JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, J. Assailing the judgment dated 29.1.2010, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Kullu, H.P. in Sessions Trial No. 21/2008, titled as State of H.P. vs. Surinder Kumar & another, whereby respondents-accused stand acquitted, the State has filed the present appeal under the provisions of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. In short, case of the prosecution is that the deceased - Smt. Sushma was married to Surinder Kumar (accused No.1). One daughter Ms. Shreya was born out of the wedlock. Marriage was solemnizsed some time in the year 2000. On 28.6.2007 accused Surinder Kumar, after consuming alcohol, called Smt. Sunita Dutta (PW-2) on her mobile phone asking that Smt. Suhsma be taken back to her parental house. Later, in the night, accused Surender Kumar murdered his wife in his house. Raju Paul (accused No. 2) engaged as a labourer by the accused witnessed him drag the body of Smt. Sushma from the Ist floor to the ground floor of the house. Thereafter, both Surinder Kumar and Raju Paul put the dead body in a vehicle (Quallis) and after a distance of two – three kilometers dumped it in river Beas. They destroyed and removed all signs of evidence. In the morning of 29.6.2007, Smt. Sunita called her father Sh. Lal Singh (PW-2) and informed him about the telephonic conversation which she had the previous night with accused No. 1. Sh. Lal Singh went to the house of accused No. 1 and was told that the deceased had left the house without any intimation. Apprehending mischief, Sh. Lal Singh lodged report (Ext. PA) dated 29.6.2007 with the police. Deceased could not be traced. On 4.7.2007 her dead body was found on the banks of river Beas. Inspector Roop Singh (PW-14) learnt about the same and rushed to the spot. He conducted local investigation. Dead body was sent for post mortem examination which was conducted by Dr. Mahesh Kapoor (PW-11), who vide report (Ext. PT) opined that the deceased had not died of drowning but on account of head injury which was ante-mortem. Inquest report (Ext. PC) was prepared. F.I.R. No. 195 of 2007 (Ext. PB), dated 4.7.2007, was registered at Police Station Manali, initially under the provisions of Sections 498-A, 306 of the Indian Penal Code but on receipt of the medical opinion (Ext. Inquest report (Ext. PC) was prepared. F.I.R. No. 195 of 2007 (Ext. PB), dated 4.7.2007, was registered at Police Station Manali, initially under the provisions of Sections 498-A, 306 of the Indian Penal Code but on receipt of the medical opinion (Ext. PT), offence under Section 302 IPC was added and the other Sections deleted. Between 29.6.2007 and 9.7.2007 police searched the house of accused Surender Kumar but nothing incriminating could be found. On 9.7.2007 investigation was entrusted to Dy. S.P. Ahmad Sayed (PW-15) who on 10.7.2007 again went to the house of the accused to search for any incriminating material. On 12.7.2007 accused No. 2 made a disclosure statement (Ext. PE) narrating the incident in its entirety. Police again searched the premises of accused Surender Kumar and on 13.7.2007 recovered his blood stained clothes, bed sheet and pillow cover. Dr. Gian Thakur (PW-12) an expert from the Forensic Science Laboratory, was called to collect samples from the spot. He collected samples of hair belonging to the deceased as also samples of blood found under of the seat of the vehicle (Quallis) and samples of mud from the lawn of the house of accused No. 1. Report of DNA profiling (Ext. PA/P) and blood samples were obtained by the police. With the completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court for trial. 3. Surender Kumar (accused No. 1) was charged for having committed offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 both read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, whereas, Raju Paul (accused No. 2) was charged for having committed an offence punishable under Section 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove its case, in all, prosecution examined sixteen witnesses and statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr. P.C. were also recorded, in which they pleaded false implication. 5. Appreciating the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, trial Court acquitted both the accused of all the charged offences. Hence, the present appeal. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, we are of the considered view that in the instant case, no ground for interference is made out. 7. Challenge to the judgment is on the ground that the Court below erred in correctly appreciating the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. 8. Hence, the present appeal. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, we are of the considered view that in the instant case, no ground for interference is made out. 7. Challenge to the judgment is on the ground that the Court below erred in correctly appreciating the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. 8. From the testimony of police officials Inspector Rup Singh (PW-14) and Dy.S.P. Ahmad Sayed (PW-15) as also independent witnesses, it is evident that the complainant party is closely related to the former Inspector General of police of the State of Himachal Pradesh. It be only observed that even though alleged crime took place within the territorial jurisdiction of Police Post, Manali, yet, without any justifiable, disclosed and explainable cause and reason, midway investigation was entrusted to Dy. S.P. Kullu. This was so done on 9.7.2007, prior to which date there was no allegation or disclosed apprehension of the complainant party that investigation was not being conducted in a free, fair or expeditious manner. It be only observed that Sh. Sanjay Dutta (PW-5) is a Press Reporter. He is husband of Smt. Sunita (PW-2), sister of the deceased. Though complainant witnesses have denied seeking political help, but however, the manner in which the investigation was conducted, raises reasonable doubt about the same. It has come on record that Hon’ble the Chief Minister was at Manali/Kullu at the time when investigation was entrusted to PW-15. 9. Significantly, Inspector Roop Singh (PW-14) who conducted the initial investigation, categorically deposed that he had searched the house of accused Surender Kumar and could not find any incriminating material. 10. There is no evidence on record about any discord, dispute or maltreatment of the deceased at the hands of accused Surender Kumar. It is not the case of the police that accused Surender Kumar and Raju Paul had absconded, were not available or had not cooperated during investigation. 11. Dy.S.P. Ahmad Sayed (PW-15) states that he recovered incriminating material, in the form of blood stained clothes, bed sheet, pillow cover, sample of blood from the house of the accused after accused No. 2 made a disclosure statement (Ext. PE) on 12.7.2007. 11. Dy.S.P. Ahmad Sayed (PW-15) states that he recovered incriminating material, in the form of blood stained clothes, bed sheet, pillow cover, sample of blood from the house of the accused after accused No. 2 made a disclosure statement (Ext. PE) on 12.7.2007. At this juncture, it be only noticed that the alleged offence took place during monsoon season and prior to the said recovery, police had already visited the spot, hence version of this witness with regard to recovery of the incriminating material does not inspire confidence at all. Rain would have washed away blood fallen on the lawn of the house from where samples were collected. In any event police frequently visited the spot and did not find anything there. It is not that the blood or other incriminatory material was concealed by the accused. Be that as it may, even reports (Ext. PV and Ext. PA/P) of the Forensic Science Laboratory and D. N. A. profiling, respectively, could not link the accused to the crime, establishing his guilt. 12. PW-15 in Court admits that pursuant to the disclosure statement, no recovery was effected from the place where vehicle was allegedly washed or body dumped. Further the manner in which this witness carried out the investigation speaks volumes. He does not even know the neighbours of the accused. It has come on record that brother of accused Surender Kumar used to reside on the top floor of the house. Yet, he chose not to make any enquiries about the incident from him or from anyone in the neighbourhood. 13 Even Sh. Gian Thakur (PW-12) admits that nothing incriminating could be found at the place from where the dead body was allegedly thrown into the river. 14. Also Sh. Roop Singh (PW-14) admits that prior to the discovery of the dead body no relative of the deceased had ever made complaint to him. This witness totally rules out involvement of accused Raju Paul during the course of his investigation. 15. Both PW-14 and PW-15 admit that house of accused Surender Kumar is situated along side river Beas and there is a deep gorge where boulders and stones can be found alongside the river. Possibility of the deceased falling and sustaining injuries on her head cannot be ruled out. 16. Perusal of testimonies of the complainant party namely Sh. Lal Singh (PW-1), Smt. Sunita (PW-2), Sh. Vinod Kumar (PW-3), Ms. Possibility of the deceased falling and sustaining injuries on her head cannot be ruled out. 16. Perusal of testimonies of the complainant party namely Sh. Lal Singh (PW-1), Smt. Sunita (PW-2), Sh. Vinod Kumar (PW-3), Ms. Guddi (Pw-4), Sh. Sanjay Dutta (PW-5) would only establish that prior to the incident reported on 29.6.2007, there was no dispute or discord or strained relations between accused Surender Kumar and the deceased. Though these witnesses have tried to explain that one month prior to the incident beatings were given by accused No. 1 to the deceased, but however, this version of theirs does not inspire confidence at all. It appears to be an after thought. It is also evident from the testimonies of these witnesses that deceased was a frequent visitor to her parental house. Deceased would drop her daughter in the school at Manali and thereafter go to her parental house for spending the entire day. Smt. Sunita (PW-2) also frequently visited her parental house and both the sisters, would converse for long hours. Sister admits that no complaint was lodged prior to the incident in question. Deceased never disclosed any acts of cruelty, beatings, threats, altercations or demands made by accused No. 1 to anyone of her relatives. Also these witnesses have not seen the occurrence of the incident. 17. Prosecution has examined Ms Guddi (PW-4) who allegedly worked in the house of accused No. 1. At the time of the incident, she was nine – ten years of age. In Court, she states that she and accused Raju used to stay on the ground floor and the deceased, accused and their daughter Shreya used to reside on the first floor of the house. On 28.6.2007 after taking meals at night she retired to her room. Following morning, at about 5.00 a.m., accused Raju and Surender woke her and told her to be with Shreya as she was alone in her room. When inquired, accused No. 1 told her that Smt. Sushma (deceased) had gone to Manali and would return after some time. She saw both the accused load empty crates in the Quallis and thereafter they both drove away the vehicle towards Patlikool side. Accused returned at about 7 – 7.30 a.m., gave bath to his daughter and took her to the school. She saw both the accused load empty crates in the Quallis and thereafter they both drove away the vehicle towards Patlikool side. Accused returned at about 7 – 7.30 a.m., gave bath to his daughter and took her to the school. When at about 8.30 a.m. PW-2 called her on telephone, she informed her that the deceased was not at home. Thereafter police visited the house and after checking, took away clothes of the accused. 18. Testimony of this witness does not inspire confidence at all. Prior to 12.7.2007 there is no reference of this witness in the investigation. Why is it that she kept quiet has not been explained. This witness admits to have come to depose in the Courts at Manali from Gurgaon on the asking of Sh. Lal Singh (PW-1) who in fact had got her a job there. Also we find that there are several improvements in her testimony which do not find mention in her previous statement, recorded under the provisions of Section 161 Cr. P.C., with which she was confronted. Her version that she had received call from Smt. Sunita (PW-2) is nothing but an improvement from her previous statement. She appears to have been introduced later on. With regard to recovery of clothes she contradicts the version of PW-15. 19. The alleged disclosure statement (Ext. PE) made by accused No. 2 has not resulted into discovery of any fact. Hence it cannot be used against the accused. 20. There is no eye witness to the alleged incident and prosecution has not been able to prove the circumstances against the accused so as to link the accused to the alleged crime. The accused had no specific motive of murdering the deceased. The chain of circumstances do not lead to the only hypothesis of guilt of the accused, except the one with regard to his innocence. 21. While dealing with a case of a circumstantial evidence, in Cr. Appeal No. 282 of 2002, titled as State of H.P. vs. Smt. Kusum, decided on 30.12.2011, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. has held that:- “13. This is a case of circumstantial evidence. The law on the point is well settled. The fundamental law on the point has been enunciated by the Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Shardavs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622 , holding:- “152. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. has held that:- “13. This is a case of circumstantial evidence. The law on the point is well settled. The fundamental law on the point has been enunciated by the Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Shardavs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622 , holding:- “152. … … … … … … … … (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between 'may be proved' and 'must be or should be proved' as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, (1973)2 SCC 793 :( AIR 1973 SC 2622 ) where the following observations were made : "certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a Court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions." 2. The facts so established should be consistent not only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. 3. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. 4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved and 5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.” (p-1656) 14. The Supreme Court reiterates that in order to sustain conviction the incriminating circumstances must be so complete and incapable explanation exist the guilt of the accused. The evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but also should be inconsistent with his innocence. (See: K.V. Chacko vs. State of Kerala, (2001)9 SCC 277 , Nisar Ahmed vs. State of Bihar, (2001) 9 SCC 736 , Reddy Sampat Kumar vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2005 SC 3478 ). The evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but also should be inconsistent with his innocence. (See: K.V. Chacko vs. State of Kerala, (2001)9 SCC 277 , Nisar Ahmed vs. State of Bihar, (2001) 9 SCC 736 , Reddy Sampat Kumar vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2005 SC 3478 ). Circumstances though creating a suspicion without conclusive evidence would be insufficient for basing conviction on the accused or anyone of them. (See: Pawan Kumar vs. State of Haryana, (2001)3 SCC 628 ). 15. We only need to reiterate that in order to base conviction on circumstantial evidence each and every piece of incriminating circumstance must be clearly proved and established by reliable and cogent evidence to form a chain, so complete which leaves no other conclusion except that of the guilt of the accused. (See: Anil Kumar Singh vs. State of Bihar (2003) 9 SCC 67 , State of Rajasthan vs. Raja Ram, (2003)8 SCC 180 , State of Haryana vs. Jagbir Singh, (2003)11 SCC 261 , Usman Mian vs. State of Bihar (2004)10 SCC 786).We need not multiply precedent any further.” 22. The ratio squarely applies to the instant facts. 23. Having perused the testimony of the prosecution witnesses on record it cannot be said that prosecution has been able to prove its case, by leading clear, cogent, convincing and reliable material on record. 24. The accused have had the advantage of having been acquitted by the Court below. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Mohammed Ankoos and others versus Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, (2010) 1 SCC 94 , it cannot be said that the Court below incorrectly appreciated the evidence on record or that acquittal of the accused has resulted into travesty of justice. No ground for interference is called for. As such, the present appeal is dismissed, so also the pending applications, if any. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged.