Hon'ble GUPTA, J.—All these three appeals are related to same incident and arises of a common judgment hence, these appeals are being decided by this common judgment. 2. These appeals have been filed against the judgment dated 24.10.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sambhar Lake Distt. Jaipur in Sessions Case No.17/2006 whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under: Accused appellant Omshiv Pratap Singh @ Om Singh @ Banna Under Section 302/34 IPC: to undergo Life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo additional six month S.I.; Accused appellant Sohan Singh @ Fauzi Under Section 302/34 IPC: to undergo Life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo additional six month S.I.; Accused appellant Omshiv Pratap Singh @ Om Singh @ Banna Under Section 302/34 IPC: to undergo Life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo additional six month S.I.; (All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently) 3. The brief facts giving rise to these appeals are that complainant Narendra Singh (PW/18) has lodged a written report Ex.P/27 at Police Station Jobner, District Jaipur on which FIR No. 60/2006 has been registered on 25.6.2006. It was stated in the First Information Report that on 25.6.2006 when informant Narendra Singh received a phone call from Vishnu Prakash at about 8.00 a.m. that he should come to Bhande Ke Balaji with having money with him and his brother Guman Singh has been beaten and his both knees have been fractured. On this information, Narendra Singh went at Bhande ke Balaji, there Datar Singh and Dhara Singh met him. Datar Singh told him that Jitu @ Ajitsingh, driver has told him that Guman Singh has been beaten near Pipali Nada by Omsingh and Fauzi and they have broken his both legs. They all were in Jeep of Fauji. Thereafter, he along with Dara Singh and Datar Singh went in search of his brother near Dhinda Railway Station, they saw the dead body of Guman Singh, he was badly beaten and both his legs and hands were broken and he was dead. On this information, FIR was registered and after usual investigation, charge-sheet against the present appellants for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC was filed. On this information, FIR was registered and after usual investigation, charge-sheet against the present appellants for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC was filed. The court below has framed charges against the appellants for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC. They denied the charges and claimed for trial. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined PW.1 Hanif, PW.2 Ajay Kumar, PW.3 Kishan Lal, PW.4 Madan Lal, PW.5 Bajrang Singh, PW.6 Mahendra Singh, PW.7 Girdhari Singh, PW.8 Vishnu Prakash, PW.9 Jitendra Singh, PW.10 Jabbar Singh, PW.11 Shankar Singh, PW.12 Dr. Hari Narayan Bajiya, PW.13 Mukesh Kumar, PW.14 Hanuman Das, PW.15 Laxman, PW.16 Ranveer Singh, PW.17 Raghuveer Singh, PW.18 Narendra Singh, PW.19 Dhara Singh and PW.20 Dharmendra Singh and documents Ex.P/1 to P/53 have been produced. Statements of accused persons have been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and in defence, no oral defence evidence has been produced but they relied upon Ex.D/1 to D/2. After conclusion of the trial, the present appellants have been convicted and sentenced, as referred above. Hence these appeals. 4. The contention of the present appellants is that the whole prosecution story rests upon circumstantial evidence as there is no direct evidence. The main stand of the learned trial Court to base his conviction is on recovery of cloths of accused appellants and the deceased and iron rod, used for offence whereupon blood has been found and recoveries have been made under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The settled proposition of law relating to circumstantial evidence is that in case of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution should prove a complete chain of evidence and each and every piece of incriminating circumstance must be clearly established by cogent, reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances should be such which leaves no other hypothesis than the guilt of the accused. Here in the present case, the only evidence against the present appellants is that their blood stained cloths have been recovered and blood group on the cloths matched with the blood group of the deceased but admittedly, blood group of accused have not been ascertained, recovery of cloths is unreliable. Witness PW.4 Madan Lal has not corroborated the fact of recovery and PW.20 Dharmendra Singh is a designed witness, he is relative of deceased family. He is not the resident of the village. Witness PW.4 Madan Lal has not corroborated the fact of recovery and PW.20 Dharmendra Singh is a designed witness, he is relative of deceased family. He is not the resident of the village. Datar Singh has been named in the First Information Report and has first saw the dead body but not been produced by the prosecution, blood group of accused persons have not been taken for matching. The prosecution has not defined the role of each accused person. No motive has been shown for the crime. PW.1 Haneef who is driver of the jeep has not corroborated the prosecution story and specifically denied he fact that on the fateful day, Sohan Singh was not on the jeep hence the whole prosecution story is doubtful, chain of circumstances are not so complete to convict the present appellants. The court below has erred in his findings. Per contra, the contention of the Public Prosecutor is that on the instance of present appellants, blood stained cloths and iron rod have been recovered and blood stains on the clothes of appellants and deceased are of same blood group and this is sufficient evidence to connect the present appe-llants with the crime, hence there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment. 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. There is no dispute about the fact that case of the prosecution rests upon the circumstantial evidence as there is no direct evidence to connect he present appellants with the crime. The counsel for the appellants have submitted that only recovery of cloths, iron rod whereupon blood was found is the connecting evidence on which finding of conviction has been recorded but record of the case speaks that apart from recovery of blood stained cloths, prosecution has relied upon evidence of last seen the deceased with the present appellants. PW.1 Haneef is the driver of the jeep in which deceased has been taken by the present appellants but he has not supported the prosecution story and his specific contention is that he had not seen Sohan Singh on the day of the incident. 7. PW.1 Haneef is the driver of the jeep in which deceased has been taken by the present appellants but he has not supported the prosecution story and his specific contention is that he had not seen Sohan Singh on the day of the incident. 7. PW.6 Mahendra Singh has also been produced to testify the fact that on the day of incident when he was going in the jeep of Sohan Singh @ Fauzi, when they reached near Phulera, Sohan Singh has picked another person in the Jeep and Om Singh and others started beating him. He got gown from the jeep at Rozari Station and thereafter, he head that Guman Singh has died but during his statement before the Court, Mahendra Singh, PW.6 has not testified this fact. He has been declared hostile and he has resiled from his previous statements. 8. PW.7 Girdhari Singh is another witness to this effect but he has also not supported the prosecution story and he has stated that on that day, they have not picked any passenger from Phulera. PW/10 Jabbar Singh is another witness to testify the fact of last seen the deceased with the appellants but he has also resiled from his earlier version and he has stated that on that day, Om Singh has taken not taken any passenger, he has no knowledge about the fact. PW/14 Hanuman Das has also not supported the prosecution story on this fact. Thus the prosecution has tried to develop a story that on that day, the deceased was last seen with he present appellants and they took the deceased in their Jeep and in the way, they also gave beating to deceased in presence of PW.6 Mahendra Singh, PW.7 Girdhari Singh, PW.10 Jabbar Singh and PW.14 Hanuman Das, all the four witnesses has not supported this story. 9. 9. The contention of the Public Prosecutor is that the witnesses can tell lie and could turn hostile but the circumstances could not and recovery of blood stained clothes and iron rod is sufficient to connect the present appellants with the crime but when a specific fact has been shown against the present appellants which could not be proved by the prosecution, it is much more harmful to the prosecution that a specific fact and averment could not be substantiated by the prosecution evidence, hence the prosecution has remained utterly failed to prove this particular fact against the present appellants that they have been last seen with the deceased or they have given beating or taken the deceased in the Jeep. 10. PW.18 Narendra Singh has lodged the FIR that Vishnu Prakash, PW/8 has phoned him and when he reached at the spot, Datar Singh and one driver resident of Dhindra has also narrated him the story. Vishnu Prakash has been examined as PW.8, he has not supported the prosecution story and has been declared hostile and his contention is that nobody came to his S.T.D. PCO shop to have any phone call and he has not called Narendra Singh, PW.18. In his previous statement recorded during investigation under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.P/20, PW.8 Vishnu Prakash has also referred that Datar Singh and Jeetu has told him about the incident. Datar Singh has not been produced to support the prosecution story, Jitendra Singh has been examined as PW.9 but he has not supported the prosecution story, he has been declared hostile and his specific contention is that he has not narrated the fact to anybody as regards to beating with the deceased by the appellants. PW.5 Bajrang Singh has also stated that PW.7 Girdhari has not stated anything to him and on the day of incident, he had not seen the appellants with the deceased. Thus ocular evidence produced by the prosecution has not supported the prosecution story. 11. PW.12 Dr. PW.5 Bajrang Singh has also stated that PW.7 Girdhari has not stated anything to him and on the day of incident, he had not seen the appellants with the deceased. Thus ocular evidence produced by the prosecution has not supported the prosecution story. 11. PW.12 Dr. Harinarayan Bajiya has conducted the postmortem of deceased and prepared post mortem report Ex.P/24 and opined that cause of death is asphyxia as a result of ante mortem manual strangulation which is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and post mortem also suggests that the deceased has received 11 injuries, out of which many are multiple abrasions and multiple bruises and also a ligature mark on neck below thyroid cartilage and compression of tracheal rings was present. In which manner the incident has taken place has not been narrated and proved by the prosecution. Dhara Singh, PW.19 has stated the story as per information of Vishnu and Datar Singh and he has no personal knowledge about the manner of the incident. 12. PW.16 Ranveer Singh is the SHO of Phulera who has stated that on 25.6.2006 at about 11.50 a.m. by phone call, he came to know that near Railway Station Dhinda, a dead body is lying, he reached at the spot, prepared the site plan, registered the case prepared the Panchanama of dead body and also arrested the accused persons and on their information and instance, their blood stained clothes and iron rod at the instance of Om Shiv Pratap Singh has been recovered. PW.4 Madanlal is the independent witness to the recovery, he has not supported the fact of recovery. Even recovery memos Ex.45, 46 and 47 have not been put to him in his examination-in-chief. He has not stated that anything has been recovered from the accused persons before him. The other witness of recoveries is PW.20 Dharmendra Singh who has supported the fact of recovery, PW.3 Kishanlal is the carrier who took the recovered articles to FSL and PW.13 Mukesh Kumar Malkhana, Incharge has also been produced. After examination, FSL report Ex.P/53 has been received and it was found that on the clothes of deceased, human blood of Group 'AB' has been found and on iron rod recovered from Omshiv Pratap Singh @ Om Singh and shirt of Sohan Singh, pent of Om Prakash and on T-shirt of Lakhan Singh, same group has been found. After examination, FSL report Ex.P/53 has been received and it was found that on the clothes of deceased, human blood of Group 'AB' has been found and on iron rod recovered from Omshiv Pratap Singh @ Om Singh and shirt of Sohan Singh, pent of Om Prakash and on T-shirt of Lakhan Singh, same group has been found. Jeep seat cover has been recovered at the instance of Sohan Singh on which also human blood AB has been found and the contention of the Public Prosecutor is that this is sufficient circumstance to connect the present appellants with the crime, no explanation has been given by the appellants that how blood stains have been found on their clothes. 13. Admittedly, the incident is of 25.6.2006. Present appellants have been arrested on 27.6.2006 and blood stain clothes have been recovered on 28.6.2006. It is very unnatural that the accused will keep on wearing blood stained clothes for three days and will not dispose them to save themselves. 14. The contention of the appellants is that only on the basis of recovery of clothes and iron rod, the conviction could not be based in the absence of any other incriminating evidence against the present appellants which is not a sufficient evidence to hold the appellants guilty and reliance has been placed on Madhu vs. State of Kerala, (2012) 2 SCC 399 wherein it has been held: "The care and caution with which circumstantial evidence has to be evaluated stands recognized by judicial precedent. Only circumstantial evidence of a very high order can satisfy the test of proof in a criminal prosecution. In a case resting on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete unbroken chain of events leading to the determination that the inference being drawn from the evidence is the only inescapable conclusion. In the absence of convincing circumstantial evidence, an accused would be entitled to the benefit of doubt." 15. Here in the present case, the main stand of the prosecution case is recovery of blood stain clothes that too after three days of the incident which is unnatural and apart from it, prosecution has not proved the blood group of accused. Further reliance has been placed on State of U.P. vs. Lala Singh & Ors., (1990) 2 SCC 687 wherein it has been held that recovery of weapon is insufficient evidence to connect the appellants with the crime. Further reliance has been placed on State of U.P. vs. Lala Singh & Ors., (1990) 2 SCC 687 wherein it has been held that recovery of weapon is insufficient evidence to connect the appellants with the crime. Further reliance has been placed on Pratap Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, RLR 1984 Pg. 126 where it has been held that unless there is some more material, it would not be proper to convict the accused only on the basis of recovery. Reliance has also been placed on Kachhawaha vs. State of Rajasthan, RLW 1985 Pg. 97 wherein it has been held that mere recovery of weapon furnishes no incriminating material against accused. There is no evidence to link the present appellants with the crime. The Public Prosecutor has submitted that the present appellants have not explained presence of blood on their clothes. The contention of the present appellants is that it is duty of the prosecution and no adverse inference could be drawn against the present appellants, if they chooses to be remained silent and reliance has been placed Nagappa Dondida vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 1980 SC 1753 wherein it was held: "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 gain any strength from the conduct of the accused in remaining silent." 16. Further reliance has been placed on Hukam Singh vs. State of Raj., AIR 1977 SC 1063 wherein it has been held: "Then the next circumstance which was relied upon on behalf of the prosecution was the presence of stains of human blood on the shirt worn by the appellant at the time of his arrest. But this is also not such a circumstance as points clearly and unmistakably to one and only one conclusion, namely, that the appellant committed the murders." 17. But this is also not such a circumstance as points clearly and unmistakably to one and only one conclusion, namely, that the appellant committed the murders." 17. The contention of the appellants is that in the case of circumstantial evidence, the court should be cautions of the fact that there can always be a danger that conjunctures or surmises 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 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, a 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, he circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all he 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. 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 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 he 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 relief must be consistent with the sole hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. It is not to be expected hat 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(1) WLC (SC) Cri. 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(1) WLC (SC) Cri. 254 : (2010) 2 SCC 748 , it has been held: "When a murder charge is to be proved solely on the 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 many 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 serious criminal cases, in a trial for murder it is extremely weak in comparison with the dominant presumption of innocence." 18. On the touch stone of above, if the evidence adduced by the prosecution be scanned. The only circumstance against appellants is recovery of blood stain clothes that too after three days of incident and surprisingly, the appellants wearing the clothes for three days and they had not tried to dispose of the clothes. Apart from it, there is no evidence of blood group of accused persons, hence this single circumstance is not compatible with the hypothesis of guilt looking to the nature of discovered articles that recovery has also not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, PW/4 Madan Lal has not supported the fact of recovery and reliability of PW/20 Dharmendra have question-mark as he is not the resident of same village and interested witness too. The prosecution has relied on the circumstance that deceased has last seen with the appellants but miserably failed to prove the fact and it puts a dent on the glossy surface of the case of the prosecution. 19. The prosecution has relied on the circumstance that deceased has last seen with the appellants but miserably failed to prove the fact and it puts a dent on the glossy surface of the case of the prosecution. 19. The contention of the appellants is that no motive has been disclosed by the prosecution to commit such a heinous crime. The contention of the Public Prosecutor is that PW/18 Narendra Singh who has lodged the First Information Report has specifically stated that present appellants were having inimical relations with the deceased as the appellants were in the habit of stealing engines and deceased has refused to carry the engines and appellants were under notion that deceased will make public the mal-practices of he appellants and with his enmity, the offence has been committed but counsel for the appellants has rightly pointed out that nothing has been stated in the first Information Report as regards to enmity between the parties and other witnesses Vishnu Prakash (PW/8), Girdhari Singh (PW/7), Hanumandas (PW/14), Jabbar Singh (PW/10), Bajrang Singh (PW/5) and Jitendra Singh (PW/9) has also not stated anything as regards enmity. Even PW/19 Dhara Singh who is the real brother of the deceased has not stated anything as regards the enmity, hence the prosecution has failed to establish any motive behind the crime. 20. The contention of the Public Prosecutor is that absence of motive is not an infirmity in the prosecution case. It is true that if direct evidence is there, the motive looses its significance but in the cases of circumstantial evi-dence, motive assumes significance and reliance has been placed on Subodh Nath & Anr. vs. State of Tripura, 2013 IX AD (S.C.) 242 wherein was held: "Motive becomes relevant as additional circumstance in a case where prosecution seeks to prove the guilty by circumstantial evidence only." Further reliance may be placed on Sathya Narayanan vs. State, 2013 IX AD (S.C.) 263 wherein also it was held: "In the case of circumstantial evidence, motive also assumes significance for the reason that the absence of motive would put the court on its guard and cause it to scrutinize each piece of evidence closely in order to ensure that suspicion, omission or conjecture do not take the place of proof." 21. Here in the present case, as scanned earlier, the circumstantial evidence against the present appellants is shaky and insufficient and does not complete he chain of link and could not establish that in all probability, the act must be done by the appellants, hence the motive become significant and absence of motive is also a negative factor against the prosecution. 22. The counsel for the appellants have rightly pointed out that in the case of circumstantial evidence, the appellants could not be convicted on the principles of vicarious liability as there is no evidence that all the three accused persons were sharing any common intention or they have meeting of mind prior to the incident as such he conviction with the aid of Section 34 is also perverse. 23. The entire case of the prosecution hinges on circumstantial evidence and there is no chain of circumstances which prosecution has been able to prove against the appellants. There are several missing links entitling the appellants to benefit of doubt. The learned trial Court has based his judgment entirely on surmises and conjunctures which have no place in the eye of law. The conviction of the appellants on such shaky and in sufficient evidence, therefore, deserves to be set aside. Consequently, all the three appeals are allowed. The judgment and order dated 24.10.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sambhar Lake, District Jaipur in Session Case No.17/2006 is quashed and set aside. The accused appellant are acquitted of all the charges leveled against them. All the accused appellants are in jail, therefore, they maybe released forthwith, if not required in any other case. Keeping in view, however, the provisions