Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1613 (RAJ)

Trilok Chand v. State of Rajasthan

2013-09-13

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, NISHA GUPTA

body2013
JUDGMENT : - Hon'ble GUPTA, J.—Both these appeals are related to same incident hence, they are being decided by this common judgment. 2. These appeals under Section 374 Cr.P.C., have been filed against the judgment passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Behror, Alwar whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under: Appellant Trilok Chand Under Section 302 IPC:- to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000 In default of payment of fine, he has to further undergo two months simple imprisonment; Under Section 460 IPC:- Rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine, one month further simple imprisonment; Under Section 147 IPC :- Rigorous imprisonment for one year. Appellant Laxman @ Laxminarayan Under Section 302 IPC:- to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000 In default of payment of fine, he has to further undergo two months simple imprisonment; Under Section 460 IPC:- Rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine, one month further simple imprisonment; Under Section 147 IPC :- Rigorous imprisonment for one year. Appellant Dulichand Under Section 302 IPC:- to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000 In default of payment of fine, he has to further undergo two months simple imprisonment; Under Section 460 IPC:- Rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine, one month further simple imprisonment; Under Section 147 IPC :- Rigorous imprisonment for one year. Appellant Puran Under Section 302 IPC:- to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000 In default of payment of fine, he has to further undergo two months simple imprisonment; Under Section 460 IPC:- Rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine, one month further simple imprisonment; Under Section 147 IPC :- Rigorous imprisonment for one year. Appellant Vipin Kumar @ Neetu Under Section 302 IPC:- to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000 In default of payment of fine, he has to further undergo two months simple imprisonment; Under Section 460 IPC:- Rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine, one month further simple imprisonment; Under Section 147 IPC :- Rigorous imprisonment for one year. (All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently) 3. 1000 In default of payment of fine, he has to further undergo two months simple imprisonment; Under Section 460 IPC:- Rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine, one month further simple imprisonment; Under Section 147 IPC :- Rigorous imprisonment for one year. (All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently) 3. The short facts of the case giving rise to these appeals are that on 12.12.1997 complainant Atar Singh (PW/1) has lodged a written report Ex.P/1 at Police Station Behror that he was serving with Arvind Singh Sodhi, owner of the factory. He and complainant came from Delhi on 11.12.1997. After dinner Atar Singh went to his room and complainant and other two servants Teerathpal and Mahipal went in their room for sleeping. Papu was also sleeping in the room situated in front of the factory. Today in the morning when he got up, he saw his employer's door was slightly open and when he went inside, he saw that his employers hands and legs were tied with a rope and he was died. On this report, FIR 517/97 was registered under Section 302 IPC and investigation commenced. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the present appellants for the offence under Sections 147, 149, 302 and 460 IPC and against other appellant Krishna Kumar @ Shastri the case was committed to Additional Judicial Magistrate, Behror, which was sent for trial to Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Behror. The present appellants have been charge-sheeted for the offence under Sections 147, 149, 302 and 460 IPC. The prosecution has examined PW.1 Attar Singh, PW.2 Sanjay, PW.3 Tirathpal, PW.4 Sadhna Sodhi, PW.5 Mahipal, PW.6 Dr. Harisingh, PW.7 Mangalram, PW.8 Surendra Kumar, PW.9 Virendra Singh, PW.10 Ranjeet Singh, PW.11 Banwari Lal, PW.12 Nandram, PW.13 Ranjeet Singh S/o Kishori Lal, PW.14 Mataram Rinba, PW.15 Ganesh Kumar, PW.16 Lekhram, PW.17 Pratap Singh, PW.18 Ramsingh, PW.19 Dharamveer, PW.20 Mukesh Modi, PW.21 Banshidhar, PW.22 Devkinandan, PW.23 Malusingh, PW.24 Mahesh Agarwal, PW.25 Sardar Singh, PW.26 Satish Kumar and PW.27 Shimbhu Dayal to support his case. Prosecution has also relied upon 58 documents. Statements of accused persons have been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. No defence witness was produced but defence has relied on Ex.D/1 and D/2. Prosecution has also relied upon 58 documents. Statements of accused persons have been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. No defence witness was produced but defence has relied on Ex.D/1 and D/2. After trial, the present appellants have been convicted and sentenced, as referred above, hence these appeals whereas co-accused Krishan Kumar has been acquitted. The State has not preferred any appeal against his acquittal. 4. The contention of the present appellants is that there is no direct ocular evidence for the offence. The case rests on the circumstantial evidence, no specific motive has been established qua the appellants. Evidence of foot-prints have been taken but link evidence is missing. Recoveries are false and could not connect the appellants with the crime and their further contention is that circumstances did not prove the chain of the incident and they are not compatible with the hypothesis of the guilt. Appellants have been implicated falsely hence they should be acquitted. Per contra, contention of the learned Public Prosecutor is that Trilok Chand and Laxman were having animosity with the deceased as payment was due to them by the deceased and on the day of incident, they went to the factory for demand of payment knowing well that the deceased has brought the money and to have that money appellants Trilok and Laxman with the assistance of other appellants have committed the brutal murder. Foot-molts also corroborated the presence of the appellants at the spot and recovery of articles belongs to the deceased is also clinching circumstance against the appellants. There is no lapses in establishing the chain and all facts and circumstances produced by the prosecution goes to show that only the appellants are the culprits and there is no infirmity in the reasoning and conclusion of the court below, hence no interference is called for. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned Public Prosecutor and perused the impugned judgment as well as the original record of the case. 6. It is true that the case rests on the circumstantial evidence. The first circumstance which has been produced by the prosecution is that appellant Trilok Chand was discharged from the service of the factory on 23.11.1997 because he has committed mischief. On 09.12.1997, he went to the house of the deceased at Delhi and asked for his payment and threatened for dire consequences. The first circumstance which has been produced by the prosecution is that appellant Trilok Chand was discharged from the service of the factory on 23.11.1997 because he has committed mischief. On 09.12.1997, he went to the house of the deceased at Delhi and asked for his payment and threatened for dire consequences. PW/4 Sadhna Sodhi, wife of the deceased as testified this fact but she has cast suspension only on appellant Trilok. PW/1 Atar Singh who is the informant and the employee in the factory has also stated that he and deceased reached Behror at 4.30 PM on 11.12.1997, Trilok and one other person which was named by PW/3 Teerathpal as Laxman came there and asked for their payment. Deceased called them next morning but at that time, no altercation has been made between the deceased and the appellants. It has not been categorically proved by the prosecution how much payment was due towards the appellants. The contention of Atar Singh is that payment was already made to the appellants, some clothes had been missing and payment of the same was only due. The contention of the prosecution is that as the money was due towards the appellants, they have the motive to commit the murder but in this regard PW/2 Sanjay who is also the employee at the factory has stated that financial condition of the deceased was not sound and he was not giving salary to them. PW/3 Tirathpal has also endorsed that he worked with the deceased for 13 days but he did not receive any salary and he was in scarcity of money which goes to show that many other persons were owning money from the deceased and only appellants were not owning the money towards the deceased but even Hardware seller and ration shop-keeper payments were due and the contention of the counsel for the appellants seems sound that this cannot be said to be a motive for the crime that because some money was due towards the appellants, they have committed the murder when no other incriminating evidence has been produced by the prosecution and on the previous day of the incident, no hot exchanges have taken place between the parties. The contention of the learned Public Prosecutor is that there is no absolute legal proposition of law that in absence of any motive accused cannot be convicted under Section 302 IPC in a case based on circumstantial evidence where all circumstances completing the chain of evidence, it cannot be said that in absence of any motive, the other proved circumstances are of no consequence. The contention of the learned Public Prosecutor is fine but here the case of the prosecution is not of absence of motive rather a specific motive has been alleged which has not been proved and unable to connect the appellants with the crime. 7. The other circumstance which has been produced by the prosecution is that on previous day of the incident, deceased came to his factory situated at Behror with some money and appellants were knowing well that the deceased has brought money. PW/1 Atar Singh and other witnesses have stated that ration and other material was finished so they called the deceased to refill the ration and when deceased reached the factory, he took out the cloth bag (Thela) from the car and then deceased went to the market to have the ration and the contention of the prosecution is that appellants were knowing the fact that the deceased has brought money with him and for looting that money, the murder has been committed but the statement of prosecution witnesses suggest that PW/1 Atar Singh, PW/2 Sanjay and PW/5 Mahipal and many other persons were knowing the fact that deceased has brought money with him and this circumstance could not be used against the appellants alone. Even PW/1 Atar Singh has stated that on that day, milkman has also came there to have his money and to milkman also payment was made hence from this fact inference could not be drawn that only the appellants were knowing about the fact that the deceased has brought money and apart from this written report Ex.P/1 has been lodged by Atar Singh who was knowing all these facts that the deceased has brought the money. The appellants came there one day before the incident and demanded their due money has not been narrated in the FIR. The First Information Report has been registered only for the offence under Section 302 IPC. The appellants came there one day before the incident and demanded their due money has not been narrated in the FIR. The First Information Report has been registered only for the offence under Section 302 IPC. There is no allegation contained in First Information Report that the offence has been committed for robbery or to take off the money. 8. Another circumstance which has been alleged against the appellants is recovery of articles. PW/23 Malusingh is the Investigating officer and he has testified the evidence that from accused Trilok Chand on his instance and information one watch and Rs. 9,700/- along with polythene bag has been recovered; from the appellant Laxman, a pent, a torch, from accused Puran a Torch, pent and shirt has been recovered; from accused Duli Chand, tap recorder and suitcase has been recovered and the contention of the prosecution is that recovered articles have been identified by PW/1 Atar Singh and PW/3 Tirathpal and PW/4 Sadhna Sodhi before the Magistrate and PW/15 Ganesh Kumar, Judicial Magistrate has also verified the fact that he conducted the test identification parade and Sadhna Sodhi, Atar Singh, Sanjay and Pappu have rightly identified the recovered articles as that of deceased. The contention of the prosecution is that when articles belongs to the deceased have been recovered from the possession of accused appellants, looking to the provisions of Section 114 of the Evidence Act, presumption of murder must be taken against the appellants and reliance has been placed on Geejaganda Somaiah vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 2007 SC 1355 where ornaments in the possession of the deceased were found in the possession of the accused soon after the murder and taking note of the recent possession of the stolen articles, presumption has been raised against the accused persons. Per contra, the contention of the counsel for the defence is that in FIR, there is no allegation that anything being stolen from the scene of occurrence. Incident is of 12.12.1997 whereas articles were alleged to have been seized from them on 21.12.1997 and articles are that of passive nature. Per contra, the contention of the counsel for the defence is that in FIR, there is no allegation that anything being stolen from the scene of occurrence. Incident is of 12.12.1997 whereas articles were alleged to have been seized from them on 21.12.1997 and articles are that of passive nature. These are commonly used articles which can pass readily from hand to hand hence from mere recovery of common articles, presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act could not be travelled as to raise presumption that the murder has been committed by the appellants and their further contention is that PW/1 Atar Singh has not stated anything as regards the theft of the articles. PW/4 Sadhna Sodhi, wife of the deceased has identified the recovered articles but she has also not stated anything with regard to the theft of the articles. Two torch, two pents, one shirt, a watch, tape recorder, suitcase and Rs. 9700/- have been recovered, even a polythene bag has been recovered. On the point of money contention of PW/4 Sadhna Sodhi is that her husband has carried out Rs. 25,000/- to Behror. How much money has been stolen has not been clarified by the prosecution. PW/1 Atar Singh has stated that the money was kept in a bag. PW/3 Teerathpal has stated that in red bag, money was kept but no such bag has been recovered from the possession of any of the appellants. All other articles which have been recovered at the instance of the appellants, identity of that articles have not been established by any of the prosecution witnesses in their statements during investigation, for the first time during the inspection of site plan it has been narrated by the Investigating Officer that articles, torch, cloths, briefcase and tape recorder were missing from the spot and the other relevant factor is that apart from the room in which dead body of the deceased was lying, tape recorder and brief case have been found stolen from another room adjacent to the room in which dead body was lying and these rooms have been marked as B and C in site inspection report Ex.P/3. Non recovery of bag in which money was alleged to be kept caste shadow on the evidence of the prosecution and counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on Nagappa Dondiba Kalal vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 1980 SC 1753 wherein it has been held that when any stolen property has been found to be in possession of the appellant, the only presumption which can be taken against the appellant is that he is a receiver of stolen property. Inference that an accused has committed the murder cannot be drawn in absence of any other evidence to connect him with the murder. Here in the present case, recovery of some articles, which are commonly used, are not sufficient to raise an inference that the appellants have murdered the deceased. 9. The contention of the learned Public Prosecutor is that articles belonging to the deceased were recovered from the possession of the appellants and they have not given any explanation for the possession, hence adverse inference should be drawn against them. To answer this, the counsel for the appellants have relied on Nagappa Dondiba Kalal (supra) wherein it has been held in para 4 as under: "Counsel appearing for the State submitted that as the accused had given no explanation, therefore, the inference should be drawn that he must have murdered the deceased. We are, however, unable to draw any such inference. It is for the prosecution to prove its case affirmatively and it cannot be gain any strength from the conduct of the accused in remaining silent." 10. The above clearly shows that such inference cannot be drawn against an accused only on the silence of the accused, the prosecution has to prove its case affirmatively. Here in the present case, the prosecution has not adduced any evidence apart from this recovery to connect the present appellants with the crime. The other facts have also been pointed out by the appellants that PW/18 Ramsingh and PW/19 Dharamveer, the photographers who took the photographs of the scene and attention has been drawn towards Ex.P/32, photograph in which torch, suitcase, clothes, Tap etc. have been shown lying at the spot. When Torch, Attachi, Tape recorder, clothes were there at the place of occurrence, the recovery or theft of the same seems to be unreliable. have been shown lying at the spot. When Torch, Attachi, Tape recorder, clothes were there at the place of occurrence, the recovery or theft of the same seems to be unreliable. It is true that all recovered articles have been identified by the prosecution witnesses but before that Atar Singh and others have not said anything as regards the robbery or theft of the articles and even any particular details of the articles have not been narrated which makes the evidence of recovery as doubtful. The contention of the counsel for the appellants is that narration as regards to theft of the properties narrated in the site plan is not admissible as it has not been observed by the Investigating Officer and site plan prepared by Investigating Officer on the basis of statement of witnesses made to him is not admissible in view of provisions of Section 162 Cr.P.C., and reliance has been placed on Tori Singh & Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1962 SC 399 wherein it has been held as under:- “A rough sketch map prepared by the sub-inspector on the basis of statements made to him by witnesses during the course of investigation and showing the place where the deceased was hit and also the places where the witnesses were at the time of the incident would not be admissible in evidence in view of the provisions of S.162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for it is in effect nothing more than the statement of the Sub-inspector that the eye-witnesses told him that the deceased was at such and such place at the time when he was hit. The sketch-map would be admissible so far as it indicates all that the Sub-Inspector saw himself at the spot but any mark put on the sketch map based on the statements made by the witnesses to the sub-inspector would be inadmissible in view of the clear provisions of S. 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as it will be no more than a statement made to the police during investigation. Therefore, such marks on the map cannot be used to found any argument as to be improbability of the deceased being hit on that part of the body where he was actually injured, if he was standing at the spot marked on the sketch-map.” In the light of the above, narration as regards to theft of the property mentioned in the site plan Ex.P/3. is not admissible and there remains no evidence as regards to the fact that anything has been stolen from the factory. The prosecution has failed to prove the fact of theft and it can safely be concluded that story of theft has been concocted to falsely implicate the appellants. 11. The other circumstance which has been raised against the appellants is that foot-prints have been found at the scene of occurrence. PW/23 Malusingh, Investigation officer has sated that molds were taken from the scene of occurrence and exhibited as Ex.P/9. These molds have been admittedly taken from the premises of the factory. The case of the prosecution is that murder has been committed in the room where deceased was sleeping and floor of the room was unfinished but no foot-molds have been taken from the room. In Ex.P/3, site plan it has been narrated that sign of struggle were found at the spot but no foot-molds have been taken from the room and witnesses have admitted in their cross-examination that in factory premises there were number of foot signs. Vide Ex.P/9 foot molds have been taken from the scene of occurrence on 12.12.1997, appellants were arrested on 18.12.1997 and 19.12.1997 and from their shoes foot-molds have been taken on 22.12.1997 whereas their shoes have been recovered on 25.12.1997. In arrest memo of the appellants Ex.P.26, 27 and Ex. P.37 to 39, there is no narration that at the time of arrest, appellants were wearing shoes and when shows molds have been taken on 22.12.1997 there was no reason for the Investigating officer not to seize shoes at the same time. In arrest memo of the appellants Ex.P.26, 27 and Ex. P.37 to 39, there is no narration that at the time of arrest, appellants were wearing shoes and when shows molds have been taken on 22.12.1997 there was no reason for the Investigating officer not to seize shoes at the same time. Furthermore, Investigation Officer has not stated that he deposited shoe molds and footprints to the Malkhana and link evidence who carried the articles to the Forensic Science Laboratory have not been produced and the reliance has been placed on Valsala vs. State of Kerala, 1993 Supp (3) SCC 665 wherein it has been held that in absence of evidence to show that during the long period between the seizure and production in court, the seized articles was in custody of the officer in charge of Police Station and that the sample was kept under seal, it was found doubtful whether the very article that was seized was sent to the Chemical Examiner. Here in the present case, no date has been disclosed by the prosecution that on which date, the seized articles were received by the Forensic Science Laboratory. 12. The contention of the learned Public Prosecutor is that foot-molds have been seized and sealed at the spot and they were received by the laboratory sealed as indicated in Ex.P/58, Forensic Report and this is sufficient to prove that the articles were remained intact and reliance has been placed on Cr. Appeal No. 1541 of 2008 Surjit Singh vs. State of Punjab, decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 12.1.2011 and State of Punjab vs. Lakhwinder Singh & Anr., (2010) 4 SCC 402 = 2010(2) RLW 1565 (SC) where it has been held in NDPS Act case that when seal was found intact, seizure proceedings would not vitiate but here in the present case, apart from link evidence other latches indicated above are also conspicuous. Apart from it, the evidentiary value of foot-print is not well-established and reliance has been placed on Mohd. Aman & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 10 SCC 44 wherein it has been held that if evidence relating to footprint is found satisfactory it may be used only to reinforce the conclusions as to the identity of a culprit already arrived at on the basis of other evidence. 13. Aman & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 10 SCC 44 wherein it has been held that if evidence relating to footprint is found satisfactory it may be used only to reinforce the conclusions as to the identity of a culprit already arrived at on the basis of other evidence. 13. On the law explained above, it can be safely concluded that evidence relating to the foot-print is not a developed science and when the evidence of foot-prints suffer from infirmity as indicated above, it cannot be used even for the corroboration. Here in the present case, there is no other reliable evidence to prove the identity of the culprit, hence evidence of foot-prints is of no use. 14. The contention of the appellants is that in the case of circumstantial evidence, the court should be cautious of the fact that there can always be a danger that conjunctures or suspension may take the place of legal proof and time and again, the Apex Court has enumerated the principles governing the appreciation of circumstantial evidence and reliance has been placed on Hanumant Govind Nargundkar & Anr. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1952 SC 343 : “Assuming that the accused Nargundkar had taken the tenders to his house, the prosecution, in order to bring the guilt home to the accused, has yet to prove the other facts referred to above. No direct' evidence was adduced in proof of those facts. Reliance was placed by the prosecution and by the courts below on certain circumstances, and intrinsic evidence contained in the impugned document, Exhibit P-3A. In dealing with circumstantial evidence the rules specially applicable to such evidence must be borne in mind. No direct' evidence was adduced in proof of those facts. Reliance was placed by the prosecution and by the courts below on certain circumstances, and intrinsic evidence contained in the impugned document, Exhibit P-3A. In dealing with circumstantial evidence the rules specially applicable to such evidence must be borne in mind. In such cases there is always the danger that conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof and therefore it is right to recall the warning addressed by Baron Alderson to the jury in Reg vs. Hodge (1838) 2 Lewin 227) where he said :-- "The mind was apt to take a pleasure in adapting circumstances to one another, and even in straining them a little, if need be, to force them to form parts of one connected whole; and the more ingenious the mind of the individual, the more likely was it, considering such matters, to over- reach and mislead itself, to supply some little link that is wanting, to take for granted some fact consistent with its previous theories and necessary to render them complete." 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 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 of a conclusive nature and tendency and 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. 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. In spite of the forceful arguments addressed to us by the learned Advocate-General on behalf of the State we have not been able to discover any such evidence either intrinsic within Exhibit P-3A or outside and we are constrained to observe that the courts below have just fallen into the error against which warning was uttered by Baron Alderson in the above mentioned case.” Again in Bhagat Ram vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1954 SC 621 , it has been reiterated in Para 5 and again in Khashaba Maruti Shelke vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC 2474 and in Shankarlal Gyarasilal Dixit vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1981 SC 765 it has been held as under: “It causes us some surprise that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, who tried the case, has not shown any awareness of the fundamental principle which governs cases dependent solely on circumstantial evidence. Nowhere in his judgment has the learned Judge alluded, directly or indirectly, to the principle 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. It is not to be expected that in every case depending on circumstantial evidence the whole of the law governing cases of circumstantial evidence should be set out in the judgment. Legal principles are not magic incantations and their importance lies more in their application to a given set of facts than in their recital in the judgment. The simple expectation is that the judgment must show that the finding of guilt, if any, has been reached after a proper and careful evaluation of circumstances in order to determine whether they are compatible with any other reasonable hypothesis.” In Musheer Khan @ Badshah Khan & Anr. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 2 SCC 748 , it has been held: "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. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 2 SCC 748 , it has been held: "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. In Nibaran Chandra Roy vs. King Emperor – (11 CWN 1085) it was held the fact that an accused person was found with a gun in his hand immediately after a gun was fired and a man was killed on the spot from which the gun was fired may be strong circumstantial evidence against the accused, but it is an error of law to hold that the burden of proving innocence lies upon the accused under such circumstances. It seems, therefore, to follow that whatever force a presumption arising under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act may have in civil or in less serous criminal cases, in a trial for murder it is extremely weak in comparison with the dominant presumption of innocence." 15. On the touch-stone of above the evidence adduced by the prosecution be scanned, the first circumstance that the appellants were owning money towards the deceased is not a circumstance which can exclude every other hypothesis then that of guilt of the accused as considered earlier, other persons were also demanding money towards the deceased. The second circumstance that appellants were knowing well that the deceased has brought some money was also within the knowledge of many persons and discovery of the stolen property is also not compatible with the hypothesis of the guilt looking to the nature of discovered articles and the fact that some of the articles of same nature were also found there and prosecution has not come with the case that culprits has stolen any property from the spot and as regards evidence of foot-prints, the link evidence has not been produced and it cannot be made the basis of the conviction. The court below has relied upon the shaky evidence of the prosecution, missing links are there and circumstances produced by the prosecution does not make a chain which can prove the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The court below has proceeded on the hypothesis and conjunctures and guilt of the appellants have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. 16. The court below has proceeded on the hypothesis and conjunctures and guilt of the appellants have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. 16. In the light of the above, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the chain of circumstances so complete as to exclude any other hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. Consequently, both these appeals are allowed. The judgment under appeal dated 1.5.2003 and 12.6.2003 are quashed and set aside. All the appellants are acquitted of the charges under Section 302, 460 and 147 IPC. Appellants Trilok Chand, Laxman @ Laxminarayan, Dulichand, Puran and Vipin Kumar @ Neetu are in jail. They be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. Keeping in view, however, the provisions of Section 437A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, accused appellants Trilok Chand, Laxman @ Laxminarayan, Dulichand, Puran and Vipin Kumar @ Neetu 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.