JUDGMENT 1. This appeal has been preferred by the accused-appellant Mukesh Jat aggrieved by the judgement of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sambhar Lake, District Jaipur dated 7.9.2006 by which he has been convicted for offence under section 302 read with 34 of IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. He has already served out sentence of more than eight years. 2. The facts of the case are that a written report was submitted by Man Singh (PW 19) to SHO Police Station, Dudu on 27.11.2004 (Ex.P.27) that he was resident of village Keria Bujurg and that Vijay Jat, resident of Chhota Narayana, Chhotu Daroga (PW 4), resident of Keria Bujurg and Kalu Kumhar (PW 5) resident of Keria Bujurg had taken his son Mukesh Badwa @ Mukesh Rao with them at about 10-11 AM on 26.11.2004. When his son did not come back to their house in the evening, they made a search for him and later he was found dead in the house of Navrang Lal Jat of Village Shekawatiyon Ki Dhani Tan Padsoli. There was a mark on his neck. The accused-appellant Mukesh Jat son of Navrang Lal was found in the house, but co-accused Vijay Jat was missing. The complainant expressed the doubt that his son might have been murdered by Mukesh Jat and his companions. On the basis of the aforesaid written report, a first information report was chalked out for offence under section 302/34 of IPC. After investigation, police filed challan against the accused-appellant Mukesh because co-accused Vijay Jat was absconding. The prosecution has produced 27 witnesses and exhibited 31 documents, whereas the defence produced 1 witness and exhibited 5 documents. The accused in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the allegation and submitted that when the police came to his house, he did not abscond. Had he actually committed the murder of the deceased Mukesh Badwa @ Mukesh Rao, he would have easily thrown his dead body in the adjoining well or in the nearby jungle so as to make it look like a case of suicide and the dead body would not be recovered from his house. He claimed he was innocent. The learned trial court after completion of trial, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant in the manner indicated above. Hence this appeal. 3. He claimed he was innocent. The learned trial court after completion of trial, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant in the manner indicated above. Hence this appeal. 3. Shri Suresh Sahni, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the entire case hinges on the circumstantial evidence. The charge against the accused-appellant has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The chain of circumstances against the accused-appellant has several missing links. Chain of circumstances, which have been relied on by the trial court in convicting the accused-appellant, has very many missing links. Howsoever grave may be the offence, the accused-appellant could not have been convicted only because dead body was found in a room of his house, which was owned by his father. The evidence has come on record that on the night of the fateful day, he was sleeping with his wife in another room, who was carrying the pregnancy of more than eight months. The deceased Mukesh Badwa @ Mukesh Rao had gone to village Dantri along with co-accused Vijay Jat who happens to be brother in law of the appellant, being brother of his wife and therefore had access to his house. They returned back very late in the night. The evidence has proved that they had gone together to village Dantri. They had drinks together, which has been proved by Dr. Sanjay Bundela (PW 7), who conducted the postmortem vide postmortem report (Ex.P.5). FSL report (Ex.P.31), which has been exhibited by the Investigating Officer Bhagwan Singh (PW 27), proves that the visra of the deceased gave a positive test for the presence of aluminium phosphide and ethyl alcohol. 4. Shri Suresh Sahni, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial court has not appreciated the prosecution evidence in true perspective and rather misread the same to hold the accused-appellant guilty. Learned counsel in this connection referred to the statement of Smt. Prem Kanwar (PW 15), the witness of the last seen, who has named only co-accused Vijay Jat, Chhotu and Kalu as those who had taken her son Mukesh Badwa @ Mukesh Rao (deceased) with them to Relana, a place situated approximately 2 kms. away from her house. While Chhotu and Kalu returned back, Vijay Jat still did not come back. away from her house. While Chhotu and Kalu returned back, Vijay Jat still did not come back. Smt. Prem Kanwar (PW 15) in her statement has denied the suggestion of the prosecution regarding motive by the Investigating Officer Bhagwan Singh (PW 27) that the deceased and the accused had enmity on account of some money dispute for payment of wages of the labourers at Surat. Smt. Prem Kanwar (PW 15) has stated that there was no such dispute between the deceased and accused appellant Mukesh Jat and co-accused Vijay Jat. In the evening when she enquired from Vijay Jat and Kalu about Mukesh Badwa @ Mukesh Rao, Kalu told that he would return back at 9.30 PM. Two-three times she visited Kalu and still he did not give any clue about her son. At 9.30 PM when she again visited the house of Kalu, who told her that her son Mukesh Badwa @ Mukesh Rao and accused-appellant Mukesh Jat were sitting in the agricultural field at Relana, but he was not found there also. On her request, Hanuman (PW 6) went to the house of Mukesh Jat and after returning therefrom told her that Mukesh Badwa @ Mukesh Rao had gone to Dantri. When she sent Hanuman and Harkaran to Dantri, they also could not trace out the deceased. This made her restless in the night, she therefore went to the house of Mukesh Jat early in the morning of the following day and enquired from him about her son. The accused-appellant told her that there was no cause of worry. Suddenly, she saw co-accused Vijay Jat coming out from a room in the house. He had an injury on his eye. When she enquired from him about her son, he said that he was sleeping in the room. When she went inside, she found body of his son covered by a quilt and there were utensils of food nearby. When she tried to wake him up, he did not move. She then started crying, at which accused-appellant Mukesh Jat came there and told that he is dead. 5. Shri Suresh Sahni, learned counsel submitted that statement of the mother of the deceased clearly proves that the conduct of the appellant throughout is natural. There was no evidence of last seen against the appellant. She then started crying, at which accused-appellant Mukesh Jat came there and told that he is dead. 5. Shri Suresh Sahni, learned counsel submitted that statement of the mother of the deceased clearly proves that the conduct of the appellant throughout is natural. There was no evidence of last seen against the appellant. When the witnesses Prem Kanwar (PW 15) and other two witnesses Chhotu Singh (PW 4), Kalu Ram (PW 5) and Hanuman (PW 6) came to the house of accused-appellant to enquire about deceased Mukesh Badwa @ Mukesh Rao, the appellant was through out available in the house. He made no efforts to flee from the house. Had he actually committed the murder of Mukesh Badwa @ Mukesh Rao, he would have not been present in the house. In this connection, learned counsel extensively referred to the statement of Chhotu Singh (PW 4), Kalu Ram (PW 5) and Hanuman (PW 6). Learned counsel submitted that the conviction of the accused-appellant with the aid of Section 34, in any case, could not have been made because there was no proof of his sharing any common intention with the co-accused Vijay Jat, nor there exist any other circumstance which may otherwise show his involvement in the crime. Learned counsel in support of his arguments relied on the judgements of Supreme Court in Rameshbhai Pandurao Hedau v. State of Gujarat, (2010) 4 SCC 185 , Jai Bhagwan & Ors. v. State of Harayana, (1999) 3 SCC 102 and Randhir Singh Rana v. State, (1997) 1 SCC 361 . It is argued that the police in the present case has utterly failed to pin pointedly prove any violence in the room wherefrom the dead body of Mukesh Badwa @ Mukesh Rao was recovered, nor was any other evidence to prove any struggle which might have ensued between the deceased and the accused-appellant and co-accused Vijay Jat. The evidence even otherwise has come on record that Vijay and Mukesh Jat had together gone to village Dantri as stated by Chhotu (PW 4) and Kalu Ram (PW 5). Chhotu (PW 4) has even stated that he along with accused-appellant Mukesh Jat came back to the house. Man Singh (PW 19), the informant and father of the deceased has also named only three persons for the offence of last seen namely; Vijay Jat, Kalu Kumar and Chhotu Daroga, who had taken the deceased with them. Chhotu (PW 4) has even stated that he along with accused-appellant Mukesh Jat came back to the house. Man Singh (PW 19), the informant and father of the deceased has also named only three persons for the offence of last seen namely; Vijay Jat, Kalu Kumar and Chhotu Daroga, who had taken the deceased with them. 6. Shri Suresh Sahni, learned counsel for the appellant submits that 'bhabhi' of the deceased Smt. Chanda (PW 18)also in her statement has named Vijay Jat and Kalu Kumhar as those who had taken the deceased Mukesh Badwa @ Mukesh Rao with them on the motorcycle. She stated that they told that there is a telephonic call for him. She later came to know that Chhotu was also with them. Learned counsel also submits that no recovery whatsoever has been made from the accused-appellant. It is submitted that arrest of the accused-appellant was made 16 days after the incident. While the accident took place on 12.12.2004, the accused-appellant was arrested on 26.11.2004. The accused-appellant was all throughout available in his house and also cooperated with the police during investigation. The allegation made by Man Singh (PW 19), father of the deceased that accused-appellant tried to mislead the investigating agency is totally false. Learned counsel also denied the suggestion by him that the accused-appellant absconded and stated that rather in cross examination, this witness himself has stated that accused-appellant did not flee from his house when the police came on the first day. In this connection, learned counsel referred to statement of Bhagwan Singh (PW 27), who in cross examination has denied the suggestion that the accused-appellant had in any way tried to confuse him and has also stated that in the evidence that was collected by him, it was not proved that the accused-appellant and the deceased were sleeping in the same room in the night of the fateful day. Learned counsel argued that for sustaining a conviction solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances should be so complete so as to rule out every possibility of accused being innocent. In support of his arguments, learned counsel relied on the judgement of Supreme Court in Shankar Lal Gyarsilal Dixit v. State of Maharashtra, (1981) 2 SCC 35 and Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 . 7. In support of his arguments, learned counsel relied on the judgement of Supreme Court in Shankar Lal Gyarsilal Dixit v. State of Maharashtra, (1981) 2 SCC 35 and Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 . 7. Per contra, Shri Javed Choudhary, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the appeal and submitted that not only the co-accused Vijay Jat, but accused-appellant Mukesh Jat was also last seen with the deceased, which is evident from the statement of Chhotu Singh (PW 4) and Kalu Ram (PW 5). There is another important circumstance against the accused-appellant that the dead body of the deceased Mukesh Badwa @ Mukesh Rao was found in his house. The motive for the murder has been found to be a dispute about the apportionment of commission payable for employing labourers at Surat. It has been proved that the deceased had gone with co-accused Vijay, Chhotu, Kalu and appellant Mukesh Jat together to load sand into the tractor. Statements of Chhotu Singh (PW 4) and Kalu Ram (PW 5)proves that they consumed liquor together. Learned Public Prosecutor also referred to statement of other witnesses to canvass that the accused-appellant was equally involved in the murder of the deceased. 8. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 9. In the FIR that was initially registered on the basis of parcha bayan at the instance of Man Singh (PW 19), father of the deceased, he alleged that his son Mukesh Badwa @ Mukesh Rao had gone with co-accused Vijay Jat, Chhotu Daroga and Kalu Kumhar and thereafter he did not return back. On their enquiry, it transpired that his dead body was found in the house of Navrang Lal Jat, father of the appellant. When the informant went to his house, he found the appellant present there, but Vijay Jat was missing. It is at that stage that a doubt was expressed by the informant that his son Mukesh Badwa @ Mukesh Rao might have been murdered by appellant Mukesh Jat and other co-accused. 10. What is to be therefore examined is whether the prosecution in the present case has been able to bring home the guilt of the appellant by the required standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. 10. What is to be therefore examined is whether the prosecution in the present case has been able to bring home the guilt of the appellant by the required standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is trite that in a case where there is no direct evidence and case entirely rests on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has to prove every single circumstance in the chain of circumstances and the chain of circumstances should be so complete so as to not leave any single missing link. If there is any single missing link, then the chain of circumstances is broken and benefit of doubt must go to the accused. The examination of statements of witnesses should therefore prove that the chain of circumstances against the appellant is so complete as to rule out every single hypothesis that may be compatible with the innocence of the accused-appellant. 11. Chhotu Singh (PW 4), who was one of the three persons named on the allegation of last seen by mother of the deceased Smt. Prem Kanwar (PW 15), father of deceased Man Singh (PW 19) and bhabhi of deceased Smt. Chanda (PW 18), has stated that deceased Mukesh Badwa @ Mukesh Rao was with accused-appellant Mukesh Jat, Kalu and Vijay Jat when they had gone to load the sand in the tractor trolley. He then stated that deceased Mukesh and Vijay Jat brought the liquor bottle and all of them consumed liquor. He returned back to the house of the appellant Mukesh Jat with him, whereas Mukesh Badwa @ Mukesh Rao and Vijay Jat went to the village Dantri. Kalu along with Hanuman at that time came to the house of appellant Mukesh Jat. When he came, this witness Chhotu Singh (PW 4) and appellant Mukesh Jat were having their meals in the house of later and mother, wife and one relative of appellant were present at that time. Then they went to the house of Kalu. The mother of deceased Mukesh Badwa @ Mukesh Rao enquired from him about the whereabouts of his son, whereupon he told that Mukesh Badwa @ Mukesh Rao had gone along with Vijay Jat towards Dantri. In cross examination, this witness has denied the suggestion that accused-appellant Mukesh Jat and deceased Mukesh Badwa @ Mukesh Rao had any enmity and has further stated that lastly Mukesh Badwa @ Mukesh Rao and Vijay Jat were seen going together. In cross examination, this witness has denied the suggestion that accused-appellant Mukesh Jat and deceased Mukesh Badwa @ Mukesh Rao had any enmity and has further stated that lastly Mukesh Badwa @ Mukesh Rao and Vijay Jat were seen going together. 12. Kalu Ram (PW 5) has stated that he was working at Surat. Mukesh Badwa @ Mukesh Rao, Vijay Jat and accused-appellant Mukesh Jat, Chhotu Singh and Kalu were also working with him. He had gone to the house of Mukesh Jat with Vijay, Chhotu, Mukesh Badwa @ Mukesh Rao and Kalu. Then they went to the river bed for loading the sand. They all consumed the liquor brought by Vijay Jat and Mukesh Badwa @ Mukesh Rao. Vijay Jat then dropped him at Village Keria Bujurg. In the night, mother of Mukesh Badwa @ Mukesh Rao came to the house of this witness and enquired about her son. Thereafter, he went with his uncle Hanuman to the house of Mukesh Jat, where they found Chhotu and Mukesh Jat taking meals and mother of Mukesh Jat, his wife and one relative were also present there. When they enquired from appellant Mukesh Jat regarding Mukesh Badwa @ Mukesh Rao, he told that Vijay Jat and Mukesh Badwa @ Mukesh Rao had gone to village Dantri. They accordingly informed his mother on returning their village. In the following morning, they heard that dead body of Mukesh Badwa @ Mukesh Rao has been found in the house of appellant Mukesh Jat. 13. Hanuman (PW 6) has stated that mother of deceased Mukesh Badwa @ Mukesh Rao had came to him and requested to enquire about his son, who had gone with Chhotu and Kalu to the house of appellant Mukesh Jat in Shekawatiyon Ki Dhani. While Kalu came back at 4.00 in the evening, Mukesh Badwa @ Mukesh Rao did not return. He went to the house of appellant Mukesh Jat and on enquiry was informed that he had gone to Village Dantri and on returning back to his Village Keria Bujurg, informed the mother of deceased Mukesh Badwa @ Mukesh Rao that he was not available in the house of appellant Mukesh Jat and had gone to Dantri. On her request, he even went to village Dantri, but there also Mukesh Badwa @ Mukesh Rao was not found. On her request, he even went to village Dantri, but there also Mukesh Badwa @ Mukesh Rao was not found. When he again went to the house of appellant Mukesh Jat, he informed that Mukesh Badwa @ Mukesh Rao had gone with Vijay Jat to village Dantri and that he (Mukesh Jat) and Chhotu had came from there to his house. But when he returned to their village and informed the mother of the deceased Mukesh Badwa @ Mukesh Rao, she insisted that this witness should go along with her to the house of Mukesh Jat. When they came back to the house of appellant Mukesh Jat, he informed that Mukesh Badwa @ Mukesh Rao and Vijay Jat had returned very late in the night heavily drunk and they went to sleep after taking meals. When he enquired as to where they are sleeping, her wife pointed towards a room. Appellant Mukesh Jat told his wife to go to the room and wake him up. Whereupon, his wife told that this witness should himself go. When Hanuman (PW 6) went inside, he found Mukesh Badwa@ Mukesh Rao covered by a quilt. When he took off the quilt, he found him dead. 14. The statement of all these witnesses viz. Chhotu Singh (PW 4), Kalu Ram (PW 5) and Hanuman (PW 6) clearly proves the most natural conduct of the appellant Mukesh Jat. And also it is proved from the statement of Prem Kanwar (PW 15), mother of deceased Mukesh Badwa @ Mukesh Rao that as and when any of them came to the house of accused-appellant Mukesh Jat, never did he make any effort to conceal anything from them. Each time his version was consistent that Mukesh Badwa @ Mukesh Rao had gone with Vijay Jat to village Dantri. But, when she along with Hanuman (PW 6) came on the next day in the early morning to enquire about Mukesh Badwa @ Mukesh Rao, appellant Mukesh Jat told them that they had both come heavily drunk the previous night and went to sleep after meals. He even asked his wife to go to the room and wake him up, whereupon she told that Hanuman (PW 6) should himself go to the room. When mother of deceased also came to his house, appellant did not make any pretencions and rather told her that she should not worry about his son. He even asked his wife to go to the room and wake him up, whereupon she told that Hanuman (PW 6) should himself go to the room. When mother of deceased also came to his house, appellant did not make any pretencions and rather told her that she should not worry about his son. Prem Kanwar (PW 15) has also stated that in the morning of the following day when she went to the house of accused-appellant, she saw Vijay Jat coming out of the room wherein the dead body of her son Mukesh Badwa @ Mukesh Rao was found. She noticed that Vijay Jat had an injury on her eye. He informed that her son Mukesh Badwa @ Mukesh Rao was sleeping in the room. But when she went there, she found him dead. All the circumstances thus point towards co-accused Vijay Jat and none towards appellant Mukesh Jat. Mere fact that Vijay Jat happens to be brother of his wife i.e. his brother in law and that he was also at one point of time with them when all five went to the river bed for loading the sand into the tractor trolley and that dead body of Mukesh Badwa @ Mukesh Rao was found in one of the rooms of his house, does not conclusively prove that it was appellant Mukesh Jat and none else, who committed murder of Mukesh Badwa @ Mukesh Rao. No recovery whatsoever has been made at the instance of the accused-appellant. The accused-appellant has not been named as the one by Prem Kanwar (PW 15), Smt. Chanda (PW 18) and Man Singh (PW 19), with whom the deceased was last seen or with whom the deceased had lastly gone, rather Chhotu Singh (PW 4) proves the fact that he along with appellant Mukesh Jat came back to his house after loading the sand into the trolley. They had dinner together. At that time, Kalu came there to enquire about Mukesh Badwa @ Mukesh Rao and accused-appellant Mukesh Jat informed him that Mukesh Badwa @ Mukesh Rao had gone with Vijay Jat to village Dantri. The same version has been given by Kalu Ram (PW 5) that when he went to the house of accused appellant with his uncle Hanuman (PW 6), he was accordingly informed. The same version has been given by Kalu Ram (PW 5) that when he went to the house of accused appellant with his uncle Hanuman (PW 6), he was accordingly informed. That time they found Chhotu Singh (PW 4) and accused-appellant Mukesh Jat taking the meals in the presence of mother and wife of appellant and one of their relative of village Dantri. Hanuman (PW 6) has also corroborated the statement of the first two witnesses. The Investigating Officer Bhagwan Singh (PW 27) has denied the allegation of Man Singh (PW 19), father of deceased, that accused-appellant tried to confuse or mislead the investigating agency. The Investigating Officer Bhagwan Singh (PW 27) has rather stated that the evidence that he collected did not prove that the accused-appellant Mukesh Jat and the deceased were sleeping in the same room. The police has not been able to prove any sign of struggle or resistance by the deceased. While the father of the deceased Man Singh (PW 19) has stated that the shoes of the deceased were also found beneath the cot on which his dead body was found, the police has not shown recovery of shoes. The fact that deceased was drunk is evident from the FSL report (Ex.P.31), which has been proved by Investigating Officer Bhagwan Singh (PW 27). The accused-appellant was arrested 16 days after the date of incident. 15. Analysis of the evidence made as aforesaid clearly show that the accused-appellant was throughout available to the police and did not try to flee from justice. There are very many missing links in the chain of circumstances against the appellant and therefore it would be highly unsafe to sustain conviction of the accused-appellant solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence. There are several such hypothesis which appears to be compatible with his innocence and therefore applying the cardinal principle that in order to convict an accused solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances should be complete to extrude all possibilities of his innocence, the accused-appellant deserves to be extended the benefit of doubt. Accordingly we are inclined to set aside his conviction and sentence. 16. In the result, this appeal succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The impugned judgement of conviction dated 7.9.2006 is set aside. Accordingly we are inclined to set aside his conviction and sentence. 16. In the result, this appeal succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The impugned judgement of conviction dated 7.9.2006 is set aside. The bail bonds are discharged and the accused-appellant is ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.Keeping, however, in view the provisions of Section 437A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant Mukesh Jat 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, undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against this judgment or on grant of leave, the appellant, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court.Appeal allowed. *******