Honble SHARMA, J.–Ram Niwas and Jafru, the appellants herein, along with Ram Kumar and Bahadur were indicted before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Shahpura District Jaipur in Sessions Case No. 15/1999. Learned Judge vide Judgment dated February 12, 2001 convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:– Ram Niwas: U/s. 302 IPC: To suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer three months simple imprisonment. U/s. 201 IPC: To suffer imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer one month simple imprisonment. U/s. 364 IPC: To suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer one month simple imprisonment. Jafaru: U/s. 364 IPC: To suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer one month simple imprisonment. Substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. Co-accused Ram Kumar and Bahadur were convicted under section 411 IPC, but released under the Probation of Offenders Act. (2). It is the prosecution case that a written report (Ex.P-4) was lodged on February 8, 1999 with the Police Station Virat Nagar by informant Jagdish Prasad (Pw.3). It was interalia stated in the report that Ram Niwas made a confession that he killed a woman of Maiv community who came at the pursuation of Jafru and buried the dead body under the bank of river. The report further disclosed that Ram Niwas and Jafru both had illicit relations with the woman. On the basis of said report a case was registered for the offences under sections 302 and 201 read with 34 IPC and investigation commenced. Statements of witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded, accused were arrested, dead body of Farida got recovered, autopsy on the dead body was performed, necessary memos were drawn and on completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Shahpura District Jaipur. Charges under sections 302, 201, 366 and 394 IPC were framed. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 48 witnesses. In the explanation under section 313 Cr.P.C. the appellants claimed innocence. Appellant Ram Niwas stated that because he had taken sand from Papda river. Umrao, Gulla and Chothmal had implicated him falsely. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 48 witnesses. In the explanation under section 313 Cr.P.C. the appellants claimed innocence. Appellant Ram Niwas stated that because he had taken sand from Papda river. Umrao, Gulla and Chothmal had implicated him falsely. Appellant Jafru stated that he had been implicated falsely because of party politics. No witness in defence was however examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated herein above. (3). We have heard the submissions and scrutinised the record. (4). Death of Farida was indisputably homicidal in nature. As per post mortem report (Ex.P-51) following ante mortem injuries were found on the dead body:– 1. Incised wound 1" x 1/2 x bone deep positioned over Lt. cheek. 2. Incised wound 2" x 1" x bone deep on Lt. side of neck below the angle of mandible penetrating and sectioning Lt. cerutid vessels. 3. Penetrating wound 3" x 1" x bone deep over the sub mandibular region in mid line and to the right penetrating from neck uptill the oral cavity and paletesududing tongue injuring the facial and cerutid vessels on Rt. side. 4. 16 wounds incised of vauging size from 1" x 1/4" x muscle deep to 1 1/2" x 1/2" x muscle deep positioned vertic and obliquely placed in transverse row over the neck from Lt. angle of mandible to Rt. angle of mandible, extending over the trachea and vocal apparatus (Adams apple) According to Dr. Subhash Kumar Goyal (Pw.46) the cause of death was hemorrhage from the injuries over the face and neck and injury to major vessels. (5). Since there was no eye witness of the occurrence the prosecution based its case on circumstantial evidence. It is well settled that case based on circumstantial evidence must satisfy three tests:– (i) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; (ii) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; (iii) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else. (6). Before proceeding further we deem it appropriate to consider the nature of circumstantial evidence. (6). Before proceeding further we deem it appropriate to consider the nature of circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence means the evidence afforded not by the direct testimony of an eye witness to fact to be proved, but by the bearing upon that fact or other and subsidiary facts which are relied upon as inconsistent with any result other than truth of the principal facts. Circumstantial evidence is not an evidence direct to the point in issue, e.g. the statement of a person that he saw another give a fatal blow to the deceased, but evidence of various facts other than the fact in issue which are so associated with the fact in issue that taken together they form a chain of circumstances leading to an inference or presumption of the existence of the principal fact. The circumstantial evidence should be like spiders web leaving no exit for the accused to slip away. The various links in the chain, when taken in isolation, might not connect the accused with the commission of the crime but when taken together may unmistakably point out the guilt of the culprit. (7). Bearing these principles in mind we have to adjudge the total cumulative effect of all the proved circumstances, each of which reinforces the conclusion of the guilt of the appellants. (8). The circumstances that were found established by the learned trial Judge are as under:– (i) Farida (deceased) was last seen in the company of appellant Ram Niwas; (ii) Appellant Ram Niwas made extra judicial confession of his guilt; (iii) Dead body of Farida got recovered at the instance of appellant Ram Niwas; (iv) Ornaments belonging to Farida were taken off and mortgaged in Sarrafa Market; (v) Death of Farida was homicidal in nature; (vi) Knife allegedly used in commission of offence got recovered at the instance of appellant Ram Niwas. (vii) Chappals of Farida got recovered at the instance of appellant Ram Niwas. (9). Coming to the prosecution evidence we notice that informant Jagdish Prasad (Pw.3) in his deposition stated that on February 7, 1999 while he was holding the post of Sarpanch of Panchayat Samiti Virat Nagar, on Jairam came to him and took him to gathering of around hundred persons, where he was told that Ram Niwas killed one woman of maiv community. He categorically stated that Ram Niwas did not say anything to him. He categorically stated that Ram Niwas did not say anything to him. Strangely despite not toeing the line of prosecution he was not declared hostile. Hanuman (Pw.4), Umaro (Pw.5) and Gulla Ram (Pw.6) deposed that they attended the meeting organised by maiv community. Ram Niwas was also present in the meeting but he did not make confession of guilt in their presence. Samay Singh (Pw.7) deposed that Jafaru told him that he handed over Farida to Ram Niwas and made them sit in a bus. Thereafter Ram Niwas was arrested. Nasru Khan (Pw.8), Naseeb Khan (Pw.9) and Khurshid (brother in law of deceased) (Pw.10), who were present in the meeting of maiv community, however stated that Ram Niwas in their presence admitted to have killed Farida. Chothmal (Pw.11) deposed that dead body was found buried in the mud of river and it got recovered in his presence. Inquest report (Ex.P-10) was drawn on which he put his signatures. Khurshid identified the dead body as of his Bhabhi Farida and Doctor performed autopsy on the dead body. Golden ear-rings were also found on the ears of dead body. Kamruddin (Pw.15) stated that Jafru and Ram Niwas both were present in the Panchayat. Jafru then informed that he handed over Farida to Ram Niwas at Badkali stand, whereas Ram Niwas denied this fact. After some time Ram Niwas stated that Farida got down at Alwar. Thereafter he again changed his statement and told that Farida got down at Shahpura. Ram Niwas was taken by the police and Jagdish Sarpanch lodged the report. Dead body of Farida was recovered who was found wearing kundals, bangles and Channi. Kundal and Channi were recovered vide memo Ex.P-9, on which he put his signatures. Ibri (Pw.19), husband of deceased Farida, in his cross examination stated that when Farida eloped he did not lodge any report with the police. Radhey Shyam (Pw.22) deposed that it was co-accused Ram Kumar at whose instance bracelet got recovered from his house. Recovery memo Ex.P-18 was drawn on which he put his signatures. Ratan Lal (Pw.23) deposed that police along with two accused came to the shop Deepak Alankar Bhandar, the owner of the shop was Gopal Narayan Goyal. Silver chain and anklet mortgaged by the accused with him got recovered vide memo Ex.P-20, on which he put his signatures. Recovery memo Ex.P-18 was drawn on which he put his signatures. Ratan Lal (Pw.23) deposed that police along with two accused came to the shop Deepak Alankar Bhandar, the owner of the shop was Gopal Narayan Goyal. Silver chain and anklet mortgaged by the accused with him got recovered vide memo Ex.P-20, on which he put his signatures. Naresh Kumar Goyal (Pw.24) stated that accused Bahadur and Ram Kumar came to the shop of Deepak Alankar Bhandar and mortgaged silver chain and anklet. The police recovered silver chain and anklet vide recovery memo Ex.P-20, on which he put his signatures. Vipin Kumar Gupta (Pw.29) deposed that at the instance of accused Ram Kumar silver bracelet, kept in plastic packet, got recovered in his presence vide memo Ex.P-19, on which he put his signatures. Ashok Kumar Sharma (Pw.30) deposed that in his presence knife was recovered at the instance of Ram Niwas vide recovery memo Ex.P- 25, on which he put his signatures. Kalyan (Pw.32) stated that at the instance of accused Ram Niwas a plastic packet, containing Chunni, Salwar and Kurta of yellow colour, got recovered vide memo Ex.P-23 on which he put his signatures. Sairena (Pw.36), a girl of 6 years, stated that her mother had gone with Jafaru. Kailash (Pw.39) deposed that in his presence ladies chappal got recovered at the instance of Ram Niwas. Gopal Narayan (Pw.44), owner of firm Deepak. Alankar Bhandar, stated that accused Bahadur and Ram Kumar came to his shop and mortgaged silver chain and anklet. The police came to his shop along with those two accused, recovered the said articles and drawn recovery memo Ex.P-34. Ramdev Singh (Pw.45) Investigating Officer, in his cross examination stated that after investigation he came to conclusion that Jafru was not present at the time of murder. The dead body which he recovered was found eaten by animals. Surendra Kumar Saxena (Pw.48) stated that on february 8, 1999 he was posted as Tehsildar Virat Nagar. On receiving information from the SHO that a dead body was buried near the river, he reached at the spot at 4 PM. At that time Ram Niwas was present there. Ram Niwas was made to remove soil and dead body was taken our. Khurshid then identified the deceased as of his Bhabhi, the wife of his brother Ibri. Deceased was found wearing golden ear-rings and silver bracelet. At that time Ram Niwas was present there. Ram Niwas was made to remove soil and dead body was taken our. Khurshid then identified the deceased as of his Bhabhi, the wife of his brother Ibri. Deceased was found wearing golden ear-rings and silver bracelet. Memo Ex.P-5 was drawn by SHO, on which he put his signatures. This witness conducted identification proceedings on March 16, 1999. In his cross examination this witness stated that dead body of deceased was found necked. (10). Factual scenario emerged on a careful scrutiny of record may be summarised thus:– (i) Informant Jagdish Prasad disowned the FIR and stated that appellant Ram Niwas did not make any confession of guilt in his presence. (ii) There are material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, who were present in the gathering of Maiv community, about the confession of appellant Ram Niwas. (iii) Co-accused Ram Kumar and Bahadur were acquitted of the charge under sections 302/201 IPC despite the fact that silver chain and bracelet of the deceased got recovered at their instance. (iv) Dead body of Farida when recovered was found stark naked wearing golden ear rings and silver bracelet. (v) The clothes of the deceased comprising of Chunni, Salwar and Kurta of yellow colour got recovered at the instance of co-accused Ram Kumar. (vi) No witness was examined by the prosecution to establish that deceased Farida and appellant were last seen sitting in a bus. (vii) The evidence against Ram Niwas that he took Farida with him in a bus is based on hear say statements of near relatives of Ibri, the husband of Farida. (viii) After Farida eloped, no report was lodged by her husband. (11). There are certain broad incongruities staring at the prosecution version against the appellants. They can be narrated below:– (i) It is highly unlikely that after burring Farida the appellant would remove her chappals and concealed the same at another place. (ii) It is also difficult to believe that knife allegedly used in commission of offence would have been concealed at a different place other than the place where dead body was buried. It could have been easily kept with the dead body itself. (iii) From the medical evidence it could not be proved that Farida before her death was subjected to sexual intercourse. It could have been easily kept with the dead body itself. (iii) From the medical evidence it could not be proved that Farida before her death was subjected to sexual intercourse. The prosecution thus could not establish that why the dead body was found naked and under what circumstances her clothes were concealed by co-accused Ram Kumar. (iv) The prosecution could not establish as to when the silver chain and bracelet were removed by co-accused Bahadur and Ram Kumar from the person of Farida. (v) If the motive of the accused behind the killing of Farida was greed, then why golden ear rings and silver bracelet were not removed from her body. (vi) Why the prosecution did not examine any witness to establish that Farida was last seen with Ram Niwas in the bus. (vii) After Farida eloped from the house why her husband Ibri did not lodge report with the police. (12). In view of these incongruities we are of the view that the evidence collected by the prosecution is not qualitatively such that on every reasonable hypothesis the conclusion is that the appellants are guilty. We find that the chain of circumstantial evidence against the appellants is not complete and is capable of any other hypothesis than the guilt of the appellants. We do not find a combination of facts creating a network through which there is no escape for the appellants. Learned trial Judge in our opinion has committed error in convicting and sentencing the appellants. The charges under sections 302, 201 and 364 IPC are not established against the appellants beyond the reasonable doubt. (13). In Ashish Batham vs. State of M.P. (2002) 7 SCC 317 , their Lordships of Supreme Court indicated that mere suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take the place of legal proof. It was observed as under:– ``Realities or truth apart, the fundamental and basic presumption in the administration of criminal law and justice delivery system is the innocence of the alleged accused and till the charges are proved beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of clear, cogent, credible or unimpeachable evidence, the question of indicting or punishing an accused does not arise, merely carried away by the henious nature of the crime or the gruesome manner in which it was found to have been committed. Mere suspicion, however strong probable it may be is no effective substitute for the legal proof required to substantiate the charge of commission of a crime and graver the charge is, greater should be the standard of proof required. Court dealing with criminal case at least should constantly remember that there is a long mental distance between ``may be true and ``must be true and this basic and golden rule only helps to maintain the vital distinction between ``conjectures and ``sure conclusion to be arrived at on the touchstone of a dispassionate judicial scrutiny based upon a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all features of the case as well as quality and credibility of the evidence brought on record. (14). For these reasons, we allow the appeals of appellants Ram Niwas and Jafru and set aside the impugned judgment dated February 12, 2001 of learned Additional Sessions Judge Shahpura. We acquit the appellant Ram Niwas of the charges under sections 302, 201 and 364 IPC. The appellant Jafru also stands acquitted of the charge under section 364 IPC. The appellant Jafru is on bail, he need not surrender and his bail bonds stand discharged. The appellant Ram Niwas, who is in confinement, shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in confinement in any other case.