JUDGMENT 1. - This DB Cr. Appeal under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment and order dated 11.1.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track) No. 2 Distt. Ajmer in Sessions Case No. 2/2004(5/2004) whereby the present appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Under Section 302 IPC:- to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and in default thereof to further undergo six months imprisonment. Under Section 201 IPC:- to undergo 2 years simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months simple imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The short facts of the case are that on 22.7.2003, an information has been received by Police Station Jawaja that a dead body is lying at Rajiawas by pass. On this information, SHO went on the spot where Dhool Singh filed a report in which it has been stated that today at about 7.30 AM in the morning, he came to Rajiawas Road where some persons were standing when he reached near, he saw a dead body was lying there. Thereafter on 27.7.2003 PW/22 Jeevanram- brother of the deceased has lodged a written report Ex.P/38 stating therein that his brother is working with Super Cargo Company at Gandhi Dham and on 18.7.2003, his brother left Gandhidam to Kanpur in a tanker and appellant Salim has also accompanied him and they have to reach Kanpur by 22.7.2003. He has been informed that tanker in which his brother was traveling has been seized at Parbatsar Police Station and oil loaded in the tanker has been sold to Ramniwas by Anil Kothari. He went to Police Station Parbartsar where he identified the photo and clothes of his brothers and further it has been stated that Salim,Ramniwas and Anil Kothari have murdered his brother Rameshwar after hatching conspiracy. On this, report FIR No. 115/2003 has been registered. After investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against present appellant and other 5 co-accused persons. Charges have been framed against the appellant and other accused persons for the offences under sections 302,201,379,411 and 414 IPC which were denied by the accused persons and they claimed for trial. On this, report FIR No. 115/2003 has been registered. After investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against present appellant and other 5 co-accused persons. Charges have been framed against the appellant and other accused persons for the offences under sections 302,201,379,411 and 414 IPC which were denied by the accused persons and they claimed for trial. To prove the case against the present appellant, prosecution has examined PW/1 Prabhu Singh, PW/2 Jagdish Singh, PW/3 Ramkumar, PW/4 Shravan, PW/5 Omprakash, PW/6 Mohan Lal, PW/7 Suresh Kumar, PW/8 Dr. Madhusudhan Tak,PW/9 Vijay Kumar Jain, PW/10 Omprakash, PW/11 Dhool Singh, PW/12 Dr. Ashish Saxena,PW/13 Rajendra Singh, PW/14 Dashrat Singh, PW/15 Amarjeet Singh, PW/16 Deva Ram, PW/17 Manish Bakshi, PW/18 Sanjay Kumar Vijay, PW/19 Dalpat Singh, PW/20 Rajeever Singh , PW/21 Shambhoo Singh, PW/22 Jeevan Ram, PW/23 Shyam Singh, PW/24 Rakesh Kumar, and PW/25 Kailash Choudhary and also relied upon documents Ex. P/1 to P/48. The accused appellant has been examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. No oral defence evidence has been produced. After conclusion of trial,the present appellant has been convicted and sentenced as indicated above whereas other accused appellants have been acquitted. Hence, this appeal has been preferred by the appellant. 3. The contention of the present appellant is that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and the chain of circumstance is not complete.The only evidence against the present appellant is recovery of shirt of the deceased and identification of the place where the dead body was lying. Both the evidence are unreliable. Shirt has not been identified by any of the witnesses that it belongs to accused appellant and place where the body is lying was already within the knowledge of the police, hence it could not be looked into under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, hence appellant be acquitted. 4. Per contra, the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor is that recovery of shirt is sufficient to connect the present appellant with the crime. 5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the impugned judgment as well as original record of the case. 6. 4. Per contra, the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor is that recovery of shirt is sufficient to connect the present appellant with the crime. 5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the impugned judgment as well as original record of the case. 6. PW/22 Jeevanram is the informant who has lodged FIR stating therein that Salim went with his brother in the tanker and thereafter his brother has been found to be dead but in court's statement PW/22 Jeevanram has specifically stated that when tanker started from Gandhidham, he was not there and he was at his native village Arjunpura, thus he has not supported the story that he saw accused appellant with deceased-Rameshwar or the accused appellant was last seen with the deceased, no other oral evidence has been produced by the prosecution to support its case. 7. PW/25 Kailash Chaudhary has stated that on the information of the present appellant, shirt has been recovered vide Ex.P/13. PW/4 Shravan has also testified the fact that shirt has been recovered at the instance of the accused but the contention of the present appellant is that shirt belongs to deceased has not been proved.PW/22 Jeevanram has stated that he identified the cloths of the deceased but admittedly, shirt which has been recovered vide Ex.P/13 on 7.8.2003 has not been put to identification to PW-22 Jeevanram who is brother of the deceased and none other person has stated that the shirt belongs to the deceased. The contention of the counsel for the appellant is well founded that there was no occasion for the accused to take off the shirt from the dead body and put it on some other place hence in absence of the evidence without proving that the recovered shirt belongs to the deceased, present appellant could not be connected with the crime. 8. The other contention against the appellant is that he identified the place where the dead body was lying. PW/25 Kailash Choudhary has stated that accused appellant identified the place where the dead body was lying. 8. The other contention against the appellant is that he identified the place where the dead body was lying. PW/25 Kailash Choudhary has stated that accused appellant identified the place where the dead body was lying. Admittedly, prosecution case is that vide Ex.P/42, Dhool Singh has reported the matter on 22.7.2003 that dead body is lying near Rajiawas, which has been taken in custody by the police and Panchnama has been prepared.The dead body was lying there was within the knowledge of the Investigation Officer since 22.7.2003 and no fact has been discovered on the information of accused, hence this fact could not be considered against appellant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and this fact cannot be made basis of the conviction of the appellant. 9. No other circumstance has been produced by the prosecution to connect the present appellant with the crime. PW/8 Dr. Madhusudhan Tak has conducted post mortem of the deceased and vide post mortem report Ex.P/24, the cause of death is asphyxia and the mode of death is strangulation. 10. The law on the question of circumstantial evidence is well settled that an accused can be convicted in a case of circumstantial evidence only if the chain of circumstances against him is so complete as to rule out every single hypothesis that may be compatible with his innocence. Standard of proof in a criminal matters is always beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the prosecution in every such case is required to prove guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. If there is any scope of reasonable doubt, benefit of such doubt has to be extended to the accused. The rival submissions have to be therefore tested on that yardstick to find out whether alleged offences against the accused appellant have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. 11. It is trite that in a case of circumstantial evidence there must be complete chain of evidence which should lead to conclusion that the accused was the only person, who could have committed offence and none else. Each of circumstances that is proved against the accused should form a chain so complete so as to rule out every other hypothesis, which may be compatible with innocence of the accused. Each of circumstances that is proved against the accused should form a chain so complete so as to rule out every other hypothesis, which may be compatible with innocence of the accused. Though the prosecution sought to produce a large number of independent witnesses to prove the factum of last seen, motive and recovery against accused-appellants but their testimony stands on a shaky ground and has many contradictions, inconsistencies and does not prove any of those three factors, viz., last-seen, recovery and motive, beyond reasonable doubt. Prosecution has not been able to prove any of these three circumstances independently beyond reasonable doubt, let alone forming a chain of circumstance. Analysis of the evidence that we have made above, makes it evident that there are several missing links in the chain of circumstances, which cannot be accepted to be so complete as to point to the guilt of the accused and none else and when every single possibility of accused being innocent is ruled out. 12. The Supreme Court in Ashish Batham v. State of M.P.- (2002) 7 SCC 317 , in Para 8 of the judgment, held as under:- "Realities or Truth apart, the fundamental and basic presumption in the administration of criminal law and justice delivery system is the innocence of the alleged accused and till the charges are proved beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of clear, cogent, credible or unimpeachable evidence, the question of indicting or punishing an accused does not arise, merely carried away by heinous nature of the crime or the gruesome manner in which it was found to have been committed. Mere suspicion, however, strong or probable it may be is no effective substitute for the legal proof required to substantiate the charge of commission of a crime and grave the charge is greater should be the standard of proof required. Courts dealing with criminal cases at least should constantly remember that there is a long mental distance between 'may be true' and 'must be true' and this basic and golden rule only helps to maintain the vital distinction between 'conjectures' and 'sure conclusions' to be arrived at on the touch stone of a dispassionate judicial scrutiny based upon a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all features of the case as well as quality and credibility of the evidence brought on record." 13. It may be noted that in Ashish Batham, supra, the case was entirely based on circumstantial evidence in which recovery of chain of the deceased and knife used in the commission of offence as well as blood stained clothes of the accused crept suspicion about role of the accused but recovery being delayed, having been made after second remand of the accused, was itself held to be doubtful and the factum about motive that accused was in love with the deceased also not accepted. It was held that only for this reason it cannot even remotely presumed that this could be the cause of murder unless it was substantiated by credible evidence that affair broken beyond redemption. Motive factor was held to have no legal basis to constitute sufficient circumstance to connect the appellant with the crime. The accused was therefore acquitted. 14. In Mohd. Arif v. State (NCT of Delhi) - (2011) 13 SCC 621 , the Supreme Court held that each of the circumstances has to be assessed on its own merits. Quality rather than quantity of evidence is crucial factor in a case of circumstantial evidence. The court has to be cautious against imaginary inferences or its prejudices, which may unwittingly creep in. Its verdict must be based on clear and irrefutable logic. Responsibility of the prosecution in a case of circumstantial evidence is more as compared to the cases where ocular testimony or the direct evidence is available. 15. In Kulvinder Singh v. State of Haryana - (2011) 5 SCC 258 , also it was held by the Supreme Court that in exceptional cases, conviction of accused can be based solely on circumstantial evidence but in that case the prosecution has to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt and cannot derive any strength from weakness of defence put up by accused. Circumstances from which guilt is to be drawn should be fully established and should be of a conclusive nature and exclude all possible hypotheses except the one to be proved. Facts so established must be consistent with hypothesis of guilt of accused and chain of evidence must be so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with innocence of accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by accused and none else. 16. Facts so established must be consistent with hypothesis of guilt of accused and chain of evidence must be so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with innocence of accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by accused and none else. 16. In Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu v. John David - (2011) 5 SCC 509 , also the Supreme Court sounded a word of caution that the court must be cautious against conjectures and surmises taking place of proof. Circumstances so proved must form a chain of events pointing to guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt without there being possibility of any other hypothesis. Each and every incriminating circumstance must be clearly established by reliable and clinching evidence, and the circumstances so proved must form chain of proof from which natural and irresistible conclusion could be drawn as to the guilt of accused and no other hypothesis against guilt is possible. It was further observed by their Lordships that in a case depending largely upon circumstantial evidence, there is always a danger that conjectures and surmises may take place a legal proof. The court must satisfy itself that various circumstances in the chain of events have been established clearly and such complete chain of events must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of innocence of the accused. The court has to be watchful and avoid the danger of allowing the suspicion to take the place of legal proof. There is a long mental distance between 'may be true' and 'must be true' and the same divides conjectures from sure conclusions. It was further observed that when important link goes, the chain of circumstances gets snapped. This is what has happened in the present case because of failure of the prosecution to conclusively connect the accused with the crime. 17. In view of the above discussion, we are not persuaded to uphold the conviction of the accused appellant which is found entirely on circumstantial evidence. The chain of circumstances against the appellant has got several missing links. 17. In view of the above discussion, we are not persuaded to uphold the conviction of the accused appellant which is found entirely on circumstantial evidence. The chain of circumstances against the appellant has got several missing links. Neither individual circumstances are established against the accused appellant beyond reasonable doubt nor do they form a chain of circumstances so complete as to rule out every reasonable hypothesis that may be incompatible 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 Rameshwar. 18. We are, therefore, persuaded to set aside the conviction of the accused appellant Salim @ Babru @ Babruddin for offence u/s 302 read with Section 201 IPC and acquit him of the charge for the said offence. 19. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The judgment dated 11.1.2005 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2 Ajmer Camp Beawar in Sessions case NO. 2/2004(5/2004 old number) is set aside. Accused appellant Salim @ Babru @ Babruddin s/o Shri Sayer R/o Amba Ki Gali, Shyamgarh, Police Station Beawar Sadar, Ajmer is acquitted of the charge for offence u/s 302 read with Section 201 IPC. The accused appellant is in jail for last 10 years and two months, if not required to be detained in connection with any other case be released forthwith.Keeping in view, however, the provisions of Section 437A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, accused appellant Salim @ Babru @ Babruddin is 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 appellant, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court.Appeal allowed. *******