JUDGMENT : Sanjay Karol, J. For an offence, which is alleged to have been committed on the intervening night of 17th & 18th December, 2003, the accused was put to trial. In terms of judgment dated 3rd March, 2005, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Una, in Sessions Case No.9 of 2004, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh v. Rajinder alias Jagdish, the accused stands acquitted of the charged offences. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma (PW-1), a Katha contractor, was running his factory at Karloohi. He had engaged about 40-50 labourers/workers, including Shri Kewal Mohammed (PW-2), Shri Sher Mohammed (PW-3), Shri Kuldeep Kumar (PW-5), Shri Bachittar Singh (PW-6) and Shri Yog Raj. The accused Shri Rajinder alias Jagdish, who hailed from a neighbouring State, i.e. Uttar Pradesh, was also employed by him as labourer. Shri Bhim Singh, brother of the accused and other members of the family were also employed by Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma. The accounts/finances of the factory were being managed by Shri Bachittar Singh (PW-6) and deceased Shri Ram Kishan. On 17th December, 2003, Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma brought Rs. 4,00,000/- in his vehicle driven by Shri Kuldeep Kumar to the factory. He asked Shri Kuldeep Kumar to hand over the same to Shri Ram Kishan and Shri Bachittar Singh. Certain plastic containers had also purchased by Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma, which were to be unloaded in the factory premises. Shri Kuldeep Kumar handed over Rs. 4,00,000/- to the deceased, who counted the currency notes and at the time accused was seen unloading the containers from the vehicle, who also saw the deceased counting the currency notes. In the evening Shri Kuldeep Kumar left for his house and deceased kept the currency notes in the trunk lying in the office, which was duly locked by him. Shri Ram Kishan kept the key of the lock with himself. At night, after finishing their work, labourers went to their hutments, which were nearby. Accused went to sleep on the upper floor of the office of the factory. In the morning of 18th December, 2003, Shri Kewal Mohammed (PW-2) asked his son Shri Sher Mohammed (PW-3) to collect Rs. 1,00.000/- from the deceased, as the same were to be handed over to one Shri Kapoordin at Bankhandi, as per instructions of Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma. In the morning of 18th December, 2003, Shri Kewal Mohammed (PW-2) asked his son Shri Sher Mohammed (PW-3) to collect Rs. 1,00.000/- from the deceased, as the same were to be handed over to one Shri Kapoordin at Bankhandi, as per instructions of Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma. Shri Sher Mohammed noticed that deceased not responding to his calls. Accordingly he went to the room of Shri Bachittar Singh (PW-6), which was bolted from outside. After opening the bolt of the door, both he and Shri Bachittar Singh went to the room of the deceased where they saw the deceased lying in an injured condition, with blood oozing out from his nose. The trunk in which money was kept was lying open. They informed Shri Ajay Kumar about the same, who informed the police on telephone, and entry in the rojnamcha was got recorded. A police party headed by Shri Diwan Chand (PW-11), SI/SHO of Police Station Amb reached on the spot. Shri Diwan Chand (PW-11) recorded statement of Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Ex. PA), on the basis of which FIR No. 274/03 dated 18th December, 2003 (Ex. PM) under Sections 302, 457, 458 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code was registered at Police Station Amb, District Una, H.P. The dead body of Shri Ram Kishan was sent for postmortem, which was conducted by Dr. D.K. Sharma (PW-12), who issued report (Ex. PN). The report of the Forensic Science Laboratory (Ex. PL) was also obtained by the police and the doctor eventually opined that the deceased died on account of asphyxia due to throttling. Further investigation revealed that the accused first murdered Shri Ram Kishan and after taking the keys of the trunk opened the lock of the trunk and took away part of the cash which he hid at a nearby place. He stolen a sum Rs. 3,65,000/- out of Rs. 4,00,000/- lying in the trunk. The accused was arrested on 23rd December, 2003 on which date he made disclosure statement (Ex. PC) in the presence of Shri Jawahar Lal (PW-9) and then led the police to the nearby place where he had hidden the currency notes, which were recovered in the presence of Shri Suresh Kumar (PW-8) and Shri Sudharshan Kumar (PW- 10). The accused was arrested on 23rd December, 2003 on which date he made disclosure statement (Ex. PC) in the presence of Shri Jawahar Lal (PW-9) and then led the police to the nearby place where he had hidden the currency notes, which were recovered in the presence of Shri Suresh Kumar (PW-8) and Shri Sudharshan Kumar (PW- 10). Currency notes, two locks and keys, which were got recovered by the accused, were taken into possession by the police. 3. With the completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court for trial. Accused was charged for having committed offences punishable under Sections 458, 457, 302 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove its case prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses and statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also recorded, in which he pleaded innocence and false implication. 5. We have heard Shri R. K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General duly assisted by Shri J. S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General on behalf of the State as also Shri Himmat Negi, Advocate, on behalf of the accused. We have also minutely examined the testimonies of the witnesses and other documentary evidence placed on record by the prosecution. Having minutely examined the record, we are of the considered view that no case for interference is made out at all. We find that the judgment rendered by the trial Court is well reasoned and is based on complete and proper appreciation of evidence (documentary and ocular) placed on record. There is neither any illegality/infirmity nor any perversity in the same. 6. That the deceased was Shri Ram Kishan, whose dead body was recovered from the spot, is not in dispute. The nature of injuries sustained by the deceased is also not in dispute. The cause of death is also not in dispute. 7. Admittedly, there is no eye-witness to the occurrence of the incident. The prosecution case primarily rests upon the following circumstances: 1. Accused had seen Shri Kuldeep Kumar (PW-5) handing over Rs. 4,00,000/- to Shri Bachittar Singh (PW-6) and Shri Ram Kishan (deceased) in the evening of 17th December, 2003. 2. The accused was seen going towards the first floor of the factory in the night of 17th December, 2003. 3. The accused made a confessional statement (Ex. Accused had seen Shri Kuldeep Kumar (PW-5) handing over Rs. 4,00,000/- to Shri Bachittar Singh (PW-6) and Shri Ram Kishan (deceased) in the evening of 17th December, 2003. 2. The accused was seen going towards the first floor of the factory in the night of 17th December, 2003. 3. The accused made a confessional statement (Ex. PC) and led the police to the spot from where currency notes, hidden in a bag, were recovered, along with locks and keys. 8. The law on circumstantial evidence is well settled. To base a conviction on circumstantial evidence prosecution must establish all the pieces of incriminating circumstances by reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances so proved must form such a chain of events as would permit no conclusion other than one of guilt of the accused. Suspicion, howsoever grave, cannot be a substitute for a proof and the courts should take utmost precaution in finding an accused guilty only on the basis of the circumstantial evidence. (Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy v. State of A.P., (2006) 10 SCC 172 ). 9. The normal principle in a case based on circumstantial evidence is that the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; that those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; that the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and they should be incapable of explanation on any hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with their innocence. (Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, ( 2006 10 SCC 681 ). 10. In order to establish the aforesaid circumstances, prosecution has referred to and relied upon the statements of Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma (PW-1), Shri Kewal Mohammed (PW-2), Shri Sher Mohammed (PW-3), Shri Kuldeep Kumar (PW-5), Shri Bachittar Singh (PW-6), Shri Suresh Kumar (PW-8), Shri Jawahar Lal (PW-9) and Shri Sudharshan Kumar (PW-10). 11. 10. In order to establish the aforesaid circumstances, prosecution has referred to and relied upon the statements of Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma (PW-1), Shri Kewal Mohammed (PW-2), Shri Sher Mohammed (PW-3), Shri Kuldeep Kumar (PW-5), Shri Bachittar Singh (PW-6), Shri Suresh Kumar (PW-8), Shri Jawahar Lal (PW-9) and Shri Sudharshan Kumar (PW-10). 11. Careful reading of the testimonies of the aforesaid witnesses would reveal that accused along with his wife and brother was working in the factory of Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma (PW-1) for the last 4 years prior to the date of occurrence of the incident, which took place in the intervening night of 17th & 18th December, 2003. Between 18th December, 2003 and 23rd December, 2003 the date when accused was arrested by the police, he remained present throughout and continued to work in the factory of Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma as his employee. His family also remained there. From the testimony of PW-2 and PW-3, it is evident that other persons employed by Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma were also interrogated/arrested on the basis of suspicion. This was in relation to the very same crime. At this juncture it may only be noticed that Shri Diwan Chand (PW-11) has disputed this fact, but then his testimony stands belied, controverted and contradicted by the un controverted testimony of PW-2 and PW-3, who have deposed that not only did police suspect them but in fact even were kept in custody by the police for four-five days. It has also come in the un controverted testimony of PW-1 that bus service, to the native place of the accused, is frequently available at all times. There was no past record of doubtful integrity of the accused. Conduct of the accused in the instant case is beyond suspicion. To some extent, it only renders the prosecution story to be doubtful. We say so for the reason that the accused had no tangible links to the place where he was working. He was only working as labourer along with his family members. After committing the crime he could have easily escaped from the spot either to his native place or somewhere also. 12. Significantly, police recovered currency notes from the fields, which were at a short distance from the place of occurrence of the incident. He was only working as labourer along with his family members. After committing the crime he could have easily escaped from the spot either to his native place or somewhere also. 12. Significantly, police recovered currency notes from the fields, which were at a short distance from the place of occurrence of the incident. The testimony of the witnesses with regard to the recovery of the currency notes, in our considered view, does not inspire confidence. However, we shall deal with this circumstance in the later part of our judgment. 13. Significantly, Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma (PW-1) does not state that the accused was present on the spot at the time when money was handed over by Shri Kuldeep Kumar (PW-5) to Shri Bachittar Singh (PW-6) and Shri Ram Kishan (deceased). 14. Hence, Shri Kuldeep Kumar (PW-5) does mention presence of accused alongwith Shri Bhim Singh and Shri Kewal at the time when currency notes were handed over. Significantly, Shri Bhim Singh and Shri Kewal have not been examined in Court and testimony of this witness, to our mind, does not inspire confidence. On this count, Shri Bachittar Singh (PW-6) has a similar version to state but then his testimony alone is not sufficient enough to prove the first circumstance. To begin with, we find that there are improvements and embellishments in his statement. In any event, he has deposed in Court that "it not clear under what circumstance Ram Kishan died". Now this totally knocks down the foundation of the prosecution case. Assuming that PW-5 and PW-6 have truthfully deposed with regard to the presence of the accused at the time when cash was handed over to the deceased, even then this fact alone wound not prove the guilt of the accused to the alleged crime. This we say so for the reason that 50-60 workers were present at the spot and working in the factory at the relevant time. Labourers were also sleeping in the factory premises and nearby hutments other persons had witnessed handing over of cash. The cash was handed over also in the presence of Shri Bachittar Singh, who also resided in the factory premises. Everyone residing there was a suspect. Labourers were also sleeping in the factory premises and nearby hutments other persons had witnessed handing over of cash. The cash was handed over also in the presence of Shri Bachittar Singh, who also resided in the factory premises. Everyone residing there was a suspect. It is not the case of the prosecution that after the deceased went to sleep in his room, which is adjacent to the factory premises none other than the accused was either present or had access to the same. In fact it is the categorical case of PW-6 that he had seen the accused going to the first floor of the factory for sleeping where also 5-6 labourers were sleeping. Police has not conclusively ruled out the possibility of involvement of such labourers. In fact they never identified, interrogated or examined. 15. Coming to the recovery of money, the locks and the keys, we find that Shri Suresh Kumar (PW-8) and Shri Jawahar Lal (PW-9) have not supported the prosecution case at all. They were declared hostile and extensively cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor, but nothing fruitful could be elicited from their testimony. Shri Sudharshan Kumar (PW-10) states that an amount of Rs. 3,65,000/- was got recovered by the accused. Two keys and two locks were also got recovered, which were hidden under the sand. Now, this witness states that the bag containing the currency notes was got recovered from a mound of sand. At that time Shri Balbir Chand, Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Shri Sat Pal, Up Pradhan, Shri Sita Ram, Shri Ramesh Chand, BDC Member and Shri Bidhi Chand were also present on the spot. Significantly, this witness is having close social relationship with the complainant. Noticeably, prosecution did not associate any of the independent and respectable persons present at the time of effecting such recovery. Why so? has not been explained. We find that testimony of this witness is uninspiring in confidence. Either he or the Investigating Officer, i.e. Shri Diwan Chand (PW-11) has not deposed truthfully in Court. Version of this witness that the bag containing currency notes was recovered from a mound of sand stands belied by PW-11, who states that the bag was kept concealed in the sand, in the Khud, and the place of recovery was "not in the shape of a mound of sand". Version of this witness that the bag containing currency notes was recovered from a mound of sand stands belied by PW-11, who states that the bag was kept concealed in the sand, in the Khud, and the place of recovery was "not in the shape of a mound of sand". Further, according to PW-10, locks and the keys were lying under the sand in a concealed manner which version also stands belied by PW-11, who simply states that they were lying near the bushes and could easily be noticed by a passer-by. They were visible to a naked eye. 16. It is seen that only a sum of Rs. 3,65,000/- was recovered by the police. The remaining amount of Rs. 35,000/- was found in the trunk itself. Now, if the accused were to commit robbery after killing someone, why would be leave part of the currency notes in the trunk. He would rather take away the entire amount with himself. Further recovery of the locks and the keys is uninspiring in confidence for the reason that it has come in the testimony of PW-2 that the recovered locks were having a new look and they were not rusty on this count. PW-1 and PW-6 state that the locks were old and not new. All this makes the prosecution to be extremely doubtful. 17. Significantly, PW-2 and PW-5 have also deposed that no person other than the Munshis, i.e. Shri Bachittar Singh and deceased Ram Kishan knew about the fact that PW-5 had handed over the money to the Munshis. This renders the version of PW-6, to the contrary, to be doubtful. 18. We may also notice that prosecution has not placed on record the bag, which was recovered from the spot. The Investigating Officer did not take into possession the trunk in which the money was kept. The Investigating Officer also did not investigate the matter from the angle as to whether there was other set of keys of the locks, which could be made available, in case of emergency, to another employee. 19. Importantly, house of Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma is just at a distance of 300 meters from the factory. Now, it is not understandable as to why this witness would leave a huge amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- with his Munshis and not carry it home. 19. Importantly, house of Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma is just at a distance of 300 meters from the factory. Now, it is not understandable as to why this witness would leave a huge amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- with his Munshis and not carry it home. Even if part of the amount was to be taken by Shri Kewal Mohammed (PW-2) in the morning to be given to someone else, the same could have been directly and conveniently taken from the house of the owner in the morning of 18th December, 2003. In any event he could have left only that much of amount which was to be given by PW-2. 20. Coming to the disclosure statement (Ex. PC) made by the accused, we find that Shri Jawahar Lal (PW-9) has not supported the prosecution case and we find no reason to disbelieve his testimony in Court. 21. Thus, in our considered view, the prosecution has not been able to prove the circumstances against the accused so as to link the accused to the alleged crime. The accused had no specific motive of murdering the deceased. The chain of circumstances does not lead to hypothesis except the one with regard to the innocence of the accused. It also cannot be said that the accused committed lurking house trespass by night entering into the building belonging to Ajay Kumar and used as a human dwelling and custody of property after the hours of sun set and before sun rise having made preparation for causing the murder of Ram Kishan in order to commit the theft of currency notes, committed lurking house trespass by night by entering into the building belonging to Ajay Kumar and used as a human dwelling and custody of property after the hours of sun set and before sun rise in order to commit the offence of theft and murder and did commit the murder by intentionally causing the death of Ram Kishan. 22. Thus, from the evidence led by the prosecution, it is quite apparent that the chain of evidence, linking the accused to the crime, on the basis of circumstantial evidence, has not been established by the prosecution by leading clear, cogent, convincing and reliable piece of evidence. 23. For all the aforesaid reasons, we find no reason to interfere with the well reasoned judgment passed by the trial Court. 23. For all the aforesaid reasons, we find no reason to interfere with the well reasoned judgment passed by the trial Court. The Court has fully appreciated the evidence placed on record by the parties. 24. The accused has had the advantage of having been acquitted by the Court below. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Mohammed Ankoos and others v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (2010) 1 SCC 94 , it cannot be said that the Court below has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record or that acquittal of the accused has resulted into travesty of justice. No ground for interference is called for. The present appeal is dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged.