JUDGMENT : Dev Darshan Sud, J. The State challenges the acquittal of the respondent, who was charged to face trial u/s 302, 201 read with Section 34, IPC. The evidence against the accused/respondent is primarily circumstantial evidence. The prosecution case in brief is that on 28.10.1995 H.C. Madan Lal, PW2, who was posted at the Excise Barrier Bhadroya in Tehsil Nurpur along with Constable Parvinder, Daljit Singh, Ranjint Singh and Parmeshwari Dass, saw one young Sikh boy and one clean shaven boy walking with a young girl, who crossed the barrier at around 12.45 P.M on 18.10.1995. They had come from Pathankot and proceeded towards a temple situated across the barrier. According to this witness, the girl was wearing a light pink coloured suit and was carrying a polythene bag in her hand. He had identified both the accused present in the Court as the persons who were with the girl and had gone towards the temple which was surrounded by a forest. He says that after about one hour, the boys returned without the young girl and they looked puzzled, anxious and perplexed. Their clothes were smeared with mud and they were walking at a fast pace exciting suspicion of this witness. He called out them to stop, at which they started running towards a "khad" (rivulet) situated near the barrier. He and the constables present, chased and apprehend them. There were number of dhabas (eateries) situated near the barrier. In the commotion which ensued Ramesh and Jawant, owners of the Dhaba and Ashok, who was working as peon in the Excise Department and other people came to the spot. Both the accused were questioned, who disclosed their names as Sukhjit Singh son of Shri Ajit Singh and the Sikh gentlemen as Kulvinder Singh son of Kashmir Singh. Sukhjit Singh accused stated that the girl was his sister Paramjit Kaur. He has stated that she was left at her Massi's house ( maternal aunt's house). When one of the persons present said that there was no house in the area where they had gone which was a forest, he confessed that the girl was of a loose and lax moral character, who had entered into illicit sexual relationship with some low caste boy which had adversely affected the family's reputation and for this reason she had been strangulated and killed by them. They stated that they had thrown the dead body of the girl in the bushes in the forest. In the meanwhile, he sent one constable to Police Post Dhangupeer to convey this information to the police station at Nurpur. The witness then stated that all the persons present including the 'dhabewalas' proceeds towards the jungle to search for the dead body. After they had walked about one kilometer, both the boys pointed out to the dead body lying in the bushes. There was a chuni (head scarf) knotted and tied around her neck. He deputed one constable to remain at the spot and came back to the police barrier where he kept the accused under the detention. He proved on record Ex.PW2/A his statement recorded u/s 154, Cr.P.C. He says that the police also recorded the statement of the other witnesses who were present on the spot. Thereafter, the police men from Nurpur went to the place where the dead body was lying and since it became dark no further proceedings took place. Some more police personnel were deputed to guard the dead body. Next day the police along with the local people went to the spot where the dead body was recovered. Photographs of the spot and the dead body were taken. 2. Ashok Kumar, PW3 says that he was posted at the New Chakki Barrier along with other police personnel and one peon from Excise Department, namely, Bir Singh. He says that PW2 Madan Lal along with other police constables was present there when at around 12.45 PM on 28.10.95 two boys and one girl crossed from the barrier. They were coming from Pathankot. The girl was wearing a pink coloured suit and carrying a polythene bag in her hand; one of the boy was Sikh and other was clean shaven. They proceeded towards a nallah running near the temple which is surrounded by a forest. After about one hour, the two boys returned without the girl when H.C. Madan Lal called out to them, they started running towards Pathankot. They were chased and apprehended by the police and they disclosed their names as Kulvinder Singh and Sukhjit Singh. Sukhjit Singh stated that the girl was his sister. He said that he had left the girl at his Massi's house. They were chased and apprehended by the police and they disclosed their names as Kulvinder Singh and Sukhjit Singh. Sukhjit Singh stated that the girl was his sister. He said that he had left the girl at his Massi's house. On being confronted with the fact that there was no house he stated that the girl has been killed by them and they took the police to the spot where the dead body was lying. The body was at a distance of about 100 to 150 meters from the barrier and thrown amongst the bushes. It had chuni around its neck. 3. PW4 Constable Daljit Singh also states that he was posted at New Chakki Barrier Bhadroya along with PW2 Madan Lal and he corroborates the version about the accused walking towards the temple along with a girl and returning without the girl, the accused tried to flee from the place of occurrence when they were called by the police to stop; then cashed and apprehended. PW11 Ramesh Kumar says that he is tea stall/dhaba owner. On 28.10.1995 he was present at his dhaba. At around 12/1 in the afternoon he heard some noise/commotion at the barrier and somebody was saying that a dead body was found near the jungle. He says that PW2 H.C. Madan lal was In-charge of the police barrier and he also heard that the two boys ran away after committing murder. He says that the boys were not apprehended in his presence at which stage he was declared hostile and cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor. He says that his dhaba is at a distance of about 30-40 yards from the barrier which is visible from the dhaba. He denied that any alarm was raised by PW2 Madan Lal. But stated that it was raised by number of people, who were running towards the jungle. He says that on hearing the noise he never approached the barrier but ran towards the jungle. He specifically denied the Court question to the effect that the two accused were apprehended in his presence. He could not identify the accused in Court on that day. He denied that any persons had been left to guard the dead body etc. He then admits that on 29.10.1995 police from Police Station Nurpur had gone to the spot. Photographs of the dead body and spot etc., were taken. 4. He could not identify the accused in Court on that day. He denied that any persons had been left to guard the dead body etc. He then admits that on 29.10.1995 police from Police Station Nurpur had gone to the spot. Photographs of the dead body and spot etc., were taken. 4. PW 14 Inspector Jodha Mal says that report Ex.PW7/A was registered in Police Station, Nurpur. Thereafter, he had reached at the place of occurrence at 8.30 P.M. as he was investigating another case u/s 302, IPC. He admits that he arrested accused on 29.10.1995 and that the accused were with the police prior to the arrest also and thereafter in his cross-examination he again states that the accused were arrested by him on 30.10.1995 at 9 O'clock in the morning. He says that he could not arrest them on 28.10.1995 as he has no means to write documents etc. He interrogated both the accused on 29.10.1995. 5. Before adverting to the other facts on record, we advert to the statement of PW1 Doctor Parveen Bhardwaj, who was posted as doctor along with Doctor Indur Bhardwaj in Sub Divisional Hospital, Nurpur. He says that on 29.10.1995 police from Nurpur submitted an application Ex.PW1/A for conducting post mortem on the body of Paramjit Kaur. He along with Dr. Indur Bhardawaj conducted the post mortem. The inquest report Ex.PW1/B was also submitted along with the documents. He found multiple abrasions on both ankles. There was Chuni (head scarf) tied around her neck and two reddish bruises in front neck. He found that the cause of death was asphyxia due to throttling. There was no evidence of rape having been committed upon her. He also found the impressions of nails and fingers on the neck of the deceased which was because of throttling. He admits that there was no one to identify the body and all that he had written regarding the identification etc., was at the instance of the police. This is the entirety of the evidence on record which we have to consider. 6. He admits that there was no one to identify the body and all that he had written regarding the identification etc., was at the instance of the police. This is the entirety of the evidence on record which we have to consider. 6. It was contended on behalf of the State before us that the circumstances etc., of last seen of the deceased and the fact that the accused had admitted their complicity in the commission of the crime coupled with the motive which was that the deceased was involved with a low caste boy and the accused resented this as it would dishonour their entire family was strong enough to implicate the accused in the case. 7. There is no eye witness to the offence or rather nobody has seen the deceased being murdered. We advert to the medical evidence which says that the death of the deceased has been caused by asphyxia which according to the prosecution is possible by throttling. Strongest link of the evidence was evidence of PW2 Madan lal, who saw the accused in the company of the deceased and returning without her. The suspicious behaviour of the accused is their attempt to flee from the scene of occurrence. What we find strange in these circumstances is that this witness is categoric when he states that accused was in his custody around 2/2.30 P.M. on 28.10.1995 at the barrier at which time he has deputed one constable to convey the information to police station Nurpur with regard to the occurrence. However, the evidence of PW14 Inspector Jodha Mal is that he arrested the accused on 30th October, 1995 at 9 O'clock in the morning. Ex.PW7/B, FIR is also recorded on 28.10.1995 at around 12.45 P.M. Continuing with this further what we find is that as the learned trial Court rightly held that since the FIR was recorded on 28.10.1995 the accused who was in the custody of Madan Lal, PW2 should have been produced before the Judicial Magistrate within 24 hours on the subsequent day i.e. on 29th but this having not been done casts a grave doubt as to whether the accused were actually arrested on 28.10.1995 or evidence was created to rope them into the entire episode. It does not require reiteration that the accused had to be produced before a Magistrate for police/judicial remand. This is the mandatory requirement of law. It does not require reiteration that the accused had to be produced before a Magistrate for police/judicial remand. This is the mandatory requirement of law. However, the explanation put forth by PW14 Inspector Jodha Mal for arresting the accused on 30th is that the formal arrest could only be made on 30th since the Investigating Officer had no material to write, taxes one's credibility. We also note that witness Ram Kumar, PW11, dhaba owner does not support the prosecution case at all. He states that he did not see anybody in the custody of the police on 28.10.1995. He admits that he serves liquor at his dhaba to all the people who have their meals there. He does not have any licence to serve liquor. The police is aware about this fact and that in case he stops serving liquor, his business will be ruined. He is also aware about the fact that it is illegal to run such business or trade and to allow the consumption of the liquor without any licence. In these circumstances, it become difficult to accept that he would turn hostile, rather what we find from his evidence is that he has not supported the prosecution case on any count regarding the arrest and custody of the accused but he says that he saw one boy brought handcuffed after 3-4 days. He also denies the fact that any disclosure statement was made by the accused in his presence that some polythene bag etc., had been concealed by the accused. In these circumstances, what we find is that what he states does not support the prosecution case at all. Since he was running illicit business of serving liquor to his customers who were having meals at his dhaba and that too without licence with the connivance of the police was reason enough to have supported the police case. We also find from the record that the accused who have been produced before the Court first time on 30.10.1995. This leaves a very grave and serious doubt in our mind whether the accused actually were arrested on 28.10.1995 or at a later point of time. If they were actually apprehended on 28.10.1995 then why they were not produced before the Magistrate on 29th i.e the next day within a period of 24 hours? This leaves a very grave and serious doubt in our mind whether the accused actually were arrested on 28.10.1995 or at a later point of time. If they were actually apprehended on 28.10.1995 then why they were not produced before the Magistrate on 29th i.e the next day within a period of 24 hours? It is on record that the police station Nurpur is next to the Judicial Complex and the residence of the Magistrate is also there. 8. To establish its case beyond any reasonable doubt in case of circumstantial evidence, the case of the prosecution has be to be judged on a corner stone of the principles reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622 holding (1). The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between 'may be proved' and 'must be or should be proved' as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793 where the following observations were made: certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a Court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. (2) The facts so established should be consistent not only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. (3). The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. (4). They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5). There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. (P. 1656) 9. We need not multiply precedent on this point which have been affirmed inter alia in Kishore Chand Vs. (P. 1656) 9. We need not multiply precedent on this point which have been affirmed inter alia in Kishore Chand Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, (1991) 1 SCC 286 and Padala Veera Heddy vs. State of A.P. AIR 1990 SC 79 . 10. The Supreme Court reiterates that in order to sustain conviction the incriminating circumstances must be so complete and incapable of explanation except the guilt of the accused. The evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but also should be inconsistent with his innocence. (See: K.V. Chacko @ Kunju Vs. State of Kerala, (2001) 9 SCC 277 , Nesar Ahmed and Another Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 2001 SC 2416 , Reddy Sampath Kumar Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2005) 7 SCC 603 . On the evidence on record, we find that the chain is incomplete. The first doubt is regarding the arrest of the accused on the spot as stated by PW2 Madan Lal. His evidence is at complete variance on all points with that of PW11 Ramesh kumar and that of PW14 Jodha Ram. Who says that "I arrested the accused persons on 30.10.1995 at 9' Clock in the morning. I could not arrest the accused on 28.10.1995, as I had no means to write the relevant documents in connection with the investigation of the case". We find from the record that the accused were produced before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Nurpur on 30.10.1995 when they were remanded to police custody till 9.11.1995. The motive put forward to eliminate the deceased was that she was involved with some boy/man of lower caste has also not been proved on record rather no attempt has been made in this direction to establish this fact. The so called confession made by them that they had killed the deceased because to save the family from dishonour also does not establish that fact since that such confession has been made in the presence of PW2 Madan Lal and other witnesses and it is directly hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act. What we find is that the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt and does not meet the test laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as discussed above. Thus, there is no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the accused/respondents are discharged.