JUDGMENT Mr. Inderjit Singh, J:- The appellant has preferred the present appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 28.02.2002 and order of sentence dated 04.03.2002, passed by the Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, vide which he has been held guilty for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 302 and 377 IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 302 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months under Section 377 IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that FIR in the present case has been registered on the statement of Mata Deen (Ex.PF) in which he stated that his younger son Pawan Kumar alias Poni, aged about 15 years, was student of 9th class. On 04.10.1999 after 5:30 p.m., he went for playing and did not come back upto 8:00 p.m. A search was made in the ‘Mohalla’ and City Dadri. On 05.10.1999, complainant made search of his son Pawan Kumar here and there and then lodged a missing report of Pawan Kumar at police station. Thereafter, complainant, Dharambir, Puppi and Pali while searching, reached near vacant place at about 8:30 p.m. where Sukhi Ram met them and told that a dead body of a boy was lying in a corner of the room situated inside the vacant place (Gher) of Hari Dass Jain. Then complainant alongwith above-stated persons went there and saw the dead body of his son Pawan Kumar lying in a corner of the room. There was white ‘baniyan’ on his body and remaining body was naked. Blood was oozing from his nose and mouth. There was a mark of contusion on his neck. Both the Hawai chappals of Pawan Kumar (deceased) were lying near his dead body. The complainant also stated that his son was wearing a gray colour pant and green lines shirt at the time of departure from the house. He used to wear spectacles. Complainant further stated that some unknown person had killed his son Pawan Kumar and threw him in a corner of room. The complainant also stated that his son was wearing a gray colour pant and green lines shirt at the time of departure from the house. He used to wear spectacles. Complainant further stated that some unknown person had killed his son Pawan Kumar and threw him in a corner of room. After leaving Sukhi Ram and Rakesh near the dead body when complainant alongwith Dharambir was going to police station to lodge the report, in the way, police party met him and his statement was recorded by Sub Inspector Sube Singh, SHO, Police Station City Dadri at about 10:30 p.m. on 05.10.1999. On the basis of statement of complainant, ruqa was sent to the police station pursuant to which FIR was registered. Then the Investigating Officer reached the place of occurrence. It was dark night. The dead body of Pawan Kumar was lying there in a room. There were dragging marks at the place of occurrence. A VT message was flashed to the dog squads at Hisar. Photographer was summoned, who took the photographs of the dead body. Thereafter, Dog Squad officials reached the place of occurrence. Crime Team was headed by Karnail Singh, Expert. Investigating Officer inspected the place of occurrence and prepared rough site plan Ex.PL. Inquest proceedings on the dead body of Pawan Kumar were conducted and inquest report Ex.PM was prepared. Thereafter, dead body was sent for getting conducted postmortem examination. Blood stained earth and a pair of ‘Hawai chappal’ were lifted from the place of occurrence and the same after converting into separate sealed parcels were taken into police possession vide seizure memo Ex.PN. A pair of chappal of accused was also taken into police possession vide seizure memo Ex.PQ. On 24.10.1999, statements of Vivek, Santosh and Manoj Kumar (PWs) were recorded. From their statements, it transpired that accused (appellant of this case) had committed the murder of Pawan Kumar. On 01.11.1999, accused was arrested. On interrogation, he suffered disclosure statement. The accused was taken to the place of occurrence. He pointed out the place of occurrence. Memo Ex.PG regarding pointing out the place of occurrence was prepared. The accused, in pursuance of his disclosure statement, got recovered spectacles, shirt, pant and underwear of deceased Pawan Kumar and the same after converting into sealed parcel were taken into police possession vide recovery memo Ex.PJ. Complainant identified those articles. He pointed out the place of occurrence. Memo Ex.PG regarding pointing out the place of occurrence was prepared. The accused, in pursuance of his disclosure statement, got recovered spectacles, shirt, pant and underwear of deceased Pawan Kumar and the same after converting into sealed parcel were taken into police possession vide recovery memo Ex.PJ. Complainant identified those articles. Site plan Ex.PR of the place of recovery was also prepared. Statements of witnesses were recorded. After necessary investigation, challan against the accused was presented before the Court. 3. On presentation of challan, copies of challan and other documents were supplied to accused under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Finding a prima facie case against the accused, he was chargesheeted for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 302 and 377 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined PW1 Head Constable Mange Ram, who mainly deposed regarding delivery of special report to Ilaqa Magistrate etc. PW2 Head Constable Ram Singh is a formal witness, who tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.PB. PW3 Constable Jai Bhagwan is also a formal witness, who tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.PD. He also deposed regarding handing over sealed parcel containing clothes and one envelop etc. to Sub Inspector Sube Singh after postmortem examination of Pawan Kumar. PW4 Head Constable Raj Pal, (Retd.), Photographer, mainly deposed regarding taking photographs Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 and regarding negatives Ex.P9 to Ex.P16. PW5 Constable Virshakti Singh mainly deposed regarding preparing of scaled site plan Ex.PE. PW6 Mata Deen, complainant, mainly deposed as per prosecution version. He also deposed that the police arrested accused Anil Kumar on 01.11.1999 and made disclosure statement Ex.PH. This witness again deposed that Anil’s father disclosed to Dharambir that clothes of deceased were kept over the roof of the latrine of his house. Thereafter, Anil on the pretext of urination, entered the laterine and threw away the clothes which were lateron collected by the police and the same were made into a parcel and were taken into police possession vide recovery memo Ex.PJ. PW7 Smt.Santosh, wife of complainant Mata Deen, mainly deposed that on 04.10.1999 at around 5:15 p.m., Pawan Kumar had gone to the shop to purchase note-book. On return, he brought the notebook and kept it in the house and thereafter he again went away for playing. PW7 Smt.Santosh, wife of complainant Mata Deen, mainly deposed that on 04.10.1999 at around 5:15 p.m., Pawan Kumar had gone to the shop to purchase note-book. On return, he brought the notebook and kept it in the house and thereafter he again went away for playing. When he did not return upto 7:30 p.m., they searched for him in the neighbourhood. On the next day i.e. 05.10.1999, her husband told her that their son Pawan Kumar was lying dead. Inspite of their best efforts, whereabouts of the killer of his son could not be known. She (PW7) also deposed that Manoj Kumar disclosed to her that Anil accused had taken her son alongwith him. PW8 Manoj Kumar Yadav did not support the prosecution version and was declared hostile. PW9 Sukhi Ram mainly deposed that on 05.10.1999 at about 8:30 p.m., he told Dharambir and other persons that dead body of Pawan was lying in Hari Dass Gher. PW10 Sub Inspector Sube Singh, Investigating Officer, mainly deposed regarding conducting the investigation of this case. PW11 Dr.U.S.Disodia deposed that on 06.10.1999, he conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Pawan Kumar alias Poni. As per doctor (PW11), it was having a ligature mark encircling the neck below thyroid cartilege. Circle was completely around the neck. Margins of the ligature were irregular and echymosed. Size was .75 cm. Centre of the groove, on dissection, showed paler tissues. As per the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death in this case was due to asphyxia caused by strangulation which is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Ligature mark was antemortem in nature. Rectal swabs were taken and sent for forensic examination for confirmation of suspected sodomy. Doctor also deposed that probable time that elapsed between injuries and death was within few minutes and between death and postmortem examination was between 24 to 48 hours. 5. At the close of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and confronted with the evidence of prosecution. The accused denied the correctness of the evidence and pleaded himself as innocent. He also pleaded his false implication and further that he was called in the police station so many times and lateron his arrest was done on 01.11.1999. 6. No evidence was led in defence. 7. The accused denied the correctness of the evidence and pleaded himself as innocent. He also pleaded his false implication and further that he was called in the police station so many times and lateron his arrest was done on 01.11.1999. 6. No evidence was led in defence. 7. The trial Court, after appreciation of evidence, convicted and sentenced the appellant-accused, as mentioned above. 8. At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant contended that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and there is no circumstance proved by the prosecution to connect the accused with the crime. There is no extra judicial confession in the present case made by the accused. There is no last seen evidence in the present case. The recovery of clothes of the deceased in pursuance of disclosure statement made by the accused are falsely planted upon the accused. Therefore, learned counsel for the appellant contended that prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that appeal should be allowed and appellant should be acquitted accordingly. 9. On the other hand, learned Addl. Advocate General, Haryana contended that the case of the prosecution has been duly proved by the PWs. Statements of PWs are duly supported by medical evidence and investigation of this case. Clothes of deceased have been got recovered by the accused in pursuance of his disclosure statement. PW7 Santosh, mother of deceased Pawan Kumar, also deposed that Manoj had told her that Anil had taken away Pawan on that day. Therefore, learned Addl. Advocate General, Haryana contended that there is no merit in the appeal and it should be dismissed. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Addl. Advocate General, Haryana and with their assistance, we have gone through the evidence on record minutely and carefully. From the evidence on record, we find merit in the contentions of learned counsel for the appellants. 11. From the evidence on record, we find that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and in the case of circumstantial evidence, chain of circumstances should be complete. There should not be any missing links and if all the circumstances put together, it should form a complete chain pointing towards the guilt of accused only and none else. There is no cogent evidence on record to connect the accused with the crime. There should not be any missing links and if all the circumstances put together, it should form a complete chain pointing towards the guilt of accused only and none else. There is no cogent evidence on record to connect the accused with the crime. From the evidence on record, it cannot be held that it was the accused only who had committed the murder and none else. There is no extra judicial confession in the present case to link the accused with the crime. Secondly, there is no evidence regarding the last seen. PW8 Manoj, who was the witness of last seen, has not supported the prosecution version and was declared hostile. Statement of PW7 Smt.Santosh, mother of Pawan Kumar (deceased), cannot be treated as last seen evidence as she has stated that Manoj (PW8) had told her that he had seen Anil taking away Pawan (deceased) with him. But in the present case, PW8 Manoj, who is a minor aged about 11 years and student of 5th standard, has not supported the prosecution version. Therefore, from the evidence on record, we find that there is no last seen evidence in the present case. The only evidence against the accused is regarding recovery of clothes of deceased Pawan Kumar by the accused in pursuance of his disclosure statement. PW6 Mata Deen, complainant, is also witness to the recovery. In chief-examination, he has stated that Anil’s father disclosed to Dharambir that clothes of deceased were kept over the roof of the latrine of his house. Thereafter, Anil on the pretext of urination, entered the latrine and threw away the clothes which were lateron collected by the police and the same were made into a parcel and were taken into police possession vide recovery memo Ex.PJ. This version, given by PW6 Mata Deen in chief examination, is totally contradictory with the prosecution version regarding disclosure statement of accused and recovery of clothes of the deceased by the accused in pursuance of disclosure statement. This witness has not been got declared hostile by the Public Prosecutor. Therefore, the statement given by PW6 Mata Deen in chief-examination is totally contradictory to the prosecution version and creates reasonable doubt regarding the version of giving disclosure statement and recovery of clothes by the accused. This witness has not been got declared hostile by the Public Prosecutor. Therefore, the statement given by PW6 Mata Deen in chief-examination is totally contradictory to the prosecution version and creates reasonable doubt regarding the version of giving disclosure statement and recovery of clothes by the accused. Otherwise also, we find that recovery of clothes were shown from the same gher at a distance of 8-9 yards from the place where the dead body was recovered. It looks improbable that police could not notice the concealing of clothes in the heap of bricks, stones etc. especially when there was a crime team and the dog squad on the spot which further creates doubt in the prosecution version. Therefore, a reasonable doubt exists regarding recovery of clothes of deceased Pawan Kumar by the accused. There is no cogent evidence on the record to connect the accused with the crime. Therefore, from the evidence produced on record by the prosecution, we find that it cannot be held that chain of circumstances is complete and point towards the guilt of accused only. There are so many missing links in the chain of circumstances. Therefore, prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused by leading cogent evidence beyond reasonable doubt and benefit of doubt is to go to the accused. Hence giving benefit of doubt to the accused, he is acquitted of the charges framed against him. 12. Resultantly, finding merit in the appeal, the same is allowed. Impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against appellant Anil Kumar are set aside. He is acquitted of the charges framed against him. He is on bail, therefore, his bail bonds/surety bonds stand discharged. --------0.B.S.0------------