JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal was filed by accused-appellant Ram Lal @ Ramu against the judgment dated 11.4.2007 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Hanumangarh H.Q., Nohar in Sessions Case No. 18/2007, titled as State v. Ram Lal @ Ramu whereby said accused-appellant was convicted under Sections 302, 397, 201 and 414 of Indian Penal Code and was sentenced as follows:- Under Section 302 I.P.C. : Life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 25,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, two years' additional simple imprisonment Under Section 397 I.P.C. : Ten year's rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 15,000/- and, in default of of payment of fine, eleven months' additional simple imprisonment Under Section 414 I.P.C. : Three years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, six months' simple imprisonment. Under Section 201 I.P.C. : Seven years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, ten months' simple imprisonment. All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently by the said court. Accused-appellant is continuously in jail since 7.9.2003, viz., the date of his arrest in this case. 2. As per FIR No. 330/2003 of Police Station, Nohar, the prosecution story was to the effect that in the night of 22.3.2003, Duni Ram was murdered by accused Ram Lal and his dead body was thrown away in the Rajasthan Canal so as to remove the evidence of murder and this murder was committed for the purpose of robbing Duni Ram from the possession of a jeep and jeep was also dishonestly sold by accused Ram Lal to Jagdish. 3. The trial court relying upon extra-judicial confession allegedly made in presence of Krishna Kumar (PW-1), Madan Singh (PW-2) and Ramjas (PW-3) and also upon recovery of jeep as well as recovery of a silver ring and carrier and deck of jeep from possession of accused, had convicted accused Ram Lal on account of all the charges levelled against him. 3. The trial court relying upon extra-judicial confession allegedly made in presence of Krishna Kumar (PW-1), Madan Singh (PW-2) and Ramjas (PW-3) and also upon recovery of jeep as well as recovery of a silver ring and carrier and deck of jeep from possession of accused, had convicted accused Ram Lal on account of all the charges levelled against him. In the memo of appeal, it has been argued that so called extra-judicial confession was not reliable because the witnesses of the extra-judicial confession themselves admit that confession was procured by them by exerting pressure on the accused and similarly, recovery of jeep from possession of Jagdish is also doubtful because seizure memo of jeep does not carry even the signature of Jagdish from whom the jeep was allegedly recovered and similarly, the alleged silver ring of deceased was not identified by his wife in any identification parade before a Magistrate during the investigation. 4. We have heard arguments of both the sides. PW-1 Krishna Kumar, PW-2 Madan Singh and PW-3 Ram Jas have given the similar statements and they have introduced the story of extra-judicial confession allegedly made by accused Ram Lal in their presence. All of them say that since jeep of Duni Ram, the deceased, was hired by Ram Lal and thenafter Duni Ram was missing since so many days, so they apprehended Ram Lal and told him that they will beat him, if he does not disclose the true story aabout missing Duni Ram. They say that when pressure was exerted on Ram Lal, then he admitted that on 22.3.2003 he has killed Duni Ram while he was sleeping by strangulating him with the help of a 'safa' (turban) and then he has thrown the dead body in Rajasthan Canal at 'Masitawali-Head'. These witnesses have further narrated that Ram Lal told them that he was in need of money, so he had sold the jeep of Duni Ram to Jagdish Kabadi for a sum of Rs. 25,000/-. All the three witnesses of extrajudicial confession stated that after making so much statement, Ram Lal was able to escape from their grip by making a false excuse that he is going for a loo(call of nature). 5. It is pertinent to mention here that PW-1 Krishna Kumar was real brother of Duni Ram, the deceased and PW-3 Ramjas was his cousin brother. 5. It is pertinent to mention here that PW-1 Krishna Kumar was real brother of Duni Ram, the deceased and PW-3 Ramjas was his cousin brother. In the natural course of things, if a person admits that he has committed murder before the persons present therein, then certainly the brother and cousin brother of deceased would not have allowed him to escape without handing over him to police custody. 6. After going through the statements of PW-1 Krishna Kumar, PW-2 Madan Singh and PW-3 Ramjas, we are of the firm view that the alleged extra-judicial confession must have been procured by these persons under a threat of beating to accused-appellant. Much reliance cannot be placed on such a confession. 7. PW-6 Jagdish is said to be the next important witness in the case. As per the prosecution story, the accused-appellant had sold the robbed jeep to this person for a consideration of Rs. 25,000/- and it has also been argued on behalf of the prosecution that the stolen jeep was recovered from the possession of Jagdish(PW-6). In the light of these arguments, we have perused the seizure memo of jeep, which is Ex.P.4. It is surprising to note here that the seizure memo has not been signed by Jagdish at all. In this seizure memo, it has been mentioned that jeep of Jagdish, lying in the parking space, was seized by the police in presence of witnesses Mahendra, Mangat Ram and Ramjas. Jagdish had tendered the Registration Certificate and Insurance Certificate of the said jeep to the police. Thus, it appears that said jeep was neither recovered from the possession of Jagdish nor it was recovered at the instance of Jagdish because no information of Jagdish or Ram Lal under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act was recorded by the police before the said recovery. Thus, the recovery of jeep cannot be connected with Jagdish or Ram Lal. 8. If we go through the statement of PW-6, then we come to know that Jagdish has stated that he was knowing accused-appellant before-hand and he had purchased a jeep for Rs. 43,000/- from Ram Lal and Rs. Thus, the recovery of jeep cannot be connected with Jagdish or Ram Lal. 8. If we go through the statement of PW-6, then we come to know that Jagdish has stated that he was knowing accused-appellant before-hand and he had purchased a jeep for Rs. 43,000/- from Ram Lal and Rs. 25,000/- were given by Ram Lal to him as the first instalment and Ram Lal had assured him to pay the remaining amount within ten days and Ram Lal had also assured him that within ten days he will bring Registration Certificate along with No Dues Certificate from the concerned D.T.O., so that the Registration Certificate may be transferred in the name of the purchaser. This witness further states that within the stipulated time, Ram Lal did not come with the original Registered owner and he did not bring the No Dues Certificate also but in the intervening days, he read a news in the news-paper and he came to know that the jeep sold by Ram Lal to him was a stolen jeep, so he immediately informed the Police Station, Purani Abadi, District Sri Ganganagar and then the police had taken the jeep in its custody. In his cross-examination, he states that when he purchased the jeep from Ram Lal, then a written document was also executed by the seller which was given by him to police when the jeep was taken in custody. He says that when the jeep was taken in custody by police, then at that time, he did not sign any paper in presence of the police. 9. It has been argued on behalf of the accused-appellant that if a written document was prepared at the time of alleged sale of jeep to Jagidsh and if that document was handed over by Jagdish to Police as has been mentioned in the statement of Jagdish, then where is that document and why that document has not been produced by the police along with the charge-sheet papers, because no such document is said to have been exhibited during the trial, as admitted by the learned Public Prosecutor also during the arguments before us. 10. Next, comes the alleged recovery of silver ring of deceased from the possession of accused-appellant Ram Lal. Seizure memo Ex.P.5 mentions that in presence of Jugal Singh and Ramjas on 14.9.2003, silver ring of deceased along with Rs. 10. Next, comes the alleged recovery of silver ring of deceased from the possession of accused-appellant Ram Lal. Seizure memo Ex.P.5 mentions that in presence of Jugal Singh and Ramjas on 14.9.2003, silver ring of deceased along with Rs. 5000/- cash and one deck and two speakers of the music system of jeep were recovered from the possession of accused Ram Lal at his instance. In the seizure memo itself, it was mentioned that Ramjas had identified the silver ring to be that of his cousin brother Duni Ram, the deceased and the statement of Smt. Rajkori (PW-5) had also been recorded by the court on the request of the prosecution during the trial. Smt. Rajkori is wife of Duni Ram, the deceased. She says that when her husband had gone for tour then he was having Rs. 5,000/- cash in his pocket and he was putting on a silver ring also. The court identification of silver ring has been made by this witness during her statement but it is again important to note here that a regular identification parade of this silver ring was not conducted by the police during the investigation and that is a big lacuna in the investigation. 11. In F.I.R. also, it was not mentioned that Duni Ram was putting on a silver ring in his finger and thus, it can be said that when a ring and Rs. 5,000/- cash were recovered from the possession of accused-appellant Ram Lal, then his wife and his cousin brother were asked to state that deceased Duni Ram was carrying Rs. 5,000/- cash with him and putting on a silver ring in his finger. Thus, recovery of silver ring as well as that of Rs. 5,000/- cash do not connect the accused-appellant with the murder of Duni Ram. 12. Similarly, recovery of a deck and two speakers of jeep from the possession of accused-appellant Ram Lal is also not reliable because in the circumstances of the case, it does not appear natural that a person who commits murder of another person, will keep the incriminating evidence of murder in his possession when value of the deck as well as two speakers is not much and, so the recovery of deck and speakers appears to be a planted recovery. 13. Sagar Mal, S.I., the then S.H.O. of Police Station, Nohar was examined as PW-9 in the case. 13. Sagar Mal, S.I., the then S.H.O. of Police Station, Nohar was examined as PW-9 in the case. He has not bothered to recover the dead body of Duni Ram, though he was informed that dead body of Duni Ram was thrown away in the Rajasthan Canal. The dead body of Duni Ram could have been recovered by the Investigating Officer, had he made serious efforts because from the area of one police station, the dead bodies are not allowed to float to area of another police station in District Sri Ganganagar and adjoining Districts because there are barricades in the canal preventing the free transmission of dead bodies in the running canal. The Investigating Officer Sagar Mal, during his cross-examination, states that he does not rule out the possibility of Duni Ram being still alive. The identification parade of deck and speakers was also not got conducted by the Investigating Officer which is also a serious lacuna in this case. It is further important to mention here that PW-3 Ramjas states that when jeep was recovered in his presence, carrier, deck and speakers were also fitted in it and they had not been removed by that time. This witness further states that he does not remember that sale-deed of jeep executed by accused-appellant Ram Lal in favour of Jagdish was recovered by him or not. From beginning to end, statement of Sagar Mal, Investigating Officer, does not appear to be reliable. It appears that he had not conducted the investigation sincerely and he has also spoiled the case of the prosecution badly by his irresponsible answers during the cross-examination. 14. PW-4 Jugal Singh states that on 20.8.2003 Duni Ram was going in the jeep of Ram Lal and thenafter he did not see Duni Ram but on 14.9.2003, two speakers, one silver ring and Rs. 5,000/- cash were recovered from the house of Ram Lal in his presence. He further states that the seized speakers were the same speakers which were sold by him to Duni Ram and which were recovered from the house of accused-appellant Ram Lal. Because of planted recovery, last seen evidence given by this witness also appears to be doubtful. 15. 5,000/- cash were recovered from the house of Ram Lal in his presence. He further states that the seized speakers were the same speakers which were sold by him to Duni Ram and which were recovered from the house of accused-appellant Ram Lal. Because of planted recovery, last seen evidence given by this witness also appears to be doubtful. 15. PW-7 Ranveer Singh has stated that Ram Lal had come in a jeep with a person a few days before the incident and after two days, he had come back in the same jeep but this time, the other person was not with him and carrier of the jeep was lying unscrewed in the back side of the jeep. He says that the said carrier was recovered from a brick-kiln in his presence. This witness also does not appear to be trustworthy witness. 16. PW-8 Mahendra says that Jagdish wanted to sell a jeep to him which was said to be of accused-appellant Ram Lal. He says that Ram Lal was claiming the jeep to be of his brother-in-law Duni Ram. He says that purchase of said jeep appeared to him not to be a profitable transaction, so he did not purchase the jeep. He says that in presence of police, he had identified Ram Lal and Jagdish. In the circumstances of the case, we do not put much reliance on this witness too. 17. The accused-appellant has stated nothing special in his examination under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code and he has not produced any defence also, but the prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and in the present case, it can be said that alleged recovery of silver ring, Rs. 5,000/- cash, deck and two speakers and one carrier of jeep from different places, do not connect the accused-appellant with the offence, even the jeep was not recovered in furtherance of any information given by the accused-appellant. No efforts were made by the Investigating Officer to recover the dead body of Duni Ram. No doubt recovery of dead body is never a sine qua non for conviction of murder in a case but when dead body is not recovered, all the evidence led by the prosecution has to be minutely scrutinised. It can be said that death of Duni Ram has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the police. No doubt recovery of dead body is never a sine qua non for conviction of murder in a case but when dead body is not recovered, all the evidence led by the prosecution has to be minutely scrutinised. It can be said that death of Duni Ram has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the police. Charge of murder of Duni Ram has also not been proved beyond reasonable doubt against accused-appellant Ram Lal. The theory of so called extra-judicial confession is also not that strong on which conviction can be sustained. 18. The law is well settled that each and every incriminating circumstance must be clearly established by reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances so proved must form a chain of events for which the only irresistible conclusion that can be drawn is the guilt of the accused and that no other hypothesis against the the guilt is possible. In a case depending largely upon circumstantial evidence, there is always a danger that conjecture or suspicion may take legal proof. This Court will have to satisfy itself that various circumstances in the chain of events have been established clearly and such complete chain of events must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused. This Court has to be watchful and avoid allowing the suspicion to take place of the legal proof. There is a long distance between "may be true" and "must be true". When a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, an inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused. Cumulative effect of the circumstances must be such as to negative the innocence of the accused and bring home the offence beyond any reasonable doubt. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. In other words 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 it must show that in all human probabilities the act must have been done by the accused. 19. Appreciation of evidence made by us also gets support from the following rulings submitted on behalf of the learned defence counsel:- (1) Sahadevan & anr. 19. Appreciation of evidence made by us also gets support from the following rulings submitted on behalf of the learned defence counsel:- (1) Sahadevan & anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu 2012 AIR SCW ,( Head Note (B), Paras 21,22). (2) Heramba Brahma & anr. v. State of Assam (1982) 3 SCC 351 (paras 15,17 & 18) (3) Rahim Beg & anr. v. State of U.P. (1972) 3 SCC 759 (para 18) (4) State of Raj. v. Raja Ram (2003) 8 SCC 180 ( Head Note (C), para 9) (5) K.T. Palanisamy v. State of Tamil Nadu (2008) 3 SCC 100 (Head Note(A),(B),(C) & (D) (6) Jaswant Gir v. State of Punjab (2005) 12 SCC 438 (Head Note (A),(B) & (C) (7) Kailash Potlia v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1996 SC 66 (Head Note and paras 4,5 & 6) (8) Rambilas & ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1997 SC 3954 (Head Note and Paras 6 & 7) 20. Thus, in this case the prosecution wants affirmation of conviction order of accused-appellant Ram Lal on the basis of circumstantial evidence, last seen evidence, alleged recoveries and extra-judicial confession but the chain of circumstances is not complete in the case. The dead body has not been recovered and extra-judicial confession also do not inspire truth, last seen evidence is also not reliable and thus, the prosecution case is full of doubts and the benefit of reasonable doubt deserves to be given to the accused-appellant and so the appeal of the accused-appellant deserves to be allowed. 21. Hence, the appeal of the accused-appellant Ram Lal is allowed and impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court is quashed and set aside. He is hereby acquitted from the charges of Sections 302, 397, 414 and 201 IPC. He be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. A copy of this judgment along with record of the trial court be sent back immediately. Two copies of the judgment may also be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent, out of which one copy may be supplied to the accused-appellant.Appeal allowed. *******