JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, J. Assailing the judgment dated 28.9.2007, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Kullu, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 4 of 2007, titled as State of H.P. vs. Virender Kumar, whereby respondent-accused stands acquitted, State has filed the present appeal under the provisions of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. It is the case of prosecution that on 1.7.2006 deceased Lachhi Devi wife of Sh. Debu Ram (not examined) after meeting Sh. Gulab Dass (PW-1) in his house, at about 9.30 p.m. left for the house of accused Virender. Next day dead body of deceased Lachhi Devi was found hanging from a tree with a dupatta. Sh. Ramesh Kumar informed Sh. Sher Singh (PW-2) and Sh. Sukh Lal (PW-3), Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, amongst others, arrived at the spot. Matter was reported to the police and SI-Joginder Singh (PW-17) arrived at the spot. PW-2 got his statement (Ext. PA) recorded with the police on the basis of which F.I.R. No. 299 of 2006 (Ext. PG), dated 2.7.2006 was registered against the accused under the provisions of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station, Kullu. SI-Joginder Singh (PW-17) conducted investigation on the spot and recovered salwar (Ext.P1),underwear (Ext. P-2), broken pieces of bangles (Ext. P3),chappal (Ext. P4), bindi (Ext. P5) and one ear ring (Ext. P6) from the spot. They were sealed and recovery memo (Ext.PB) prepared. Sh. Ram Lal, son of the deceased identified the articles to be that of his mother. Inquest report (Ext. PN) was prepared by the police officer who also sent the dead body for post mortem to the Zonal Hospital Kullu, which was conducted by Dr. Rajesh Thakur (PW-15) and Dr. Prabha Lal (PW-16). Post mortem report (Ext. PJ) along with opinion of the Doctors (Ext. PK) was taken on record. On suspicion, house of the accused was searched on 4.7.2006, from where, in the presence of Sh. Sukh Lal (PW-3), incriminating articles i.e. nose pin (Ext. P-8) and broken pieces of bangles (Ext. P-9) were got recovered, pursuant to disclosure statement (Ext. PC) made by him in the presence of PW-3 and Sh. Ramesh. These articles were seized by the police vide memo (Ext. PD). Police suspected accused to have murdered the deceased after forcibly committing sexual intercourse with her and as such he was also got medically examined through Dr. P-9) were got recovered, pursuant to disclosure statement (Ext. PC) made by him in the presence of PW-3 and Sh. Ramesh. These articles were seized by the police vide memo (Ext. PD). Police suspected accused to have murdered the deceased after forcibly committing sexual intercourse with her and as such he was also got medically examined through Dr. Palzore (PW-8) who issued MLC (Ext.PF). Seized parcels were sent for chemical analysis to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga, through constable Pradeep Kumar (PW-10) and report of the chemical examiner (Ext. PQ) obtained. Investigation revealed complicity of the accused in the crime, more particularly on the facts disclosed by Smt. Babli Devi (PW-4), daughter of the deceased, according to whom, accused had demanded money from her and on refusal, had told her that he could kill anyone for money. With the completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court for trial. 3. Accused was charged for having committed offences punishable under the provisions of Sections 302 and 376 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove its case, in all, prosecution examined seventeen witnesses and statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr. P.C. was also recorded, in which he took up a defence that deceased was last seen in the company of her husband Sh. Debu Ram. Accused, a married man, having children, stands falsely implicated in the case. No evidence in defence was led by the accused. 5. Appreciating the testimonies of prosecution witness, trial Court acquitted the accused of the charged offences. Hence, the present appeal. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record, we are of the considered view that in the instant case no ground for interference is made out. The Court below appreciated the testimonies of prosecution witnesses as also other material placed on record in its entirety and has correctly returned findings of acquittal. 7. Fact that Smt. Lachhi Devi died stands established on record through the testimony of Dr. Rajesh Thakur (PW-15) and Dr. Prabha Lal (PW-16) who conducted autopsy of the dead body and submitted report (Ext. PJ). Identity of the deceased is not in dispute. Deceased died due to asphyxia (suffocation). 8. 7. Fact that Smt. Lachhi Devi died stands established on record through the testimony of Dr. Rajesh Thakur (PW-15) and Dr. Prabha Lal (PW-16) who conducted autopsy of the dead body and submitted report (Ext. PJ). Identity of the deceased is not in dispute. Deceased died due to asphyxia (suffocation). 8. It has come on record that dead body of the deceased was found hanging from the tree with a dupatta. At that time deceased was half naked. 9. Admittedly there is no eye-witness to the alleged incident in relation to which accused stands charged. Prosecution case primarily rests upon circumstantial evidence. The law on circumstantial evidence is well settled. To base a conviction on circumstantial evidence, prosecution must establish all the pieces of incriminating circumstances by reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances so proved must form such a chain of events, as would permit no conclusion other than one of guilt of the accused. Suspicion, however, grave, cannot be a substitute for a proof and courts should take utmost precaution in finding an accused guilty only on the basis of the circumstantial evidence. [Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy v. State of A.P., (2006) 10 SCC 172 ]. 10. The normal principle in a case based on circumstantial evidence is that circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; that those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; that circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability, crime was committed by the accused and they should be incapable of explanation on any hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the accused, inconsistent with their innocence. [Trimukh Maroti Kiran versus State of Maharashtra, (2006) 10 SCC 681 ] 11. Also it is a settled proposition of law that when there is no direct evidence of crime, guilt of the accused can be proved by circumstantial evidence, but then the circumstances from which conclusion of guilt is to be drawn, should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature, to fully connect the accused with crime. Also it is a settled proposition of law that when there is no direct evidence of crime, guilt of the accused can be proved by circumstantial evidence, but then the circumstances from which conclusion of guilt is to be drawn, should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature, to fully connect the accused with crime. All the links in the chain of circumstances, must be established beyond reasonable doubt, and the proved circumstances should be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused, being totally inconsistent with his innocence. While appreciating the circumstantial evidence, Court must adopt a very cautious approach and great caution must be taken to evaluate the circumstantial evidence. [See: Pudhu Raja and another Versus State Represented by Inspector of Police, (2012) 11 SCC 196 ; Madhu Versus State of Kerala, (2012) 2 SCC 399 ; Dilip Singh Moti Singh versus State of Gujarat, (2010) 15 SCC 622, Mulakh Raj and others Versus Satish Kumar and others, (1992) 3 SCC 43 ; and Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Versus State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 .] 12. The first circumstance, on which prosecution heavily relies upon is the deceased having left the house of Sh. Gulab Dass (PW-1) to meet the accused on the fateful day. When we examine the testimony of PW-1, we find this circumstance not to have been proved and established at all. All that PW-1 states is that deceased, who was under the influence of liquor had wanted to go to the house of Titu @ Virender. Now significantly witness admits not to have known the accused as Virender @ Titu. He also admits that deceased had not disclosed to him that Titu was also known as Virender. That accused is also known as Titu is not proved on record. He admits that at that time when she left his house, deceased was under the influence of liquor. Crucially, this witness admits that house of the deceased was at a distance of 1 k.m. from his house. Deceased used to reside with her husband and two sons. Now he does not disclose the reason as to why deceased had come to his house alone on 1.7.2006 at 9.30 p.m. It is not that he was a close relative. Significantly Smt. Lachhi Devi had also not disclosed parentage of Titu to him. Deceased used to reside with her husband and two sons. Now he does not disclose the reason as to why deceased had come to his house alone on 1.7.2006 at 9.30 p.m. It is not that he was a close relative. Significantly Smt. Lachhi Devi had also not disclosed parentage of Titu to him. As such, identity of this person Titu @ Virender cannot be said to have been established on record by the prosecution. It cannot be said that Titu @ Virender was the accused. 13. Sh. Sher Singh (PW-2), brother of the deceased, only states that when he learnt about the death of his sister, he visited the spot and got the matter reported to the police who recorded his statement (Ext. PA). This witness does not depose anything with regard to complicity of the accused in the alleged crime. 14. Smt. Babli Devi (PW-4) is the daughter of deceased. She adds that on 1.7.2006, accused had come to her house and inquired about the deceased. She informed the accused that deceased had gone to Kullu. Accused asked her to pay Rs.20/- as payment for clothes which he had stitched. On her refusal, accused told her that he knows how to extract money as he had thrown many persons from the dhank (cliff). Thereafter accused left her house. Now significantly this witness does not state that accused had threatened to kill the deceased. Her version that accused had demanded money, in our considered view is an improvement of her statement, which fact was not disclosed by her to the police during the course of investigation nor did police record the same in her statement. We do not find her testimony with regard to alleged threats to be inspiring confidence at all. That apart, she only suspects that her mother had been subjected to rape and thereafter killed by pressing her neck with a dupatta. She specifically does not attribute such act to the accused. Suspicion, howsoever strong, cannot be a ground to implicate a man in a serious crime. 15. But what completely knocks down the prosecution case is the testimony of Sh. Rattan Singh (PW-5) according to whom both, deceased and her husband had taken liquor with him in his house. They together left his house at about 9.30 p.m. (1.7.2006). Suspicion, howsoever strong, cannot be a ground to implicate a man in a serious crime. 15. But what completely knocks down the prosecution case is the testimony of Sh. Rattan Singh (PW-5) according to whom both, deceased and her husband had taken liquor with him in his house. They together left his house at about 9.30 p.m. (1.7.2006). Hence testimony of PW-1, to the effect that deceased was with him at 9.30 p.m. stands materially contradicted and belied by this witness. 16. What is crucial is that husband of deceased was not examined in Court. No plausible explanation is forthcoming in that regard. It was for him to have explained under what circumstances his wife left him and what he did to find her. On the story of last seen circumstance he was himself a suspect. 17. Prosecution heavily relies upon the alleged disclosure statement (Ext. PC) made by the accused to the Investigating Officer (PW-17) in the presence of witness Sh. Sukh Lal (PW-3). The same was made on 4.7.2006 at police station Kullu. Now this fact stands contradicted by PW-3, according to whom, police recorded his statement not in the police station but at place known as Jia. We find that as per disclosure statement, accused had concealed the broken bangles and the nose pin of the deceased in his kitchen, which fact is not so deposed by PW-3 in Court. Careful perusal of testimony of PW-3 and the Investigating Officer (PW-17) only reveals, discrepancies and variation, in the nature and the manner of disclosure statement. Further according to PW-3 both he and witness Ramesh had visited the police station on the asking of the police, which version belies the version of PW-17, according to whom, witness had visited the police station in connection with their own work. This fact may not be relevant but gains significance in the backdrop of admission made by PW-3 to the effect that police interrogated the accused on 3.7.2006, whereas, according to PW-17 it was so done on 4.7.2006. It appears that accused, on mere suspicion, and that too without any basis, was kept under illegal detention. The factum of disclosure statement not having been proved, only renders the prosecution case, with regard to recovery of broken pieces of bangles and nose pin vide memo (Ext. PD), to be doubtful. Also articles recovered were identified by Sh. It appears that accused, on mere suspicion, and that too without any basis, was kept under illegal detention. The factum of disclosure statement not having been proved, only renders the prosecution case, with regard to recovery of broken pieces of bangles and nose pin vide memo (Ext. PD), to be doubtful. Also articles recovered were identified by Sh. Pune Ram, son of the deceased, who has not been examined in Court. There is no other evidence to link the articles so recovered. Testimony of PW-17 with regard to recovery does not inspire confidence at all in view of discrepancies and contradictions which are significant and material with regard to the alleged disclosure statement. 18. It is urged that accused was found missing from his house. This fact alone cannot be a circumstance to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Though we find that Investigating Officer (PW-17) admits it to be correct that it had come in his investigation that accused was in the house of Sh. Vinod Kumar at the time of occurrence of the incident. Hence it cannot be said that accused had absconded after committing the alleged crime. 19. Also there is no corroborative evidence in the shape of finger prints or report of FSL to establish involvement of the accused with the crime. There is nothing on record to establish that accused after forcibly committing sexual assault murdered the deceased. 20. Having perused the testimony of prosecution witnesses on record, it cannot be said that prosecution has been able to prove its case, beyond reasonable doubt, by leading clear, cogent, convincing and reliable material on record. It cannot be said that the findings returned by the court below are not borne out from record, perverse, illegal, erroneous or arisen out of incomplete appreciation of the prosecution evidence. There are improvements, which are major, embellishments and contradictions, rendering the testimonies of these witnesses to be shaky and unbelievable. 21. The accused has had the advantage of having been acquitted by the Court below. There are improvements, which are major, embellishments and contradictions, rendering the testimonies of these witnesses to be shaky and unbelievable. 21. The accused has had the advantage of having been acquitted by the Court below. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Mohammed Ankoos and others versus Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, (2010) 1 SCC 94 , since it cannot be said that the trial Court has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record or that acquittal of the accused has resulted into travesty of justice, no interference is warranted in the instant case. 22. For all the aforesaid reasons, present appeal, devoid of merit, is dismissed, so also pending applications, if any. Bail bonds furnished by the accused are discharged. Records of the Court below be immediately sent back.