Judgment A.N.Jindal, J. 1. Appellants Ved Parkash @ Bhagwan Dia son of Puran Singh and Rajesh © Raju son of Sukh Ram both residents of Village Jandli, District Ambala have been charged under Sections 302/34, IPC for abducting and killing Nirmal Singh on the intervening night of 21/22.8.1995. After trial, they were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000.00 each, and in default of payment of fine they were to further undergo RI for six months each by Sessions Judge, Ambala. Since both the accused filed different appeals in this Court, namely, Crl. Appeal Nos. 432-DB and 448-DB of 1997 and the complainant has also filed a Crl. Rev. No. 624 of 1997 for enhancement of sentence of fine. Therefore, all the three matters are being disposed of by way of a common Judgment. 2. The genesis of the case began with the report which was lodged by Gurdial Singh uncle of the deceased Nirmal Singh on hearsay basis i.e. after receiving information from PW-6 Sharda Devi about the incident. 3. He in his statement, Ex. PE/1, dated 22.8.1995 at 9.00 A.M. recorded that on 21.8.1995 at about 9.30 P.M. Ved parkash @ Bhagwan Dia accused-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the accused) had called his nephew Nirmal Singh to accompany him because two other persons were waiting for him outside the house. Thereupon his nephew (deceased) accompanied him but did not return for whole of the night. During that night, at about 2.00 A.M. two persons had come to the house of deceased and knocked the door of the deceased but when Sharda Devi raised alarm "kaun hai kaun hai", then both of them ran away while taking the shelter of darkness. Sharda Devi had informed about this whole episode to Gurdial Singh in the morning and he in turn, informed about the same to the police. He also informed the police that since Nirmal Singh did not turn up, therefore, he accompanied by Jagdev Singh son of Khajan Singh went in search for him and when they reached one furlong ahead of cremation ground of village Jandli, they saw the dead body of Nirmal Singh lying on the northern side of the road. 4. The aforesaid statement Ex. PE was got recorded by Gurdial Singh on 22.8.1995 at 9.00 A.M. over which ASI Bir Bhan made his endorsement Ex. 4. The aforesaid statement Ex. PE was got recorded by Gurdial Singh on 22.8.1995 at 9.00 A.M. over which ASI Bir Bhan made his endorsement Ex. PE/1 on the basis of which an FIR was registered against Ved Parkash @ Bhagwan Dia and Rajesh @ Raju. 5. On registration of the case, the investigation commenced. During Investigation, ASI Bir Bhan prepared the Inquest report EX. PJ and got the post-mortem of the deceased conducted on the basis of application Ex. PJ/1. He also took into possession a pair of chappal Ex. P10 and a rickshaw Ex. P11 vide memo Ex. PF from the scene of occurrence. 6. The investigating Officer also prepared a rough site plan of the place where the dead body was lying. According to the investigation, it was found that the death of Nirmal Singh was caused by strangulation and Ashpyxia. It also came to light from the testimony of PW-4 Nachhattar Pal that the accused wanted to make the dead body of Nirmal Singh disappear. It was also revealed during investigation that PW-9 Ajaib Singh had also noticed that accused Ved Parkash and Rajesh roaming about in the street on the intervening night of 21/22.8.95 and that they had also made the extra judicial confession before PW-7 Balwinder Singh, Sarpanch of Village Jandli that they had killed Nirmal Singh as they wanted to rob money which was in his possession and they wanted to be produced before the police through him as he had the access to the police. The Investigating Officer also recovered the Parna (i.e. a piece of cloth) concealed by the accused Ved Parkash which was recovered in pursuance of his statement Ex. PC under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, by the Investigating Officer vide Memo Ex. P-9. The Investigating Officer also recorded the statements of the witnesses. On completion of investigation, challan was presented against the accused. On finding a prima facie case against the accused under Section 302/34, IPC they were charged accordingly to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 7. In order to secure the conviction of both the accused, prosecution examined 12 witnesses. 8. PW-1 Dr. On completion of investigation, challan was presented against the accused. On finding a prima facie case against the accused under Section 302/34, IPC they were charged accordingly to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 7. In order to secure the conviction of both the accused, prosecution examined 12 witnesses. 8. PW-1 Dr. R.S. Bugalia, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Ambala who had conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Nirmal Singh son of Jarnail Singh observed as under: It was a dead body of a male having 5 feet in length there was a transversally placed ligature mark below the thyroid, dark In colour, thickness 1 to 1-1/2 cm. extending from the right side and crossing to the left side of neck. There was no ligature mark on posterior. There was also an abrasion of varying size parallel to the ligature mark with thickness of 1 cm. above and below the main ligature. The dead body was wearing a light green stripped shirt and blue stripped pant, and a greenish brown underwear. Face was congested and tongue was between the teeth. Rigor Mortis was present. Bloody froth was coming from nostrils, eyes were closed. Pupils were dilated. There were multiple liniar abrasions parallel to ligature mark on and below the ligature on the right and left side of mid-line. Thickness was of about 1 cm. On disecting the ligature, I found the base of the mark with echymosed margins, laceration of the carotid sheath with effusion of blood in the walls of vessels. Larynex and trachia were congested with bloody froth. Emphysematous bullae on the right lung surfiace was present. There was congestion with haemorrhagic patches with oozing dark blood in the right lung. Both chambers of heart were empty. The stomach contained small quantity of semi digested and semi solid food material. The small intestines contained gases and juices. Large intestines were having faceal matter and gases. Lever, Spleen and kidneys were congested. the bladder was empty. The remaining organs were normal. 9. While proving the postmortem report Ex. P.A. he opined that death in this case was due to strangulation leading to Asphyxia. The injuries were anti mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The time left between death and injuries was few minutes and death and postmortem was within 24 hours. 9. While proving the postmortem report Ex. P.A. he opined that death in this case was due to strangulation leading to Asphyxia. The injuries were anti mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The time left between death and injuries was few minutes and death and postmortem was within 24 hours. He was not shown the object with which the strangulation had been committed. He did not detect any smell of liquor which may have been emitted from the mouth of the deceased. PW-2 Jitehder Arora who had taken the negatives Exs. PI to P4 and prepared the photographs Exs. P5 to P8 of the dead body has proved the same. PW-3 Kirpa Ram, Patwari had proved the Aks-Sajra Ex. PB after visiting the spot as per revenue record on police request. PW-4 Nachhattar Pal whose rickshaw was, allegedly hired by the accused, had not supported the prosecution case. He was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the prosecution. PW-5 Sardara Singh has testified that on the night of occurrence at about 10.00 P.M. when he was passing by the side of the fields of Gurdial Singh, he saw Ved Parkash @ Bhagwan Dia and Rajesh @ Raju sitting with Nirmal Singh. On his asking, they told that they were just enjoying, however, he observed that they were taking liquor. Next morning he came to know that Nirmal Singh had been killed. During cross-examination, he deposed that he came to know about the death of Nirmal Singh at about 8/8.30 A.M. It was lying on the road when he reached there. Gurdial Singh, Ajajb Singh and Jagdev Singh, all PWs, and PW-4 Nachhattar Pal as well as Sarpanch Balwinder Singh were present there. He remained at the spot till the dead body was taken to the hospital i.e. 11.00 A.M. He further admitted that wives of Nirmal Singh and Ajaib Singh are real sisters. PW-6 Sharda Devi wife of Nirmal Singh has supported the prosecution version by stating that at about 9.30 P.M. on 21.8.1995 Ved Parkash had taken away her husband saying that two persons were waiting for him outside. After waiting for some time for her husband, she went to sleep after bolting the door from inside. PW-6 Sharda Devi wife of Nirmal Singh has supported the prosecution version by stating that at about 9.30 P.M. on 21.8.1995 Ved Parkash had taken away her husband saying that two persons were waiting for him outside. After waiting for some time for her husband, she went to sleep after bolting the door from inside. Then at about 2.00 A.M., both the accused came and knocked the door of her house but when she did not open the door, they left without giving any reply. At about 7 A.M. she came to know that dead body of her husband was lying near the cremation ground. She has tried to improve upon the case by stating that her husband had kept Rs. 39,000.00 at the house on that night for purchasing the land. During cross-examination she has stated that the houses of Gurdial Singh, Ajaib Singh and Jagdev Singh PWs are in the same street. Jagdev Singh is the nephew of Gurdial Singh. The wife of Sardara Singh belongs to the village of, her parents. The police had reached the village at about 9-10 A.M. Her husband had already taken meals before leaving the house at 8.00 P.M. PW-7 Balwinder Singh is the Sarpanch of the village. He had stated that both the accused had come to him and had made extra Judicial confession regarding commission of murder of Nirmal Singh as they wanted to rob him of his money. They also requested him that he should produce both of them before the police, therefore, he produced them before the police. He is also a witness to the recovery of a piece of cloth in pursuance of his statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act made by the accused. He has stated that on the same day, after he had produced the accused before PW-10 SHO Kewal Krishan, they had made a statement before him to the effect that Ved Parkash had kept concealed a piece of cloth in the fodder field (Chart) of Gurdial Singh and he could get the same recovered. Consequently, his statement Ex. PC was recorded by SHO in pursuance of which the accused got recovered the piece of cloth Ex. P9 from the said place. He has also admitted that when they reached near the dead body at about 10.30 A.M. police was present there. Consequently, his statement Ex. PC was recorded by SHO in pursuance of which the accused got recovered the piece of cloth Ex. P9 from the said place. He has also admitted that when they reached near the dead body at about 10.30 A.M. police was present there. Ajaib Singh, Gurdial Singh and Sardara Singh were also present. PW-8 Gurdial Singh has deposed on the lines of the FIR recorded by him in the police station on the basis of which investigation commenced. During cross-examination, he has stated that Nirmal Singhs father Jarnail Singh is son of my paternal uncle. His house is situated at a distance of 4-5 houses from the house of Nirmal Singh. The houses of Jagdev Singh, Baldev Singh and Pala are in between. Jagdev Singh is his real nephew. He has admitted that Sharda had come to him at about 6.00 A.M. on the day the dead body was recovered. 10. PW-9 Ajaib Singh has proved another circumstance to the effect that on 21.8.1995 when he was sleeping on the first floor of his house then at about 2.00 A.M., he suddenly woke up and heard some noise. When he came out of the room, he saw from the roof of his house that Ved Parkash and Rajesh @ Raju were going in the street after coming out of the house of Nirmal Singh. Then early in the morning, at about 7.30 A.M. when he woke up, he came to know that Nirmal Singh had been killed and his dead body was lying near the cremation ground. During cross-examination, he stated that after he came to know about the dead body, he reached near the place of occurrence. At that time, police had already arrived and had recorded his statement. 11. PW-10 Kewal Krishan, Investigating Officer, has deposed about the investigation which he conducted during trial. PW-11 Bir Bhan, Sub-Inspector/SHO, Police Station, Panjokhara stated that on 22.8.l1995 at about 9.00 AIM. when he along with some police officials was present near the railway crossing in village Jandli, at about 9.00 A.M. PW-8 Gurdial Singh met them and made his statement Ex. PE which was read over to him and after obtaining his signatures on the statement, he made his endorsement Ex. PE/1 on the basis of which a formal FIR Ex. PG was recorded by PW-10 Kewal Krishan, SI/SHO P.S Naggal. PE which was read over to him and after obtaining his signatures on the statement, he made his endorsement Ex. PE/1 on the basis of which a formal FIR Ex. PG was recorded by PW-10 Kewal Krishan, SI/SHO P.S Naggal. He went to the place of occurrence and prepared inquest report Ex. PJ. Then he moved an application Ex. PJ/1 before the doctor for conducting postmortem examination. He took into possession rickshaw Ex. P11, a pair of chappal Ex. P10 from the place of occurrence (near the dead body of Nirmal Singh) vide Memo Ex. PF. He also prepared the rough sketch plan of the place of occurrence Ex. PK and recorded the statement of PW-12 Sat Pal son of Manohar Lal who deposed before him about an agreement of sale of 8 killas of land to Nirmal Singh at the rate of Rs. 2,22,000.00 per killa. He also stated that he received a sum of Rs. 3,00,000.00 from him on account of earnest money. During cross-examination, he has submitted that he had entered into agreement in the year 1996 but he cannot tell the exact date. 12. After examining the aforesaid witnesses, the accused was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them were put to them to which they pleaded as incorrect and pleaded false implication in the case. 13. While relying upon the prosecution version, the learned trial Court observed that the prosecution has been successful in proving the guilt of the accused persons without any shadow of doubt and consequently, sentenced them accordingly. Hence, this appeal. 14. While assailing the Impugned judgment, Shri Vinod Ghai, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, has strenuously contended that there is no direct evidence available against the appellant to connect him with the crime and the circumstantial evidence which the prosecution has tried to connect with the accused is insufficient to make the complete chain of events so to reach the conclusion that it was none else than the accused who had committed the crime. 15. On the contrary, Shri B.S. Rana, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana appearing for the State has argued in support of the impugned judgment. 16. Admittedly, there is no direct evidence against the appellants. The prosecution has rested its case on circumstantial evidence. 15. On the contrary, Shri B.S. Rana, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana appearing for the State has argued in support of the impugned judgment. 16. Admittedly, there is no direct evidence against the appellants. The prosecution has rested its case on circumstantial evidence. It has been consistently laid down by the Apex Court that when 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 b£ incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of other person see Hukam Singh V/s. State of Rajasthan , Eradu V/s. State of Hyderabad . In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda V/s. State of Maharashtra , the Apex Court has laid down the tests which are pre-requisites before conviction should be recorded. They are: 1. The circumstances from 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. There must be a chain of evidence so 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. 17. The same principle was reiterated by the Apex Court in a later decision in the case of K.V. Chacko @ Kunju V/s. State of Kerala . 18. Now before appreciating the evidence, we find it essential to point out the circumstances which the prosecution has pressed into service for making the complete chain of events pointing towards the guilt of the accused: 1. Accused Ved Parkash @ Bhagwan Dia had taken Nirmal Singh from his house in the presence of his wife at about 9.00 P.M. after he had taken his meals. 2. He was last seen during night at about 10.00 P.M. in the company of Ved Parkash and Rajesh and they were seen taking liquor in the fields of Gurdial Singh. 3. 2. He was last seen during night at about 10.00 P.M. in the company of Ved Parkash and Rajesh and they were seen taking liquor in the fields of Gurdial Singh. 3. During the night of 21/22.8.1995, at about 2.00 A.M. the accused knocked the door of the house of the deceased and when Sharda Devi wife of the deceased did not open the door, they went away. 4. The recovery of Parna at the instance of Ved Parkash accused with which the accused had allegedly strangulated the deceased. 5. Evidence of extra judicial confession made by both the accused before Balwinder Singh Sarpanch of the village Jandli on 24.8.1995. 6. The motive to rob Nirmal Singh of Rs. 39,000.00 which he was having in his possession at his house. 19. Now we will examine the aforesaid circumstances to test whether these circumstances make out a complete chain for urging forward the Court to conclude that it was none else but the accused who had committed the crime. As regard the motive in a case of murder, on the basis of direct evidence, is of little importance but if the case is based on circumstantial evidence, then motive assumes greater importance. Normally there is a motive behind every criminal act and that is why Investigating Agency as well as the Court while examining the complicity of an accused tries to ascertain as to what was the motive on the part of the accused to commit the crime in question. The Investigating agency as well as the Court should ascertain, as far as possible, as to what was the immediate impelling motive on the part of the accused which led him to commit the crime. In the present case, no motive on the part of the appellants to commit the murder of Nirmal Singh has been established by the prosecution. As a matter of fact, the prosecution did not allege any motive; at the, initial stage but having found this lacuna in this case, they later developed this feature. If the statement of Gurdial Singh under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. recorded at the initial stage, is scrutinized, it reveals that Sharda Devi did not disclose about the motive to Gurdial Singh. 20. If the statement of Gurdial Singh under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. recorded at the initial stage, is scrutinized, it reveals that Sharda Devi did not disclose about the motive to Gurdial Singh. 20. Had there been any motive behind the crime then Sharda Devi, on whose information to Gurdial Singh, the FIR has been recorded, must have disclosed about the motive to Gurdial Singh. Gurdial Singh has not stated If Sharda Devi had disclosed about the intention or motive of the accused to rob the deceased of aforesaid amount. Further the story of motive seems to be false and an afterthought. Sharda Devi has stated that her husband had withdrawn this amount of Rs. 39,000.00 from the bank, but no evidence has been led by the prosecution to prove that the deceased had withdrawn the said amount from the bank on the same day. Again there is nothing in evidence to substantiate that the accused knew that Rs. 39,000.00 were lying at the house of the deceased. It is quite unnatural that the accused came with an intention to rob the deceased of Rs. 39,000.00 and took the deceased without asking for the aforesaid amount. It also does not appeal to the reason they after killing Nirmal Singh had again gone to the house of the deceased in the night, and regurned without entering into his house by illegal means and without robbing his wife of the money who was alone in the house in the (sic) hours of the night. Thus it appears that in order to (sic) of absence of motive in the prosecution case, it was manufactured later on, but still the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused had any such intention to rob the deceased of Rs. 39,000.00 . As regards the extra judicial confession regarding the motive, the same is also very weak type of evidence which will be discussed in the succeeding paragraphs. 21. Now coming to the next circumstances that accused Ved Parkash had taken the deceased from his house at about 9 or 9.30 P.M. No doubt Sharda Devi has specifically stated that Ved Parkash had dome to their house and took Nirmal Singh on the pretext that he was being called by two persons standing outside. Sharda has remained helpless till today to disclose the names of those persons, who were waiting for the deceased. Sharda has remained helpless till today to disclose the names of those persons, who were waiting for the deceased. The mere circumstance that Ved Parkash was not doubted at all at that time as he used to visit the deceased on earlier occasions also, is hardly sufficient to hold that after Ved Parkash took away the deceased-Nirmal Singh, thereafter he remained in his custody throughout the night till his body was recovered. It may be possible that the deceased must have joined those persons for whom Ved Parkash had called him from his house. Therefore, Ved Parkash cannot be condemned on this account alone. 22. The story of last seen has also not been substantiated by the prosecution. The only witness to prove this version that the deceased was seen in the company of Ved Parkaah and Rajesh in the fields of Gurdial Singh while taking liquor is PW-5 Sardara Singh. First of all, his evidence stands badly contradicted by the testimony of Dr. R.S. Bugalia, who while conducting the autopsy on the dead body has specifically stated that there was no alcoholic smell and therefore he could not say whether the deceased had consumed alcohol or not. Had there been any alcoholic smell, then PW-1 must have mentioned about this fact in the autopsy which was minutely conducted by him. The Investigating Officer did not take into possession any bottle of liquor or the glasses from the place where the deceased and the accused were seen taking liquor. Sardara Singh, PW-5 is not an independent witness. He hails from the parental village of Sharda Devi, therefore, he could come to her aid at the time of difficulty. It will be significant to mention here that Sardara Singh has admitted during his cross-examination that when he reached the place of occurrence, Gurdial Singh, Ajaib Singh, Jagdev Singh and Nachhattar Pal were already present there. He had told them about the seeing the accused and the deceased taking liquor in the fields of Gurdial Singh. If it was so, then Gurdial Singh must have recorded the fact with regard to last seeing of the deceased in the company of Ved Parkash and Rajesh by Sardara Singh in his statement under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. Ex. PG. If it was so, then Gurdial Singh must have recorded the fact with regard to last seeing of the deceased in the company of Ved Parkash and Rajesh by Sardara Singh in his statement under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. Ex. PG. Sardara Singh has made a serious improvement over this fact while making statement in the Court that he had told the police that he had seen the accused and the deceased taking liquor and merry making as this fact does not find mention in his statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. This fact with regard to last seen is also not mentioned in the F.I.R. which would impel us to form an opinion that Sardara Singh was introduced later on as a witness of last seen. Even FIR does not contain the name of Rajesh @ Raju as an accomplice of Ved Parkash. 23. The other circumstance over which the prosecution has placed reliance is the recovery of the Parna Ex. P9 at the instance of Ved Parkash. In this regard it may be mentioned that there is no evidence on record whether the said Parna Ex. P-9 was used for strangulation. Secondly, there is no evidence on record as to which out of the two or both the accused strangulated the deceased with aforesaid Parna Ex. P-9. The Parna was not sent to the Finger Print Expert for getting comparison of the finger marks over it with that of the accused. 24. The recovery of Parna Ex. P-9 in this case is also doubtful. Balwinder Singh has stated that the accused Ved Parkash made a statement (Ex. PC) under Section 27, of the Evidence Act to the effect that he had hidden the Parna in the fields belonging to Gurdial Singh. He has nowhere specified the particular place in the fields of Gurdial Singh where he had kept the same concealed. It is not disclosed by Gurdial Singh if the accused had also stated that it was only he who knew about concealing of Parna and none else. The statement under Section 27 as disclosed by Gurdial Singh is contradictory to the Statement Ex. PC of Ved Parkash recorded by SHO Kewal Krishan on 24.8.1995 wherein the accused stated that he had concealed the dead body in a hole of Charri. The statement under Section 27 as disclosed by Gurdial Singh is contradictory to the Statement Ex. PC of Ved Parkash recorded by SHO Kewal Krishan on 24.8.1995 wherein the accused stated that he had concealed the dead body in a hole of Charri. Even if the word dead body may be substituted to Parna while presuming that it may be the result of a clerical mistake, then still the said statement is contradictory as in the statement it does not find mention if he had kept concealed the Parna in the fields of Gurdial Singh. Further, such like pieces of clothes can be obtained from the open marj ket at any time. It was not bearing any specific mark of identification. The place of recovery was an open accessible to all. Therefore, it is difficult to believe about the factum of recovery of such Parna from accused Ved Parkash. Consequently, the recovery of Parna stands discarded. 25. The other piece of evidence over which the prosecution places reliance is the extra judicial confession made by the accused before Balwinder Singh Sarpanch. First of all, the alleged confession made by the accused is a composite statement by both the accused at one point of time. He was accompanying the police throughout the time till the alleged oral confession was made by the accused, as he stated that on hearing the news about the death of Nirmal Singh, he went to the place of occurrence where police met him. He also remained present at the time of cremation. It may also be mentioned that he had stated that he does not remember as to when the accused had come to him. According to him the accused had come two-three days after the, cremation. Cremation, admittedly, had taken place on 22.8.1995 and the accused were arrested a day after i.e. on 24.8.1995. Thus, to our mind, this evidence of extra judicial confession before Balwinder Singh Sarpanch appears to be a manufactured one. 26. As regards the hiring of rickshaw of PW-4 Nachhattar Pal for disappearing the evidence of murder, it may be mentioned that Nachhattar Pal has not supported the prosecution case. He has totally denied if he handed over his rickshaw to the accused. 27. As a matter of fact, the witnesses examined by the prosecution are closely related to the deceased. As regards the hiring of rickshaw of PW-4 Nachhattar Pal for disappearing the evidence of murder, it may be mentioned that Nachhattar Pal has not supported the prosecution case. He has totally denied if he handed over his rickshaw to the accused. 27. As a matter of fact, the witnesses examined by the prosecution are closely related to the deceased. Ajaib Singh and deceased Nirmal Singh are married to two real sisters as disclosed by PW-5 Sardara Singh. Sardara Singh hails from parental village of PW-6 Sharda Devi, widow of Nirmal Singh. PW-8 Gurdial Singh is the uncle of deceased Nirmal Singh. PW-9 Ajaib Singh is the real brother of the deceased. PW-7 Balwinder Singh Sarpanch is also an interested witness as he always looks forward for favour of the people at the time of election and he remains at their beck and call. 28. Having evaluated the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses the only evidence over which the reliance could be placed, is the testimony of Sharda Devi in whose presence the accused Ved Parkash had taken Nirmal Singh from his house. But we do not feel inclined to convict the accused on this solitary piece of evidence as the probative link evidence regarding taking of the accused till he was killed, is missing in the case. The indirect light, circumstances may throw and may vary from suspicion to certitude and care must be taken to avoid subjective pitfalls of exaggerating a conjecture into a conviction. No doubt, conviction can safely be based on circumstantial evidence, provided the Circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are established beyond doubt and are such as to the incompatibility with the innocence of the accused and incapable of any explanation or reasonable hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused. Where the solitary piece of circumstantial evidence on which the prosecution has staked its case is found uncorroborated by other evidence, then the said piece of evidence cannot furnish a sound foundation for conviction. It is also well settled that mere piece of evidence of last seen unless corroborated by other evidence is hardly sufficient to form foundation for conviction of the accused. It is also well settled that mere piece of evidence of last seen unless corroborated by other evidence is hardly sufficient to form foundation for conviction of the accused. In this case many loopholes have been left unplugged by the prosecution which create a doubt over the story set up by it which are as follows: (1) No evidence has been led to prove whether Nirmal Singh had withdrawn a sum of Rs. 39,000.00 from the bank and had placed it at his house on the day of occurrence when he was taken by the accused and that the accused knew about the placing of money by him at his house. (2) It is not explained at all as to why the accused, when came in the late hours of the night, to call the deceased then they did not make any efforts to rob him of the money at that time. It is also difficult to digest that even after killing Nirmal Singh, the accused Ved Parkash and Rajesh @ Raju went to the house of the deceased and then returned without achieving the target. (3) As per prosecution version Ved Parkash had taken Nirmal Singh from his house and Sharda Devi had seen Ved Parkash when he came to the house of Nirmal Singh at about 2.00 A.M. In these circumstances, the normal conduct of Sharda Devi would have been to open the door to Ved Parkash and to make a probe about the whereabouts of her husband than to refuse to open the door. (4) The concoction in the prosecution version is indicated from the fact that though witnesses, namely, Sardara Singh, Ajaib Singh, Gurdial Singh and Balwinder Singh were present on the morning of 22.8.1995, before FIR was recorded. Sharda Devi and other witnesses had briefed Gurdial Singh about the occurrence including the factum with regard to the last seen and taking of the liquor. But these facts are missing from the statement of Gurdial Singh which he got recorded before the police under Section 154, Cr.P.C. (5) Though Sardara Singh who the. witness, to the last seen has stated that he had seen the accused and the deceased taking liquor together in the fields of Gurdial Singh but his testimony has testimony has been contradicted by Dr. witness, to the last seen has stated that he had seen the accused and the deceased taking liquor together in the fields of Gurdial Singh but his testimony has testimony has been contradicted by Dr. R.S. Bugalia who stated that he did not notice any smell of alcohol from the body of Nirmal Singh. (6) Recovery of Parna from open and accessible place allegedly at the instance of Ved Parkash is also doubtful. (7) PW-4 Nachhattar Pal, whose rickshaw has been stated to have been hired for transporting the dead body, has also not supported the prosecution case. (8) The accused did not abscond rather they appeared before the police a day after the occurrence. 29. Thus, under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence led by the prosecution in order to bring home the charge against the accused. The circumstances from which the prosecution has sought to draw the inference of guilt against the accused are completely consistent with innocence of the accused. 30. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned judgment is set aside. Consequently, the criminal appeals filed by both the accused are hereby accepted. The accused are acquitted from all the charges framed and are directed to be set at liberty. Fine, if any, deposited by them be refunded. Bail bonds and surety furnished by them stands discharged. The criminal revision filed by Gurdial Singh is dismissed.