JUDGMENT H.S.Bhalla, J.:- This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 14.10.997 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, whereby he convicted the appellant under Sections 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and he was ordered to pay a fine of Rs.500/-; in default thereof, he was further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. However, the remaining accused, namely, Hukma and Fatta Singh were acquitted of the charges framed against them. 2. The facts required to be noticed for the disposal of this appeal are that a case was registered against the accused on the basis of the statement made by Mohinder Kumar when he met the police party headed by Sub Inspector Gurchain Singh in the area of Patiala Gate, Nabha on 24.8.1995. Mohinder Kumar in his statement, Ex. PD, stated that he was working as a Salesman on Petrol Pump owned by Munshi Ram situated in village Dhingi on Malerkotla Road for the last about five months. He remained on duty there since morning till 8.00 P.M. After 8.00 P.M. Sarup Singh son of Chet Ram attended the Petrol Pump as a Watchman. He further stated that on 23.8.1995 at about 8.00 P.M., he left the Petrol Pump after handing over the charge to Watchman Sarup Singh. On the next day, when the complainant returned to his duties at 8.00 A.M., he saw watchman Sarup Singh lying on the cot with his face downwards. His arms had been tied with a cloth on his back and his ankles had been tied with the cot with a small rope. On close examination, complainant noticed a swelling on the neck of Sarup Singh and found him lying in the pool of blood and noticed a few injuries on his shoulders also. The watchman Sarup Singh was lying dead on the cot. Chet Ram, father of Sarup Singh, reached the place of occurrence, whom the complainant narrated the incident and reported the matter with the police. On the basis of this statement, formal FIR was recorded and the police party reached the spot. After completion of necessary investigation, accused were sent up for trial. 3. Appellant was charge sheeted under Sections 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. On the basis of this statement, formal FIR was recorded and the police party reached the spot. After completion of necessary investigation, accused were sent up for trial. 3. Appellant was charge sheeted under Sections 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. Prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as ten witnesses, namely, Dr. Paramvir Singh, Medical Officer (PW-1), Mohinder Kumar, Salesman (PW-2), Chet Singh, Agricultural Labourer (PW-3), Ajaib Singh, Agriculturist (PW-4), Dev Singh, Dairy Owner (PW-5), Khushwinder Singh, Patwari (PW-6), Sukhdev Singh, Sub Inspector/Station House Officer (PW-7), Darshan Singh Constable (PW-8), Gurchain Singh, Sub Inspector (PW-9) and Harnek Singh, truck driver (PW-10) and closed its evidence. 5. In his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, accused denied all the prosecution allegations levelled against him and pleaded that he has been falsely implicated in the present case and further disclosed that he along with other coaccused was arrested by the Police of Police Station Sadar Nabha and was brought to the Punjab from Delhi and thereafter he and his co-accused Fatta was involved in some false cases in Sangrur district and thereafter he along with other co-accused has been falsely involved in the instant murder case by the police of Police Station Sadar, Nabha, just to show progress in the detection of blind murder case and the prosecution witnesses have given false statements. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case carefully. 8. It is, ipso facto, clear from the prosecution version, as disclosed above, that the case against the appellant rested entirely on circumstantial evidence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge accepted the circumstantial evidence alleged on behalf of the prosecution as correct and sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellant. 9. The question for our consideration is whether the court below is right in its view that the circumstantial evidence in the case is sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellant? Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended before us that even if the circumstantial evidence against the appellant is accepted as correct, it does not complete a chain of evidence and in fact, links in the chain of circumstances against the appellant are missing and the prosecution case is bound to fail. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended before us that even if the circumstantial evidence against the appellant is accepted as correct, it does not complete a chain of evidence and in fact, links in the chain of circumstances against the appellant are missing and the prosecution case is bound to fail. 10. Before we lay our hands on the circumstantial evidence available on the record, we would like to observe that it is well established that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should, in the first instance, be fully established, and the circumstances so established, should be consistent only when the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused person; that is, the circumstances should be of such a nature as to reasonably exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. It is common ground that there is no direct evidence implicating the appellant. Prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence. As the case depends on circumstantial evidence, at the outset, the well established principles governing the appreciation of evidence in a case dependent upon circumstantial evidence is to be borne in mind; that the circumstance relied upon must be such as cannot be explained on any hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. In other words, the circumstances must be of an incriminating character. All the proved circumstances must provide a complete chain no link of which must be missing and they must unequivocally point to the guilt of the accused and exclude any hypothesis consistent with his innocence. Keeping in view the parameter as laid down above, the entire case of the prosecution and the defence has to be minutely scanned on the basis of oral as well as documentary evidence available on the record of the case. 11. It is alleged by the prosecution that after murder of Sarup Singh on the night intervening between 23/24.8.1995 all the three accused along with two other companions, namely, Moga alias Mogi and Pappu Ram @ Pappu son of Pulla Singh @ Harphul Singh were seen by Ajaib Singh and Dev Singh PWs at about 9.30 P.M. when these PWs were coming back from village Sadhoheri and reached near the Petrol Pump Dhingi. To prove this fact, the prosecution has examined Ajaib Singh (PW-4), who has stated that he and Dev Singh, Ex-Sarpanch, were coming back from Sadhoheri in the month of August, 1995. When they reached the Petrol Pump, Dhingi, five persons were seen by them in the electric light. Three of them were the accused and they stated that they had killed Sarupi and the PWs should hand over their belongings to them. However, Ajaib Singh stated that he did not know the names of the accused, present in the Court, or the names of those persons, who had met. One of those persons had given his name as Fatta, but he could not say if Fatta was among these three accused and thereafter those persons went towards village Dhingi. On the next date, they came to know that Sarup had been killed. Dev Singh has been examined as PW-5, but he has not supported the prosecution case and as such he was crossexamined by the Public Prosecutor. 12. So far as the testimony of Ajaib Singh (PW-4) is concerned, we find that Ajaib Singh (PW-4) has not stated that he knew the accused previously and it is an admitted case of the prosecution that no test identification parade was got conducted by the police. Therefore, the mere statement of Ajaib Singh (PW-4) before the trial Court that three of those persons were the accused of this case, has got no evidentiary value. The record clearly spells out that the accused are not known to this witness, therefore, it is necessary for the Investigating Officer to arrange for the test identification parade, but that was not done. Ajaib Singh (PW-4) has admitted during cross-examination that all those five persons were seen by him in the Police station. It is well settled law that identification of the accused in the Court for the first time is a weak type of evidence and cannot be relied upon. 13. The prosecution has tried to build a castle on the sandy foundation and in fact, the entire case of the prosecution is doubtful. It is well settled law that identification of the accused in the Court for the first time is a weak type of evidence and cannot be relied upon. 13. The prosecution has tried to build a castle on the sandy foundation and in fact, the entire case of the prosecution is doubtful. If the accused and his companions had met Ajaib Singh (PW-4) and Dev Singh (PW-5) and had given threat to them, then they could have reported the matter to the police, but Ajaib Singh (PW-4), in his cross-examination, has admitted that he had not lodged any report regarding this threat given by five-six persons, including the accused. Ajaib Singh further disclosed that he had given the description of the accused to the police while making his statement as he did not know the names of the accused. He was duly confronted with portion ‘A’ to ‘A’ of his statement Ex. DA, wherein the names of the accused are mentioned. In such like circumstances, no explanation has come forward as to how names of the accused were known to the Investigating Officer. This witness has further disclosed that it was a dark night and he could not remember as to which of the three persons out of them were armed with sotis. In such like circumstances, we find that truth is not coming out from the statement of Ajaib Singh (PW-4) and no reliance can be placed on his statement. Moreover, he has also stated in his cross-examination that he had no scooter in his name; they were going on foot and they were not having any cycle with them, whereas Dev Singh (PW-5) has categorically deposed that they had gone on cycles and they were having two cycles with them when those persons met them near the Petrol Pump. Ajaib Singh (PW-4) was also contradicted by Chet Singh (PW-3) when he disclosed during his cross-examination that Ajaib Singh (PW-4) is the owner of scooter, but he has no jeep. The entire statement of Ajaib Singh (PW-4) is unnatural and he has also admitted in his cross-examination that he did not tell about the incident at the house of Sarupa to his wife or other members of his family, nor did he disclose to any Member Panchayat. He further admitted that he did not voluntarily tell this fact to the police on the next day. He further admitted that he did not voluntarily tell this fact to the police on the next day. Rather, he stated that his statement was recorded by police after 7-8 months of the occurrence. This conduct on the part of Ajaib Singh (PW-4) makes the prosecution version highly improbable and rather spells out that Ajaib Singh (PW-4) and Dev Singh (PW-5) did not see the accused persons immediately after the alleged occurrence had taken place. The presence of Ajaib Singh (PW-4) and Dev Singh (PW-5) at the Petrol Pump when the police arrived there has added another nail to the coffin of the prosecution case. We find that Chet Singh (PW-3) has admitted in his cross-examination that many villagers, on hearing news of the death of Sarup Singh, had arrived at the Petrol Pump. Ajaib Singh (PW-4) and Dev Singh (PW-5) also accompanied them to the Petrol Pump. Police arrived after few minutes of their reaching the Petrol Pump. No explanation has come forward if Ajaib Singh (PW-4) and Dev Singh (PW-5) were present at the Petrol Pump, then why the statements of these witnesses were not recorded by the police at that time. 14. Sub Inspector Gurchain Singh (PW-9) has deposed that he was going towards Paharpur side in the evening on 24.8.1995 when Ajaib Singh (PW-4) and Dev Singh (PW-5) met him and he recorded their statements. In such like circumstances, no reliance can be placed on the testimony of these witnesses with regard to the fact that they had met accused near the Petrol Pump at Dhingi or that the accused had extended the threat to these witnesses. 15. As per the prosecution version, on 20.10.1995 accused had gone to Jaswinder Singh, where Bakshish Singh PW was also present and they had requested them that they should be produced before the police. Accused also made an extra-judicial confession before Jaswinder Singh and Bakshish Singh Pws. This witness has categorically admitted that he had recorded the statements of Jaswinder Singh and Bakshish Singh during the investigation, but none of these Pws has been produced in support of its case. Both of them have been given up as having been won over by the accused. This witness has categorically admitted that he had recorded the statements of Jaswinder Singh and Bakshish Singh during the investigation, but none of these Pws has been produced in support of its case. Both of them have been given up as having been won over by the accused. We would also like to observe that it is no doubt true that all the witnesses of the prosecution need not be called but it is important to notice that the witnesses whose evidence is essential to the “Unfolding of the narrative” should be called. This salutary principle in criminal trials has been stressed for eliciting truth by the Apex Court in the case of Habeeb Mohammad v. The State of Hyderabad AIR 1954 SC 51. The absence of witnesses, namely, Jaswinder Singh and Bakshish Singh from the prosecution evidence seriously affects the truth of the prosecution case. 16. The Apex Court in Habeeb Mohammad’s case (supra) referred to the observations of Jenkins, C.J. in Ram Ranjan Roy v. Emperor, ILR 42 Cal. 422 (AIR 1915 Cal. 545) that the purpose of a criminal trial is not to support at all costs a theory but to investigate the offence and to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused and the duty of a public prosecutor is to represent the administration of justice so that the testimony of all the available eye-witnesses should be before the Court . Lord Roche in Stephen Seneviratne v. The King, AIR 1936 SC 289, referred to the observations of Jenkine, C.J. and said that the witnesses essential to the unfolding of the narrative on which the prosecution is based must be called by the prosecution whether the effect of their testimony is for or against the case for the prosecution. That is why, the Apex Court in Habeeb Mohammad’s case (supra) said that the absence of an eye witness in the circumstances of the case might affect a fair trial. Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submitted that Hamir Singh and Major Singh were won over and, therefore, the prosecution could not call them, but the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor is liable to be rejected merely suffering a statement on behalf of the prosecution to the effect that the witnesses had been won over was not conclusive of the question that the witnesses had been won over. In such a case Hamir Singh and Major Singh could have been produced for cross-examination by the accused. That would have elicited the correct facts. This reasoning of mine is also supported by Division Bench of our own Hon’ble High Court reported in State of Punjab V. Piara Singh 1992(1) Recent Criminal Reports, 615, wherein it was observed as under:- “ He was withheld by the prosecution on the ground that he has been won over by the respondent. This allegation of the prosecution, can, in no way, be accepted to be conclusive of the fact that he was actually won over by the respondent. That being so, the legitimate inference that can be drawn is that had he appeared in the witness box, he would not have supported the prosecution version. In this view of the matter, his non-examination has, to our mind, caused dent in the prosecution case.” The next circumstance alleged by the prosecution is that after the occurrence on the same night the accused along with their companions had looted the liquor vend in Dhingi at about 12.00 P.M. In this respect, the prosecution has examined Harnek Singh (PW-10), For the sake of arguments, even if it be presumed that accused had looted the liquorvend at about 11.00 P.M. that does not prove that murder of Sarup Singh had been committed by the present accused and in view of what has been discussed above, the entire case of the prosecution has become doubtful. The statement of Harnek Singh (PW-10) with regard to the subsequent occurrence when other links are missing, are not required to be discussed and moreover, it is admitted case of the prosecution that no case was registered against any person regarding the injuries inflicted to Harnek Singh. The learned Additional Sessions Judge fell in error by passing judgment of conviction against the present appellant on the basis of the statement of Harnek Singh (PW-10), who has not stated even a single word with regard to the occurrence on the basis of which the present appellant is being tried. The sotti, Ex. P- 4, which was recovered from the accused, has no special mark of identification and such type of sottis are available in the market and moreover, the place of occurrence is open and assessible to all. In view of the circumstances as discussed above, recovery of stick loses its importance. 17. The sotti, Ex. P- 4, which was recovered from the accused, has no special mark of identification and such type of sottis are available in the market and moreover, the place of occurrence is open and assessible to all. In view of the circumstances as discussed above, recovery of stick loses its importance. 17. Admittedly, it is a case of circumstantial evidence. There is no cogent evidence available on the record to establish the chain of circumstances so complete so as to prove the guilt against the appellant. The circumstantial evidence collected by the police during the course of investigation as discussed above, is of no value and the case of the prosecution falls to the ground. 18. In the light of what has been discussed above, prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, appeal filed by the appellant succeeds and is allowed. Appellant is acquitted of the charges framed against him by giving him the benefit of doubt. His bail bonds and surety bonds stand discharged. Appellant, if in custody, he be released forthwith. 19. It is pity that the death of deceased Sarup Singh is going unheard and unnoticed. ———————————