Judgment H.B. Antani, J.—This appeal preferred under Section 374[2] of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [“Code” for short], is directed against the judgment and order dated 31.1.2004, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot in Sessions Case No. 351 of 1993 by which the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1879 [“IPC” for short] and sentenced him to life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for three months. The learned Sessions further convicted the appellant under Section 201 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for one month. Charge against the appellant was framed vide Exhibit 1 on 15th July, 2002, which reads as under:— “You Accused Aniruddhsinh Chatursinh Jadeja, residing at village Mota Mava, Ta./District Rajkot and Vibhaji Khangarji-accused 2 were cousins. Said Vibhaji was the Sarpanch of village Mota Mava. Deceased Valjibhai Raghavbhai Patel was taking leading part in village in every matter and he was also taking active part in politics. You accused Aniruddhsinh and accused-2 Vibhaji did not like this. And therefore, were not happy with the deceased Valjibhai and because of illwill against him you both accused entertained the common intention to kill deceased Valjibhai and in order to carry out the same on 1.2.1993 between 3.00 and 3.30 a.m., in the Bungalow of Tarachand inflicted the blows on the middle portion of the head, on the left elbow, on the neck, on the left shoulder, on the back, on the left leg, on the chest and other parts of the body of the deceased Valjibhai with the weapons like knife and the iron pipe and caused his death. And in order to see that the evidence as to that disappears, you accused threw away the dead body of the deceased Valjibhai in the Kundi containing water in the compound of the bungalow of Tarachand and covered the same with the cover. And that is how both of you committed the offences under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 IPC.” After framing of the Charge, the same was explained and read over to the appellant and the appellant pleaded not guilty to the Charge levelled against him. And that is how both of you committed the offences under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 IPC.” After framing of the Charge, the same was explained and read over to the appellant and the appellant pleaded not guilty to the Charge levelled against him. First Information Report was given by complainant P.W. 2 Talshibhai Raghavbhai Patel on 2.2.1993 and in pursuance of the complaint given by Talshibhai Patel to the Police Sub Inspector, Rajkot Taluka Police Station, investigation was set in motion. Investigating Officer visited the place of incident and prepared panchnama of the place of incident. Panchnama of the clothes put on by the deceased was prepared in presence of panch witnesses. Discovery panchnama of the weapons which were used in the commission of offence was prepared in presence of the accused. Inquest panchnama of the deceased was prepared during the course of the investigation. Dead body was sent to hospital for the purpose of autopsy. Muddamal articles which were recovered were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory [“FSL” for short] for the purpose of obtaining analysis report. The appellant was arrested and panchnama with regard to his arrest was prepared. On receipt of the report from FSL, the appellant was chargesheeted and produced before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot, who, in turn, committed the case to the Sessions Court under Section 209 of the Code as the case was exclusively Triable by the Sessions Court. 2. The prosecution has examined the following witnesses in order to bring home the guilt against the appellant, they are as under:— P.W. Name of prosecution witness Exhibit 1. Dr. Chandravadan Vanmali Ajmera 13 2. Talshibhai Raghavbhai Patel 17 3. Lakhabhai Nanjibhai 19 4. Lalji Narshibhai 63 5. Bhikhabhai Narshibhai 65 6. Ukabhai Savjibhai 69 7. Jayantibhai Becharbhai Vasava 71 3. The prosecution has also produced the following documentary evidence with a view to prove involvement of the appellant in the commission of offence. Sr. No. Nature of documentary evidence Exhibit 1. Complaint given by Talshibhai Patel 18 2. Report prepared under Section 157 of Cr.P.C. and forwarded to the superior officer. 20 3. Inquest panchnama 21 & 25 4. Panchnama of place of incident 22 5. Panchnama of arrest of appellant 23 6. Panchnama regarding seizure of clothes put on by deceased 24 7. Discovery panchnama 66, 67 and 70 8. Post-mortem report 16 9. Report prepared under Section 157 of Cr.P.C. and forwarded to the superior officer. 20 3. Inquest panchnama 21 & 25 4. Panchnama of place of incident 22 5. Panchnama of arrest of appellant 23 6. Panchnama regarding seizure of clothes put on by deceased 24 7. Discovery panchnama 66, 67 and 70 8. Post-mortem report 16 9. Certificate with regard to cause of death of deceased. 58 10. FSL Report regarding examination of muddamal 60 11. Serological analysis report. 62 At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge recorded further statement of the appellant under Section 313 of Code and the appellant denied his involvement in the commission of offence. 4. The learned Sessions Judge, on the basis of oral depositions as well as documentary evidence held that the death of the deceased Valjibhai Raghavbhai Patel was homicidal death. The learned Judge, placing reliance on the oral depositions adduced by complainant-P.W. 2 Talshibhai Raghavbhai vide Exhibit 17, P.W. 3 Lakhabhai Nanjibhai vide Exhibit 19, P.W. 4 Lalji Narshibhai vide Exhibit 63 held that prosecution has proved involvement of the appellant in the commission of offence. P.W. 1 Dr. Chandravadan Vanmali Ajmera has deposed in his testimony that he carried out post-mortem on 2.2.93 at about 9.30 a.m. when he was on duty at Civil Hospital in Rajkot. He narrated in his deposition external as well as internal injuries sustained by the deceased. Post-mortem report was admitted during the course of deposition of Dr. Chandravadan Ajmera vide Exhibit 16. In column No. 23, cause of death has been mentioned as death due to damage caused to the brain of the deceased and fracture sustained in the skull by the deceased. His oral deposition gets necessary corroboration from the panchnama of scene of offence Exhibit 22, panchnama of clothes put on by the deceased Exhibit 24, inquest panchnama Exhibits 21 and 25 and discovery panchnama Exhibits 66, 67 and 70 produced in the case by the prosecution. The learned Judge held that the report of the FSL further corroborated the prosecution story indicating the involvement of the appellant in the commission of offence. Thus, the learned Judge convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment and fine of Rs. The learned Judge held that the report of the FSL further corroborated the prosecution story indicating the involvement of the appellant in the commission of offence. Thus, the learned Judge convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, three months’ simple imprisonment and convicted and sentenced him for the offence under Section 201 of IPC for simple imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for one month. 5. The appellant, being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot has preferred the present appeal. Learned Sr. Advocate Mr. K.J. Shethna appearing with Mr. Yatin Soni submitted that the learned Judge has committed an error in appreciating the oral depositions as well as documentary evidence on the record of the case while convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. The learned Judge ought to have held that the depositions adduced by the prosecution witnesses did not inspire necessary confidence to establish each and every link connecting the appellant with the crime in question and, therefore, the learned Judge ought to have acquitted the appellant. Learned Sr. Advocate submitted that the deposition led by P.W. 2 Talshibhai Raghavbhai vide Exhibit 17 is not in consonance with the complaint Exhibit 18 given by him on 2.2.93. There are number of contradictions in the complaint as well as depositions adduced by Talshibhai Raghavbhai and, therefore, benefit of the same ought to have been given to the appellant. Learned Sr. Advocate submitted that even the deposition adduced by Talshibhai Raghavbhai at Exhibit 17, if is perused in its proper perspective with the depositions given by P.W. 3 Lakhabhai Nanjibhai at Exhibit 19 and P.W. 4 Lalji Narshi at Exhibit 63, it bristles with contradictions. These witnesses were not present at the scene of offence nor they had seen the incident in which Valjibhai Raghavbhai was done to death by the appellant and, therefore, involvement of the appellant in the commission of offence raises doubt and benefit thereof deserves to be given to the appellant. Learned Sr. Advocate submitted that the entire prosecution case depends on circumstantial evidence, therefore, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove each and every circumstance connecting the appellant with the commission of crime. Learned Sr. Advocate submitted that the entire prosecution case depends on circumstantial evidence, therefore, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove each and every circumstance connecting the appellant with the commission of crime. If one of the circumstances or chain connecting the appellant with commission of crime is not proved or established by the prosecution, then, the order of conviction cannot be sustained. Learned Sessions Judge placed heavy reliance on the discovery panchnamas of the weapons which were used in the commission of offence. But other circumstances are also required to be established by the prosecution in order to bring home the guilt against the appellant. However, the learned Judge committed error in placing reliance solely on the discovery panchnamas in convicting the appellant for commission of crime. Thus, it is submitted by learned Sr. Advocate that on perusal of the entire evidence on the record of the case, the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the entire link connecting the appellant with commission of offence and, therefore, the appellant deserves to be acquitted from the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 201 of IPC. Learned Sr. Advocate placed reliance on the following judgments:— [1] State of Punjab vs. Mana Singh and Another, [ AIR 1983 SC 172 ]. [2] Mohd. Abdul Hafeez vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, [ AIR 1983 SC 367 ]. [3] State of Bombay vs. Kathi Kalu Oghad, [ AIR 1961 SC 1808 ]. [4] Mer Vaja Meraman vs. State of Gujarat, [29 GLR Vol.2 1057]. [5] Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh vs. State of Punjab, [ AIR 1957 SC 637 ]. 6. Learned APP Mr. L.R. Pujari representing the State submitted that the prosecution has examined 7 witnesses in order to prove inextricable involvement of the appellant in the commission of offence. Complaint [Exhibit 18] was given by P.W. 2 Talshibhai Patel, wherein, he narrated as to how the incident took place on 31.1.93 and assault was committed by the appellant on deceased Valjibhai in the compound of bungalow of Tarachand Sheth. Deposition adduced by P.W. 2 Talshibhai Raghavbhai vide Exhibit 17 makes it clear that complaint was given by him in view of ghastly murder of Valjibhai. The incident in question has been narrated by P.W. 2 Talshibhai Raghavbhai in his deposition and even the name of the appellant figured in his deposition. Deposition adduced by P.W. 2 Talshibhai Raghavbhai vide Exhibit 17 makes it clear that complaint was given by him in view of ghastly murder of Valjibhai. The incident in question has been narrated by P.W. 2 Talshibhai Raghavbhai in his deposition and even the name of the appellant figured in his deposition. The deposition given by Talshibhai Ravhagbhai is corroborated by the deposition [Exhibit 19] of P.W. 3 Lakhabhai Nanjibhai and the deposition [Exhibit 63] given by P.W. 4 Lalji Narshi. On perusal of oral depositions adduced by these witnesses, it becomes clear that the appellant took part in ghastly murder of Valjibhai and after committing the murder, he threw dead body of Valji in a well situated in the compound of the bungalow of Tarachand Sheth with a view to destroy the entire evidence. The prosecution has examined Dr. Chandravadan Vanmali Ajmera P.W. 1 vide Exhibit 13. On perusal of the deposition adduced by him, it becomes clear that he performed post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased when the dead body was brought to the Civil Hospital at Rajkot on 2.2.93. In his post-mortem report, he has narrated internal as well as external injuries sustained by the deceased. In Column 23 of the post-mortem report, cause of death has been mentioned as death due to damage caused in brain and fracture sustained in the skull by the deceased. Learned APP submitted that the Investigating Officer who carried out investigation has been examined by the prosecution vide Exhibit 71. Investigating Officer Jayantibhai Becharbhai Vasava P.W. 7 has deposed in his testimony vide Exhibit 71 as to how investigation was carried out in pursuance of the complaint given by P.W. 2 Talshibhai Ravhagbhai. He visited the place of incident and prepared panchnama as well as inquest panchnama in presence of the panch witnesses. Dead body was sent to Civil Hospital for post-mortem and muddamal articles which were seized were sent to FSL for the purpose of detailed analysis. Learned APP submitted that on perusal of the deposition given by Investigating Officer Jayantibhai Becharbhai, it becomes clear that investigation was carried out in most meticulous manner. Dead body was sent to Civil Hospital for post-mortem and muddamal articles which were seized were sent to FSL for the purpose of detailed analysis. Learned APP submitted that on perusal of the deposition given by Investigating Officer Jayantibhai Becharbhai, it becomes clear that investigation was carried out in most meticulous manner. The prosecution has, over and above the oral depositions, produced documentary evidence such as panchnama of place of incident Exhibit 22, inquest panchnamas Exhibits 21 and 25, panchnama of clothes put on by deceased Valjibhai Exhibit 24 and discovery panchnamas of weapons Exhibits 66, 67 and 70. Discovery panchnamas make it clear as to how weapon was shown by the appellant and on the weapon being shown by him, the same was taken out from the place shown by the appellant and panchnama in respect thereof was prepared in presence of panch witnesses. Learned APP submitted that further corroboration is also forthcoming from the report of FSL produced vide Exhibit 62. Thus, considering the entire evidence on the record of the case, it becomes clear that the appellant, with a view to get rid of deceased Valjibhai, assaulted him on 1.2.93 and committed ghastly murder of deceased Valjibhai. After committing murder in most brutal manner, dead body of Valjibhai was thrown in a well situated in the bungalow of Tarachand Sheth and thereby evidence of the murder committed by the appellant was sought to be destroyed. Learned APP submitted that since the case of prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has established each and every circumstance which would indicate involvement of the appellant in the commission of offence. Entire chain is, thus, established by the prosecution against the appellant and as the evidence adduced by the prosecution is cogent and convincing, the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC requires to be upheld and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned Sr. Advocate Mr. K.J. Shethna appearing with Mr. Yatin Soni, for the appellant and Mr. L.R. Pujari, learned APP representing the State at length and in great detail. We have also perused the reasonings given by the learned Judge in convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 and Section 201 read with Section 34 of IPC. Advocate Mr. K.J. Shethna appearing with Mr. Yatin Soni, for the appellant and Mr. L.R. Pujari, learned APP representing the State at length and in great detail. We have also perused the reasonings given by the learned Judge in convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 and Section 201 read with Section 34 of IPC. We have reappreciated and reevaluated the evidence on record of the case. 8. On reappreciation of the entire evidence on the record of the case, the incident in question took place on the night of 1.2.93 in the bungalow of Tarachand Sheth. Deceased was assaulted by the appellant and other accused person with deadly weapons and serious injuries were caused on his head, neck, chest, left leg and other parts of the body. After causing death of the deceased, dead body was thrown in the well situated in the bungalow with a view to destroy the evidence. The prosecution has examined 7 witnesses in order to bring home the guilt against the appellant. We have perused the oral depositions as well as documentary evidence on which heavy reliance is placed by the prosecution to establish the guilt of the appellant in the commission of crime. P.W. 2 Talshibhai Raghavbhai is examined vide Exhibit 17. He gave complaint of the incident on 2.2.93 to the Police Sub Inspector, Rajkot Taluka Police Station. He has narrated in the complaint the incident which took place in the compound of Tarachand Sheth. As per his complaint, Laljibhai and Lakhabhai were present. But in his cross-examination, he stated that he was not informed by either Laljibhai or Lakhabhai that they had seen the incident. Even they could not give name of the assailant and they told him that some unknown person had committed assault on Valjibhai. Thus, deposition [Exhibit 17] adduced by P.W. 2 Talshibhai Raghavbhai is not in consonance with the complaint given by him vide Exhibit 18. On perusal of the deposition adduced by P.W. 3 Lakhabhai Nanjibhai vide Exhibit 19, he has denied that he was present at the scene of offence and had seen the assault committed by the appellant on deceased Valjibhai. Likewise, P.W. 4 Lalji Narshi has also denied that he was present when the offence was committed by the appellant and he had seen the incident. Likewise, P.W. 4 Lalji Narshi has also denied that he was present when the offence was committed by the appellant and he had seen the incident. Thus, these two witnesses have turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case, while, deposition of P.W. 2 Talshibhai Raghavbhai bristles with contradictions and is not in consonance with his own complaint Exhibit 18. The prosecution has examined P.W. 1 Dr. Chandravadan Ajmera vide Exhibit 13 in order to prove the post-mortem carried out by him on the dead body on 2.2.93, injury sustained by the deceased and the assault committed by the appellant. The doctor has narrated in his testimony internal as well as external injuries sustained by the deceased and the cause of death mentioned in column No. 23 as damage caused to the brain and fracture sustained in the skull. Post-mortem report is produced vide Exhibit 16 for our perusal and we have carefully perused the same. The prosecution has examined the Investigating Officer in the case. Over and above the oral depositions, the prosecution has placed reliance on panchnama with regard to place of incident Exhibit 22, inquest panchnamas Exhibits 21 and 25 and discovery panchnamas Exhibits 66, 67 and 70. This documentary evidence, in our considered view, is corroborative piece of evidence. When the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence, then, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to establish each and every link connecting the appellant with the commission of crime. If one of the chain or link is missing, then, in such circumstances, the appellant is required to be acquitted. We have carefully perused the FSL report which is produced vide Exhibit 62. But in view of the contradictions in the depositions adduced by the prosecution witnesses, it would be hazardous to convict the appellant for the commission of offence under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC. The appellant, in our view, cannot be convicted solely on the basis of the complaint given by P.W. 2 Talshibhai Raghavbhai, or discovery panchnamas which are produced in the present case vide Exhibits 66, 67 and 70. Other circumstances connecting the appellant with the commission of crime are required to be established by the prosecution in order to bring home the guilt against the appellant. 9. Other circumstances connecting the appellant with the commission of crime are required to be established by the prosecution in order to bring home the guilt against the appellant. 9. In view of the foregoing discussion, the prosecution, in our considered view, has miserably failed to prove inextricable involvement of the appellant in the commission of offence and, therefore, the appellant is liable to be acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Sections 201 and 34 of IPC. 10. In view of the above, the appeal deserves to be allowed and the same is hereby allowed. Judgment and order dated 31st January, 2004 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot in Sessions Case No. 351 of 1993 is quashed and set aside. The appellant is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case. Muddamal shall be destroyed in terms of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge.