JUDGMENT Sham Sunder, J.:- This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction, and the order of sentence dated 30.07.2004, rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Amritsar, vide which, it convicted Amrik Singh and Vir Kaur, accused (now appellants), for the offence, punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life each, and to pay a fine of Rs 5,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each. However, Tarlok Singh, Salwinder Singh and Avtar Singh, accused, were acquitted, vide the aforesaid judgement. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the prosecution, proceeded in the manner, that Mohinder Kaur, sister of Santokh Singh, complainant was married to Subeg Singh (now deceased), resident of village Kotli Bhai Wasawa Singh. She died in the year 1995 issueless. Thereafter, Subeg Singh, who owned 18 acres of land, became dependent on Santokh Singh, brother of his wife. As such, Subeg Singh, started living with Santokh Singh. Santokh Singh started cultivating the land of Subeg Singh. Generally, Subeg Singh, used to live with Santokh Singh. Vir Kaur, accused, is the niece of Subeg Singh (now deceased). She is the wife of Amrik Singh, accused, resident of Kotli Wasawa Singh. Subeg Singh, off and on, used to go to see Vir Kaur. After staying with her, for two to four days, he had been coming back to Santokh Singh. 3. On 22.10.1998, Subeg Singh, executed a registered Will of his landed property, in favour of Santokh Singh, and his brother Subba Singh. Later on, he executed another registered Will, dated 04.10.2000 in favour of Vir Kaur, accused, to the extent of 12 acres of land and in favour of Salwinder Singh, accused (since acquitted), to the extent of 6 acres of his land. About 10/15 days before his death, Subeg Singh, went to see Vir Kaur. Vir Kaur, and the other accused, fearing that he may not change his mind, and cancel the Will, executed by him, poisoned him to death, on 24.04.2001. On 24.04.2001, Dalbir Singh son of Sadhu Singh, resident of Kaler, when came to know about the death of Subeg Singh, started for the Police Station, to lodge a report, when on the way, Sukhdev Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector of Police Station City Tarn Taran, met him. On 24.04.2001, Dalbir Singh son of Sadhu Singh, resident of Kaler, when came to know about the death of Subeg Singh, started for the Police Station, to lodge a report, when on the way, Sukhdev Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector of Police Station City Tarn Taran, met him. He got recorded his statement exhibit PG, which was signed by him. It was stated by Dalbir Singh, that Subeg Singh (now deceased), who owned 18 killas of land, had executed a Will, in favour of Vir Kaur and Salwinder Singh, accused (now acquitted), and had not given any share of his land, to his other niece Kelo, wife of Diwan Singh. He further stated that Subeg Singh, died, on 24.04.2001, at 7.30 PM. It was further stated by him, that apprehending that somebody may not dispute about the cause of death, he considered it proper to make the report to the Police, as his wife Kashmir Kaur, was Sarpanch of the village. 4. Sukhdev Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector/Station House Officer, accompanied by Dalbir Singh, went to the spot, where the dead-body was lying. He conducted inquest proceedings. The deadbody was sent by him, for the purpose of post-mortem examination. A report in the daily diary register of the Police Station, was recorded. Post-mortem of the dead-body of Subeg Singh, was got conducted from Dr. Arjan Kumar Dhawan. The viscera of the deceased was sent to the Chemical Examiner, in a sealed container. On receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner, he opined that the cause of death was ‘Aluminum Phosphide’ poisoning. Thereafter, the Police recorded the statement of Santokh Singh, on 13.10.2001, exhibit PL, on the basis whereof, First Information Report, PL/2, was registered. 5. The investigation was conducted by Suba Singh, Sub- Inspector. He went to the place of occurrence and prepared the rough site plan, exhibit PW2/A. He also took into possession the Will, dated 04.10.2000, from Gurmit Singh, on 10.11.2002. A copy of Will, dated 22.10.1998, produced by Rajinder Kaur, Reader of the office of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tarn Taran, was also taken into possession. The case was also investigated by Inspector Gian Singh of CIA Staff, Tarn- Taran. Tarlok Singh and Avtar Singh, accused (since acquitted), were arrested, by him, on 17.11.2001. The other accused were also arrested by the Police. The case was also investigated by Inspector Gian Singh of CIA Staff, Tarn- Taran. Tarlok Singh and Avtar Singh, accused (since acquitted), were arrested, by him, on 17.11.2001. The other accused were also arrested by the Police. Mangal Singh, made a statement, before the Police that the accused made an extra-judicial confession, before him, regarding the commission of murder of Subeg Singh. Piara Singh son of Nand Singh, resident of Kotli Bhai Wasawa Singh, during the course of investigation, on 24.04.2001, stated that, he went to the house of Vir Kaur and Amrik Singh, accused. He further stated that he heard Amrik Singh and Vir Kaur, accused, as also the other accused, talking to each other, that Subeg Singh, had been changing his mind, to execute another Will and, therefore, they had poisoned him to death. After the completion of investigation, the accused were challaned. 6. On their appearance, in the Court of the Committing Magistrate, the accused were supplied the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution. After the case was received by commitment, in the Court of Sessions, charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, was framed against the accused, to which they pleaded not guilty, and claimed judicial trial. 7. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Constable Rattan Lal (PW1), Constable Baljinder Singh (PW2), Sulakhan Singh, Patwari (PW3), Dr. Arjan Kumar Dhawan (PW4), who conducted the post-mortem examination, on the dead-body of Subeg Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector Sukhdev Singh (PW5), who recorded the statement of Dalbir Singh, and prepared the inquest report of the dead-body and also got the post-mortem examination conducted, on the dead-body of Subeg Singh, Darbara Singh (PW6), Santokh Singh (PW7), on the basis of whose statement, the First Information Report, was registered, Mangal Singh (PW8), Piara Singh (PW9), Gurnam Singh (PW10), Achhar Singh (PW11), Sardool Singh (PW12), MHC Naresh Kumar (PW13), Rikhi Ram (PW14), Inspector Gian Singh (PW15), Kashmir Singh (PW16), Harjit Singh, Registration Clerk (PW17), and Suba Singh (PW18). Constable Rattan Singh, tendered into evidence affidavit PA. Thereafter, the Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State, tendered into evidence PX, report of the Chemical Examiner, and closed the same. 8. The statements of the accused, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, were recorded. They were put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against them, in the prosecution evidence. They pleaded false implication. Thereafter, the Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State, tendered into evidence PX, report of the Chemical Examiner, and closed the same. 8. The statements of the accused, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, were recorded. They were put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against them, in the prosecution evidence. They pleaded false implication. Tarlok Singh, accused (since acquitted), relied upon DC, copy of the statement, made by him, as a witness, in civil suit No. 170/86, in a Civil Court, at Patti, copy of the judgement DD and copy of the decree sheet DE. Thereafter the accused closed the defence evidence. 9. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, convicted and sentenced Amrik Singh and Vir Kaur, accused, and acquitted Tarlok Singh, Salwinder Singh and Avtar Singh, accused, as stated above. 10. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, was filed by Amrik Singh and Vir Kaur, appellants. 11. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 12. The Counsel for the appellants, submitted that the circumstantial evidence produced by the prosecution was not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. He further submitted that there was no motive with the accused to commit the murder of Subeg Singh, as the last Will, dated 04.10.2000, was executed, in favour of Vir Kaur and Salwinder Singh, accused, and they were to inherit the property of Subeg Singh, after his death. He further submitted that even no cogent substantive evidence was produced by the prosecution to prove that the death of Subeg Singh, took place, in the house of Vir Kaur. He further submitted that, in case, there was suspicion in the mind of Santokh Singh, brother-in-law of Subeg Singh, that his murder had been committed by the accused, he would have got the First Information Report lodged, immediately after the dead-body of said Subeg Singh, was found, on 24.04.2001, in the hospital but he did not do so, but it was got registered in October, 2001 i.e. after a delay of 6 months. He further submitted that the mere fact that the First Information Report, was lodged, by Santokh Singh, after a long delay, in itself, clearly proved that the accused were falsely implicated, in the instant case. He further submitted that the mere fact that the First Information Report, was lodged, by Santokh Singh, after a long delay, in itself, clearly proved that the accused were falsely implicated, in the instant case. He further submitted that the extra-judicial confession, allegedly made by the accused, before Mangal Singh, was rightly disbelieved by the trial Court. He further submitted that the evidence of Piara Singh, regarding over-hearing of the accused, that they allegedly committed the murder of Subeg Singh, was also not reliable. He further submitted that the trial Court, did not take into consideration the aforesaid, infirmities, in the case of the prosecution, as a result whereof, it fell into a grave error, in recording conviction and awarding sentence. 13. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent submitted that the trial Court, was right, in recording conviction and awarding sentence to the accused, on the basis of the reliable evidence, produced by the prosecution. She further submitted that, no doubt, Dalbir Singh, who made a report, in the first instance, on the basis whereof, the Daily Diary Report, was recorded, was not examined, yet there was sufficient evidence to prove that the death of Subeg Singh, took place, in the house of Vir Kaur, accused. She further submitted that, no fault, therefore, could be found with the judgement of the trial Court, and the same was liable to be upheld. 14. The case of the prosecution, is based on the circumstantial evidence. When a case is based, on the circumstantial evidence, the Court is bound to be extra-cautious, because the circumstantial evidence, has its own limitations. Before acting, on that evidence, the Court must first see, whether the circumstances, put forward, are satisfactorily proved, and whether the proved circumstances, are sufficient to bring home satisfactorily, the guilt to the accused. The established circumstances, must not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused, but at the same time, they must be inconsistent with his innocence. While appreciating the circumstantial evidence, the Court should not view, in isolation, the various circumstances. On the other hand, it is necessary to take an overall view of the matter, but without substituting conjectures for legal inferences. While appreciating the circumstantial evidence, the Court should not view, in isolation, the various circumstances. On the other hand, it is necessary to take an overall view of the matter, but without substituting conjectures for legal inferences. Incompatibility with the innocence, besides compatibility with guilt, is called for, in such cases, because incriminating circumstances, can also be introduced, during the investigation, and it is a matter of common knowledge, that at times, they are falsely introduced, by way of padding, by the investigating Agency. The acid tests, laid down, by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gambir V. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1982 (Supreme Court) 1157, Tarsem Kumar V. Delhi Administration, 1994(3) Recent Criminal Reports 587 (Supreme Court) and Sharad Birdhichand Sarda V. State of Maharashtra, 1984 CAR 263 (Supreme Court), for basing conviction, on the strength of circumstantial evidence alone, are enumerated as under :- 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 the guilt of the accused; iii. The circumstances, taken cumulatively should from a chain, so complete, that there is no escape, from the conclusion, that within all human probabilities, the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and iv. 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.” 15. It is settled principle of Criminal Jurisprudence, that the prosecution is required to prove its case, against the accused, beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court is not required to act on mere suspicion, conjectures or surmises or suspicious circumstances, to bring home the guilt to the accused. In Datar Singh V. State of Punjab AIR 1971 (Supreme Court) 1193, the principle of law, laid down, was to the effect, that it is often difficult, for the Courts of Law, to arrive at the actual truth, in criminal cases. The Judicial process can only operate on firm foundation of actual and credible evidence, on record. The mere suspicion or suspicious circumstances, cannot relieve the prosecution of its primary duty to prove its case, against an accused person, beyond a reasonable doubt. The Judicial process can only operate on firm foundation of actual and credible evidence, on record. The mere suspicion or suspicious circumstances, cannot relieve the prosecution of its primary duty to prove its case, against an accused person, beyond a reasonable doubt. The Courts of justice cannot be swayed by sentiments or prejudice, against a person accused of the very reprehensible crime. They even cannot act on some conviction that the accused persons have committed a crime, unless their offence, is proved by satisfactory evidence of it, on record. If the pieces of evidence, on which the prosecution, choses to rest its case, are so brittle, that they can crumble, when subjected to close and critical examination, so that whole superstructure, build on such insecure basis collapses, proof of some incriminating circumstances, which might have given support to mere defective evidence, cannot avert failure of the prosecution evidence. In K.M. Nanwati V.State of Maharashtra A.I.R. 1962 (Supreme Court) 605, the principle of law, laid down, was to the effect, that it is the cardinal principle of Criminal Jurisprudence, that the accused is presumed to be innocent and, therefore, the burden lies on the prosecution, to prove his guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution, is under legal obligation, to prove each and every ingredient of the offence, beyond any doubt unless, otherwise so provided by any Statute. This general burden never shifts and it always rests on the prosecution. At the conclusion of the trial, the prosecution, can succeed only, on discharging its burden of proving the case, against the accused. Strongest of suspicion, does not constitute the proof required. Keeping in view the principle of law, laid down, in the cases referred hereinbefore, now let us see, as to whether, the prosecution, has been able to prove its case, against the accused, beyond a reasonable doubt. 16. The first circumstance, on which reliance was placed by the prosecution was that the accused were having a motive to commit the murder of Subeg Singh. The question, thus, arises for consideration is, as to whether, the motive set up by the prosecution, for the alleged commission of crime was proved or not. 16. The first circumstance, on which reliance was placed by the prosecution was that the accused were having a motive to commit the murder of Subeg Singh. The question, thus, arises for consideration is, as to whether, the motive set up by the prosecution, for the alleged commission of crime was proved or not. According to Santokh Singh, PW7, on the basis of whose statement, the First Information Report, was recorded, Subeg Singh (now deceased), who was issueless, executed a registered Will, dated 22.10.1998, in respect of his estate, in his favour, and in favour of his brother. He further deposed that, later on, on 04.10.2000, Subeg Singh, executed another registered Will, in respect of his estate, in favour of Vir Kaur, his niece, and Salwinder Singh, accused (now acquitted). Santokh Singh, PW7, further stated that the accused were suspecting that Subeg Singh, may cancel the Will, executed in favour of Vir Kaur and Salwinder Singh, and on account of that reason, they committed his murder. It may be stated here, that once the registered Will, dated 04.10.2000, had been executed by Subeg Singh, in relation to his estate, in favour of Vir Kaur and Salwinder Singh, accused (now acquitted), which could be said to be his last testament, after his death, his estate was to be inherited by them (Vir Kaur and Salwinder Singh), on the basis of that Will. Under these circumstances, it could not be said that they had any apprehension that Subeg Singh, may cancel the Will, which was executed, in their favour, which led to the alleged commission of murder by them. On the other hand, the motive was very much with Santokh Singh and his brother, in whose favour, the earlier Will, dated 22.10.1998, had been executed. They very well knew that, on account of the execution of the registered Will, dated 04.10.2000, in respect of his estate, by Subeg Singh, in favour of Vir Kaur and Salwinder Singh, that would be considered to be his last testament, and the first Will, executed in their favour, would be of no avail and they would not be able to inherit the property, on the basis thereof. This fact is further strengthened, from the circumstance that later on, an un-registered Will of the property of Subeg Singh, at the instance of Santokh Singh, and his brother was allegedly fabricated 23/24 days, prior to his death, in favour of their sons (sons of Santokh Singh and Suba Singh). It means that Santokh Singh, and his brother wanted to usurp the property of Subeg Singh, by all means, and that was why, the necessity of alleged fabrication of the un-registered Will, in favour of their sons arose. Even, it has come, in evidence, that when Mohinder Kaur wife of Subeg Singh, died, Santokh Singh, PW7, his brother-in-law i.e. brother of his wife moved an application, against him (Subeg Singh), that he suspected him for the commission of the murder of said Mohinder Kaur. It, therefore, can be said that the relations between Santokh Singh and Subeg Singh, were not cordial. A person, who can go to the extent of raising allegations, against his brother-in-law, regarding the commission of murder of his sister, could go to any extent, so see that he was eliminated, with a view to usurp his property. The motive is a double edged weapon, which can be used for the commission of crime or for falsely implicating the accused. In the instant case, the alleged motive was used by Santokh Singh, to falsely implicate the accused, in the instant case. The motive for the commission of crime, by the accused was, therefore, not proved, through cogent and convincing evidence. 17. The next circumstance, on which, reliance was placed by the prosecution was that the accused made extra-judicial confession before Mangal Singh, PW8, wherein, they allegedly admitted their guilt. The trial Court, took into consideration the statement of Mangal Singh, before whom the accused allegedly made an extra-judicial confession. After elaborate discussion, the trial Court, came to the conclusion, that Mangal Singh, was not a man of status. Mangal Singh, also admitted, during the course of cross-examination, that for 10/12 days after the accused allegedly made extra-judicial confession, before him, he did not talk to anybody. He also stated, in his cross-examination, that he had made statement, under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that all the accused confessed their guilt, before him, individually. When his attention was drawn to exhibit DA, this fact was not found mentioned therein. He also stated, in his cross-examination, that he had made statement, under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that all the accused confessed their guilt, before him, individually. When his attention was drawn to exhibit DA, this fact was not found mentioned therein. Not only this, Mangal Singh, stated that his village fell within the jurisdiction of Police Station Valtoha and village Kaler, where the accused were residing, fell within the jurisdiction of village Tarn Taran. He stated that he never went to village Kaler. He further stated that he was an illiterate person. He further stated that he never served in the Police Department. He also admitted that he was neither an office bearer of any organization, nor a member Panchayat, nor Sarpanch of the village. He even, did not allegedly produce the accused, before the Police, as soon as, they made the alleged extra-judicial confession, before him. Since Mangal Singh, did not visit village Kaler, to which place, the accused belonged, he did not have any acquaintance with them. Under these circumstances, it was most improbable and unnatural for the accused, to go to Mangal Singh, not acquainted to them, and belonging to some other village, to blurt out that they had allegedly committed the murder of Subeg Singh. Mangal Singh, also could not help the accused, in any manner, to save them, from the torture of Police. The trial Court, was, thus, right in coming to the conclusion, that no extra-judicial confession was made, before Mangal Singh, by the accused, but that circumstance was fabricated by the Police, so as to connect them (accused) with the instant case. The conclusion of the trial Court, in this regard, is based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point. There is no reason, to interfere with the conclusion, arrived at, by the trial Court, in disbelieving the statement of Mangal Singh, that the accused made extra-judicial confession before him. The prosecution, thus, miserably failed to prove this circumstance. 18. There is no reason, to interfere with the conclusion, arrived at, by the trial Court, in disbelieving the statement of Mangal Singh, that the accused made extra-judicial confession before him. The prosecution, thus, miserably failed to prove this circumstance. 18. The next circumstance, on which, reliance was placed by the prosecution was that Piara Singh, PW9, deposed that, on 24.04.2001, when he went to the house of Vir Kaur, at about 10.00 AM, he saw Amrik Singh, his wife Vir Kaur, Avtar Singh, Tarlok Singh and Salwinder Singh, accused, present there and over-heard them, while talking, that Subeg Singh, was executing the Will sometime, in favour of one person and sometime, in favour of some other person and because of that they had poisoned him to death. The statement of this witness is very funny. When he was confronted with his statement DB, it was found recorded therein, that the accused were talking that Subeg Singh, be poisoned to death. In that statement, it was not recorded, that the accused were over-heard, by him, saying that they had already poisoned Subeg Singh, to death. It was also not at all natural and probable that the accused would go on talking openly, that they had allegedly poisoned Subeg Singh, to death, when already a report, regarding the death had been made by Dalbir Singh. Even otherwise, this witness, belonged to village Kotli Bhai Wasawa Singh, which is at a distance of 4 kms from village Kaler, as admitted, by him. Had he over-heard the accused, talking, in the manner, that they had allegedly poisoned Subeg Singh, to death, he would have been the first person, to immediately go to the Police, to make a statement. He, however, kept silent for a period of six months. Only after a period of six months, he woke up from his deep slumber, and then made a statement before the Police, with regard to the aforesaid over-hearing. The explanation furnished, by him, was to the effect, that he had gone to Karnal, and when he returned therefrom, after about six months, he made a statement to the Police, in relation to the aforesaid factum. The explanation furnished by this witness, appears to be a tissue of lies. The explanation furnished, by him, was to the effect, that he had gone to Karnal, and when he returned therefrom, after about six months, he made a statement to the Police, in relation to the aforesaid factum. The explanation furnished by this witness, appears to be a tissue of lies. Even, Tarlok Singh, accused (since acquitted), relied upon DC, copy of his statement as a witness, made in the Court of Sub-Judge, Patti, in civil suit No. 170/86, decided on 12.11.2008, and exhibit DD and DE, copies of the judgement and decree-sheet of the civil suit. The perusal of these documents, clearly revealed that a suit was filed by Santokh Singh son of Chanan Singh, against Piara Singh, in which, Tarlok Singh, accused (since acquitted), appeared as a witness. When Piara Singh, was asked, as to whether, any such suit was filed, against him, wherein, Tarlok Singh, accused (since acquitted), appeared as a witness, against him, he denied that factum. It appears that, with a view, to settle the score with Tarlok Singh, and other accused, on account of the aforesaid reason, he made such a false statement. The evidence of Piara Singh, regarding over-hearing, referred to above, does not at all inspire confidence, in the mind of the Court. The trial Court, was right, in coming to the conclusion, that no reliance, on the evidence of such a witness, could be placed. The conclusion, arrived at, by the trial Court, is based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law on the point. The prosecution, miserably failed to prove the circumstance, that Piara Singh, allegedly over-heard the accused, talking, in the manner, that they had allegedly poisoned Subeg Singh, to death. 19. The next question, that arises for consideration is, as to whether the death of Subeg Singh, took place, in the house of Vir Kaur and Amrik Singh, or somewhere else. Dalbir Singh, who made the first report, regarding the death of Subeg Singh, on 24.04.2001, was not at all examined, in the Court. His previous statement, on the basis whereof, the Daily Diary Report, was recorded, did not constitute, the substantive evidence. There is also nothing, in the statement, exhibit PG, previous statement of Dalbir Singh, that death of Subeg Singh, took place, in the house of Vir Kaur and Amrik Singh. His previous statement, on the basis whereof, the Daily Diary Report, was recorded, did not constitute, the substantive evidence. There is also nothing, in the statement, exhibit PG, previous statement of Dalbir Singh, that death of Subeg Singh, took place, in the house of Vir Kaur and Amrik Singh. Sukhdev Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, PW5, who recorded the statement PG of Dalbir Singh, and then prepared the inquest report, in his statement, in the Court, did not state even a single word, that the death of Subeg Singh, deceased, took place, in the house of Amrik Singh and Vir Kaur, accused, or that he found the dead-body of Subeg Singh, in their house. Not only this, in the site plan, which was prepared, at the time of preparation of the inquest report, he did not state even a single word that the house, in question, belonged to Amrik Singh and Vir Kaur. Similarly, in the site plan, PM, prepared by the draftsman Rikhi Ram, PW14, it was not mentioned, as to whom, the house, in question, belonged of which, the said site plan was prepared. In his statement, while appearing as PW14, Rikhi Ram, draftsman, also did not state even a single word that he went to the house of Vir Kaur and Amrik Singh, and prepared the site plan thereof. The site plan was, however, prepared by him, as stated by him, at the instance of Santokh Singh. The factum that the death of Subeg Singh, did not take place, in the house of Vir Kaur and Amrik Singh, is further proved from the cross-examination of Santokh Singh, PW7, the first informant. In his examination-in-chief, no doubt, he stated that before his death, Subeg Singh, visited village Kaler. He further stated that sometimes, Subeg Singh, used to visit Vir Kaur, at village Kaler. However, during the course of cross-examination, it was stated by him, that, at no stage, the deceased ever remained, in the house of Vir Kaur, during his life time. Santokh Singh PW7, did not state even a single word, in his statement, that before his death, Subeg Singh, had gone to reside, in the house of Vir Kaur and Amrik Singh, where he was poisoned to death by them. Santokh Singh PW7, did not state even a single word, in his statement, that before his death, Subeg Singh, had gone to reside, in the house of Vir Kaur and Amrik Singh, where he was poisoned to death by them. Santokh Singh, for the first time, saw the dead-body of the deceased, in Civil Hospital, Tarn Taran, and not in the house of Vir Kaur and Amrik Singh. No substantive evidence was produced, on the record, that the dead-body of Subeg Singh, was seen, in the house of Vir Kaur and Amrik Singh. Under these circumstances, the possibility of allegedly poisoning Subeg Singh, to death, by Vir Kaur and Amrik Singh, could be completely ruled out, as they could not be said to have any opportunity to do so. The trial Court, was wrong, by placing reliance, on the previous statement of Dalbir Singh, and on the inquest report, which was contradicted by the statement of Santokh Singh, that the death of Subeg Singh, took place, in the house of Vir Kaur and Amrik Singh. The conclusion, arrived at, by the trial Court, in this regard, is not based on the correct appreciation of evidence and law on the point. The finding, arrived at, by the trial Court, in this regard, is liable to be set-aside. 20. The first information report, in this case, was lodged on 13.10.2001, whereas, the alleged murder of Subeg Singh, was committed on 24.04.2001. Had Santokh Singh even entertained a suspicion in his mind that Subeg Singh was murdered by the accused, he would not have lost even a minute, in lodging the report against them (accused). Since, the death of Subeg Singh had not been caused by the accused, Santokh Singh did not report the matter against them. Mere delay of about 6 months, in lodging the first information report, against the accused, by Santokh Singh, clearly proved that the time was utilized by Santokh Singh, to concoct a story, introduce false witnesses, and falsely implicate them. In Thulia Kali V. State of Tamil Nadu (1972) 3 Supreme Court Cases 393, it was held that the FIR in a criminal case, is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence, for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence, adduced at the trial. The importance of the report, can hardly be over-estimated, from the standpoint of the accused. In Thulia Kali V. State of Tamil Nadu (1972) 3 Supreme Court Cases 393, it was held that the FIR in a criminal case, is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence, for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence, adduced at the trial. The importance of the report, can hardly be over-estimated, from the standpoint of the accused. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the report, with the Police, in respect of commission of an offence, is to obtain early information, regarding the circumstances, in which the crime was committed, the names of the actual culprits, and the part played by them, as well as the names of the eye-witnesses, present at the scene of occurrence. Delay in lodging the first information report, quite often results in embellishment, which is a creature of afterthought. On account of delay, the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account of the prosecution story, as a result of deliberation and consultation. It is, therefore, essential that the delay in the lodging the first information report, should be satisfactorily explained. In that case, there was a delay of about 20 hours, in lodging the F.I.R., though the Police Station was only at a distance of two miles. Hence this circumstance was taken, as the one, to raise considerable doubt, regarding the veracity of the case, and it was held that it was not safe to base conviction. 21. No doubt, it has been held above, that the prosecution miserably failed to prove, on record, through substantive evidence that the death of the deceased, took place, in the house of Vir Kaur and Amrik Singh. Even if, for the sake of arguments, it is assumed that such death, took place, in that house, it is to be determined, as to whether, non-explanation of the circumstance, as to how, the same took place, was sufficient to hold Vir Kaur and Amrik Singh guilty for the commission of murder of Subeg Singh. It may be stated here, that mere silence or non-explanation of the circumstance aforesaid, by the accused, when the evidence produced by the prosecution, has been held to be unreliable and incredible, cannot be taken into consideration to prove their guilt. In Zwinglee Ariel Vs. It may be stated here, that mere silence or non-explanation of the circumstance aforesaid, by the accused, when the evidence produced by the prosecution, has been held to be unreliable and incredible, cannot be taken into consideration to prove their guilt. In Zwinglee Ariel Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1954, Supreme Court, 15, a case, decided by a Bench of three Hon’ble Judges of the Apex Court, which was based on the circumstantial evidence, a plea was taken, by the Public Prosecutor, for the State, to the effect that the accused had failed to furnish any explanation, with regard to the incriminating circumstances, proved against them, and, as such, they could be held guilty of the offence. Such a plea was repelled by the Hon’ble Apex Court, by holding that if the prosecution evidence, as a whole, is unreliable and cannot be accepted, as correct, for specific reasons, the silence of the accused can be of no avail, to the prosecution, for such conduct of silence, can never be permitted to become a substitute, for proof by the prosecution. The substantive prosecution evidence, being rejected as unworthy of credit, the alleged conduct must be referable to some innocent reason. Different persons react, in different ways, in similar circumstances, and in the absence of satisfactory evidence, the Court ought not to treat the case, as positively proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, only by reasons of the failure of the accused to put up his defence immediately, when he was confronted. In the instant case, it has been held above, that the entire evidence, produced by the prosecution, with regard to the alleged extra-judicial confession, made by the accused, over-hearing their utterances, that they allegedly poisoned Subeg Singh, to death, and that they allegedly had motive to commit the murder of Subeg Singh, is unreliable and incredible, being based on the fabricated circumstances, and does not inspire confidence, in the mind of the Court. Under these circumstances, if the accused, simply denied the circumstances, appearing against them, or failed to specifically explain the same, that did not mean that such a denial, or non specific explanation, on their part, could become a substitute, for proof by the prosecution. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid authority, is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid authority, is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. In these circumstances, the trial Court, in our opinion, was wrong, in coming to the conclusion, that since the accused failed to explain the circumstance, as to how the death of Subeg Singh, took place, they were guilty of the commission of crime, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Such a finding, arrived at, by the trial Court, being not based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, deserves to be setaside. 22. The circumstances, aforesaid, which are not proved through satisfactory evidence, could not be said to be of definite tendency, unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused. Even if, the circumstances though not proved, are taken cumulatively, the same do not 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, though held unreliable, is also incomplete and cannot be said to be incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis. The circumstantial evidence, produced by the prosecution, is not only inconsistent with the guilt of the accused, but, on the other hand, is also consistent with their innocence. 23. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties. 24. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the judgement of conviction and the order of sentence, rendered by the trial Court, are not based, on the correct appreciation of evidence and law on the point. Had the trial Court, taken into consideration the aforesaid infirmities and lacunae, the fate of the case, would have been otherwise. The judgement of conviction and the order of sentence, thus, warrant interference and are liable to be set-aside. 25. For the reasons, recorded above, Criminal Appeal No. 702-DB of 2004, is accepted. The judgement of conviction and the order of sentence, are set-aside. The appellants shall stand acquitted of the charge framed against them. If they are on bail, they shall stand discharged of the bail bonds. If they are in custody, they shall be set at liberty, at once, if not required, in any other case. 26. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, shall comply with the judgment promptly, in accordance with the provisions of law. ----------------