JUDGMENT Hon'ble CHAUDHARI, J.—This appeal and revision arise out of the Judgment dated 28.7.2006 passed by the Special Judge,(Decoity Affected Area Court), Karauli, hence, decided by a common judgment. 2. Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 28.7.2006 passed by the Special Judge, Decoity, Karauli by which he convicted accused appellants under Sections 148 IPC and sentenced each accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further under go one month's rigorous imprisonment and convicted under Section 302/149 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo five month's rigorous imprisonment and acquitted them u/Secs. 201, 396/149 IPC. 3. Revision has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 28.7.2006 passed by the Special Judge, Decoity, Karauli, by which respondent No.1 to 3 have been acquitted under Secs. 148, 302/149, 201 and 396/149 IPC. 4. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that P.W.20 Kailash Bhagwati lodged FIR Ex.P-17 on 4.9.2001 and stated that as per information of Ram Singh, he along with other police personnels reached at Teli Ki Pansari at 10 A.M. and found two dead bodies in 'Nala' near road-side. Bhola Das was inscribed on the hand of one dead body. Both dead bodies had many injuries of sharp edged weapons and found blood and Chappel and sandles near spot. On this report, case was registered under Sections 302, 201 IPC and during investigation, it was found that dead bodies were of Bhola Das and Virendra Singh. After completion of investigation, challan was filed against Accused Saleem, Aasin, Islam, Fakruddin and Jakir Hussain under Section 302, 396, 397/149, 201 IPC in the Court of ACJM Hindoncity. Accused Fakruddin and Jakir Hussain, were shown as, absconding. Later on challan was filed against these two accused persons also under Section 302, 396, 397, 201 IPC in the Court of ACJM Hindon City and accused persons were committed to the Court of Special Judge Decoity, Karauli and charges were framed against accused persons under Sections 148, 302/149, 201, 396/149 IPC to which they denied. Later on challan was filed against these two accused persons also under Section 302, 396, 397, 201 IPC in the Court of ACJM Hindon City and accused persons were committed to the Court of Special Judge Decoity, Karauli and charges were framed against accused persons under Sections 148, 302/149, 201, 396/149 IPC to which they denied. Prosecution examined 24 witnesses and after recording statements of accused persons under Section313 Cr.P.C and hearing arguments, accused appellants were convicted and sentenced as aforesaid and respondent No 1 to in Criminal Revision No.1269/06 were acquitted of the aforesaid charges. 5. Learned counsel for the accused appellants argued that prosecution has failed to prove that accused persons were last seen with the deceased persons, and extra judicial confession was made by accused Saleem and recovery of blood stained clothes and Chura (knife) were made at the instance of accused appellants, even then trial Court has committed error in convicting accused appellants, hence, appeal may be accepted and they may be acquitted of the charges. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor argued that trial court has given cogent reasons for conviction and prosecution has proved the case against the accused appellants beyond reasonable doubt, hence, appeal of the accused appellants may be dismissed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Motilal, argued that prosecution has proved case against respondent No. 1, 2 and 3, even then learned Trial Court has committed error in acquitting respondents of the charges levelled against them, hence, revision may be accepted and respondents may be convicted of the aforesaid charges. 7. Most of the prosecution witnesses have stated in their statements that Bhola Das and Virendra Singh died. P.W.20 Kailash Bhagwati, has prepared Memo of Dead Body, Ex.P-9 and Ex.P-10 and Panchayat Nama of Dead body Ex.P-7 and Ex.P.8 which reveals that Bhola Das and Virendra Singh died on account of injuries. P.W.I Dr. Ram Lal and P.W. 11 Dr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, who were members of the Medical Board, have stated that they conducted Post Mortem of two dead bodies and found that they died due to hemorrhagic shock & death occurred due to separation of one's body from the neck by cutting of the neck by sharp object and head and chest injuries together. Vinod Kumar Sharma, who were members of the Medical Board, have stated that they conducted Post Mortem of two dead bodies and found that they died due to hemorrhagic shock & death occurred due to separation of one's body from the neck by cutting of the neck by sharp object and head and chest injuries together. Thus, by oral as well as documentary evidence, it is proved beyond doubt that deceased Bhola Das and Virendra Singh died on account of sharp object injuries inflicted on their bodies. Now question arises whether accused appellants and respondent No.1, 2 and 3 in furtherance of common object caused death of Bhola Das and Virendra Singh. 8. This case rests on circumstantial evidence. 9. As far evidence regarding extra judicial confession is concerned, PW-17 Mahendra has stated in his statement that on 4.9.2001 at 12 in the noon, accused Salim came to his residence and asked him to take Rs.5,000/- and buffalo and make arrange so that he may go out of village. On quarry, accused revealed him that he had murdered Bhola and Virendra. Mahendra asked him to go away then accused Salim return back to his home. In cross examination, he has admitted that his statement was recorded by police after 3-4 days and during this period, he did not disclose this fact to any one. He further stated that statement given by him was signed by him. He did not see buffalo with accused Salim but he saw Rs.5,000/- in the pocket of Salim. He has further admitted that on account of incident, neither traffic was jammed nor market was closed. He further revealed that on account of terror, he did not go to the house of Virendra and Bhola. He has denied that on that day accused Salim was arrested by police at 8 A.M. He has also admitted that accused Salim's residence is at the distance of 30 houses from his house and in the way deceased Virendra's house situated. He has also admitted that later on he came out of his house and met to villagers . He has further stated that in statement Ex.D-3 he disclosed that accused Salim stated him that he and his relatives have murdered Virendra and Bhola but this fact does not find place in his police statement. 10. He has also admitted that later on he came out of his house and met to villagers . He has further stated that in statement Ex.D-3 he disclosed that accused Salim stated him that he and his relatives have murdered Virendra and Bhola but this fact does not find place in his police statement. 10. Mahendra Singh's police statement Ex.D-3 was recorded on 7.9.01 in which he stated that he along with Aasin has committed incident of Virendra and Bhola whereas in examination-in-chief before Court, he has not stated that accused-Salim also told about co-accused Aasin whereas in cross-exa-mination he has improved his statement and stated that he mentioned in his police statement that accused Salim told him that he along with his relatives has murdered Virendra and Bhola. No reliance can be placed on this witness on account of omission and improvements in his police statement as well as statement in court and non-disclosure of this fact to any one for 3-4 days. 11. P.W.9 Sohan Lal who is close relative of deceased Virendra, has stated in his statement that the day on which accused persons murdered Virendra, accused Salim and Aasin were arrested by the police in the morning. 12. P.W.8 Budhi who is also closely related to deceased Virendra, has admitted in his cross examination that in the after noon accused persons hired 'Bugiya' of deceased and when 'Bugi' did not return in the night, he alongwith other persons went to the house of accused Salim in the morning and found that 4-5 boys had caught hold of accused Salim and were enquiring from him but they were not beating accused Salim. He has further deposed that prosecution witness Lakho handed over Salim to police on that day. Evidence of this witness clearly reveals that accused Salim was handed over to police on 4.9.2001 in the morning, then there was no opportunity for accused Salim to go to the house of P.W.17 Mahendra and make extra judicial confession before him. Mahendra has stated that accused Salim asked him to take Rs.5,000/- and buffalo but he has not seen buffalo at his residence. Mahendra has further stated that his police statement was recorded after 3-4 days of occurrence and during this period he did not disclose this confession to any one, though, he met villagers on that day. Mahendra has stated that accused Salim asked him to take Rs.5,000/- and buffalo but he has not seen buffalo at his residence. Mahendra has further stated that his police statement was recorded after 3-4 days of occurrence and during this period he did not disclose this confession to any one, though, he met villagers on that day. His conduct makes his statement totally un-natural and it seems that Mahendra is falsely narrating about extra judicial confession made by Salim, just to implicate accused Salim as well as other accused persons. 13. Normally extra judicial confession is made before a person, in whom, he reposes confidence. The evidence of extra judicial confession, in the very nature of things, is a weak piece of evidence. If the evidence adduced in respect of it lacks plausibility, and does not inspire confidence in the court, it cannot be acted upon. Statement of P.W.17 Mahendra Singh does not inspire confidence at all on this fact that accused Salim made extra judicial confession before him, especially, when his conduct is totally unnatural and contrary to admissions by other witnesses that on that morning accused had already been handed over to police. 14. As far evidence regarding recovery of blood stained articles is concerned, P.W.20 Kailash Bhagwati has recovered 'Baniyan' of deceased Virendra by Recovery Memo Ex.P-6 and 'Baniyan' of deceased Bholadas by Recovery Memo Ex.P-7. He has also recovered blood smeared soil, fanta, sandle and chappel from the spot. P.W.22 Jaisriram has stated that he was SHO Helena on 8.9.2001 and investigation of this case was transferred to him. He has further stated that he recovered 'Jugar' by Recovery Memo Ex.P-16, arrested accused Salim and Aasin and on their information & at their instance 'Churas' (knives) and clothes which they were wearing at the time of incident were recovered. This fact has further been corroborated by other prosecution witnesses. F.S.L. Report Ex.P.50 was not tendered in evidence by any prosecution witnesses but vide order sheet dated 6.7.05, Ex.P-50 was marked on FSL report as there was no objection to accused person. Normally, FSL Report should have been tendered in evidence by witness unless admitted by accused person. This fact has further been corroborated by other prosecution witnesses. F.S.L. Report Ex.P.50 was not tendered in evidence by any prosecution witnesses but vide order sheet dated 6.7.05, Ex.P-50 was marked on FSL report as there was no objection to accused person. Normally, FSL Report should have been tendered in evidence by witness unless admitted by accused person. Report Ex.P.-50 reveals that 'Baniyan' recovered from the body of deceased Virendra Singh was found to be stained with B-Group blood whereas 'Baniyan' recovered from dead body of Bhola Das was found to be stained with A-Group of blood, whereas 'Chura' (knife) recovered on the information & at the instance of accused Salim, was found to be stained with A-B Group of Blood and 'Chura'(knife) recovered on the information & at the instance of accused Aasin, was found to be stained with human blood but blood group could not be determined. In the same way, clothes of Aasin recovered on his information and his instance, were found to be stained with A-B Blood group whereas no blood was detected on cloths and juties recovered on the information & at the instance of accused Salim. When deceased persons were of A and B blood group, 'Chura' (knife) used by accused persons should have been found to be stained with either 'A' or 'B' group and in absence of these blood groups, accused persons cannot be connected with this crime, especially, when 'Chura' (knife) recovered from accused Salim was found to be stained with 'AB' Group and 'Chura' (knife) recovered from accused Aasin was only found to be stained with human blood without any group. Learned Public Prosecutor argued that if accused inflicted injuries by same 'chura' (knife) on both the deceased persons having A and B blood group then 'Chura' (knife) will reveal AB blood group. This fact cannot be believed in absence of any authorities on this point and we are of the view that if blood group of deceased is not found on the 'Churas' (knives), recovered from accused persons, apparently, they cannot be connected with the crime. In this case 'Chura'(knife) recovered from accused Salim was found to be of blood group -AB whereas no blood was found on his clothes. In this case 'Chura'(knife) recovered from accused Salim was found to be of blood group -AB whereas no blood was found on his clothes. On the contrary, clothes recovered at the instance of Aasin, were found to be of blood group AB whereas no blood group could be detected on the 'Chura' (knife) recovered on the information and at the instance of accused Aasin. In such circumstances, it becomes suspicious that recovered articles reached to F.S.L. in sealed condition, especially, when prosecution has not examined witnesses to this effect. 15. P.W. 16 Ramniwas has stated that on 4.9.2001 he was 'Malkhana' incharge at Police Station Hindon and Kailash Bhagwati deposited 8 sealed packets and 2 unsealed packets in 'Malkhana'. He admitted in his cross examination that no seal impression was marked in Malkhana register. Prosecution has not examined witnesses who kept these articles at P.S.Helena and carrier of these articles to FSL and in absence of these important witnesses, accused cannot be connected with the offence, especially, when no blood group of recovered articles matches with blood group of deceased person. 16. P.W.13 Gajanand has stated that Salim left 'Buga' on the road side at 4 A.M. which was recovered by police vide Recovery Memo Ex.P-16. He was declared hostile and later on he admitted that his police statement Ex.P.22. He admitted in cross examination that Jamasa Fakir remained as tenant in his house before 10-11 years and his children were 5 years old at that time and, he does not recognise children of Jamasa Fakir. He further admitted that at the time when 'Bugga' was left near road, he was taking bath and those persons simply told that they are leaving 'Bugga' and he did not ask them their names. In such circumstances, it cannot be believed that accused Salim left 'Bugga' on the place of recovery. Had he left 'Bugga' at 4 A.M. on the place of recovery, he would not have reached to his house in the early morning where other persons apprehended him in the morning. As per recovery Memo Ex.P-16, three pieces of wood stained with blood were cut from 'Bugga' and as per FSL Report Ex.P.50, these pieces were found to be stained with human blood but no blood group was detected. In such circumstances, recovery of alleged Bugga does not connect accused persons with crime. 17. As per recovery Memo Ex.P-16, three pieces of wood stained with blood were cut from 'Bugga' and as per FSL Report Ex.P.50, these pieces were found to be stained with human blood but no blood group was detected. In such circumstances, recovery of alleged Bugga does not connect accused persons with crime. 17. Prosecution witnesses have admitted that accused Salim was in police custody on 4.9.2001. On the contrary, P.W.20 Kailash Bhagwati has stated that he was in search of accused person on 5.9.01 and later on Investigating Officer was changed. P.W.22 Jaisriram has stated in his examination in chief that accused Salim was arrested on 7.9.2001 vide Arrest Memo Ex.P-5 and accused Aasin was arrested on 8.9.01 vide Ex.P.-4. He has admitted in cross examination that accused Salim was called at police station on 4.9.2001 by SHO Hindon and there is note to this effect in the case diary and further stated that SHO Hindon had enquired from accused Salim. Thus, it becomes clear that though accused Salim and Aasin were in the custody of police on 4.9.01 even then their arrest was shown on 7.9.01 and 8.9.01 and later on information for recovery of blood stained articles were taken which cannot be believed at all and accused persons cannot be connected with the crime. In 1991 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 285 Gurdeo Singh vs. State, - accused was taken into police custody on 5.8.84, but arrest was shown on 8.8.84, and information for recovery of Kassi was taken on 9.8.84 and Kassi recovered on the very day but recovery was held to be doubtful on account of arrest shown late after taking accused in custody and accused was acquitted under Section 302 IPC. In such circumstances recovery of blood stained articles becomes doubtful and accused persons are entitled to benefit of doubt. 18. As far last seen evidence is concerned, two sets of witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. In one set P.W.7 Motilal, P.W.8 Budhi and P.W.9 Sohan Lal have been stated in their statements that at about 2 P.M. accused Salim and Aasin along with three other accused persons came to the shop of Motilal where deceased Virendra was sitting and hired 'Bugga'. All these witnesses are close relatives and looking to contradictions in their statements on material aspects, they cannot be believed. All these witnesses are close relatives and looking to contradictions in their statements on material aspects, they cannot be believed. P.W.7 Moti Lal has stated that accused Salim told that buffalo is to be brought from Hindon and so they demanded Rs.400/- but Rs.350/- as fare was agreed, on the contrary P.W.7 Budhi and P.W.9 Sohan Lal have stated that buffalo was to be brought from Uchain and fare of Rs.350/-was agreed. Had Budhi and Sohan Lal been at the shop of Moti Lal at the time of hiring 'Bugga', there would not have been any difference in place of destination, i.e. Hindon or Uchain because because both the places are far away. P.W.7 Motilal has stated that when 'Bugga' did not return in the evening, he along with Sohan Lal and Budhi went to the house of accused Salim and mother and wife of Salim, told that Salim has not returned. Again in the morning at 8 A.M. All three persons went to house of accused persons where Salim met them and on enquiry Salim revealed that he returned back from Hindon and his younger brother and his relatives had taken 'Bugga' whereas P.W.8 Budhi has stated that Salim told them that his brother has taken 'Bugi' to Uchain whereas P.W.9 Sohan Lal had stated that in the morning on enquiry from Salim, he revealed that buffalo was not available in Uchain, therefore, 'Bugga' was taken to Hindon after increasing fare. He has further deposed that his brother accused Aasin has also returned who has gone in the village just now whereas Moti Lal and Budhi do not say that Salim disclosed this fact that Aasin had also came to village. P.W.7 Moti Lal stated that he waited up to 5-6 P.M. and then went to Uchain in jeep along with 10-12 persons whereas P.W.8 Budhi, P.W.9 Sohan Lal stated that immediately thereafter they along with other persons left for Uchain in Jeep. P.W.7 Moti Lal stated that he waited up to 5-6 P.M. and then went to Uchain in jeep along with 10-12 persons whereas P.W.8 Budhi, P.W.9 Sohan Lal stated that immediately thereafter they along with other persons left for Uchain in Jeep. P.W.7 Moti Lal has stated that when they reached Uchain they came to know that 'Bugga' had gone towards Hindon then they came to Hindon and came to know that two persons have been murdered in Hindon whereas P.W.9 Sohan Lal has stated that in Uchain they enquired from maternal uncle of accused persons, who revealed that accused persons had gone to village Khetata then they reached to Khetata and enquired from relatives of accused persons who told that both accused persons came there but after some time, they left that village. Later on all of them reached to Hindon where they came to know about two dead bodies. P.W.7 Moti Lal has stated in his examination in chief that in the morning of 4.9.2001 accused Salim met them whereas in cross examination he stated that he saw accused Salim and Aasin after 3-4 days of incident in village Halena. P.W.7 Motilal has stated that he waited up to 5-6 P.M. on 4.9.01 and then left for Uchain whereas P.W.9 Sohan Lal had stated that they left for Hindon at 5-6 A.M. on 4.9.01 and accused Salim and Aasin were arrested by police on 4.9.01 in the morning. Thus, it becomes clear that there are many contradictions in the statements of these witnesses and looking to their close relations with deceased persons and interested in prosecution, it cannot be believed that in their presence accused persons along with their relatives left in 'Bugga' driven by deceased Virendra with deceased Bhola. 19. In another set, P.W.10 Lakho and P.W.12 Ram Singh have stated that at 5.30 PM on 3.9.01 they saw accused persons with deceased persons near Panchayat Samiti,Bayana. P.W.10 Lakho who is real uncle of Virendra, has stated that when he was returning back from court, he saw 'Bugga' near Panchayat Samiti Bayana in which deceased Virendra and Bhola were sitting in front and 5 accused persons were sitting in rear side. He has stated that at that time Ram Singh came from Rudawal. P.W.10 Lakho who is real uncle of Virendra, has stated that when he was returning back from court, he saw 'Bugga' near Panchayat Samiti Bayana in which deceased Virendra and Bhola were sitting in front and 5 accused persons were sitting in rear side. He has stated that at that time Ram Singh came from Rudawal. He enquired from deceased Virendra who revealed that accused persons brought him for bringing buffalo from Uchain but later on accused revealed that their relatives asked them to bring buffalo from Khetata. P.W.10 Lakho has stated in his cross examination that when he asked name of accused persons, accused Salim disclosed names of accused Fakruddin and Islam but P.W.12 Ram Singh no where stated in his statement that name of any other accused person was enquired by Lakho or disclosed by accused Salim. Had both the witnesses met accused persons at Panchayat Samiti,Bayana, there would not have been any discrepancy in their statements about names of other accused persons and place of destination. P.W.12 Ram Singh has admitted in cross examination that while going to Bayana from Uchain village Khateta comes in the way. If deceased were going with accused persons to village Kheteta, there was no occasion to go Bayana and if accused persons had not gone to Bayana with deceased persons, no reliance can be placed on the evidence of Lakho and Ram Singh about their last seen with deceased persons at Panchayat Samiti, Bayana. P.W.10 Lakho has stated that he revealed fact of meeting at Panchayat Samiti Bayana to villagers but other witnesses have not stated in their statements that Lakho and Ram Singh saw accused persons with deceased persons at 6 P.M. on 3.9.2001. P.W.10 Lakho has admitted that before giving statement under Sectionl61 Cr.P.C. he was aware of the name of three accused persons Islam, Fakruddin and Jakir and he disclosed these names in his police statement but this fact does not find place in police statement Ex.D-2. Lakho has admitted that his house is adjoining to his brother Moti Lal, even then he did not disclose about their meeting at Panchayat Samiti Bayana, makes it specious that accused persons along with deceased met him at Panchayat Samiti Bayana. Lakho has admitted that his house is adjoining to his brother Moti Lal, even then he did not disclose about their meeting at Panchayat Samiti Bayana, makes it specious that accused persons along with deceased met him at Panchayat Samiti Bayana. P.W.12 Ram Singh has admitted in his cross examination that he never met police and never disclosed fact of meeting with accused and deceased to the police and first time he is giving statement in the Court, cannot be believed at all because his statement was recorded by police and only after that he has been examined as prosecution witness in the Court. He further admitted that he was in the village after incident but even up to 10-12 days he did not disclose this fact of meeting to Motilal. Looking to the unnatural conduct of these witnesses in not disclosing fact of meeting with accused and deceased persons to Moti Lal and other villagers, make their statements doubtful and on the basis of their evidence accused persons cannot be connected with the crime. 20. P.W.7 Moti Lal, P.W. 8 Budhi and P.W. 9 Sohan Lal have not disclosed to Kailash Bhagwati, on identifying dead bodies the fact that accused persons hired 'Bugga' of deceased. This non-disclosure of material fact makes it suspicious that accused persons hired 'Bugga' of deceased Virendra and they were last seen together by any prosecution witnesses specially when accused Salim was possessing Bugga. 21. It has been held in AIR 1984 SC 692 Bihari Singh Madho Singh vs. State of Bihar, that if prosecution witness did not tell fact of murder to any person, his conduct is unnatural and inexplicable and it seems probable that he was not told that time but much later and was not believed and accused was acquitted under Section 302 IPC. In AIR 1983 SC 491 Sonia Bahera vs. State of Orissa, two alleged eye-witnesses who did not narrate incident of murder to anybody in village were not believed and accused were acquitted under Section 302 IPC. In AIR 1983 SC 491 Sonia Bahera vs. State of Orissa, two alleged eye-witnesses who did not narrate incident of murder to anybody in village were not believed and accused were acquitted under Section 302 IPC. In the present case, neither Mothilal, Budhi and Sohan Lal revealed to villagers or Kalaish Bhagwati that accused persons hired 'Bugga' of deceased Virendra nor Lakho and Ram Singh disclosed to any one that they saw accused persons with deceased persons near Panchayat Samiti,Bayana, makes it suspicious that any of them saw accused persons with deceased persons and accused persons are entitled to benefit of doubt. 22. As far motive is concerned, prosecution witnesses have stated that previously 'Bugga' was taken in partnership of deceased Virendra and accused Salim, and on account of dispute regarding money, accused persons murdered Virendra and Bhola. P.W.7 Motilal has admitted in his cross examination that they had good relations with accused Salim. He further admitted that previously 'Bugga' was purchased in Rs.39,000/- which was given to accused Salim as accused Salim had given 50% money to them, after that there was no dispute between them and both of them used to sit together. P.W.9 Sohan Lal has admitted in his cross examination that he cannot say what was dispute between deceased and accused persons regarding 'Bugga'. He further stated that he got the matter compromised and after that 'Bugga' was given to accused persons. When there was no dispute regarding 'Bugga' between accused and deceased persons, it cannot be believed that on account of non-existing dispute accused persons murdered deceased persons. It appears from prosecution witnesses that 'Bugga' purchased in partnership of deceased Virendra and accused Salim, was taken by Salim after paying half price to Virendra then apparently there was no occasion for accused Salim to hire 'Bugga' of deceased Virendra as accused Salim was already possessing 'Bugga'. 23. P.W.22 Jasiram has stated in his statement that he recorded statement Ex.D-1 of Motilal, Ex.D-2 of Lakho and Ex.D-3 of Mahendra on 7.9.01. In cross examination he stated that statements were not recorded on 4.9.01 as the situation was not in control as dead bodies reached in the village, statements were not recorded on 5.9.01 as bodies were cremated on that day, statements were not recorded on 6.9.01 as they were in search of accused Aasin. In cross examination he stated that statements were not recorded on 4.9.01 as the situation was not in control as dead bodies reached in the village, statements were not recorded on 5.9.01 as bodies were cremated on that day, statements were not recorded on 6.9.01 as they were in search of accused Aasin. This explanation is not acceptable at all because accused Aasin was in village on 4.9.01 and all the witnesses were available on 4.9.01, even then their statements were recorded after three days. In AIR 1979 SC 135 , Ganesh Bhawn Patel & another vs. State of Maharastra - statements of witnesses were recorded on next day though they were or, could be available when Investigating Officer visited place of occurrence and on account of delay in recording statements of witnesses, accused persons were acquitted under Section 302 IPC. In the present case, all witnesses were available in the village on 4.9.01 even then their statements were recorded after three days and no reasonable explanation has been given by the Investigating Officer for delay in recording statements. Hence, no reliance can be placed on the statements of these witnesses and accused persons are entitled to benefit of doubt. 24. Learned counsel for the appellants further argued that to base conviction on circumstantial evidence, prosecution must establish all pieces of incriminating circumstances by reliable and clinching evidence and circumstances so proved must factum such a chain of events as would permit no conclusion other than guilt of the accused. He placed reliance on 2008 III AD (S.C.) 26 = 2008(3) RLW 1942 (SC) K.T. Palanisamy vs. State of Tamil Nadu in which para No. 12 of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra ( AIR 1984 SC 1622 ) case has been referred which runs as under :- "A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established: (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It must be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. It must be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between 'may be proved' and 'must be or should be proved' as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade vs. State of Maharashtra where the following observations were made: Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a Court can convict, and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. (4) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence. 25. He also placed reliance on 2008 XII AD (SC) 140 Mula Devi & Anr. vs. State of Uttarkhand in which Apex Court held that in a case of circumstantial evidence the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person. The circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. 26. As per above discussion, prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused persons were last seen with the deceased persons, and any extra judicial confession was made by the accused Salim. 26. As per above discussion, prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused persons were last seen with the deceased persons, and any extra judicial confession was made by the accused Salim. Recovery of blood stained cloths and 'Churas' (knives) and pieces of wood of 'Bugga' also does not connect accused persons with the crime, and in such circumstances, it cannot be inferred from evidence brought by the prosecu-tion on record that accused persons are guilty of murder of deceased Virendra and Bhola. In such circumstances, accused Salim and Aasin are entitled to benefit of doubt and they are to be acquitted of the charges levelled against them. 27. As far Criminal Revision filed by complainant Moti Lal is concerned, when accused Salim and Aasin are to be acquitted, no case is made out against accused Islam, Fakruddin and Jakir Hussain, as these accused persons have not been identified by any of the prosecution witnesses and trial Court has not committed any error in acquitting these three accused persons. 28. Consequently, D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 960/06 filed by appellants Salim and Aasin is accepted and allowed and the judgment dated 28.7.2006 passed by the Special Judge, (Decoity Affected Area Court), Karauli, by which he convicted accused appellants Salim and Aasin under Section 148, 302/149 IPC, is set aside to that extent. The accused appellants, Salim and Aasin, are in jail, they be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. D.B. Cri. Revision No. 1269/06 filed by complainant Motilal is also dismissed.