JUDGMENT Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J.: This judgment will dispose of both appeals arising out of the judgment dated 4.1.2006 in Sessions Trial No.35-ST/7 of 2005/2003 whereby the appellants, hereinafter referred to as “the accused” have been convicted for the commission of an offence punishable under Sections 302 and 380 read with Section 120B of Indian Penal Code and each of them sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 read with Section 120B of Indian Penal Code and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- each under Section 380 read with Section 120B of Indian Penal Code. 2. The charge against the accused is that on January 30, 2003 they hatched a conspiracy to enter the house of PW-11 Mehar Singh at village Sataun to commit theft. In furtherance of the conspiracy the accused hatched, they entered Mehar Singh’s house at village Sataun, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur on 30.1.2003 itself and murdered Bhajjo Devi, his wife and thereafter they committed theft by stealthily removing coins, ornaments of silver and gold from the house. They, however, denied the charge so framed under Sections 302 and 380 read with Section 120B of Indian Penal Code against each of them. Learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur Sessions Division at Nahan, however, after holding full trial has recorded the findings of conviction against all the three accused and consequently sentenced them in the manner as already pointed out at the outset. Since there is challenge to the findings of conviction and sentence recorded by learned Sessions Judge in these appeal, therefore, the determination of the question of legality and validity of the impugned judgment takes us to the facts of the case and the evidence which has been appreciated by learned Sessions Judge while recording the findings of conviction against them. 3. PW-11, Mehar Singh is resident of village Sataun, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur. Smt. Bhajjo Devi, the deceased was his wife. Their son Kahan Singh (PW-5) who is complainant in this case is engaged in trading work at Paonta Sahib and residing there in rented accommodation. PW-11, Mehar Singh is a money lender also. Some gamblers including accused Bachan Singh were seen gambling in the adjoining jungle near village Sataun. The gamblers used to take money from PW-11 as loan on payment of interest. PW-11, Mehar Singh is a money lender also. Some gamblers including accused Bachan Singh were seen gambling in the adjoining jungle near village Sataun. The gamblers used to take money from PW-11 as loan on payment of interest. PW-11, Mehar Singh used to visit the place of gambling in the forest and lend money to the gamblers in need thereof on the spot itself. Bachan Singh, who is the principal accused in this case had come to village Sataun on 12.1.2003 for gambling. One Basti Ram introduced the said accused with PW-11 on that day. PW-11 had lent a sum of Rs.5,000/- to accused Bachan Singh on the surety of Basti Ram. On 19.1.2003, accused Bachan Singh accompanied by Basti Ram came to the house of PW-11 to return Rs.5,000/- already lent to him. However, on the same day, the said accused again approached PW-11 in connection of lending money to one Dhian Singh. PW-11 lent a sum of Rs.5,000/- to Dhian Singh and the accused stood surety qua return of the said amount. On 26.1.2003, it was Sunday when accused Bachan Singh came to Sataun for gambling. He, however, lost Rs.5,000/- he had with him in gambling. Therefore, on his request PW-11 lent Rs.4,000/- to him on that day. Besides, a further sum of Rs.6,000/- was lent by PW-11 in the shop on that day itself to him. He, however, lost the whole amount in gambling on that day. Therefore, on 27.1.2003, accused Bachan Singh accompanied by one Madan Singh again came to PW-11 in his house for borrowing money. PW-11 had taken them inside the house and there lent Rs.5,000/- to Madan Singh and Rs.1,850/- to the accused. It is during his visits to PW-11, Mehar Singh in connection with borrowing money, accused Bachan Singh familiarized himself about the location of the house and got acquaintance with deceased Bhajjo Devi also. 4. Accused Bachan Singh owed money to PW-11 and also State Bank of India from where he had raised loan. Therefore, when found himself under heavy debt, planned to do away with the lives of PW-1 and his wife and commit theft in their house. In order to implement the plan, on 28.1.2003 he hatched a conspiracy with his co-villager and co-accused Jagat Singh. Therefore, when found himself under heavy debt, planned to do away with the lives of PW-1 and his wife and commit theft in their house. In order to implement the plan, on 28.1.2003 he hatched a conspiracy with his co-villager and co-accused Jagat Singh. Purchase of coins was hobby of PW-11 and as accused Bachan Singh was familiar with his weakness, therefore, they planned to allure PW-11 by showing him samples of coins. They went to Vikasnagar. There accused Bachan Singh purchased 4 silver coins amounting to Rs.490/- from Shri Raj Kumar PW13, Proprietor of Rana Jeweller. After that on 29.1.2003 in the evening they hired an ambassador car UP-10-2760 and went to Sataun. They made Jawahar Singh (PW-14) the driver thereof to park the same at bus-stand and wait for them there. They went to the house of PW-11 and knocked the door. However, there was no response from inside nor any one opened the door. They returned to bus-stand where the car hired by them was parked and postponed their plan of committing the theft in the house of PW-11 to the next day. They boarded the car and returned to Vikasnagar in Uttrakhand. They hired a room in hotel Shikhar at Vikasnagar and stayed their on that day. 5. On 30.3.2002, accused Sudesh Sharma alias Shuppa, who is a driver by profession and driving private bus at Vikasnagar also came in the contact of accused Bachan Singh at bus-stand. He was also made part and parcel of the conspiracy hatched by accused Bachan Singh with accused Jagat Singh by offering him share in the stolen property. They hired the same car on payment of Rs.1200/- towards fare and traveled to Sataun therein. As per their plan, accused Jagat Singh had already a knife, falli (chopper) with him. The car was made to park on the bus-stand in upper side and they all went to the house of PW-11, Mehar Singh. In the house, deceased Bhajjo Devi was present. On inquiry from her about Mehar Singh, she told that he being away to Shillai was not available in the house. Accused Bachan Singh had taken out the silver coins from the bag with him and showed the same to the deceased. He further represented that he owed a sum of Rs.17,000/- to Mehar Singh. On inquiry from her about Mehar Singh, she told that he being away to Shillai was not available in the house. Accused Bachan Singh had taken out the silver coins from the bag with him and showed the same to the deceased. He further represented that he owed a sum of Rs.17,000/- to Mehar Singh. Also that a party at Vikasnagar having two thousand silver coins like the one he produced before her owed a sum of Rs.50,000/- to him. He further represented that the party having 2000 coins is ready and willing to sell the same to her husband Mehar Singh. He, therefore, asked the deceased to purchase 2000 coins from the so called party and after adjustment of Rs.50,000/- due to him from the said party, pay the remaining sale consideration to the party and after adjustment of Rs.17,000/- he owe to PW-11 Mehar Singh, the balance amount be returned to him in easy installments and gradually as per their convenience. On the representation so made by accused Bachan Singh, the deceased asked him to inform her husband Mehar Singh over telephone at Shillai. The said accused pretended to dial the number and ultimately falsely told that the number could not be reached. The deceased told them to wait for the arrival of her husband and made them to stay in her house during that night. Three beds were spread for them in the drawing room. She herself went to sleep in the dining hall. Around 11.00 p.m. when they were satisfied that the deceased was enjoying sound sleep, accused Sudesh Sharma alias Shuppa woke up and switched on the light. He found the deceased enjoying sound sleep. He entered the room where she was sleeping and gagged her mouth with a piece of cloth. Accused Bachan Singh had taken the knife from accused Jagat Singh and pierced the knife in her neck. When the deceased was crying on account of severe pain, accused Jagat Singh had caught hold of her legs. It is in this way they murdered the deceased. 6. On being satisfied that Bhajjo Devi has died, they started search of the house. They found one wooden box lying in the store adjoining to a bed room, which was in the back side of drawing room. Accused Jagat Singh had removed its kunda and unlocked it. They found one brass container kept inside the box. 6. On being satisfied that Bhajjo Devi has died, they started search of the house. They found one wooden box lying in the store adjoining to a bed room, which was in the back side of drawing room. Accused Jagat Singh had removed its kunda and unlocked it. They found one brass container kept inside the box. The same was taken out and brought to drawing room. They opened the same on the bed there. The jewellery and cash which was kept in the container was taken out and accused Bachan Singh put the same in his own bag. They left the empty container on the bed itself. Since the knife was in the neck of the deceased, therefore, it was removed from her neck by accused Jagat Singh and he had taken away the same with him. Thereafter they left the house of the deceased and went to the place at bus-stand where they had parked the car. They boarded the car and returned to Vikasnagar. 7. PW-5, Kahan Singh, complainant used to visit his parents at village Sataun after short intervals in order to know their well being. On 31.3.2003 also around 2.30 p.m. he came there to meet his parents. On reaching the house, he opened the main door. He found someone sleeping in the dining hall in front of dining table on floor. Assuming that his mother might be sleeping, he called her, however, when there was no response, he removed the quilt from the side of face. He noticed that his mother, deceased Bhajjo was lying dead on the bed. Blood after having oozed out from her mouth had collected on her face in the form of clots. Apprehending the death of his mother either on account of hemorrhage of veins or by way of fall, he called his father. He, however, was not found present there. He came out from the house and noticed that one Dalip Singh, shop-keeper was standing outside his shop. He requested said Shri Dalip Singh to accompany him to his house. Dalip Singh accompanied him and on seeing the deceased, told PW-5 that she was no more. It is said Shri Dalip Singh who disclosed that his father Mehar Singh, had gone to Shillai two days ago. Mehar Singh was informed by Dalip Singh over telephone. Some people from the village also gathered there. Dalip Singh accompanied him and on seeing the deceased, told PW-5 that she was no more. It is said Shri Dalip Singh who disclosed that his father Mehar Singh, had gone to Shillai two days ago. Mehar Singh was informed by Dalip Singh over telephone. Some people from the village also gathered there. It is around 5.30 p.m., Mehar Singh reached in the house and on checking revealed that jewellery, i.e. two naths weighing 8 tolas, 2 golden coins weighing 2.150 tolas and silver coins weighing 2 kgs. approximately kept in brass container in the box were stolen after breaking open the kunda of the box. 8. On examination of the dead body by the complainant and his father, they noticed injuries in the front portion of her neck, head and in back side. They suspected that some un-known person had murdered her and committed theft thereafter. 9. It is PW-5, Kahan Singh, who has reported the matter to the police. The police of Police Post, Rajban was informed vide Rapat Ex.PW-1/A. Consequently, a policy party from Police Post, Rajban rushed to the place of occurrence as per Rapat Rojnamcha Ex.PW-2/A. On the basis of the statement of PW-5, Kahan Singh, Ex.PW-5/A, FIR Ex.PW-25/A came to be registered in Police Station, Paonta Sahib. 10. The investigation in this case was conducted by Sub-Inspector Gurdeep Singh, PW-27. He inspected the spot and prepared the inquest report Ex.PW-27/A. The autopsy on the dead body was conducted in Civil Hospital, Paonta Sahib. Blood stained clothes of deceased and viscera etc. so preserved by PWs 8 and 9 Dr. S.N. Sachan and Dr. Shahida Ali were brought to police station and ultimately sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis. The accused were arrested and interrogated. 11. During the course of investigation PW-14 made extra judicial confession. On the basis of disclosure statement Ex.PW-6/A made by accused Jagat Singh, knife and iron falli Exts.299 and 300 were recovered and taken into possession. Accused Bachan Singh allegedly sold the stolen jewellery and coins to Shri Parveen Jain, PW-4, Jeweller at Vikasnagar. PW-4 was associated in the interrogation and extract of the Register Ex.PW-4/A and Ex.PW-4/C were taken in possession from him vide recovery memos Ex.PW-4/A and Ex.PW-4/D and also the melted gold and silver vide recovery memo Ex.PW-4/E. Similarly, relevant extract Ex.PW-12/A, Ex.PW-12/B, Ex. PW-4 was associated in the interrogation and extract of the Register Ex.PW-4/A and Ex.PW-4/C were taken in possession from him vide recovery memos Ex.PW-4/A and Ex.PW-4/D and also the melted gold and silver vide recovery memo Ex.PW-4/E. Similarly, relevant extract Ex.PW-12/A, Ex.PW-12/B, Ex. PW-12/C and Ex.PW-12/D of the register maintained in Shikhar Hotel, Vikasnagar with respect to the entry qua stay of accused Bachan Singh and Jagat Singh on 28.1.2003 and 29.1.2003 in the said hotel were also taken into possession from its Manager PW-12 Shri Gautam Singh vide recovery memo Ex.PW-12/E. The ambassador car UP-10-2760 used for commission of the offence was also taken into possession, however, ultimately released. The receipt bearing No.0051001 dated 4.3.2003 on account of deposit of Rs.1,000/- as fine in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Paonta Sahib after the challan of the said vehicle, Ex.Ex.PW-24/A was also taken into possession. The prosecution on satisfying that it is the accused persons, who eliminated deceased Bhajjo Devi with a view to commit theft in the house, filed the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. against all the three accused. 12. As pointed out at the outset, they have been tried, convicted and sentenced also. The challenge to the findings of conviction in these appeals is on the grounds, inter alia, that appellant-accused Sudesh Sharma alias Shuppa has only been convicted on the basis of a retracted extra judicial confession made by him before PW-14, Jawahar Singh for the first time on 20.2.2003. Such statement was not legally admissible in evidence as had any such confession been made by the said accused before PW-14, the said witness would have disclosed the same immediately and not disclosed the same for the first time to the police after 20 days. The plea of alibi raised by accused Sudesh Sharma alias Shuppa in his defence, irrespective of duly proved has erroneously been ignored. The real genesis of the occurrence has been suppressed by the prosecution. There is no direct evidence connecting the accused with the commission of the offence. The findings recorded against the said accused therefore being perverse, have been sought to be quashed and set aside. 13. The real genesis of the occurrence has been suppressed by the prosecution. There is no direct evidence connecting the accused with the commission of the offence. The findings recorded against the said accused therefore being perverse, have been sought to be quashed and set aside. 13. In the connected appeal, the appellants, Bachan Singh and Jagat Singh have also assailed the legality and validity of the findings of conviction recorded against them on the grounds, inter alia, that cogent and reliable evidence has not come on record to show that accused Bachan Singh had acquaintance with the family of deceased and also qua hiring of car of PW-14. Otherwise also, the car as per the prosecution case was parked at Sataun, therefore, there is no evidence that the accused entered the house of the deceased. PW-14 being under the influence of police deposed falsely and qua his conduct it is pointed out that he got his vehicle challaned on 20.2.2003 for an offence under the Motor Vehicles Act in regards the use thereof as taxi irrespective of the private car. Above all, the statement by PW-14 qua extra judicial confession having been made by accused Sudesh Sharma alias Shuppa could have not been believed for the simple reason that there was no reason for the said accused to have confessed in this manner with respect to the murder of the deceased because an extra judicial confession is never made before a stranger, particularly, when PW-14 did not disclose the same even to the owner of the car or any person including the police for a period of 20 days from the date of its making. The alleged oral statement made by accused Bachan Singh qua the sale of jewellery and coins to PW-4, Parveen Jain is not legally admissible in evidence nor is there any proof that any such statement was made by him while in custody. Above all, PW-4 has handed over gold and silver melted pieces and not the jewellery in the form of naths and silver ornaments allegedly stolen. Therefore, for want of identification of the stolen ornaments and production of melted gold and sliver slaps by PW-4 to the police, the recovery thereof is of no help to the prosecution. The alleged disclosure statement of accused Jawahar Singh leading to recovery of knife and falli is also not proved in accordance with law. Therefore, for want of identification of the stolen ornaments and production of melted gold and sliver slaps by PW-4 to the police, the recovery thereof is of no help to the prosecution. The alleged disclosure statement of accused Jawahar Singh leading to recovery of knife and falli is also not proved in accordance with law. No explanation with respect to two gold ginnies allegedly stolen by the accused has come on record. No cogent and reliable evidence showing that the register maintained by Parveen Jain, PW-4 and in hotel Shikhar at Vikasnagar bear the signature of accused Bachan Singh and none else. The circumstances as formulated by learned trial Judge could not show any clear-cut inference that it is the accused who have committed the murder of deceased Bhajjo Devi. The present being a case of circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances is not complete and, as such, no findings of conviction could have been recorded against the accused. 14. We have heard Mr. Anoop Chitkara, Advocate learned defence counsel and Mr. B.S. Parmar, learned Additional Advocate General on behalf of the respondent-State at length. 15. Having gone through the record and also taking into consideration the rival submissions, admittedly, the present is not a case of direct evidence and the case rather hinges on the circumstantial evidence. It is well settled that in a case, which hinges on circumstantial evidence, circumstances on record must establish the guilt of the accused alone and rule out all the probabilities, leading to presumption of innocence of the accused. The law is no more res integra, because the Hon’ble Apex Court in Hanumant Govind Nargundkar Vs. State of M.P, AIR 1952 SC 343 , has laid down the following principles, applicable in a case of circumstantial evidence: “It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.” 16. The five golden principles, discussed and laid down, again by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sharad BirdhichandSarda Vs. StateofMaharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 , read as follows: “(i) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must or should be and not merely ‘may be’ fully High Court of H.P. established, (ii) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (iii) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (iv) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (v) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.” 17. The re-appraisal of the entire evidence on record reveals that the following are the incriminating circumstances which arise for consideration in this case:- (i) PW-11, Mehar Singh and deceased Bhajjo Devi were alone residing in the house at village Sataun where Bhajjo Devi was murdered and the theft of golden/silver jewellery and coins committed. (ii) The gamblers including accused Bachan Singh were gambling in the forest adjoining to village Sataun and PW-11, Mehar Singh being money lender was lending money on interest to the gamblers. (iii) Accused Bachan Singh started taking money as loan from PW-11 and got familiarized himself with the location of the house of PW-11 and also acquaintance with deceased Bhajjo Devi during his visits on and off to High Court of H.P. PW-11 for taking loan from him. (iii) Accused Bachan Singh started taking money as loan from PW-11 and got familiarized himself with the location of the house of PW-11 and also acquaintance with deceased Bhajjo Devi during his visits on and off to High Court of H.P. PW-11 for taking loan from him. (iv) On account of obtaining loan time and again from PW-11, accused Bachan Singh owed a sum of Rs.17,000/- to the said witness, whereas, Rs.50,000/- to State Bank of India on account of the loan he raised and was therefore under debt. (v) The meeting of minds to hatch the conspiracy by accused Bachan Singh with accused Jagat Singh qua the commission of theft in the house of PW-11 and to repay the debt. (vi) The so called weakness of PW-11 to purchase the coins and purchase of four coins by accused Bachan Singh from Raj Kumar, PW-13 for being shown to PW-11 to allure him to purchase more coins of that nature on the assurance that they can arrange more coins. (vii) Hiring of ambassador car UP-10-2760 being driven by PW-14, Jawahar Singh for performing journey on 29.1.2003 from Vikasnagar to Sataun and to commit theft there in the house of PW-11, however, when on knocking of the door there was no response nor the door opened by anyone, postponed their further plan of action to the next day, i.e. 30.1.2003 and returned to Vikasnagar in that very vehicle. (viii) On 29.1.2003 hired a room in Hotel Shikhar at Vikasnagar and stayed there during the night. (ix) On 30.1.2003 joining of co-accused Sudesh Sharma alias Shuppa also in the conspiracy and hiring of the same car and performing journey to Sataun. On knocking of door, deceased Bhajjo Devi opened the same, her husband, PW-11 not present there. As per the plan the coins shown to her and when PW-11 allegedly away to Shillai side could not be contacted over telephone on her request that to wait for arrival of her husband PW-11, decided to stayed there and committed her murder during night and also stolen golden/ silver jewellery/coins. (x) Left the house of deceased in the mid night around 12/12.30 a.m. and went in the same car and accused Bachan Singh and Jagat Singh alighted from the car at Tunia (Uttrakhand), whereas, accused Sudesh Sharma alias Suppa traveled therein to Vikasnagar and alighted at a point known as Mehuwala. (x) Left the house of deceased in the mid night around 12/12.30 a.m. and went in the same car and accused Bachan Singh and Jagat Singh alighted from the car at Tunia (Uttrakhand), whereas, accused Sudesh Sharma alias Suppa traveled therein to Vikasnagar and alighted at a point known as Mehuwala. (xi) The disclosure statement made by accused Bachan Singh qua sale of stolen jewellery and coins at Vikasnagar on 2.2.2003 to Shri Parveen Jain, PW-4. (xii) Disclosure statement made by accused Jagat Singh qua recovery of weapon of offence. (xiii) Extra judicial confession made by accused Sudesh Sharma alias Shuppa. 18. Now we take up the above incriminating circumstances one-by-one for our consideration and determination as to whether the same stand substantiated beyond all reasonable doubt from the evidence available on record or not – Circumstance No.(i): 19. The complainant Shri Kahan Singh (PW-5) and his father Shri Mehar Singh (PW-11) while in the witness box have stated that since the children of PW-5 were studying in a school at Paonta Sahib, therefore, he was residing with his family there and his father PW-11, Mehar Singh used to reside at village Sataun in the house with deceased Bhajjo. The Investigating Agency has not made any endeavour to collect the evidence, such as the name of the school where the children of PW-5 were studying and the address of his temporary residence at Paonta Sahib. Any how, since PWs-5 and 11 have not been cross-examined on behalf of the accused on this aspect, therefore, it can reasonably be believed that PW-5 was residing at Paonta Sahib and his children were studying there. This circumstance, however, does not connect either of the accused with the commission of the alleged offence. Circumstances No. (ii) and (iii): 20. The allegations as disclosed from the record against accused Bachan Singh are that he was a gambler and as and when he used to suffer defeat in gambling, used to borrow money from PW-11. PW-11 while in the witness box has stated that accused Bachan Singh had been gambling in the forest adjoining to village Sataun. He, however, has not disclosed the exact name of the place of gambling and also that of other persons gambling there. PW-11 while in the witness box has stated that accused Bachan Singh had been gambling in the forest adjoining to village Sataun. He, however, has not disclosed the exact name of the place of gambling and also that of other persons gambling there. Besides PW-11, PW-17, Madan Singh has also stated that while gambling on January 27, 2003, he and accused Bachan Singh were left with no money and, as such, when needed more money approached PW-11, Mehar Singh in his house at village Sataun and borrowed money from him. PW-18, Shri Basti Ram, who introduced accused Bachan Singh for the first time with PW-11, Mehar Singh during the year 2003, though has stated in his examination-in-chief that accused Bachan Singh was a gambler, however, his statement in cross-examination reveals that he never saw accused Bachan Singh while gambling. 21. PW-11 as per his own version was lending money on interest to the needy persons. He has himself stated so while in the witness box. Even PW-17 and PW-18 have also deposed so while in the witness box. Who is money lender has been defined under Section 2(9) of the Himachal Pradesh Registration of Money Lenders’ Act, 1976. Every money lender is required to register his name in the office of Collector in accordance with the provisions contained under Section 4 of the Act, ibid. The Collector under Section 5 of the Act has been empowered to issue a license to such person on his registration under Section 4 of the Act as money lender. It is thus to be seen that no one can engage himself in the business of money lending without obtaining license. No evidence has come on record that any such license or permission was ever obtained by PW-11 to engage himself in money lending business. Therefore, it cannot be believed that PW-11 was a money lender by profession. 22. The prosecution has set up the case to this effect to prove that accused Bachan Singh had acquaintance with PW-11 Mehar Singh and his wife deceased Bhajjo and fair knowledge of the location of their house on account of his visits to PW-11 in connection with raising loan. 22. The prosecution has set up the case to this effect to prove that accused Bachan Singh had acquaintance with PW-11 Mehar Singh and his wife deceased Bhajjo and fair knowledge of the location of their house on account of his visits to PW-11 in connection with raising loan. The said accused may be knowing PW-11 and his wife deceased and also in the knowledge of the location of their house, however, the same in our opinion can also not be treated a circumstance to connect him and other accused persons, namely, Jagat Singh and Sudesh Sharma alias Shuppa with the commission of the alleged offence. Above all, this aspect of the matter only reveals that accused Bachan Singh was a gambler and as and when in need of money used to borrow from PW-11 Mehar Singh. We are afraid as to how this circumstance is of any help to the prosecution case, particularly, when not only accused Bachan Singh used to borrow money from PW-11, but other persons as well, amongst whom is Madan Singh, PW-17 also. Therefore, even if it is said to be proved that accused Bachan Singh was a gambler and he used to borrow money from PW-11 Mehar Singh, the same is of no help to the case of prosecution nor a circumstance to connect the accused with the commission of the alleged offence. Circumstance No. (iv): 23. The motive qua hatching conspiracy to commit theft in the house of PW-11 is stated to be accused Bachan Singh being under debt on account of having obtained Rs.17,000/- as loan from PW-11, whereas Rs.50,000/-from State Bank of India and his liability to make payment thereof. The evidence as has come on record by way of the statement of PW-11 Mehar Singh himself reveals that the said accused was introduced to him on 12.1.2003 by Basti Ram (PW-18), who on that day approached him for borrowing Rs.5,000/-. PW-18 offered himself to stand surety in order to secure the repayment of the money in question by accused Bachan Singh. It is on January 19, 2003; accused Bachan Singh accompanied by Basti Ram, PW-18 came to PW-11 in his house and returned Rs.5,000/- so borrowed from him by the said accused on 12.1.2003. PW-18 offered himself to stand surety in order to secure the repayment of the money in question by accused Bachan Singh. It is on January 19, 2003; accused Bachan Singh accompanied by Basti Ram, PW-18 came to PW-11 in his house and returned Rs.5,000/- so borrowed from him by the said accused on 12.1.2003. As per further version of PW-11 thereafter on January 26, 2003 accused Bachan Singh again borrowed a sum of Rs.4,000/- at the so called place of gambling i.e. somewhere in the jungle area. On the same day, accused Bachan Singh came to him in the evening around 5/6 p.m. in his shop at village Sataun alongwith one Jalam Singh and borrowed a further sum of Rs.6,000/-. Thereafter on January 27, 2003 accused Bachan Singh borrowed a further sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rs.1,850/- on deduction of interest i.e. Rs.150/-). It is, therefore, seen that the amount if any borrowed and was not repaid comes to Rs.4,000/- + Rs.6,000/- + Rs.1,850/- = Rs.11,850/- or at the most Rs.12,000/- and not Rs.17,000/-. As regards the loan accused Bachan Singh had raised from State Bank of India, no evidence has been produced qua this aspect of the matter by the prosecution. The motive, therefore, assigned to the commission of the alleged offence is not at all made out and proved and the story to this effect seems to be fabricated and engineered. Hence, on this score also, the prosecution case is bound to fail. Circumstances No. (v) and (vi): 24. As per simple case of the prosecution, in order to commit theft in the house of PW-11, accused Bachan Singh hatched conspiracy with his co-accused Jagat Singh on 29.1.2003, however, at what place and time they both met and had meeting of minds, nothing has come on record. There is no evidence suggesting as to what was the arrangement with regard to the stolen property agreed upon between them, forthcoming on record. It cannot also be believed to be true by any stretch of imagination that both accused particularly accused Jagat Singh would have hatched the conspiracy merely to generate funds by committing theft or murder of PW-11 and his wife so that accused Bachan Singh is able to repay the amount of debt outstanding against him. It cannot also be believed to be true by any stretch of imagination that both accused particularly accused Jagat Singh would have hatched the conspiracy merely to generate funds by committing theft or murder of PW-11 and his wife so that accused Bachan Singh is able to repay the amount of debt outstanding against him. In order to attract the provision contained under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code there should be cogent and convincing evidence qua the meeting of minds between two or more persons. Therefore, to prove a criminal conspiracy punishable under Section 120B of Indian Penal Code, there must be direct or circumstantial evidence to show that there was an agreement between two or more persons to commit an offence. In the case in hand, as noticed hereinabove, there is no iota of evidence that both accused Bachan Singh and Jagat Singh met each other at some place and planned there to commit theft in the house of PW-11. 25. To prove that the purchase of coins was a weakness of PW-11, Mehar Singh, no iota of evidence qua this aspect is available on record. The prosecution was required to show that PW-11 had been purchasing coins by producing the evidence as to from whom he used to purchase the coins and what he had been dong of the coins so purchased. What to speak of any such evidence even PW-11 has also not uttered a single word in this behalf nor is any suggestion to this effect given to him. How accused Bachan Singh was in the knowledge of any such weakness of PW-11, also remains unexplained. In order to support its case qua purchase of four silver coins by accused Bachan Singh from Raj Kumar on 29.1.2003, the prosecution has examined Shri Raj Kumar, PW-13, who is running a shop of jeweller in main bazaar, Vikasnagar. He has proved receipt No.921 dated 29.1.2003, Ex.PW-13/A issued by him from bill book Ex.PW-13/B, the counter foil whereof in the bill book is Ex.PW-13/C. No doubt, as per this document, Bachan Singh has been shown to have purchased four coins in a sum of Rs.490/-, it is however, not known that the coins were of silver or gold. He has proved receipt No.921 dated 29.1.2003, Ex.PW-13/A issued by him from bill book Ex.PW-13/B, the counter foil whereof in the bill book is Ex.PW-13/C. No doubt, as per this document, Bachan Singh has been shown to have purchased four coins in a sum of Rs.490/-, it is however, not known that the coins were of silver or gold. Above all, it is accused Bachan Singh alone who purchased these coins, is not at all proved from the evidence as has come on record by way of the testimony of PW-13 and the bill in question. During the course of recording his statement in the Court, PW-13 has not stated that it is accused Bachan Singh alone and no other person named Bachan Singh purchased the coins from him. He even did not identify accused Bachan Singh to be the same person who purchased the coins in the shop. Therefore, for want of cogent and reliable evidence on record as regards hatching the conspiracy by accused Bachan Singh with accused Jagat Singh on 29.1.2003, the prosecution case to this effect hardly inspires any confidence. Circumstances No. (vii) and (viii): 26. The only evidence as has come on record qua this aspect of the matter is the statement of Jawahar Singh, PW-11. His testimony goes to show that he is driver of ambassador car bearing registration No.UP-10-2760. From his further testimony at the most it is established that on 29.1.2003 the said car was hired by accused Bachan Singh around 4.00 p.m. for performing journey from Vikasnagar to village Sataun. The said accused and his co-accused Jagat Singh boarded the car and they were taken by him to village Sataun. There he fueled the car in a petrol pump. The money was paid by accused Bachan Singh. He was told by the said accused that they will be going back to Vikasnagar in the same car and asked him to wait for them at the petrol pump itself. They returned after about an hour and boarded the car. He dropped them at Shikhar Hotel, Vikasnagar. While releasing the car, accused Bachan Singh told him that they would be hiring the car again on the next day also. They returned after about an hour and boarded the car. He dropped them at Shikhar Hotel, Vikasnagar. While releasing the car, accused Bachan Singh told him that they would be hiring the car again on the next day also. Interestingly, when as per his own version in cross-examination, one has to cross toll tax barrier in Yamuna Bridge in Paonta Sahib to reach Sataun from Vikasnagar, where toll tax used to be collected at the barrier and the receipt issued, without having produced any such receipt in evidence, it is highly doubtful that his car was hired by accused Bachan Singh on that day. 27. How this statement of PW-14 proves the factum of both accused visited the house of PW-11, Mehar Singh on that day; the link is missing. Even the receipt of the petrol, he filled in the car at petrol pump has also not seen the light of the day being not produced in evidence. On the other hand, since accused Bachan Singh was in the habit of gambling, he having come to village Sataun for gambling purpose cannot be ruled out. Moreover, the Investigating Officer, PW-27 himself admits that the car being private could have not been used as taxi without any permit. However, since the same was used as taxi, therefore, its registered owner, Ajay Gosain was challaned vide infringement report Ex.PW-24/A on 28.2.2003. However, according to him, the date in the report came to be wrongly recorded as 28.2.2003. The owner of the car Shri Ajay Gosain (PW-19) though tells us that PW-14, Jawahar Singh plied the same on January 29/30, 2003 to Sataun from Vikasnagar via Paonta Sahib and on February 20, 2003 he came to know that the vehicle was used in the commission of the offence, however, in his crossexamination, he has expressed his ignorance that the same was taken to Sataun on hire basis. Therefore, it appears to us that the report Ex.PW-24/A has been engineered and fabricated subsequently to show that the registered owner of the car was challaned for plying the car as taxi on 29/30.1.2003 simply to connect the accused with the commission of the offence falsely. 28. In order to prove that accused Bachan Singh hired one room in Shikhar Hotel, Vikasnagar, reliance has been placed on the two torn pages Ex.PW-12/A and Ex. PW-12/B of the register allegedly maintained in the hotel. 28. In order to prove that accused Bachan Singh hired one room in Shikhar Hotel, Vikasnagar, reliance has been placed on the two torn pages Ex.PW-12/A and Ex. PW-12/B of the register allegedly maintained in the hotel. These pages allegedly were torn from the register and handed over to the police. This is altogether an unknown procedure adopted by the investigating agency qua taking in possession a document because in the normal course these pages should have been in the register and its photo copies taken on record and proved during the course of trial by producing the original register. The entries at Sr. No.2096 Ex.PW-12/C reveal that accused Bachan Singh accompanied by one more person occupied room No.3 of the hotel at 4.10 p.m. on 29.1.2003. It raises suspicion that the said accused accompanied by accused Jagat Singh boarded the ambassador car at 4.00 p.m., that too, in the bus-stand at Vikasnagar. The accused could have not been expected to be present at two places, one at 4.10 p.m. in hotel Shikhar, Vikasnagar and at 4.00 p.m. at thetaxi stand, Vikasnagar, because, it has come in the statement of PW-14, Jawahar Singh, the driver of the car that the same was hired by accused Bachan Singh at 4.00 p.m. from taxi stand where the same is normally parked. Therefore, either the prosecution story qua hiring of room at 4.10 p.m. in Shikhar Hotel is wrong or hiring of the car being driven by PW-14 at taxi stand, Vikasnagar at 4.00 p.m. is wrong. As per entries Ex.PW-12/D in the register maintained in hotel Shikhar, the check out time of accused Bachan Singh from the hotel has been shown at 10.45 a.m. on 30.1.2003. Against the entries Ex.PW-12/C and Ex.PW-12/D signature of Bachan Singh is there. PW-12 Gautam Singh while in the witness box, however, has not stated that accused Bachan Singh is the same person who alongwith his co-accused stayed in the hotel on that day and put his signature in the register. He rather expressed his inability to identify said Bachan Singh and another person, who stayed with him at the pretext that daily 5060 guests stay in the hotel and it is not possible to recognize them from there faces. On the other hand, the accused have disputed their having stayed in Shikhar hotel on that day as is apparent from the trend of cross-examination of PW-12. On the other hand, the accused have disputed their having stayed in Shikhar hotel on that day as is apparent from the trend of cross-examination of PW-12. Assuming that it is accused Bachan Singh and his co-accused Jagat Singh, stayed in Shikhar hotel during the night intervening 29/30.1.2003, cannot be taken to form an opinion that they had come to kill PW-11 or his wife deceased Bhajjo Devi and commit theft in their house which is situated at village Sataun and not Vikasnagar. How much is the distance between Vikasnagar and village Sataun, remained unexplained as the prosecution has failed to produce any evidence in this behalf. 29. The statement of PW-27, the Investigating Officer that accused Bachan Singh during the course of investigation has told about his having stayed in Shikhar Hotel, Vikasnagar on January 29, 2003, is hardly of any help in view of such disclosure statement not recorded in accordance with law. Learned defence counsel had therefore rightly objected to the statement of the Investigating Officer in this behalf. Otherwise also, as per settled legal principles, the statement made by an accused while in custody cannot be used against him for recording the findings of conviction. Moreover, for want of there being any comparison of signature on Ex.PW-12/D of accused Bachan Singh against entry Ex.PW-12/C with the admitted signature, it cannot be said that the signature in the register is that of accused Bachan Singh alone and none else. 30. The evidence discussed here-in-above reveals that the incriminating circumstance, i.e. hiring of car of which PW-14 is driver and hiring of room in Shikhar hotel, Vikasnagar of which PW-12 claims himself to be the Manager, are not proved with the help of cogent and reliable evidence and to the contrary learned trial Judge has mis-read and misconstrued the evidence available on record qua this aspect of the matter. Circumstances No. (ix) and (x): 31. As per the further case of the prosecution, accused Bachan Singh joined his co-accused Sudesh Sharma alias Shuppa also in this conspiracy on the following day, i.e. 30.1.2003. Nothing, however, has come on record to substantiate this aspect of the matter, such as where accused Sudesh Sharma alias Shuppa and Bachan Singh met and at what time as well as what arrangements they chalked out qua their share in the stolen property. Nothing, however, has come on record to substantiate this aspect of the matter, such as where accused Sudesh Sharma alias Shuppa and Bachan Singh met and at what time as well as what arrangements they chalked out qua their share in the stolen property. How accused Sudesh Sharma alias Shuppa was known to accused Bachan Singh, is also missing on the record. Even the Investigating Officer PW-27 has not uttered a single word as to how he came to know that accused Bachan Singh joined accused Sudesh Sharma alias Shuppa also in this conspiracy on 30.1.2003. Normally, a man of ordinary prudence would not prefer to associate a stranger or a person with whom there is no intimacy in such type of conspiracy. Therefore, the relations, if any, between accused Bachan Singh and accused Sudesh Sharma alias Shuppa, friendly or otherwise, assumes considerable significance. What to speak of any cogent and reliable evidence qua relations or any intimacy between them, even no evidence has come on record to show that they both were known to each other. On the other hand, the plea raised by accused Sudesh Sharma alias Shuppa in his defence that he being driver of bus No.HP-24-4503 drove the same on 30th January, 2003 at 2.00 p.m. from Vikasnagar to Domoue which is situated at a distance of 70 Kms. from Vikasnagar and stayed during the night intervening 30th/31st January, 2003 in the house of Gian Singh with Conductor of the bus, Babu Ram. On the following day, i.e. 31st January, 2003, he drove the bus back to Vikasnagar from Domoue at 8.00 a.m. and reached Vikasnagar at 12.00 noon. The owner of the bus according to him is Lalit Mohan. 32. Gian Singh, aforesaid is examined as DW-1, who has testified the plea hereinabove raised by accused Sudesh Sharma alias Shuppa in his defence. The owner of the bus is Lalit Mohan. No doubt, as per his version accused Shuppa drove the bus from Domoue to Vikasnagar on 30.1.2003 and thereafter the bus remained parked for two days, i.e. 31.1.2003 and 1.2.2003, whereas, the accused-driver was permitted by him to go to his house in the night of 30.1.20023. However, at what time accused Suppa met accused Bachan Singh on 30.1.2003 and at what time the bus drove by him from Domoue reached at Vikasnagar remained unexplained. However, at what time accused Suppa met accused Bachan Singh on 30.1.2003 and at what time the bus drove by him from Domoue reached at Vikasnagar remained unexplained. On the other hand, according to DW-2, it is in the night he sent accused Shuppa to his house. Accused Shuppa is driver of the bus, is not even disputed by PW-14, Jawahar Singh also. Therefore, there is no clinching evidence suggesting that accused Bachan Singh and Sudesh Sharma alias Shuppa met on 30.1.2003 and later also joined hands with the former. On the other hand, the evidence shows that either Shuppa was away to Domoue on 30.1.2003 with the bus or he drove the bus back to Vikasnagar from Domoue on that day, however, at what time the bus reached there, is not known. The plea raised by the accused in his defence, therefore, seems to be nearer to the factual position. Otherwise also, even if the plea of alibi raised by accused is not proved, the prosecution is not going to gain anything as it has to stand on its own legs. The prosecution to our mind has failed to show that there was meeting of minds between accused Bachan Singh and Shuppa and the former joined hands with later in the commission of the alleged offence. 33. If coming to the hiring of car, PW-14, Jawahar Singh has come forward with the version that on January 30, 2003 accused Bachan Singh came to him around 10.30 p.m. at a place near Shikhar Hotel where he was getting the car repaired and told that he will again be going to village Sataun on that day. Accordingly, around 4.15 p.m. all the three accused boarded the car and he drove the same to village Sataun. When they reached near petrol pump, accused Bachan Singh gave Rs.20/- to him and asked him to have tea and that they would be coming back after some time. Even if it is believed that the car was hired and occupied by all the three accused, the link evidence that after alighting therefrom at petrol pump they went to the house of PW-11, is missing. No one having seen them going to the house of PW-11 after alighting from the car is either associated during the course of investigation or examined in the court. No one having seen them going to the house of PW-11 after alighting from the car is either associated during the course of investigation or examined in the court. The Investigating Officer, PW-27 has also failed to show as to on what basis the case to this effect was made against the accused. For the argument sake, even if it is believed that they went to the house of PW-11, who allegedly was not present there and his wife, the deceased alone present there, disclosed that PW-11 was away to Shillai and that she asked accused Bachan Singh to contact her husband over telephone, however, the said accused instead of dialing the telephone number pretended to dial the same and falsely represented that the telephone number was not reachable and it is on this, she allowed them to stay there in her house during that night and spread over three beds for them in the drawing room, the necessary evidence cogent and clinching, is missing from the record. 34. The Investigating Officer could have conducted the investigation to find out as to why PW-11 had gone to Shillai and where he had stayed there and on which telephone number the deceased asked accused Bachan Singh to contact her husband. The Investigating Officer should have also found out as to in what connection PW-11 had gone to Shillai two days ago because PW Dalip Singh on asking by PW-5, Kahan Singh about the whereabouts of his father, disclosed that he has gone to Shillai two days ago. As a matter of fact, the evidence qua the purpose of visit of PW-11 to Shillai and the place where he had stayed would have proved the factum of he was away from the house on that day. Further investigation to verify that PW-11, in fact, had visited Shillai or not, would have also been relevant in order to solve this blind murder of deceased Bhajjo Devi. Further investigation to verify that PW-11, in fact, had visited Shillai or not, would have also been relevant in order to solve this blind murder of deceased Bhajjo Devi. The prosecution story that on knocking the door by the accused, it is the deceased who opened it and they produced four coins, accused Bachan Singh allegedly purchased from PW-13, Raj Kumar and having disclosed about the offer of some Vikasnagar based company to sell that type of coins and it is after felling prey to such allurement given by accused Bachan Singh she not only had given the telephone number on which her husband was available at Shillai but also allowed them to stay in the night in their house, without there being any cogent and reliable evidence inspires no confidence nor any such circumstance can be used against the accused. Otherwise also, a lonely lady would have never allowed the stranger, may be accused Bachan Singh was known to her, to stay in the house in normal course. 35. The further prosecution story that it is in the mid-night when accused Sudesh Sharma alias Shuppa noticed the deceased enjoying sound sleep, gagged her mouth and accused Bachan Singh assaulted her with knife on trachea (front side neck) and murdered her. There is no iota of evidence that accused Jagat Singh had a knife of the size of 9 inches and iron faali of the size of 22 inches 3 cms. with him. At least PW-14 Jawahar Singh could have seen the said accused having taking such weapon of offence with him. 36. It is significant to note that had the deceased been found to be murdered in the dining room, her dead body would have not been removed to the drawing room and the three beds allegedly spread there for the accused closed to make a space there for keeping the dead body before arrival of the police. PW-5, Kahan Singh tells us that on coming to know about the murder of his mother, people from the village in large number started coming there and as in the dining room congestion of space was felt, therefore, the dead body was removed to drawing room, which as per the prosecution case was done by PW-5, Kahan Singh, obviously with the help of villagers well before the arrival of his father allegedly from Shillai and the police. Such evidence reveals that well before the arrival of the police, the place where the deceased allegedly was murdered and her dead body lying, was tampered with. The Investigating Officer though states that he inspected the spot and photographed the same, however, he has stated nothing as to where the deceased was murdered and where her dead body was lying in the house. PW-7, Jalam Singh, who is also a witness of spot, on the other hand, tells us that the dead body, around 3.00 p.m. when he went to the house of deceased, was lying in the dining room near dining table. He does not say anything about the removal of the dead body to drawing room. 37. Any how, the fact remains that deceased Bhajjo Devi died unnatural death, i.e. murdered by someone, however, it is not proved beyond all reasonable doubt that it is the accused who alone have murdered her. The prosecution case qua theft having been committed in the house also finds support from the evidence as has come on record by way of the statement of Kahan Singh (PW-5), Mehar Singh (PW-11) and the broken hook of the box with lock lying there further finds support from the statement of Jalam Singh (PW-7). However, in the given facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence available on record, it cannot be said that the theft was committed by the accused alone and none else. There being no evidence to show as to why PW-11 Mehar Singh had gone to Shillai and PW-5, Kahan Singh was residing with his family at Paonta Sahib, as noticed hereinabove, creates several doubts qua the manner in which the offence is claimed to have been committed by the accused alone and none else. 38. The further case of the prosecution that all the three accused after the commission of the offence returned to the place where they made PW-14 to park the car around 11.30/12.00 midnight, is based upon the statement of PW-14, Jawahar Singh. If his statement is seen, the same reveals that all the three accused returned to the place where the car was parked around 11.30/12.00 o’clock in the night. If his statement is seen, the same reveals that all the three accused returned to the place where the car was parked around 11.30/12.00 o’clock in the night. It is accused Shuppa who came running to the car and knocked it to get opened, whereas accused Bachan Singh and Jagat Singh also came to the car after some time and hurriedly occupied the car and asked to drive it fast towards Tunia via Khodri Majri road. He drove the car to Tunia. At Tunia accused Bachan Singh and Jagat Singh asked him to drop them at Chiog, however, he refused and, as such, they both alighted from the car at Tunia, whereas, accused Shuppa traveled in the car with him to Vikasnagar and alighted at a point known as Mehuwala. He also states about payment of fare to the tune of Rs.1200/- to him by accused Jagat Singh and Rs.100/- by accused Shuppa. If his cross-examination is seen, he is not sure that he has made any statement qua accused Shuppa hurriedly came to the car. Since there is no clinching evidence available on record qua the hiring of the car by the accused, therefore, on the basis of the statement of PW-14, Jawahar Singh, it cannot be said that the hiring of the car in the manner as stated by the prosecution stands proved on record beyond all reasonable doubts. In case any such thing having taken place, PW-14, Jawahar Singh should have narrated the same at least to anyone including Ajay Gosain, the owner of the car. He, however, did not narrate these facts to any one till February 20, 2003. Circumstance No.(xi): 39. If coming to the next incriminating circumstance pressed into service against the accused, i.e. the sale of stolen articles of jewellery and coins to Parveen Jain (PW-4) at Vikasnagar, the prosecution has based its case on the disclosure statement allegedly made by accused while in custody. The reference in this behalf can be made to the statement of the Investigating Officer, PW-27, who has stated that accused Bachan Singh while in custody has disclosed that the stolen articles were sold by him to a jeweller, namely, Shri Parveen Jain (PW-4) at Vikasnagar. No such statement of the accused is however recorded in accordance with law. The reference in this behalf can be made to the statement of the Investigating Officer, PW-27, who has stated that accused Bachan Singh while in custody has disclosed that the stolen articles were sold by him to a jeweller, namely, Shri Parveen Jain (PW-4) at Vikasnagar. No such statement of the accused is however recorded in accordance with law. As already observed in this judgment, any statement made by an accused while in custody if not recorded in accordance with law, cannot be relied upon against him. In order to lend corroboration to this part of the prosecution case, PW-4 Parveen Jain has been associated during the course of investigation and also examined at the time of trial. He only deposed about the purchase of golden jewellery and silver coins. He, however, has not disclosed the nature and description of the jewellery Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-298. The jewellery in melted form and coins were recovered in the presence of Neeraj Aggarwal and Rajnish Aggarwal, however, they have not been examined. What precaution PW-4 had taken and how he has satisfied that the articles offered for sale by accused Bachan Singh were not stolen one before he actually purchased the same, is missing and the explanation that the said accused was known to him without disclosing any other and further information qua their such acquaintance with each other cannot be believed to be true. 40. As a matter of fact, the jewellery is not recovered from him in its original form but in the form of melted gold. Therefore, it cannot be said that it is the same jewellery which was stolen from the house of PW-11. Not only this, but this jewellery nor the coins were ever shown to PW-11 in order to get the same identified. On the other hand, the description of the stolen jewellery given by PW-11 in his statement is two “Naths” weighing 8 tolas, 2 golden coins weighing 2.150 tolas and also 150300 silver coins. The recovered jewellery in the form of melted gold and coins however is not sufficient to arrive at a conclusion that the same were the one stolen from the house of PW-11. Much has been stated about the entries Ex.PB-1 and Ex.PB-2 and signature of accused Bachan Singh in the register Ex.P-B allegedly maintained by PW-4 in the ordinary course of business with respect to purchase of gold. Much has been stated about the entries Ex.PB-1 and Ex.PB-2 and signature of accused Bachan Singh in the register Ex.P-B allegedly maintained by PW-4 in the ordinary course of business with respect to purchase of gold. The entry Ex.PB-2 in this register is at serial number 32. This entry, as a matter of fact, has been made in the end of the page of the register, that too, in its margin below the last line of the page. What necessitated PW-4 to make these entries in this manner in the end that too, on margin of the page (space in a paper not meant for writing) instead of carrying forward such entry to the next page, remains un-explained. Above all, the Sr. No. of 1st entry in the next page, on viewing with naked eyes, was 32 and the figure “2” thereof” by way of correction is made as “3” to make it 33. Similarly, the entries Ex.PA-1 and the signature Ex.PA-2 at Sr. No.48 in the register Ex.P-A on mere visualizing reveal that the same are in different ink and in different pen as compared to the entries from Sr. No.27 to 47 above this entry. Surprisingly enough, no entries have been made against Sr. No.49 below the entry in question at Sr. No.48. Both registers allegedly have been signed by accused Bachan Singh vide his signature Ex.PB-2 and Ex.PA-2 respectively. The Investigating Officer, however, has not deemed it necessary to get these signatures compared with the admitted signature of accused Bachan Singh during the course of investigation from the Hand Writing Expert. There is no evidence qua the theft of golden coins also. No doubt, PW-4, Parveen Jain while in the witness box has stated that on 2nd February, 2003 accused Bachan Singh sold silver coins and some jewellery of gold and silver, which he purchased for Rs.73,141/- and in acknowledgement of sale thereof he obtained the signature of the said accused in his day books. According to him, the accused was known to him and, as such, he agreed to purchase the jewellery and coins from him. According to him, the accused was known to him and, as such, he agreed to purchase the jewellery and coins from him. He has also deposed about the weight of the ornaments of silver and gold and also number of coins, which he purchased and proved the entries Ex.PA-1 and Ex.PA-2 in the register Ex.P-A and Ex.PB-1 and Ex.PB-2 in the register, Ex.P-B. However, the entry being last entry in day book Ex.P-B, the possibility of the same having been fabricated to implicate the accused in the commission of the offence cannot be ruled out. The statement of PW-27, the Investigating Officer reveals that his version qua accused Bachan Singh having disclosed while in custody that the stolen articles were sold by him to PW-4 was objected to by learned defence counsel and the objection so raised was left open to be considered at the time of arguments. The impugned judgment, however, reveals that learned trial Court has not considered the objection so raised. The non-identification of golden and silver coins from PW-11 Mehar Singh or his son PW-5 Kahan Singh is also fatal to the prosecution case. The accused, on the other hand, have disputed the sale of any such jewellery or coins to PW-4, as is apparent from the trend of his cross-examination. Of course, the said witness denied the suggestions put to him in this behalf being wrong. The legal principles attracted in such a situation have been settled by the Apex Court in State of Rajasthan Versus alevar and another, (2011) 11 SCC 666 , which reads as follows :- “18. Thus, the law on this issue can be summarized to the effect that where the only evidence against the accused is recovery of stolen properties, then although the circumstances may indicate that the theft and murder might have been committed at the same time, it is not safe to draw an inference that the person in possession of the stolen property had committed the murder. It also depends on the nature of the property so recovered, whether it was likely to pass readily from hand to hand. Suspicion should not take the place of proof.” 41. It also depends on the nature of the property so recovered, whether it was likely to pass readily from hand to hand. Suspicion should not take the place of proof.” 41. Therefore, the evidence discussed hereinabove leads to the only conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubts that accused Bachan Singh sold the stolen golden and silver jewellery and also silver coins to PW-4 Parveen Jain. The findings to the contrary recorded by learned trial Court in our considered opinion are not supported either legally or factually. Circumstance No. (xii): 42. Much has been stated about the disclosure statement Ex.PW-6/A under Section 27 of the Evidence Act by accused Jagat Singh while in custody and that it is on the basis of this statement knife Ex.P-299 and the iron faali (square iron rod) Ex.P-300 were recovered. PW-6 is one of the witnesses to the disclosure statement Ex.PW-6/A. According to him on February 18, 2003 he alongwith Kahan Singh and Dalip Singh had gone to Police Post, Rajban to enquire about the progress of the case. In his presence and that of Dalip Singh, accused Jagat Singh while in police custody made statement that he had concealed a knife and a faali in his residential house and that he could get the same recovered. It was also revealed by the said accused that only he had the knowledge thereof. The accused then led the police party to his house at village Cheog in Tehsil Paonta Sahib and got recovered the faali which was taken in possession vide recovery memo Ex. PW-6/B. The accused then led the police to his another house in the same illaqua and got recovered the knife kept in a hole of the threshold of the house, which was taken in possession vide memo Ex.PW-6/C.PW-6, has also identified the knife Ex.P-299 and faali Ex.P-300 to be the same which were recovered at the instance of accused, Jagat Singh. As noticed supra, PW-14 Jawahar Singh, however, did not state that when accused Jagat Singh boarded the car, they were carrying faali and knife with them. As noticed supra, PW-14 Jawahar Singh, however, did not state that when accused Jagat Singh boarded the car, they were carrying faali and knife with them. While PW-6 states that when they reached in the police station at about 5.15 p.m., they were told by the police that the statement of accused Jagat Singh qua concealment of faali and knife was to be recorded, at the same time PW-26, Inspector Virender Kalia has stated that the said accused was apprehended on February 18, 2003 and he made a statement that he has concealed the knife and faali in his residential house in the presence of Puran Singh, PW-6 and Dalip Singh. Further that following the disclosure statement accused Jagat Singh led this witness PW-26 to village Cheog and produced there faali Ex.P-300 which was concealed on a bem of store room, whereas the knife from upper storey of that house kept in a gap close to the threshold of one of the doors. As per the medical evidence having come on record by way of the testimony of PW-8 Dr. S.N. Sachin, the cut wound in the trachea of the deceased could have been caused with the knife Ex.P-299. The Forensic Science Laboratory report Ex.P-C reveals that the knife was found having stained with human blood, however, of which group, no authentic result could be found out. Similarly, as per the report Ex.PW-27/C what was the group of blood on the cover of quilt could not be ascertained, however, the group of the blood found on her cloths was “A”. Therefore, for want of the group of blood available on the knife Ex.P-299, it cannot be said that the same has been used weapon of offence as has been held by the Apex Court in Kansa Behera Versus State of Orrisa, (1987) 3 SCC 480 , which reads as under (para 12):- “As regards the recovery of a shirt or a dhoti with bloodstains which according to the serologist’s report were stained with human blood but there is no evidence in the report of the serologist about the group of the blood and therefore it could not positively be connected with the deceased. In the evidence of the Investigating Officer or in the report, it is not clearly mentioned as to what were the dimensions of the stains of blood. In the evidence of the Investigating Officer or in the report, it is not clearly mentioned as to what were the dimensions of the stains of blood. Few small bloodstains on the clothes of a person may even be of his own blood especially if it is a villager putting on those clothes and living in villages. The evidence about the blood group is only conclusive to connect the bloodstains with the deceased. That evidence is absent and in this view of the matter, in our opinion, even this is not a circumstance on the basis of which any interference could be drawn.” 43. The legal principles with respect to the evidentiary value of disclosure statement has been discussed by the Apex Court in Prabhoov. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1963, SC 1113, which reads as follows (para 9):- ”The main difficulty in the case is that the evidence regarding the recovery of blood stained axe and blood stained shirt and dhoti is not very satisfactory and the courts below were wrong in admitting certain statements alleged to have been made by the appellant in connection with that recovery. According to the recovery memo the two witnesses who were present when the aforesaid articles were produced by the appellant were Lal Bahadur Singh and Wali Mohammad. Lal Bahadur Singh was examined as prosecution witness No.4. He did give evidence about the production of blood stained articles from his house by the appellant. The witness said that the appellant produced the articles from a tub on the eastern side of the house. The witness did not, however, say that the appellant made any statement relating to the recovery. Wali Mohammad was not examined at all. One other witness Debi Baksh Singh was examined as prosecution witness No.3. This witness said that a little before the recovery the Sub-Inspector of Police took the appellant into custody and interrogated him; then the appellant gave out that the axe with which the murder had been committed and his blood stained shirt and dhoti were in the house and the appellant was prepared to produce them. These statements to which Debi Baksh (P.W.3) deposed were not admissible in evidence. They were incriminating statements made to a police officer and were hit by Ss. 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act. These statements to which Debi Baksh (P.W.3) deposed were not admissible in evidence. They were incriminating statements made to a police officer and were hit by Ss. 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act. The statement that the axe was one with which the murder had been committed was not a statement which led to any discovery within the meaning of S.27 of the Evidence Act. Nor was the alleged statement of the appellant that the blood stained shirt and dhoti belonged to him a statement which led to any discovery within the meaning of S.27. Section 27 provides that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered may be proved. In Pulukuri Kotayya v. Emperor, 74 Ind App 65: (AIR 1947 PC 67), the Privy Council considered the true interpretation of S. 27 and said: “It is fallacious to treat the ‘fact discovered’ within the section as equivalent to the object produced; the fact discovered embraces the place from which the object is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this, and the information given must relate distinctly to this fact. Information as to past user, or the past history, of the object produced is not related to its discovery in the setting in which it is discovered. Information supplied by a person in custody that ‘I will produce a knife concealed in the roof of my house’ does not lead to the discovery of a knife; knives were discovered many years ago. It leads to the discovery of the fact that a knife is concealed in the house of the informant to his knowledge, and if the knife is proved to have been used in the commission of the offence, the fact discovered is very relevant. But if to the statement the words be added ‘with which I stabbed A’, these words are inadmissible since they do not relate to the discovery of the knife in the house of the informant.” (p.77 of Ind App) : (at p.70 of AIR). But if to the statement the words be added ‘with which I stabbed A’, these words are inadmissible since they do not relate to the discovery of the knife in the house of the informant.” (p.77 of Ind App) : (at p.70 of AIR). We are, therefore, of the opinion that the courts below were wrong in admitting in evidence the alleged statement of the appellant that the axe had been used to commit murder or the statement that the blood stained shirt and dhoti were his. If these statements are excluded, then the only evidence which remains is that the appellant produced from the house a blood stained axe and some blood stained clothes. The prosecution gave no evidence to establish whether the axe belonged to the appellant or the blood stained clothes were his.” 44. Reference can also be made in this behalf to the judgment of Apex Court in Maniversus State of Tamil Nadu, 2008(1) Crimes 174 (SC), which reads as follows (para 21):- “The discovery is a weak kind of evidence and cannot be wholly relied upon on and conviction in such a serious matter cannot be based upon the discovery. Once the discovery fails, there would be literally nothing which would support the prosecution case.” 45. The disclosure statement having been made by an accused otherwise is also a weak type of evidence and can only be relied upon with the help of other cogent and reliable evidence available on record to establish the guilt of the accused. Reference in this behalf can be made to the law laid down by the Apex Court in S.K. Yusufversus State of West Bengal (2011) 11 SCC 754 , which reads as follows:- “34. The nature of the admissibility of the facts discovered pursuant to the statement of the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872 is very limited. If an accused deposes to the police officer the fact as a result of which the weapon with which the crime is committed is discovered, and as a result of such disclosure, recovery of the weapon is made, no inference can be drawn against the accused, if there is no evidence connecting the weapon with the crime alleged to have been committed by the accused.” 46. In a case titled Kishore Chand Versus Sae of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1990 SC 2140 , where the recoveries of weapon of offence pursuant to the disclosure statement made under Section 27 of the Evidence Act were effected long after the arrest of the appellant and blood stains on all the articles were disintegrated as well as it was not possible to find whether the blood on the articles recovered was human blood, the Apex Court has held as under:- “9. The third circumstance relied on is the statement said to have been made by the appellant under S.27 of the Evidence Act leading to discovery of the consequential information, namely, saw blade, is not of a conclusive nature connecting the appellant with the crime. The recoveries were long after the arrest of the appellant. The blood stains on all the articles were disintegrated. So it was not possible to find whether it is human blood or not. Moreover, from the prosecution evidence it is clear that the deceased himself was an accused in an earlier murder case and it is obvious that he had enemies at his back. Absolutely no motive to commit crime was attributed to the appellant.” 47. The present being a case of circumstantial evidence and there is no direct evidence to show that it is the accused who have committed the murder of the deceased and thereafter committed theft, the disclosure statement Ex.PW-6/A looses its significance. Circumstance No.(xiii) 48. As per the prosecution case, it is on 20.2.2003, PW-14 disclosed that on enquiry from accused Shuppa on the way from Tunia to Mehuwala as to why he (PW14) was asked to drive the car fast and what they (accused Shuppa and his co-accused) had done, said accused revealed that “HAM NE BUDHIA KA KAM KAR DIYA HAI” (We have done away the old lady to death). It is seen that PW-14 did not narrate the alleged retracted extra judicial confession made by accused Shuppa till February 20, 2003 and the only explanation forthcoming from his statement is that he did not breath a word about such revelation made by accused Shuppa till the police came to him on February 20, 2003. It is seen that PW-14 did not narrate the alleged retracted extra judicial confession made by accused Shuppa till February 20, 2003 and the only explanation forthcoming from his statement is that he did not breath a word about such revelation made by accused Shuppa till the police came to him on February 20, 2003. The reason according to him qua non-disclosure of the alleged confessional statement to anyone else, was his impression that accused Shuppa, being a driver by profession must have cut a joke as he was usually doing. Also that he did not mention the suspicion he entertained about the conduct of the accused persons to any body since he wanted not to be over-concerned about such conduct of the accused. The non-disclosure of the confession “HAM NE BUDHIA KA KAM KAR DIYA HAI” allegedly made by accused Shuppa for more than 20 days casts clouds on this part of the prosecution story. Otherwise also, there was no reason for accused Shuppa to have made any such extra judicial confession before PW-14 and, as such, this piece of evidence relied upon seems to be concocted one. Further more, there is no evidence about the kind of relationship, the said accused and PW-14 share with each other and the time span for which they knew each other. The silence of PW-14 till 20th February, 2003 creates doubt about such confession actually having been made by accused Shuppa before him and the possibility of raising the plea qua the alleged extra judicial confession made by the said accused being a result of deliberation and concoction cannot be ruled out. If it is so, the prosecution case qua extra judicial confession allegedly made by accused Shuppa is highly doubtful and unreliable. Therefore, he seems to have deposed falsely against the accused to implicate them in this case, for the reasons best known to him. We draw support in this behalf from the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Kishore Chand’scase,supra, which reads as follows:- “7. ………… The next piece of evidence is the alleged extra judicial confession made by the appellant to P.W. 10. An unambiguous extra-judicial confession possesses a high probative value force as it emanates from the person who committed the crime and is admissible in evidence provided it is free from suspicion and suggestion of its falsity. ………… The next piece of evidence is the alleged extra judicial confession made by the appellant to P.W. 10. An unambiguous extra-judicial confession possesses a high probative value force as it emanates from the person who committed the crime and is admissible in evidence provided it is free from suspicion and suggestion of its falsity. But in the process of the proof of the alleged confession the Court has to be satisfied that it is a voluntary one and does not appear to be the result of inducement, threat or promise envisaged under Sec. 24 of the Evidence Act or was brought about in suspicious circumstances to circumvent Ss. 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, the Court has to look into the surrounding circumstances and to find whether the extra-judicial confession is not inspired by any improper or collateral consideration or circumvention of the law suggesting that it may not be true one. For this purpose the Court must scrutinize all the relevant facts such as the person to whom the confession is made, the time and place of making it, the circumstances in which it was made and finally the actual words used by the accused. Extra-judicial confession if found to be voluntary can be relied upon by the Court along with other evidence on record. Therefore, even the extra-judicial confession will also have to be proved like any other fact. The value of the evidence as to the confession depends upon the veracity of the witness to whom it is made and the circumstances in which it came to be made and the actual words used by the accused. Sometimes it may not be possible to the witness to reproduce the actual words in which the confession was made. For that reason the law insists on recording the statement by a Judicial Magistrate after administrating all necessary warnings to the accused that it would be used as evidence against him. 8. ……. Section 25 of the Evidence Act provides that no confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence. Section 26 provides that no confession made by any person while he is under custody of the police officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, shall be proved as against such person. Section 26 provides that no confession made by any person while he is under custody of the police officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, shall be proved as against such person. Therefore, the confession made by an accused person to a police officer is irrelevant by operation of S. 25 and it shall be proved against the appellant. Likewise the confession made by the appellant while he is in the custody of the police shall not be proved against the appellant unless it is made in the immediate presence of the Magistrate, by operation of S.26 thereof. Admittedly the appellant did not make any confession in the presence of the Magistrate. …………..” 49. In the given facts and circumstances as well as the ratio of the judgment cited supra, the only and irresistible conclusion would be that the accused were taken into custody and it is thereafter the extra judicial confession was obtained from PW-14, Jawahar Singh, who seems to have accommodated the prosecution for the reasons best known to him. The alleged extra judicial confession was therefore made by PW-14 at such a stage when the accused were in police custody. Such statement has, therefore, to be construed strictly and not liberally. Otherwise also, as discussed hereinabove, a confession made by the accused to PW-14 at such a stage when the accused were in police custody, in terms of the provisions contained under Section 26 of the Evidence Act, the same cannot be said to be proved against them. 50. The prosecution never conducted the identification parade as required under the law to establish the identity of the accused to be the assailants. Their identification for the first time in the court during the course of recording the prosecution evidence neither can be treated clinching nor legal and acceptable evidence in the criminal administration of justice. We draw support in this behalf from the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sukhbir Singh and anotherVersus tate of Punjab, (2011) 11 SCC 436 , which reads as follows (paras 11 to 14):- “Mr. Patwalia, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants has raised one primary argument during the course of hearing of the appeals. We draw support in this behalf from the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sukhbir Singh and anotherVersus tate of Punjab, (2011) 11 SCC 436 , which reads as follows (paras 11 to 14):- “Mr. Patwalia, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants has raised one primary argument during the course of hearing of the appeals. He has pointed out that there was absolutely no evidence with regard to the identification of the appellants and their identification for the first time in Court during the course of the trial would not be sufficient to record a conviction in the absence of any other evidence. In this connection, the learned counsel has placed reliance on Dana Yadav v. State of Bihar and Ramesh v. State of Karnataka. Mr. Kuldip Singh, the learned counsel has, however, placed reliance on Malkhansingh v. State of M.P. to contend that there was no inflexible rule that an identification made in Court for first time could not be taken as a good piece of evidence and as in the present matter the description of the appellants had been given in the FIR that itself was a corroborative circumstance to the prosecution story. Mr. Patwalia has also urged that once it was held that the appellants, the main accused were not involved in the incident as their identification was suspect, the involvement of the others with the aid of Section 120-B or 149 IPC too could not be spelt out. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. It will be seen that the incident happened at about 9 p.m. on the 26.12.1991. In the FIR recorded about 8 hours later, the appellants had been described as two Sikh youths 25/30 years of age wearing kurta pajamas. The appellants were arrested on the 21.5.1992 by Sub-Inspector Pyara Singh (who was not examined as a witness) and they were identified for the first time in Court by Naranjan Singh on the 21.9.1993. We are of the opinion that the physical description of the appellants given in the FIR would fit millions of youth in Punjab, and could not by itself pin the murder on them. The prosecution has also not come out with the steps in the investigation which had led to their identification as the primary assailants. We are of the opinion that the physical description of the appellants given in the FIR would fit millions of youth in Punjab, and could not by itself pin the murder on them. The prosecution has also not come out with the steps in the investigation which had led to their identification as the primary assailants. It was, in this background, obligatory on the part of the prosecution to have produced SubInspector Pyara Singh who could have testified to the steps in the investigation made by him which had enabled him to identify the appellants as the killers. This was not done. In this view of the matter, the judgments cited by Mr. Patwalia fully apply to the facts of the case. There is absolutely no evidence other than in the identification in court made by Naranjan Singh long after the incident. It is true that there is no inflexible rule that an identification made for the first time in Court has to be always ruled out of consideration; but the broad principle is that (sicif) in the background there is no other evidence against an accused on identification in Court made long after the event is clearly not acceptable. The judgment cited by Mr. Kuldip Singh of Malkhansingh's case is on the facts of that particular case, as a prosecutrix, who was the victim of a gang rape, had identified some of the accused for the first time in Court on which this Court opined that the identification was acceptable as a good piece of evidence.” 51. It is significant to note that as per the statement of PW-15, Sandeep Kumar, accused Bachan Singh made payment of Rs.40,000/- towards loan he raised from him in the month of December, 2002, on 2.2.2003. Therefore, when out of the total sale consideration of Rs.73,141/- a sum of Rs.40,000/- was paid by him to PW-15, Sandeep Kumar, sufficient amount was not left with him to pay to his co-accused also in case any such agreement qua commission of theft after murder of the deceased was there between them. 52. The evidence as has come on record by way of the statements of the remaining prosecution witnesses is formal in nature, hence, need not be discussed. 53. 52. The evidence as has come on record by way of the statements of the remaining prosecution witnesses is formal in nature, hence, need not be discussed. 53. It is, thus, seen from the re-appraisal of the evidence discussed hereinabove that incriminating circumstances pressed in service against the accused are not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The present being a case hinges upon circumstantial evidence neither the incriminating circumstances nor the facts are established on record nor are of conclusive nature and tendency and the chain of evidence is also not complete so as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. The present, rather, is a case where the chain of evidence is broken at each and every stage, hence, the present is not a case where it can be said that the incriminating circumstances pressed in service against the accused are so established that should be taken consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and not explain any other hypothesis except that the accused are guilty. 54. The present rather is a case of two views possible, i.e. one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to their innocence possible on re-appraisal of the evidence adduced. As per the settled legal principles, in the administration of justice in criminal cases, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted and by doing so grant him the benefit of doubt. We draw support in this behalf from the judgment of the Apex Court in KaliRamVersus tateofHimachalPradesh, (1973) 2 SCC 808 , which reads as follows (paras 25 -26):- “Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in cases wherein the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence Rule has accordingly been laid down that unless the evidence adduced in the case is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and is inconsistent with that of his innocence, the court should refrain from recording a finding of guilt of the accused. It is also an accepted rule that in case the court entertains reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused, the accused must have the benefit of that doubt. Of course, the doubt regarding the guilt of the accused should be reasonable: it is not the doubt of a mind which is either so vacillating that it is incapable of reaching a firm conclusion or so timid that it is hesitant and afraid to take things to their natural consequences. The rule regarding the benefit of doubt also does not warrant acquittal of the accused by resort to surmises, conjectures or fanciful considerations. As mentioned by us recently in the case of State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh, a criminal trial is not like a fairy tale wherein one is free to give flight to one's imagination and phantasy. It concerns itself with the question as to whether the accused arraigned at the trial is guilty of the offence with which he is charged. Crime is an event in real life and is the product of interplay of different human emotions. In arriving at the conclusion about the guilt of the accused charged with the commission of a crime, the court has to judge the evidence by the yardstick of probabilities, its intrinsic worth and the animus of witnesses. Every case in the final analysis would have to depend upon its own facts. Although the benefit of every reasonable doubt should be given to the accused, the courts should not at the same time reject evidence which is ex facie trustworthy on grounds which are fanciful or in the nature of conjectures. It needs all the same to be re-emphasised that if a reasonable doubt arises regarding the guilt of the accused, the benefit of that cannot be withheld from the accused. The courts would not be justified in withholding that benefit because the acquittal might have an impact upon the law and order situation or create adverse reaction in society or amongst those members of the society who believe the accused to be guilty. The guilt of the accused has to be adjudged not by the fact that a vast number of people believe him to be guilty but whether his guilt has been established by the evidence brought on record. The guilt of the accused has to be adjudged not by the fact that a vast number of people believe him to be guilty but whether his guilt has been established by the evidence brought on record. Indeed, the courts have hardly any other yardstick or material to adjudge the guilt of the person arraigned as accused. Reference is sometimes made to the clash of public interest and that of the individual accused. The conflict in this respect, in our opinion, is more apparent than real. 55. The upshot of the discussion hereinabove would, therefore, be that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. The findings to the contrary recorded by learned trial Court are neither legally nor factually sustainable and rather the result of mis-reading and mis-appreciation of the facts as well as evidence available on record. Resultantly these appeals succeed and the same are accordingly allowed. The accused are acquitted of the charge framed against them under Sections 302 and 380 read with Section 120B of Indian Penal Code. Fine amount if deposited be refunded to the appellants. They are in custody, hence, be set free forthwith if not required in any other case. The personal bonds furnished by the accused stand cancelled and surety bonds discharged.