JUDGMENT Per: Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. 1. Since both the appeals are preferred by same convict/ appellant, against the same judgment and order passed by the trial Judge, so the both appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 23.04.2008 rendered by Additional Sessions Judge / 1st FTC, Haridwar in Sessions Trial No. 146 of 1997 whereby appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under Section 302/34, 364, 394/34, 201 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default, to undergo additional imprisonment of 3-month for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10-year and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to undergo additional imprisonment of 3-month for the offence punishable under Section 364 IPC, to undergo 10-year rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default to undergo 3-month additional imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 394/34 IPC, to undergo 3-year rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default, to undergo one month additional imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC with the direction that all the sentences shall run concurrently. 3. As per the prosecution story, PW1 Ganga Ram has lodged a report on 13.01.1997 with police station Pathari to the effect that his uncle Natthu (husband of father’s sister) on 08.01.1997 left the house, along with his horse-cart in order to give cart on hire, for Shahpur Bus Stand. When Natthu was taking tea in the shop of Kulwant, son of Baru, one Mukhtiyar, son of Rakkha and his friend (appellant herein), who seems to be resident of District Bijnor from his tongue, approached Natthu, for hiring his horse cart to transport wheat from village Fatwa. Mukhtiyar and his friend had also hired another horse-cart from village Bhogpur, which was driven by son of Zarif Dhobi. After reaching village Fatwa, both of them told the cart owners to go village Anarkhedi since wheat was available there, when both the cart owners refused to go ahead they offered to pay additional Rs. 10/- to each of them, for going to village Anarkhedi. After reaching village Fatwa, both of them told the cart owners to go village Anarkhedi since wheat was available there, when both the cart owners refused to go ahead they offered to pay additional Rs. 10/- to each of them, for going to village Anarkhedi. Horse of the cart of son of Zarif Dhobi failed to cross the natural water channel, therefore, he came back, however, Natthu went ahead and did not come back. 4. Dead body of Natthu was recovered on 15.01.1997 from the jungle of village Anarkhedi and the same was sent for postmortem examination. As per the postmortem report of Natthu and statement of Dr. O.P. Sharma (PW6), there were ligature marks around the neck of Natthu and cause of death was strangulation. 5. Having investigated the matter charge-sheet was submitted by the police against the appellant and Mukhtiyar for the offences punishable under Section 364, 302, 394/34, 201 IPC read with Section 3 (2) (5) of SC & ST Act. During the investigation, horse and cart were recovered from the courtyard of Salim on the pointing out of appellant on 20.01.1997, therefore, Salim was also implicated in the present case, consequently, another charge-sheet was submitted against Salim for the offences punishable under Section 364, 302/34, 394/34, 201, 411 IPC read with Section 3 (2) (5) of SC & ST Act. 6. Accused Mukhtiyar was declared absconder vide order dated 03.07.1999 and his trial was separated. 7. Learned trial court has consolidated both the Sessions Trials and vide impugned judgment and order acquitted Salim from the charges levelled against him, however, convicted and sentenced the appellant, as mentioned hereinabove. 8. We have heard Mr. S.K. Mishra, Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Mr. Amit Bhatt, Deputy Advocate General (Criminal) with Mr. V.P. Bahuguna, Brief Holder for the State and have carefully perused the record. 9. In the present case, there is no eyewitness and the case is totally based upon the circumstantial evidence. In order to prove the guilt of accused / appellant, circumstantial evidence and chain thereof must be complete and proved beyond reasonable doubt. From the perusal of the record, it is abundantly clear that PW1 Ganga Ram had not seen the incident and whatever he had narrated in the missing report was based upon information gathered from Kulwant, a tea stall owner. From the perusal of the record, it is abundantly clear that PW1 Ganga Ram had not seen the incident and whatever he had narrated in the missing report was based upon information gathered from Kulwant, a tea stall owner. However, Kulwant, son of Baru, tea stall owner, was never produced before the court to identify the appellant, that he was the person with whom Mukhtiyar had approached Natthu for taking his cart on hire and Natthu had left his shop in his presence in the company of appellant and Mukhtiyar, therefore, no reliance can be placed on the statement of PW1. 10. PW 4 Prakash Chandra named the appellant as well as Mukhtiyar, on the basis of story narrated to him by Kulwant, the tea shop owner. PW5 Nathi Ram has made statement on hearsay basis and he was also not an eyewitness. Therefore, his evidence cannot be relied upon. 11. PW2 Ram Kumar has stated that on 08.01.1997 when he went to jungle to bring BEEDPULE for thatch, he had heard noise of BACHAO BACHAO and saw the appellant and Mukhtiyar strangulating Natthu by a rope. He further stated that he neither disclosed this incident to anybody nor to the police. However, for the first time, after arrest of the accused, he has disclosed the entire story to the Circle Officer. From the conduct of PW2, we don’t find that this witness is reliable at all. 12. PW8 Furkan, son of Zarif, although has stated that his horse-cart was also hired by the appellant and Mukhtiyar; since his horse was not able to cross the water channel, so he came back while Natthu went ahead with appellant and Mukhtiyar, however, his conduct that he had not reported the matter and maintained silence for 15-20 days also creates doubt on the prosecution story, accordingly, he is also not a reliable witness. 13. Therefore, in our firm opinion, prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, we are unable to uphold the reasons and observations of the trial Judge. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. Judgment and order dated 23.04.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar is hereby set aside. Accused is acquitted from the charges levelled against him. Appellant is in jail. Let he be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. 14. Therefore, we are unable to uphold the reasons and observations of the trial Judge. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. Judgment and order dated 23.04.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar is hereby set aside. Accused is acquitted from the charges levelled against him. Appellant is in jail. Let he be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. 14. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the court below for compliance. Lower court record be sent back forthwith.