JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal, which has been received from the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jaipur on behalf of accused-appellant Sadhu Ram, seeks to assail the judgment dated 22/11/2003 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Sikar in Sessions Case No. 40/2003 whereby, appellant was convicted for offence u/S.302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment thereof, he was required to further undergo imprisonment of fifteen days. He was also convicted for offence u/S.458 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of ten years with fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment thereof, he was required to further undergo imprisonment of fifteen days. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the appeal are that a written report (Exb.P/5) was submitted by complainant-Ram Lal (PW6) to S.H.O. Police Station Fatehpur on 30/06/2003 alleging that at .00 p.m. in the night of 2/06/2003, he, his wife and two daughters Suman and Sunita were sleeping in the chowk of his house. After some time, their son Pawan Kumar came and went to sleep on the roof of the house. When Pawan did not get up in the morning, the informant asked his wife, who called his name 2-3 times asking him to get down. When Pawan did not come down, his wife went upstairs and found Pawan lying dead in a pool of blood. His wife raised hue and cry. Many people from the colony assembled there. The informant expressed his doubt on Sadhu Ram stating that deceased had been having strained relations with him and Sadhu Ram entertained ill-will against deceased. Deceased was murdered by inflicting injuries on his neck and chest. 3. On receipt of the aforesaid written report (Exb.P/5), the police registered a regular first information report bearing FIR No. 72/2003 (Exb.P/6) on 30/06/2003 against the accused for offence u/S.302 IPC and started investigation. During investigation, accused-appellant was arrested. After investigation, police filed challan against accused-appellant for offence u/Ss.302 and 458 IPC. On committal of the case, the trial court framed the charges against the accused-appellant for the said offence, which the accused denied and claimed to be tried. The prosecution produced sixteen witnesses and exhibited twenty two documents and three articles, whereas the defence exhibited six documents. After investigation, police filed challan against accused-appellant for offence u/Ss.302 and 458 IPC. On committal of the case, the trial court framed the charges against the accused-appellant for the said offence, which the accused denied and claimed to be tried. The prosecution produced sixteen witnesses and exhibited twenty two documents and three articles, whereas the defence exhibited six documents. Accused in his examination u/S.313 Cr.P.C. stated that he was innocent and that he has been falsely implicated in the present case only on doubt. The trial court upon conclusion of the trial, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant in the manner indicated above. Hence, this appeal. 4. We have heard Shri Deepak Soni, learned Amicus Curiae for the accused-appellant and Shri Javed Choudhary, learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 5. Shri Deepak Soni, learned Amicus Curiae has argued that suspicion, howsoever strong it may be, cannot take the place of proof. The accused in the present case has been convicted only on the basis of suspicion, there being no evidence, even circumstantial, of acceptable degree. It is argued that the accused needed to have a strong motive to commit the murder, which has also not been proved except that there was minor dispute between the accused and the deceased with regard to `nali' (drainage pipe) adjoining their houses. Even on that aspect, Rampal (PW12) in cross-examination stated that neither any civil litigation was pending between the parties nor any such dispute was pending before the Municipal Board. Learned Amicus Curiae argued that the prosecution failed to prove as to with whom, the deceased spent time till that late in the night. Investigation officer did not try to find out whether deceased had any dispute with someone on that evening and whom he met in the evening. Almost all the material prosecution witnesses are alleging that the chilly powder was spread all around the body of deceased Pawan. In this connection, learned Amicus Curiae referred to the statements of Roodmal (PW2), Ramlal (PW6) father of the deceased, Prakash (PW7), Rajkumar (PW), Girdhari Lal (PW11), Rampal (PW12), Smt.Geeta (PW13) mother of the deceased, Nandlal (PW14) and Ramchandra (PW15) investigation officer. In fact, Rampal (PW12) has stated that Chilly was thrown in the eyes of the deceased before his murder. Similar statement was made by Smt.Geeta (PW13) that chilly powder was thrown in the eyes of the deceased. In fact, Rampal (PW12) has stated that Chilly was thrown in the eyes of the deceased before his murder. Similar statement was made by Smt.Geeta (PW13) that chilly powder was thrown in the eyes of the deceased. Roodmal (PW2) stated that a trail of chilly powder was going from the dead body to the place where accused-Sadhu Ram was sleeping in the `chaubara' of his house and this trail of chilly powder was leading upto his bed and some chilly was also spread there. The trail then went upto the kitchen of his house. The blood stains were there on the wall of the house of Sadhu Ram and blood stain was also found on the mattress cover of his bed. Strangely, however, in the postmortem report (Exb.P/3), the chilly powder was not found in the eyes of the deceased. In fact, the postmortem report (Exb.P/3) indicates that the pupils of the deceased were dilated and fixed but there is no indication of the chilly powder either in the eyes or on any other part of the dead-body. Dr.Sandeep Sharma (PW16), who has proved the postmortem report (Exb.P/3) has also not stated as to the presence of the chilly powder either in the eyes or any part of the body. 6. Learned Amicus Curiae argued that Ghadsi Ram, witness of recovery of chilly powder, recovered from the kitchen of the house of the accused vide seizure memos (Exb.P/8 to Exb.P/11), has not been produced. Rajkumar (PW) has not stated anything about Exb.P/8 to Exb.P/11. Exb.P/7 is the seizure memo of blood stained mattress of deceased. Exb.P/8 is the seizure memo of red colour substance like chilly powder. Exb.P/ is the seizure memo of one mattress cover having single blood stain on its corner from the bed of the accused. Prakash (PW7) witness to recovery of chhuri (Exb.P/13) at the instance of the accused-appellant from an open place i.e. from a hollow of a wall made by arranging stones one by one and also site-plan (Exb.P/14) of the place of recovery, has turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case. 7. Learned Amicus Curiae argued that information Exb.P/18 said to have been given by the accused u/S.27 of the Evidence Act to the police with regard to recovery of the weapon of offence indicated the weapon to be a knife, whereas recovery of chhuri has been shown. 7. Learned Amicus Curiae argued that information Exb.P/18 said to have been given by the accused u/S.27 of the Evidence Act to the police with regard to recovery of the weapon of offence indicated the weapon to be a knife, whereas recovery of chhuri has been shown. Rampal (PW12) witness of recovery has clarified this by stating that knife and the chhuri is the same weapon, which is wholly incorrect. No effort was made by the police to obtain finger prints of the accused on the chhuri. Learned Amicus Curiae argued that the accused and the deceased were khatik by caste (butchers) and it cannot be said that they would not aware of distinction between the knife and the chhuri. It is common knowledge that chhuri is generally found in the house of butchers. Besides, recovery of chhuri itself becomes doubtful because as per the site plan (Exb.P/14), it is recovered from the stone wall in front of the house of the accused, whereas in the site plan (Exb.P/6), this wall has not been shown. Learned Amicus Curiae argued that some of the witnesses alleged that blood stains were also found in the house of accused and Nandlal (PW14) has specifically stated so but it has not been indicated in the site-plan (Exb.P/14). 8. It is argued that the learned trial court has given perverse finding in reference to the site-plan (Exb.P/14) in para 33 of the judgment observing that on Northern and Western side of the house, there was 15 feet high wall therefore it was not possible for anyone to enter in the house of the informant. Height of the wall on the side of the house of the accused was hardly 5 feet. According to prosecution, it was the only way through which anyone could come from the roof of the accused to the roof of the house of the complainant. 9. Learned Amicus Curiae argued that in the site-plan, when blood has been indicated in dotted line around the dead-body, the investigation officer omitted to indicate the chilly powder around the dead-body and also the trail thereof leading upto the bed of the accused and thereafter leading to kitchen of the house of the accused, in the site plan, not only the chilly powder has not been indicated but also the recovered substance was not sent to the forensic science laboratory. As per the statements of the prosecution witnesses, powder like substance spread over the place of incident was chilly but the investigation failed to prove that it was in fact chilly powder and that the powder that was recovered from the house of the accused matched therewith. In the site-plan, blood stains were said to be present on the wall of the house of the accused-appellant has also not been indicated, whereas Girdhari Lal (PW11) has stated that there were marks of blood stains on the roof of Sadhu Ram. It is submitted that Smt.Geeta (PW13) - mother of the deceased, in her statement given to the police u/S.161 Cr.P.C. has maintained the version of thrusting the chilly powder in the eyes of deceased and also the blood stains on the wall of the house of the accused, whereas in her statement before the court she did not state so. When confronted with her statement given to the police u/S.161 Cr.P.C., she could not explain the discrepancy. 10. Learned Amicus Curiae argued that single injury on the index finger of the right hand of the accused, which was very insignificant injury in the size of 2½ x 1½cm, cannot conclusively prove that this injury must have been received by the accused in the scuffle with the deceased only because its duration was 24 hours. Learned Amicus Curiae submitted that clothes of the deceased namely; underwear, towel and vest were not recovered by the investigation officer, which is a serious lacunae in the case of investigation. The small container (iron box containing red chilly powder) at the instance of accused vide recovery memo Exb.P/12 has not been produced in the court. 11. Learned Amicus Curiae also referred to the inquest report of the dead-body i.e. panchnama (Exb.P/2) to argue that in the panchnama also, there is no mention of chilly powder. 12. Learned Amicus Curiae argued that the trial court failed to appreciate the site-plan (Exb.P/14), which shows a sheesham-tree (Indian Rosewood) in front of the house of the deceased. As per site plan (Exb.P/6), front of the house of the deceased is on the Eastern side. The `sheesham tree' is very close to the house. 12. Learned Amicus Curiae argued that the trial court failed to appreciate the site-plan (Exb.P/14), which shows a sheesham-tree (Indian Rosewood) in front of the house of the deceased. As per site plan (Exb.P/6), front of the house of the deceased is on the Eastern side. The `sheesham tree' is very close to the house. It is argued that 15 feet boundary wall adjoining the house of the complainant and the accused is of normal height and anybody could have access to the roof of the house of the accused by climbing the sheesham-tree. Learned Amicus Curiae argued that the possibility of any other accused climbing the sheesham-tree and committing murder of Pawan cannot be ruled out. It is an important missing link in the chain of circumstances against the accused. In support of his argument, learned Amicus Curiae placed reliance upon the judgments of Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Singh v. State of Rajasthan : (2013) 5 SCC 722 and Mohd.Faizan Ahmad @Kalu v. State of Bihar : (2013) 2 SCC 131 . 13. Shri Javed Choudhary, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the appeal and submitted that number of circumstances have been individually proved against the accused and the chain of circumstance is so complete as to rule out every reasonable hypothesis compatible with the innocence of the accused. Learned Public Prosecutor argued that a person can even be impelled into committing murder on a trifle issue. Even though the dispute about the nali may not be taken as motive for murder but ultimately it was the jealousy between them, which led to strained relations between the appellant and the deceased. Only house, which was adjoining the house of the deceased was that of the accused. Evidence has proved that both of them were sleeping on the roof of their houses. On two sides of the house of the deceased, there was 15 feet high wall and only the house of the accused was adjoining the house of the deceased. Roof of the two houses was separated by only a 5 feet high wall. Learned Public Prosecutor referred to the statement of Girdhari Lal (PW11), neighbour of both the parties, who stated that wall between the two roofs was only 2½-3 feet. Roof of the two houses was separated by only a 5 feet high wall. Learned Public Prosecutor referred to the statement of Girdhari Lal (PW11), neighbour of both the parties, who stated that wall between the two roofs was only 2½-3 feet. In cross-examination, he has also proved that accused used to sleep in the chaubara of his house situated on the first floor and bed cover having blood stain was recovered from that chaubara, which also had remnants of chilly powder. Rampal (PW12) has also stated that accused Sadhu Ram used to sleep on the tin-shed on the first floor. All this evidence thus show that it was possible only for the accused to access the roof of Pawan and commit his murder. It was he and he alone, who committed the murder and then returned back, without being noticed in the dark of the night. Learned Public Prosecutor on this point has extensively referred to the site plan (Exb.P/6). 14. Learned Public Prosecutor argued that recovery of the mattress cover at the instance of the accused, which had blood stain at its corner also proved his guilt. Chhuri has been recovered at the instance of the accused-appellant, which was lying concealed in hollow of the wall built by arranging stones on one another in front of his house. The chilly powder was recovered from three places of his house, which have been proved by all the prosecution witnesses. Apart from that, a dibba (iron container) containing chilly powder was recovered from a place in front of the kitchen wherefrom the chilly was also found in a polythene bag. Even if Prakash (PW7) witness to recovery of chhuri (Exb.P/13) has turned hostile, Rampal (PW12) has proved the recovery. It is argued that accused was butcher by community and it makes it possible for him to be having the chhuri in his house. 15. Learned Public Prosecutor has placed heavy reliance on the arrest memo (Exb.P/16) and argued that accused, who was arrested at 8.00 p.m. on 30/06/2003 and at the time of his arrest, the injury was found on the index finger of his right hand. His injury report (Exb.P/22) proved that this was an incised wound and duration of injury was less than 24 hours. His injury report (Exb.P/22) proved that this was an incised wound and duration of injury was less than 24 hours. His injury report has been proved by Dr.Sandeep Sharma (PW16), who has stated that this injury could have been caused if hands of the accused slip while attacking victim. Learned Public Prosecutor argued that conduct of the accused in disappearing from his house also reinforces the fact that it was he, who must have committed murder of deceased-Pawan. All the material prosecution witnesses have proved that deceased and accused were having strained relations and therefore they had doubted on the accused for his murder. Conviction has not been recorded solely on the basis of suspicion but evidence collected by the prosecution has proved guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt inasmuch as, proven circumstances point to the accused that it is he and none else, who could have murdered the deceased. The chain of circumstance against the accused is so complete as to rule out every reasonable hypothesis compatible with his innocence. Learned Public Prosecutor argued that accused has not given any explanation of all these circumstances in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., which would also furnish additional circumstance against him in the chain of circumstances. It is therefore prayed that the appeal be dismissed. 16. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. 17. On careful scrutiny of the evidence on record in the light of arguments made at the bar, we find numerous missing links in the findings recorded by the trial court, which we have detailed out hereinbelow:- (i) that first and foremost circumstance that has weighed with the trial court in convicting the accused is that it is the accused and none-else, who could have access to the roof of the deceased to commit his murder in the dark of the night. Girdhari Lal (PW11) has stated that there is common wall between the house of the accused and the deceased and that the wall dividing roof is 2½-3 feet high but as per the site plan Exb.P/6, this wall placed at point No. 7 to be 6 feet in height. Girdhari Lal (PW11) has stated that there is common wall between the house of the accused and the deceased and that the wall dividing roof is 2½-3 feet high but as per the site plan Exb.P/6, this wall placed at point No. 7 to be 6 feet in height. Opinion has been expressed by the investigation officer in the last line of the site plan that deceased was murdered by someone coming from southern side roof of Sadhu Ram situated towards south side, but such opinion cannot be accepted in evidence being hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C. Besides, the site plan also indicates at point No. 6 a sheesham-tree, which is in front of the house of the deceased. Roodmal (PW2) in cross-examination stated that this sheesham-tree was adjacent to the house of the deceased. On northern side of the house of the deceased, at Point no. 17 in the site plan, a gali has been indicated leading to the `bada' of the complainant situated behind the house indicating at Point No. 18. It is because of these two walls that the learned trial court in para 33 of the judgment observed that there being 15 feet high wall, on these two sides, no one could have access to the roof from those sides. House of the accused is situated on the southern side. The tin-shed in which accused, according to the prosecution case, was sleeping on the fateful night is situated at the end corner roof on north-western side of the house is indicated at Point No. . Only 5-6 feet high wall adjacent thereto divides two roofs when evidence also proves that there is a sheesham-tree on eastern side adjoining the wall of the house of the deceased. In that view of the matter, finding of the trial court that murderer could have access only through the roof of the accused, does not stand to reason. Anyone can climb the tree to reach roof through adjacent sheesham-tree so as to reach the roof of the deceased. This is therefore significant missing link in the chain of circumstances. (ii) that even if it is accepted that access to the roof of the deceased could be had from the house of accused, he was not the only one to reach there. This is therefore significant missing link in the chain of circumstances. (ii) that even if it is accepted that access to the roof of the deceased could be had from the house of accused, he was not the only one to reach there. Roodmal (PW2) neighbour of the deceased has proved in cross-examination that apart from accused Sadhu Ram, there are his two younger brothers and mother in the house. While Sadhu Ram used to sleep in the tin-shed on the first floor of his roof, his younger brothers and mother would sleep on the ground floor. Site-plan (Exb.P/6) indicates the stair case in the house of the accused leading from the chowk to the roof. If not mother, any one of his two brothers could also go to the roof of the deceased. This is second significant missing link in the chain of circumstances. (iii) that prosecution has not taken steps to get blood group of the accused and the deceased determined so as to rule out the possibility of the blood group of single blood stain found on one corner of the mattress not matching with that of accused himself. This is third missing link in the chain of circumstances against the accused-appellant. (iv) that most of the prosecution witnesses have come out with the story that chilly powder was spread around the dead-body of deceased Pawan. In fact, Roodmal (PW2) has stated that chilly powder was also seen in the chaubara (tin-shed in which accused was sleeping) around his bed and trail was going from his staircase upto kitchen and that there were blood stains on the wall of his house, apart from the bed cover, which had a single stain on its corner. In the site plan, the blood stains on the wall has not been indicated. Neither the chilly powder around the dead-body of the deceased or around the bed of the accused has been indicated nor any trail of chilly powder has been shown leading to the kitchen of his house. (v) that Rampal (PW12) has stated that there was chilly powder in the eyes of the deceased and around his dead-body. Similarly, Smt.Geeta (PW13) mother of the deceased also stated that there was chilly powder in his eyes. In the post-mortem report (Exb.P/3), such chilly has neither been indicated in the eyes nor any part of the body of the deceased. Similarly, Smt.Geeta (PW13) mother of the deceased also stated that there was chilly powder in his eyes. In the post-mortem report (Exb.P/3), such chilly has neither been indicated in the eyes nor any part of the body of the deceased. Dr.Sandeep Sharma (PW16), who has proved the post-mortem report (Exb.P/3) has also not stated anything about the presence of chilly powder in the eye. All that is stated is that on examination of pupil, they were found dilated and fixed. This appears to be exaggeration because Smt.Geeta (PW13) in her statement given to the police u/S.161 Cr.P.C., did not make any such assertion, which story she narrated for the first time before the court. However, when she was confronted with her police statement u/S.161 Cr.P.C. (Exb.D/5), she failed to give any explanation therefor. The alleged date of incident is 30/06/2003 and statement of Smt.Geeta (PW13) under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 08/07/2003, yet she did not allege so. (vi) that the only motive that has been attributed to the accused is a dispute between two families about a nali adjoining their houses through which the dirty water is discharged. However, Rampal (PW12) in cross-examination stated that neither any civil litigation was pending between the parties nor any such dispute was pending before the Municipal Board. (vii) that all the material prosecution witnesses have stated that there was pool of blood all around the body of the deceased. Ramchandra (PW15), the investigation officer has also proved so in the inquest report (Exb.P/2). Site plan (Exb.P/6) also indicates blood all around the body. The mattress on which deceased was sleeping was fully soaked in the blood, which was seized vide seizure memo (Exb.P/7). Govind Ram (PW10) has also stated in cross-examination that mattress of the bed of deceased was soaked in blood and blood was spread in the radius of 1 feet of the dead body. Dr.Chandrakant Paliwal (PW3), who conducted the postmortem of the deceased has stated that all four chambers of the heart of the deceased were empty and left Caroty artery was cut. In cross-examination, he stated that whenever caroty artery is cut, blood oozes out like a fountain. Blood stains can reach the clothes of the attacker but it would depend from which direction, the accused causes such injury. No blood stains were found on the clothes of the accused. In cross-examination, he stated that whenever caroty artery is cut, blood oozes out like a fountain. Blood stains can reach the clothes of the attacker but it would depend from which direction, the accused causes such injury. No blood stains were found on the clothes of the accused. Even if two views are possible about the possibility of blood stains reaching the clothes of the accused, the view, which favours him, shall have to be preferred. (viii) that only incriminating circumstance against the accused-appellant i.e. injury on the index finger of his right hand in the size of 2½ x 1½cmx skin deep and single stain of blood on the corner of the mattress recovered from his tin-shed alone without further corroboration from other evidence, cannot prove guilt of the accused that it was none-else but he alone, who committed the murder of Pawan. (ix) that if the accused had murdered the deceased, he would have to cross over from the roof of the deceased with chhuri in his hand, to his own roof. In that eventuality, some blood stains in natural course were bound to come on the wall, atleast on the side of the deceased's roof from where he would climb to come to his roof but no such blood stains were found. This is also a circumstance in his favour. (x) that Ghadsi, motbir of seizure of mattress cover (Exb.P/) has not been produced. Seizure of mattress cover has been shown at 3.15 p.m. on 30/06/2003, whereas accused has been shown arrested at 8.00 p.m. on 30/06/2003. (xi) that Rampal (PW12) and Ramchandra (PW15), investigation officer stated that accused after arrest on 30/06/2003 gave information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act vide Exb.P/18 regarding the recovery of knife from the front wall of his house. Instead, recovery of `chhuri' was made vide Exb.P/13 pursuant to such information. Length of the handle of chhuri was 5cm and the sharp-edged part of the chhuri was about cm long. Rampal (PW12) has also stated that such chhuri is used for slaughter of goat, which is commonly available in Fatehpur town.Ramchandra (PW15), the investigation officer has in cross-examination stated that knife and chhuri are synonyms. Rampal (PW12) has also stated that there is no difference between knife and chhuri. Rampal (PW12) has also stated that such chhuri is used for slaughter of goat, which is commonly available in Fatehpur town.Ramchandra (PW15), the investigation officer has in cross-examination stated that knife and chhuri are synonyms. Rampal (PW12) has also stated that there is no difference between knife and chhuri. It is common knowledge that knife is used in cutting smaller objects, whereas kind of chhuri that has been recovered and as per the statements of the prosecution witnesses, is used for slaughter of goats and as per the prosecution case, it was commonly available in Fatehpur town. Even if two views on this aspect are possible, the one which favours the accused, has to be accepted. (xii) that Prakash (PW7), witness to recovery of chhuri (Exb.P/13) at the instance of the accused-appellant from a hollow of a wall made by arranging stones one by one and also of the site-plan (Exb.P/14) of the place of recovery, has turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case. Rampal (PW12) has also stated that the wall of stones from where chhuri was recovered was adjoining public way and lot of people use this as thoroughfare. This indicates that this was accessible to all and sundry including someone, who could have had access to the roof of the deceased by climbing on the `sheesham tree'. (xiii) that all the material prosecution witnesses have admitted that since deceased and accused were having strained relations, therefore they doubted the accused for his murder. Govind Ram (PW10) has also stated that deceased-Pawan Kumar and his father Ramlal (PW6) had strained relations with Sadhu Ram and they were not on talking terms for quite some time. Girdhari Lal (PW11) in cross-examination stated that he was naming Sadhu Ram for murder of Pawan on the basis of doubt. He has also stated that they had doubt only on accused Sadhu Ram for the murder of Pawan because both were having inimical relations for some time. Smt.Geeta (PW13) mother of the deceased has also stated that the deceased had inimical relations with accused Sadhu Ram for quite some time owing to the dispute of nali and therefore she says that he has been murdered only by Sadhu Ram and none else. Suspicion, howsoever, strong cannot take the place of proof. 18. Most of the prosecution witnesses have proceeded on the assumption of doubt against the accused. Suspicion, howsoever, strong cannot take the place of proof. 18. Most of the prosecution witnesses have proceeded on the assumption of doubt against the accused. In the first information report itself a doubt was expressed on accused for murder of deceased-Pawan, which is what has been candidly stated by many of the prosecution witnesses, that they are naming him because of suspicion. The Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Singh supra, on this aspect of the matter held as under:- "Suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot take the place of proof, and there is a large difference between something that `may be proved and `will be proved. In a criminal trial, suspicion no matter how strong, cannot and must not be permitted to take place of proof. This is for the reason, that the mental distance between `may be and `must be is quite large and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. In a criminal case, the court has a duty to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take the place of legal proof. The large distance between `may be true and `must be true, must be covered by way of clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence produced by the prosecution, before an accused is condemned as a convict, and the basic and golden rule must be applied. In such cases, while keeping in mind the distance between `may be true and `must be true, the court must maintain the vital distance between conjectures and sure conclusions to be arrived at, on the touchstone of dispassionate judicial scrutiny based upon a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all features of the case, as well as the quality and credibility of the evidence brought on record. The court must ensure, that miscarriage of justice is avoided and if the facts and circumstances of a case so demand, then the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused, keeping in mind that a reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely probable doubt, but a fair doubt that is based upon reason and common sense." 19. The Supreme Court in Mohd.Faizan Ahmad @Kalu supra has observed that the criminal court recognise only legally admissible evidence and not far-fetched conjectures and surmises. The Supreme Court in Mohd.Faizan Ahmad @Kalu supra has observed that the criminal court recognise only legally admissible evidence and not far-fetched conjectures and surmises. If a criminal court allows its mind to be swayed by the gravity of the offence and proceeds to hand out punishment on that basis, in the absence of any credible evidence, it would be doing great violence to the basic tenets of criminal jurisprudence. It was held as under:- "The material witnesses have expressed suspicion but there is not a single credible piece of evidence linking the appellant to the crime in question. We have no manner of doubt that the offence is grave; the children were abducted and kept in a tunnel for over five months and anonymous calls were made for ransom. Accused whose involvement in such crimes is proved must be dealt with a firm hand, but the seriousness or gravity of the crime must not influence the court to punish a person against whom there is no credible evidence. The trial court, therefore, erred in convicting the appellant." 20. The Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram : (2003) 8 SCC 180 while dealing with a murder case that blood group of blood found on clothes of accused could not be determined, held that in such circumstance, the possibility of blood being that of accused himself could not be ruled out. In the present case, there is an additional factor for holding so because accused is a butcher by caste. Besides, he only had a superficial injury on the index finger, which could possibly be caused for any other reason. Besides this injury, single stain of blood on one corner of the mattress cover made of saree, could not be used against him unless his own blood group was determined vis-a-vis blood group of deceased to at-least rule out that it was not his own blood, especially when that is the only circumstance proved against him, there being no corroboration from any other independent witness/evidence. 21. Contention that deceased had no enmity with anyone, cannot be a reason to accept this as a circumstance against accused to hold him guilty on the premise that since he had enmity with the deceased, therefore, only he could have murdered him. 21. Contention that deceased had no enmity with anyone, cannot be a reason to accept this as a circumstance against accused to hold him guilty on the premise that since he had enmity with the deceased, therefore, only he could have murdered him. Motive of course assumes a significant role in a case of circumstantial evidence, but the kind of motive that has been stated here in the present case is not such, which could impel the accused of committing murder of the deceased particularly when other incriminating evidence is not so strong as to rule out the possibility of any other person being murderer or Pawan. Enmity can even be used both ways, even for false implication of the accused. 22. The Supreme Court in Majenderan Langeswaran v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another : (2013) 7 SCC 192 while dealing with conviction based on circumstantial evidence, held that circumstances from which conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should also be consistent with only one hypothesis i.e. the guilt of accused. Onus lies on prosecution to prove that chain of event is complete and not to leave any doubt in the mind of court. Conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence but it should be tested on touchstone of law relating to circumstantial evidence. In such a case, all circumstances must lead to the conclusion that accused is the only one who has committed crime and none else. In that case, altercation took place between the deceased and the accused before incident. It was held by the Supreme Court that prosecution evidence was found full of inconsistencies and infirmities. The said alternative could not be therefore reckoned as affording a sufficient motive for fatal assault on deceased on the following day; and that in any case such motive alone in the absence of necessary links in circumstantial evidence, would not suffice to record conviction against accused appellant. 23. The Supreme Court in Sampath Kumar v. Inspector of Police, Krishanagiri : (2012) 4 SCC 124 held that motive alone in the absence of any other circumstantial evidence would not be sufficient to convict the appellant. On the materials on record, there may be some suspicion against the accused but as is often said, suspicion, howsoever, strong cannot take the place of proof. 24. On the materials on record, there may be some suspicion against the accused but as is often said, suspicion, howsoever, strong cannot take the place of proof. 24. The Supreme Court in Sunil Clifford Daniel v. State of Punjab : (2012) 11 SCC 205 held that mere act of absconding on the part of accused alone does not necessarily lead to a final conclusion regarding guilt of accused, as even an innocent person may become panic-stricken and try to evade arrest, when suspected wrongly of committing a grave crime, such is the instinct of self- preservation. Absence of motive would put court on its guard and cause it to scrutinise each piece of evidence very closely in order to ensure that suspicion, emotion or conjecture do not take place of proof. If evidence on record suggests sufficient/necessary motive to commit a crime, it may be conceived that accused had committed it. In the present case too, if the accused evaded arrest for first few days, that cannot be taken as a circumstantial evidence against him. 25. In view of above discussion, we are not persuaded to uphold the conviction of the accused-appellant, which is founded entirely on circumstantial evidence. The chain of circumstances against the accused-appellant has got several missing links. Neither individual circumstances are established against the accused-appellant beyond any reasonable doubt nor do they form a chain of circumstance so complete as to rule out every reasonable hypothesis that may be compatible with his innocence. The circumstances do not conclusively prove that it was only the accused-appellant and none-else, who could have committed the murder of deceased-Pawan Kumar. 26. We are therefore persuaded to set-aside the conviction of the accused-appellant Sadhu Ram S/o Surjaram Khatik for offences u/Ss.302 and 458 IPC and acquit him of the charge for the said offences. 27. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The judgment dated 22/11/2003 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Sikar in Sessions Case No. 40/2003 is set-aside. Accused-appellant Sadhu Ram S/o Surjaram Khatik is acquitted of the charge for offences u/Ss.302 and 458 IPC. The accused-appellant, who is in jail for last ten years and four months, if not required to be detained in connection with any other offence, may be released forthwith. 28. Accused-appellant Sadhu Ram S/o Surjaram Khatik is acquitted of the charge for offences u/Ss.302 and 458 IPC. The accused-appellant, who is in jail for last ten years and four months, if not required to be detained in connection with any other offence, may be released forthwith. 28. Keeping in view, however, the provisions of Section 437A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 173, accused-appellant Sadhu Ram is directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- 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 appellant, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court.Appeal allowed. *******