JUDGMENT: P.V. Hardas, J.: 1. The appellant no.1-Original Accused No.1, who stands convicted and sentenced to:- a. Imprisonment for Life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default, further Rigorous Imprisonment for six months Section 302 of Indian Penal Code., b. Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of which, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months Section 394 of Indian Penal Code., and c. Rigorous Imprisonment for six months Section 414 of Indian Penal Code., while the Appellant NO.2-Original Accused No.2, who stands convicted for an offence punishable under Section 414 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months, by the Principal Sessions Judge, Buldana, vide Judgment dated 9 th December, 2011 in Sessions Case No. 90 of 2007, by this appeal, question the correctness of their conviction and sentences. Facts, in brief, as are necessary for the decision of this appeal, may be stated thus:- 2. PW 12 Kailas Ovhal, who, at the relevant time, was attached to Police Station, Buldana, was entrusted with the investigation of Crime No. 91/2007. Initially, the said crime was investigated by Mr. Neve, Police Inspector. Unfortunately, the earlier Investigating Officers have not been examined as witnesses in the trial. PW 12 Police Inspector Kailas Ovhal recorded the statements of the witnesses and submitted a charge-sheet against the appellants. 3. It appears that PW 1 Rajesh Jadhao, who had noticed the dead body of his father Kashiram Kisan Jadhao, had submitted a report at Exh.45. On the basis of the said report, the investigation had commenced and further to the completion of investigation, a chargesheet against the appellants had been filed. 4. Post-mortem on the dead body of Kashiram Jadhao was performed by PW 9 Dr. Ramesh Kalpande, who noticed following external injuries:- i. Wound of tracheotomy seen in front at the base of neck of size 1 inch x 1 inch x trachea deep. ii. Old healed wound with six stitches seen on left parietal area of size 2 inch x A¼ inch x A¼ inch x A¼ inch, placed obliquely. iii. Healed wound on right side of head on frontal and parietal junction, seen on right lateral side of size 1 inch x A¼ inch, placed transversely. iv. ii. Old healed wound with six stitches seen on left parietal area of size 2 inch x A¼ inch x A¼ inch x A¼ inch, placed obliquely. iii. Healed wound on right side of head on frontal and parietal junction, seen on right lateral side of size 1 inch x A¼ inch, placed transversely. iv. Healed wound on right occipital and parietal junction on right side of size 2 inch x A¼ inch x A¼ inch, placed transversely. On internal examination, Dr. Kalpande noticed following injuries:- i. Healed wound fracture of left zygomatic and left lateral wall of left orbit seen. ii. Healed wound fracture of right frontal and right parietal bone. Seen fracture was healed there along with the suture line and cracks are seen which are 3 to 4 in number, in left parietal. Subdural haematoma of size 1 cm x 1 cm. iii. On opening the skull, there was injury to brain on corresponding right frontal and parietal area. C.S.F. is blood mixed sub-archoid haemorrhage is there. Weight of brain 1200 gram. The Medical Officer, therefore, opined that severe head injury with sub-orchoid haemorrhage with fracture of skull bone led to death Kashiram Jadhav. The Post-mortem Report is at Exh.60. 5. The scene of the Incident Panchanama, namely the spot where the dead body was noticed, was drawn which is at Exh.54. 6. On committal of the case to Court of Sessions, the Trial Court, vide Exh.20, framed charge against the appellants for offences punishable under Sections 302, 394 and 414 all read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The appellants denied their guilt and claimed to be tried. 7. Prosecution, in support of its case, examined twelve witnesses. The entire prosecution case revolves around the testimony of PW 3 Krishna Jadhav, who claims to have seen the deceased in the company of the accused. The Trial Court, upon appreciation of the evidence led by the prosecution, convicted and sentenced the appellants as afore stated. 8. In order to effectively deal with the submissions advanced by Mr. A.J. Thakkar, learned counsel for the appellants, and Mr. T.A. Mirza, learned APP for the State, it would be useful to refer to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. 9. PW 1 Rajesh Jadhav, son of deceased Kashiram, states that on 27 th April, 2007, after filling water, his father had gone away, while he was at home. A.J. Thakkar, learned counsel for the appellants, and Mr. T.A. Mirza, learned APP for the State, it would be useful to refer to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. 9. PW 1 Rajesh Jadhav, son of deceased Kashiram, states that on 27 th April, 2007, after filling water, his father had gone away, while he was at home. Rajesh further states that one Vilas Pawar had informed him that his father was hospitalized with injuries. He, therefore, went to the hospital and noticed his father. After this, he lodged his report at Exh.45. He has identified his signature on the printed First Information Report at Exh.46. 10. Prosecution has examined PW 2 Gajanan Varma, a Goldsmith, who states that on 29 th April, 2007, a lady along with her son had come to his shop for pawning a golden chain. Gajanan states that on his questioning the lady if she had a bill of purchase, she replied that she would search for it in the house. On Gajanan telling the lady that he does not do the business of pawning, both left and never came back. Thereafter, he has identified the said lady as Appellant No.2. He, however, could identify the son who had accompanied the appellant no.2 to his shop. He has obviously not been able to identify the golden chain which the appellant no.2 is alleged to have tried to pledge. 11. PW 4 Atish, an owner of a Bicycle Shop by name Vijay Cycle Stores, states that he had given a bicycle on hire to Accused No.1 Sonaji on 27 th April, 2007 at about 10.00 a.m. He further states that the bicycle was brought back by some person on the next day. In cross-examination, he has admitted that he does not possess any document to show that he has a shop. He has further admitted that the police had seized his register. Unfortunately, the aforesaid register was not shown to him during his Examination- in-Chief and the entries therein have also not been proved. Thus, the evidence of PW 4 Atish is of no value to the prosecution. 12. He has further admitted that the police had seized his register. Unfortunately, the aforesaid register was not shown to him during his Examination- in-Chief and the entries therein have also not been proved. Thus, the evidence of PW 4 Atish is of no value to the prosecution. 12. PW 5 Shrawan Kale, an owner of agricultural land near the Krida Sankul, states that when he was going to graze the cattle, he had noticed a person lying with injuries near a Neem tree at 4.30 p.m. He states that he went to Buldana Police Station and informed the police about noticing an injured person. He further stats that the injured was then brought to the hospital and thereafter, based on the information contained in the pocket diary, relatives of the injured were contacted. 13. Prosecution has examined PW 6 Vitthal Jadhao, who states that he is a neighbourer of deceased Kashiram and that Kashiram was his cousin brother. He states that on 27 th April, 2007, while he was filling water, he noticed Kashiram who was also filling water. He states that Kashiram used to regularly wear a golden chain, and had seen the same on the person of Kashirm on the fateful day. In cross-examination, an omission has been elicited that he had not stated in his previous statement that he noticed deceased Kashiram with a golden chain around his neck on the day of the incident. 14. PW 7 Sitabai Jadhav, widow of Kashiram, states that on 27 th April, 2007, she had gone to Jalna for attending a marriage, and had returned home at about 7.00 p.m. She states that she was informed by one Vilas Pawar about hospitalization of her husband following injuries. She, therefore, went to the hospital and noticed deceased Kashiram. She states that the golden chain worn by Kashiram was missing. She then states that Kashiram was referred to Dhoot Hospital at Aurangabad. She states that on the next day, she identified the golden chain in the Police Station. She claims that the golden chain was handed over to her. She produced the golden chain in the Court at the time of her evidence. Identification of the golden chain in the Police Station being wholly inadmissible in evidence, it cannot be a substantive evidence. She claims that the golden chain was handed over to her. She produced the golden chain in the Court at the time of her evidence. Identification of the golden chain in the Police Station being wholly inadmissible in evidence, it cannot be a substantive evidence. Unfortunately, even in the Examination-in-Chief of PW 7 Sitabai, she does not in categorical terms state that the chain produced by her was the same chain which the police handed over to her. We, therefore, find that there is absolutely no evidence that the chain, which was handed over to PW 7 Sitabai in the Police Station, was the same which she produced in the Court. Apart from that there is no evidence, whatsoever, that a golden chain had been seized from the possession of appellants. 15. Prosecution has examined PW 10 Sudhakar Vispute, who states that he has a shop of gold in the name of S.S. Saraf. He states that on 1 th 1 November, 2006, Santosh son of deceased Kashiram had given some old golden ornaments and asked him to prepare a golden chain thereof. He states that he had charged Rs.500/- as cost of labour. He has identified the photo copy of the receipt which was not rightly exhibited by the Trial Court. He has admitted that the mark of his shop, namely SSS, is imprinted on the golden chain. This witness also has not identified the golden chain seized by the Police as the same which he had prepared on the order placed by the son of deceased. In cross-examination, PW 10 Sudhakar has admitted that the police had not seized the Receipt Book from him. He has admitted as true that the police had not called him for identification of the chain. 16. Prosecution has also examined PW 11 Anil Verma, a Goldsmith, who states that he was called in the Police Station for weighing the golden chain, and on weighing it, found it to be of 50 gms., worth Rs. 45,000/-. He states that he had accordingly issued a Certificate at Exh.67. 17. Prosecution has examined PW 12 Kailas Ovhal, Police Inspector, who conducted the investigation. This witness obviously makes no reference to the seizure of any golden chain. 18. 45,000/-. He states that he had accordingly issued a Certificate at Exh.67. 17. Prosecution has examined PW 12 Kailas Ovhal, Police Inspector, who conducted the investigation. This witness obviously makes no reference to the seizure of any golden chain. 18. Prosecution has examined PW 8 Dilip Gaikwad, who states that on 29 th April, 2007, he had been called to the Police Station, and in his presence, a golden chain was seized from appellant no.2 under a Seizure Memo at Exh.55. He further states that PW 7 Sitabai had also been called to the Police Station. In his cross-examination, PW 8 Dilip has admitted that as far as seizure of clothes of Accused No.1 is concerned, he does not know from where the Police brought the clothes. Similarly, in respect of seizure of the bicycle also, he states that he does not know from where the bicycle was brought. This witness appears to be a regular Panch, as he has acted so in several Panchanamas of the concerned Police Station, which lies at a distance of one-and-half-kilometer from the place of his residence. In any event, the prosecution has not examined the Investigating Officer, who is alleged to have seized the golden chain from the possession of appellant no.2. 19. As pointed out by us above, there is no nexus between the seizure of the chain and the chain which was then produced in the Court by PW 7 Sitabai as the same golden article which had been handed over to Sitabai by the police. 20. Prosecution has examined PW 3 Krishna Jadhav, the sole witness who claims to have seen the deceased in the company of the accused. PW 3 Krishna states that he was residing in the Bhilwada area and was working as a Watchman in Krida Sankul. On 27 th April, 2007, he was in the kitchen room of the Krida Sankul. At about 1.30 p.m., Accused No.1 Sonaji had come to the Krida Sankul and asked for water. Krishna states that he gave Sonaji water. Accused No.1 again returned after some time with an empty water bottle which he filled from the water tank. Krishna states that when appellant no.1 was accompanied by Kashiram, he was inside, namely in the kitchen room. He states that deceased Kashiram was standing outside the gate. Krishna states that thereafter the appellant and Kashiram went away. Accused No.1 again returned after some time with an empty water bottle which he filled from the water tank. Krishna states that when appellant no.1 was accompanied by Kashiram, he was inside, namely in the kitchen room. He states that deceased Kashiram was standing outside the gate. Krishna states that thereafter the appellant and Kashiram went away. In cross-examination, PW 3 Krishna has admitted that the Accused No.1 had never come to Krida Sankul on earlier occasion. He has admitted as true that the main gate of the Krida Sankul faces West. He has then admitted as true that the main gate is not visible from inside the room, i.e., kitchen. He has then admitted as true that the police had come at about 9.00 p.m., on that day and had questioned him. He, however, states that his statement was not recorded. He has then admitted that on the next day also, police came to the Krida Sankul and had questioned him, but his statement was not recorded. He has admitted that his statement was recorded on 2 nd May, 2007, i.e., after five days of the incident. 21. In the light of the admission given by PW 3 Krishna that the main gate of the Krida Sankul is not visible from the room where he was sitting, it would be obvious that PW 3 Krishna cannot be said to have seen deceased Kashiram who is said to be standing outside the gate. Krishna does not state that when the accused and the deceased had left the Krida Sankul, he came out of the room and saw them leaving. Therefore, according to us, the evidence of PW 3 Krishna does not inspire confidence that the deceased was last seen alive in the company of the appellant. The evidence of PW 3 Krishna, therefore, is of no assistance to the prosecution, particularly in establishing that deceased and the appellant no.1 were seen leaving Krida Sankul together. 22. We, therefore, find that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the offences against the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no evidence to connect the appellants with the commission of the crime. 22. We, therefore, find that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the offences against the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no evidence to connect the appellants with the commission of the crime. The report of Chemical Analyzer about finding of human blood on the shirt of the appellant no.1 is also not of any significance in the light of the fact that no grouping was possible and also for the reason that there is no evidence that the clothes on their seizure had been sealed. The Police Officer, who had effected the seizure, has not been examined as a witness. There is absolutely no evidence that the golden chain, which was alleged to have been found in possession of appellant no.2 at the time of its seizure, was the same chain which had been worn by deceased, and was the same golden article which had been handed over to PW 7 Sitabai. In that light of the matter, therefore, according to us, the appellants would be entitled to be given the benefit of doubt. 23. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence of the appellants is hereby quashed and set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the offences with which they were charged and convicted. Fine, if paid by the appellants, be refunded to them. Since the Appellant No.1 Sonaji Udaibhan Ambhore is in jail, he be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. Bail bond of Appellant No.2 Sau. Sindhubai Udaibhan Ambhore stands canceled.