JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 31.5.2001 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kishangarh (Ajmer), in Sessions Case No. 42/95 State v. Gordhan and others , whereby the accused appellants Lala Ram and Balwa were convicted and sentenced as under Under Section 302/34 IPC To suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/- each and in default to further suffer six months additional rigorous imprisonment each. Under Section 201/34 IPC Suffer three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 250/- each and in default to further suffer one month additional rigorous imprisonment each. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently 2. It is the prosecution case that a written-report (Ex.P.37) was lodged by (PW-21) Shri Mahmood Khan, S.H.O., Police Station Roopangarh, on 12.8.1995 at 6.00 p.m. to the effect that at about 2 p.m. on receipt of anonymous telephonic information, he along with the Police Party reached Bansarthal, where he saw crowd around a Well in which one dead body was lying with its face towards the ground. The dead body was taken out of the well with the help of the villagers and Panchanama was prepared. The dead body was found to be of a Hindu young man of 20 years who died as a result of strangulation by 'loongi' cloth around his neck. The dead body was brought to the Police Station for the purposes of identification and thereafter it was sent for postmortem to the Government Hospital at Kishangarh and a case under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C. was registered and the investigation commenced. 3. During the investigation, the dead body was identified to be of deceased Roop Ram son of Bholu, resident of Dehad-Ki-Dhani, Ringlod. The autopsy of 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 Additional Sessions Judge, Kishangarh, Ajmer. Charges under Sections 120-B, 147, 302 read with 149 and 201/149 IPC were read over to the present appellants Lala Ram, Balwa and three others namely Gordhan s/o Jairam, Harji s/o Heera Lal. and Shravan s/o Cheetar, residents of Dehad-ki-Dhani, Police Station Roopangarh. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial. 4. The prosecution in support of its case, examined as many as 29 witnesses. and Shravan s/o Cheetar, residents of Dehad-ki-Dhani, Police Station Roopangarh. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial. 4. The prosecution in support of its case, examined as many as 29 witnesses. In their explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant claimed innocence No witness was produced in defence. Learned trial judge on hearing the final submissions, convicted and sentenced the accused appellants Lala Ram and Balwa as indicated herein above while the rest of the three co-accused Shravan, Harji and Gordhan were acquitted of the charges levelled against them. 5. We have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor and with their assistance scanned the material on record. 6. Death of Roopa Ram was indisputably homicidal in nature. As per Post-Mortem Report (Ex.P.6), following ante-mortem injuries were found on the person of deceased : (1) Abrasion 5 cm x 1.5 cm on left bone front. (2) Abrasion 7 cm x 1 cm on left leg upper one third of front aspect. (3) Abrasion 3 cm x 1 cm on left foot middle part lateral aspect. (4) Bruise 8 cm x 5 cm x right thigh middle part anterior aspect. (5) Abrasion 4 cm x 4 cm on left lumber region lateral to umbilicus. (6) Incised wound 6 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm on superior leg region. In the opinion of Dr. P.C. Agarwal (P.W.28).. the cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation. 7. Since there was no eye witness of the occurrence, the prosecution based its case on circumstantial evidence. It is well-settled that the case based on circumstantial evidence must satisfy three conditions as observed by the Apex Court in (1) Jaharilal Das v. State.of Orissa, AIR 1991 S.C. 1388 as under : (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; and (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, and it should also be incapable of explanation on any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused. 8. 8. In (2) Mukesh Raj v. Satish Kumar AIR 1992 SC 1175 , the Apex Court has reiterated that in a case founded on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove all the circumstances connecting unbroken chain of links leading to only one inference that the accused committed the crime. If any other reasonable hypothesis of the innocence of the accused can be inferred from the proved circumstances, the accused would be entitled to the benefit. What is required is not the quantitative but qualitative, reliable and probable circumstances to complete the chain connecting the accused with the crime. If the conduct of the accused in relation to the crime comes into question the previous and subsequent conduct are also relevant factors. The Court must weigh the evidence of the cumulative effect of the circumstances and if it reaches the conclusions that the accused committed the crime, the charge must be held proved and the conviction and sentence would follow. 9. The trial Court relied on the following circumstantial evidence in convicting the appellants:- (1) the death of deceased Roopa Ram was homicidal in nature. (2) On 11.8.1995, at about 8-9.00 p.m. the deceased Roopa Ram was called and taken by the accused appellants Lala and Balwa from his house after dinner. (3) On 12.8.1995, on receipt of telephonic call, dead body of Roopa Ram vas recovered from the well by the Police at Singhla Marg. (4) Vide Post Mortem Report (Ex.P.6), the cause of death of deceased was found to be strangulation. (5) On preparation of Panchnama of the dead body on 12.8.95 by the Police, 'loongi' cloth was found around the neck of the deceased used for strangulation and there was a scar made by the blade on genital organs of the deceased. (6) Deceased Roopa Ram did not go to sleep that night along with his brother Jagdish in "bada" where he usually slept and on the following morning P.W. 18 Kana, his mother P.W. 21 Smt. Keli and P.W. 28 Jagdish went to the appellants Lala and Balwa and enquired from the appellants but both of them started accusing each other for taking along the deceased. (7) The dead body of the deceased was identified by P.W. 18 Kana and P.W. 28 Jagdish. (8) Vide Ex.P.16, Plastic foot-wears of the deceased were recovered at the instance of accused Lala Ram tied in loongi cloth with two stones. (7) The dead body of the deceased was identified by P.W. 18 Kana and P.W. 28 Jagdish. (8) Vide Ex.P.16, Plastic foot-wears of the deceased were recovered at the instance of accused Lala Ram tied in loongi cloth with two stones. (9) Vide Ex.P.15, on F.S.L. Examination, the clothes of deceased were found stained with human blood group "O". (10) Vide Ex.P.21, Dhoti, Kurta of accused Lala were recovered and sent for F.S.L. Examination. On F.S.L. Examination, the same were also found stained with "0" group human blood. (11) Vide Ex.P.20 blood stained dhoti, kurta and loongi of accused Balwa were also recovered and sent for F.S.L. examination and Dhoti & Kurta were found stained with "0" Group of human blood. (12) Vide Ex.P.19 one Topaz Blade was recovered at the instance of accused Balwa and the same was also found to be stained with "0" group of human blood and (13) As per the testimony of P.W.21 Mahmmod Khan, S.H.O., the motive behind the murder was that the deceased was a man of bad moral character and had illicit relation with Smt. Paro (PW 14) and Smt. Guman (PW 15). 10. According to the prosecution case, deceased Roopa Ram had illicit intimacy with Smt. Paro (P.W.14) wife of Gordhan & Smt. Guman (P.W.15) w/o Hari and thus the accused Lala Ram, who is brother of Smt. Paro and accused Harji, who is brother of Smt. Guman had motive to commit the offence. But on going through the testimony of these two witnesses (P.W.14) Smt. Paro and (P.W.15) Smt. Guman, it is revealed that they have not supported this version and were declared hostile and no sufficient evidence has come on record so as to establish the fact that deceased Roopa Ram had illicit intimacy with them as alleged by the prosecution. Thus the motive as alleged by the prosecution for committing the crime by the accused appellants is non-existent. More so, in view of the fact that out of five accused persons charge sheeted, the three accused Gordhan, Harji and Shravan already stand acquitted by the trial court. 11. Thus the motive as alleged by the prosecution for committing the crime by the accused appellants is non-existent. More so, in view of the fact that out of five accused persons charge sheeted, the three accused Gordhan, Harji and Shravan already stand acquitted by the trial court. 11. So far as the circumstance of last seen' that deceased was with the appellants is concerned, mother of deceased Roopa Ram (PW.21) Keli and he; two sons (PW.28) Jagdish and (PW.19) Kana, in their deposition stated that the two accused appellants came to their house, called the deceased and took him along with them at about 8 and 9 p.m. on the preceding night the dead body was found from the well. They also went to the house of the two accused appellants to enquire about the whereabouts of the deceased Roopa Ram and the two accused started quarreling and making allegations against each other on the point of accompanying the deceased. It is revealed that the aforesaid clue was not available to the police at the time of recovery of the dead body and in fact, the FIR was lodged by the S.H.O. Police Station, Roopangarh against unknown assailants. It is further revealed that the aforesaid version of the witnesses on the point of last scene does not indicate at the exclusive culpability of these two accused as during the investigation the disclosure of place of occurrence and recovery of the dead body was made at the instance of all the five accused arrested in the case though with little probative value as the dead body was already recovered from there long before their arrest. 12. The next circumstance against the appellants Lala Ram and Balwa is with regard to recovery of blood stained cloth at their instance. In this regard it may be noticed that the two accused were arrested on 26.8.95 and at the instance of accused Balwa, Dhoti, Kurta and Loongi were recovered vide Ex. P.20 on 30.8.1995 from his house. While at the instance of accused Lala Ram, Kurta and Dhoti were recovered from his house same day vide Ex. P.21. On perusal of the aforesaid two recovery memos, it is revealed that on being taken to their houses, the accused went inside the house and searched these clothes and produced to the Investigation Officer Mahood Khan (PW 29). While at the instance of accused Lala Ram, Kurta and Dhoti were recovered from his house same day vide Ex. P.21. On perusal of the aforesaid two recovery memos, it is revealed that on being taken to their houses, the accused went inside the house and searched these clothes and produced to the Investigation Officer Mahood Khan (PW 29). These clothes were already washed and hence only the blood like patches could be seen on these clothes. Mahmood Khan (PW 29) has admitted in the cross-examination that there were other family members in their houses. It is also clear that the recovery is not from the exclusive place only in the knowledge of these two accused persons and Mahmmod Khan (PW 29) has admitted that he had gone many a times at the houses of these two accused persons even before they were arrested. Nathu (PW 10) is witness to the aforesaid recoveries but he has deposed that no such recoveries were effected in his presence and only blank papers were got signed from him and Jagdish (PW 28) at the Police Station. This witness has been declared hostile. The other witness Jagdish (PW 28), brother of the deceased, has deposed that he could not say whether the clothes of the two accused recovered were blood stained as the clothes were already washed. In the Court, these patches with blood could not be seen as the same were cut out for FSL Examination. In view of the above discussion, the manner in which recovery is made does not lead to the only inference that these clothes belonged to the appellants and that they had these clothes on their body and the same were stained with blood while committing the murder of the deceased. 13. The next circumstance which pertains to recovery of plastic foot wears with two stones tied in a bundle of loongi cloth of.the deceased vide (Ex.P.16) at the instance of accused Lala, has not been supported by P.W. 10 Nathu, the only recovery witness who has been declared hostile. 13. The next circumstance which pertains to recovery of plastic foot wears with two stones tied in a bundle of loongi cloth of.the deceased vide (Ex.P.16) at the instance of accused Lala, has not been supported by P.W. 10 Nathu, the only recovery witness who has been declared hostile. More-over this recovery has been made on 29.8.95 while the dead body was recovered on 12.8.95 and clothes from the dead body were recovered vide Ex.P.15 on 13.8.95 in the presence of Jagdish (PW 28) the brother of the deceased but there is no mention that any loongi cloth and footwear or any other article was missing from the dead body. It was disclose for the first time during the investigation when the additional statements of Jagdish and Kana Ram, both brothers of the deceased were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the police on 3.9.95, long after the aforesaid recovery. Thus the aforesaid recovery is not of much significance so as to provide a reliable link to connect the accused with the crime. 14. Likewise the circumstance of recovery of silver chain at the instance of accused Lala and a wrist watch at the instance of accused Balwa, allegedly missing from the dead body of the deceased and recovered in the aforesaid manner, also fail to establish any credible link with the crime. Likewise, the recovery of 'Topaz' used blade at the instance of accused Balwa, found stained with 'O' Group human blood on 29.8.95 on the day the aforesaid other recoveries were effected is also not of much significance as the blades of this trade mark are common in use and it is difficult to infer that it should be treated as weapon of offence or otherwise connected with the crime in the facts and circumstances of the case when the deceased was allegedly put to death by five accused persons as per the prosecution case. 15. In view of the aforesaid reappraisal, we find substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the present appellants are also entitled to the benefit of doubt on the ground that chain of circumstances being not complete so as to lead to one inference that the two accused had committed the crime while the other three accused Harji, Gordhan and Sharvan charged for the same crime stand acquitted by the trial court. Therefore, on testing the prosecution evidence on the legal principles cited here-in-above, we find that chain of circumstantial evidence is not complete and the circumstances are not consistent with the guilt of the appellants and inconsistent with their innocence. Therefore, the finding of guilt arrived at by learned trial Judge can not be sustained and the appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt. 16. For these reasons, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment dated May 31, 2004 of learned Additional Sessions Judge Kishangarh, District Ajiner. We acquit appellants Lala Ram and Balwa of the charge under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 IPC. Appellants Lala Ram and Balwa, who are in jail, shall be set at liberty forthwith,if they are not required to be detained in any other case.Appeal allowed. *******