Judgment Jitendra Chauhan, J. 1. The appellant-State has filed this appeal against the order dated 13.11.2000, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa whereby accused Jaskaran Dass @ Kama was acquitted on the grounds that the evidence on record was not sufficient to connect the accused with the commission of the offence. 2. There is no eye witness in the present case. The prosecution has tried to establish its case on the basis of the circumstantial evidence and the theory of last seen. 3. Banta Singh, son of Pritam Singh, resident of village Dabwali got the statement recorded to the effect that they were two brothers, namely Hardev Singh and Banta Singh. The deceased Hardev Singh was elder to him. Both the brothers lived in one house and were jointly engaged in cultivation. Hardev Singh, the deceased had two sons, namely Jaspal Singh, aged 22/23 years and Rampal Singh, aged about 20 years. Banta Singh had one son, who was aged about 13/14 years. 4. On 7.5.1998, Hardev Singh reached home from Mandi Dabwali at about 11.00 A.M. and after having taken meals, went to the rear room of the Baithak (outer room) and slept there. The nephews of Banta Singh i.e. Jaspal and Rampal along with other members of the family were present there. When Banta Singh returned home at around 1.00 OClock, he saw that his brother was lying in a pool of blood on the double bed and was unconscious. He had sharp edged weapon injuries on his head and blood was oozing out. The other members of the family joined him after he raised an alarm.The vehicle of Harcharan Singh, Ex- Sarpanch was requisitioned to take Hardev Singh to the Hospital. Satkartar son of Ranjit Singh and Sukhminder son of Gurdev Singh took Hardev Singh to the hospital as per Ex. PL. Hardev Singh breathed his last at the Hospital. 5. The statement of Banta Singh was recorded by Slier Singh, Sub Inspector on 7.5.1998 and the same is part of the record as Exhibit PD. As per statement Exhibit PD, the murder had been committed by some unknown person. PL. Hardev Singh breathed his last at the Hospital. 5. The statement of Banta Singh was recorded by Slier Singh, Sub Inspector on 7.5.1998 and the same is part of the record as Exhibit PD. As per statement Exhibit PD, the murder had been committed by some unknown person. Police proceedings Exhibit PD/2 were prepared by Sub-Inspector Sher Singh, Police Station City Dabwali on 7.5.1998 at 4.15 P.M. On the basis of the ruqa, Exhibit PD/2, FIR No. 102 dated 7.5.1998, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was registered at Police Station City Dabwali After the registration of FIR, the ruqa was sent to the Sub Inspector at the spot and a copy of the FIR, as a special report, was sent to the higher authorities. 6. As per the post mortem report dated 7.5.1988 conducted by PW7-Dr. Kulwinder, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Choutala, the following injuries were found on the body of the deceased : 1. "13.4 cm x 3.2 cms incised wound was present on right fronto parietal region obliquely placed starting from inner end of right eye- brow extending upward and latcrly. On dissection, infiltration of blood was present in neighbouring tissue. On further dissection, ;, supratrochlear supra orbital and branches of superficial temporal arteries were found cut. On further dissection, underlying bones were, cut coinciding with the wound. Brain tissue was coming out of the wound. 2.4 cm x 1.2 cms incised wound was present on left side of the forehead starting from medial end of left eye brow parallel to injury No. 1. On dissection, adjacent tissue infiltrated with blood were found. Wound being bone deep. 3.6 cm x 3.1 cms x bone deep incise wound was "present on left parietal region in coronal plane. 18 cms from the left eye brow. On dissection, infiltration of blood was present in adjacent tissue. 4. 8.2 cms x 2.3 cms x bone deep incise wound was present on left temporal parietal region. On dissection, infiltration of blood was present in adjacent tissue. On further dissection. bone underlying found fractured. Branches of superficial temporal arteries were cut. All the wounds numbering 1 to 4 were covered with clotted blood." 7. After investigation, the accused was arrested on 21.5.1998. On 12.8.1998, the case was committed by the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dabwali. On dissection, infiltration of blood was present in adjacent tissue. On further dissection. bone underlying found fractured. Branches of superficial temporal arteries were cut. All the wounds numbering 1 to 4 were covered with clotted blood." 7. After investigation, the accused was arrested on 21.5.1998. On 12.8.1998, the case was committed by the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dabwali. The charge sheet was prepared on 6.2.1999 by the Additional Sessions Judge; Sirsa whereby accused Jaskaran Oass, son of Boota Dass was charged for having committed murder of Hardev Singh son of Pritam Singh and thereby committing an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code within the cognizance of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa on 7.5.1998, 8. The prosecution to prove its case examined as many as 14 witnesses. However, the material witnesses are PW5-Banta Singh, PW6-Boota Singh;. PW7- Dr.Kulwinder, PWll-Baldev Singh, PWl2-Bir Singh and PW 14-S.I. Sher Smgh. 9. PWS-Banta Singh stated that HardevSingh once gave a beatingto the accused on the issue of turn of water prior to the occurrence about 12/13 years ago. Extra-judicial confession was made by the accused in the presence of PW6-Boota Singh, Lamberdar and PW9-Boota Singh son of Kaka Singh. The recovery of .theme Exhibit P-l was affected in pursuance of the statement of accused. PWll-Baldev Singh and PW12-Bir Singh saw the accused coming out of the room of Hardev Singh holding axe in his hands. 10. Statement of accused Jaskaran Dass, son of Boota Dass was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 29.8.2006 without oath. He denied the charge against him stating that he had been falsely implicated on mere suspicion and further denied any enmity with the deceased-Hardev Singh or having any direct litigation with him. He further denied that he was beaten up by deceased Hardev Singh about 11/12 years ago on any cause, as suggested by the prosecution. He further stated that otherwise also, 12 years is a long time to forget such an incident and claimed innocence. 11. We have heard the learned counsellor the parties and perused the record. 12. As there is no eye witness of the occurrence, therefore, the main thrust of the prosecution is to prove its case on the theory of last seen evidence and on the basis of other circumstantial evidence. 11. We have heard the learned counsellor the parties and perused the record. 12. As there is no eye witness of the occurrence, therefore, the main thrust of the prosecution is to prove its case on the theory of last seen evidence and on the basis of other circumstantial evidence. In this context, it is relevant to mention that two adult sons of the deceased and the women folk were present in a portion of the same house (of the deceased) at the time of commission of the alleged crime. It was about 1.00 P.M. when Banta Singh PW5, brother of deceased Hardev Singh returned to the Baithak and found his brother lying in the pool of blood. The deceased wasthen rushed to the hospital immediately. 13. However, surprisingly Satkartar Singh and Sukhminder Singh, who took the deceased to the hospital were not joined in the investimation nor were they cited as witnesses by the prosecution. 14. We feel that both these witnesses were relevant and material witnesses who could have provided valuable information about the manner in which the dead body was recovered and subsequently brought to the hospital. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly held that non-joining of Satkartar Singh and Sukhminder Singh in investigation of the case is a missing link in the chain of events in this case. 15. The complainant had lodged the report Exhibit PD with the police after 4.00 P.M. on 7.5.1998, wherein it is spccifically mentioned that some unknown person had hacked Hardev Singh to death. The conduct of the police is also very surprising. Only Bir Singh could provide the police with clues about the identity of assailant. He was present in the village when statements were recorded by the police Inspector after 7.35 P.M. but he did not appear before the DSP till then. This creates doubt in the mind of the Court that Bir Singh had not provided the police with any clue about the identity of the assailant, till at least the departure of the DSP from the village. In the same way, the testimony of Baldev Singh, PWll, who testified that he had seen Jaskaran emerging out of the Baithak of Hardev Singh carrying an axe with him, does not inspire any confidence as he has made many improvements in the statement made by him under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the same way, the testimony of Baldev Singh, PWll, who testified that he had seen Jaskaran emerging out of the Baithak of Hardev Singh carrying an axe with him, does not inspire any confidence as he has made many improvements in the statement made by him under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He and the complainant have common ancestors. Baldev Singh and Bir Singh had made statements before the police on the next day of the incident. 16. PW-11 Baldev Singh and PW-12 Bir Singh claimed to have seen the accused closing the door of the Baithak but there is no reference that they saw each other. 17. So far as the extra-judicial confession alleged to have been made by Jaskaran Dass @ Kama in the presence of Boota Singh-Lamberdar and Boota Singh son of Kaka Singh PW9 at about 10.00 A.M. on 21.5.1998 is concerned and as per the first version rendered by them, they met the police at T-point and handed accused Jaskaran to Inspector Ramesh Pal and he then made a disclosure statement, Exhibit PE, that subsequently led to the recovery of axe, Exhibit PI. Moreover, he had given the date of making of the extra-judicial confession as on 7.5.1998 in the examination-in-chief, but in the cross-examination, it had come on record that they produced the accused before the police within 6-7 days of the murder of Hardev Singh. If this is to be believed, then the accused was handed over to the police definitely on or before 14.05.1998 although the extra-judicial confession was allegedly made on 21.5.1998. 18. The motive put-forth by PW5 Banta Singh does not seem to be realistic and refers to the occurrence that took place 12-1,3 years ago. 19. While considering the last seen evidence, the Honble Supreme Court in State of Goa v. Sanjay THakran and another, 2007(2). 18. The motive put-forth by PW5 Banta Singh does not seem to be realistic and refers to the occurrence that took place 12-1,3 years ago. 19. While considering the last seen evidence, the Honble Supreme Court in State of Goa v. Sanjay THakran and another, 2007(2). RCR(Criminal) 458 served as under : 2007(2) RAJ 101 ob "In the light of the factors that evidence regarding the recovery of the incriminating materials from the accused persons has been discarded; that there has been sufficient time gap between the instances when the accused persons were last seen together with the deceased persons; and in the absence of any other corroborative piece of evidence to complete the chain of circumstances to fasten the guilt on the accused couple, we are of the opinion that the accused have been rightly given the benefit of doubt by the courts below. We have found that the finding of the High Court that the chain of circumstances is not complete to conclusively; establish that either A-1 or A-2 alone or with the common intention of each other have committed the dreadful crime of murder of newly married couple, is correct and merely suspicion, however grave, cannot replace the weight attached to the evidence." Accordingly, in view of above observations, in 66the present case, the evidence of last seen also does not inspire any confidence. As it was a blind murder case, it seems that PWs Bir Singh and Baldev Singh have been introduced in the present case and no one had seen the real culprit either emerging out of the Baithak or anywhere in the vicinity. Further PW6 Boota Singh, Lam-berdar and PW9 Boota Singh son of Kaka Singh have failed to prove that the accused confessed the guilt in their presence on 21.5.1998. There; are material contradictions in their statements. 20. We feel in the instant case, the circumstances in which the body was discovered are not clear. In our opinion, the prosecution has failed to establish acceptable circumstances that in all probabilities the accused Jaskaran Dass is the perpetrator of the alleged crime. The evidence on rer, cord is insufficient to connect the accused with the commission of offence. 21. In view of the abo\e discussions, the present appeal filed by the State is dismissed and the judgment dated 13.1 1.2000 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge. Sirsa. is maintained.