JUDGMENT P. V. HARDAS, J. :- The appellants, who stand convicted for offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 395 r/w 120-B, 396 r/w 120-B, 452 r/w 120-B, 460 r/w 120-B and 342 r/w 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to each pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo further RI for two months, RI for 10 years and to each pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo further RI for two months, imprisonment for life and to each pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo further RI for two months, RI for three years and to each pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo further RI for one month. RI for ten years and to each pay fine of Rs.500/ -, in default to undergo further RI for one month and RI for six months respectively with a direction that the substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, by judgment dated 20/12/2007, in Sessions Case No. 1020 of 2004, by these appeals question the correctness of their conviction and sentence. Since all the appeals arise from the same judgment of the trial court, these appeals are being decided by this common judgment. 2. PW 9 - PI Ulhas Deshmukh, who was attached to Andheri Police Station and was on duty on 4/8/2004, was informed by Duty Officer - PSI Momin about receipt of message from the control room informing that one person by name Jamnadas Jaisingh had been murdered by unknown persons in his house. Being informed about the said message, PW 9 - PI Deshmukh, along with PSI Momin and the staff, rushed to the scene of the incident i.e. the residential house at Andheri (East). On reaching the house, PW 2 - Jitendrakumar informed them that he had telephoned the control room. PW 2 - Jitendrakumar then took the police to the room on the second floor and on entering the said room, PW 9 - PI Deshmukh noticed the dead body of deceased Jamnadas lying on the bed. The hands of the dead body were tied with a cloth and his mouth was also gaged. The neck was tightly tied with a piece of cloth. One lady - Maya, who was the daughter of Jamnadas, was present there. The hands of the dead body were tied with a cloth and his mouth was also gaged. The neck was tightly tied with a piece of cloth. One lady - Maya, who was the daughter of Jamnadas, was present there. Since Maya appeared to be under shock, her statement was not recorded, Accordingly, report of PW 2 - Jitendrakumar at Exh. 42 was scribed. On the basis of the said report of PW 2 - Jitendrakumar, an offence, vide Crime No. 312 of 2004, was registered under Sections 460, 452, 397, 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. After registration of the offence, the presence of two panch witnesses were summoned and in their presence scene of the offence panchanama at Exh.18 was drawn. From the scene of the offence, Articles 1 to 14 were seized. The articles were, two telephone instruments, pillow with pink pillow cover, cream coloured shirt and a torn baniyan, green coloured nylon cloth, blue coloured piece of cloth, brown odhani, dark coloured cloth, reddish coloured cloth, wrist watch, diamond necklace set, with pair of diamond ear-rings and one ring and other ornaments, mattress stained with blood, bed-sheet stained with blood, latch, lock and screw driver, currency notes worth Rs.44, 10,000/- of different denominations, which were soiled. Photographs of the scene of the incident were taken and finger print experts were also called. A chance finger print was noticed on the mirror affixed on the cupboard. The said finger print was lifted and was sent for comparison. Statements of eight witnesses were recorded, including the statement of Maya. 4. PW 10 - PSI Pramod Tawade, who was also attached to the Andheri Police Station, was directed to search for the missing accused. He, accordingly, went to the house of the relative i.e. paternal uncle of accused - Tulai Singh and from him obtained the addresses of the other relatives of the accused. On reaching the house of relative of accused Tulai Singh at Shantinagar, Dongri, he noticed three accused namely, Tulai Singh, Dharam Singh and Tejasinghbahadur. During custodial interrogation, the accused had expressed their willingness to point out the place, where the currency notes had been concealed. Accordingly, one plastic bag was found near the northern wall of the room which was seized, which contained cash amount. During custodial interrogation, the accused had expressed their willingness to point out the place, where the currency notes had been concealed. Accordingly, one plastic bag was found near the northern wall of the room which was seized, which contained cash amount. The bag was opened in the presence of panchas and on counting the currency notes, the bag was found to contain Rs.10,99,900/-. The panchanama is at Exh.29. The accused were then brought to the Andheri Police Station and were arrested. 5. PW 11 - Ashok Kale, a Police Inspector, who was attached to the Bombay Central Railway Police Station, received a wireless message from Bombay City CRO about abscondance of four accused. PW 11 - PI Kale, therefore, kept a watch on the railway station. He noticed one person, who was moving in suspicious circumstances and, therefore, he apprehended him and on being apprehended, the person disclosed his name as "Meenbahadur". The person Meenbahadur is accused no.4 in the trial. Accused Meenbahadur was carrying a rexine bag in his hand and in the presence of panchas, search was taken of the rexine bag and it was found to contain cash of Rs.8,48,400/-. The said currency notes were seized under seizure memo at Exh. 48. 6. PW 12 - Girish Vishnu Anavkar, an API, who was attached to Adheri Police Station, had interrogated accused Dharam Singh, who expressed his willingness to disclose certain facts about the incident. Accordingly, in the presence of the panchas, a memorandum was recorded, in which accused Dharam Singh had expressed his willingness to point out the place, where cash was concealed. Accordingly, memorandum at Exh.31 was recorded. The accused led the police and the panchas to the Shantinagar zopadpatti and then took the police and the panchas to the first floor of a house. The accused knocked on the door of the house and the door was opened by a lady. Said lady was Kamla Premsingh. The accused entered the house, opened the cupboard and removed a plastic gunny bag. The plastic gunny bag was opened and it was found to contain cash of Rs.7,10,000/-. The said currency notes were seized under seizure memo at Exh. 31 A. Statement of Kamla Premsingh was also recorded. During custodial interrogation, accused Tulai Singh expressed his willingness to point out the place, where currency notes were concealed. The plastic gunny bag was opened and it was found to contain cash of Rs.7,10,000/-. The said currency notes were seized under seizure memo at Exh. 31 A. Statement of Kamla Premsingh was also recorded. During custodial interrogation, accused Tulai Singh expressed his willingness to point out the place, where currency notes were concealed. Accordingly, a memorandum was drawn at Exh.32 in the presence of panchas. The accused led the police and the panchas to a house in MHADA Colony and knocked on the door of the house. The door was opened by one lady and the accused, on entering the house, removed a plastic bag from beneath the bed. The plastic bag was opened and it was found to contain Rs.6,00,000/-. The said plastic bag was seized under seizure memo at Exh.32A. The statement of the lady, who had opened the door, i.e. Narpata Bhaumi was recorded. A report was received from the finger print experts about the chance finger print, which was found at the scene of the offence and it was found that the said finger impression was of accused no.1 - Dharam Singh. The said report is Article "A". The seized articles were, thereafter, referred to the Chemical Analyzer under requisition at Exh.52. Further to the completion of investigation, a charge-sheet against the accused was submitted. 7. Post-mortem on the dead body of deceased Jamnadas was conducted by PW 8 - Dr. Rajaram Marathe. PW 8 - Dr. Marathe noticed following external injuries: i. Ligature mark, soft 6 cm x 58 cm around mouth and. nose, underlying skin hemorrhage at mouth and nose. ii. Ligature mark on both wrist 4 cm x 17 cm skin abrased. iii. Ligature mark soft on both ankles 5 cm x 22 cm skin abrased. iv. Lips upper lips 3 tooth marks 0.5 x 0.5 cm Lower lips 3 tooth marks 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm. v. Whole chin contused reddish colour. vi. Whole left face, left side of nose, left eye contused reddish colour. vii. Upper part of chest superficial hemorrhage scattered in the skin reddish in colour. On internal examination, he noticed that both lungs were congested with patechical hemorrhages. Heart was intact with patechical hemorrhages. The Medical Officer opined that cause of death was due to violent asphyxia (unnatural). The post-mortem report is at Exh.38. 8. vii. Upper part of chest superficial hemorrhage scattered in the skin reddish in colour. On internal examination, he noticed that both lungs were congested with patechical hemorrhages. Heart was intact with patechical hemorrhages. The Medical Officer opined that cause of death was due to violent asphyxia (unnatural). The post-mortem report is at Exh.38. 8. In order to effectively deal with the submissions advanced before us by the learned counsels for the appellants, it would be useful to refer to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. 9. PW 2 - Jitendrakumar states that in August 2004 he was working in Jaising Plastic Industry as a Clerk. Deceased Jamnadas was the owner of the Industry. The offence of the Industry was on the ground floor of the building, while the owner was residing on the second floor. Residential accommodation was provided for the staff in the same premises. On the date of the incident, there were five watchmen on duty, who were accused Tejasinghbahadur, accused Tulai Singh, accused Dharam Singh, Gagansing and Rambahadur. On the day of the incident i.e. on 4/8/2004, he learnt about the incident at about 6 a.m. The son of Gagansing i.e. watchman, informed PW 2 - Jitendrakumar that the owner of the Industry Jamnadas had been killed. PW 2 - Jitendrakumar, along with others, went to the residential premises of deceased Jamnadas on the second floor and noticed that the door was closed from inside. The door was opened by Maya and Jitendrakumar noticed that her hands were tied. Maya was mentally unsound for the last 20 years. On entering the premises, they noticed that the telephone wires were cut and the room was full of water. Deceased Jamnadas was lying on the bed and his hands and legs were tied. In cross-examination, he has admitted that there were about 17 persons, who were working in the Industry, besides the five watchmen. He has admitted that he does not know whether accused 1, 2 and 3 had been removed from service by deceased Jamnadas. He has admitted that he had telephoned the police. 10. In cross-examination, he has admitted that there were about 17 persons, who were working in the Industry, besides the five watchmen. He has admitted that he does not know whether accused 1, 2 and 3 had been removed from service by deceased Jamnadas. He has admitted that he had telephoned the police. 10. Prosecution has also examined PW 3 - Rajendra, who states that on the day of the incident i.e. on 4/8/2004 he was asleep in his room and was awakened by a boy by name Roop, who informed him that deceased Jamnadas was not opening the door and that the hands of Maya were tied. PW 3 - Rajendra, therefore, went to the premises of deceased Jamnadas, along with others. They noticed that the door was locked from inside. One Gawade called out to Maya and Maya opened the door, but it was noticed that her hands were tied. Gawade cut the handkerchief with a knife. They noticed that Jamnadas was lying on the bed and thereafter PW 2 - Jitendrakumar telephoned the police. He has identified accused Tulai Singh, Tejasinghbahadur Singh and Dharam Singh as the watchmen who were working in Jaising Plastic Company. In cross-examination, omission has been proved that he had not stated in his previous statement that the accused were working as watchmen on the intervening night of 3/8/2004 and 4/8/2004. Omission has also been proved that he had not stated in his previous statement that the accused were not seen in the premises on 4/8/2004. He has admitted that he had not stated in his previous statement the names of the accused because he was not knowing their names. 11. Prosecution has also examined PW 7 - Jaywant Gawade, friend of deceased Jamnadas, who also deposes on lines similar to that of PW 3 - Rajendra. 12. The learned counsels for the appellants have, therefore, rightly urged before us that there is absolutely no evidence connecting the accused with the commission of the crime. Maya, who was an eye witness to the incident and whose statement had been recorded by the police, was not examined as a prosecution witness. No explanation whatsoever is given as to why Maya was not examined. When PW 2 - Jitendrakumar, PW 3 - Rajendra and others had entered the premises of deceased Jamnadas, Maya had not disclosed to them the names of the accused. No explanation whatsoever is given as to why Maya was not examined. When PW 2 - Jitendrakumar, PW 3 - Rajendra and others had entered the premises of deceased Jamnadas, Maya had not disclosed to them the names of the accused. Thus, the information, which was conveyed to the police, was that unknown persons had committed murder of deceased Jamnadas. Currency notes were found in the room, where the three accused were arrested. There is no evidence whatsoever that the said plastic bag belonged to any of the accused. Currency notes had been recovered at the instance of the other two accused, but from the house which belonged to someone else. The persons, who were present in the house, have not been examined to establish that the accused had kept the gunny bag, containing the currency notes, in the house. Thus, the currency notes have not been recovered from the possession of the accused. Moreover, the prosecution has not established the currency notes, which were recovered, was the stolen property. Therefore, according to us, the prosecution has failed to establish a nexus between the recovery of the currency notes and the currency notes which had been stolen from the premises of deceased Jamnadas. Prosecution has also not examined the finger print experts. The report of the finger print experts has also not been proved. There is no evidence regarding the lifting of the chance finger print from the premises and there is no evidence regarding obtaining the specimen finger print of the accused. Thus, even this vital piece of evidence was not proved by the prosecution. 13. Upon appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution, according to us, the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the offence against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In cases, resting on circumstantial evidence, it is incumbent for the prosecution to prove each and every circumstance on which it proposes to rely. The circumstances, so proved, should be of incriminating nature and should have a definite tendency of implicating the accused. The circumstances, so proved, should form a complete chain, which should exclude every hypothesis of the innocence of the accused and unerringly point to the guilt of the accused. In other words, chain of circumstances should be so complete as to lead to an inference that it is the accused and the accused alone who has committed the offence. The circumstances, so proved, should form a complete chain, which should exclude every hypothesis of the innocence of the accused and unerringly point to the guilt of the accused. In other words, chain of circumstances should be so complete as to lead to an inference that it is the accused and the accused alone who has committed the offence. In the present case, we find that the prosecution has not able to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence which would exclude every hypothesis of the innocence of the accused. The chain of circumstantial evidence falls short of leading to an inference that it is the accused and the accused alone who have committed the crime. In the circumstances, according to us, the appellants/accused are entitled to be given the benefit of doubt. 14. Accordingly, Criminal Appeals are allowed and the conviction and sentence of the Appellants are hereby quashed and set aside and the Appellants are acquitted of the offence with which they were charged and convicted. Fine, if paid by the Appellants, be refunded to them. Since the Appellants are in Jail, they be released forthwith, if not required in other case. Appeals allowed.