JUDGMENT H.S. Bhalla, J.- By this common judgment, we shall be disposing of Criminal Appeal No. 559-DB of 1997 filed by the appellants and Criminal Revision No. 798 of 1997 filed by complainant Ramji Lal together as they arise out of the same impugned judgment dated 21/23.7.1997 passed ‘by Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21/23.7.1997 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul, whereby he convicted all the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and they were ordered to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each; in default thereof, they were further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each. All the appellants were convicted under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and they were ordered to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each; in default thereof, they were further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months each. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. A synoptical resume of the prosecution case is as under: ­Complainant Lal Chand son of deceased Sultan was Sarpanch of village Niamatpur. Two civil suits titled Gram Panchayat Niyamatpur v. Parasnath and others and Gram Panchayat Niyamatpur v. Surajbhan were pending in Narnaul Courts. On 21.2.1994 Lal Chand and his father Sultan had gone to Narnaul Courts. After adjournment of the cases, Lal Chand and his father had come to village Nangal Chaudhary. On their way to their village Niyamatpur, Sultan had stayed back at Nangal Chaudhary telling his son Lal Chand that he would return by the evening. Lal Chand returned to his village, but deceased Sultan did not return. Lal Chand and his brother Ramji lal searched for Sultan. On 3.3.1994. Ramji Lal lodged a report regarding missing of his father Sultan at Police Station Nangal Chaudhary. On the same day, i.e. 3.3.1994 at about 12.00 (noon), one Jag Ram informed the complainant that one dead body was lying in a well situated in the area of village Gadoj. The complainant reached there and found that the dead body in the well was that of his father Sultan. On the same day, i.e. 3.3.1994 at about 12.00 (noon), one Jag Ram informed the complainant that one dead body was lying in a well situated in the area of village Gadoj. The complainant reached there and found that the dead body in the well was that of his father Sultan. Matter was reported at Police Station Behror from where police had reached the spot as village Gadoj was under the jurisdiction of Police Station Behror. The dead body of Sultan was taken out from the well and at this stage, Lal Chand reported the matter through report Ex. PS about the facts and circumstances expressing his doubts against Parasnath, Bhagwana son of Prabhu, Chet Ram son of Birda, Indraj son of Dev Karan, Ramotar son of Dev Karan and Mahabir son of Dolat Ram. On the basis of this report, Ex. PS, a case was registered under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code on 3.3.1994. 4. Complainant in his report, Ex. PS, also stated that Bhagwana Swami was with them at Narnaul on 21.2.1994. He was also present at village Nangal Chaudhary, where he had let his father Sultan. One Phool Chand, Lambardar, resident of village Nayan, had also told the complainant that he had seen his father at the hotel of Sarwan Swami at about 5.30 P.M. on 21.2.1994, where trey had taken tea. Later on, accused Parasnath, Balaknath and Bhagwana son of Prabhu Swami were arrested by Behror police and on 5.3.1994 they led the police party to the well from where the dead body of Sultan had been recovered and they disclosed that they had thrown the dead body of Sultan in a well. Complainant also disclosed in his complaint, Ex. PS, that when the dead body of his father was taken out from the well, it was found that his father had been strangulated to death with the help of a rope. He also disclosed that his father was wearing one wrist watch, HMT black dial, one pair of red coloured leather shoes and had also some money and papers in his pocket. Post mortem examination on the dead body was conducted and the cause of death was disclosed as strangulation leading to asphyxia. He also disclosed that his father was wearing one wrist watch, HMT black dial, one pair of red coloured leather shoes and had also some money and papers in his pocket. Post mortem examination on the dead body was conducted and the cause of death was disclosed as strangulation leading to asphyxia. Wrist watch of the deceased was got recovered by accused Bhagwana from under the earth in a pit near a Keekar tree and thereafter made a disclosure statement in the presence of Phool Chand and Banwari Lal. The watch was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. P1. A pair of shoes belonging to the deceased was got recovered by suffering disclosure statement by accused Balaknath Chela Parasnath from the well in village Niyamatpur in the presence of Banwari Lal and Indraj Singh and the same were taken into possession through recovery memo Ex. PK. On 8.3.1994 accused Bhagwana had also got recovered a piece of rope from a room of the temple in village Niyamatpur and the said rope was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PL. During post mortem examination, dead body was found completely decomposed and four injuries were found on the dead body of Sultan by Dr. Hari Singh Yadav, Medical Officer, who conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body. During the course of investigation, one Parkash son of Chander Singh had suffered a statement that he had gone to Behror for returning the goods of a tent house in his tractor after the marriage of the daughter of Shyam Lal Pandit of their village. When he was returning to his village, the bearing of the tractor was broken and was got repaired. Thereafter, he had started return journey at about 11/11.30 P.M. and in the mid night at 1.00 A.M. he had reached near village Gadoj, Rajasthan. There was a well near the road. He had seen the jeep of Parasnath found parked near that well. Parasnath was sitting in the jeep and he had also seen Bhagwana, Parasnath and Balaknath taking out a bundle from the jeep and throwing the same into a well. Police also recorded statement of one Jagdish son of Shankar, resident of village Mosnuta, who had stated that he was returning from village Gothari after purchasing bajra, which he was carrying on his camel cart. Police also recorded statement of one Jagdish son of Shankar, resident of village Mosnuta, who had stated that he was returning from village Gothari after purchasing bajra, which he was carrying on his camel cart. When he reached near the house of accused Bhagwana at about 10/11 P.M., he had seen the jeep of Baba Parasnath parked there. Parasnath was sitting in the jeep. Bhagwana, his wife Smt. Misri, Surajbhan and Balaknath were seen carrying a bundle of sarson crop and had put that bundle in the jeep and then the jeep was driven away. Rati Ram, during his cross-examination, had made a statement that at about 4.00 P.M. he and his cousin were irrigating their field in village Niyamatpur. There was a power failure and therefore, he had gone to the temple of Baba Parasnath to smoke Hukka, where they found accused Parasnath, Balaknath, Surajbhan and Bhagwana and two or three more persons. Surajbhan and Parasnath were asking Bhagwana to kill Sultan Singh because he was not allowing them to take possession of the land of the temple. Bhagwana and Balaknath had stated that they would kill Sultan Singh and had also asked as to who would meet the expenses. Surajbhan and Parasnath had stated that they would spend the amount. Rati Ram had asked the accused as to why they wanted to kill Sultan Singh. When the accused came to know that he had over-heard their talk, they had made them to take on oath after placing hands on the idols that they would not disclose the matter to any person and if they did so, they would be ruined. On completion of investigation, accused were sent up for trial. 5. Charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against accused Bhagwana. Charges under section 120-B read with Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code were framed against all the five accused and charge under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against accused Parasnath and Smt. Misri. Later on, charge was also framed under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code against accused Bhagwana and Balaknath to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 6. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined Dr. Later on, charge was also framed under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code against accused Bhagwana and Balaknath to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 6. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined Dr. Hari Singh Yadav (PW-1), Ganga Din Sharma (PW-2), Phool Singh (PW-3), Bhanwar Singh (PW-4), Ratti Ram (PW-5),Deep Chand, Patwari (PW-6), Parkash (PW-7) Jagdish (PW-8), Banwari (PW-9), Head Constable Devki Nandan Sharma (PW-10), Head Constable Ilyas Khan (PW-11), Surender Kumar, Photographer (PW-12), Om Parkash. Registration Clerk (PW-13), Constable Kanwar Singh (PW-14), Constable Raja Ram (PW-15), Shri Sanjeev Jindal, Judicial Magistrate I Class. Palwal (PW-16), Siri Ram Sharma, Reader, SDO (Civil), Narnaul (PW-17), Ramji Lal (PW-18), Sub Inspector Ved Parkash (PW-19) Sub Inspector Daya Nand (PW-20), Assistant Sub .Inspector Sultan Singh (PW-21) and after tendering into evidence affidavits of some of the witnesses and giving up remaining witnesses as unnecessary and giving up witness Lal Chand being mentally upset, closed its evidence. 7. In their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellants denied the allegations of the prosecution levelled against them and pleaded that they have been falsely implicated. They opted to produce evidence in defence. They got examined Hanuman Lambardar as DW-1. 8­. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the case meticulously. It is crystal clear from the facts, as referred to above, that there is no direct evidence of the eye witness in this case and the case is based only on circumstantial evidence. Law regarding circumstantial evidence is well settled and the Apex Court in number of cases, has laid down that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy three tests: (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 guilt of the accused; (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. The circumstantial evidence in order to ascertain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused. The circumstantial evidence in order to ascertain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused. The circumstantial evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. In the light of the legal position of the substantial evidence, we have to examine whether circumstantial evidence in the instant case satisfies requirements of law. The circumstances in the instant case may be broadly classified as under:- (i) oral evidence to prove that he was last seen in the company of the accused; and (ii) various recoveries most of them at the instance of the accused; 9. On scrutiny of the evidence, the only thing established is that the accused was last seen by Phool Singh (PW-3) and Bhanwar Singh (PW-4). Phool Singh (PW-3) has disclosed that in the month of Fagun while he was sitting at the tea shop of Sarvan at Nangal Chaudhary, he found that Sultan Singh (deceased) came there at about 5.00 P.M. and thereafter Bhagwana accused also came to that shop and while he was still sitting in the shop, Bhagwana accused and Sultan Singh both left the place together. During the course of cross-examination, he disclosed that he does not remember the date on which he had seen Sultan Singh at the aforesaid ,shop. The son of Sultan Singh (deceased) met him after 4-5 days after his meeting with Sultan Singh. This witness told him that he had seen his father Sultan Singh at the tea shop, whereas Bhanwar Singh (PW-4) disclosed that on 21.2.1994 at about 5/5.15 P.M. he had seen Sultan Singh with Bhagwana accused at the Bus Stand of village Nangal Chaudhary. All this shows that both these witnesses had seen Sultan Singh with Bhagwana accused in the last week of February, 1994 in the evening at about 5.00 P.M. But to our mind, this single circumstance by itself is too feeble to connect the accused with the murder of Sultan Singh. Moreover, the doctor who conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Sultan Singh could not give probable time of death of the deceased as the body was in high state of decomposition. Even if, we delve deep into the matter, it is not possible to fix the day and time of the death of the deceased. Moreover, the doctor who conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Sultan Singh could not give probable time of death of the deceased as the body was in high state of decomposition. Even if, we delve deep into the matter, it is not possible to fix the day and time of the death of the deceased. Even if it is accepted for the sake of argument that the deceased was seen in the company of the accused in the evening of February 21, 1994, then also in the absence of any positive evidence of the probable time of death, it is difficult to connect the accused with the crime as there might be a long gap between the accused being seen in the company of accused Bhagwana and the time of death of the deceased. The recording of the statements of the material witnesses by the police after a lapse of 20 days has added another nail to the coffin of the prosecution case. The deceased was found missing since 21.2.1994 when he went to attend to the court proceedings and it is strange to note that even the sons of the deceased Sultan Singh did not make endeavour to lodge the missing report till 3.3.1994. No explanation has come forward from Ramji Lal, who stepped into the witness box as PW-18 as to why they delayed in filing the missing report before the police, which was lodged on 3.3.1994 at 11.30 P.M. and this missing report was attested by both the sons of the deceased, i.e., Ramji Lal and Lal Chand. Body of deceased Sultan Singh was recovered the same day, i.e., 3.3.1994 on the information provided by Jag Ram to Lal Chand son of the deceased. The statements of the star witnesses of the prosecution were recorded after a lapse of about 20 days from the date of lodging of the missing report and this fact stands out prominently as a circumstance, which may be said to tilt the scale in favour of the appellants. It appears that the statements of these witnesses of the prosecution, which were recorded after much delay with the sole motive to fit in these witnesses within the version of the prosecution. It appears that the statements of these witnesses of the prosecution, which were recorded after much delay with the sole motive to fit in these witnesses within the version of the prosecution. There is in the circumstances considerable force in the argument of the learned defence counsel that the entire case of the prosecution is the result of consultations and confabulations, keeping in view the delayed recording of the statements of these witnesses for which no explanation has come forward. In the instant case, we do not find any justifiable reason as to why witnesses, namely, Phool Singh (PW-3) Bhanwar Singh, (PW-4), Ratti Ram (PW-5) and Parkash (PW-7) were not examined by the police for about 20 days, particularly when it came to the knowledge of the Investigating Officer about their role after the recovery of the dead body and recording of the statement of Lal Chand on the basis of which, a case was registered. The witnesses, however, were found to be telling falsehood on material aspect of this case and tried to improve their version. Ratti Ram (PW-5) disclosed that accused Bhagwana, Suraj Bhan, Balak Nath and Paras Nath are known to him and while he was irrigating his field at about 4.00 P.M. on 18.2.1994, there was a power failure and he went to the temple of Baba Paras Nath accused and the accused were present there where Suraj Bhan and Paras Nath were asking Bhagwana to kill Sultan Singh because he was not allowing them to become Sarpanch and was also not allowing them to take possession of the land of the temple. He further disclosed that Bhagwana and Balak Nath said that they would kill Sultan Singh, but who would meet the expenses. Suraj Bhan and Paras Nath stated that they would meet the expenses. And when he asked the aforesaid accused as to why they wanted to kill Sultan Singh, they learnt that he had heard their talks, they made this witness and Moola to take an oath after placing hands on idols that they would not disclose the matter to any person and on account of this oath, he did not disclose to any person in the village. During the course of cross­ examination, this witness has categorically admitted that the police had recorded his statement after one month of their aforesaid meeting with the accused in the temple and he had not disclosed the matter to anyone nor he had told the police about their meeting with the accused even at the time of recovery of the dead body of Sultan Singh from the well. He has also disclosed that he had himself gone to the police to make a statement. No explanation has come forward as to why he remained silent for such a long time and one fine morning, he decided to disclose everything to the police. He has also disclosed that he had not told the police that Chet Ram, Indraj, Ramotar, Mahabir and Saba Ramji Nath were also present with the accused at the temple of Baba Paras Nath (confronted with statement Ex. DA where it was so recorded). He further disclosed that he had also not told the police that Chet Ram, Ramotar, Indraj and Mahabir were also asking Bhagwana to kill Sultan Singh. In his statement, Ex. DA, he also disclosed that these persons also agreed to spend the amount, but when he stepped into the witness box, he again changed a stand by disclosing that he had not told the police that these persons were ready to spend the amount. Regarding taking of an oath by keeping hands on the idol, he disclosed to the Court that Paras Nath accused had made them to take an oath, whereas in Ex. DA, he disclosed to the police that Chet Ram etc. had given them the oath as mentioned above. He also denied the recovery of dead body from a deserted well when he appeared before the Court, whereas in Ex. DA, which is an earlier statement made to the police, he disclosed about the recovery of the dead body on 3.3.1994 from a deserted well. This witness, in our considered view, has no legs to stand and he has changed his version before the Court and tried to make improvement in order to help the prosecution. DA, which is an earlier statement made to the police, he disclosed about the recovery of the dead body on 3.3.1994 from a deserted well. This witness, in our considered view, has no legs to stand and he has changed his version before the Court and tried to make improvement in order to help the prosecution. No explanation has come forward as to why he remained silent for such a long time and the conduct of this witness to the part of the incident is highly unnatural, improbable and why he opted to go to the police to disclose about the killing of Sultan remains a question mark?. The conduct of this witness and the other witnesses of last seen certainly makes the prosecution story doubtful in the manner in which it was projected before us. We are conscious of the fact that delay in recording the statements of the witnesses by few hours or few days may not by itself, amount to serious infirmities in the prosecution case, but in the instant case, delay of 20 days in recording the statements of the material witnesses clearly spells out that the investigator was deliberately marking time with a view to decide about a shape to be given to the case and the eye witnesses to be introduced. Delay in recording the statements of the material witnesses casts a cloud of suspicion on the credibility of the prosecution story. It appears that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis of the origin of the occurrence and has, thus, not presented the true version. The conduct of the witnesses appears to be abnormal. It appears unreal and it would be normal for them to inform someone particularly when there was no aspect of fear. These features indicate infirmities as to the truthful evidence of the witnesses, namely, Phool Singh (PW-3), Bhanwar Singh (PW-4), Ratti Ram (PW-5) and Parkash (PW-7). What surprises us most is the silence of these witnesses in not informing the police for such a long time and their omission to report about it to anybody in the village is also significant and in the circumstances, it is unsafe to rely on their testimony. What surprises us most is the silence of these witnesses in not informing the police for such a long time and their omission to report about it to anybody in the village is also significant and in the circumstances, it is unsafe to rely on their testimony. The evidence of such a witness is not worthy of acceptance, particularly when no explanation has come forward as to why they did not disclose the matter to anyone and to the police after a lapse of about 20 days. Taking the testimony of Parkash when he stepped into the witness box, as PW-7, he has categorically admitted in his cross-examination that he had not told about this incident to anyone and his conduct in not telling about the incident to anybody as narrated by him, makes his statement not worthy of credence and moreover, his statement was recorded by the police after a lapse of about one month. It is settled law that if the witnesses did not disclose the name of the assailant and the explanation offered by non-disclosure is unbelievable, such a non disclosure was a serious infirmity, which destroyed the credibility of the evidence of the witnesses. In the instant case, non-disclosure of the version as adopted by the alleged eye witnesses to anyone regarding last seen evidence for about 20 days and no explanation has been offered for the same certainly creates a serious infirmity in the prosecution version, which destroyed the credibility of the testimony of the witnesses and no reliance can be placed on such type of weak evidence. 10. The prosecution version is again highly doubtful since we find that no explanation has come forward from the prosecution as to why the informant of the dead body Jag Ram was not cited as a witness and in fact, the discovery of the dead body took place at the instance of Jag Ram, but even then he was withheld with an oblique motive. There is nothing on record to spell out as to how Jag Ram of village Brund learnt that a dead body was lying in a well on road side near village Gadoj and then before all the people, his witness opted to inform Ramji Lal (PW-18), son of the deceased, with regard to the lying of a dead body in the well. In normal circumstance, when he had found the dead body of some one in the well, he would have rushed to the police station or to the Sarpanch of the village in order to inform that one dead body is lying in the well. It is again strange to note that everything appeared to have been done on 3.3.1994, i.e., information with regard to the dead body, recovery of dead body, missing report and registration of the case on the statement of Lal Chand, another son of the deceased. Then again no explanation has come forward as to why the son of the deceased remained silent till 3.3.1994, particularly when their father was not traceable after attending to the Court proceedings in the appeal on 21.2.1994. Moreover, the next date fixed in the appeal was 2.3.1994 and they were conscious of the fact that their father was to attend the court proceedings on that date, but even then they waited for 3.3.1994 for lodging a missing report with the police. The best piece of evidence has been withheld by the prosecution with some ulterior motive the author of the FIR Lal Chand was not examined and was given up by the prosecution appearing for the State by suffering the statement that he gives up PW Lal Chand son of Sultan Singh present today as he is mentally upset and is not in a position to make a statement. He was the most important witness of the prosecution and on his shoulder, the prosecution could have advanced this case towards the guilt of the accused, but instead of seeking adjournment from the Court on that date, i.e., 29.7.1996, he was given up in a casual manner. Even if he was mentally upset on that date, he could have been examined on the next day. We are of the opinion that it is well established that the witnesses essential to the unfolding of the narrative on which the prosecution is based must be examined. The statements of Jag Ram and Lal Chand, who were the star witnesses of the prosecution for unfolding of the prosecution version have been kept back without giving any explanation. We are of the opinion that it is well established that the witnesses essential to the unfolding of the narrative on which the prosecution is based must be examined. The statements of Jag Ram and Lal Chand, who were the star witnesses of the prosecution for unfolding of the prosecution version have been kept back without giving any explanation. Keeping in view the circumstances of the case, non-examination of these witnesses acquires a special significance in view of discovery of the dead body at the instance of Jag Kam and thereafter recovery of dead body took place and then on the statement suffered by Lal Chand, the case was registered. Criminal cases are not be decided on the preponderance of evidence, but each circumstance of the case put forward by the prosecution is required to be established on cogent and unassailable evidence. In our considered view, the prosecution case appears to have been developed after the recovery of the dead body. In all circumstances, it appears to be a blind murder and that is why everything, including, the missing report, and other proceedings took place on 3.3.1994. After due deliberations and consultations, the matter was reported to the Police naming the accused as murderers of his fathers. Record further spells out that informant Ramji Lal informed the police regarding the dead body of his father, but even at his instance, the case was not registered and the police opted to record the statement of Lal Chand, another son of the deceased in order to introduce improvement and embellishment and set up a distorted version of the occurrence. 11. We would also like to observe keeping in view the circumstances of the case that suspicion cannot be the basis of conviction going by the standard of proof required in a criminal case the distance between “may be true” and “must be true” is required to be covered by reliable evidence adduced by the prosecution but that has not been done in the instant case. Withholding of evidence by the prosecution has caused a dent in the prosecution version and the present accused have been named only on the basis of suspicion by the son of the deceased. Withholding of evidence by the prosecution has caused a dent in the prosecution version and the present accused have been named only on the basis of suspicion by the son of the deceased. So far as the recoveries of wrist watch and a piece of rope are concerned, wrist watch was got recovered by accused Bhagwana from under the earth in a pit near a Keekar tree in pursuance of the disclosure statement made by him before the witnesses, namely, Phool Chand and Banwari Lal and a piece of rope was got recovered by the same accused Bhagwana from a room of the temple in village Niyamatpur in the presence of witnesses, namely, Banwari Lal and Indraj Singh when they were in police custody. Both the wrist watch and a piece of rope were taken into possession vide recovery memos Ex. P-1 and Ex. PL respectively. The evidence regarding recoveries of wrist watch and a piece of rope seems to be an after thought when the First Information Report was lodged. The son of the deceased did not say that the deceased was having a wrist watch, which was found missing. It was only thereafter that this evidence was introduced. The wrist watch was admitted to be of a common pattern and no number of the watch has been disclosed by any of the prosecution witnesses. Moreover, wrist watch is not such a valuable commodity that the appellant-accused would keep it concealed if such a manner. It is difficult to understand as to why appellant Bhagwana would conceal such a minor article below the earth in a pit near a Keekar tree as alleged by the prosecution. Insignificant recoveries of wrist watch and a piece of rope, which are easily available in the market, are not such a valuable piece of evidence so as to lead a conclusion that the appellants were the only persons who were guilty of an offence. In the instant case, the prosecution has failed to prove guilt of the appellants by leading evidence depicting circumstances of the conclusive nature, it cannot be denied that suspicion and conjecture should not take the place of legal proof. Moreover it is one of the basic principles of the criminal jurisprudence that if 99 guilty people go unpunished, no injustice is caused, but a great injustice would be caused if one innocent person is punished. Moreover it is one of the basic principles of the criminal jurisprudence that if 99 guilty people go unpunished, no injustice is caused, but a great injustice would be caused if one innocent person is punished. Since there is no conclusive evidence pointing to the guilt of the accused, their conviction cannot be maintained. Looking from every angle, it can easily be inferred that since the present case, in the absence of direct evidence, is based on circumstantial evidence and for establishing the circumstances leading to the commission of the crime the entire evidence available on the record has to be scrutinised meticulously and it has to satisfy the three tests in view of the parameters laid down as per the directions of the Apex Court, wherein the prosecution, in our considered view, has miserably failed to bring home the guilt against the accused-appellants beyond reasonable doubt, inasmuch as, evidence based on circumstances does not form a chain so complete so as to conclude that with in all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else and since the prosecution has failed to satisfy the requirements of law, we have no hesitation in holding that the findings of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial Judge are erroneous and they are liable to be set aside and we order accordingly. The inevitable result is that appeal filed by the appellants succeeds and is accepted. Appellants are acquitted of the offences with which they were charged. They shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. 12. Since Criminal Appeal filed by the appellants succeeds and they have been acquitted of the charges framed against them, we do not find any substance in Criminal Revision No. 798 of 1997 filed by complainant Ramji Lal, son of the deceased. It is, accordingly, dismissed. —————————