It means that the time of the death of the deceased fallsin between07.06.1997 to 09.06.1997. Therefore, last seen evidence is also highly doubtful. 19. It means that the time of the death of the deceased fallsin between07.06.1997 to 09.06.1997. Therefore, last seen evidence is also highly doubtful. 19. Next circumstance relied on by the prosecution was recovery of stick of Bambool wood (Bambool ki lakdi) on the information of the accused appellants Ranglal and Komal Bai. To prove this circumstance apart from the Investigating Officer Tej Singh Hada (PW.28), prosecution has produced Amar Lal Meena (PW.1), Sarpanch, Panchayat Kamkhera and Babulal (PW.4). Amar Lal (PW.1) deposed that near the dead body one stick of Bambool wood was lying. He specifically stated that stick of wood was not recovered from the accused. This start witness of the prosecution who lodged the FIR does not support the prosecution case to prove the circumstance of recovery of stick of Bambool wood, rather his statement is contrary to the prosecution theory of recovery of stick on the information of the accused appellants. This witness has not been declared hostile nor he was subjected to cross-examination by the prosecution. Another witness Babulal (PW.4) also does not support the prosecution case about the recovery of the stick of Bambool wood on the information of the accused appellants. He did not depose anything about such recovery. It will be useful to refer the statement of Kanhaiya Lal (PW.2) who is also a witness of Panchnama and recovery of the dead body. He deposed that when he saw the dead body at the site one stick (Lakdi Ka Kharla) was lying near the dead body. Thus, in view of the said oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses Amar Lal Meena (PW.1), Kanhaiya Lal (PW.2) and Babulal (PW. 4) and the statement made by the Investigating Officer about the recovery from the open place on the information of the accused appellants, It is not found proved that alleged recovery was made upon any information of the accused appellants. Otherwise also, so called recovery of Kharla-stick of wood cannot be used against the accused appellants since it has not been proved by any evidence that the said Kharla was used in the commission of the offence. 20. Next piece of evidence relates to recovery of bangles from the place of occurrence. To prove this circumstance prosecution has produced Mannalal (PW.3) and Babulal (PW. 4). Babulal (PW. 4) stated that pieces of glass bangle were seized vide Exhibit 5 while Mannalal (PW. 20. Next piece of evidence relates to recovery of bangles from the place of occurrence. To prove this circumstance prosecution has produced Mannalal (PW.3) and Babulal (PW. 4). Babulal (PW. 4) stated that pieces of glass bangle were seized vide Exhibit 5 while Mannalal (PW. 3) deposed in cross-examination that pieces of bangles were of different colour. In our opinion such evidence of seizure of pieces of bangles lying near dead body is not a piece of incriminating evidence against the accused appellants for the simple reason that it was not proved by any sort of evidence that the bangle pieces belong to any of accused appellants. 21. It was also the case of prosecution that the accused appellants Ranglal and Komal Bai were having intimacy and illicit relations, therefore, they wanted to remove Gopal-husband of Komal Bai and thus they had motive. For this circumstance, the prosecution has relied on the statement of Champalal (PW.6) and Govind Singh (PW.7) as already pointed out that Champalal and Govind Singh are respectively father and brother and Gopal. As per Champalal, accused Ranglal and Komal were having illicit relations but in cross-examination he admits that Ranglal is a cousin of Komal. Govind Singh deposed that accused appellants Komal and Ranglal were showing themselves as brother and sister but actually they were having relations of wife and husband but in cross-examination he admits that Ranglal is a cousin of Komal Bai. Further, he stated that he did not see them living as a wife and husband. Thus, from these statements it cannot be inferred that accused appellants Ranglal and Komal Bai were having intimacy and illicit relations. Other witnesses namely Jamna Lal (PW.18), Babulal (PW.19), Devlal (PW.20) and Moolchand (PW.23) were declared hostile as they did not support the prosecution case. They did not throw any light in regard to the intimacy in between Ranglal and Komal Bai. In such cases motive also plays a vital role but in the instant case Govind Singh (PW . 7) admits in cross-examination that he did not see any quarrel in between Gopal and Komal Bai. Thus, in our view the prosecution has utterly failed to prove this circumstance of having intimacy and illicit relations between Ranglal and Komal Bai. In such cases motive also plays a vital role but in the instant case Govind Singh (PW . 7) admits in cross-examination that he did not see any quarrel in between Gopal and Komal Bai. Thus, in our view the prosecution has utterly failed to prove this circumstance of having intimacy and illicit relations between Ranglal and Komal Bai. Therefore, all the above mentioned five circumstances do not connect the accused appellants with the crime and the finding of the trial Court deserves to be set aside. 22. As a result of above discussion, we allow the instant appeal and set aside the Judgment dated May 19, 2000 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Aklera District Jhalawar and acquit the appellants Ranglal and Komal Bai of the charges under Sections 302 read with 120-B and 201, IPC. The appellant Komal Bai is on bail, she need not surrender and her bail bonds stand discharged. The appellant Ranglal, who is in jail, shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case.