JUDGMENT Hon. Dharam Veer, J. This appeal preferred, under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.03.1990 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal in Sessions Trial No. 15/1988, State Vs. Mani Bisht @ Manohar Singh & three others, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant/accused Gunanand Barthwal and the co-accused Mani Bisht @ Manohar Singh for the offence punishable u/s 304 Part-II r/w Section 34 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter to be referred as I.P.C.) and u/s 201 I.P.C.and sentenced them to undergo five years’ rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable u/s 304 part-II r/w Section 34 I.P.C. and also three years’ rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable u/s 201 I.P.C. It was also directed that both the sentences shall run concurrently. However, the other co-accused persons Mastan Singh and Sundar Lal @ Sundari were ................... 2. I have heard Sri Lokendra Dobhal, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri M.A. Khan, learned brief holder for the State and perused the record. 3. It was reported that the sole appellant/accused Gunanand Barthwal had died on 6.7.2006 and an application was moved by the wife of the appellant/accused for grant of leave to continue the appeal. The application for grant of leave to continue the appeal was allowed by this Court on 25.07.2008 and leave to continue the appeal was granted to the applicant Smt. Prabhawati (wife of Gunanand Barthewal-deceased). The co-accused Mani Bisht @ Manohar Singh has also died and his Appeal No. 1237/01 (old No. 694/90) stood abated vide Court’s order dated 14 August, 2008. 4. In brief the prosecution case is this that on 29.8.1987, Kritya Singh – father of the deceased Prem Singh, has given information to the Patwari, Patti-Patwalsyun, District-Pauri Garhwal that his son Prem Singh was serving in the shop of Mani Bisht and from 24.8.1987 his son was not traceable. In this regard Dhirendra Singh s/o Mani Bisht has informed that some dacoits had come in the shop at night on 24.8.1987 and has taken Prem Singh (deceased) forcibly. The entry in this regard was made by the Patwari in the G.D. i.e. Ext.Ka.18. In this regard Dhirendra Singh s/o Mani Bisht has informed that some dacoits had come in the shop at night on 24.8.1987 and has taken Prem Singh (deceased) forcibly. The entry in this regard was made by the Patwari in the G.D. i.e. Ext.Ka.18. On 30.8.1987 at 5:00 p.m. the dead body of Prem Singh (deceased) was recovered and after that Kritya Singh, father of the decesed Prem Singh has lodged the F.I.R. before the appellant/accused Patwari, Patti-Patwalsyun with the allegation that Mani Bisht has committed murder of his son, as his son was serving in the shop of Mani Bisht. That entry was also made in the G.D. i.e. Ex. Ka.19. After that the inquest report of the dead body i.e. Ext.Ka.2 was prepared by the appellant/accused Patwari, Gunanand Barthwal, who at that time on 30.8.1987 was posted as Patwari in that circle. Along with the inquest report, the appellant/accused Patwari has also prepared the Dak Challan i.e. Ext.Ka.24, Police Form No. 13 i.e. Ext.Ka.25, and sketch of the dead body i.e. Ext.Ka.26. The report submitted by Kritya Singh firstly to the appellant/accused Gunanand Birthwal Patwari, Patti-Patwalsyun is Ext.Ka.3. On the basis of this report, the Chik F.I.R. Ext.Ka.15 was prepared by the appellant/accused Patwari on 30.8.1987 at 5:00 p.m. After that the dead body was sent for postmortem by the appellant/accused Patwari who was posted at that time in that area. (In rural hill areas of the State of Uttarakhand, Patwari and the Revenue Officer are authorized to conduct the investigation by Government Notification No. 494/VIII-418-16 dated 7th March 1916). Autopsy of the dead body was conducted by Dr. K.S. Mehta (P.W.1) on 1.9.1987 at 10:45 a.m., the post mortem report is Ext.Ka.1. Investigation of the case was transferred to the regular police and the investigation of the case was entrusted to S.I. Prem Singh Ehlawat (P.W.9), who during the course of investigation has prepared the site-plan of the place of the recovery of the dead body i.e. Ext.Ka.6 and also the site-plan of the place of occurrence i.e. Ext.Ka.7. The I.O. has also recorded the statements of the witnesses. Statement of one witness namely Sahaj Ram was recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. before the Munsif Magistrate, Pauri i.e. Ext.Ka.4. The statement of this witness was also recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. by the Investigating Officer on 21.11.1987, a copy of which is Ext.Ka.13. The I.O. has also recorded the statements of the witnesses. Statement of one witness namely Sahaj Ram was recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. before the Munsif Magistrate, Pauri i.e. Ext.Ka.4. The statement of this witness was also recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. by the Investigating Officer on 21.11.1987, a copy of which is Ext.Ka.13. During the course of investigation, the I.O. has also sent the Trouser, Kurta, Undershirt, Underwear and the clay for chemical examination and the Scientific Officer has submitted his report regarding the above said articles, i.e. Ext.Ka.14. During the course of investigation, the accused Mani Bisht @ Manohar Singh was arrested on 3.9.1987 by the appellant/accused Patwari, the arrest memo is Ext. Ka.16. After that the appellant/accused Gunanand Barthwal Patwari has also prepared the site-plan of the place of occurrence on 3.9.1987 i.e. Ext.Ka.20 and he has also prepared a map from where the dead body was recovered i.e. Ext.Ka.23. During the course of investigation, the I.O. has recorded the statement of the witnesses and after completing the investigation, he has submitted a charge sheet against Gunanand Barthwal-present accused/appellant and the co-accused Mastan Singh and Sundar Lal @ Sundari as an absconded accused while the co-accused Mani Bisht was shown as arrested accused, that charge sheet is Ext. Ka-8. When Gunanand Barthwal was arrested by the police a charge sheet was filed against Mastan Singh and Sundar Lal, showing them as absconded accused and against the accused/appellant Gunanand Barthwal, who was shown to be an arrested accused that charge sheet is Ext.Ka-9. After that the accused Sundar Lal was arrested by the police a charge sheet was filed against him i.e. Ext. Ka-10. After the accused Mastan Singh was arrested by the police a charge sheet was also filed against him, that charge sheet is Ext. Ka-11. 5. After receiving the charge sheet learned Munsif Magistrate, Pauri has committed the case to the Court of Sessions on 20.4.1988 after giving necessary copies to the accused persons, as required u/s 207 Cr.P.C. 6. Learned Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal on 7.6.1988 has framed the charge against appellant/accused and the co-accused persons Mani Bisht @ Manohar Singh, Mastan Singh and Sundar Lal @ Sundari for the offence punishable u/s 302 r/w Section 34 I.P.C. and one u/s 201 I.P.C. The charge was read over and explained to the accused persons, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. 7. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined P.W.1 Dr. K.S. Mehta, S.M.O., who has conducted the autopsy of the dead body of Prem Singh (deceased), P.W.2 Trilok Singh, P.W.3 Girdhari Singh, P.W.4 Kritya Singh (father of the deceased), P.W.5 Dayal Singh, P.W.6 Om Prakash Mamgain, P.W.7 Hira Lal (Munsif Magistrate), P.W.8 Dheeraj Dobhal, P.W.9 Prem Singh Ehalawat, Investigating Officer of this case and P.W.10 Surya Prakash Bhatt. 8. After that the statements of the appellant/accused were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. The oral and documentary evidence was put to him in question form, who had denied the allegations made against him. In defence, he has not produced any oral or documentary evidence. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and appreciating the entire material available on record, learned Sessions Judge vide his judgment and order dated 30.3.1990 passed in Sessions Trial No. 15/1988 has convicted the appellant/accused Gunanand Barthwal and the co-accused Mani Bisht @ Manohar Singh for the offence punishable u/s 304 part-II r/w Section 34 I.P.C. and u/s 201 I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo five years’ rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable u/s 304 part-II r/w Section 34 I.P.C. and also three years’ rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable u/s 201 I.P.C. It was also directed that both the sentences shall run concurrently. However, co-accused Mastan Singh and Sundar Lal @ Sundari were acquitted by the trial court, giving them benefit of doubt for the charge levelled against them. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and order dated 30.3.1990, the appellant/accused has preferred the present appeal. 10. Before further discussion, it is pertinent to mention the ante-mortem injuries found on the dead body of the deceased Prem Singh, the autopsy of the dead body was conducted by Dr. K.S. Mehta (P.W.1) on 1.9.1987 at 10:45 a.m., which is reproduced as under :- (i) lacerated wound on right medial aspect of leg 5 cm x 2 cm x Bone deep 7 cm above from medial wall. According to postmortem report, the deceased had died at about 1-2 weeks’ ago. Cause of death could not be ascertained by the doctor conducting the postmortem. Therefore, viscera was preserved for chemical examination. 11. P.W.1 is Dr. K.S. Mehta was produced in order to prove the postmortem report, who has stated that on 1.9.1987 he was posted as S.M.O. at District Hospital, Pauri. Cause of death could not be ascertained by the doctor conducting the postmortem. Therefore, viscera was preserved for chemical examination. 11. P.W.1 is Dr. K.S. Mehta was produced in order to prove the postmortem report, who has stated that on 1.9.1987 he was posted as S.M.O. at District Hospital, Pauri. On that day at 10:45 a.m. he has conducted the autopsy of the dead body of Prem Singh and it was also opined that the death was caused about 1-2 weeks’ was coming out of the dead body, features were not recognizable, colour of skin of the whole body had become black. The ante-mortem injury was recorded by him noted as above. The ribs from 3 to 6 of the right side were fractured. As the cause of death could not be ascertained by him, hence the viscera was preserved and was sent for chemical examination. The report of the postmortem was prepared at that time which is Ext.Ka.1. 12. P.W.2 is Trilok Singh, who has stated that Prem Singh (deceased) was his cousin brother, who was serving in the shop of Mani Bisht at the time of the said occurrence. He has further stated that Pitamber-Peon of Patwari has told him that a dead body was found in the forest. Then he went to the forest and has identified the dead body of Prem Singh. Father of Prem Singh (deceased) was also there, who has also identified the dead body of his son. The inquest report was prepared and in the sealed condition, the dead body was sent for postmortem. 13. P.W.3 is Girdhari Singh, who has stated that he has also identified the dead body on 30.8.1987 in the forest. It was also stated by him that Prem Singh (deceased) was serving in the shop of Mani Bisht. He has stated that the inquest report Ext.Ka.2 of dead body was prepared before him. He has also signed on the inquest report. 14. P.W.4 is Kritya Singh, who has stated that the deceased Prem Singh was his son and was serving in the shop of Mani Bisht since 4-5 years’ before his death. When his son Prem Singh came to his house in the holidays, he told him that the appellant/accused along with co-accused persons used to ask him at about 10-11 p.m. to bring liquor from the forest. When his son Prem Singh came to his house in the holidays, he told him that the appellant/accused along with co-accused persons used to ask him at about 10-11 p.m. to bring liquor from the forest. Prem Singh also told him (Kritya Singh- father of Prem Singh) that the appellant/accused are involved in the business of theft of the forest wood and when he had asked for the share in the earnings of theft of forest wood then the accused persons annoyed with him. He has further stated that before 6-7 days of the recovery of the dead body, Dhirendra Singh s/o Mani Bisht come to his village to ask him whether Prem Singh has come to his house, then he had stated that about three days before some dacoits had taken his son Prem Singh, forcibly from the shop. Then, he had started searching of his son. After that he has lodged the missing report of his son to the appellant/accused Patwari orally, and on 30.8.1987 he has lodged the written report to the appellant/accused Patwari, that report is Ext.Ka.3. After receiving the information of the dead body in the forest, he identified the dead body as the dead body of his son Prem Singh. At that time appellant/accused Patwari and other people were also present there. 15. P.W.5 is Dayal Singh, who has also corroborated the evidence of P.W.4 Kritya Singh. 16. P.W.6 is Om Prakash Mamgain, who has also identified the dead body of Prem Singh in the forest. He has also stated that the inquest report was prepared before him and he has also signed on the inquest report. 17. P.W.7 is Hira Lal (Munsif Magistrate), who has stated that on 26.11.1987, he was posted as Munsif Magistrate, Pauri. On the application of P.W.9 Prem Singh Ehalawat, S.O., Pauri, he has recorded the statement of Sahaj Ram, aged about 76 years u/s 164 Cr.P.C., that statement is Ext.Ka.4. 18. P.W.8 is Dheeraj Dobhal S/o Sahaj Ram, who has stated that his father has not told anything about the murder of Prem Singh and this witness has not supported the prosecution case and declared hostile. 19. P.W.9 is Prem Singh Ehalawat, Investigating Officer of the case, who has stated that in October 1987, he was posted as Inspector at Kotwali, Pauri. On 30.8.1987 the report Ext. 19. P.W.9 is Prem Singh Ehalawat, Investigating Officer of the case, who has stated that in October 1987, he was posted as Inspector at Kotwali, Pauri. On 30.8.1987 the report Ext. Ka-3 was lodged before the appellant/accused Patwari and the Patwari has started investigation. The inquest report of Prem Singh (deceased) was prepared by the appellant/accused Patwari, Gunanand Barthwal, and the dead body was also sent by him for the postmortem in the sealed condition, that postmortem report is Ext.Ka.1. Co-accused Mani Bisht @ Manohar Singh was also arrested by him on 3.9.1987. On 22.9.1987, investigation of this case was transferred to the regular police and the investigation was entrusted to him (Prem Singh Ehlawat, P.W.9) on 7.10.1987. He has examined all the documents prepared by the appellant/accused Patwari, and started investigation. During the course of investigation, he has recorded the statements of witnesses. On 21.11.1987, he has recorded the statement of Sahaj Ram u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and on 26.11.1987, statement of Sahaj Ram was again recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. by the Munsif Magistrate, Pauri. On 7.12.1987, he has arrested the appellant/accused Gunanand Barthwal and he has also obtained the sanction Ext. Ka-5, to prosecute the appellant/accused, from the Officiating Officer for District Magistrate, Pauri Garhwal. After completing the investigation, he has filed the charge sheet against the appellant/accused. During the course of the investigation, he has also prepared the site-plan of the place of recovery of the dead body, i.e. Ext.Ka.6 and also the site-plan of the place of occurrence where the incident was taken place, i.e. Ext.Ka.7. He has also sent the clothes of Prem Singh (deceased) and the clay for the chemical examination and he has received the report. He has also submitted the said report in the court. 20. After that the statement of the appellant/accused and other co-accused persons were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. The oral and documentary evidence was put to them in question form who have denied the allegations made against them. In reply to Question No. 21, appellant/accused Gunanand Barthwal has stated that on 29.8.1987 at about 1:00 p.m. Kritya Singh has lodged the missing report of his son Prem Singh. After that he has enquired from the shopkeeper Mani Bisht. In reply to Question No. 21, appellant/accused Gunanand Barthwal has stated that on 29.8.1987 at about 1:00 p.m. Kritya Singh has lodged the missing report of his son Prem Singh. After that he has enquired from the shopkeeper Mani Bisht. Then Mani Bisht told him that on 24.8.1987 at about 9-10 p.m. from the side of Pauri, four unknown persons had come to his shop with a truck, jeep and a motorcycle. At that time, he alongwith his servant Prem Singh was taking food. These unknown persons had started loading the wooden boards of pine and the KADI forcibly in the truck and they have also taken Rs. 4,000/- from him (Mani Bisht). He has also told him that these people have forcibly taken Prem Singh with them. Mani Bisht has further told him that out of these four persons, he has recognized Surendra Singh of Village Dang, Patti-Patwalsyun through his voice and they have also threatened to kill him (Mani Bisht) and his family, if he would disclose this incident to anybody else. He found the statement given by Mani Bisht suspicious because Mani Bisht has not lodged the F.I.R. of the same incident on the same night or next day in the morning at the Headquarter of the Patwari. After that he started searching of Prem Singh (deceased) in the forest and other places but he could not found any clue about him. On 30.8.1987, when he was in search of Prem Singh (deceased), shop of Mani Bisht was closed in the morning. In the evening at about 4.30 p.m., Om Prakash Mamgain, Pradhan of the village, met him and informed him that the dead body of an unknown person was lying in the forest. Then he has called all the respected persons of the village on the spot and the dead body was identified. After identifying the dead body to be of Prem Singh, the inquest report was prepared and in the sealed condition the dead body was sent for postmortem. On 1.9.1987, he (appellant/accused Patwari, Gunanand Barthwal) received the postmortem report and on 3.9.1987 in the evening Mani Bisht was arrested by him and was sent to jail on 4.9.1987 u/s 302/201 I.P.C. On 11.9.1987, the investigation of this case was transferred to the regular police. On 1.9.1987, he (appellant/accused Patwari, Gunanand Barthwal) received the postmortem report and on 3.9.1987 in the evening Mani Bisht was arrested by him and was sent to jail on 4.9.1987 u/s 302/201 I.P.C. On 11.9.1987, the investigation of this case was transferred to the regular police. Before transfer of this case to the regular police, he has mentioned in the case diary that there may be involvement of some dangerous group in the said incident and he has requested to transfer the investigation to the regular police. In reply to Question No. 2, he has admitted that the document Ext.Ka.15 to 26 was prepared by him. 21. Sri Lokendra Dobhal, learned counsel for the appellant/accused has argued that the present case relates to the circumstantial evidence and the chain of circumstances is not complete against the appellant/accused to prove the guilt of the appellant/accused in the above said case beyond reasonable doubt. I found substance in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused due to the following reasons: (i) That the statement of Sahaj Ram could not be recorded in the trial court, as he has died before recording the statement before the trial court. The statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. of Sahaj Ram, who was 76 years of age at the time of recording the statement has stated that the appellant/accused has caused the injury to Prem Singh (deceased) with iron rod on his head but in the postmortem report there is no injury found on the head of Prem Singh (deceased), which creates a reasonable doubt in the statement of Sahaj Ram. (ii) That the said incident was said to be taken place on 24.8.1987 and the statement of Sahaj Ram was recorded by the Munsif Magistrate, Pauri on 26.11.1987, that is after about three months of the said incident and between these three months Sahaj Ram has not disclosed the above said incident to any person of the village or the Investigation Officer, which also creates a doubt in the statement of Sahaj Ram. Except the statement of Sahaj Ram, there is no other evidence against the appellant/accused which may connect the appellant/accused in commission of said crime. Except the statement of Sahaj Ram, there is no other evidence against the appellant/accused which may connect the appellant/accused in commission of said crime. (iii) In the case of circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests : (a) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established, (b) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused, (c) 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 (d) 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. 22. From the evidence discussed above, as available on the record, the chain of circumstances to prove the guilt of the appellant/accused is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Only the statement of Sahaj Ram, recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. also does not inspire confidence due to the reasons discussed above. 23. Another point argued by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused is that the co-accused persons Mastan Singh and Sundar Lal @ Sundari have been acquitted by the trial court on the similar role and on the similar set of evidence however, on this very ground the appellant/accused has been convicted by the trial court which is not sustainable in the eye of law. I found substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant/accused that the co-accused persons Mastan Singh and Sundar Lal @ Sundari have been acquitted by fortified in my view with the verdict of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Deepak Rajak vs. State of West Bengal reported in 2007 AIR SCW 5740. Paras 5 & 6 of this judgment are essential to mention here, which are reproduced hereunder :- “5. The position in law as to what happens in case of acquittal of similarly placed co-accused on the same set of facts and on similar accusation has been considered by this Court in several cases. 6. Paras 5 & 6 of this judgment are essential to mention here, which are reproduced hereunder :- “5. The position in law as to what happens in case of acquittal of similarly placed co-accused on the same set of facts and on similar accusation has been considered by this Court in several cases. 6. A departure may be made in cases where the accused had not surrendered after the conviction in addition to not filing an appeal against the conviction. But as in the present case, after surrender, the benefit of acquittal in the case of co-accused on similar accusations can be extended.” 24. After considering the facts and circumstances discussed above and in view of the judgment of Hon’ble the Apex Court (supra), trial court has erred in convicting and sentencing the appellant/accused for the offence punishable u/s 304 part-II read with Section 34 I.P.C. and also u/s 201 I.P.C. 25. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 30.3.1990 passed by Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal in Sessions Trial No. 15/1988, is hereby set aside. The conviction and sentence of five years’ R.I. for the offence punishable u/s 304 Part-II r/w Section 34 I.P.C. and also three years’ R.I. for the offence punishable u/s 201 I.P.C. awarded by the trial court to the appellant/accused Gunanand Barthwal (deceased) is quashed and set aside. 26. Let a copy of this judgment along with the record of the trial court be sent back to the court concerned.