JUDGMENT D.G.R. Patnaik, J. 1. The appellant Sudama Singh was charged with, tried and convicted for the offence under Sections 364 of the Indian Penal Code, while appellant Vijoy Shankar Ojha @ Bishnu Ojha was charged with, tried and convicted for the offence under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Chaibasa who vide his judgment dated 14th January 2000 passed in Sessions Trial No. 135 of 1997 has sentenced the appellant Sudama Singh to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code, while sentencing the other appellant Vijoy Shankar Ojha @ Bishnu Ojha to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code who was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five (5) years for the offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. No separate sentence was imposed on him under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code. The case relates to the murder of a minor boy Deepak Kumar @ Sonu aged 10 years. The boy was picked up from near his house when he had gone to see the Durga Idol immersion procession on 22.10.1996. Thereafter his dead body was discovered at a far off place in the morning of 24.10.1996 at a hillock known as Mutra tungri within the village of Jaubera Mouza under the Manjhari Police Station in the district of West Singhbhum. 2. The informant Nathu Sirka (PW15) who was the Munda of village Jaubera, was informed by his co-villager namely, Rengo Sirka in the morning of 24.10.1996 that dead body of an unknown minor boy, aged about 10-11 years, was found lying at Muntra Tungri with several marks of injury on his body. The informant (PW15) accompanied by Rengo Sirka and several other co-villagers went to the place where the dead body of an unknown boy was lying with several injuries on his body. There were bloodstains not only on the body, but also on the earth and on the stone, which was lying by the side of the dead body. The informant (PW15) accompanied by Rengo Sirka and several other co-villagers went to the place where the dead body of an unknown boy was lying with several injuries on his body. There were bloodstains not only on the body, but also on the earth and on the stone, which was lying by the side of the dead body. Some of the villagers informed that on 22/23-10.1996 at about 11-12 midnight, they had seen a Maruti Car crossing the village along the road and after about half an hour, the car returned through the village, but due to darkness, no one could observe the registration number of the vehicle. Since police station was far off at a distance of about 30 KM and due to late hours of night, the informant (PW15) could not send the information to the police promptly. He along with the co- villagers kept vigil near the dead body throughout the night. On the next morning at about 6.00 AM, Officer-in-charge (PW18) of the concerned police station along with other police personnel visited the village, saw the dead body and recorded the statement of the informant as his fardbeyan. The police officer (PW18) conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased and prepared his inquest report in presence of witnesses. Thereafter, the dead body was forwarded to the police station. The blood stained earth which was found at the place where the dead body was lying, was seized and the seizure list was prepared in presence of the witnesses. The identity of the dead body could not be ascertained, nor was the clothes of the Victim found anywhere nearby. It was apparent that the boy was murdered and after stripping him naked, the assailants had abandoned his dead body at a lonely place and had taken away his clothes. The police officer (PW18) relayed the information regarding recovery of a dead body to all the police stations on the same day. On 25.10.1996 at about 4.00 PM, some residents of Adityapur including Satyanarayan Lal (PW17) appeared at the police station and identified the dead as being that of his grandson Deepak Kumar @ Sonu. The investigating officer (PW18) recorded the statement of Satyanarayan Lal (PW17) and thereafter forwarded the dead body of the deceased boy to the Sadar Hospital, Chaibasa for postmortem examination. The investigating officer (PW18) recorded the statement of Satyanarayan Lal (PW17) and thereafter forwarded the dead body of the deceased boy to the Sadar Hospital, Chaibasa for postmortem examination. In course of his investigation the investigating officer (PW18) visited the R.I.T. (Adityapur) police station and noted down the police station diary entry dated 23.10.1996, which was made on the basis of missing report of the boy, lodged by PW17. The investigating officer (PW18) received information from the residents of village Ganjia regarding the details of a Maruti Car which was referred to by the informant in his fardbeyan, and after tracing out the owner of the car, namely, Sajiv Dwevedi and Jitendra Pandey (PW10) and (PW11), he recorded their respective statements and on the basis of the information given by them, he arrested the appellants Vijoy Shankar Ojha @ Bishnu Ojha and Sudama Singh on 27.10.1996 at Adityapur and he also seized the Maruti Car bearing registration No. BR-18-3130, which was found parked in front of the house of Vijoy Shankar Ojha (appellant). Besides the car, the investigating officer had also seized one old tape recorder and a pair of plastic toy goggles from the dickey of the car. On the basis of the statement of the witnesses, recorded by him, the investigating officer submitted charge sheet making out a case against the present appellants that they along with Bimal Kerai and Konda Gope @ Jagannath Gope and others had entered into a conspiracy to kidnap the deceased Deepak Kumar @ Sonu and in furtherance of conspiracy and common intention, appellants with the help of their aforesaid other associates, had kidnapped the boy from near his house, took him in the aforesaid maruti car, killed him and dumped his dead body at the place from where it was subsequently recovered. The tyre marks found in the mud near the dead body, led to the inference that the deceased was taken on the seized car and his dead body was dumped at a lonely place. The tyre marks found in the mud near the dead body, led to the inference that the deceased was taken on the seized car and his dead body was dumped at a lonely place. Statement of the witnesses who had seen the Maruti Car passing through the village in the night of 23.10.1996 and the statement of the witnesses who had occasion to see the Maruti Car and noted clown its registration number and had also seen and identified both the appellants, was taken together by the investigating officer (PW18), to draw his inference that the victim boy was taken in the Maruti Car, of which the appellant Vijoy Shankar Ojha was the driver and the appellant Sudama Singh was the associate of Vijoy Shankar Ojha in kidnapping the victim. 3. The appellants had pleaded not guilty to the charges and had claimed to have been falsely implicated in this case. 4. At the trial, prosecution had examined altogether 18 witnesses including the informant Nathu Sirka (PW15), Satyanarayan Lal (PW17), grandfather of the deceased boy, Nitu Sinha (PW17), cousin sister of the deceased boy. Sanjiv Dwevedi (PW10) and Jitendra Pandey (PW11) who are the joint owners of the Marti Van, Dilip Sharma (PW5) who was the seizure witness of Maruti Van bearing registration No. BR-18-3130, old tape recorder and plastic toy goggles. The list of witnesses includes PW4 and PW8, who had identified the deceased boy, PW9, PW12 and PW14, who had identified the Maruti Van bearing registration No. BR-18-3130 as being the vehicle which was found stuck in the mud, they had also identified the present appellants, as being the occupants of the car, who had sought help of these witnesses to pull out the vehicle from the mud. 5. The trial court on considering the evidences adduced by the prosecution, had placed reliance on the testimony of PW17 and PW16, both of whom are near relations of the deceased boy and had placed further reliance upon the testimonies of PW9, PW12 and PW14 read with the statements of the investigating officer (PW18) and that of the doctor (PW13) who had conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. The trial court, for the reasons assigned, had recorded its finding of guilt against both the appellants for the offences under Sections 302, 364, 201 and 34 of the Indian penal Code and sentenced them for the offences as mentioned above. 6. Assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, learned Counsels arguing on behalf of both the appellants claim that the judgment of conviction, as recorded by the trial court, is totally misconceived, erroneous, against the evidences on record and without any reasonable basis. It is further submitted that the finding of guilt, as recorded by the trial court, is based entirely on conjectures and surmises. Elaborating their arguments, learned Counsel submit that the case of the prosecution is based entirely on circumstantial evidence, since there is no direct evidence against either of the appellants for the murder of the deceased. Learned Counsel explain that the trial court has erred in placing reliance upon the testimonies of PW16 and PW17 as well as on the testimonies of PW9, PW12 and PW14 and by conjecture and surmises, inferring that the deceased was kidnapped by the appellants and taken in the Maruti Van, of which the appellant Vijoy Shankar Ojha was the driver and was murdered and later his dead body dumped at a far off place from which it was recovered subsequently. Explaining further, learned Counsel adds that the trial court has erred in placing reliance upon the testimony of PW17 who claims that the victim boy was taken by the present appellants from his house on 22.10.1996, without considering the fact that such statement of PW17 was made for the first time in course of evidence recorded at the trial, although no such statement was made by him earlier before the investigating officer. Learned Counsel adds further that except such improved statement of PW17, no other witnesses examined by the prosecution has come forward to identify the appellant Sudama Singh. Learned Counsel argues further that even if the evidence of PW9, PW12 and PW14 are accepted, their evidence do not offer any conclusive link between the appellants and the murder of the deceased. Learned Counsel adds further that except such improved statement of PW17, no other witnesses examined by the prosecution has come forward to identify the appellant Sudama Singh. Learned Counsel argues further that even if the evidence of PW9, PW12 and PW14 are accepted, their evidence do not offer any conclusive link between the appellants and the murder of the deceased. It is further submitted on behalf of the appellant Sudama Singh that the appellant Sudama Singh was not convicted for the offence under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, nor under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and, therefore, conviction of the appellant Sudama Singh for the offence under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained against him, as because prosecution has failed to prove that the appellant Sudama Singh had kidnapped the minor boy with intention to commit his murder. 7. Learned Counsel for the State, on the other hand, while arguing in support of the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of both the appellants, has tried to controvert the grounds raised by the appellants by placing reliance upon the testimonies of PW17 and that of PW9, PW12 and PW14 in particular. 8. Considering the rival arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants and learned Counsel for the State, it appears that the appellants have not raised any dispute regarding the fact that the deceased Deepak Kumar @ Sonu had suffered homicidal death. The evidence of the doctor (PW13), Dr. Jawahar Khan, who had conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased boy, confirms that the deceased had suffered homicidal death. The doctor has found following ante mortem injuries on the dead body of the deceased. I. Both eyes badly lacerated. II. Lacerated wounds measuring 1x x brain substance 1 x x brain substance, 1x x brain substance. Protrusion of brain substance on forehead above eye was fracture of frontal brain. III. Head was badly smashed. Death was the result of shock and hemorrhage on account of the above injuries, which were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance, such as stone. Time elapsed since the death and till the postmortem examination was within 72 hours. III. Head was badly smashed. Death was the result of shock and hemorrhage on account of the above injuries, which were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance, such as stone. Time elapsed since the death and till the postmortem examination was within 72 hours. The postmortem examination was conducted by the doctor on 26.10.1996 and the time of death, as opined by the doctor, corresponds to the evidence of the witnesses that the boy, who was found missing since the evening of 22.10.1996, was murdered thereafter and his dead body was abandoned and almost two days later, the dead body was discovered by the witnesses at village Jaubera. 9. As stated by the learned Counsel for the State, the prosecutions case rests on the testimonies of PW16 and PW17, both of whom are the near relations of the deceased (cousin sister and grand father respectively). It also rests on the testimonies of PW9, PW12 and PW14 and that of the investigating officer (PW18). 10. From the evidence of Satyanaryan Lal (PW17), who is the grand father of the deceased and that of Nitu Sinha (PW16), who is the cousin sister of the deceased, it appears that the deceased boy was found missing since after evening of 22.10.1996. According to PW16, the boy had gone to see the Durga idol procession, which was taken out in the locality for immersion at the river. PW16 who had also gone to see the immersion, had seen the boy at about 5.30 PM at the Puja Pandal. She returned home, but the boy did not return. Thereafter, the family members made search for the boy at several places, but he could not be traced. PW17 lodged a missing report at the nearby Adityapur police station on the same day. Evidence of both these witnesses, to this extent, is consistent on the ground that they had made their respective statements before the investigating officer. However, PW17 had made an improvement over his earlier statement by claiming that in the afternoon of 22.10.1996 at about 4.00 PM both the appellants, who happen to be the residents of the same locality and well acquainted with the family, had come to his house and had taken the deceased Deepak Kumar @ Sonu along with them for showing him the fair at the Durga Puja Pandal. The investigating officer has confirmed that the witness, namely, PW17 did not make any such statement before him earlier and neither has PW16 claimed to have heard from her grand father (PW17) that the deceased boy was taken from the house of PW17 by the appellants in the afternoon of 22.10.1996. This part of the statement of PW17 is, therefore, to be considered as unreliable. The reason as to why PW17 had made such improved statement in his deposition against the appellants, is answered by PW17 himself who claims that it was on the next morning that he read in the newspaper that the appellants along with the other named persons had kidnapped and murdered the deceased boy. Apparently, it was his belief on the basis of the newspaper reporting, which had prompted him to make above stated improvement in his deposition at the trial. It is significant to note that though, PW16 has stated that she had seen the deceased Deepak Kumar @ Sonu at the fair in the evening of 22.10.1996, but she does not confirm to have seen either of the present appellants at the fair or along with the deceased boy. Next is the statement of the witnesses of the village Jaubera including the informant (PW15) who have claimed that on the night of 23/24-10.1996, they had seen a Maruti Car crossing the village along the road towards the east and returning after about half an hour along the same road. These witnesses admit that they had not seen the registration number of the car, nor do they give any further description of the car. Evidences of PW9, PW12 and PW14 is that in the evening of 23.10.1996 at about 8.30 PM, they saw a Maruti Van bearing registration No. BR-18-3130 stuck in the mud on the road leading to Jaubera village. The occupants of the car solicited help of these witnesses for removing the car out of the mud. These witnesses helped in taking out the car from the mud and at that time, they had occasion to see and identify the appellant Vijoy Shankar Ojha as the driver of the car. One of these witnesses namely, PW14 had also seen a minor boy sitting in the car and listening to music on the tape recorder. Significantly, none of these witnesses claim to identify the appellant Sudama Singh among the occupants of the car. One of these witnesses namely, PW14 had also seen a minor boy sitting in the car and listening to music on the tape recorder. Significantly, none of these witnesses claim to identify the appellant Sudama Singh among the occupants of the car. From the evidence of the investigating officer (PW18), it appears that it was on the basis of the description of Maruti Van, as given by these witnesses, that he traced out the identities of the owners of the car and from their statements, he traced out the name and identity of the appellant Vijoy Shankar Ojha as being the driver of the car, PW4 and PW16 had also confirmed that the appellant Vijoy Shankar Ojha was the person employed as the driver of the aforesaid car. The investigating officer (PW18) has claimed that he had seized the aforesaid car and along with the vehicle, he had also seized a tape recorder of the car and a plastic toy goggles. Learned Counsel for the State strenuously argued that the above facts clearly indicate definite circumstance, which lead to the inference that the victim boy was kidnapped and taken on the Maruti Van bearing registration No. BR 18 3130 by its driver namely, Vijoy Shankar Ojha, since it was this vehicle which was seen by PW9, PW12 and PW14 near the village Jaubera who had also seen the victim boy sitting in the car on the evening of 23.10.1996 and the fact that the witnesses of village Jaubera had seen the Maruti Car proceeding towards Mutra Tungri (hillock) lying on the east of the village on night of 23.10.1996, lends further support to the above inference against the appellant Vijoy Shankar Ojha. Learned Counsel points out further that the statement of PW17 further confirms that it was the present appellants who had taken away the victim boy from his house in the afternoon of 22.10.1996 on the pretext of showing him the fair and thereafter, the deceased boy was not seen alive. The argument of the learned Counsel for the State though persuasive, but is not convincing enough to draw conclusive inference of guilt against the appellants. As stated above, the evidence of PW17 wherein he has claimed that the present appellants had taken away the victim boy from his house, is not reliable. The argument of the learned Counsel for the State though persuasive, but is not convincing enough to draw conclusive inference of guilt against the appellants. As stated above, the evidence of PW17 wherein he has claimed that the present appellants had taken away the victim boy from his house, is not reliable. No other witness has come forward to claim that in the afternoon or in the evening hours of 22.10.1996, the victim boy was seen in the company of either of the present appellants. The witnesses of Jaubera village who had seen the Maruti Car crossing the village along the road and proceeding towards the east in the night of 23.10.1996, have not given any detailed description of the car either by reference to its registration number or even by reference to its make or model. The evidences of PW9, PW12 and PW14 though specify the registration number of the Maruti Van and confirm identity of the appellant Vijoy Shankar Ojha as its driver and have indicated that a minor boy was also seen by the witnesses as one of the occupants of the car on the late evening of 23.10.1996, does not offer any vital connecting link between the deceased boy and the appellant Vijoy Shankar Ojha. The Evidences of PW9, PW12 and PW14 do not confirm that it was the deceased Deepak Kumar whom they had seen as an occupant of the Maruti Van. These witnesses were not called for identifying the dead body of the deceased after recovery of the dead body. The recovery of pair of plastic toy goggles from the dickey of the Maruti Van, also does not offer any vital link, since no witness has come forward to claim that the toy goggles belonged to the deceased. The discovery of tyre marks at and around the place from where the dead body was recovered, could have been significant piece of evidence, had the investigating officer compared the tyre marks with the marks of the trye of the Maruti Van which he had seized, but no such effort was made by the investigating officer in course of his investigation. No doubt, the pieces of evidence mentioned above, do create strong suspicion of involvement of appellant Vijoy Shankar Ojha in the crime, but in absence of a continuous connecting link in the chain of circumstances, no conclusive inference can be drawn against the appellants eliminating every possible doubt. Further more, where case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence, motive for the murder forms an essential part of the evidence. In the instant case, prosecution has not offered any motive whatsoever against the present appellants for the murder of the deceased boy. 11. On scrutiny of the entire evidence on record, it appears that the prosecution has not led any cogent and reliable evidence to confirm that the present appellants had kidnapped the deceased boy, nor is there any such reliable evidence to confirm that the appellant Vijoy Shankar Ojha was involved in the murder of the deceased boy or even in dumping the dead body of the deceased and abandoning the same at a far off place from where it was subsequently recovered. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellants, finding of guilt against the appellants, as recorded by the trial court, appears to be on the basis of conjecture and surmises and without proper appreciation of the evidence on record. 12. For the reasons mentioned above, both these appeals are allowed and the judgment of conviction and sentence, as passed by the trial court against the appellants, is hereby set aside and both the appellants are acquitted of the charges. The appellant Sudama Singh, who is on bail, is absolved from the liability of his bail bond. The appellant Vijoy Shankar Ojha @ Bishnu Ojha, who is in custody, is directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.