JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant has challenged the judgment dated 24.07.2002 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Sikar, whereby he has been convicted for offences under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (VC', for short) and has been sentenced to life imprisonment and has been imposed with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and to further undergo six months of simple imprisonment in default thereof. But, he has been acquitted of offence under Section 201 IPC. 2. According to the prosecution allegedly Bhanwar Lal, the appellant, reached the Police Station, Laxmangarh at 8.15 AM and informed the Station House Officer, Shri Ugamchand (P.W. 16) that he had killed two of his daughters. The said information was recorded in the Roznamcha. Alongwith the appellant, the police reached the village Sheorana Ka Bas, where allegedly the murder had taken place. Madanlal (PW. 2), the appellant's brother, submitted a written report (Ex.P/3) to the police. In the report, he claimed that he and Bhanwar Lal were two brothers. Their uncle (Tau), Hanumanaram was a bachelor and had no children of his own. The appellant and the complainant were living separately. Their father, Bhagirath and their to uncle, Hanumanaram were also living separately. Bhanwar Lal and his wife, Imarta were suffering from mental problem for which they were treated by a psychiatrist. Yesterday, i.e. on 10.01.2002, Bhanwar Lal had gone to his in-law's place and had come back at about 8.00 in the evening. Around 9.00 o'clock at night, his daughter, Kavita aged about two years, was sleeping 15 with her mother. Bhanwar Lal went inside the room and picked up the daughter and told his wife that let me take the daughter and leave her with the uncle, as she may weep at night'. Today, i.e. 11.01.2002 around 8'o clock, they received a phone call asking the whereabouts of Bhanwar Lal. We searched for Bhanwar Lal but could not locate him. It seems that he killed his daughter, Kavita, aged about two years, and has left her body under the fodder for the animals. In the morning, when we were feeding our animals, we discovered the body of Kavita under the animal feed. We also discovered that Babita, aged about four years, was also missing. It seems that he killed his daughter, Kavita, aged about two years, and has left her body under the fodder for the animals. In the morning, when we were feeding our animals, we discovered the body of Kavita under the animal feed. We also discovered that Babita, aged about four years, was also missing. We suspect that Bhanwar Lal has also killed Babita and has hidden her dead body somewhere else." On the basis of this report, the police lodged a formal FIR, FIR No. 6/2002 for offence under Sections 302 and 201 1PC. In order to support its case, the prosecution examined eighteen witnesses and submitted thirty-seven documents. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. However, it is to be noted that while the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant for murder of Babita, it has acquitted the appellant for the alleged murder of Kavita. Hence, this appeal challenging the conviction before this Court. 3. Mr. Poonam Chand Bhandari, the learned amicus curiae for the appellant, has raised various contentions before this Court : firstly, the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. However, the chain of circumstances are not complete to the extent of unerringly pointing to the guilt of the appellant. Secondly, the prosecution has not come with clean hands before the Court. According to the prosecution, the appellant had himself informed the police about the twin murders of his children. He had reached the Police Station at 8.15 in the morning. Yet, according to the arrest Memo (Ex.P/16), the appellant was not arrested till 12.30 PM Once the appellant had stated before the police about the alleged murders, there is no reason for the police to arrest him four hours later. Moreover, according to the Ex.P/27, the appellant had informed the police about the location of Babita's body at 12.45 PM. But, according to the witnesses, Nathu Singh (P.W. 7), Dalu Ram (P.W. 9) and Manoj Kumar (P.W. 17), the photographer. the police had reached the well, where the body was discovered and brought it out around 9.00-10.00 AM itself. Therefore, the body was discovered prior to disclosure information made by the appellant. Thirdly, the entire conviction has been based on the disclosure statement and the discovery of the body subsequently by the police. the police had reached the well, where the body was discovered and brought it out around 9.00-10.00 AM itself. Therefore, the body was discovered prior to disclosure information made by the appellant. Thirdly, the entire conviction has been based on the disclosure statement and the discovery of the body subsequently by the police. However, the learned Judge has ignored the fact that the body was discovered even prior to disclosure statement being made by the appellant. Fourthly, but for the discovery of the dead body at the alleged instance of the appellant, there is no other linking evidence to connect the appellant to the alleged crime. Lastly, such a discovery is too weak a peace of evidence to convict the appellant of a heinous crime like murder. 4. On the other hand, Mr. B.N. Sandhu, learned Public Prosecutor, has supported the impugned award. 5. We have heard both the learned counsels and have perused the impugned judgment and examined the record. 6. The principle for convicting a person in case of circumstantial evidence, by now, is well-settled. In the case of Trimukh Maroti Kiran v. State of Maharashtra, 2006(2) WLC (SC) Civil 673 : (2006) 10 SCC 681 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated the principle with regard to circumstantial evidence as under : The normal principle in a case based on circumstantial evidence is that the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; that those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; that 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 they should be incapable of 25 explanation on any hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with their innocence. 7. Moreover, in the case of Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy v. State of A.P., 2006(1) WLC (SC) Civil 490 : (2006) 10 SCC 172 , the Apex Court observed that "To base a conviction on circumstantial evidence prosecution must establish all the pieces of incriminating circumstances by reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances so proved must form such a chain of events as would permit no conclusion other than one of guilt of the accused. Suspicion, however grave, cannot be a substitute for a proof and the courts should take utmost precaution in finding an accused guilty only on the basis of circumstantial evidence."Therefore, while assessing the evidence, in the present case, the above principles need to be borne in mind. 8. A bare perusal of the record clearly reveals that the prosecution case is full of gaping holes. According to the prosecution, the appellant himself had reached the police station at 8.15 AM and informed the SHO about having committed the twin murders of his two daughters. Despite having such a concrete information in its hand, the police did not arrest the appellant till 12.30 PM i.e., after four hours. Such a delay creates a doubt about the veracity of the prosecution case. According to the Nathu Singh (P.W. 7), Daluram (P.W. 9) and Manoj Kumar (P.W. 17), the dead body was already brought out of the well between 9.00 AM to 10.00 AM. In fact, Manoj Kumar (PW. 17) clearly states that he had photographed the body of Babita between 9.00 AM to 10.00 AM. Since he is an independent witness, there is no reason for disbelieving his testimony. Despite the clear testimonies of these three witnesses, the prosecution would still have us believe that the appellant informed the police about the location of Babita's body -A 12.45 PM. It is difficult to conceive that a person who has himself surrendered before the police, has informed the police about having - committed twin murders, would still take four hours to divulge the location of body. Thus, it appears that Balotta's dead body was recovered, but not at the instance of the appellant. 9. The recovery of the body becomes more doubtful by the fact that according to Ranglal (PW. 18), the recovery witness of the body, he had signed some documents at the place of recovery of the body and other documents at the police station. However, in his cross-examination, he clearly admits that he cannot tell as to which document he had signed at which place. Therefore, a probability exists that the recovery memo of the body was singed at the police station. The recovery is further weakened by the fact that the other recovery witnesses, namely Surendra, has not been examined by the prosecution. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to examine a material witness. Therefore, a probability exists that the recovery memo of the body was singed at the police station. The recovery is further weakened by the fact that the other recovery witnesses, namely Surendra, has not been examined by the prosecution. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to examine a material witness. Thus, an adverse inference shall be read against the prosecution for withholding a material witness. Hence, the recovery of the body at the instance of the appellant is highly doubtful. Therefore, the very basis for convicting the appellant is unsustainable. 10. It is interesting to note that most of the witnesses, namely Smt. Imarta (PW. 1), Madan (P.W. 2), Hanumanaram (P.W. 3), Bhagirath (P.W. 4), Kanhiyalal (P.W. 5), Devi Singh (P.W. 6), Nathu Singh (P.W. 7), Sharwan Singh (P.W. 8), Daluram (P.W. 9), Sugan Singh (P.W. 10), Jhabar (RW. 11), Nirmala (P.W. 12) have all turned hostile in this case, Although, Manoj Kumar (P.W. 17) has not supported the case of the prosecution, but he has not been declared as a hostile witness. Since he has not been declared as hostile, there is no reason to doubt his testimony. An holistic analysis of the evidence makes it abundantly clear that alleged recovery of the dead body of Babita at the alleged information given by the appellant is an extremely weak piece of evidence for convicting the appellant. 11. For these reasons, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment dated July 24, 2002 of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Sikar. We acquit the appellant of the charge under Section 302 IPC. The appellant Bhanwar Lal, who is in jail, shall be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required to be detained in any other caseAppeal Allowed. *******