JUDGMENT : - Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—The accused-appellant Amit Bishnoi has preferred this appeal assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.04.2012 passed by he learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned trial Court') in Sessions Case No.54/2005, titled as State of Rajasthan vs. Amit Bishnoi by which the learned trial Court convicted the appellant-accused for the offences under Sections 120B, 302/120B and 201/120B IPC and sentenced as under: 120B IPC To undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default whereof, to further undergo six months' imprisonment. 302/120B IPC To undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default whereof, to further undergo six months' imprisonment. 201/120B IPC To undergo 7 years' RI and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default whereof, to further undergo six months' imprisonment. 2. The appeal was admitted for hearing vide order dated 28.05.2012 and the record of the trial Court, which was already available in the connected matter, viz., DB Criminal Appeal No.841/2006 and DB Criminal Appeal No.310/2007, which were also listed today along with this appeal, was tagged. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant Shri Ashvin Garg, learned Public Prosecutor Shri Javed Choudhary for respondent-State with learned counsel for the complainant Shri VP Vishnoi, Shri Snehdeep Khyaliya and Shri Vivek Bajwa and perused the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence with the record of the trial Court. 4. The factual matrix of the case is that on 28-29.11.2003, at about 1.45 a.m., a telephonic information was received from the police control room at Police Station, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur to the effect that in Plot No.4/170, Chitrakoot, some persons have injured one person. After registering the information in the rojnamcha, SHO Shri Gokul Singh (PW-29) along with other police officials, reached at the spot. After registering the information in the rojnamcha, SHO Shri Gokul Singh (PW-29) along with other police officials, reached at the spot. The complainant Vinod Bishnoi submitted a report (Ex.P/12) to Gokul Singh in which it was stated that on 29.11.2003, in the night, between 1.15 a.m.-1.30 a.m., Kiran (convicted co-accued and wife of deceased - Pradeep) called him on telephone to come to house immediately and upon this, he along with his wife Chitra (PW-4) and servant Mohanlal reached at Plot No.4/170, Chitrakoot Yojna, where convicted accused Kiran ws found sitting in the porch and gate of the house was opened and there werespots of blood on the floor and deceased Pradeep was found on the bed and blood was oozing from his body and when his body was touched and moved, he did not give response and upon this Vinod Bishnoi (PW-3) made a telephone to his uncle (mama) Hetram (PW-9) and apart from this he also telephoned to Mahesh Joshi and Purushottam Jain, who were said to be his neighbours and thereafter they all reached at the spot. It was further stated in the report that in the opposite room, some cash, clothes and silver tumblers were lying in disseminated manner an dsome unknown persons have caused murder of deceased Pradeep. 5. On this report Ex.P/12, a case was registered under Sections 460 IPC bearing FIR No.614/2003 at Police Station, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur City and investigation was started. 6. After preparing necessary memos and usual investigation, the police submitted challan for the offences under Sections 302, 201 and 120B IPC against Anoop Singh Beniwal, Kiran Bishnoi (sister of present appellant) and Ramesh Kumar Sharma. However, investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. was kept pending against the present appellant. 7. After conclusion of trial, accused Anoop Singh, Kiran Bishnoi and Ramesh Kumar Sharma were convicted and sentenced for the offences under Sections 302, 201 and 120B IPC vide judgment and order dated 24.07.2006, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), No.1, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Sessions Case No.54/2005. A separate challan was filed by the police against the present appellant-accused Amit Bishnoi for the offences under Sections 120B, 201 and 302 IPC in the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1, Jaipur City, Jaipur from where the case was committed to the court of the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur City. A separate challan was filed by the police against the present appellant-accused Amit Bishnoi for the offences under Sections 120B, 201 and 302 IPC in the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1, Jaipur City, Jaipur from where the case was committed to the court of the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur City. Thereafter, it was transferred to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Jaipur City. 8. The learned trial Court, after hearing the prosecution and learned counsel for the accused, framed charges for the offences under Sections 120B, 201 and 302 IPC against the appellant-accused and the same were read over and explained to him, for which he denied and claimed for trial. 9. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 29 witnesses and exhibited several documents. Thereafter, the statement of appellant-accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, in which he stated that deceased Pradeep never complained regarding Kiran Vishnoi and he does not have any telephone or mobile in his name. On 27.11.2003 and 28.11.2003 he did not talk with his sister Kiran Vishnoi. After receiving information regarding the incident on 29.11.2003, eh came to Jaipur with his mother and matrimonial uncle Ram Krishna Vishnoi and Laxman Vishnoi. He remained at Jaipur on that day. The police also recorded their statements. He further stated that Hetram Vishno, who is the maternal uncle of his brother-in-law, has falsely implicated him. He never visited the village of Sunil Kumar. His grand maternal-uncle late Hetram was very old and he was not visiting anyplace till filing charge-sheet. There was nothing against him and that is why he was not charge-sheeted with other accused persons and investigation against him was kept pending but due to pressure of retired Dy. S.P. Hetram, a false challan was submitted against him. He did not come to Jaipur on 27.11.2003. Neither he purchased trica tablets nor handed over the same to anybody. He does not have Maruti Car. After incident, he is continuously living at Bikaner and Bhattu. He never absconded. He has no connection with the conspiracy and he has been implicated falsely in this case. In defence, even after availing opportunity, no witness was produced. 10. Mr. Ashvin Garg, learned counsel for the appellant-accused argued that name of appellant-accused does not find place in the FIR. After incident, he is continuously living at Bikaner and Bhattu. He never absconded. He has no connection with the conspiracy and he has been implicated falsely in this case. In defence, even after availing opportunity, no witness was produced. 10. Mr. Ashvin Garg, learned counsel for the appellant-accused argued that name of appellant-accused does not find place in the FIR. The learned trial Court, while convicting and sentencing he three co-accused vide judgment dated 24.07.2006, has come to the conclusion at pages Nos. 113 and 114, that co-accused Anoop Singh Beniwal and Kiran Vishnoi were having illicit relations and with the help of co-accused Ramesh, they murdered the deceased. In that judgment, it was nowhere mentioned that appellant-accused was involved in the conspiracy. He further submitted that in earlier Sessions Case No.54/2005, the complainant as examined as PW-1 on 21.07.2004 and in the present case, complainant Vinod Vishnoi was examined as PW-3 in which he admitted that it was correct to say that on 29.11.2003,when his statement was recorded by the police, he has not stated that the appellant-accused was involved in the murder of deceased, he has voluntarily not disclosed the name of the appellant-accused. After two years, he was again examined on 17.02.2006 by CID (CB) and that statement is Ex.D/2 and even in that statement, he has not stated that the appellant-accused was involved in the murder of deceased. He submitted hat from the above statements of complainant Vinod Vishnoi, it is manifestly clear that the appellant-accused was not involved in the murder of deceased. He has been falsely implicated for ulterior motive. He further submitted that the case of the prosecution is that the vehicle in question belongs to the appellant-accused. However, there is no documentary evidence to suggest that the vehicle in question belongs to the appellant-accused. Neither the registration certificate nor insurance certificate of the vehicle has been produced to show that the vehicle in question belongs to the appellant-accused and the seized vehicle was also not produced in evidence. Further, nothing is there on record to suggest that it was the vehicle of the appellant-accused, which was used in causing the murder of the deceased. No mobile has been recovered or seized from the appellant-accused and the call details produced by the prosecution is not sufficient to hold the appellant-accused guilty. Further, nothing is there on record to suggest that it was the vehicle of the appellant-accused, which was used in causing the murder of the deceased. No mobile has been recovered or seized from the appellant-accused and the call details produced by the prosecution is not sufficient to hold the appellant-accused guilty. The call details do not connect the appellant-accused with the commission of crime. It was also submitted that the police initially filed challan against three persons, viz., Anoop Singh Beniwal, Kiran Vishnoi and Ramesh and investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. was kept pending against the appellant-accused as at that point of time, there was no evidence against the present appellant-accused. Even when the challan was filed against the appellant-accused later n, the position was same and there was no additional evidence had come on record. He further submitted that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence in right perspective while convicting the appellant-accused and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence are wholly based on surmises and conjectures and are contrary to the material and evidence available on record. Therefore, the same cannot be sustained and liable to be quashed and set aside. As such, this appeal may be allowed. 11. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. They have submitted that the car, which was used by co-accused Anoop Singh Beniwal and Ramesh was belonging to the present appellant-accused. Further, there are extra judicial confessional statement of the present appellant-accused before PW-5 Sunil Kumar Vishnoi, wherein he admitted that he conspired with Anoop Singh, Ramesh Sharma @ Pandit and Kiran for committing murder of Pradeep and for that purpose, he came on 27.11.2003 to Jaipur in his car but on that day, murder could not be committed. They further submitted that the telephone No.0141-2275716 was working at the residence of Pradeep and telephone No.0166-7252586 was working at Bhattu in the shop of appellant-accused Amit Vishnoi and telephone No.0166-7253063 was working at his residence. Similarly, Mobile No.9416049229 belongs to co-accused Anoop Singh and on 27.11.2003, from 9.35 a.m. to intervening night between 28-29.11.2003, appellant-accused Amit Vishnoi, co-accused Anoop Singh Beniwal and Smt. Kiran Vishnoi were in contact, which is evident from the call details. Similarly, Mobile No.9416049229 belongs to co-accused Anoop Singh and on 27.11.2003, from 9.35 a.m. to intervening night between 28-29.11.2003, appellant-accused Amit Vishnoi, co-accused Anoop Singh Beniwal and Smt. Kiran Vishnoi were in contact, which is evident from the call details. On the fateful night, appellant-accused Anoop Singh Beniwal talked for about 11 minutes at 8.45 p.m. and before that co-accused Anoop Singh Beniwal talked with co-accused Kiran at 8.57 p.m., which is sufficient to connect the appellant-accused with the crime and criminal conspiracy with the co-accused. 12. To decide the issue raised by the learned counsel for the appellant-accused, learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant, a brief synopsis of evidence on record as led by the prosecution is apposite. 13. PW-1 Suresh Choudhary has stated that he received a phone call from Vinod Vishnoi that his (Vinod's) brother Pradeep, who is living in House No.4/170, Chitrakoot Yojna, Jaipur has got injured and theft has taken place. After receiving this information, he reached at the house of Pradeep Vishnoi. Wife of Pradeep Vishnoi was there in the porch. When he entered in the house of Pradeep Vishnoi, he saw that the blood stains were there in the hall and Pradeep Vishnoi was lying on the bed in the room and there was cut wound on his throat and abdomen and the blood was clotted. The blood was also spreaded in the bed and in the room. 14. PW-2 Purushottam also corroborated the statement of PW-1 Suresh Choudhary. 15. PW-3 Vinod Vishnoi, the elder brother of deceased Pradeep, has stated that deceased Pradeep @ Vijay got married with Kiran on 29.10.2003 and was living in House No.4/170, Chitrakoot Yojna, Jaipur with his wife. On 29.11.2003, his wife Chitra received a phone call from Kiran and it was told by her that ^^tYnh fp=dwV vkvks] tYnh fp=dwV vkvks^^ . Chitra told him that Kiran called him at Chitrakoot at the earliest as thieves have entered. On hearing it, he, his wife Chitra and servant Mohan rushed to Chitrakoot where Kiran was standing near a motor-cycle. On asking about Pradeep @ Vijay, she just gave a signal from her hands towards inside. In the front hall, a chunni and silver tumblers were lying and few blood stains were also there in the hall. Pradeep @ Vijay was lying in the bed-room. On asking about Pradeep @ Vijay, she just gave a signal from her hands towards inside. In the front hall, a chunni and silver tumblers were lying and few blood stains were also there in the hall. Pradeep @ Vijay was lying in the bed-room. There was cut wound on his throat and the intestine was out and Pradeep @ Vijay did not give any response. Thereafter, he called his maternal uncle Hetram and his neighbours Mahesh Joshi, P.K. Jain and Suresh Choudhary and also called the neighbor of Pradeep @ Vijay. Hetram informed the police to whom he submitted the FIR Ex.P/12. He also stated hat silver tumblers and golden bangles and few currency notes were spreaded in the back-side room. No bolt or lock was found damaged and no item or jewelery was found missing. The whole jewelry belonging to Kiran were there on her body. He further stated that the police prepared inquest report Ex.P/1 and took chance prints. Sample of blood was also taken vide Ex.P/2. Photographs of the place were taken vide Ex.P/14. The bed-sheet and blanket, which were having blood stains, were seized vide Ex.P/7. A leaflet of trica tablet, which was having six tablets and four were missing, was seized vide Ex.P/4. A peace (sic piece) of daily newspaper Punjab Kesari was seized vide Ex.P/8. ID Caller inspection memo Ex.P/9 was also prepared. The blood stains clothes of Pradeep @ Vijay were seized vide Ex.P/10. The dead body was handed over to him vide Ex.P/6. Accused Ramesh identified the place of incident vide memo Ex.P/15. The marriage card of deceased and Kiran was seized vide memo Ex.P/16. 16. PW-4, Chitra Vishnoi wife of PW-3 Vinod Vishnoi corroborated the statement of PW-3 Vinod Vishnoi. 17. PW-5 Sunil Kumar Vishnoi, brother-in-law of deceased Pradeep @ Vijay has stated he came to now on 29.11.2003 at about 5-5.30 am on phone from Vinod at Village Rajwali Dhani that Pradeep @ Vijay has been murdered. On hearing it, he reached at Jaipur at 11-11.30 a.m., where the dead body of Pradeep @ Vijay was lying at his house. At about 2-3.00 p.m., the dead body of Pradeep @ Vijay was forwarded to Hospital where post-mortem took place. After post-mortem, the dead body was taken to village Gittiwala, where it was cremated on 30.11.2003 at 10.00 am. Thereafter, he returned to his village on 01.12.2003. At about 2-3.00 p.m., the dead body of Pradeep @ Vijay was forwarded to Hospital where post-mortem took place. After post-mortem, the dead body was taken to village Gittiwala, where it was cremated on 30.11.2003 at 10.00 am. Thereafter, he returned to his village on 01.12.2003. On 02.12.2003, at about 9.00 am the maternal grand-father of Amit, viz., Hetram came to him who lives at Bikaner and told him that Amit has committed wrong and you can save both the houses. Thereafter, Amit told that ^^vuwi&fdj.k us esjh vDy fudky yh^^- Amit further told that ^^27 rkjh[k ekg uoEcj 2003 dks ge t;iqj x;s tks dkj ys x;s fot; dk eMZj djus ds fy;sA mlus ;g Hkh crk;k fd ogka tkdj eSaus fdj.k dks Qksu fd;kA fdj.k us dgk fd fot; ?kj ij ugha gS] ;g dke vkt ugha gks ldrkA ;g Hkh crk;k fd fQj ge t;iqj ls okfil ykSVdj HkV~Vw pys x;sA^^ He further stated that Amit told him that you please save him and I am agreed to give evidence in this case. Then he told him that he will talk with Amit after reaching Jaipur. Thereafter, Hetram and Amit left from there and he departed for Jaipur at the house of Subhash. When he reached at the house of Subhash, there were Ravi, Hetram Vishnoi and on the advice of Hetram, he went to police station and narrated the whole story to the police. Thereafter, on 03.12.2003, at 4-5 pm, police went to the house of Pradeep @ Vijay where the goods were spreaded and almirah was opened and 6-7 golden bangles were lying there. 18. PW-6, Dr. Rakesh Kumar Saxena, who conducted the postmortem of deceased Pradeep @ Vijay, has found following injuries on his body: "(1) Incised wound with clean cut sharp margin transversally placed on left side of neck with red clotted blood around wound. (2) Incised wound with clear cut sharp margin transversally placed on right side of neck, lateral side to Adam's apple of size 3x1/2 cm on skin and muscle deep. (3) Incised wound with clean cut sharp margin with dry red clotted blood around wound on right side of neck at 1 cm above a medial to injury No.2. Tailing on right side, directed from left to right side, transversally placed of size 5x1 into deep to skin, muscle, trachea, esophagus and blood vessels. (3) Incised wound with clean cut sharp margin with dry red clotted blood around wound on right side of neck at 1 cm above a medial to injury No.2. Tailing on right side, directed from left to right side, transversally placed of size 5x1 into deep to skin, muscle, trachea, esophagus and blood vessels. Red clotted blood around the wound. On further dissection, trachea and esophagus was found cut transversally. (4) Incised wound with clean cut sharp margin on right side of neck which tailing on right side transversally placed 1 cm above to injury No.3, size 3x1/2 cm into skin and muscle deep. (5) Incised would with sharp margin 1/2x1/4 cm into skin deep on right arm middle 1/3rd with red clotted blood. (6) Incised would with sharp margin on right hand are: 1x1/2 cm into skin deep on right thumb middle of right palm. 1/2x1 cm into skin muscle deep on middle of right palm. 1-1/2x1/4 cm into skin deep, horizontally placed on hare of right index finger. 1-1/2x1/4 cm into skin deep, horizontal placed on hare of right middle finger. 1-1/4x1/3 cm into skin deep horizontally placed on base of right middle finger. 1x1/4 into skin deep horizontally placed on hare of right little finger. (7) Incised wound with sharp margin of size 2-1/2x1/4 cm into skin muscle deep, on the left index finger. (8) Incised wound with sharp margin of size 4x1/4 cm into skin deep, obliquely placed on left forearm. (9) Incised wound with sharp margin of size 2-1/2x1cm into skin deep obliquely placed on left lumber region. (10) Multiple abrasions dark red in colour on following parts of body: (a) 1/4x1/4 cm left upper lip laterally (b) 1/4x1/4 cm left lower lip laterally (c) 1/2x1/4 cm on chin (d) 1-1/2x1/4 cm on right side of neck on 4 cm above medial end of right clavicle. (e) 1-1/2x1/4 cm right forearm (1) Stabbed incised would with clear cut sharp margin, transversally placed on abdomen, 7 cm above umblicum with dry red clotted blood of size 5x2 cm into abdominal cavity deep with protuding over of adipose tissue, fat outside the abdomen from wound. On further dissection, wound track going towards, possessing with cutting the peritoneum and omentum and 500 ml partially clotted blood in cavity". 19. On further dissection, wound track going towards, possessing with cutting the peritoneum and omentum and 500 ml partially clotted blood in cavity". 19. He stated that all the injuries were antemortem in nature and visras were reserved and sent to FSL and opined that the cause of death was hemorrhagic shock due to cumulative effect of all the injuries found on the body of the deceased. He further opined that injury No.3 was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He proved the postmortem report Ex.P/19. 20. PW-7 Dr. Girish Kumar Mathur, Assistant Director (Serum), Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur, who visited the place of incident, stated that there was blood below the dead body and blood was also there on the clothes of deceased, bed-sheet, blanket and pillow, which were there on the bed. Blood stains were also there on the floor of room below double bed, in dinning hall and bathroom. A blood-stained chappal was also there in the dinning hall. The blood was also found on the wash-basin situated in the dinning hall. The currency notes and articles were spreaded inside the room. A green coloured chunni was also lying having blood stains, though in lesser quantity. He proved his inspection report Ex.P/12 and photographs Ex.P/22 to P/30. 21. PW-8, Rajiv Purohit, has stated that Maruti Car bearing Registration No.HR 24G-4545 overtook him on 28.11.2003 in fast speed and stopped at the house of Pradeep. Two persons came out from the car and went into the house of Pradeep Thereafter, after sleeping, he noticed a loud noise. He could not understand it but soon after it, a voice of TV of high volume was heard. Thereafter, he slept. At about 1.15 a.m., he heard ^^tYnh vkvks tYnh vkvks pksj vk x;k^^ . On hearing it, he went to Pradeep's house where two ladies were standing on the gate and Pradeep was lying unconscious having cut on his throat and intestine was lying outside the abdomen and a peace (sic piece) of Punjab Kesri daily newspaper was lying there. 22. On hearing it, he went to Pradeep's house where two ladies were standing on the gate and Pradeep was lying unconscious having cut on his throat and intestine was lying outside the abdomen and a peace (sic piece) of Punjab Kesri daily newspaper was lying there. 22. PW-9 Hetram Vishnoi corroborated the statement of PW-3 Vinod Vishnoi and further stated that in the evening of 02.12.2003, he visited the house of Subhash (brother of deceased) where Subhash, Ravi and Sunil were there and Sunil was telling them that in morning Amit and his maternal grand-father Hetram came to him and Hetram told him that being elder son-in-law of Manphool, arrange to make pardon to Amit and started weeping. Thereafter, he told him that Anoop Singh and Kiran misguided him and committed murder of Pradeep @ Vijay. It was further stated that the fact of incident was very well in the knowledge of Amit and Amit himself came on 27.11.2003 but he could not have the opportunity and told that he advised him (Sunil) to narrate the thins to the Investigating Officer and thereafter went to police station with Sunil and narrated those things to the Investigating Officer. 23. PW-10 S.M. Malpani has stated that in pursuance of letter of Superintendent of Police, Jaipur City (South), he being an Assistant General Manager (Vigilance), Jaipur supplied the call-details of Telephone o.2275716 from 26.11.2003 to 29.11.2003 vide Ex.P/34 and Ex.P/35. 24. PW-11 Madholal has stated that on 29.11.2003, he took photographs of the place of incident and proved negatives Ex.P/36 to Ex.P/52 and positive Ex.P/36A to Ex.P/52A. 25. PW-12 Narendra Kumar Constable has stated that a pedestrian informed him that murder has taken place and police is there. On hearing it, he went there wherefrom, on the instructions of incharge, he went to Police Station with report Ex.P/12 and after registering formal FIR x.P/53, he returned to Chitrakoot and handed over the FIR to the SHO. 26. PW-13, Laxmi, searched accused Kiran and Kiran was arrested vide memo Ex.P/55 by her. She also stated that the wearings of Kiran, salwar-suit, which was blood stained, was seized vide Ex.P/56. 27. PW-14, Bhal Singh is the witness of recovery of knife wrapped in news-paper Rajasthan Patrika at the instance of co-accused Anoop Singh Beniwal. 28. 26. PW-13, Laxmi, searched accused Kiran and Kiran was arrested vide memo Ex.P/55 by her. She also stated that the wearings of Kiran, salwar-suit, which was blood stained, was seized vide Ex.P/56. 27. PW-14, Bhal Singh is the witness of recovery of knife wrapped in news-paper Rajasthan Patrika at the instance of co-accused Anoop Singh Beniwal. 28. PW-15, Ravi Vishnoi, brother of deceased Pradeep @ Vijay has stated that on 23.11.2003, when he met with Vijay, he was looking sad. On asking, he told him that Kiran is not a good girl. She is having illicit relations with Anoop Singh Beniwal and he is in danger. After knowing it, he made to understand that he is coming to Jaipur within 10-12 days and at the time he will talk with Kiran and also called Kiran during the course of talk. 29. PW-16, Motilal Sharma, Constable has stated that after receiving 19 packets from malkhana incharge, he deposited the same in the FSL. 30. PW-17, Mangal Chand stated that on 28.11.2003, at about 5-6 pm, a white coloured Maruti Car bearing Registration No.HR 24G 4545 came wherein two boys were there. They got down from the car and one of then was telling ^^pyks ;kj pyrs gS^^ and second was saying ^^vHkh ugha ;kj oks vHkh ugha feysxk^^ . They stayed there for half an hour and thereafter left towards Chitrakoot. 31. PW-18, S.L. Grover, Sub-Divisional Engineer (Telephone) Fatehbad, Haryana has stated that on demand of SHO, PS Vaishali Nagar, he supplied call details of Telephone No.0166-7253063 in the name of Sadhu Ram Ex.P/62 to Ex.P/80 and Telephone No.0166-7253511, Ex.P/81 to Ex.P/16 and telephone No.0166/7252586 in the name of Prithvi Raj Ex.P/87 to Ex.P/89. 32. PW-19, Lalit Kumar, Constable has stated that on 28.11.2003, when he was posted on Gother Check-post, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu, at Haryana Border, at about 3.15 p.m., a Maruti Car bearing Registration No.HR-24G-4545 came. On asking, the driver of the car introduced him as Anoop Singh Beniwal. An entry to this effect was made in the register. 33. PW-20, Mahendra Dutt, S.I., P.S. Vaishali Nagar arrested the accused Anoop Singh Beniwal on 29.11.2003 and on 07.12.2003, car bearing Registration No. HR 24G-4545 was seized from the DR Floor Mill, Bhattu. On asking, the driver of the car introduced him as Anoop Singh Beniwal. An entry to this effect was made in the register. 33. PW-20, Mahendra Dutt, S.I., P.S. Vaishali Nagar arrested the accused Anoop Singh Beniwal on 29.11.2003 and on 07.12.2003, car bearing Registration No. HR 24G-4545 was seized from the DR Floor Mill, Bhattu. He also stated that a mobile handset was recovered at the instance of co-accused Anoop Singh and on 11.12.2003, the clothes (shirt and pent) were recovered from DR Floor Mill, Bhattu, at the instance of co-accused Ramesh. 34. PW-21 MD Goyal, has stated that on requisition, he supplied the call-details related to Mobile No.9416049229 Ex.P/98. He further stated that the name of consumer of mobile is mentioned on the bill itself as Anoop Singh Beniwal. 35. PW-22, Mahendra Singh supported the statement of PW-19 Lalit Kumar as he was also on duty with him. 36. PW-23, Ramesh Panwar, has stated that on 29.11.2003, Narendra Kumar Constable brought a written report Ex.P/12 before him on which he registered FIR Ex.P/53. 37. PW-24, Mahaveer Singh Constable has stated that he received information from control-room that somebody has injured the nephew of retired Dy. S.P. Hetram. After receiving this information, he entered it in rojnamcha at S.No.2497 as Ex.P/100. 38. PW-25, Vijay Kumar has also supported he statement of PW-22. He also stated that he proved the entry mentioned in Article-1 register as Ex.P/99. 39. PW-26, Bhopal Singh stated that on 13.12.2003, accused Anoop Singh Beniwal furnished him information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act regarding trica tablets supplied by Amit Vishnoi. He proved the information Ex.P/102. He also stated that he seized the copy of the register from Haryana Check-post Ex.P/103. 40. PW-27 Bhawani Singh stated that on 07.12.2003, he seized Maruti Car bearing registration No. HR 24G-4545 from DR Floor Mill, Hisar Road, Haryana at the instance of Anoop Singh Beniwal. He further stated that RC and Insurance Policy were in the name of Amit Godara. 41. PW-28 Brijendra Singh stated that accused Anoop Singh furnished information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act before him regarding car. He further stated that on information submitted by Anoop Singh Beniwal, he recovered Maruti Car No.HR 24G-4545 and mobile from the car. 42. PW-29 Gokul Singh, SHO, PS Vaishali Nagar stated about investigation. 43. 41. PW-28 Brijendra Singh stated that accused Anoop Singh furnished information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act before him regarding car. He further stated that on information submitted by Anoop Singh Beniwal, he recovered Maruti Car No.HR 24G-4545 and mobile from the car. 42. PW-29 Gokul Singh, SHO, PS Vaishali Nagar stated about investigation. 43. As is evincible from the aforesaid prosecution, the entire case rests on circumstantial evidence. Before we analyze and appreciate the circumstances that have weighed with the trial court, we think it apposite to refer to certain authorities pertaining to delineation of cases that hinge on circumstantial evidence. 44. In Sharad Birdhichand Sharda vs. State of Maharashtra ( AIR 1984 SC 1622 ), a Three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down five golden principles which constitute "Panchsheel" in respect of a case based on circumstantial evidence. Referring to the decision in Shivaji Sahebrao Bobde vs. State of Maharashtra ( AIR 1973 SC 2622 : (1973) 2 SCC 793 ), it was opined that it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is lying and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. Thereafter, the Hon'ble Bench proceeded to lay down that the facts so established should be consistent 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; that the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; that they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and that 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. 45. In Padala Veera Reddy vs. State of A.P. & Ors. 45. In Padala Veera Reddy vs. State of A.P. & Ors. (1989 Supp (3) SCC 706), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, the following tests may be satisfied: (i) The circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and formally established; (ii) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; (iii) 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 none else; and (iv) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence." 46. The similar view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rama Reddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy & Anr. vs. State of A.P. (2006) 10 SCC 17. 47. In Balvinder Singh vs. State of Punjab ( AIR 1996 SC 607 ) it has been laid down that the circumstances, from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn, should be fully proved and those circumstances must be conclusive in nature to connect the accused with the crime. All the links in the chain of events must be established beyond reasonable doubt and the established circumstances should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with the innocence. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the court has to be on its guard to take the place of legal proof and has to be watchful to avoid the danger of being swayed by emotional considerations. However, strong they may be, to take the place of proof. 48. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the court has to be on its guard to take the place of legal proof and has to be watchful to avoid the danger of being swayed by emotional considerations. However, strong they may be, to take the place of proof. 48. In Harish Chandra Ladaku Thange vs. State of Maharashtra ( AIR 2007 SC 2957 ), while dealing with the validity of inferences to be drawn from circumstantial evidence, it has been emphasized that where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or guilt of any other person and further the circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connect with the principle fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. 49. In State of U.P. vs. Ashok Kumar Srivastava ( AIR 1992 SCW 640 : AIR 1992 SC 840 ), the emphasis has been laid that it is the duty of the Court to take care while evaluating circumstantial evidence. If the evidence adduced by the prosecution is reasonably capable of two inferences, one in favour of the accused, must be accepted. That apart, the circumstances relied upon must be established and the cumulative effect of the established facts must lead to a singular hypothesis that the accused is guilty. 50. In Ram Singh vs. Sonia & Ors. ( AIR 2007 SC 1218 ), while referring to the settled proof pertaining to circumstantial evidence, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the principles about the caution to be kept in mind by Court. It has been stated therein that in a case depending largely upon the circumstantial evidence, there is always a danger that conjectures of suspicion may take the place of legal proof. The court must satisfy itself that various circumstances in the chain of events, have been established clearly and such completed chain of events must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused. The court must satisfy itself that various circumstances in the chain of events, have been established clearly and such completed chain of events must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused. It has also been indicated that when the important link goes, the chain of circumstances gets snapped and the other circumstances cannot in any manner, establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. 51. In Ujagar Singh vs. State of Punjab ( (2007) 13 SCC 90 ), after referring to the aforesaid principles pertaining to evaluation of circumstantial evidence, the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated that it must nonetheless be emphasized that whether a chain is complete or not would depend on the facts of each case emanating from the evidence and no universal yardstick should ever be attempted. 52. Keeping in view the aforesaid principles, we shall presently proceed to scrutinize and evaluate the circumstances whether the said circumstances, establish the guilt of the appellant-accused beyond reasonable doubt. 53. From the perusal of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, following circumstances emerge: (i) The appellant-accused reached at Jaipur on 27.11.2003 by his car No. HR 24G-4545 in connection to commit murder of Pradeep @ Vijay; (ii) The appellant-accused made and received phone calls to and from Anoop Singh Beniwal and Kiran Vishnoi; (iii) the appellant-accused made available his Maruti Car No.HR-24G- 4545 to accused Anoop Singh Beniwal and Ramesh Chandra Sharma @ Pandit on 28.11.2003 in connection reach Jaipur from Bhattu for committing the murder of Pradeep @ Vijay. As such, Anoop Singh Beniwal; and Ramesh Chandra reached Jaipur by car belonging to the appellant-accused Amit Vishnoi and committed murder of Pradeep @ Vijay; (iv) the appellant-accused made available a strip of 10 tablets of Trica to accused Anoop Singh Beniwal at Bhattu to be handed over to Kiran and to administer to Pradeep @ Vijay so hat he may go in a deep sleep; and (v) the appellant-accused Amit Vishnoi made extra judicial confession before Sunil Kumar Vishnoi PW-5, brother-in-law of deceased Pradeep @ Vijay stating therein that he conspired with Kiran Vishnoi and Anoop Singh Beniwal for committing murder of his real brother-in-law Pradeep @ Vijay in presence of his maternal grand-father Hetram. 54. 54. So far as reaching of the appellant-accused Jaipur from Bhattu on 27.11.2003 is concerned, no evidence except the extra judicial confession of the appellant-accused was adduced by the prosecution. Though the prosecution examined PW-19 Lalit Kumar, PW-20 Mahendra Dutt and PW-22 Mahendra Singh, who deposed that they were posted at Gothia Check Post, Police Station, Rajgarh, District Churu and as per their statements, vehicles, which were being entered in State of Rajasthan from State of Haryana, were being checked and the entries to this effect were being made in a register for being maintained for this purpose at the check-post. When the entry of 28.11.2003 when accused Anoop Singh Beniwal came by this car was there in the register, then the prosecution could have very well produced the register for entry with regard to 27.11.2003. Further, no other corroborative evidence was adduced by the prosecution to prove the fact that the appellant-accused visited Jaipur on 27.11.2003 from Bhattu. The only evidence remains to prove this fact is his extra-judicial confession, which will be discussed hereinafter. 55. So far as phone calls are concerned, the Investigating Officer Gokul Singh (PW-29) fairly admitted that neither the land-line phone nor any mobile number is there in the name of the appellant-accused. The location of the mobile towers have also not been proved. Mere phone calls from the land line number belonging to the deceased to Bhattu is not sufficient to connect the appellant-accused for the alleged crime. Further, for the sake of arguments, if reason on conclusion that these phone calls were made by the appellant-accused, then also it cannot be said hat they were made in connection to commit murder of deceased as Kiran, who was there with the deceased, is the real sister of the appellant-accused and nothing is wrong in phone calls between Kiran and the appellant-accused. Further, there is no evidence that appellant-accused has made or received phone calls. As such, this circum-stance also does not connect the appellant-accused with the alleged crime. 56. So far as making available the Maruti Car bearing Registration No.HR- 24G-4545 to Anoop Singh Beniwal is concerned, suffice to say that no registra-tion certificate or insurance policy was produced to prove this fact that the said car was belonging to the appellant-accused. As such, this circum-stance also does not connect the appellant-accused with the alleged crime. 56. So far as making available the Maruti Car bearing Registration No.HR- 24G-4545 to Anoop Singh Beniwal is concerned, suffice to say that no registra-tion certificate or insurance policy was produced to prove this fact that the said car was belonging to the appellant-accused. Further, mere making avail-able the car to accused Anoop Singh Beniwal is not sufficient to connect the appellant-accused with the alleged crime, which took place at Jaipur while the appellant-accused was admittedly at Bhattu at the time of the incident. Further, the car was not recovered at the instance of appellant-accused. 57. So far as making available the trica tablets is concerned, as per the prosecution, the said tablets were made available at Bhattu to accused Anoop Singh Beniwal but the prosecution has failed to prove the fact that from where the appellant-accused purchased the said tablets. No such medical store personnel was produced and examined to prove this fact. This fact finds place only in the statement of PW-5 Sunil Kumar Vishnoi who claims that the appellant-accused made extra judicial confession before him, for which we shall deal this fact hereinafter. 58. Before dealing with the extra-judicial confession, let us first settle the legal position as to the extra-judicial confession. The Hon'ble Supreme Court summarized the law in the case of Sahadevan & Anr. vs. State of Tamilnadu ( (2012) 6 SCC 403 ) and has held thus: "It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that extra-judicial confession is a weak peace (sic piece) of evidence. Wherever the court, upon due appreciation of the entire prosecution evidence, intends to base a conviction on an extra-judicial confession, it must ensure that the same inspires confidence and is corroborated by other prosecution evidence. If, however, the extra-judicial confession suffers from very material discrepancies or inherent improbabilities and does not appear to be cogent as per the prosecution version, it may be difficult for the court to base a conviction on such a contention. In such circumstances, the court would be fully justified in ruling such evidence out of consideration." 59. If, however, the extra-judicial confession suffers from very material discrepancies or inherent improbabilities and does not appear to be cogent as per the prosecution version, it may be difficult for the court to base a conviction on such a contention. In such circumstances, the court would be fully justified in ruling such evidence out of consideration." 59. In Balwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab ( AIR 1987 SC 350 ), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has stated that an extra-judicial confession by itself from nature is a week type of evidence and requires appreciation with a great deal of care and caution. Where an extra-judicial confession is surrounded by the suspicious circumstances, its credibility becomes doubtful and it looses its importance. 60. In Pakkiri Sami vs. State of Tamil Nadu ( (1997) 8 SCC 158 ), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "It is well settled law that it is a rule of caution where the court would generally look for an independent reliable corroboration before placing any reliance upon such extra-judicial confession by its very nature is rather a weak type of evidence and it is for this reason that a duty is cast upon the court to look for corroboration from other reliable evidence on record." 61. Again in Kavitha vs. State of Tamil Nadu ( (1998) 6 SCC 108 ), the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated the dictum that: "There is no doubt that convictions can be based on extra-judicial confession but it is well settled that in the very nature of things, it is a weak peace (sic piece) of evidence. It is to be proved just like any other fact and the value thereof depends upon the veracity of the witness to whom it is made." 62. While explaining the dimensions of the principles governing the admissibility and evidentiary value of extra-judicial confession, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan vs. Rajaram ( (2003) 8 SCC 180 ), stated the principles that: "An extra judicial confession is voluntary, if true and made in a fit state of mind can be relied upon by the Court. The contentions will have to be proved like any other fact. The value of the evidence as to confine, like any other evidence, depends upon the veracity of the witness to whom it has been made." 63. The contentions will have to be proved like any other fact. The value of the evidence as to confine, like any other evidence, depends upon the veracity of the witness to whom it has been made." 63. In view of the above case laws, it is made clear that an extra-judicial confession is a weak peace (sic piece) of evidence. Though it can be made the basis of conviction, due care and caution must be exercised by the courts to ascertain the truthfulness of the confession. Rules of caution must be applied before accepting an extra judicial confession. Before the court proceeds to act on the basis of an extra judicial confession, the circumstances under which it made, the manner in which it is made and the persons to whom it is made, must be considered along with two rules of caution. First, whether the evidence of confession is reliable and second, whether it has corroboration. 64. So far as extra-judicial confession is concerned, as per the prosecution, PW-5 is the real brother-in-law of deceased Pradeep @ Vijay. As such, he is highly interested in the prosecution case. 65. In the present case, as per PW-5, the extra-judicial confession was made before him by the appellant-accused at Bikaner at his residence. The incident took place in the intervening night of 28-29.11.2003 and alleged extra-judicial confession is claimed to be made on 2.12.2003. As per the prosecution witnesses, Vinod and Subhash, the appellant-accused was present with his mother at the time of cremation of deceased Pradeep @ Vijay, who is none-else but was his real brother-in-law. As per PW-5, appellant-accused came to him with his maternal grand-father Hetram. PW-29 Gokul Singh, admitted in his cross-examination that he did not examine Hetram to verify the fact of extra judicial confession. Further, PW-5 himself admitted that he did not inform to anyone regarding the extra-judicial confession on telephone. He came to Jaipur at the residence of Subhash and told him in presence of Ravi regarding the extra judicial confession where the maternal uncle of deceased Hetram, retired Dy. S.P. was also there and thereafter he went to police station on asking of Het Ram and informed the police on 3.12.2003. He came to Jaipur at the residence of Subhash and told him in presence of Ravi regarding the extra judicial confession where the maternal uncle of deceased Hetram, retired Dy. S.P. was also there and thereafter he went to police station on asking of Het Ram and informed the police on 3.12.2003. If the appellant-accused Amit, who is the real brother-in-law of the deceased would have made such type of extra judicial confession before Sunil Vishnoi (PW-5), then in the normal course, a prudent person would have immediately informed the police or his near relatives specially to the maternal uncle of deceased Hetram, who was retired Dy. S.P. and was looking after the matter from the time of accident. He was also not informed immediately. 66. As per PW-5, the appellant-accused confessed before him that on 27.11.2003 he came to Jaipur by his car but this fact has also not been verified by he Investigating Officer that who saw him leaving Bhattu by his car on the said date and who saw him returning to Bhattu from the car and who saw him at Jaipur. Further, during trial of co-accused Anoop Singh Beniwal, Kiran and Ramesh; Subhash Vishnoi, Ravi Vishno and Hetram we examined in the Court but they did not whisper about this extra-judicial confession. If this would have been in the knowledge of Ravi, Subhash and Hetram, then there was no reason to not to state this fact in their respective statements during the trial of Anoop Singh Beniwal, Kiran and Ramesh. 67. Further, PW-5, Sunil is the real brother-in-law of deceased Pradeep @ Vijay and was leaving in Village Rajwali Dhani while appellant-accused was leaving at Bhattu. If this could have been happened, then the appellant-accused would have made the confession not before the real brother-in-law of deceased but to his near family members. 68. As per prosecution evidence, appellant-accused attended the cremation of deceased Pradeep @ Vijay at his village with his mother and maternal uncles. There is no evidence on record that while visiting the village of deceased, there was any altercation of the appellant-accused with the family members of deceased. No other circumstances has been produced, which forced the appellant-accused to make confession. 69. There is no evidence on record that while visiting the village of deceased, there was any altercation of the appellant-accused with the family members of deceased. No other circumstances has been produced, which forced the appellant-accused to make confession. 69. In the light of the settled law regarding the extra-judicial confession, as discussed above and in the aforesaid facts of this case, the said extra-judicial confession does not seem worthy of credence and reliable. Hence, it does not appeal us to place reliance on such a weak extra judicial weak extra judicial confession, more particularly, it stands uncorroborated by other evidence as put forth by the prosecution and discussed hereinabove. 70. Further, appellant-accused was convicted for the offence under Section 120B IPC for the alleged crime conspiracy. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijayan vs. State of Kerala ( (1999) 3 SCC 54 ) has held that no punish a person for criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC, it is necessary to establish that there was an agreement between the parties for doing an unlawful act. Therefore, it is imperative to see whether there had been any such agreement between the appellant and co-accused to murder Pradeep @ Vijay, which should be established by producing reliable evidence. 71. In State through Superintendent of Police, CBI/SIT vs. Nalini & Ors. ( (1999) 5 SCC 253 ), it was held that: "583. .......... (1) .......... Offence of criminal conspiracy is an exception to the gene-ral law where intent alone does not constitute crime. It is intention who commit crime and joining hands with persons having the same intention. Not only the intention but there has to be agreement to carry out the job of the intention, which is an offence. The question of consideration in a case is did all the accused have the intention and did they agree that the crime be committed. It would not be enough for the offence of conspiracy when accused merely entertain is a vis, how so far horrendous it may, that offence be committed....." 72. No other evidence or circumstance has been placed before us to connect the appellant-accused with the alleged crime of criminal conspiracy and criminal act. The learned trial Court has failed to consider these aspects and convicted the appellant-accused for the alleged offences. No other evidence or circumstance has been placed before us to connect the appellant-accused with the alleged crime of criminal conspiracy and criminal act. The learned trial Court has failed to consider these aspects and convicted the appellant-accused for the alleged offences. As such, the findings of the learned trial Court regarding the guilt of the appellant-accused deserve to be set aside and the appeal deserves to be allowed. 73. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is set aside. The accused-appellant Amit Vishnoi S/o Kailash Chand Vishnoi is acquitted of all the charges leveled against him. He is in jail and shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 74. However, it is made clear that the observations made in this judgment, only relate to appellant-accused Amit Vishnoi and will not affect the case of other co-accused.