Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Advocate Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Alwar dated 8.1.2007 whereby he accused-appellants Prabhu Dayal Mathur, Rakesh @ Bobi, Smt. Kiran Devi and Vinod were convicted for offence under Sec.302 read with Sec. 34 of IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default of payment of fine they were to further undergo simple imprisonment of one month. Accused appellants Prabhu Dayal Mathur and Rakesh @ Bobi however were additionally convicted for offence u/S. 201 IPC and sentenced to simple imprisonment of three years with a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of which they were to further undergo simple imprisonment of one month. 2. Facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 9.5.2006 one Vishnu Kumar Sharma submitted a written report to SHO, Police Station Aravali Vihar, District Alwar that his brother Vijay Kumar Sharma, aged 21 years went to attend a marriage party at 8.30 p.m. on 6.5.2006. He was accompanied by his friend Vikram. When he did not return back till late in the night on the next day, the informant enquired from Vikram who informed that he had dropped his brother Vijay Kumar Sharma near the crossing of his colony around 10 p.m. When his brother did not return back even the next day the informant again went to Vikram. On being pressurized, Vikram stated that he received a phone call from Vijay on his cellphone early morning stating that he (Vijay) was confined in the house of Prabhu Dayal Mathur, resident of the same colony. The informant expressed appreciation of danger to the life of his brother Vijay alleging that there is previous enmity between the family of the informant and the family of Prabhu Dayal. He has strong reason to believe that Prabhu Dayal, his wife-Kiran Devi, his son Rakesh and his daughter-in-law Rajni with the help of someone committed murder of his brother and dumped his dead body somewhere. When he searched for his brother, he found his dead body on 9.5.2006 in the mortuary of the hospital. 3. On the basis of aforesaid written complaint, a regular first information report was registered for offence u/Sec. 302, 201, 147, 148, 149 and 120-B of IPC and investigation commenced. During the course of investigation the accused-appellants were arrested. When he searched for his brother, he found his dead body on 9.5.2006 in the mortuary of the hospital. 3. On the basis of aforesaid written complaint, a regular first information report was registered for offence u/Sec. 302, 201, 147, 148, 149 and 120-B of IPC and investigation commenced. During the course of investigation the accused-appellants were arrested. Police filed challan against the accused-appellants and one Vinod for offence u/Sec. 302 IPC and in the alternative u/Sec. 302/34 and 201 IPC. 4. On committal, the learned trial Court framed charges against the appellants for the aforesaid offences. The accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried. Prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited 45 documents in support of its case. Defence though did not produce any witness but exhibited 4 documents. The accused in their examination u/S. 313 Cr.P.C. alleged false implication. The learned trial Court upon conclusion of the trial convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants in the manner as indicated above. Hence this appeal. 5. Shri A.K. Gupta learned Senior Advocate for the appellants assailing the judgment of the learned trial Court argued that there are several infirmities and contradictions in the statement of prosecution witnesses. Conviction based on testimony of wholly unreliable witnesses is not sustainable in law. The trial Court failed to appreciate the statement of prosecution witnesses in their true perspective. It is stated that accused Rakesh @ Boby had gone to Pali along with complainant Vishnu Kumar Sharma (PW1) to attend a marriage wherefrom they returned back at 11.00 a.m. on 7.5.2006. Obviously, he was not present at the time of incident and therefore his conviction is wholly unjustified. The conduct of Vikram (PW3) is suspicious. The deceased was his friend and it is alleged that they both went together to attend the marriage. Even then despite persistent queries by Vishnu Kumar Sharma and his mother he did not inform them about the alleged call which he received from deceased Vijay Kumar and that he was detained in the house of Prabhu Dayal Mathur. It is evident from his statement that he came to know about the death of Vijay Kumar in the evening of 8.5.2006, even then he did not either go to the hospital or to the cremation ground to attend the funeral of the deceased. His conduct is highly suspicious. It is evident from his statement that he came to know about the death of Vijay Kumar in the evening of 8.5.2006, even then he did not either go to the hospital or to the cremation ground to attend the funeral of the deceased. His conduct is highly suspicious. The conviction of the accused on the basis of testimony of such a witness is highly unsafe. It is argued that as per statement of Vikram (PW3), he informed the complainant Vishnu Kumar on 8.5.2006 that deceased was confined by Prabhu Dayal and Kiran Devi in their house, Vishnu Kumar (PW1) even then did not go to the house of the accused to find out the deceased. This also raises a doubt about the correct-ness of his version. Learned senior counsel argued that if at all the deceased has called this witness at 5.45 a.m. on 7.5.2006 stating that Prabhu Dayal and Kiran Devi had detained him in a room and locked the same from outside, the fact that Vikram did not take any steps to either report the matter to the police or otherwise he did not make any efforts to get the deceased released from them raises doubt about his conduct. It is contended that it was Vikram who was last seen with the deceased and his conduct was suspicious throughout, even then the Investigating Officer did not investigate his role. The Investigat-ing Officer did not made any investigation to find out as to whose marriage they had gone to attend and if at all they attended any such marriage. 6. Learned Senior counsel argued that recovery of 'gudri' and knife alleged to have been made at the instance of Prabhu Dayal and 'chunni' at the instance of accused Vinod Kumar Mathur vide Ex.P/22 & P/24 respectively, is highly doubtful as such a recovery was made from open place accessible to all. It was argued that the prosecution started with the story that the deceased had illicit relations with Rajni Mathur, the daughter-in-law of accused Prabhu Dayal and wife of accused Rakesh @ Boby, but the prosecution witnesses in their statements have not supported this allegation. Vishnu Kumar Sharma (PW1) has simply stated that Rakesh Mathur was jealous with the deceased because they were both working with the Eureka Forbes Company and while deceased was promoted, Rakesh Mathur was made subordinate to him, who did not like this. 7. Vishnu Kumar Sharma (PW1) has simply stated that Rakesh Mathur was jealous with the deceased because they were both working with the Eureka Forbes Company and while deceased was promoted, Rakesh Mathur was made subordinate to him, who did not like this. 7. Learned Senior Counsel for the accused-appellants submits that Vishnu Kumar Sharma (PW1) has stated that he passed on the information given by Vikram to his mother that he dropped Vijay on the main crossing of their colony. Then the family members were of the view that FIR should be registered against Vikram so that he may tell the truth. He has denied the suggestion that his mother went to the Police Station for lodging the FIR. Neither this fact has been disclosed to the Court whether any such FIR was registered, nor the mother of the deceased was produced in evidence and therefore adverse inference should be drawn against the prosecution for withholding such an important witness. Learned counsel argued that one of the important piece of evidence relied on by learned trial Court to convict the appellants is the phone call alleged to have been made by deceased to Vikram, but no proof whatsoever has been produced on record that the cellphone from which the call was made belonged to deceased Vijay. Not even Vishnu Kumar (PW1), brother of the deceased has proved that this was his cell number. The Investigating Officer in cross-examination has admitted that he did not collect any receipt or document of the cellphone company/ service provider to substantiate that the sim card of cell number was in the name of Vijay. The Investigating Officer did not even prepare any site plan of the room or otherwise collect any evidence from the room where the deceased was allegedly detained. Learned senior counsel argued that not a single question was put in their examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with regard to alleged illicit relations of deceased with Rajni. The specific question put to Vishnu Kumar (PW1) by defence was denied. 8. Learned senior counsel for the accused-appellants submits that the motive plays an important role in the case of circumstantial evidence and is one of the significant circumstances in the chain of circumstances. Motive tilts the case in favour of the accused-appellants. The specific question put to Vishnu Kumar (PW1) by defence was denied. 8. Learned senior counsel for the accused-appellants submits that the motive plays an important role in the case of circumstantial evidence and is one of the significant circumstances in the chain of circumstances. Motive tilts the case in favour of the accused-appellants. In this connection, learned senior counsel relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bakshish Singh vs. The State of Punjab- AIR 1971 SC 2016 , State (Delhi Administration) vs. Gulzarilal Tandon- AIR 1979 SC 1382 and State through Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Mahender Singh Dahiya-(2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 821. 9. Learned senior counsel referred to the statement of Rajni (PW5) and argued that she has not supported the allegation about her illicit relations with the deceased. She has rather stated that deceased Vijay came to her room in the night at around 3.00 a.m. and she asked him to go away. After sometime Vikram also reached there. Vijay reprimanded Vikram from coming there stating that why he had come when he forbade him. An altercation took place between the two. She requested both of them to leave stating that her father-in-law and mother-in-law might come and that her husband was also not there and both of them then left. Learned counsel submitted that even if this witness has been declared hostile but she has proved that both Vijay and Vikram had quarreled. The Investigating Officer was therefore duty obliged to investigate the role of Vikram. Learned counsel argued that the circumstances that Vijay Kumar's dead body was thrown by Rakesh and Prabhu Dayal in the Jhalana area in a jeep of Mahesh Kumar (PW4) has not been put to the accused in their examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and, therefore, evidence on this aspect cannot be read against him. 10. Learned Senior Counsel argued that if two views are possible, the view which favours the accused should be preferred. In this connection reliance is placed on judgment of the Supreme Court in Khashaba Maruti Shelke vs. State of Maharashtra- AIR 1973 SC 2474 . Learned senior counsel argued that the chain of circumstances against the accused-appellants is thus not complete and there are very many missing links. The trial Court has based its judgment entirely on conjectures and surmises, which have got no place in a court of law. Learned senior counsel argued that the chain of circumstances against the accused-appellants is thus not complete and there are very many missing links. The trial Court has based its judgment entirely on conjectures and surmises, which have got no place in a court of law. The conviction of the accused-appellants on such shaky evidence, therefore, deserves to be set aside. Learned counsel in support of this argument relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in Hanumant Govind Nargundkar & Anr. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh- AIR 1952 SC 343 , Bhagat Ram vs. State of Punjab- AIR 1954 SC 621 , Eradu & Ors. vs. State of Hyderabad- AIR 1956 SC 316 , Shankarlal Gyarasilal Dixit vs. State of Maharashtra- AIR 1981 SC 765 and Musheer Khan @ Badshah Khan & Anr. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh- (2010) 2 SCC 748 . 11. Shri Javed Choudhary, learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the appeal and submitted that the learned trial Court was fully justified in convicting the accused-appellants. Learned counsel submitted that the statement of Rajni (PW5) has to be read in totality and in conjunction with the other attending circumstances. She has admitted hat the deceased came to her room at 3.00 a.m. late in the night. At that time, her husband was not in house. She has admitted that Vijay came there. Soon thereafter Vikram also came there. She requested both of them to leave for the fear of her father-in-law and mother-in-law. She was confronted with her previous statements u/Sec. 161 (Ex.P/9) and 164 Cr.P.C. (Ex.P/8). It would be seen from those statements whether there was indeed any angle of illicit relationship. Learned counsel submitted that Rajni (PW5) in her statement to the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Ex.P/8) stated that she heard the deceased making a phone call early in the morning. This has been corroborated from the statement of Vikram (PW3). The statement of Vikram (PW3) was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate on 18.5.2006 (Ex.D/3). His statement u/Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 9.5.2006 (Ex.D/2). In both of these statements, he has proved that deceased Vijay had made a call from his phone No.9828746184 on the cellphone of this witness (Vikram Singh), the number of which is 9414019843 and informed that Kiran and Prabhu Dayal Mathur had detained him in room. His statement u/Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 9.5.2006 (Ex.D/2). In both of these statements, he has proved that deceased Vijay had made a call from his phone No.9828746184 on the cellphone of this witness (Vikram Singh), the number of which is 9414019843 and informed that Kiran and Prabhu Dayal Mathur had detained him in room. Learned Public Prosecutor referred to the call details obtained by the Investigating Officer which has been proved as Ex.P/43 and P/44. Learned Public Prosecutor argued that conduct of Vikram (PW3) was absolutely normal because he all along has been maintaining that though he was aware that deceased had gone to the residence of Rajni Mathur in the night, but he did not disclose this fact immediately for the reason thus, he did not want his friend to be defamed. In fact, his version in statements u/S. 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and also in the Court statement has been that when deceased called him on his cellphone to inform that he was detained by Prabhu Dayal and Kiran, he at the same time stated that he was trying to come out of the room and requested that this witness should not divulge this information to anyone. It is for this reason that on first day (7.5.2006) Vikram remained silent, but on second day i.e. 8.5.2006 when he came to know that deceased has still not returned, he told his brother Vishnu (PW1) about the entire incident. Vikram (PW3) is thus corroborating the evidence against the accused. 12. Learned Public Prosecutor argued that minor discrepancies in the statement of prosecution witnesses should be ignored. The Investigating Officer was not required to investigate the role of Vikram because his conduct was quite natural and humanly. It is therefore prayed that the appeal be dismissed. 13. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 14. The most crucial evidence on which the conviction of accused-appellant is founded is that of Vikram (PW3). He stated that the deceased went with him on his motorcycle to attend he wedding of Akhilesh. They returned from the marriage on 6.5.2006 about 10.30 - 11.00 p.m. He dropped deceased Vijay on the crossing of the road adjacent to their houses. He received a call on his cellphone at 4.57 a.m. early morning on the following day i.e. 7.5.2006. They returned from the marriage on 6.5.2006 about 10.30 - 11.00 p.m. He dropped deceased Vijay on the crossing of the road adjacent to their houses. He received a call on his cellphone at 4.57 a.m. early morning on the following day i.e. 7.5.2006. Vijay told him that Prabhu Dayal and Kiran Devi have locked him in a room and that Prabhu Dayal has gone to call his relative Vinod and threatened that they would teach him a lesson. Vijay also stated that he was trying to come out of the room and asked this witness (Vikram) not to divulge this information to anybody. Vikram further stated that on 7.5.2006, he did not inform about this telephonic conversion to anyone. He told Vishnu (PW1) about the same on 8.5.2006 in the noon. This witness has also given the telephone number of Vijay and his own telephone number. In cross-examination, he has stated that the police had taken him from his house on the day when the information was lodged. He first time then informed the police about the entire episode and that he did not give such information to the police prior to that. This witness in cross-examination admitted that he came to know about death of Vijay on 8.5.2006, but he did not inform the police about what had happened to Vijay and what was in his knowledge. After receiving the call from deceased, he did not go to the house of Prabhu Dayal, rather he went to his duty. Sushila, mother of deceased and his brother Vishnu met him on 7.5.2006. he did nto assure them that Vijay would come back, he rather told Sushila Devi that he had dropped Vijay at the crossing of he road late in the night of 6.5.2006. This witness even admitted that on receiving information of the death of Vijay, he did not go to the hospital, though other residents of the colony were there. He did not even go to the residence of Vijay to inform them about his death. In cross-examination, he has denied that he ever went to the residence of Rajni with Vijay and he has denied having given any such statement to the police (Ex.D/3). He rather stated that the two families were close to each other. He did not even go to the residence of Vijay to inform them about his death. In cross-examination, he has denied that he ever went to the residence of Rajni with Vijay and he has denied having given any such statement to the police (Ex.D/3). He rather stated that the two families were close to each other. He denied the suggestion that he (this witness) and Vijay had consumed liquor in the house of Rajni and misbehaved with Rajni in state of intoxication. 15. When we examine the statement of Rajni Mathur (PW5), she has though been declared hostile, but to the extent her testimony inspires confidence can nonetheless be looked into. She has stated that her husband Rakesh and her brother Jagmohan had gone out of Alwar in a marriage party. She was that day watching television till 1.00 a.m. Her father-in-law and mother-in-law were in another room. She heard a sound outside the room around 3.00 a.m. When she removed the curtains, she saw Vijay standing there. She asked Vijay why he has come to her house so late in the night and asked him to go back, but Vijay entered her room. She pleaded with Vijay to go back or else her father-in-law and mother-in-law would come. After some time, Vikram also came there. Vijay was furious and demanded explanation from Vikram why he came in spite of his forbidding him. Then they both quarreled with each other. She requested them not to quarrel and go from there. Then Vijay and Vikram both left. Rajni was confronted with her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Ex.P/8) given to the Magistrate. Though she has not denied having given such statement, but she has stated that she gave statement before the Magistrate under the pressure of police. When she was confronted with that statement, she alleged that she knew Vijay for last two and half years. When Vijay came to her room, he was smelling with liquor and was not in his full senses. She was also confronted with her statement to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Ex.P/9), which was substantially similar to her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. But in cross-examination, she admitted that Vijay and Vikram stayed in her room for 5-6 minutes and then both left. She was also confronted with her statement to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Ex.P/9), which was substantially similar to her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. But in cross-examination, she admitted that Vijay and Vikram stayed in her room for 5-6 minutes and then both left. Vishnu Kumar Sharma (PW1) has also stated that his brother left their house at 8.30 p.m. on 6.5.2006 with Vikram to attend some wedding, but did not return back on that night. When they searched for his brother on7.5.2006 they also enquired from Vikram in the afternoon, who told that he dropped Vijay on the road crossing of the colony the previous night. Vijay did not return the house on 7.5.2006 and even when he did not come back on 8.5.2006, he (this witness) again approached Vikram and pressurized him to disclose as to what happened to Vijay. It was thereupon that Vikram told that he received a phone call from his cellphone early in the morning of 7.5.2006 from Vijay that he was detained by Prabhu Dayal, who had been having a grudge against Vijay. The reason that was disclosed by Vishnu Kumar Sharma was that his brother Vijay and Rakesh son of Prabhu Dayal were both employed with Eureka Forbes Company. While his brother Vijay was promoted, Rakesh was working in his subordination. This annoyed Prabhu Dayal owing to which they entertained ill will against their family. They were also annoyed with their family because Rajni wife of Rakesh used to visit their house, which Prabhu Dayal did not like. This witness in cross-examination has stated that his brother was last seen alive with Vikram and thereafter he was not seen. He has even stated hat when Vikram told him in the morning of 8.5.2006 about the phone call made by Vijay to him that he was illegally detained by Prabhu Dayal, he neither went to the house of Prabhu Dayal to enquire about Vijay, nor he informed the police about this. In cross-examination he has further stated that when Vijay did not return back, the family members decided to lodge FIR against Vikram so that he may tell the truth. He has denied the suggestion about illicit relationship between deceased Vijay and Rajni and also the suggestion that his brother Vijay used to visit the house of Prabhu Dayal. In cross-examination he has further stated that when Vijay did not return back, the family members decided to lodge FIR against Vikram so that he may tell the truth. He has denied the suggestion about illicit relationship between deceased Vijay and Rajni and also the suggestion that his brother Vijay used to visit the house of Prabhu Dayal. He has also denied the suggestion that altercation took place between Vikram and Vijay about the said illicit relationship. Ashok Kumar Sharma (PW2), uncle of deceased has in cross-examination stated that he received a telephonic call from Vishnbu (PW1) in the noon of 8.5.2006 informing that Vijay was missing and when he started from his house at Newai to go to the house of Vishnu, he received another phone call on the ay that some persons have forcibly taken Vijay. Mahesh Kumar (PW4), whose jeep was allegedly used for carrying dead body of Vijay to be dumped at the place where it has been ultimately recovered, has stated that Rakesh Mathur @ Boby was his employee, as a driver. He had come to him at 6.00 p.m. on 7.5.2006 to borrow his jeep and returned the jeep on next day in the morning at 6.00 a.m. 16. The dead body of Vijay was recovered from Jhalani area at Samola road. The seizure memo Ex.P/15 has been prepared, which has been proved by Satish Singh (PW7) and Ravindra Kumar (PW10). The recovery of 'gudri' vide Ex.P/22 and knife vide Ex.P/26 at the instance of Prabhu Dayal and 'chunni' vide Ex.P/24 at the instance of Vinod Kumar Mathur has been proved by Akash (PW11) and Tarun Kumar (PW12). Govind Narain Pareek (PW13), the Investigating Officer has proved all the exhibits of the prosecution and also the recovery. 17. The evidence of the prosecution if analysed in the light of arguments of counsel for the defence, shows following lacunaes in the investigation, which may be categorized as missing links in the chain of circumstances against the appellants:- (1) that the entire prosecution case is founded on the premises that the accused-appellants murdered Vijay for the reason that he had been having illicit relationship with Rajni Mathur, who and came to her room at 3.00 a.m. on the day of incident. Rajni Mathur, who herself appeared as PW5, has denied any such suggestion. Rajni Mathur, who herself appeared as PW5, has denied any such suggestion. Such allegation is not made by the informant Vishnu Kumar Sharma (PW1) either in the written report or even in his statement. In fact, when this suggestion was given to him, he has clearly denied that Vijay had illicit relations with Rajni. He has given an altogether different reason as to the enmity between two families by stating that since his brother Vijay was promoted and Rakesh, son of Prabhu Dayal had to work in his subordination, Prabhu Dayal and his family started having grudge against him. (2) that the case of the prosecution right from the beginning, as disclosed in the written report and also in the statement of Vishnu Kumar Sharma (PW1) was that Vijay was last seen with Vikram and Vijay has left the home on his motorcycle to attend certain marriage. The police however did not make any thorough investigation as to whose marriage they went to attend or whether or not they actually attended the marriage. (3) that as per Vikram (PW3), he received a call on his cellphone from Vijay at 5.45 a.m. on 7.5.2006 that Prabhu Dayal and Kiran Devi had detained him in the room. No effort was made by the police to prove that sim of the cell number 9828746184 which as allegedly used by Vijay to call Vikram on his cell number 9414019843, in fact, was issued in the name of Vikram and that the cellphone which was used by deceased Vijay for making such call was in fact belonging to him. Mere production of the call details by itself does not prove the fact that this cellphone number was that of deceased Vijay. No other witness, not even Vishnu Kumar Sharma, his brother, in his statement has proved that aforesaid cellphone number belonged to his brother. (4) that as per the statement of Rajni (PW5), deceased Vijay and Vikram quarreled with each other at her room and then left. No investigation was made from Vishnu Kumar about the said quarrel. No other witness, not even Vishnu Kumar Sharma, his brother, in his statement has proved that aforesaid cellphone number belonged to his brother. (4) that as per the statement of Rajni (PW5), deceased Vijay and Vikram quarreled with each other at her room and then left. No investigation was made from Vishnu Kumar about the said quarrel. (5) that though the deceased was lastly seen alive in the company of Vikram, nothing has been proved as to what investigation was made by the police to further enquire into his conduct, which was highly unnatural and suspicious for the reasons that : (a) he on receiving the phone call from Vijay at 5.47 a.m., neither went to the house of Prabhu Dayal, nor to the police to get him freed. (b) that he did not disclose information to Vishnu Kumar Sharma (PW1) and his mother Smt. Sushila when they approached him on 7.5.2006 that he received any phone call from Vijay. (c) that he has admitted that he came to learn about the death of Vijay on 8.5.2006, yet he did not go to the hospital whereas other residents of their colony did so, nor did he go to the house of Vijay to inform the family members about his death, nor even did he go to attend the funeral. (6) that Vishnu Kumar (PW1) has stated that in the family, it was decided to file a first information report against Vikram so that he would divulge the truth, but he has denied he suggestion that his mother went to lodge the report against Vikram. (7) that the Investigating Officer did not prepare any site plan of the room in which the deceased was allegedly detained and did not make any efforts to find any incriminating material against the accused in that house. It would be quite significant evidence considering that recovery of 'gudri' and knife at the instance of Prabhu Dayal and 'chunni' at the instance of Vinod have been made from the open space. (8) that Rajni (PW5) in her statement has stated that her room was covered by tin shed and that it did not have regular doors but only had curtains with iron rods. (8) that Rajni (PW5) in her statement has stated that her room was covered by tin shed and that it did not have regular doors but only had curtains with iron rods. She in her examination in chief has stated that when she heard the sound of someone at 3.00 a.m., she came out of the curtains and found deceased Vijay standing outside who then came in her room. This is a very significant circumstance because it is not proved as to in which room the deceased was locked and if hat was the room, which had no doors as per the own witnesses of the prosecution then how could he be locked in that room. Even no site plan has been prepared. 18. Apart from the aforesaid missing links, the prosecution has not put to the accused-appellants following facts which it has sought to use against him in the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that the deceased had illicit relations with Rajni Mathur and that the dead body of the deceased Vijay Kumar was thrown by Rakesh and Prabhu Dayal in Jhalani factory area at Samola road in the jeep of Mohan Kumar. 19. Govind Narain Pareek (PW13), the Investigation Officer was cross-examined on many of these lacunaes in the investigation. he has in cross-examination stated that the he obtained the call details of the two cellphones alleged to have been used by deceased Vijay and Vikram vide Ex.P/43 and Ex.P/44, but has not proved that the cellphone No.9828746184, in fact, was issued in the name of deceased or was otherwise being regularly used by him. He admitted that he did not enquire from Vikram as to on whose motorcycle, he along with Vijay went to attend the marriage. He also admitted that he did not even investigate as to whose marriage they went to attend. He also admitted that he did not go the place where this marriage was solemnized to find out as to till when in the night they stayed there. In the cross-examination, he also admitted that as per his information accused Rakesh along with his brother in law Jagmohan had gone to Pali in a 'barat' to attend the wedding on 6.5.2006 and Vishnu had also gone to Pali to attend the same wedding. They returned Alwar at 11.00 a.m. on 7.5.2006. In the cross-examination, he also admitted that as per his information accused Rakesh along with his brother in law Jagmohan had gone to Pali in a 'barat' to attend the wedding on 6.5.2006 and Vishnu had also gone to Pali to attend the same wedding. They returned Alwar at 11.00 a.m. on 7.5.2006. He has admitted that Sushila, mother of deceased Vijay has come to the Police Station in the evening of 8.5.2006 and he informed her that an unknown dead body has been recovered, which was lying in the hospital at Alwar. He admitted having been told by Sushila that Vikram mislead her about Vijay for two days. He also admitted in cross-examination that he did not make any investigation to take possession of the receipt or any other document about the purchase of cellphone of deceased Vijay, nor did he make any investigation about the service provider of the cellphone to prove that the cellphone having the number 9828746184 was being used by Vijay. 20. The Supreme Court in State (Delhi Administration) vs. Gulzarilal Tandon, supra has held that in cases where the prosecution rests purely on circumstantial evidence, motive undoubtedly plays an important role in order to tilt the scale against the accused. Their Lordships held that accused can be convicted on circumstantial evidence only if the circumstances are wholly inconsistent with his innocence. 21. In Bakshish Singh vs. State of Punjab, supra it was held that in a case resting on circumstantial evidence, chain of evidence must be such as not to leave any reasonable ground for conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused and none else. 22. In Shankarlal Gyarsilal Dixit vs. State of Maharashtra, supra it was held that in a case of circumstantial evidence, the circumstances on which the prosecution relies must be consistent with the sole hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. The Court has to consider whether the cumulative effect of he circumstances establishes the guilt of the accused beyond the "shadow of doubt". Even in cases which depend on direct evidence, is shadow of "reasonable" doubt. Secondly, in its practical application, the test which requires the exclusion of other alternative hypothesis is far more rigorous than the test of proof beyond reasonable doubt. 23. Even in cases which depend on direct evidence, is shadow of "reasonable" doubt. Secondly, in its practical application, the test which requires the exclusion of other alternative hypothesis is far more rigorous than the test of proof beyond reasonable doubt. 23. In Hanuman Govind Nargundkar & Anr. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, supra, the supreme Court while dealing with a case of circumstantial evidence in para 10 of the report, has held as under: "xxxxxxxxxxxx it is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be a conclusive nature and tendency any they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" 24. The Supreme Court in Musheer Khan @ Badshah Khan & Anr. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, supra while detailing out the judicially evolved rules for appreciation of circumstantial evidence observed that the first rule is that "the facts alleged as the basis of any legal inference from circumstantial evidence must be clearly proved beyond any reasonable doubt. If conviction rests solely on circumstantial evidence, it must create a network from which there is no escape for the accused. The facts evolving out of such circumstantial evidence must be such as not to admit of any inference except that of guilt of the accused." Their Lordships then further observed that "the second principle is that all he links in the chain of evidence must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and they must exclude the evidence of guilt of any other person than the accused." The third rule that was referred to by their Lordships was that "when in a criminal case there is conflict between presumption of innocence and any other presumption, the former must prevail". The fourth principle enumerated was that "in order to justify the inference of guilt, the inculpatory facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and are incapable of explanation upon any other reasonable hypothesis except his guilt." The fifth principle that was enumerated by their Lordships was that "when a murder charge is to be proved solely on circumstantial evidence, as in this case, presumption of innocence of the accused must have a dominant role". 25. Tested on the parameters of the law discussed above, each circumstance individually proved against the accused-appellants in the present case and if cumulatively looked at, it forms chain of circumstances, but does not lead to the conclusive inference, consisting only with the guilt of the accused-appellants and point to the accused-appellants alone and none else that in all human probabilities, with those circumstances, are incapable of being explained upon in every reasonable hypothesis except their guilt. 26. The entire case hinges on the circumstantial evidence and the chain of circumstances sought to be proved against the accused-appellants by the prosecution has several missing links entitling them to benefit of doubt. The guilt of the appellants therefore cannot be held to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. We are therefore persuaded to set aside the impugned judgment dated 8.1.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Alwar. Consequently, conviction of the accused-appellant nos. 1 and 2 Prabhu Dayal Mathur and Rakesh @ Bobi for offence u/Sec. 302 read with Section 34 IPC and under Section 201 IPC and conviction of accused-appellant Nos. 3 & 4 Smt. Kiran Devi and Vinod for offence u/Sec. 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentence awarded to them thereby stands set aside. 27. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment dated 8.1.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Alwar in Sessions Case No.65/2006 (67/06) is quashed and set aside and the appellants are acquitted from all the charges. The accused-appellants Nos. 1 and 3 i.e. Prabhu Dayal Mathur and Smt. Kiran Devi are on bail, they need not therefore surrender and their bail bonds and sureties be discharged. The accused-appellant nos. 2 and 4 i.e. Rakesh @ Bodi (sic Bobi) and Vinod, who are in jail for last more than seven years, if not required to be detained in jail in connection with any other case, may be released forthwith. 28. The accused-appellant nos. 2 and 4 i.e. Rakesh @ Bodi (sic Bobi) and Vinod, who are in jail for last more than seven years, if not required to be detained in jail in connection with any other case, may be released forthwith. 28. Keeping in view, however, the provisions of Section 437A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, each of the accused-appellants are directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- each, and a surety bond in the like amount, before the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, which shall be effective for a period of six months to the effect that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against this judgment or on grant of leave, the said appellants, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court.