JUDGMENT : S. S. SHINDE, J. This appeal is filed by the appellants, aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-2, Ambajogai on 24th December, 2013, thereby convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default, to suffer further S.I. for three months and further convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 201 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default to suffer S.I. for one months. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under:- On 25.07.2007 at 04.00 p.m. in the evening in the land namely 'Ramana Forest Hilly' area within the limit of Ambalwadi, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed, the accused nos. 1 to 4 in furtherance of common intention committed murder of deceased Ram Baburao Masal. It is the prosecution case that, the accused no.1 Ramkishan Hulgunde had suspicion in his mind about illicit relations between deceased Ram Masal and his sister-in-law (wife of his brother). Deceased Ram Masal was frequently visiting the house of accused no.1. Therefore, accused no. 1 had doubt about chastity of his sister-in-law, and it was reason and motive behind murder of deceased Ram Masal, by accused no. 1 Ramkisan with the help of accused nos. 2 to 4, his friends. It is further the case of the prosecution that, the accused nos. 1 to 4 have caused disappearance of evidence, therefore, they committed offence under Section 201 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. As observed in para no.1 hereinabove, the Additional Sessions Judge-2, Ambajogai convicted the appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, hence this appeal by the original accused persons. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that, the prosecution did not establish motive for commission of alleged offence by the appellants. It is submitted that, since the case rests upon the circumstantial evidence, it was necessary for the prosecution to firmly establish motive for commission of offence. It is further submitted that, only one witness has stated about the motive, and that too, vaguely. It is submitted that, since the case rests upon the circumstantial evidence, it was necessary for the prosecution to firmly establish motive for commission of offence. It is further submitted that, only one witness has stated about the motive, and that too, vaguely. It is submitted that, the entire prosecution case rests upon the evidence of PW-8 - Rukhminbai Garje who deposed that, the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused persons. It is submitted that, the alleged offence had taken place on 25th July, 2007 and statement ofPW-8 was recorded by the Police on 10th August, 2007. There is inordinate delay in recording the statement of PW-8, and the evidence of PW-8 is also not trustworthy so as to rest the conviction of the appellants on the basis of her testimony. The brother of the deceased registered Missing Report on 26th July, 2007. In the said Missing Report dated 26th July, 2007, even suspicion is not expressed about the appellants that, they have committed the murder of the brother of the complainant. It is submitted that, Supplementary statement of the complainant was recorded on 11.08.2007, after recovery of the dead body. It- is submitted that, no independent witness has been examined by the prosecution to prove the motive. The dead body was totally decomposed, and therefore, same was not identifiable. Though, the Investigating Officer has stated in his evidence that, he saw the broken mobile handset on the spot, same was not seized. No call details have been inquired/investigated as to phone calls made from the mobile of the deceased as well as accused. Though, the accused nos. 1 and 2 were arrested on 11th August, 2014, and accused no.3 was arrested on 12th August, 2007, an identification parade was conducted on 23rd October, 2007. It is submitted that, on 27th August, 2007 the photographs of the deceased and also the accused were published in daily news paper i.e. Zunzar Neta. Therefore, the identification parade conducted after three months from the date of incident, looses its significance. It is submitted that, the husband of the PW-8 acted as panch witness to the inquest panchanama, which was conducted on 3rd August, 2007 and there are no reasons forthcoming for not recording the statement of PW-8 either on the next day of incident or immediately after the dead body was recovered. It is submitted that, the husband of the PW-8 acted as panch witness to the inquest panchanama, which was conducted on 3rd August, 2007 and there are no reasons forthcoming for not recording the statement of PW-8 either on the next day of incident or immediately after the dead body was recovered. It is submitted that, there is a variance in the version of PW-8 and Naib Tahsildar, who conducted the identification parade as to identification of suspect in the test identification parade. One day prior to conducting the identification parade, the police constable went to the house of PW-8, and therefore, the possibility of tutoring the PW8 or showing photographs of accused to her cannot be ruled out. It is submitted that, there is no recovery of weapons. There is no C.A. Report. The alleged recovery of ash also not believable in as much as during the said period, there were rains. It is further submitted that, though the PW-8 in her evidence stated that, the person to whom other four persons were pushing was fatty person but P.M. Report shows that, his body was moderately nourished. Therefore, the evidence of PW-8 is not trustworthy. 5. The learned Additional Public prosecutor appearing for the State submitted that, all the circumstances have been firmly established and proved by the prosecution by leading cogent, convincing and reliable evidence. The death was homicidal. The body was identified by the brother of the deceased and also other two witnesses. There were as many as 20 injuries on the body of the deceased. It is further submitted that, the evidence of PW8 on the point of last seen together has not been shaken in the cross-examination. She identified all the accused persons in identification parade. Therefore, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that, the trial Court has rightly convicted the accused, therefore, this Court may not entertain the appeal. 6. Since this is an appeal against conviction, we would like to reappreciate the entire evidence placed on record, so as to reach to the proper conclusion as to whether the reasons and findings recorded by trial Court are based upon improper appreciation of evidence on record and calls for any interference in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. We have given careful consideration to the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. With their assistance we have perused the entire material placed on record. We have given careful consideration to the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. With their assistance we have perused the entire material placed on record. Upon careful perusal of the material placed on record, it appears that, in order to prove guilt against accused-appellant the prosecution has relied on following circumstances. A) The deceased Ram Masal was found missing on and after 25.07.2007. B) The dead body of deceased was found on 03.08.2007 in the Nala of Raman a forest Hilly area of village Abalwadi, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed. C) The dead body of the deceased Ram Masal has been identified. D) The deceased was last seen together with accused nos. 1 to 4, on 25.07.2007 at about 4 p.m. by Rukhminibai Garje. E) The deceased was found to be died a homicidal death. F) The accused were seen pulling and pushing the deceased out of rickshaw bearing No.MH-23-H-7346 near the place where the dead body of Ram Masal was found. G) The accused have been identified by the PW-8 Rukhminbai Garje. H) The auto rickshaw bearing No. MH23-H-7346 has been seized. I) Ash of blood stained clothes of the accused No.1 has been seized. J) The food wear (Chappal) of deceased recovered at the instance of accused no.1 and same has been seized. K) The accused No.1 Ramkishan suspected that deceased Ram Masal had immoral relations with his (accused No.1 's) brother's wife. 7. The case of the prosecution entirely based on circumstantial evidence. It is well settled principle that where the case is entirely based upon circumstantial evidence, the court must take great care while evaluating circumstantial evidence and ensure that the circumstances on which the prosecution relies are fully consistent with sole hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. 7. The case of the prosecution entirely based on circumstantial evidence. It is well settled principle that where the case is entirely based upon circumstantial evidence, the court must take great care while evaluating circumstantial evidence and ensure that the circumstances on which the prosecution relies are fully consistent with sole hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. When a case rests on circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests; (1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; (2) those circumstances should unerringly point towards1he guilt of the accused; (3) the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probabilities the crime was committed by the accused and none else; (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should also be inconsistent with his innocence. 8. In the case of Mohd. Mannan @ Abdulo Mannan Vs. State of Bihar; (2011) 5 SCC 317 : [2011 ALL SCR 2857], the Apex Court has reiterated the principles to be borne in mind while dealing with a case based upon circumstantial evidence in evaluation of the evidence adduced in the case. The apex court has observed as under: “In our opinion to bring home the guilt on the basis of circumstantial evidence the prosecution has to establish that the circumstances proved lead to one and the only conclusion towards the guilt of the accused. In a case based on circumstantial evidence the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn are to be cogently and firmly established. The circumstances so proved must unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused. It should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that the crime was committed by the accused and none else. It has to be considered within all human probability and not in a fanciful manner. In order to sustain conviction circumstantial evidence must be complete and must point towards the guilt of the accused. It should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that the crime was committed by the accused and none else. It has to be considered within all human probability and not in a fanciful manner. In order to sustain conviction circumstantial evidence must be complete and must point towards the guilt of the accused. Such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but inconsistent with his innocence. No hard-and-fast rule can be laid down to say that particular circumstances are conclusive to establish guilt. It is basically a question of appreciation of evidence which exercise is to be done in the facts and circumstances of each case." In the case of Rajendra Wasnik Vs. State of Maharashtra (2012) 4 SCC 37 : [2012 ALL MR (Cri) 1375 (S.C)], the Apex Court has held that to sustain conviction founded on circumstantial evidence, circumstances forming chain of events should be proved which should cumulatively and unequivocally point toward guilt of accused and be incompatible with innocence of accused or guilt of any other person. 9. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses. PW-1 Bhagwat Baburao Masal i.e. brother 01 the deceased who lodged the Missing Report, examined as PW-1. In his deposition before the Court he stated that, he resides in Mangalwar Peth, Hamal Galli, Ambajogai. The deceased was his brother. They have joint family. The deceased Ram was doing business of construction. On 25th July, 2007, he was at home. Ram left the house for his work at about 9.00 a.m. He went for work in Chousalkar Colony. He remained there till 12.00 noon. At about 12.00 in the noon one phone call was received on his mobile. Ram told labours to pick material of centering and take it to construction site of Mr. Gambhire. He also told them that, he will come within 15 minutes. After 15 minutes Ram went somewhere. Thereafter, Ram did not return back. On 25.07.2007 in between 6.00 p.m. to 7.00 p.m., he made few phone calls on the mobile phone of Ram. He found phone was not working. On 26.07.2007 he went to Police Station, Ambajogai and lodged missing complaint regarding Ram. He along with his relatives continued search of Ram towards his friends. 10. Thereafter, Ram did not return back. On 25.07.2007 in between 6.00 p.m. to 7.00 p.m., he made few phone calls on the mobile phone of Ram. He found phone was not working. On 26.07.2007 he went to Police Station, Ambajogai and lodged missing complaint regarding Ram. He along with his relatives continued search of Ram towards his friends. 10. PW-1 further deposed that, on 3rd August, 2007 he received phone call on his mobile phone from Police Station, Ambejogai. He went to Police Station, Ambejogai. He was taken to Ambalwadi Shivar near 'Visava' Dhaba in Police vehicle. He was taken to forest in deep valley. One body was shown to him, which was lying near Nala. He identified the dead body as of his brother Ram on the basis of diary found in the pocket of pant of deceased and after postmortem the dead body was given in his custody. Then funeral was performed. 11. It is further stated by PW-I that, the accused no.1 Ramkishan @ Bala Haribhau Hulgunde was close friend of Ram. He used to visit the house of accused no.1 Ramkishan. The accused no.1 - Ramkishan had illicit relations with his brother's wife. He specifically deposed that, on 25th July, 2007, the accused nos. 1 to 4 called Ram in the noon after making phone call on his mobile phone. He was taken in rickshaw owned by accused no.4 Shaikh Javed, and after giving liquor to him for drinking, they took him to deep forest in the area of Ambalwadi and killed him with the help of some sharp weapons. His dead body e f was thrown in Nala. He stated that, accused nos. 1 to 4 killed his brother. His supplementary .t statement was recorded by the Police on 11th August, 2007. He identified clothes and diary of his brother in the Court. 12. In his cross examination he stated that, accused no. 1 Ramkishan is residing in same lane. Accused nos. 2 to 4 frequently used to come to said lane wherein PW-1 is also residing. He knew all four accused since long. He has specifically stated that, on 26.07.2007 when he lodged missing complaint, he did not suspect the accused persons. On 3rd August, 2007, when he saw dead body of his brother, he had suspicion of accused, but he was not confident. He knew all four accused since long. He has specifically stated that, on 26.07.2007 when he lodged missing complaint, he did not suspect the accused persons. On 3rd August, 2007, when he saw dead body of his brother, he had suspicion of accused, but he was not confident. Till the dead body was given in custody of relatives, he did not tell Police regarding his suspicion. He firmly denied suggestion that, dead body was not identifiable. He has further denied suggestion given by the defence that, dead body was not identifiable since the same was decomposed. 13. The evidence of this witness is relevant on two aspects, firstly motive for commission of offence by the accused and secondly, phone calls received on mobile of deceased on 25.07.2007. It has come in his evidence that, on 25th July, 2007 at about 12 noon, some phone call was received on the mobile phone of the deceased. After receiving said phone call, the deceased left the construction site i.e. Mr. Gambhire after informing the labourers working there that, he will come back within 15 minutes. Thereafter he did not return back. Perusal of the deposition of the Investigating Officer, PW-11 whose evidence is at Exhibit - 94 reveals that, he did not cause any investigation/inquiry about calls received by the deceased on his mobile on the date of incident. In fact, the entire prosecution case rests upon the circumstance that, the deceased Ram received some phone call on his mobile on 25th July, 2007 at 12 noon and thereafter he left the place. According to the prosecution case, the said call was made by the accused persons so as to call Ram pursuant to conspiracy to kill him. Therefore, the investigation about calls received on mobile of the deceased was very crucial and important. It has also come in the evidence of PW-11 that he saw one broken mobile on the spot of incident, however, he did not seize it. PW-11 has admitted in his cross examination that, he has not inquired/investigated about call details, in respect of conversation of deceased Ram on mobile on the date of incident and though he saw broken hand set at the spot of incident, he did not seize the same. Therefore, whether the call received by deceased Ram at 12 noon on his mobile on 25.07.2007, was really made by the accused or any other person. Therefore, whether the call received by deceased Ram at 12 noon on his mobile on 25.07.2007, was really made by the accused or any other person. So also raises serious doubt as to who has really called deceased Ram. 14. So far as motive is concerned, it has also come in the evidence of PW-11 that, it is transpired during investigation that, there was illicit relations between deceased and wife of the accused no. 1 Ramkishan and therefore, the accused no.1 killed the deceased Ram. However, there is no evidence to prove this fact. The fact deposed by PW-1 in this regard based upon hearsay evidence. He had no personal knowledge of the said fact. 15. In fact, the PW-1 in his deposition before the Court stated that, there was illicit relationship of accused no.1 Ramkishan, with wife of Ramishan's brother. The deceased Ram used to visit the house of accused no. 1 and accused no.1 used to suspect that, the deceased had illicit relations with the wife of brother of accused no.1. PW-1 has disclosed this fact 1st time when his supplementary statement was recorded. PW-1 had no personal knowledge about this fact. PW11 i.e. Investigating Officer in his evidence has stated that, it transpired during course of investigation that, the deceased had illicit relations with wife of the accused no.1 Ramkishan. Therefore, it has come on record that, there are two contradictory versions about the motive for commission of offence. So far as other three accused persons are concerned, the prosecution has not attributed any motive for their involvement in the commission of offence. It is stated that, other three accused are friends of accused no.1 and therefore, they accompanied with him. 16. It is settled law that, while motive does not have a major role to play in cases based on direct evidence but it assumes importance in cases based on circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court in the case of Rushipal V/s State of Uttarakhand reported in 2013(12) SCC 551 : [2013 ALL SCR 930], in para 14 held that, it is fairly well-settled that while motive does not have a major role to play in cases based on eye-witness account of the incident, it assumes importance in cases that rest entirely on circumstantial evidence. It is further observed that, absence of strong motive is something that cannot be lightly brushed aside. 17. It is further observed that, absence of strong motive is something that cannot be lightly brushed aside. 17. The present case also rests upon the circumstantial evidence, and therefore, absence of strong motive is something that cannot be lightly brushed aside. The prosecution has not firmly established the strong motive for commission of offence by the accused-appellants. 18. PW-2 Dnyanoba Sopanrao Garje was examined at Exhibit-32. PW-2 in his evidence stated that, on 2nd August, 2007, he was present in the village. At about 6.30 p.m. Shivaji Mahadeo Garje gave him some message. He told him that, dead body of one male person is lying near Nala in the field of forest, which is towards Ambalwadi road to its north side. On the next day at about 6.30 in the morning he along with other 10 to 15 persons went to the spot. Shri Shivaji Mahadeo Garje, Chandrakant Shankar Garje and some other person were also with him. Shivaji Garje showed them spot where the dead body was lying. The place was located in forest towards southern side of Parali-Ambajogai road. The dead body was in highly decomposed condition. Body was lying in Nala. He informed said fact to Police Station Parali (Rural), at about 7.30 a.m. Subsequently, Police came there and prepared panchanama of spot and dead body. There was white colour shirt with checks design and ash colour pant on the body of dead person. There were injuries on the dead body. The Medical Officer came and conducted postmortem on the dead body. Thereafter dead body was given in the custody of the relatives of the deceased. It is relevant to mention here that, this witness in his evidence has stated that, the distance between spot of incident and village Ambalwadi is about 31/2 kms. 19. The prosecution examined Shivaji Garje as PW-3. He staled in his evidence that, he saw the dead body from close distance. However, nobody could identify it is whose dead body. 20. Upon examining the evidence of PW-2, PW-3 and also other witnesses, it appears that, the body was found to be lying in highly decomposed condition. However, the dead body was identified by the brother of the deceased on the basis of clothes and diary found with the clothes of deceased. 21. The Investigating Officer seized one auto rickshaw (MH-23-H-7346) from the custody of accused Shaikh Vajid Shaikh Babu. However, the dead body was identified by the brother of the deceased on the basis of clothes and diary found with the clothes of deceased. 21. The Investigating Officer seized one auto rickshaw (MH-23-H-7346) from the custody of accused Shaikh Vajid Shaikh Babu. PW-4 Husain was called at Police Station (Gramin), Parali- Vaijnath. He was shown auto of Bajaj company black in colour. In his deposition before the Court, the mentioned the registration number of said auto as MH-23-H-7643). He narrated other details about the said Auto rickshaw in his deposition. Upon careful perusal of his evidence, the number of auto rickshaw, which he has stated in his evidence is different, than mentioned by PW-8 in her deposition before the Court. PW-8 Rukhminbai in her evidence stated that, she saw five persons coming out of auto rickshaw No.MH-23-7346. 22. The prosecution examined Kishor Shivajirao Dalvi as PW-5. His evidence is at Exhibit -45. On 15th August, 2007 he was called by Parali Gramin Police at about 3.45 p.m. It appears that, he was called as witness to record the memorandum statement of accused Sayyad Javed i.e. accused no.2. He narrated the details about the manner in which the accused disclosed, about burning of clothes and also about pair of Chappal of deceased which was thrown by him in bushes. He further stated that, accused Javed produced pair of chappal. It has also come in his evidence that, accused Javed told that, clothes of the accused were burnt. He has shown the spot where ash of burnt clothes was thrown by the accused Javed. From the place pointed out by said accused Police seized ash and same was sealed and then seizure panchanama was drawn. 23. Upon careful consideration of the evidence of PW-5 and Investigating officer, it cannot be said that, prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that, the pair of chappal, which was recovered at the instance of accused Javed was really belongs to deceased Ram. There should have been some investigation on that aspect to ascertain as to whether, the said pair of chappal was as that of deceased-Ram. There should have been some investigation on that aspect to ascertain as to whether, the said pair of chappal was as that of deceased-Ram. So far recovery of ash of burnt clothes of accused is concerned, it has come in the evidence of prosecution witness that, the incident occurred during rainy season, and such recovery of ash of burnt clothes after 20 days from the date of incident, that too underneath stone, is difficult to believe. Location of the spot from where the ash was recovered located near the river. In absence of sending the said ash to C.A. and opinion of expert to show that, really said ash is of burnt clothes as that of deceased, or otherwise, such recovery would be of no use to prove the prosecution case and establish any circumstances against accused. 24. The prosecution examined Hanumant Dagdu Bachate (PW-6). His evidence is at Exhibit-50. In his evidence, he stated that, his native place is Dhamoni, Tq. Sonpeth, dist. Parbhani. For last 4-5 years, he is residing at Ambajogai. He is doing work there. On 25th July, 2007, he was working with deceased Ram. He stated that, Ram Masal i.e. deceased was taking contract of Centering. On 25th July, 2007, Ram Masal had taken work at 2-3 places. On 25th July, 2007 at about 9 a.m. he was present near Kaman of Hanuman nagar. Ram Masal was also present there. Ram Masal told him that, from Chousalkar colony they should bring material of centring for Gambhire's work. Ram Masal called tempo. Along with deceased and few labourers he went to Chousalkar colony. When they were loading material in tempo, driver told the deceased that, on his mobile he has received phone call of some lady. At about 11.30 to 11.45 deceased again received phone call. He left the place by saying to wait there and he will return within 10 minutes. He asked him and other labourers to take material to the site of Vijay Gambhire and he will come within 15-20 minutes. Thereafter, he left. This witness has stated that, at 3.00 p.m. he made phone call on the mobile of deceased. However, same was not connected. As already observed, there is no investigation by PW-11 about phone calls received on mobile of the deceased on the date of incident. Thereafter, he left. This witness has stated that, at 3.00 p.m. he made phone call on the mobile of deceased. However, same was not connected. As already observed, there is no investigation by PW-11 about phone calls received on mobile of the deceased on the date of incident. Therefore, prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that, the call which was received at 12.00 noon on mobile of deceased Ram was made by the accused - appellants and they took him in auto-Rikshaw. 25. Prosecution has examined, Dr. Shashikant Shivajirao Salunke, the autopsy surgeon as PW-7. His evidence is at Exh.59. In his evidence, he stated that, he was posted as Medical Officer at PHC, Ghatnandur. On that day, he received requisition letter from Parli Rural Police Station for conducting post mortem of one decomposed dead body on the spot. Therefore, he went to village Amalwadi in Ramna Shiwar. Dead body lying there was taken out from the stream. He conducted post mortem of body which was identified as that of Ram Masal. He started post mortem on the spot on 03.08.2007 from 2.00 p.m. which lasted up to 3.30 p.m. He did notice that teeth were intact, body was moderately nourished and cold, Rigor-mortis was present in hands and legs, signs of decomposition were present. Body was smelling foul smell and maggots were seen coming out through face, nose. There were bullae present over some part of body which tilled with fluid. Skin can be easily peeled off, hairs fallen off and the nose and tongue can not be visualised. Magoots were coming out from nasal, cavity, mouths and ears. There were no injuries to external genitals. Both arms were flexed, fingures incurred. He further stated that, he noticed as many as 20 injuries on the dead body of deceased Ram. He stated that, all the injuries were ante mortem injuries. The injuries No.1 to 14, 16, 19 are possible by sharp edged weapon and injury No.15, 18 and 20 are possible by hard and blunt object. The penetrating injury mentioned in the report are possible by stabbing weapons such as sword, sword-stick [Gupti] etc. Brain was soft, pulpy showing sign of decomposition. He has also stated details about examination of Thorax-walls, ribs, cartilages etc. He has further stated that, injuries mentioned in column No.20 and 21 corresponds to injuries mentioned in column No.17. The penetrating injury mentioned in the report are possible by stabbing weapons such as sword, sword-stick [Gupti] etc. Brain was soft, pulpy showing sign of decomposition. He has also stated details about examination of Thorax-walls, ribs, cartilages etc. He has further stated that, injuries mentioned in column No.20 and 21 corresponds to injuries mentioned in column No.17. He has stated that, all the injuries mentioned in column No.17 on the various parts of the body are sufficient to cause the death of person. He has stated that, the death of deceased might have caused 7 to 8 days before the date of conducting postmortem. In his cross examination, he stated that, when he conducted postmortem of the dead body, it was in decomposed condition and there were maggots were coming out through wounds. Eyes, tongue and nose was not visible. Dead body was completely swol1en. He has stated that, in case of highly decomposed body for its identification DNA test is required to conducted. 26. Upon considering the evidence of PW-7 and evidence of other witnesses, it appears that, death of Ram was homicidal. However, real question is whether the appellants accused are responsible for his death. As already observed, the prosecution has not firmly established strong motive for killing deceased by the appellant accused. Entire prosecution case is based upon circumstantial evidence, therefore, the prosecution should have proved that, there was strong motive for commission of offence by the accused appellant. At the cost of repetition, it has to be observed that, investigation/enquiry in respect of phone call received on mobile No.9850571643 of deceased Ram at 9.00 a.m. and thereafter, more particularly about 12.00 noon onwards was very important, since the prosecution claimed that, appellants/accused called Ram on his mobile at about 12.00 noon on 25.07.2007 and after receiving their call, Ram left the Chousalkar Colony and went along with the accused in auto rickshaw, and accused persons took him in rickshaw, forced him to take liquor and then at about 4.00 to 4.30 p.m. Killed him. However, as PW-11 Pradeep Nandedkar, Investigating Officer has clearly admitted in his cross examination that, he did not make inquiry/investigation about phone calls received on the mobile of deceased Ram on the date of incident. He has also stated that, though he saw broken mobile handset on the spot of incident, he did not seize the same. 27. However, as PW-11 Pradeep Nandedkar, Investigating Officer has clearly admitted in his cross examination that, he did not make inquiry/investigation about phone calls received on the mobile of deceased Ram on the date of incident. He has also stated that, though he saw broken mobile handset on the spot of incident, he did not seize the same. 27. The prosecution claims that, the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused. Since the entire prosecution case rests upon circumstantial evidence, this circumstance assumes importance. However, the circumstance of last seen together does not by itself and necessarily lead to the inference that it was the accused who committed the crime. There must be something more needs to establish to connect the accused with the commission of crime, as held by the Supreme court in the case of Kanhaiya Lal V/s. State of Rajasthan reported in (2014) 4 SCC 715 : [2014 ALL SCR 1542]. The prosecution in order to establish that, the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused examined PW-8 Rukhminibai Garje at Exh.67. In her evidence, she stated that, her family had landed property in the vicinity of village Ambalwadi. They had some cattle and she used to graze them sometimes. On 25th July, 2007, she was at her house. On that day, at about 10:00 to 10.30 a.m., she was grazing the cattle by the side of the road Ambajogai-Parli. Day long she grazed the cattle and at about 4.00 p.m. started to come back. While she was passing from the land of forest towards the village, at that time she saw one rickshaw having black colour, bearing registration No.MH-23-7346 came and stopped in front of bridge. Five persons got down from that rickshaw. Out of those five person, four persons were pushing and pulling the fifth one who was in the age group of 22-25 years. The person to whom remaining four persons were pushing and pulling was fatty and he was wearing white shirt on his person. As she was alone, she left that place and went towards her village. She has stated that, 10 days after that incident she came to know through her husband that, in the hilly area, below the bridge one dead body of male has been found. As she was alone, she left that place and went towards her village. She has stated that, 10 days after that incident she came to know through her husband that, in the hilly area, below the bridge one dead body of male has been found. During investigation, it transpired that, the name of that person was Ram Masal of Ambajogai and he was missing since 25th July, 2007. Her husband also disclosed her that, there were several injuries on the dead body of said person and therefore, she remember the incident dated 25th July, 2007 when she saw one fatty person being pulled by four persons and thought, that same person was murdered by those other four persons. It is stated by her that, after tracing out the dead body, the Police Personnel of Parli (Rural) Police Station visited her house after 8 days for recording her statement. After 21/2 months thereafter one policeman from Police Station Parli [Rural] had been to her house. He asked her to attend the office of Tahsildar on next day. Thereafter, on next day, she visited office of Tahsildar located at old Tahsil office Ambejogai at about 3.00 p.m. Firstly, she went in the office of Naib Tahsildar, which was situated on East-North corner of that office. She met Naib Tahsildar, who was alone. She disclosed him that, Police informed her about attending the Tahsil office. Naib Tahsildar asked her to sit. Thereafter, she was called by the Naib Tahsidlar in the meeting hall and accordingly, she went to the meeting hall. In the meeting hall, 8 persons were standing in a row who were of same age group. Tahsildar asked her to identify the persons to whom she saw in auto rickshaw on 25th July, 2007. Accordingly, she identified the persons from that row. The person who was standing at serial No.2 in that row i.e. Ramkishan Haribhau Hulgunde i.e. accused No.1 and another accused at Serial No.5. It appears that, the witness identified the person standing at serial No.5, who was sitting in the Court hall at serial No.3 from the side of witness box. When Court asked his name, she disclosed his name as Sk.Nasir Sk.Faimuddin. It appears that, the witness identified the person standing at serial No.5, who was sitting in the Court hall at serial No.3 from the side of witness box. When Court asked his name, she disclosed his name as Sk.Nasir Sk.Faimuddin. So far identification of the person who was standing at serial No.5 in first round is concerned, Naib Tahsildar, who conducted the identification parade stated in his evidence before the court that person standing at serial NO.5 was accused Sayyed Javed. Therefore, there is material contradictions about which accused was standing at serial No.5 in row in the first round. As already observed, PW-8 in her deposition before the court stated that, Shaikh Nasir Shaikh Faimuddin was standing at serial No.5, however, Naib Tahsildar in his evidence stated that, Rukhminbai Garje [PW8] has identified two accused persons i.e. at serial No.2 in row Ramkishan @ Bala Haribhau Hulgunde and at Serial No.5 in row accused Sayyad Javed Sayyad Salim. Therefore, there is contradiction between the version of two witnesses namely PW-8 and PW-9 about who was standing at serial no.5 in row in first round of identification. It has come in the evidence of PW-9 and also in the panchanama of Identification Parade that, in second round of Identification Parade, the person standing at serial no. 5 was Sk. Nazir Sk. Khaimu and person standing at Sr. 7th was Sk. Wajid Sk. Baba. 28. Upon perusal of the material placed on record, it appears that, the Investigating Officer send letter to the Tahsildar, Ambajogai for conducting Identification Parade on 31st August, 2007. It is brought on record by the defence that, on 27th August, 2007. In news paper daily ‘Zunzar Neta’, photographs of deceased and also the accused persons were shown, and therefore, the said photographs were seen by PW-8. Such suggestion was also given in the cross-examination, which was denied by PW-8. It further appears that, by letter dated 15th October, 2007, the Tahsildar communicated to the concerned Police Station that, identification parade would be conducted on 23rd August, 2007 and accordingly identification parade was conducted on 23rd October, 2007. As already observed, the date of alleged incident is 25th July, 2007. Dead body was seen and recovered on 3rd August, 2007. Thereafter considerable time was lapsed. On 10th August, 2007 statement of PW-8, who claims to be witness of last seen together was recorded by the Police. As already observed, the date of alleged incident is 25th July, 2007. Dead body was seen and recovered on 3rd August, 2007. Thereafter considerable time was lapsed. On 10th August, 2007 statement of PW-8, who claims to be witness of last seen together was recorded by the Police. From the date of occurrence almost after about three months, identification parade was conducted in which prosecution claims that, PW-8 identified the accused persons in the said identification parade. In this context, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants is right in placing reliance on the reported judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Musheer Khan @ Badshah Khan and anr V/s State of M.P. reported in AIR 2010 S.C. 762 : [2010 ALL MR (Cri) 933 (S.C.)] wherein in the facts of that case, identification parade was carried out after three months from the date of incident, Supreme Court in the facts of that case held thus:- "32. In so far as the identification of A-5 is concerned that has taken place at a very delayed stage, namely, his identification took place on 24.01.2001 and the incident is of 29.11.2000, even though A-5 was arrested on 22.12.2000. There is no explanation why his identification parade was held on 24.01.2001, which is after a gap of over a month from the date of arrest and after about 3 months from the date of the incident. No reliance ought to have been placed by the courts below or High Court on such delayed T. I. parade for which there is no explanation by the prosecution." 29. In the facts of the present case also Identification parade was conducted after about three months from the date of incident. Therefore, it looses its importance in as much as there was long time gap and possibility of accused being shown to witnesses cannot be ruled out. In the present case, the defence has brought on record that, the photographs of not only accused but also deceased were published in the news paper daily 'Zunzar Neta' on 27th August, 2007. There is no explanation on the part of prosecution as to delay in conducting identification parade. Upon dose scrutiny of the evidence ofPW-8, it appears that, there was delay in recording her statement. There is no explanation on the part of prosecution as to delay in conducting identification parade. Upon dose scrutiny of the evidence ofPW-8, it appears that, there was delay in recording her statement. She has stated in her examination-in-chief that, when her husband told about recovery of dead body on 3rd August, 2007, it came to her mind that, the dead body is of the same person, to whom other four persons were pushing and pulling on 25th July, 2007. Therefore, it is difficult to understand as to why the statement of PW-8 was not recorded immediately thereafter. It is a matter of record that, PW-3 who is husband of PW-8 is witness to one of the panchanama, and therefore, she was fully aware about the prosecution case. In the peculiar facts of this case, recording of the statement of PW-8 by the Police belatedly, after 15 days from the date of incident and 7-8 days after recovery of dead body raises serious doubt about truthfulness of evidence of PW-8, It has also come in the evidence that, PW-3 husband of PW-8 told her on 3rd August, 2007 itself about the recovery of dead body. It has also come on record that, PW-8 went for grazing cattle by the side of Beed-Parli road, which is busy road. It has come in the evidence of PW-8 that, in Bhopala Shivar, some land was taken by PW-8 for grazing cattle. However, when she was asked about proof of taking land on lease for grazing cattle, she was unable to produce proof to that effect. In her deposition, she has no where stated that, four persons, who were pushing 5th person were carrying any weapons in their hands. The prosecution case is that, the injuries inflicted were by sword. PW-8 has not stated that, they were carrying weapons, It has also come in the examination-in-chief of PW-8 that, she was alone and therefore, she left that place and went towards her village. It has come in her cross examination that, she can not read contents written in English language but she can read English digits. However, while telling the auto rickshaw number, she has not only stated the digits but also stated that, a registration number of rickshaw as MH-23-H-7346. Therefore, it creates serious doubt as to whether the PW-8 had really witnessed the incident as stated by her. 30. However, while telling the auto rickshaw number, she has not only stated the digits but also stated that, a registration number of rickshaw as MH-23-H-7346. Therefore, it creates serious doubt as to whether the PW-8 had really witnessed the incident as stated by her. 30. PW-8 has stated in her evidence that, after 21/2 months after recording her statement by Police, one police constable came to her house before one day before conducting the Identification Parade. She has admitted in her cross examination that, she had not seen dead body. She has stated that, village Ambalwadi is 1 Kms from her vasti. She has further stated that, Ambajogai road is 3 to 31/2 Kms. She has further staled in her evidence that, 50% people of village Ambalwadi are doing business of selling milk. She has also admitted in her evidence that, some forest guards are appointed to look after the forest land. It has also come in her evidence that, before going to Tahsil office her statement was recorded as per her narration. Therefore, if the evidence of PW8 -- Rukhminbai is considered in its entirety, it raises serious doubt as to whether really she had seen the accused coming out of rickshaw, and four out of five persons pushing and pooling 5th person, who was fatty. She has not stated that, they were carrying any weapons. The delay in recording her statement creates serious doubt about truthfulness of her statement. The identification parade is conducted after three months from the date of incident and about 21/2 months from recording of her statement, which creates serious doubt about the genuineness of identification of accused made by PW-8 in test identification parade. During the intervening period i.e. from recording her statement by police and the date on which the identification parade was conducted possibility of opportunity to see the accused persons or suspects being shown to her cannot be ruled out. Therefore, such belated identification parade that too with contradictory version of PW-8 and PW-9 about identification of accused in first round of identification parade raises serious doubt about the genuineness of such identification parade. PW-9 in his deposition stated that, he can not identify the accused sitting in the Court hall. It is not clear as to whether, the police persons were present in the Tahsil office at the time of conducting identification parade. PW-9 in his deposition stated that, he can not identify the accused sitting in the Court hall. It is not clear as to whether, the police persons were present in the Tahsil office at the time of conducting identification parade. It further appears from his evidence that, while conducting identification parade, in first round along with two accused other six persons were standing in row. While conducting the second round of identification parade in all 10 persons including accused were shown as standing in row. The PW-9 admitted in his evidence that, he had not read the guidelines issued by the High Court as to how to conduct the identification parade. There are certain guidelines prescribed for conducting identification parade. At this juncture, it would be apt to reproduce here-in-below the guidelines laid down i.e. Para 16(2)(a) to (p) from Chapter I of Criminal Manual issued by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, for the Guidance of the Criminal Courts and Officers Subordinate to it in respect of conduct of test identification parade, which read thus : 16(2)(a) The object of an identification parade is to make sure that the ability of the witness to recognise the suspect has been fairly and adequately tested. (b) . It should be fair and seem to be fair and every precaution must be taken to exclude any suspicion of unfairness or risk of erroneous identification through the witnesses attention being directed specifically to the suspected persons instead of equally to all the persons to be paraded. (c) The Officer concerned with the case against the suspect, if present, must not take part in conducting the parade. (d) The parade should be arranged by an officer who is not a police officer. (c) After the commencement of the identification parade, every thing in respect of it should take place in the presence and hearing of the suspect, including any instruction to the witnesses attending it as to the procedure that is to be adopted. (f) All unauthorised persons should be strictly excluded from the place of identification parade. (c) After the commencement of the identification parade, every thing in respect of it should take place in the presence and hearing of the suspect, including any instruction to the witnesses attending it as to the procedure that is to be adopted. (f) All unauthorised persons should be strictly excluded from the place of identification parade. (g) The witnesses should be prevented from seeing the suspect before he is paraded with other persons, and witnesses who have previously seen a photograph or description of the suspect should not be led in identifying the suspect by reason of their recollection of the photograph or description, as for instance by being shown the photograph or description, before the parade. (h) The suspect should be placed among persons (if practicable eight or more) who are as far as possible of the same age, height, general appearance (including standard of dress and grooming) and position in life. Two suspects of roughly of similar appearance should be paraded with at least twelve other persons. Where, however, the two suspects are not similar in appearance or where there are more than two suspects, separate parades should be held using different person on each parade. (i) All members of a group of suspects more than two should not be paraded together. There should be more parades than one, each including not more than two. Two suspects of obviously dissimilar appearance should not be included in the same parade. Identification numbers should be concealed. (j) The suspect should be allowed to select his own position in the line and should be expressly asked if he has any objection to the persons present with him or the arrangements made. He should be informed that if he so desires, he should have his Advocate (or a friend) present at the identification parade. (k) The witnesses should be introduced one by one and, on leaving, should not be allowed to communicate with witnesses waiting to see the persons paraded; and the suspect should be informed that he is free to change his position after each witness has left. (I) The witness should be asked whether the person he has come to identify is on the parade. He should be told that if he cannot make a positive identification, it is open for him to say so. (I) The witness should be asked whether the person he has come to identify is on the parade. He should be told that if he cannot make a positive identification, it is open for him to say so. (m) Generally, a witness should be asked to touch any person whom he purports to identify, but if the witness is nervous at the prospect of having to do that (in case where the witness is a woman or a child who has been victim of a sexual or violent assault or other frightening experience) and if prefers not to touch the person, identification by pointing out should be permitted. (n) If a witness indicates someone, but is unable to identify him positively, this fact should be carefully noted by the officer conducting the parade and every other circumstances, (such as whether the suspect or any other person is identified or not), connected with it should be noted. (o) If any request is made by a witness, for example to see the suspect with his hat on or his hat off or to see he person walk or to hear the person speak and there being no objection to the person paraded as asked for, the incident should be recorded. (p) Where a parade has to be held in prison, a prison officer should be present throughout in-charge of the discipline of the prisoners who would take part. Otherwise, the police officer unconnected with the case, ought to be responsible for the parade. It must be ensured that the parade is conducted in the same way as a parade outside prison." There is procedure prescribed in para16 of above-mentioned Manual for conducting the identification parades. Clause (iv) and (v) of the said procedure read thus : “(iv) The parade should then be arranged in a room or a place which is such that the identifying witnesses, as well as the persons connected with the Police, should not be able to look into it. (v) If there is only one accused person to be identified, there should be at least half a dozen persons placed in the parade. If two accused persons are to be identified, then there should be about 10 or 12 persons in the parade. Not more than two accused should be placed in any single identification parade. (v) If there is only one accused person to be identified, there should be at least half a dozen persons placed in the parade. If two accused persons are to be identified, then there should be about 10 or 12 persons in the parade. Not more than two accused should be placed in any single identification parade. Normally, the Police themselves will have called up the persons to be put in the parade; but the Executive Magistrate/Honorary Magistrate should see that they are persons of more or less the same physical appearance, and approximately of the same age, as the person to be identified. It is desirable that innocent persons to be mixed should be different for each such parade." 31. As already observed hereinbefore, PW-9 in his deposition stated that, he was not aware as to the Guidelines issued for holding the identification parades. Upon perusal of the clause (iv), while conducting the parade, the parade should be arranged in a room or a place which is such that the identifying witnesses, as well as the persons connected with the Police, should not be able to look into it. In clause (v), it is stated that, if there is only one accused person to be identified, there should be at least half a dozen dummy persons should be placed in the parade. If two accused persons are to be identified, then there should be about 10 or 12 persons in the parade. Not more than two accused should be placed in any single identification parade., Normally, the police themselves will have called up the persons to be put in the parade; but the Executive Magistrate/Honorary Magistrate should see that they are persons of more or less same physical appearance, and approximately of the same age, as the person to be identified. It is desirable that dummy persons to be mixed should be different for such parade. 32. Upon perusal of the evidence of PW-9 and also panchanama of identification parade, it appears that, two accused were placed in row in first round, wherein other six persons were standing in row. It means though two accused persons were placed for identification parade, only six other persons were placed in row. In fact as per the procedure 10 to 12 persons ought to have been placed in row for the parade. It means though two accused persons were placed for identification parade, only six other persons were placed in row. In fact as per the procedure 10 to 12 persons ought to have been placed in row for the parade. It is also not clear from the evidence of PW-9 and panchanama prepared of identification parade that, whether two accused were of similar appearances so as to place them in one parade. It is only in case of similar appearance of two suspects, they can be paraded with at least 10 to 12 other persons. Therefore, it appears that, PW 9 was totally unaware of procedure as to how to carry out the identification parade, as well as the guidelines issued to carryout identification parades, then PW-9 proceeded to conduct identification parade on 23.10.2007. Therefore, such belated identification parade after about three months from the date of incident, and conducted in breach of the procedure, deserves no consideration. JUDGMENT : S. S. SHINDE, J. This appeal is filed by the appellants, aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-2, Ambajogai on 24th December, 2013, thereby convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default, to suffer further S.I. for three months and further convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 201 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default to suffer S.I. for one months. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under:- On 25.07.2007 at 04.00 p.m. in the evening in the land namely 'Ramana Forest Hilly' area within the limit of Ambalwadi, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed, the accused nos. 1 to 4 in furtherance of common intention committed murder of deceased Ram Baburao Masal. It is the prosecution case that, the accused no.1 Ramkishan Hulgunde had suspicion in his mind about illicit relations between deceased Ram Masal and his sister-in-law (wife of his brother). Deceased Ram Masal was frequently visiting the house of accused no.1. Therefore, accused no. 1 had doubt about chastity of his sister-in-law, and it was reason and motive behind murder of deceased Ram Masal, by accused no. 1 Ramkisan with the help of accused nos. Deceased Ram Masal was frequently visiting the house of accused no.1. Therefore, accused no. 1 had doubt about chastity of his sister-in-law, and it was reason and motive behind murder of deceased Ram Masal, by accused no. 1 Ramkisan with the help of accused nos. 2 to 4, his friends. It is further the case of the prosecution that, the accused nos. 1 to 4 have caused disappearance of evidence, therefore, they committed offence under Section 201 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. As observed in para no.1 hereinabove, the Additional Sessions Judge-2, Ambajogai convicted the appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, hence this appeal by the original accused persons. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that, the prosecution did not establish motive for commission of alleged offence by the appellants. It is submitted that, since the case rests upon the circumstantial evidence, it was necessary for the prosecution to firmly establish motive for commission of offence. It is further submitted that, only one witness has stated about the motive, and that too, vaguely. It is submitted that, the entire prosecution case rests upon the evidence of PW-8 - Rukhminbai Garje who deposed that, the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused persons. It is submitted that, the alleged offence had taken place on 25th July, 2007 and statement ofPW-8 was recorded by the Police on 10th August, 2007. There is inordinate delay in recording the statement of PW-8, and the evidence of PW-8 is also not trustworthy so as to rest the conviction of the appellants on the basis of her testimony. The brother of the deceased registered Missing Report on 26th July, 2007. In the said Missing Report dated 26th July, 2007, even suspicion is not expressed about the appellants that, they have committed the murder of the brother of the complainant. It is submitted that, Supplementary statement of the complainant was recorded on 11.08.2007, after recovery of the dead body. It- is submitted that, no independent witness has been examined by the prosecution to prove the motive. The dead body was totally decomposed, and therefore, same was not identifiable. Though, the Investigating Officer has stated in his evidence that, he saw the broken mobile handset on the spot, same was not seized. It- is submitted that, no independent witness has been examined by the prosecution to prove the motive. The dead body was totally decomposed, and therefore, same was not identifiable. Though, the Investigating Officer has stated in his evidence that, he saw the broken mobile handset on the spot, same was not seized. No call details have been inquired/investigated as to phone calls made from the mobile of the deceased as well as accused. Though, the accused nos. 1 and 2 were arrested on 11th August, 2014, and accused no.3 was arrested on 12th August, 2007, an identification parade was conducted on 23rd October, 2007. It is submitted that, on 27th August, 2007 the photographs of the deceased and also the accused were published in daily news paper i.e. Zunzar Neta. Therefore, the identification parade conducted after three months from the date of incident, looses its significance. It is submitted that, the husband of the PW-8 acted as panch witness to the inquest panchanama, which was conducted on 3rd August, 2007 and there are no reasons forthcoming for not recording the statement of PW-8 either on the next day of incident or immediately after the dead body was recovered. It is submitted that, there is a variance in the version of PW-8 and Naib Tahsildar, who conducted the identification parade as to identification of suspect in the test identification parade. One day prior to conducting the identification parade, the police constable went to the house of PW-8, and therefore, the possibility of tutoring the PW8 or showing photographs of accused to her cannot be ruled out. It is submitted that, there is no recovery of weapons. There is no C.A. Report. The alleged recovery of ash also not believable in as much as during the said period, there were rains. It is further submitted that, though the PW-8 in her evidence stated that, the person to whom other four persons were pushing was fatty person but P.M. Report shows that, his body was moderately nourished. Therefore, the evidence of PW-8 is not trustworthy. 5. The learned Additional Public prosecutor appearing for the State submitted that, all the circumstances have been firmly established and proved by the prosecution by leading cogent, convincing and reliable evidence. The death was homicidal. The body was identified by the brother of the deceased and also other two witnesses. Therefore, the evidence of PW-8 is not trustworthy. 5. The learned Additional Public prosecutor appearing for the State submitted that, all the circumstances have been firmly established and proved by the prosecution by leading cogent, convincing and reliable evidence. The death was homicidal. The body was identified by the brother of the deceased and also other two witnesses. There were as many as 20 injuries on the body of the deceased. It is further submitted that, the evidence of PW8 on the point of last seen together has not been shaken in the cross-examination. She identified all the accused persons in identification parade. Therefore, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that, the trial Court has rightly convicted the accused, therefore, this Court may not entertain the appeal. 6. Since this is an appeal against conviction, we would like to reappreciate the entire evidence placed on record, so as to reach to the proper conclusion as to whether the reasons and findings recorded by trial Court are based upon improper appreciation of evidence on record and calls for any interference in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. We have given careful consideration to the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. With their assistance we have perused the entire material placed on record. Upon careful perusal of the material placed on record, it appears that, in order to prove guilt against accused-appellant the prosecution has relied on following circumstances. A) The deceased Ram Masal was found missing on and after 25.07.2007. B) The dead body of deceased was found on 03.08.2007 in the Nala of Raman a forest Hilly area of village Abalwadi, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed. C) The dead body of the deceased Ram Masal has been identified. D) The deceased was last seen together with accused nos. 1 to 4, on 25.07.2007 at about 4 p.m. by Rukhminibai Garje. E) The deceased was found to be died a homicidal death. F) The accused were seen pulling and pushing the deceased out of rickshaw bearing No.MH-23-H-7346 near the place where the dead body of Ram Masal was found. G) The accused have been identified by the PW-8 Rukhminbai Garje. H) The auto rickshaw bearing No. MH23-H-7346 has been seized. I) Ash of blood stained clothes of the accused No.1 has been seized. G) The accused have been identified by the PW-8 Rukhminbai Garje. H) The auto rickshaw bearing No. MH23-H-7346 has been seized. I) Ash of blood stained clothes of the accused No.1 has been seized. J) The food wear (Chappal) of deceased recovered at the instance of accused no.1 and same has been seized. K) The accused No.1 Ramkishan suspected that deceased Ram Masal had immoral relations with his (accused No.1 's) brother's wife. 7. The case of the prosecution entirely based on circumstantial evidence. It is well settled principle that where the case is entirely based upon circumstantial evidence, the court must take great care while evaluating circumstantial evidence and ensure that the circumstances on which the prosecution relies are fully consistent with sole hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. When a case rests on circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests; (1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; (2) those circumstances should unerringly point towards1he guilt of the accused; (3) the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probabilities the crime was committed by the accused and none else; (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should also be inconsistent with his innocence. 8. In the case of Mohd. Mannan @ Abdulo Mannan Vs. State of Bihar; (2011) 5 SCC 317 : [2011 ALL SCR 2857], the Apex Court has reiterated the principles to be borne in mind while dealing with a case based upon circumstantial evidence in evaluation of the evidence adduced in the case. The apex court has observed as under: “In our opinion to bring home the guilt on the basis of circumstantial evidence the prosecution has to establish that the circumstances proved lead to one and the only conclusion towards the guilt of the accused. In a case based on circumstantial evidence the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn are to be cogently and firmly established. The circumstances so proved must unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused. In a case based on circumstantial evidence the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn are to be cogently and firmly established. The circumstances so proved must unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused. It should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that the crime was committed by the accused and none else. It has to be considered within all human probability and not in a fanciful manner. In order to sustain conviction circumstantial evidence must be complete and must point towards the guilt of the accused. Such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but inconsistent with his innocence. No hard-and-fast rule can be laid down to say that particular circumstances are conclusive to establish guilt. It is basically a question of appreciation of evidence which exercise is to be done in the facts and circumstances of each case." In the case of Rajendra Wasnik Vs. State of Maharashtra (2012) 4 SCC 37 : [2012 ALL MR (Cri) 1375 (S.C)], the Apex Court has held that to sustain conviction founded on circumstantial evidence, circumstances forming chain of events should be proved which should cumulatively and unequivocally point toward guilt of accused and be incompatible with innocence of accused or guilt of any other person. 9. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses. PW-1 Bhagwat Baburao Masal i.e. brother 01 the deceased who lodged the Missing Report, examined as PW-1. In his deposition before the Court he stated that, he resides in Mangalwar Peth, Hamal Galli, Ambajogai. The deceased was his brother. They have joint family. The deceased Ram was doing business of construction. On 25th July, 2007, he was at home. Ram left the house for his work at about 9.00 a.m. He went for work in Chousalkar Colony. He remained there till 12.00 noon. At about 12.00 in the noon one phone call was received on his mobile. Ram told labours to pick material of centering and take it to construction site of Mr. Gambhire. He also told them that, he will come within 15 minutes. After 15 minutes Ram went somewhere. Thereafter, Ram did not return back. On 25.07.2007 in between 6.00 p.m. to 7.00 p.m., he made few phone calls on the mobile phone of Ram. Ram told labours to pick material of centering and take it to construction site of Mr. Gambhire. He also told them that, he will come within 15 minutes. After 15 minutes Ram went somewhere. Thereafter, Ram did not return back. On 25.07.2007 in between 6.00 p.m. to 7.00 p.m., he made few phone calls on the mobile phone of Ram. He found phone was not working. On 26.07.2007 he went to Police Station, Ambajogai and lodged missing complaint regarding Ram. He along with his relatives continued search of Ram towards his friends. 10. PW-1 further deposed that, on 3rd August, 2007 he received phone call on his mobile phone from Police Station, Ambejogai. He went to Police Station, Ambejogai. He was taken to Ambalwadi Shivar near 'Visava' Dhaba in Police vehicle. He was taken to forest in deep valley. One body was shown to him, which was lying near Nala. He identified the dead body as of his brother Ram on the basis of diary found in the pocket of pant of deceased and after postmortem the dead body was given in his custody. Then funeral was performed. 11. It is further stated by PW-I that, the accused no.1 Ramkishan @ Bala Haribhau Hulgunde was close friend of Ram. He used to visit the house of accused no.1 Ramkishan. The accused no.1 - Ramkishan had illicit relations with his brother's wife. He specifically deposed that, on 25th July, 2007, the accused nos. 1 to 4 called Ram in the noon after making phone call on his mobile phone. He was taken in rickshaw owned by accused no.4 Shaikh Javed, and after giving liquor to him for drinking, they took him to deep forest in the area of Ambalwadi and killed him with the help of some sharp weapons. His dead body e f was thrown in Nala. He stated that, accused nos. 1 to 4 killed his brother. His supplementary .t statement was recorded by the Police on 11th August, 2007. He identified clothes and diary of his brother in the Court. 12. In his cross examination he stated that, accused no. 1 Ramkishan is residing in same lane. Accused nos. 2 to 4 frequently used to come to said lane wherein PW-1 is also residing. He knew all four accused since long. He identified clothes and diary of his brother in the Court. 12. In his cross examination he stated that, accused no. 1 Ramkishan is residing in same lane. Accused nos. 2 to 4 frequently used to come to said lane wherein PW-1 is also residing. He knew all four accused since long. He has specifically stated that, on 26.07.2007 when he lodged missing complaint, he did not suspect the accused persons. On 3rd August, 2007, when he saw dead body of his brother, he had suspicion of accused, but he was not confident. Till the dead body was given in custody of relatives, he did not tell Police regarding his suspicion. He firmly denied suggestion that, dead body was not identifiable. He has further denied suggestion given by the defence that, dead body was not identifiable since the same was decomposed. 13. The evidence of this witness is relevant on two aspects, firstly motive for commission of offence by the accused and secondly, phone calls received on mobile of deceased on 25.07.2007. It has come in his evidence that, on 25th July, 2007 at about 12 noon, some phone call was received on the mobile phone of the deceased. After receiving said phone call, the deceased left the construction site i.e. Mr. Gambhire after informing the labourers working there that, he will come back within 15 minutes. Thereafter he did not return back. Perusal of the deposition of the Investigating Officer, PW-11 whose evidence is at Exhibit - 94 reveals that, he did not cause any investigation/inquiry about calls received by the deceased on his mobile on the date of incident. In fact, the entire prosecution case rests upon the circumstance that, the deceased Ram received some phone call on his mobile on 25th July, 2007 at 12 noon and thereafter he left the place. According to the prosecution case, the said call was made by the accused persons so as to call Ram pursuant to conspiracy to kill him. Therefore, the investigation about calls received on mobile of the deceased was very crucial and important. It has also come in the evidence of PW-11 that he saw one broken mobile on the spot of incident, however, he did not seize it. Therefore, the investigation about calls received on mobile of the deceased was very crucial and important. It has also come in the evidence of PW-11 that he saw one broken mobile on the spot of incident, however, he did not seize it. PW-11 has admitted in his cross examination that, he has not inquired/investigated about call details, in respect of conversation of deceased Ram on mobile on the date of incident and though he saw broken hand set at the spot of incident, he did not seize the same. Therefore, whether the call received by deceased Ram at 12 noon on his mobile on 25.07.2007, was really made by the accused or any other person. So also raises serious doubt as to who has really called deceased Ram. 14. So far as motive is concerned, it has also come in the evidence of PW-11 that, it is transpired during investigation that, there was illicit relations between deceased and wife of the accused no. 1 Ramkishan and therefore, the accused no.1 killed the deceased Ram. However, there is no evidence to prove this fact. The fact deposed by PW-1 in this regard based upon hearsay evidence. He had no personal knowledge of the said fact. 15. In fact, the PW-1 in his deposition before the Court stated that, there was illicit relationship of accused no.1 Ramkishan, with wife of Ramishan's brother. The deceased Ram used to visit the house of accused no. 1 and accused no.1 used to suspect that, the deceased had illicit relations with the wife of brother of accused no.1. PW-1 has disclosed this fact 1st time when his supplementary statement was recorded. PW-1 had no personal knowledge about this fact. PW11 i.e. Investigating Officer in his evidence has stated that, it transpired during course of investigation that, the deceased had illicit relations with wife of the accused no.1 Ramkishan. Therefore, it has come on record that, there are two contradictory versions about the motive for commission of offence. So far as other three accused persons are concerned, the prosecution has not attributed any motive for their involvement in the commission of offence. It is stated that, other three accused are friends of accused no.1 and therefore, they accompanied with him. 16. So far as other three accused persons are concerned, the prosecution has not attributed any motive for their involvement in the commission of offence. It is stated that, other three accused are friends of accused no.1 and therefore, they accompanied with him. 16. It is settled law that, while motive does not have a major role to play in cases based on direct evidence but it assumes importance in cases based on circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court in the case of Rushipal V/s State of Uttarakhand reported in 2013(12) SCC 551 : [2013 ALL SCR 930], in para 14 held that, it is fairly well-settled that while motive does not have a major role to play in cases based on eye-witness account of the incident, it assumes importance in cases that rest entirely on circumstantial evidence. It is further observed that, absence of strong motive is something that cannot be lightly brushed aside. 17. The present case also rests upon the circumstantial evidence, and therefore, absence of strong motive is something that cannot be lightly brushed aside. The prosecution has not firmly established the strong motive for commission of offence by the accused-appellants. 18. PW-2 Dnyanoba Sopanrao Garje was examined at Exhibit-32. PW-2 in his evidence stated that, on 2nd August, 2007, he was present in the village. At about 6.30 p.m. Shivaji Mahadeo Garje gave him some message. He told him that, dead body of one male person is lying near Nala in the field of forest, which is towards Ambalwadi road to its north side. On the next day at about 6.30 in the morning he along with other 10 to 15 persons went to the spot. Shri Shivaji Mahadeo Garje, Chandrakant Shankar Garje and some other person were also with him. Shivaji Garje showed them spot where the dead body was lying. The place was located in forest towards southern side of Parali-Ambajogai road. The dead body was in highly decomposed condition. Body was lying in Nala. He informed said fact to Police Station Parali (Rural), at about 7.30 a.m. Subsequently, Police came there and prepared panchanama of spot and dead body. There was white colour shirt with checks design and ash colour pant on the body of dead person. There were injuries on the dead body. The Medical Officer came and conducted postmortem on the dead body. There was white colour shirt with checks design and ash colour pant on the body of dead person. There were injuries on the dead body. The Medical Officer came and conducted postmortem on the dead body. Thereafter dead body was given in the custody of the relatives of the deceased. It is relevant to mention here that, this witness in his evidence has stated that, the distance between spot of incident and village Ambalwadi is about 31/2 kms. 19. The prosecution examined Shivaji Garje as PW-3. He staled in his evidence that, he saw the dead body from close distance. However, nobody could identify it is whose dead body. 20. Upon examining the evidence of PW-2, PW-3 and also other witnesses, it appears that, the body was found to be lying in highly decomposed condition. However, the dead body was identified by the brother of the deceased on the basis of clothes and diary found with the clothes of deceased. 21. The Investigating Officer seized one auto rickshaw (MH-23-H-7346) from the custody of accused Shaikh Vajid Shaikh Babu. PW-4 Husain was called at Police Station (Gramin), Parali- Vaijnath. He was shown auto of Bajaj company black in colour. In his deposition before the Court, the mentioned the registration number of said auto as MH-23-H-7643). He narrated other details about the said Auto rickshaw in his deposition. Upon careful perusal of his evidence, the number of auto rickshaw, which he has stated in his evidence is different, than mentioned by PW-8 in her deposition before the Court. PW-8 Rukhminbai in her evidence stated that, she saw five persons coming out of auto rickshaw No.MH-23-7346. 22. The prosecution examined Kishor Shivajirao Dalvi as PW-5. His evidence is at Exhibit -45. On 15th August, 2007 he was called by Parali Gramin Police at about 3.45 p.m. It appears that, he was called as witness to record the memorandum statement of accused Sayyad Javed i.e. accused no.2. He narrated the details about the manner in which the accused disclosed, about burning of clothes and also about pair of Chappal of deceased which was thrown by him in bushes. He further stated that, accused Javed produced pair of chappal. It has also come in his evidence that, accused Javed told that, clothes of the accused were burnt. He has shown the spot where ash of burnt clothes was thrown by the accused Javed. He further stated that, accused Javed produced pair of chappal. It has also come in his evidence that, accused Javed told that, clothes of the accused were burnt. He has shown the spot where ash of burnt clothes was thrown by the accused Javed. From the place pointed out by said accused Police seized ash and same was sealed and then seizure panchanama was drawn. 23. Upon careful consideration of the evidence of PW-5 and Investigating officer, it cannot be said that, prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that, the pair of chappal, which was recovered at the instance of accused Javed was really belongs to deceased Ram. There should have been some investigation on that aspect to ascertain as to whether, the said pair of chappal was as that of deceased-Ram. So far recovery of ash of burnt clothes of accused is concerned, it has come in the evidence of prosecution witness that, the incident occurred during rainy season, and such recovery of ash of burnt clothes after 20 days from the date of incident, that too underneath stone, is difficult to believe. Location of the spot from where the ash was recovered located near the river. In absence of sending the said ash to C.A. and opinion of expert to show that, really said ash is of burnt clothes as that of deceased, or otherwise, such recovery would be of no use to prove the prosecution case and establish any circumstances against accused. 24. The prosecution examined Hanumant Dagdu Bachate (PW-6). His evidence is at Exhibit-50. In his evidence, he stated that, his native place is Dhamoni, Tq. Sonpeth, dist. Parbhani. For last 4-5 years, he is residing at Ambajogai. He is doing work there. On 25th July, 2007, he was working with deceased Ram. He stated that, Ram Masal i.e. deceased was taking contract of Centering. On 25th July, 2007, Ram Masal had taken work at 2-3 places. On 25th July, 2007 at about 9 a.m. he was present near Kaman of Hanuman nagar. Ram Masal was also present there. Ram Masal told him that, from Chousalkar colony they should bring material of centring for Gambhire's work. Ram Masal called tempo. Along with deceased and few labourers he went to Chousalkar colony. When they were loading material in tempo, driver told the deceased that, on his mobile he has received phone call of some lady. Ram Masal told him that, from Chousalkar colony they should bring material of centring for Gambhire's work. Ram Masal called tempo. Along with deceased and few labourers he went to Chousalkar colony. When they were loading material in tempo, driver told the deceased that, on his mobile he has received phone call of some lady. At about 11.30 to 11.45 deceased again received phone call. He left the place by saying to wait there and he will return within 10 minutes. He asked him and other labourers to take material to the site of Vijay Gambhire and he will come within 15-20 minutes. Thereafter, he left. This witness has stated that, at 3.00 p.m. he made phone call on the mobile of deceased. However, same was not connected. As already observed, there is no investigation by PW-11 about phone calls received on mobile of the deceased on the date of incident. Therefore, prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that, the call which was received at 12.00 noon on mobile of deceased Ram was made by the accused - appellants and they took him in auto-Rikshaw. 25. Prosecution has examined, Dr. Shashikant Shivajirao Salunke, the autopsy surgeon as PW-7. His evidence is at Exh.59. In his evidence, he stated that, he was posted as Medical Officer at PHC, Ghatnandur. On that day, he received requisition letter from Parli Rural Police Station for conducting post mortem of one decomposed dead body on the spot. Therefore, he went to village Amalwadi in Ramna Shiwar. Dead body lying there was taken out from the stream. He conducted post mortem of body which was identified as that of Ram Masal. He started post mortem on the spot on 03.08.2007 from 2.00 p.m. which lasted up to 3.30 p.m. He did notice that teeth were intact, body was moderately nourished and cold, Rigor-mortis was present in hands and legs, signs of decomposition were present. Body was smelling foul smell and maggots were seen coming out through face, nose. There were bullae present over some part of body which tilled with fluid. Skin can be easily peeled off, hairs fallen off and the nose and tongue can not be visualised. Magoots were coming out from nasal, cavity, mouths and ears. There were no injuries to external genitals. Both arms were flexed, fingures incurred. There were bullae present over some part of body which tilled with fluid. Skin can be easily peeled off, hairs fallen off and the nose and tongue can not be visualised. Magoots were coming out from nasal, cavity, mouths and ears. There were no injuries to external genitals. Both arms were flexed, fingures incurred. He further stated that, he noticed as many as 20 injuries on the dead body of deceased Ram. He stated that, all the injuries were ante mortem injuries. The injuries No.1 to 14, 16, 19 are possible by sharp edged weapon and injury No.15, 18 and 20 are possible by hard and blunt object. The penetrating injury mentioned in the report are possible by stabbing weapons such as sword, sword-stick [Gupti] etc. Brain was soft, pulpy showing sign of decomposition. He has also stated details about examination of Thorax-walls, ribs, cartilages etc. He has further stated that, injuries mentioned in column No.20 and 21 corresponds to injuries mentioned in column No.17. He has stated that, all the injuries mentioned in column No.17 on the various parts of the body are sufficient to cause the death of person. He has stated that, the death of deceased might have caused 7 to 8 days before the date of conducting postmortem. In his cross examination, he stated that, when he conducted postmortem of the dead body, it was in decomposed condition and there were maggots were coming out through wounds. Eyes, tongue and nose was not visible. Dead body was completely swol1en. He has stated that, in case of highly decomposed body for its identification DNA test is required to conducted. 26. Upon considering the evidence of PW-7 and evidence of other witnesses, it appears that, death of Ram was homicidal. However, real question is whether the appellants accused are responsible for his death. As already observed, the prosecution has not firmly established strong motive for killing deceased by the appellant accused. Entire prosecution case is based upon circumstantial evidence, therefore, the prosecution should have proved that, there was strong motive for commission of offence by the accused appellant. However, real question is whether the appellants accused are responsible for his death. As already observed, the prosecution has not firmly established strong motive for killing deceased by the appellant accused. Entire prosecution case is based upon circumstantial evidence, therefore, the prosecution should have proved that, there was strong motive for commission of offence by the accused appellant. At the cost of repetition, it has to be observed that, investigation/enquiry in respect of phone call received on mobile No.9850571643 of deceased Ram at 9.00 a.m. and thereafter, more particularly about 12.00 noon onwards was very important, since the prosecution claimed that, appellants/accused called Ram on his mobile at about 12.00 noon on 25.07.2007 and after receiving their call, Ram left the Chousalkar Colony and went along with the accused in auto rickshaw, and accused persons took him in rickshaw, forced him to take liquor and then at about 4.00 to 4.30 p.m. Killed him. However, as PW-11 Pradeep Nandedkar, Investigating Officer has clearly admitted in his cross examination that, he did not make inquiry/investigation about phone calls received on the mobile of deceased Ram on the date of incident. He has also stated that, though he saw broken mobile handset on the spot of incident, he did not seize the same. 27. The prosecution claims that, the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused. Since the entire prosecution case rests upon circumstantial evidence, this circumstance assumes importance. However, the circumstance of last seen together does not by itself and necessarily lead to the inference that it was the accused who committed the crime. There must be something more needs to establish to connect the accused with the commission of crime, as held by the Supreme court in the case of Kanhaiya Lal V/s. State of Rajasthan reported in (2014) 4 SCC 715 : [2014 ALL SCR 1542]. The prosecution in order to establish that, the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused examined PW-8 Rukhminibai Garje at Exh.67. In her evidence, she stated that, her family had landed property in the vicinity of village Ambalwadi. They had some cattle and she used to graze them sometimes. On 25th July, 2007, she was at her house. On that day, at about 10:00 to 10.30 a.m., she was grazing the cattle by the side of the road Ambajogai-Parli. In her evidence, she stated that, her family had landed property in the vicinity of village Ambalwadi. They had some cattle and she used to graze them sometimes. On 25th July, 2007, she was at her house. On that day, at about 10:00 to 10.30 a.m., she was grazing the cattle by the side of the road Ambajogai-Parli. Day long she grazed the cattle and at about 4.00 p.m. started to come back. While she was passing from the land of forest towards the village, at that time she saw one rickshaw having black colour, bearing registration No.MH-23-7346 came and stopped in front of bridge. Five persons got down from that rickshaw. Out of those five person, four persons were pushing and pulling the fifth one who was in the age group of 22-25 years. The person to whom remaining four persons were pushing and pulling was fatty and he was wearing white shirt on his person. As she was alone, she left that place and went towards her village. She has stated that, 10 days after that incident she came to know through her husband that, in the hilly area, below the bridge one dead body of male has been found. During investigation, it transpired that, the name of that person was Ram Masal of Ambajogai and he was missing since 25th July, 2007. Her husband also disclosed her that, there were several injuries on the dead body of said person and therefore, she remember the incident dated 25th July, 2007 when she saw one fatty person being pulled by four persons and thought, that same person was murdered by those other four persons. It is stated by her that, after tracing out the dead body, the Police Personnel of Parli (Rural) Police Station visited her house after 8 days for recording her statement. After 21/2 months thereafter one policeman from Police Station Parli [Rural] had been to her house. He asked her to attend the office of Tahsildar on next day. Thereafter, on next day, she visited office of Tahsildar located at old Tahsil office Ambejogai at about 3.00 p.m. Firstly, she went in the office of Naib Tahsildar, which was situated on East-North corner of that office. She met Naib Tahsildar, who was alone. She disclosed him that, Police informed her about attending the Tahsil office. Naib Tahsildar asked her to sit. She met Naib Tahsildar, who was alone. She disclosed him that, Police informed her about attending the Tahsil office. Naib Tahsildar asked her to sit. Thereafter, she was called by the Naib Tahsidlar in the meeting hall and accordingly, she went to the meeting hall. In the meeting hall, 8 persons were standing in a row who were of same age group. Tahsildar asked her to identify the persons to whom she saw in auto rickshaw on 25th July, 2007. Accordingly, she identified the persons from that row. The person who was standing at serial No.2 in that row i.e. Ramkishan Haribhau Hulgunde i.e. accused No.1 and another accused at Serial No.5. It appears that, the witness identified the person standing at serial No.5, who was sitting in the Court hall at serial No.3 from the side of witness box. When Court asked his name, she disclosed his name as Sk.Nasir Sk.Faimuddin. So far identification of the person who was standing at serial No.5 in first round is concerned, Naib Tahsildar, who conducted the identification parade stated in his evidence before the court that person standing at serial NO.5 was accused Sayyed Javed. Therefore, there is material contradictions about which accused was standing at serial No.5 in row in the first round. As already observed, PW-8 in her deposition before the court stated that, Shaikh Nasir Shaikh Faimuddin was standing at serial No.5, however, Naib Tahsildar in his evidence stated that, Rukhminbai Garje [PW8] has identified two accused persons i.e. at serial No.2 in row Ramkishan @ Bala Haribhau Hulgunde and at Serial No.5 in row accused Sayyad Javed Sayyad Salim. Therefore, there is contradiction between the version of two witnesses namely PW-8 and PW-9 about who was standing at serial no.5 in row in first round of identification. It has come in the evidence of PW-9 and also in the panchanama of Identification Parade that, in second round of Identification Parade, the person standing at serial no. 5 was Sk. Nazir Sk. Khaimu and person standing at Sr. 7th was Sk. Wajid Sk. Baba. 28. Upon perusal of the material placed on record, it appears that, the Investigating Officer send letter to the Tahsildar, Ambajogai for conducting Identification Parade on 31st August, 2007. It is brought on record by the defence that, on 27th August, 2007. 5 was Sk. Nazir Sk. Khaimu and person standing at Sr. 7th was Sk. Wajid Sk. Baba. 28. Upon perusal of the material placed on record, it appears that, the Investigating Officer send letter to the Tahsildar, Ambajogai for conducting Identification Parade on 31st August, 2007. It is brought on record by the defence that, on 27th August, 2007. In news paper daily ‘Zunzar Neta’, photographs of deceased and also the accused persons were shown, and therefore, the said photographs were seen by PW-8. Such suggestion was also given in the cross-examination, which was denied by PW-8. It further appears that, by letter dated 15th October, 2007, the Tahsildar communicated to the concerned Police Station that, identification parade would be conducted on 23rd August, 2007 and accordingly identification parade was conducted on 23rd October, 2007. As already observed, the date of alleged incident is 25th July, 2007. Dead body was seen and recovered on 3rd August, 2007. Thereafter considerable time was lapsed. On 10th August, 2007 statement of PW-8, who claims to be witness of last seen together was recorded by the Police. From the date of occurrence almost after about three months, identification parade was conducted in which prosecution claims that, PW-8 identified the accused persons in the said identification parade. In this context, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants is right in placing reliance on the reported judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Musheer Khan @ Badshah Khan and anr V/s State of M.P. reported in AIR 2010 S.C. 762 : [2010 ALL MR (Cri) 933 (S.C.)] wherein in the facts of that case, identification parade was carried out after three months from the date of incident, Supreme Court in the facts of that case held thus:- "32. In so far as the identification of A-5 is concerned that has taken place at a very delayed stage, namely, his identification took place on 24.01.2001 and the incident is of 29.11.2000, even though A-5 was arrested on 22.12.2000. There is no explanation why his identification parade was held on 24.01.2001, which is after a gap of over a month from the date of arrest and after about 3 months from the date of the incident. No reliance ought to have been placed by the courts below or High Court on such delayed T. I. parade for which there is no explanation by the prosecution." 29. No reliance ought to have been placed by the courts below or High Court on such delayed T. I. parade for which there is no explanation by the prosecution." 29. In the facts of the present case also Identification parade was conducted after about three months from the date of incident. Therefore, it looses its importance in as much as there was long time gap and possibility of accused being shown to witnesses cannot be ruled out. In the present case, the defence has brought on record that, the photographs of not only accused but also deceased were published in the news paper daily 'Zunzar Neta' on 27th August, 2007. There is no explanation on the part of prosecution as to delay in conducting identification parade. Upon dose scrutiny of the evidence ofPW-8, it appears that, there was delay in recording her statement. She has stated in her examination-in-chief that, when her husband told about recovery of dead body on 3rd August, 2007, it came to her mind that, the dead body is of the same person, to whom other four persons were pushing and pulling on 25th July, 2007. Therefore, it is difficult to understand as to why the statement of PW-8 was not recorded immediately thereafter. It is a matter of record that, PW-3 who is husband of PW-8 is witness to one of the panchanama, and therefore, she was fully aware about the prosecution case. In the peculiar facts of this case, recording of the statement of PW-8 by the Police belatedly, after 15 days from the date of incident and 7-8 days after recovery of dead body raises serious doubt about truthfulness of evidence of PW-8, It has also come in the evidence that, PW-3 husband of PW-8 told her on 3rd August, 2007 itself about the recovery of dead body. It has also come on record that, PW-8 went for grazing cattle by the side of Beed-Parli road, which is busy road. It has come in the evidence of PW-8 that, in Bhopala Shivar, some land was taken by PW-8 for grazing cattle. However, when she was asked about proof of taking land on lease for grazing cattle, she was unable to produce proof to that effect. In her deposition, she has no where stated that, four persons, who were pushing 5th person were carrying any weapons in their hands. However, when she was asked about proof of taking land on lease for grazing cattle, she was unable to produce proof to that effect. In her deposition, she has no where stated that, four persons, who were pushing 5th person were carrying any weapons in their hands. The prosecution case is that, the injuries inflicted were by sword. PW-8 has not stated that, they were carrying weapons, It has also come in the examination-in-chief of PW-8 that, she was alone and therefore, she left that place and went towards her village. It has come in her cross examination that, she can not read contents written in English language but she can read English digits. However, while telling the auto rickshaw number, she has not only stated the digits but also stated that, a registration number of rickshaw as MH-23-H-7346. Therefore, it creates serious doubt as to whether the PW-8 had really witnessed the incident as stated by her. 30. PW-8 has stated in her evidence that, after 21/2 months after recording her statement by Police, one police constable came to her house before one day before conducting the Identification Parade. She has admitted in her cross examination that, she had not seen dead body. She has stated that, village Ambalwadi is 1 Kms from her vasti. She has further stated that, Ambajogai road is 3 to 31/2 Kms. She has further staled in her evidence that, 50% people of village Ambalwadi are doing business of selling milk. She has also admitted in her evidence that, some forest guards are appointed to look after the forest land. It has also come in her evidence that, before going to Tahsil office her statement was recorded as per her narration. Therefore, if the evidence of PW8 -- Rukhminbai is considered in its entirety, it raises serious doubt as to whether really she had seen the accused coming out of rickshaw, and four out of five persons pushing and pooling 5th person, who was fatty. She has not stated that, they were carrying any weapons. The delay in recording her statement creates serious doubt about truthfulness of her statement. The identification parade is conducted after three months from the date of incident and about 21/2 months from recording of her statement, which creates serious doubt about the genuineness of identification of accused made by PW-8 in test identification parade. The delay in recording her statement creates serious doubt about truthfulness of her statement. The identification parade is conducted after three months from the date of incident and about 21/2 months from recording of her statement, which creates serious doubt about the genuineness of identification of accused made by PW-8 in test identification parade. During the intervening period i.e. from recording her statement by police and the date on which the identification parade was conducted possibility of opportunity to see the accused persons or suspects being shown to her cannot be ruled out. Therefore, such belated identification parade that too with contradictory version of PW-8 and PW-9 about identification of accused in first round of identification parade raises serious doubt about the genuineness of such identification parade. PW-9 in his deposition stated that, he can not identify the accused sitting in the Court hall. It is not clear as to whether, the police persons were present in the Tahsil office at the time of conducting identification parade. It further appears from his evidence that, while conducting identification parade, in first round along with two accused other six persons were standing in row. While conducting the second round of identification parade in all 10 persons including accused were shown as standing in row. The PW-9 admitted in his evidence that, he had not read the guidelines issued by the High Court as to how to conduct the identification parade. There are certain guidelines prescribed for conducting identification parade. At this juncture, it would be apt to reproduce here-in-below the guidelines laid down i.e. Para 16(2)(a) to (p) from Chapter I of Criminal Manual issued by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, for the Guidance of the Criminal Courts and Officers Subordinate to it in respect of conduct of test identification parade, which read thus : 16(2)(a) The object of an identification parade is to make sure that the ability of the witness to recognise the suspect has been fairly and adequately tested. (b) . It should be fair and seem to be fair and every precaution must be taken to exclude any suspicion of unfairness or risk of erroneous identification through the witnesses attention being directed specifically to the suspected persons instead of equally to all the persons to be paraded. (b) . It should be fair and seem to be fair and every precaution must be taken to exclude any suspicion of unfairness or risk of erroneous identification through the witnesses attention being directed specifically to the suspected persons instead of equally to all the persons to be paraded. (c) The Officer concerned with the case against the suspect, if present, must not take part in conducting the parade. (d) The parade should be arranged by an officer who is not a police officer. (c) After the commencement of the identification parade, every thing in respect of it should take place in the presence and hearing of the suspect, including any instruction to the witnesses attending it as to the procedure that is to be adopted. (f) All unauthorised persons should be strictly excluded from the place of identification parade. (g) The witnesses should be prevented from seeing the suspect before he is paraded with other persons, and witnesses who have previously seen a photograph or description of the suspect should not be led in identifying the suspect by reason of their recollection of the photograph or description, as for instance by being shown the photograph or description, before the parade. (h) The suspect should be placed among persons (if practicable eight or more) who are as far as possible of the same age, height, general appearance (including standard of dress and grooming) and position in life. Two suspects of roughly of similar appearance should be paraded with at least twelve other persons. Where, however, the two suspects are not similar in appearance or where there are more than two suspects, separate parades should be held using different person on each parade. (i) All members of a group of suspects more than two should not be paraded together. There should be more parades than one, each including not more than two. Two suspects of obviously dissimilar appearance should not be included in the same parade. Identification numbers should be concealed. (j) The suspect should be allowed to select his own position in the line and should be expressly asked if he has any objection to the persons present with him or the arrangements made. He should be informed that if he so desires, he should have his Advocate (or a friend) present at the identification parade. (j) The suspect should be allowed to select his own position in the line and should be expressly asked if he has any objection to the persons present with him or the arrangements made. He should be informed that if he so desires, he should have his Advocate (or a friend) present at the identification parade. (k) The witnesses should be introduced one by one and, on leaving, should not be allowed to communicate with witnesses waiting to see the persons paraded; and the suspect should be informed that he is free to change his position after each witness has left. (I) The witness should be asked whether the person he has come to identify is on the parade. He should be told that if he cannot make a positive identification, it is open for him to say so. (m) Generally, a witness should be asked to touch any person whom he purports to identify, but if the witness is nervous at the prospect of having to do that (in case where the witness is a woman or a child who has been victim of a sexual or violent assault or other frightening experience) and if prefers not to touch the person, identification by pointing out should be permitted. (n) If a witness indicates someone, but is unable to identify him positively, this fact should be carefully noted by the officer conducting the parade and every other circumstances, (such as whether the suspect or any other person is identified or not), connected with it should be noted. (o) If any request is made by a witness, for example to see the suspect with his hat on or his hat off or to see he person walk or to hear the person speak and there being no objection to the person paraded as asked for, the incident should be recorded. (p) Where a parade has to be held in prison, a prison officer should be present throughout in-charge of the discipline of the prisoners who would take part. Otherwise, the police officer unconnected with the case, ought to be responsible for the parade. It must be ensured that the parade is conducted in the same way as a parade outside prison." There is procedure prescribed in para16 of above-mentioned Manual for conducting the identification parades. Otherwise, the police officer unconnected with the case, ought to be responsible for the parade. It must be ensured that the parade is conducted in the same way as a parade outside prison." There is procedure prescribed in para16 of above-mentioned Manual for conducting the identification parades. Clause (iv) and (v) of the said procedure read thus : “(iv) The parade should then be arranged in a room or a place which is such that the identifying witnesses, as well as the persons connected with the Police, should not be able to look into it. (v) If there is only one accused person to be identified, there should be at least half a dozen persons placed in the parade. If two accused persons are to be identified, then there should be about 10 or 12 persons in the parade. Not more than two accused should be placed in any single identification parade. Normally, the Police themselves will have called up the persons to be put in the parade; but the Executive Magistrate/Honorary Magistrate should see that they are persons of more or less the same physical appearance, and approximately of the same age, as the person to be identified. It is desirable that innocent persons to be mixed should be different for each such parade." 31. As already observed hereinbefore, PW-9 in his deposition stated that, he was not aware as to the Guidelines issued for holding the identification parades. Upon perusal of the clause (iv), while conducting the parade, the parade should be arranged in a room or a place which is such that the identifying witnesses, as well as the persons connected with the Police, should not be able to look into it. In clause (v), it is stated that, if there is only one accused person to be identified, there should be at least half a dozen dummy persons should be placed in the parade. If two accused persons are to be identified, then there should be about 10 or 12 persons in the parade. Not more than two accused should be placed in any single identification parade., Normally, the police themselves will have called up the persons to be put in the parade; but the Executive Magistrate/Honorary Magistrate should see that they are persons of more or less same physical appearance, and approximately of the same age, as the person to be identified. Not more than two accused should be placed in any single identification parade., Normally, the police themselves will have called up the persons to be put in the parade; but the Executive Magistrate/Honorary Magistrate should see that they are persons of more or less same physical appearance, and approximately of the same age, as the person to be identified. It is desirable that dummy persons to be mixed should be different for such parade. 32. Upon perusal of the evidence of PW-9 and also panchanama of identification parade, it appears that, two accused were placed in row in first round, wherein other six persons were standing in row. It means though two accused persons were placed for identification parade, only six other persons were placed in row. In fact as per the procedure 10 to 12 persons ought to have been placed in row for the parade. It is also not clear from the evidence of PW-9 and panchanama prepared of identification parade that, whether two accused were of similar appearances so as to place them in one parade. It is only in case of similar appearance of two suspects, they can be paraded with at least 10 to 12 other persons. Therefore, it appears that, PW 9 was totally unaware of procedure as to how to carry out the identification parade, as well as the guidelines issued to carryout identification parades, then PW-9 proceeded to conduct identification parade on 23.10.2007. Therefore, such belated identification parade after about three months from the date of incident, and conducted in breach of the procedure, deserves no consideration.