JUDGMENT I. A. ANSARI, J. This appeal requires us to bear in mind one of the most important principles of criminal jurisprudence, the principle being that when a case is based on circumstantial evidence, every link, in the chain of circumstances, must be cogently and convincingly proved and when various links, in the chain of circumstances, are joined together, the same shall form a complete chain unerringly pointing to the person, facing trial, as the perpetrator of the offence or offences, which he is alleged to have committed. 2. This is an appeal against the judgment and order, dated 14.05.2007, passed, in Sessions Trial No. 325/2003, by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra, convicting the accused-appellant, Shambhu Nath Singh, under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. 3. The case of the prosecution, as unfurled at the trial, may, in brief, be described thus: (i) Krishna Singh (since deceased) was, at the relevant point of time, District Engineer, in the District Board, Saran; whereas accused Shambhu Nath Singh was a Junior Engineer in the said District Board. On allegation of having cut a tree and having misappropriated the money belonging to the Government, an inquiry was held against the accused at the instance of the said deceased. Following the inquiry, the accused was not only placed under suspension, but a First Information Report was also lodged against him, on 20.06.2000, which gave rise to Masrakh Police Station Case No. 138/2000 under Section 409/420/379 I.P.C. The lodging of the First Information Report infuriated the accused and he kept threatening the said deceased with dire consequences somuchso that he started declaring to his colleagues, in the office, that it was better to fight a case under Section 302 I.P.C. rather than fighting a case under Section 379 I.P.C. (ii) On 14.07.2000, at about 8.30 P.M., Krishna Singh proceeded, in a Maruti van, from his house towards Hathua market. The said Maruti van was driven by one Md. Akhtar Hussain, who used to function as a driver of the said vehicle. The said Maruti van was driven by one Md. Akhtar Hussain, who used to function as a driver of the said vehicle. At about 9.30 P.M., the said driver informed, over telephone, Prem Prakash (P.W.10), son of Krishna Singh, that Krishna Singh had been shot outside Chapra junction by an unknown person. On receiving this information, P.W.10 rushed to Chapra junction and, on arriving there, he found his father lying dead, in a pool of blood, at a distance of about 10 yards from one Madan Hotel. P.W.10 also noticed that his father had sustained a bullet injury on his left eye and blood was oozing out of the injury. (iii) P.W.10 brought his father to Sadar Hospital, Chapra, and, on examining Krishna Singh, the doctor declared him dead. In the meanwhile, Md. Akhtar Hussain, on further inquiry, by P.W.10, informed P.W.10 that Krishna Singh had gone to Hathua market, where he had taken betel from a betel vendor, Munna, and he had also talked to some other persons there and after a short while, while Krishna Singh was proceeding towards his house and happened to pass by Bhagwan Bazar turning, he asked Md. Akhtar Hussain to take the vehicle towards railway station for taking betel and when the driver accordingly took the vehicle to the railway station and parked the van on the northern side of Madan Hotel, Krishna Singh asked Akhtar to fetch betel. The driver, Akhtar, accordingly went to fetch betel; but when he returned, he found Krishna Singh lying dead with bullet injury. The said driver also informed P.W.10 that the occurrence had taken place at about 9.20 P.M. (iv) Closely before Krishna Singh was shot at, Rupesh Kumar (P.W.6), a student of law, while coming out of Durga temple, at about 9.00 P.M., at Bhagwan Bazar, saw two persons going, on a black colour Hero Honda motorcycle, towards railway station and the pillion rider, on the said motorcycle, was none other than accused Shambhu Singh. (v) At around the same time, i.e. about 9.00 P.M., Anil Kumar Singh (P.W.5), a Contractor, while talking with one Satish Singh, standing outside the quarter of Sudhir Singh, brother of Satish Singh, heard sound of firing and saw a Hero Honda motorcycle, black in colour, coming from the direction of the railway station at a high speed and as the motorcycle was slowed down due to the fact that a speed-breaker was required to be crossed, P.W.5 noticed that the person, sitting on the pillion seat of the motorcycle, was accused Shambhu Singh, who had a country-made pistol in his hand. Out of curiosity, P.W. 5 went towards the railway station and, on reaching the place of occurrence, he came to learn that Krishna Singh had sustained bullet injury and had been shifted to Sadar Hospital, Chapra, whereupon P.W.5 went to the said hospital and found Krishna Singh lying dead. (vi) Many persons, numbering around one hundred, assembled at the hospital. Police officers, too, came there. Information, as regards the occurrence, was given to the police by P.W. 10 at the said hospital. The information, so given by P.W. 10 was treated as the First Information Report. Based on the said First Information Report, Chapra G.R.P.S. Case No. 0030/2000, dated 14.07.2000, under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, was registered against an unknown person, because of the fact that the First Information Report, so lodged by P.W.10, had not disclosed the name of the assailant. In course of time, investigation having been completed, a charge-sheet was laid against the accused under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and Section 27 Arms Act, 1959, showing the accused an absconder. 4. At the trial, when a charge, under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C., and also a charge, under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, were framed against the accused, he pleaded not guilty thereto. 5. In support of their case, prosecution examined altogether 16 witnesses. The accused was, then, examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and, in his examination aforementioned, the accused denied that he had committed the offences, which had been alleged to have been committed by him, the case of the defence being that of complete denial. 5. In support of their case, prosecution examined altogether 16 witnesses. The accused was, then, examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and, in his examination aforementioned, the accused denied that he had committed the offences, which had been alleged to have been committed by him, the case of the defence being that of complete denial. The defence, too, adduced evidence by examining one witness, namely, Satish Singh, who was the one with whom P.W. 5 had claimed to have been talking at the time, when he alleges to have seen the accused passing as a pillion rider on a motorcycle carrying with him a country-made pistol. 6. Having, however, found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C., the learned trial Court convicted him accordingly and passed sentence against him as has already been mentioned above. Aggrieved by his conviction and the sentence, which has been passed against him, the accused has preferred this appeal. 7. We have heard Mr. Kanhaiya Prasad Singh, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the accused appellant, and Mr. Ashwani Kumar Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State. We have also heard Mr. Vindhya Keshri Kumar, learned Senior counsel, who has addressed us on behalf of the informant. 8. While considering the present appeal, we may point out that it had not been disputed at the trial nor is it in dispute before us that Krishna Singh had died as a result of bullet injury having been sustained by him. This apart, the doctor (P.W.8), who had conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Krishna Singh, found, according to the evidence on record, as follows:- “I.- External injury- One lacerated wound over left eye with blackening of skin and margin inverted of size left orbit x cranial cavity deep root of entry. On dissection of skull:- Brain matter was found lacerated with fracture of occipital bone, cranial cavity filled with blood clots-one bullet was impacted in brain substance, which was taken out and preserved in sealed container for needful. Chest and abdomen:- All the viscera found intact and pale.” 9. In the opinion of the doctor, the injuries mentioned hereinbefore were ante mortem in nature and the death was caused due to haemorrhage and shock consequent to the injury caused to the brain, the injury having been caused by a fire-arm. 10. Chest and abdomen:- All the viscera found intact and pale.” 9. In the opinion of the doctor, the injuries mentioned hereinbefore were ante mortem in nature and the death was caused due to haemorrhage and shock consequent to the injury caused to the brain, the injury having been caused by a fire-arm. 10. Apart from the fact that the findings of the doctor as well as his opinion with regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the said deceased and/or his opinion with regard to the cause of death have not been in dispute, we, too, do not notice anything inherently incorrect or improbable in the findings of the doctor or his opinion with regard to the nature of injuries, which the said deceased had sustained, and/or the cause of death of the said deceased. 11. We, therefore, agree that Krishna Singh died as a result of having sustained injury to his brain caused by a bullet fired from a fire-arm. 12. The question, which, now, stairs at us, is: whether it was the accused-appellant, Shambhu Nath Singh, who had caused the bullet injury, which had resulted into the death of Krishna Singh? 13. Our quest for an answer to the above question brings us to the evidence of P.W.6, who, as we have already pointed out above, was a student of law at the relevant point of time. His evidence is that on 14.07.2000, at about 9.00 P.M., while he was coming out of Durga temple, at Bhagwan Bazar, he saw two persons going on a black colour Hero Honda motorcycle towards railway station and the person, occupying the pillion seat, was accused Shambhu Singh, a Junior Engineer, in the District Board, and, then, he went to his house, but he heard on the following day, that Krishna Singh, District Engineer, had been murdered. 14. While considering the evidence of P.W.6, it needs to be noted that this witness, according to the evidence on record, was examined on 27.07.2000, i.e., after about 10 (ten) days of the occurrence. Prosecution did not elicit from the Investigating Officer as to how he happened to discover P.W.6 as a witness to the occurrence. Be that as it may, nothing significant could be elicited by the defence from the cross-examination of P.W.6 to show that his evidence was untrue or false. 15. Prosecution did not elicit from the Investigating Officer as to how he happened to discover P.W.6 as a witness to the occurrence. Be that as it may, nothing significant could be elicited by the defence from the cross-examination of P.W.6 to show that his evidence was untrue or false. 15. Though it has been pointed out to us, on behalf of the appellant, that P.W.6 has conceded, in his cross-examination, that the accused was not known to him, it has been correctly pointed out, on behalf of the respondent, that what P.W.6 has stated, in his evidence, is that he was not acquainted with accused Shambhu Singh. Thus, while P.W. 6 was not an acquaintance of accused Shambhu Singh, the fact remains that as far as P.W. 6 was concerned, he knew the accused as a Junior Engineer, in District Board. Hence, the evidence, given by P.W.6, cannot be reasonably stretched to mean that the accused was wholly unknown to P.W.6. 16. We are, therefore, of the view that the evidence of P.W.6 establishes the fact that accused had been seen by P.W.6, on 14.07.2000, at about 9.00 P.M., proceeding, on a motorcycle, as a pillion rider, towards the railway station. It is, however, obvious that this piece of evidence, even if believed, would not ipso facto prove the appellant as the assailant of the said deceased. 17. The above discussion of the evidence on record brings us to the evidence of P.W.5, a Contractor, whose evidence was, at the trial, heavily relied upon by the prosecution and, even in this appeal, prosecution places substantive reliance on the evidence of P.W.5. The evidence of P.W.5 needs to be, therefore, scrutinized thoroughly for the purpose of proper and effective appreciation thereof. This witness has deposed that on 14.07.2000, at about 9.00 P.M., while he was talking to Satish Singh (D.W.1), brother of Sudhir Singh, on the road, standing outside the residential quarter of Sudhir Singh, he heard sound of firing and saw a Hero Honda motorcycle, black in colour, coming from east and going towards west and, at the speed-breaker, the said motorcycle was about to fall down, but it was, somehow, controlled by its driver and he (P.W.5) noticed that accused Shambhu Singh was sitting, on the pillion seat of the said motorcycle, with a country-made pistol in his hand. P.W.5 has also deposed that he went to the place of occurrence and, on coming to learn that Krishna Singh had sustained bullet injury and stood shifted to Sadar Hospital, Chapra, he went to the hospital and saw Krishna Singh lying dead with injury to his left eye. 18. What is, now, of immense importance to note is that notwithstanding the fact that P.W.5 has asserted, in his cross-examination by the defence, that he had seen the accused sitting as pillion rider on a motorcycle holding a country-made pistol in his hand, the Investigating Officer (P.W.10) has confirmed that no such statement had been made by P.W.6 at the time, when his statement was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The omission, so pointed out, being a vital omission, is, indeed, a major contradiction and cannot be easily ignored or brushed aside. Had P.W.5 really seen the accused holding a country-made pistol in his hand, there was no reason for him to have withheld this information from the police, while his statement was recorded by the police. 19. In the face of the contradiction with which suffers the evidence of P.W.5, we are clearly of the view that he is not a witness, whose evidence can be implicitly relied upon. Even if we do not reject the evidence of P.W.5 outright as evidence of a wholly unreliable witness, his evidence would fall, at best, in the category of those witnesses who are neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. 20. We may, at this stage, point out that witnesses, ordinarily, fall in three distinct categories, namely, (i) wholly reliable, (ii) wholly unreliable and (iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. If a witness is wholly reliable, his evidence can be implicitly relied upon and such a witness’s testimony can be made basis for conviction of an accused. Similarly, when a witness is found to be wholly unreliable, no reliance can at all be placed on his evidence and his evidence has to be rejected outright. When, however, a witness is found to be neither wholly reliable, nor wholly unreliable, his evidence cannot be accepted unless his evidence is found to have been corroborated by some credible evidence, direct or circumstantial. When, however, a witness is found to be neither wholly reliable, nor wholly unreliable, his evidence cannot be accepted unless his evidence is found to have been corroborated by some credible evidence, direct or circumstantial. Situated thus, it is clear that when we find P.W. 5 as a witness who, at best, falls in the category of those witnesses, who are neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable, his evidence, in order to be acceptable, must be found to have been corroborated by credible and convincing evidence, direct or circumstantial. It is, therefore, necessary for us to marshal the evidence on record in order to determine if P.W.5 had received any corroboration, direct or indirect, from the remaining evidence on record. 20. With regard to the above, it is worth pointing out that the only person, who could have corroborated P.W.5 to the extent that P.W.5, as claimed by him, had been talking to Satish Singh (D.W.1), was Satish Singh himself. For some reason, Satish Singh was not examined by the prosecution and no explanation has been offered for his non-examination nor is there any explanation discernible, in this regard, from the evidence on record. However, when examined as a defence witness, Satish Singh belies the evidence of P.W.5 by deposing that he has no knowledge with regard to the occurrence; rather, he was not even present, at Chapra, on the night of the occurrence. The prosecution left D.W.1 with virtually no effective cross-examination. 21. Thus, we are clearly of the view that the evidence of P.W.5 is not safe to place reliance upon. 22. What surfaces from the above discussion of the evidence on record is that even if the evidence of P.W. 5 and P.W.6 are believed, their evidence would show, at the most, that while P.W.5 had seen the accused-appellant going as a pillion rider, on a motorcycle, towards the railway station, P.W.6 had seen the accused returning from the direction of the railway station sitting as a pillion rider on a motorcycle. Thus, these two facts, even if believed in their entirety, do not prove that it was none, but the accused-appellant, who had shot dead Krishna Singh. 23. In order to secure conviction of the accused-appellant, prosecution, however, relies on the evidence of P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.10 and P.W.12. Thus, these two facts, even if believed in their entirety, do not prove that it was none, but the accused-appellant, who had shot dead Krishna Singh. 23. In order to secure conviction of the accused-appellant, prosecution, however, relies on the evidence of P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.10 and P.W.12. While P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 were colleagues of the accused-appellant, P.W. 10 and P.W. 12 are sons and widow of the said deceased respectively. 24. So far as the evidence of P.W. 3 and P.W.4 are concerned, their evidence, shows, at best, that because of a case, which had been registered against the accused-appellant by police, under Sections 409/420/379 I.P.C., at the instance of the said deceased, the accused-appellant had been threatening the said deceased with dire consequences and he (i.e. the accused-appellant) had gone to the extent of openly declaring, in the presence of his colleagues, in the office, that it would be better to fight a case under Section 302 I.P.C. rather than fighting a case under Section 379 I.P.C. 25. Broadly in tune with the evidence of P.W. 3 and 4, both of whom were officers, subordinate to the said deceased, the evidence of P.W.10, who is son of the said deceased and informant of the case, and P.W.12, widow of the said deceased, shows that the accused-appellant had, by various means, threatened the said deceased inasmuch as it is alleged that the appellant used to make calls to the residential telephone of the said deceased and issue threats and, on the day of the occurrence, too, he had visited the house of the said deceased and had threatened him. It is the further assertion of P.W.3, who was, at the relevant point of time, Assistant Engineer and, later on, became a District Engineer, that the accused had threatened him (P.W.3) so as to dissuade him from giving evidence against the accused. All these pieces of evidence, when read together, would, at the most, show that the accused-appellant had a motive to kill the said deceased. This motive cannot, however, become basis of conviction of accused-appellant unless there is cogent, convincing, reliable and believable evidence on record pointing to the accused-appellant as the assailant of the said deceased. 26. All these pieces of evidence, when read together, would, at the most, show that the accused-appellant had a motive to kill the said deceased. This motive cannot, however, become basis of conviction of accused-appellant unless there is cogent, convincing, reliable and believable evidence on record pointing to the accused-appellant as the assailant of the said deceased. 26. We may point out that when a case is based on direct evidence, motive is not very material so long as eye-witnesses’ account of the occurrence proves the accused guilty of the offence; whereas motive is, indeed, an important factor in a case based on circumstantial evidence. The present one is a case, where there is, admittedly, no eye-witness to the occurrence. The motive is, therefore, relevant; but the motive alone, as already pointed out above, cannot be made basis for conviction in the present case or else, we would be convicting the accused or sustaining his conviction only on suspicion, though suspicion, howsoever strong, cannot become basis of conviction. The case at hand, being a case based on circumstantial evidence, needs to be analyzed cautiously. 27. As we have already indicated above, it was the bounden duty of the prosecution to prove every link in the chain of circumstances convincingly and there ought not to have been any missing link; whereas in the case at hand, even if we believe that the accused-appellant had the motive to kill the said deceased and had been seen by P.W.5 and P.W.6 on the night of the occurrence, as alleged by them, the fact remains that in the absence of any evidence conclusively proving the accused as the one, who had caused the death of Krishna Singh, his conviction cannot be sustained. Moreso, when we find that the evidence of P.W.10 as to how his father, Krishna Singh, died, depends entirely on the information, which he was alleged to have received from the driver, Md. Akhtar Hussain. For some unexplained reason, prosecution did not examine even the said driver. The non-examination of the said driver, same as the non-examination of Satish Singh, constrain us to draw adverse inference against the prosecution, the inference being that had Akhtar Hussain been examined, his evidence would not have supported the case, which the prosecution had presented before the Court, and that is why, he was withheld from the Court. 28. The non-examination of the said driver, same as the non-examination of Satish Singh, constrain us to draw adverse inference against the prosecution, the inference being that had Akhtar Hussain been examined, his evidence would not have supported the case, which the prosecution had presented before the Court, and that is why, he was withheld from the Court. 28. We have also given our anxious consideration to the impugned judgment of the learned trial Court. We do not find that the learned trial Court took into account the various infirmities with which suffered the evidence adduced by the prosecution at the trial. 29. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, we are firmly of the view that the evidence on record fell grossly short of the standard of proof, which is insisted in a criminal trial, and, in such a situation, the accused-appellant ought to have been accorded, at least, benefit of doubt. 30. In the result, and for the reasons discussed above, this appeal is allowed. The conviction of the accused-appellant and the sentence passed against him by the judgment and order, under appeal, are hereby set aside. The accused-appellant is held not guilty of the offence, which he has been convicted of, and he is acquitted of the same under benefit of doubt. 31. Let the accused-appellant be released from custody, forthwith, unless he is required to be detained in connection with any other case. 32. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the learned Court below with a copy of this judgment and order.