JUDGMENT : S. K. SETH, J. 1. The appellant was sent for trial for having committed murder of young boy Udaikumar at about 11 in the night of 6th October, 1994 in Mhow. 2. Prosecution case in brief is as under. Appellant, a Sepoy in the Indian Army and was posted as an Orderly to Brig. A. Kapila posted in the College of Combat, Mhow. One Ramvilas was also posted as an Helper to the Brig. Kapila. Ramvilas, his son Udaikumar (since deceased) and appellant' were residing in the servant quarters of official bungalow of Brig. Kapila. On 6-10-1994 at about 4 P.M., appellant told Ramvilas that he is going to collect his salary. After return, appellant informed Ramvilas that he (appellant) just received the message of birth of nepnew. Thereafter both of them celebrated the event by taking liquor. Meanwhile, one Kalyan also joined in the celebration. Udaikumar after taking his meals was sleeping. 3. After finishing the dinner, Ramvilas and Kalyan went to see a movie leaving behind appellant and Udaikumar. At about 10.30 in the night, there was a knocking on the door of quarter of Subedar B. K. Pillai (PW-12) and on opening the door, Subedar Pillai and his wife Vijaylaxmi (PW-11) saw a person lying in an injured condition entreating to save him and the boy as someone was trying to murder them. Subedar Pillai went, to inform Subedar B. K. Roy, Nayak Sharma who were standing on the road in front of sleeping quarters of Pillai and also informed Chowkidar Murli Manohar (PW-1) who was on duty-guard in ASC Depot in Mhow. These persons went to the place where injured was lying and they gave him some water to drink. Meanwhile, Major Barar reached the spot. On his instructions, Murli, Subedar Pillai, Subedar Roy and Nayak Sharma. went to the servant quarters attached to the bungalow of Brig. Kapila and noticed that a boy inside the room was lying on the floor and his body was covered with the blanket. After noticing this, they again went to Major Barar who told them to bring that body. They went to fetch the boy who was lying. Thereafter, both injured were taken to Military Hospital, Mhow where Udaikumar succumbed to injuries. 4. A written intimation was sent to the Police Station, Mhow about the unnatural death of Udaikumar. After noticing this, they again went to Major Barar who told them to bring that body. They went to fetch the boy who was lying. Thereafter, both injured were taken to Military Hospital, Mhow where Udaikumar succumbed to injuries. 4. A written intimation was sent to the Police Station, Mhow about the unnatural death of Udaikumar. Said report is Exhibit P/7 and on the basis of this report, criminal case was registered in the Police Station, Mhow vide Exhibit P/8. After holding the inquest and the post-mortem over the dead body, investigation started. After the investigation was over, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant, who at the time of trial denied the charges on the ground that he was falsely implicated. Learned trial Judge consider the prosecution evidence found that appellant was guilty of an offence of culpable homicide amounting to murder and, therefore, convicted the appellant and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- with default stipulation. Hence, this appeal before us. 5. At this stage, we may point out that the appeal is pending since 2001 and today, when it was called out for hearing, none appeared for the appellant, therefore, we appointed Shri Manish Gadkar, Advocate as counsel for the appellant on State expenses and heard the rival submissions at length. We have also gone through the record of trial Court. 6. There is no direct evidence and the entire prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. Submission of Shri Gadkar is that important links are missing so as to form a complete chain of evidence leaving no reasonable ground for conclusion consistent with the innocence of the appellant. He urged that when dealing with the serious question of guilt of persons charged with crime, there must be clear and unequivocal proof of the corpus delicti and the hypothesis of delinquency should be consistent with all the facts proved. 7. It is trite to say that witnesses may lie but circumstances never lie and if properly appreciated, they would lead to definite conclusion. 7. It is trite to say that witnesses may lie but circumstances never lie and if properly appreciated, they would lead to definite conclusion. It is also equally well settled that when a case entirely rests on circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy three tests - (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 form a complete chain so there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else. In Brijlal Prasad Sinha vs. State of Bihar, (1998) 4 SCALE 25 (S.C.), Pattanaik, J. speaking for the Bench, held as under :- "In a case of circumstantial evidence the prosecution is bound to establish the circumstances from which the conclusion is drawn must be fully proved/ the circumstances should be conclusive in nature; all the circumstances so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt and inconsistent with the innocence; and lastly the circumstances should to a great certainty exclude the possibility of guilt of any person other than the accused. The law relating to circumstantial evidence no longer remains res integra and it has been held by catena of decisions of this Court that the circumstances proved should lead to no other inference except that of the guilt of the accused, so that, the accused can be convicted of the offences charged. It may be stated as a rule of caution that before the court records conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence it must satisfy that the circumstances from which inference of guilt could be drawn have been established by unimpeachable evidence and the circumstances unerringly point to the guilt of the accused and further all the circumstances taken together are incapable of any explanation on any reasonable hypothesis save the guilt of the accused." 8. In order to bring home the charge against the appellant, prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses. At this stage, we may point out that there is no dispute that Udaikumar died homicidal death which was duly proved by Dr. Mahesh Kumar Tiwari (PW-3) who conducted the autopsy. Dr. Tiwari found numerous stab wounds caused by sharp, hard and pointed weapon like knife. At this stage, we may point out that there is no dispute that Udaikumar died homicidal death which was duly proved by Dr. Mahesh Kumar Tiwari (PW-3) who conducted the autopsy. Dr. Tiwari found numerous stab wounds caused by sharp, hard and pointed weapon like knife. The autopsy report is Exhibit P/3 and the cause of death in the opinion of Doctor was haemorrhage following extensive injuries to intestinal and mesenteric vessels. We may also point out that the injuries of appellant were also examined, but the MLC has not been proved though available on record. However, from the initial report (Exhibit P/7) sent by Military Hospital, Mhow, it is clear that appellant had also sustained incise wounds in the left arm and lacerated wounds. 9. Now the question before us is, whether the appellant committed man-slaughter and other offences for which he has been convicted by the trial Court. 10. PW-1 Murli who is the Chowkidar, was on duty from 4 pm to 12 in the night in the ASC Depot. He only corroborates what Subdar Pillai had told to Subedar Roy and Nayak Sharma in his presence. He went along with these persons to the place where appellant was lying in fainted and injured condition. He further stated that he saw nobody come or going from the house of Brig. Kapila. PW-2 Laxman is another Chowkidar posted in ASC Depot who was declared hostile. PW-3 is Dr. Mahesh Kumar Tiwari and we have already referred to his evidence. PW-4 is 'Panch' witness of seizure memo of 'Chappal', bucket and blood stained knife recovered from the room of appellant. The seized articles were sent. for chemical examination and the FSL report is Exhibit P/6. The Chemical examiner confirmed the presence of blood on 'Chappal', knife, but in absence of any report from the Serologist, this exercise is of no avail to the prosecution. 11. PW-5 is the Sub Inspector, who registered the offence in Police Station, Mhow on the basis of report (Exhibit P/7) . PW-6 Narayan Murti Shankar is a 'Panch' witness to the site map, but he turned hostile and did not support the prosecution. PW-7 is Major Sagwal who at the relevant time was posted in the College of Combat as Catering Officer. PW-6 Narayan Murti Shankar is a 'Panch' witness to the site map, but he turned hostile and did not support the prosecution. PW-7 is Major Sagwal who at the relevant time was posted in the College of Combat as Catering Officer. As per his evidence, he along with Major Barar went to the spot where appellant was lying in an injured condition and he was unable to speak. The other portion of his evidence is not of much significance so as to connect the appellant with the crime. PW-8 Narayan Murti Shankar was posted as Lt. Col. at the relevant time in the College of Combat who received information from Major Sagwal that he and Major Barar were taking Udaikumar to Military Hospital. This witness, when he reached hospital, was told that Udaikumar succumbed to the injuries and appellant was lying on a cot making incoherent noise. His evidence is also not of much use. PW-9 is S. L. Kharadi, Sub-Inspector who inquest about the dead body and prepared 'Panchnama' (Exhibit P/9). He mentioned in the 'Panchnama' that appellant had informed that some unknown persons caused knife injuries. PW-10, Constable Lokendra Singh is a formal witness. PW-11 Vijaylaxmi is the wife of Subedar Pillai who supports her husband that their sleep was disturbed by knocking door on sleeping quarters and on opening the door, they saw appellant in an injured condition saying them to save him and the boy. PW-12 is Subedar Pillai and his evidence is in the line with the evidence of his wife Vijaylaxmi (PW-11) plus that he and some members of his unit who came to the spot where appellant was saying "save me and save the boy". From his evidence, it is also clear that incident took place in the military area which was safe and secured. The last witness is PW-13 Shivraj Singh Kushwaha who was posted as S.H.O. in Police Station, Mhow at the time of incident. 12. Learned trial Judge found that although prosecution did not prove any motive for the murder of Udaikumar, but held appellant guilty because he was living with Ramvilas in the servant quarter and he was left behind with the deceased when Ramvilas and Kalyan went to see a night show after taking dinner. Absence of any evidence in defence also, this weighed in the mind of Trial Court as incriminating circumstances against the appellant. Absence of any evidence in defence also, this weighed in the mind of Trial Court as incriminating circumstances against the appellant. The recovery of 'Chappal', bucket and knife is also held to be a link in the chain of circumstances appearing against the appellant. 13. So far as absence of defence evidence, we are afraid that the trial Court has completely ignored the cardinal principles of jurisprudence as has been laid down by Lord Chancellor and Lord Sankey in Woolmington vs. Director of Public Prosecution in [1935 AC. 462]. The other circumstances which have been held to be incriminating circumstances against the appellant, we are afraid that they do not form complete chain so as to infer facts leading to inescapable conclusion so as to not leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of appellant. Circumstantial evidence consists of evidence of circumstances which directly speak to the facts in issue but from which those facts may be inferred. The standard of proof required to convict a person on circumstantial evidence is well established. According to that standard, the circumstances relied upon in support of conviction must be fully established by those circumstances must be so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with innocence of the accused. It is clear from the evidence that no incriminating article or weapon was seized from the appellant or on his information. No motive was also proved for the appellant to commit murder of Udaikumar. Except that appellant was with Udaikumar, there is nothing else against him. From the evidence it is also clear that appellant had asked Subedar Pillai to save not only the boy but also the appellant from the unknown assailants. This version is also in the FIR that unknown persons assaulted Udaikumar and the appellant. In his statement under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code the appellant has stuck to this version which is quite -probable in the facts and circumstances of the case. 14. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we find that prosecution has failed to prove the charge levelled against the appellant or at any rate, a serious doubt is cast on the prosecution case regarding commission of offence by the appellant. In this view of the matter, we find it difficult to sustain the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant. 15. In this view of the matter, we find it difficult to sustain the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant. 15. In the result, appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant by trial Court is hereby set aside. The appellant is on bail, therefore, his bail bonds stand discharged and the fine amount, if any, paid by them, be refunded to him. Order accordingly.