JUDGMENT R.C. Mishra, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment-dated 31.08.2000 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Burhanpur Distt. Khandwa in S.T. No.149/99, whereby the appellants, who are respectively father and son, were convicted and sentenced as under- No. & name of appellant Convicted under Section Sentenced to (1) Babuji (for short ‘A1’) 302 of the IPC (for committing murder of his mother Sunderbai) undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-and in default, to suffer R.I. for 2 months. 397 of the IPC undergo R.I. for 7 years. (2) Ramu (hereinafter referred to as ‘A2’)302 of the IPC (for committing murder of his grandfather Raoji)undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default, to suffer R.I. for 2 months. 397 of the IPC undergo R.I. for 7 years 2. Prosecution story, in short, may be narrated thus - (i) Even after receiving 19 acres of lands in partition, A1 was not maintaining cordial relations with his parents namely Raoji and Sunderbai, aged about 80 and 75 years respectively. Bitterness had crept in their personal relationship in view of the facts that (a) nearly 2 years prior to the incident in question, A1 had refused to re-transfer a flourmill purchased by Raoji in his name, (b) Raoji had given the agricultural lands falling in his share on crop-sharing basis to Sheikh Kalu (PW9) & Bhaiyalal and (c) Raoji was inclined to transfer the lands in favour of his daughter Ramkali (PW3). (ii) At the relevant point of time, Raoji was residing with his wife Sundarbai and A2 separately in a house located near the residence of A1 in village Khadki. (iii) About a fortnight before being killed, Raoji had gone to village Tajnapur to meet his daughter Ramkali and son-in-law Shivram (PW6). Expressing his intention to give away his share in the lands to Ramkali, he insisted upon them to take possession thereof. However, Shivram refused to accept the proposal saying that the lands were subject matter of the dispute in the family. (iv) In the night intervening 30th and 31st of March, 1999, with a view to keeping watch over the crop of gram, Raoji along with Sundarbai had gone to sleep in the barn of his agricultural field situated at a distance of 100 meters from Ranghai-Khadki Main Road. (iv) In the night intervening 30th and 31st of March, 1999, with a view to keeping watch over the crop of gram, Raoji along with Sundarbai had gone to sleep in the barn of his agricultural field situated at a distance of 100 meters from Ranghai-Khadki Main Road. On the following morning, both of them were found murdered on respective cots and silver ornaments worn by Sundarbai were also found missing. (v) Upon the FIR (Ex.P-29) lodged by A1 to the effect that it was A2 who, at about 6 in the morning, on his visit to the barn, had found his grandparents lying dead, a case under Sections 302 and 397 of the IPC was registered at P.S. Khaknar against unknown offender. After inquest proceedings, the dead bodies were sent to local Community Health Center for post-mortem examination. Autopsy Surgeon Dr. S.P. Sharma (PW4) opined that common cause of death of Raoji and Sundarbai was shock due to injuries to vital organs caused respectively by hard & blunt and sharp margin objects. He also preserved bloodstained clothes worn by Raoji and Sundarbai for chemical examination. (vi) During investigation, Sub-Inspector Lalit Singh Dagur (PW14) inspected the spot. Details of seized blood stained articles may be tabulated as under - Recovered from the dead body of Raoji or his cot Recovered from the dead body of Sundarbai or her cot (a) pagdi worn by him (a) Gamchha tied over her head (b) Dari (a carpet) (b) Godri (mattress) lying on the cot (c) cotton bag kept below dari and lying on the cot (vii) On 31.03.1999 only, the police dog under the command of Sub-Inspector Amresh Singh (PW15) was taken to the spot. Dog, after being let loose to pick up the smell, voluntarily proceeded towards the house of A1 and started barking and from there, the trained dog went into the adjacent house wherein A2 was living. Accordingly, as suspects, the appellants were interrogated. (viii) Upon the information given by A1, Sub-Inspector Lalit Singh (PW14) recovered -(a) a daranti concealed in Kachra (rubbish) collected beneath a tree in the barn belonging to him only, (b) Sundarbai's silver tagli, dand and kodle (bracelet) from heap of gram-fodder collected in the same barn. Accordingly, as suspects, the appellants were interrogated. (viii) Upon the information given by A1, Sub-Inspector Lalit Singh (PW14) recovered -(a) a daranti concealed in Kachra (rubbish) collected beneath a tree in the barn belonging to him only, (b) Sundarbai's silver tagli, dand and kodle (bracelet) from heap of gram-fodder collected in the same barn. A pair of silver kade said to have been worn by Sundarbai along with cash amount of Rs.3230/-kept in a gunny bag was also recovered at the instance of A1 from his house. Upon information given by A2, two bloodstained stones were recovered from the heap only. (ix) The above-mentioned articles except the ornaments were forwarded to Regional FSL, Indore for forensic examination. Corresponding report (Ex.P-36) indicated presence of human blood on each one of the articles. However, Serologist and Chemical Examiner to the Government of India, Calcutta, to whom the articles were sent for ascertaining the origin and group of blood, could only determine that gamchha seized from the spot and blouse worn by Sundarbai were stained with blood of B-group. (x) In the test identification proceedings conducted by Sanu, the Sarpanch, Ramkali identified the ornaments seized from the possession of A1 as those belonging to their mother Sundarbai. 3. The appellants abjured the guilt. In the cross-examination of Lala (PW1), it was suggested that they were falsely implicated at the instance of Baban in view of the fact that Raoji had not only refused to give his land on crop sharing basis for cultivation of sugarcane to Baban and his companions namely Ravindra and Mahesh but also declined to sell his crop to Baban on the day preceding the fateful night whereas the cross-examination of Ramkali (PW3) and Shivram (PW6) included the suggestion that, being in collusion with Baban, they were also involved in roping appellants in the murders with a view to taking hold of entire lands belonging to Raoji. A2, in his examination, under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code'), further asserted that the seized ornaments belonged to his mother and not to his grandmother. 4. Legality and propriety of the convictions in question have been challenged mainly on the ground of what has been termed as mis-appreciation of the circumstantial evidence on record. A2, in his examination, under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code'), further asserted that the seized ornaments belonged to his mother and not to his grandmother. 4. Legality and propriety of the convictions in question have been challenged mainly on the ground of what has been termed as mis-appreciation of the circumstantial evidence on record. According to learned counsel for the appellants, there is no direct evidence connecting anyone of them with the murders and the circumstances, from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn are not complete and conclusive in nature. In response, learned Government Advocate, while making reference to the pieces of incriminating evidence, has contended that the convictions were fully justified. 5. Even though, it is not in dispute that each one of the deceased viz. Raoji and Sundarbai met with a homicidal death yet, in order to appreciate the rival contentions in a proper perspective, it is necessary to first advert to the medical evidence. 6. Testimony of Dr. S.P. Sharma (PW4) relates to the post-mortem examinations on the dead bodies of Raoji and Sundarbai as conducted on 01.04.1999. In the following words, he described the related facts and ante-mortem injuries found - on the body of Raoji (as described in Ex.P-10) Lower jaw of right side is fractured at middle of its length. Right temporo mandibular joint is also fractured. Bony arch of outer side of right eye socket is also fractured. Right maxillary prominence is also fractured but in position. Lower jaw at left side is broken near the angle of the mandible. Skin over the above parts is intact. Right side of the bridge of nose is fractured. On pressing finger firmly over right temporal side, it peels broken piece of bones, scrotal skin is turged with serous fluid. Blood streaks and clots present in both nostrils and left angle of mouth. Pinna of right ear is stained with blood clots and also present in ear canal. on the body of Sundarbai (as described in Ex.P-11) (i) Incised wound 3" x 3/4" horizontally placed over the right side of forehead. (ii) Incised wound 1/2" x 1/2", oblique in direction present slight below injury no.(i). (iii) Bone below injury (i) & (ii) is fractured and slight gap is present between broken pieces of bone. on the body of Sundarbai (as described in Ex.P-11) (i) Incised wound 3" x 3/4" horizontally placed over the right side of forehead. (ii) Incised wound 1/2" x 1/2", oblique in direction present slight below injury no.(i). (iii) Bone below injury (i) & (ii) is fractured and slight gap is present between broken pieces of bone. (iv) Incised wound 21/2" x 1", going obliquely upward, present over outer side of left eyebrow over forehead. (v) Incised wound 1/2" x 1/2", present below the outer border of left side eye lower eyelid. The Autopsy Surgeon further stated that on opening skin, muscle of face and skull of Sundarbai, he had noticed that (a) left temporo-parietal bone below injury no.(iv) & (v) [above] was fractured (b) right temporo-mandibular joint was fractured & dislocated (c) lower jaw is fractured and dislocated at mid line (d) vault of skull is fractured at fronto-parietal area across from left to right side and (e) frontal table is slightly displaced down the parietal table of both sides. He categorically opined that common cause of death was shock due to injuries on vital organs of - (i) Raoji caused by forceful blow of hard and blunt object. (ii) Sundarbai caused by a sharp object. 7. Thus, in the face of the medical evidence on record, the deaths were rightly held to be homicidal in nature. 8. Coming to the other evidence on record, it may be observed that the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence only. Circumstances as highlighted by the prosecution and found established by learned trial Judge may be discussed under the following heads EXISTENCE OF BITTERNESS BETWEEN THE APPELLANTS AND THE DECEASED 9. Entry in the Rojnamcha (Ex.P-27A) proved by Investigating Officer Lalit Singh (PW14) indicated that proceedings, under Section 107 read with 116(3) of the Code, were initiated against A1 and his father Raoji in view of apprehension of breach of the peace due to dispute regarding partition of property. However, there was not even an iota of evidence to show that relations between the deceased and A2 were also strained. Moreover, evidence of Sub-Inspector Amresh Singh (PW15) indicated that the appellants were residing in separate though adjacent houses. 10. Ramkali (PW3) came forward to corroborate the circumstance pertaining to animosity between her parents and the appellants. However, there was not even an iota of evidence to show that relations between the deceased and A2 were also strained. Moreover, evidence of Sub-Inspector Amresh Singh (PW15) indicated that the appellants were residing in separate though adjacent houses. 10. Ramkali (PW3) came forward to corroborate the circumstance pertaining to animosity between her parents and the appellants. According to her, a dispute had ensued between A1 and Raoji regarding a flourmill, that was ultimately taken by A1 and at that time, her father Raoji had expressed intention to gift the agricultural lands to her and also asked A1 to return the flourmill. Shivram (PW6) duly supported her version and their testimony also received some corroboration from statement of Lala (PW1) to the effect that the flourmill was the subject matter of the dispute between A1 and Raoji, who also used to say that he would transfer the lands in her favour. 11. All this evidence was rightly considered as sufficient to establish the circumstance showing unpleasantness between the appellants and the deceased. TRACING OF SCENT BY SNIFFER DOG FROM THE PLACE OF INCIDENT TO THE RESPECTIVE HOUSES OF APPELLANTS. 12. Amresh Singh (PW15), posted as Sub-Inspector of the dog squad, described as to how the trained dog namely Flex taken by him to the spot was able to reach the appellants' houses situated at a distance of half kilometer therefrom. As per his version, -the dog first entered into the house in occupation of A1 and had started barking and after making exit from that house, the dog went into the house wherein A2 was living. He was emphatic in stating that the dog had not gone into any other house. His evidence drew ample support from the statement of ASI Virendra Pratap Singh, who had scribed the relevant panchnama (Ex.P-28) suggesting that the entire exercise was completed within a period of 40 minutes. However, picking up of the smell by the dog and pointing towards the appellants, by itself, was not a circumstance, which could exclude the possibility of guilt of any person other than that of the appellants or be compatible only with hypothesis of guilt of the appellants, particularly when their visit to the place of occurrence immediately after the murders was quite natural and probable. For this, reference may be made to the decisions of the Apex Court in Surinder Pal Jain v. Delhi Administration AIR 1993 SC 1723 and Gade Lakshmi Mangaraju alias Ramesh v. State of A.P 2001 (6) SCC 205 . RECOVERY OF WEAPONS OF OFFENCES 13. Investigating Officer Lalit Singh (PW14) claimed to have recovered, upon information given by A1, a daranti from rubbish heap stocked beneath a tree in Raoji's barn. Corresponding memorandum (Ex.P-18) and list of seizure (Ex.P-23) indicating that the daranti could be seized at about 2.30 p.m. on 01.04.1999 were also tendered in evidence. Amongst the panch witnesses, the prosecution preferred to examine only Mahesh as PW11. Even though, he deposed that A1 had taken the Police Officer to the place located in the barn yet, his evidence ran contradictory to the contents of the seizure memo inasmuch as it suggested that the daranti was found concealed in the heap of gram-fodder. This apart, S.I. Amresh Singh (PW15) completely shattered the discovery evidence by stating that daranti, that was found lying near the cots, was one amongst the articles sniffed by the dog on 31.03.1999 at about 4 p.m. Since this witness was not declared hostile by the prosecution, his evidence could be relied on by the defence. 14. Lalit Singh (PW14) also asserted that as per the information recorded in the relevant memorandum (Ex.P-19), A2 had discovered two stones stained with blood from the heap of gram fodder in the barn but, according to Mahesh, A2 had taken out the stones from the agricultural field. Thus, his evidence was also inconsistent with the related extract of seizure memo (Ex.P-24). 15. In the light of serious infirmities in the corresponding evidence, the circumstance concerning discovery of daranti and stones respectively at the instance of A1 and A2 ought to have been held as doubtful. As such, learned trial Judge committed an illegality in taking a contrary view. 16. Non-forwarding of seized daranti and stones to Autopsy Surgeon for examination and opinion on the point as to whether the injuries found respectively on the bodies of Raoji and Sunderbai could be inflicted by these weapons, is also a disturbing aspect of the matter. DISCOVERY OF ORNAMENTS BELONGING TO SUNDARBAI AS WELL AS IDENTIFICATION THEREOF 17. 16. Non-forwarding of seized daranti and stones to Autopsy Surgeon for examination and opinion on the point as to whether the injuries found respectively on the bodies of Raoji and Sunderbai could be inflicted by these weapons, is also a disturbing aspect of the matter. DISCOVERY OF ORNAMENTS BELONGING TO SUNDARBAI AS WELL AS IDENTIFICATION THEREOF 17. According to Sub-Inspector Lalit Singh (PW14), in pursuance of information given by A1 and recorded in memorandum (Ex.P-18), he could recover ornaments said to have been worn by Sundarbai at the time of her murder. He further added that information had led to recovery of silver tagli, one pair of silver dand and a pair of silver kangan (bracelet) along with cash amount of Rs.3230/-from heap of gram fodder in the field and two silver kada from a sack containing Arhar in A1's house. However, statement of panch witness Mahesh was not in full conformity with recitals of corresponding lists of seizure (Ex.P-25 and P-26) simply because it suggested that all the ornaments were found in A1's house only. As pointed out already, this witness was not declared hostile and Ravindra Mahajan, the other panch witness to the recovery of the ornaments, was not examined. In such a situation, evidence regarding recovery of ornaments at the instance of A1 was also shrouded with suspicion. 18. Evidence as to identification of the ornaments as those of Sunderbai was also fragile. While asserting that nearly 3 days after the incident, she had identified, before Sarpanch of the village, Hasli (Article 'A'), Kade (Article 'B' and 'C'), Kade (Article 'D' and 'E') and Kade (Article 'F' and 'G'), which were normally worn by her mother Sundarbai, Ramkali (PW3) categorically admitted the following facts- (i) House of the Sarpanch was situated in front of her parental house at village Khadki. (ii) Police personnel were also present at the time of identification. (iii) Ornaments identified by her were not found mixed up with any other ornament. (iv) Women belonging to her community usually wear such ornaments and ornaments similar to those identified by her were possessed by Jhumki Bai, wife of A1. 19. Further, neither Sarpanch namely Sanu, the author of identification memo (Ex.P-13) nor anyone of the panch witnesses viz. Baban and Rahim was produced by the prosecution. (iv) Women belonging to her community usually wear such ornaments and ornaments similar to those identified by her were possessed by Jhumki Bai, wife of A1. 19. Further, neither Sarpanch namely Sanu, the author of identification memo (Ex.P-13) nor anyone of the panch witnesses viz. Baban and Rahim was produced by the prosecution. All these facts were suggestive of inference that requirements of the law in regard to holding of identification parade were not satisfied. In other words, there was neither proper nor legal identification of the ornaments allegedly recovered at the instance of A1. Accordingly, it was not possible to presume that he must have killed and robbed his mother of the ornaments. PROBABILITY OF THE DEFENCE 20. On one hand, Ramkali (PW3) and her husband Shivram (PW6) refuted the suggestion that they had falsely implicated the appellants at the instance of one Baban and on the other, they clearly admitted that agricultural fields previously in possession of Raoji, were given to Baban for cultivation for a consideration of Rs.12,000/-. A natural query as to why they did not prefer to hand over the fields to Kalu (PW2), the younger son of A1, remained unexplained. Ramkali further acknowledged that she was interested in getting 20 acres of lands, which were recorded in the name of her father Raoji. As pointed out already, the prosecution did not prefer to examine Baban in evidence. 21. These circumstances preceding and succeeding the murders clearly established probability of the defence that Ramkali and her husband Shivram, being desirous of getting the lands and Baban, being interested in cultivating the land on contract basis, were instrumental in falsely implicating the appellants in this case. 22. To sum up, - (i) Existence of animosity in the wake of dispute as to property between A1 and Raoji was established. (ii) Dog tracking evidence pointing towards involvement of the appellants was not a circumstance compatible with the hypothesis of their guilt. (iii) Evidence concerning recovery of daranti at the instance of A1 and bloodstained stones from the possession of A2 suffered from serious infirmities and further, these weapons of offence were not sent to Autopsy Surgeon for examination & opinion. (iv) Evidence as to recovery of ornaments said to have been worn by Sunderbai from the possession of A1 within a short time after her murder was also shrouded with doubt. (iv) Evidence as to recovery of ornaments said to have been worn by Sunderbai from the possession of A1 within a short time after her murder was also shrouded with doubt. Moreover, testimony of Ramkali regarding identification of the seized ornaments as belonging to Sunderbai could not be relied upon. (v) Probability of the defence was established from the facts and circumstances brought on record. 23. It is the fundamental rule of criminal jurisprudence for appreciation of circumstantial evidence that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should, in the first instance, be fully established, and the circumstances so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused person, that is, the circumstances should be of such a nature as to reasonably exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. To put it in other words the chain of evidence must be so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused person (Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1952 SC 343 referred to). In that case, observing that in such cases there is always the danger that conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof, the Apex Court recalled the warning addressed by Baron Alderson to the jury in Reg. v. Hodge,(1838) 2 Lewin 227 where he said : The mind was apt to take a pleasure in adapting circumstances to one another, and even in straining them a little, if need be, to force them to form parts of one connected whole; and the more ingenious the mind of the individual, the more likely was it, considering such matters, to overreach and mislead, itself to supply some little link that is wanting, to take for granted some fact consistent with its previous theories and necessary to render them complete. 24. The above rule has been reiterated in all subsequent decisions on the point including the recent one rendered in State of Maharashtra v. Mangilal, (2009) 15 SCC 418 that was also a case of multiple murders and based on circumstantial evidence including evidence of dog tracking. 25. 24. The above rule has been reiterated in all subsequent decisions on the point including the recent one rendered in State of Maharashtra v. Mangilal, (2009) 15 SCC 418 that was also a case of multiple murders and based on circumstantial evidence including evidence of dog tracking. 25. Having thus re-analyzed the entire evidence on record in the light of well-settled principle stated above, we are of the opinion that chain of circumstances found proved was not so complete as to be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the appellants and did not show that, in all human probabilities, they had committed murders of Raoji and Sundarbai. Further, the possibility that the entire case was built up after the dog pointed towards them, could not be ruled out. The appellants, therefore, were entitled to benefit of doubt. 26. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned convictions and consequent sentences passed against the appellants are hereby set-aside. Instead, they are acquitted of the offences. Fine amount, if deposited, be refunded. 27. The appellants are in jail. They be released forthwith if not required in any other case.