S. SAMVATSAR, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed by the appellants who are in jail for the last more than ten years, being aggrieved by the judgment dated 30. 7. 1998 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Karera, District shivpuri in Sessions Trial No. 180/97 whereby the appellants have been convicted for commission of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life for committing the murder of Kissuram. ( 2 ) AS per the prosecution case, FIR (Ex. P/17) is lodged by vasudev (PW 7) on 15. 4. 1997 stating that on that day, he along with his mother Rajabeti, and younger brother mohan had gone to a fair near Shitla Mata of Hazinagar for selling clay toys. They left their elder brother Mayaram, sister-in-law malti, his wife Siya and father at home. At about 3. 00 in the afternoon, complainant's wife Siya also reached the fair. When they returned back around 7. 00 in the evening, they did not find their elder brother and sister-in-law. Doors of the shop were closed. When complainant Vasudeo opened the doors he found blood was spread on the floor. He lit a match stick and found that his father Kissuram was lying dead. His neck was cut by some sharp weapon. When he told this fact to his mother and wife, they started crying. On hearing their cry, Dayaram, ramdas etc collected on the spot. Thereafter, then went to Chowkidar of the village and lodged the FIR Ex. P/17. In the FIR, they have expressed their doubt towards appellant No. 1 Pravesh, as according to them. Pravesh has stolen their hen 2-3 days prior to the date of incident and there were exchange of abuses between deceased kissuram and appellant Pravesh. ( 3 ) ON the basis of FIR, police registered a criminal case at Crime No. 67/97, conducted investigation and filed challan against the accused. The case was committed to the court of Sessions. The Sessions Court after recording the evidence and appreciating the same has acquitted Veersingh S/o sirnamsingh of commission of the offence under Section 302/34 IPC, however convicted the present appellants as indicated above. Hence, this appeal. ( 4 ) COUNSEL for the appellants submitted that there is no eye-witness to the incident and case is totally depends upon circumstantial evidence. The Sessions Court after recording the evidence and appreciating the same has acquitted Veersingh S/o sirnamsingh of commission of the offence under Section 302/34 IPC, however convicted the present appellants as indicated above. Hence, this appeal. ( 4 ) COUNSEL for the appellants submitted that there is no eye-witness to the incident and case is totally depends upon circumstantial evidence. He has further submitted for convicting the accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence, the evidence must satisfy the following tests: (1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; (2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; (3) 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 (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. This principles are laid down by the Apex court in large number of cases including the recent judgment in the case of State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran and another. ( 5 ) NOW this Court has to examine, whether the chain of circumstantial evidence is complete in the present case and fulfills the aforesaid requirements. ( 6 ) FOR proving its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses, harnamsingh (PW1) is a witness of recovery of dead body, inquest report and recovery of blood stained earth. This witness has turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. ( 7 ) RAMDAS (PW 2) is the brother of deceased Kissuram. In his statement, he has stated that ten months back, his brother was murdered. He came to know about this fact when he returned the house in the evening after cutting crop of wheat from the field. At that time, crowd was collected in front of his hon. se and the family members were crying. Thus, this witness is of no assistance for proving the facts. ( 8 ) KAMODA (PW 3) is another brother of kissuram the deceased. At that time, crowd was collected in front of his hon. se and the family members were crying. Thus, this witness is of no assistance for proving the facts. ( 8 ) KAMODA (PW 3) is another brother of kissuram the deceased. He has stated that his brother was murdered-eight months prior to recording of his evidence. Police investigated the matter. Accused were arrested in his presence vide memorandum Ex. P/6, P/7 and P/8. At the time of arrest, accused pravesh was wearing a pant which was washed by him. The police seized the said pant vide Ex. P/9. Accused Parasadi was also wearing a pant which was also washed by the accused, still blood stains were present on the pant and the pant was seized vide ex. P/10. Accused Veersingh was wearing a shirt having blood stains, which was seized by the police vide Ex. P/11. He is also a witness of recovery of Farsa at the instance of appellant Pravesh vide seizure memo Ex. P/14. An axe was recovered at the instance of appellant Parasadi vide seizure memo Ex. P/15. According to the prosecution, these arms were recovered on the memorandum under section 27 of the Evidence Act, Exs. P/12 and P/13. From perusal of the arrest memo, it appears that the accused were arrested five days after the incident. The incident has taken place on 15. 4. 1997 and the accused were arrested on 20. 4. 1997. Statement of this witness becomes doubtful, because it is not likely that any accused will continue to wear the blood stained clothes for five days after the incident. ( 9 ) ANOTHER witness is Guniya (P. W 4 ). She has stated that at about 4. 00 in the evening she was sleeping in her house. On hearing shouts, she came out of the house and saw Parasadi, Pravesh and Veersingh coming out of the house of Kissu. Parasadi had an axe, Pravesh armed with farsa and veersingh was bare handed at that time. They threatened he that she will not narrate this fact to anyone otherwise, they will kill her children. Since the accused had killed her younger brother-in-law she started crying and went inside the house of Kissu. According to this witness, all the accused were having blood stains on their body and clothes. They threatened he that she will not narrate this fact to anyone otherwise, they will kill her children. Since the accused had killed her younger brother-in-law she started crying and went inside the house of Kissu. According to this witness, all the accused were having blood stains on their body and clothes. After the accused left, she went inside the house of Kissu and found him dead. His neck was cut. She returned back to her house, had fever and became unconscious. She regained consciousness next day when she narrated this fact to her husband. In her cross-examination, she has admitted that her house is in front of the house of Kissu. She has admitted that she is living with her family of five persons and her house is situated in thick locality. She has stated that she has not seen the accused causing injuries to the deceased, but she has seen them coming out of the house. She did not shout as they threatened her. In para 5 of her cross-examination, she has stated that all the accused were wearing white pants and shirts, while as per seizure memo and arrest memo, all the accused were wearing clothes of different colour, like brown pant, green T-shirt, sky blue shirt etc. In para 6, she has admitted that she did not enter the room where the dead body was lying, but has seen the dead body only from outside. She has stated that she did not narrate the story in the evening to anyone, even to her husband. She has admitted that she has not stated to her husband that the accused had threatened her. In para 8, she admitted that she had fever even prior to the incident and when she was unconscious, her husband did not awake her. She has admitted that her son was inside her house at the time of incident. ( 10 ) THUS, from perusal of the statement of this witness, it appears that this witness is not reliable. She has admitted that even after seeing the incident, she has not narrated the said facts to her husband or to any family member for the whole day and told them only the next day. As per para 8 of her statement, her son was present with her at the time of incident. She has admitted that even after seeing the incident, she has not narrated the said facts to her husband or to any family member for the whole day and told them only the next day. As per para 8 of her statement, her son was present with her at the time of incident. She has also admitted that she had fever even prior to the incident and gave a false explanation that she was unconscious for the whole day after the incident. ( 11 ) NEXT witness is Lahua (PW5 ). This witness has admitted that the deceased was his uncle. This witness has stated that he has seen all the three accused on a well near the house of Pajju Kumhar. All the three were blood stained clothes. This witness has not given description or colour of the clothes which the accused were wearing. He has admitted that he has not asked the accused how their clothes got blood stains. He has admitted that he has not narrated this fact to any one who met him on way. He has admitted that he does not remember the colour of the clothes worn by the accused. He does not remember on what part of the clothes he saw the blood stains. He admitted that colour of the clothes was red, which may be due to paint. ( 12 ) JAGDISH (PW6) turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. ( 13 ) VASUDEV (PW 7) has lodged the FIR. He is also not an eye-witness to the incident. He has merely stated that he had a suspicion against the accused as accused pravesh had stolen their hen four days prior to the date of incident. ( 14 ) MALTI (PW 8) is the daughter-in-law of deceased Kissu. She has stated that on the date of incident she had gone to fields leaving her father-in-law alone in the house. She has stated that accused Pravesh, Parasadi and Veersingh were sitting in front of their house. Parasadi was armed with an axe. When she returned back to her house, she saw her father-in-law is dead and his neck was cut by some sharp weapon. In the para 2, she has stated that accused Pravesh had taken away their hen, therefore, on the date of incident, her father-in-law had abused him. But this fact, she has not narrated to anyone. When she returned back to her house, she saw her father-in-law is dead and his neck was cut by some sharp weapon. In the para 2, she has stated that accused Pravesh had taken away their hen, therefore, on the date of incident, her father-in-law had abused him. But this fact, she has not narrated to anyone. She has also not narrated the story of stealing the hen to anyone. ( 15 ) DR. R. K. Goyal (PW 9) performed autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and proved the post-mortem report Ex. P/20. M. S. Chauhan, (PW 10) is the Sub-Inspector who has recorded the FIR Ex. P/17. ( 16 ) DHANKOO (PW 11) has stated that on the date of incident, she went to the well for taking water. On way, she saw Parasadi, pravesh and Veersingh running and their clothes were blood stained. When she went to the shop of deceased Kissu, she saw Kissu lying dead. She has admitted that Kissu the deceased was her younger brother-in-law. ( 17 ) THUS the entire evidence on record is that the witnesses have seen the accused with blood stained clothes and recovery of axe and farsa from the house of accused in presence of Kammoda (PW 3 ). The Sessions court on the basis of this evidence has acquitted Veersingh, however, convicted the present appellants. ( 18 ) COUNSEL for the appellants submitted that even assuming that the accused were wearing blood stained clothes, it does not prove that the clothes were stained with human blood. ( 19 ) CLOTHES were sent for chemical analysis and report was given by Assistant chemical Engineer. Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Gwalior which is Ex. P/19. However, from perusal of the record, we find that this report is not proved by the prosecution either by examining the person who has prepared the report or examining any other person. This document is marked as, ex. P/19, but from reading of the entire evidence, it appears that this document was not put or tendered in evidence to any of the witnesses. Counsel for the respondent State also admitted the fact that this document is marked without tendering it in evidence to any of the witnesses. Sessions Court has relied upon this document without any proof of the same. Counsel for the respondent State also admitted the fact that this document is marked without tendering it in evidence to any of the witnesses. Sessions Court has relied upon this document without any proof of the same. In the absence of any chemical report showing that the clothes which were recovered from the accused were having human blood; the appellants cannot be held guilty for the offence alleged. ( 20 ) EVEN if for the sake of argument, Ex. P/19 is considered, it merely shows that Articles " A, C1, C2, D1, D2, E, F, G, H and I were having blood. But the fact that these articles were having human blood is not mentioned in this document. Thus, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove that the accused were wearing blood stained clothes. ( 21 ) MOREOVER, there is a discrepancy in the colour of clothes, the accused were wearing at the time of incident. Guniya (PW 4)has stated that the accused were wearing white pants and shirts. Ex. P/9 Seizure memo shows that brown pant and blue shirt were seized from accused Pravesh and these clothes were blood stained. Similarly, sky blue colour pant having squares was seized from accused Parasadi, appellant No. 2, while one T-shirt light green colour was seized from Veersingh and the said shirt was blood stained. Thus, the statement of Guniya (PW 4 ) cannot be believed. ( 22 ) THUS, the evidence led by the prosecution does not satisfy the tests laid down by the Apex Court for convicting an accused on circumstantial evidence. Chain of events is not complete and is full of suspicious circumstances. Mere suspicion cannot take the place of proof of guilt. There is no reliable evidence on record to connect the appellants with the Commission of the crime. ( 23 ) IN such circumstances, we hold that the impugned judgment of conviction cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. In the present case, evidence against the accused is of very weak kind, still the appellants are convicted by the Sessions Court by the impugned judgment and they are in jail for the last more than ten years. ( 24 ) HENCE, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence and acquit the appellants of commission of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. ( 24 ) HENCE, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence and acquit the appellants of commission of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. ( 25 ) BOTH the appellants are in jail. They shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. Appeal allowed. .