JUDGMENT 1. - The present appeal is filed by the three appellants being aggrieved by the judgment of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sriganganagar in Sessions Case No. 21/1989 dated 24.9.1990. 2. By the impugned judgment, the three accused appellants have been convicted as under : Appellant Offence u/s. Punishment Prithvi Raj Section 302/34 I.P.C. Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100/-. In default of payment of fine, to under three months R.I. Section 201/34 I.P.C. Five years Rigorous imprisonment. Section 379 I.P.C. One year rigorous imprisonment. Mahendra Singh Section 302/34 I.P.C. Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100/-. In default of payment of fine, to under three months R.I. Section 201/34 I.P.C. Five years rigorous imprisonment. Banta Sigh Section 302/34 I.P.C. Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100/-. In default of payment of fine, to under three months R.I. Section 201/34 I.P.C. Five years rigorous imprisonment. 3. The prosecution was launched on the basis of the report lodged on 23.11.1988 at 1.45 P.M. by one Mohanlal at Police Station Sriganganagar. Mohanlal reported that his son Hanuman, aged 30 years was serving as truck driver of Truck No. RRC 7035 owned by Hanuman Bishnoi. He is serving there since two months. On the day, when he gets is turn, he did not come to the village and on the day he does not get his turn, he returns to the village. On 18.11.1988, the truck was to be loaded by cotton sacks and was required to go out with it. During the night when he did not turn up, the son of the truck owner Rameshwar and Prithviraj S/o Shankarlal were inquired by him about the whereabouts of Hanuman. At that time, Prithvi Raj informed that he Mahendra, Banwari Lal and one Sardar had taken liquor near Sukhadia circle. When the liquor started showing its effects, he returned home. Rest of them went where, he does not know. The first informant then came to his home village and there he inquired. Then he went to Ganganagar where he inquired from Prithvi Raj S/o Shankar Lal. It was reported that his son has been taken away by Pfithviraj, Mahendra and one Sardar and concealed somewhere. 4. On the basis of such information, the Case No. 480/1988 was registered under Section 365 I.P.C. and investigation started. Thereafter, the investigation commenced and F.I.R. No. 21/1988 was also processed. It was reported that his son has been taken away by Pfithviraj, Mahendra and one Sardar and concealed somewhere. 4. On the basis of such information, the Case No. 480/1988 was registered under Section 365 I.P.C. and investigation started. Thereafter, the investigation commenced and F.I.R. No. 21/1988 was also processed. Ultimately, it came out that the three appellants alongwith three persons who were tried by the trial Court were responsible for killing the deceased and doing away with the corpus. 5. On the basis of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against six persons. Following charges were framed against six persons. Accused Charge Mahendra Singh Sections 364, 302, 201, 34 and 120-B I.P.C. Prithviraj Sections 364, 302, 201, 34 and 120-B I.P.C. Banta Singh Sections 364, 302, 201, 34 and 120-B I.P.C. Jaipal 302/201 I.P.C. Indra Kumar 302/201 I.P.C. Vilas Kumar 302/201 I.P.C. 6. Accused denied the charges and claimed trial. At the trial, the prosecution led evidence and examined witnesses to establish its case. After considering the case of the prosecution, the trial Court came to the conclusion that there is not direct evidence available against the accused persons and the case is based on circumstantial piece of evidence. The circumstances which were noticed by the trial Court are as follows : (i) Deceased Hanuman had illicit relationship with wife of Prithviraj and he used to boast about that. (ii) Accused Prithviraj, Mahendra Singh and Banta Singh's extra judicial confession before witness Jagdish that they have beaten Hanuman and have put the dead body in the Canal. (iii) Recovery of watch of Hanuman from Prithviraj which has been identified by wife of deceased to be of Hanuman. (iv) Witness Mani Ram saw the deceased with Mahendra Singh, Prithvi Raj and one Sardar who was later on identified as Banta Singh in the night on Truck No. RSC 3675. Witness Kamalraj has also seen the deceased with the three named accused on the same night. (v) The undergarments found on the body recovered from the Canal match with the undergarments produced by the wife of the deceased. (vi) The place where the accused had beaten up the deceased and the place where his body was dumped, were identified at the instance of the accused. 7. Believing the circumstances narrated above, the three accused persons were convicted as aforesaid and the other three of them who were charged, were acquitted. 8. (vi) The place where the accused had beaten up the deceased and the place where his body was dumped, were identified at the instance of the accused. 7. Believing the circumstances narrated above, the three accused persons were convicted as aforesaid and the other three of them who were charged, were acquitted. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants feeling aggrieved by the conviction as recorded against the appellants, asserted that it is not a case of homicidal death. The testimony of PW-9 Dr. Satya Prakash is clear and un-ambiguous wherein, he says that the cause of death has not been established. There being no cause of death established, it cannot be said that death of the deceased was homicidal. If it was not homicidal, then it is not even difficult but impossible to say that the death has occurred, as claimed by the prosecution, at the hands of the accused appellants. It is the first and foremost duty of the prosecution to establish that the death of the deceased was homicidal. This burden has not been discharged by the prosecution. 9. Learned counsel for the accused further asserted that the extra judicial confession is said to have been made before PW-13 Jagdish. Another somewhat important relevant circumstance is that this witness is the husband of sister of the deceased. Lie is said to have heard the extra judicial confession being made by the accused. The quality of the extra judicial confession looses significance for the simple reason that this witness claims that it was after 20-22 days after the death of the accused, the accused had come to him for making the confession. By that time, he had not known about the death of Hanuman. The report of the death by that time being lodged with police and dead body recovered, it is impossible to believe that sister of the deceased would not know that her brother has died. 10. This witness in his examination has stated that when he went to his in laws then, his in-laws informed him that he was not informed of the death of Hanuman casually. This expression by itself is not only not convincing but is preposterous because good information may not be communicated but death never goes un-noticed. 10. This witness in his examination has stated that when he went to his in laws then, his in-laws informed him that he was not informed of the death of Hanuman casually. This expression by itself is not only not convincing but is preposterous because good information may not be communicated but death never goes un-noticed. If a death has occurred 20-22 days back, in the community in which the death has taken place, there are certain last rites which are performed and those last rites require the presence of the family members. Here brother-in-law and sister were excluded altogether from information, is impossible to conceive. In any case, the extra-judicial confession, as deposed is not convincing because which of the accused made the extra-judicial confession, what words were actually spoken and by which accused, has not been deposed by this witness. Thus, this witness and the evidence of extra-judicial confession loses significance. 11. All other circumstances are innocuous circumstances because motive is not based on any cogent evidence. It is only based on hear say. The last seen is again a circumstance which do not connect the accused with the crime because it is not established as to what was the day, the last seen has occurred and when was the offence committed. The recovery of watch etc. is also innocuous circumstance. They do not indicate as to who was the culprit and in that background, the case cannot be said to be made out. In the aforesaid background, learned counsel for the appellants urged that in a case based on circumstantial pieces of evidence, it is required that the chain of circumstances should be established. Bits and pieces cannot serve the purpose of establishing a prosecution case against the accused persons and in that background, unless a conclusive chain is established, the same cannot be used by the prosecution. In the instant case, it appears that extra judicial confession has falsely been introduced. There is no report of Doctor establishing that the death was homicidal. Therefore, the case of murder cannot be made out. 12. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that it is very difficult to assume and presume that the circumstances as indicated and found to be established by the trial Court were not sufficient to indicate that the death of Hanuman has been caused by the accused. Therefore, the case of murder cannot be made out. 12. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that it is very difficult to assume and presume that the circumstances as indicated and found to be established by the trial Court were not sufficient to indicate that the death of Hanuman has been caused by the accused. There was a strong motive and extra judicial confession includes everything in itself to indicate that it was the accused persons alone who were responsible for death of the deceased. Circumstance of last seen and recovery corroborate the circumstance of death and in that view of the matter, the findings of the trial Court are not liable to be disturbed. 13. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and have perused the record. 14. The first and foremost point is the medical evidence. If the medical evidence is not indicative of the factor that the death was homicidal, then it is very difficult to conceive that a culpable case can be made out against the accused. First the death has to be established by such means which were homicidal and second is the implication of the accused. Thus, the very foundation of the prosecution case is weak. 15. The aforesaid weakness is further exemplified by false extra judicial confession. After 20-22 days, a relation witness claims that he was not informed of the death, when such news is hardly kept secret and goes like wild fire. It cannot be believed that by the time the accused met the witness Jagdish PW-13, he had not even known of death of Hanuman. This witness is a false witness on this count. The evidence of extra judicial confession is a weak type of evidence. It is narrated by a person who has inherent improbability to support. He shows a character, wherein he excludes the knowledge of death of his brother-in-law. No implicit reliance can be placed on his testimony. Other pieces of evidence like motive is based on hearsay and recoveries are not indicative of death and in that background, we feel persuaded that the prosecution has failed to establish that it was a case of homicide and in that background, findings of the trial Court convicting the accused appellants is not liable to be sustained. 16. Other pieces of evidence like motive is based on hearsay and recoveries are not indicative of death and in that background, we feel persuaded that the prosecution has failed to establish that it was a case of homicide and in that background, findings of the trial Court convicting the accused appellants is not liable to be sustained. 16. Consequent to the aforesaid observation, we are constrained to observe that the findings of the trial Court are not liable to be sustained. They deserve to be set aside. The appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant is set aside. They are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled. They need not surrender to their bail bonds.Appeal allowed. *******