JUDGMENT : Nisha Gupta, J. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 21.4.2004 rendered by the additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Sikar in Sessions Case No. 8 of 2004 whereby, the accused appellant has been convicted for offence under Sections 447 and 302 IPC and has been sentenced as under: For offence under Section 447 IPC: Rigorous Imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 and in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days. For offence under Section 302 IPC: Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 and in default thereof to undergo imprisonment for six months. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal in brief are that Bhanaram (PW1) submitted a written report (Ex.P1) at Police Station Laxmangarh, District Sikar on 21.8.2003 with the contention that he is resident of Dudwa Tehsil Laxmangarh. His younger brother Ramdeva Ram and his son Hoshiyar Singh used to sleep in the agriculture fields. In the night, some body murdered Ramdeva Ram and nephew Hoshiyar Singh. There are trails of motorcycle and 'chappal' (footwear). Ramos Ram received injuries on neck by an axe and) was murdered while he was asleep on the cot outside the thatched hut. On this written report (Ex.P1), first information report bearing FIR No. 178/2003 (Ex.P2) was registered at Police Station Laxmangarh, District Sikar for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC a 21.8.2003. After; completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet against appellant for offence under Sections 447 and 302 IPC and he was pin trial, which was entrusted to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Sikar. 3. After committal, the charges were frame against the accused-appellant for offence under Sections 447 and 302 IPC, which were read over to him but he denied charges and claimed trial. 4. To support the case, the prosecution examined 22 witnesses as PW 1 to P W22 and exhibit forty eight documents as ExP1 to Ex. P48 where as accused was examined under Section 313 CrPC and defence exhibited seven documents as Ex. D1 to Ex. D7 in the shape of statements of Bhanaram, Girdhari Singh, Smt. Ram Kauri, Smt. Sumitra Ramchandra, Parmesh Chandra and Lekh Ram recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 5. After conclusion of the trial, the accused convicted and sentenced for the aforesaid offence in the manner stated herein above. 6. D1 to Ex. D7 in the shape of statements of Bhanaram, Girdhari Singh, Smt. Ram Kauri, Smt. Sumitra Ramchandra, Parmesh Chandra and Lekh Ram recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 5. After conclusion of the trial, the accused convicted and sentenced for the aforesaid offence in the manner stated herein above. 6. Contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that he has been implicated falsely. The case rests on circumstantial evidence. He has been implicated falsely only on the basis of recovery of 'kulhadi' (axe), motorcycle and shirt. There is no evidence of any last seen. Extra judicial confession has also been designed and merely on (he basis of recovery of articles, appellant could not be convicted. Prints of tires of the motorcycle ate moulds of 'chappal' were taken from the placet occurrence but the evidentiary value of the same is very weak and conviction could not rest upon the same. Hence, he be acquitted. 7. Pet contra, the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor is that appellant was seen in the Agriculture fields, where the deceased were sleeping. He took the liquor from Girdhari, he was having enmity with the deceased and recovery also corroborates the case of the prosecution. No interference is needed. 8. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the impugned-judgment as well as the original cords of the case. 9. Bhanaram (PW1) lodged the written report (Ex.P1) and in the trial court also, he testified the fact that Ramdeva Ram and Hoshiyar Singh were found dead in their agriculture fields and Khetaram told him that he saw Surajbhan along with a peril in the fields in the night on a motorcycle. Surajbhan is son-in-law of the deceased Ramdeva Ram as daughter of Ramdeva Ram was married to Surajbhan. In cross-examination, he admits the fact that in Ex.P.1, there is no narration of the fact that Khetaram informed him that Surajbhan and one other person were roaming in the village. He also narrated the fact that in the night, Surajbhan went to have liquor from Lekh Ram and Girdhari but this fact is also not stated in the written report. 10. Khetaram (PW17) has not stated any fact that he saw Surajbhan or any other person on the motorcycle on the night of the incident. He only attested the inquest report and other documents relating to investigation. 10. Khetaram (PW17) has not stated any fact that he saw Surajbhan or any other person on the motorcycle on the night of the incident. He only attested the inquest report and other documents relating to investigation. In cross-examination, he stated that he saw two persons on motorcycle but in his police statement, this fact was not narrated. Hence, evidence of Khetaram cannot connect the appellant with the crime and otherwise also, if Surajbhan was found in the village, it can not caste any suspicion on him as he is related to the village and his presence there cannot be doubted and cannot be stretched to hold that he has committed the murder of his father-in-law and brother-in-law. 11. The other evidence, which has been brought record by the prosecution, is that Surajbhan took liquor from Lekh Ram (PW 15) and Girdhari Singh (PW8), who have stated that in the night at 2-2.20 p.m., Surajbhan came to his house and asked for liquor but he cannot state about the date of occurrence and he has improved his version from his earlier version Ex.D2. Lekh Ram (PW15) has stated that in the night at about 2-2.20 p.m., Surajbhan along with, other person came to his house and asked for liquor. In cross-examination, he also admits that earlier, Surajbhan never came to his house to have liquor and he is not involved in selling of the liquor. He has also improved his version from his earlier statement Ex.D7. Hence, both these two witnesses are not reliable witnesses and apart from it the incident is of 20-21.8.2003, whereas the statements of these two witnesses were recorded by the investigating officer on 13.9.2003. Delay is significant and caste shadow of doubt on the veracity of these two witnesses. The evidence of these two witnesses in no way connect the appellant with the crime. 12. The prosecution has also tried to bring on record the evidence of extra judicial confession Surpitra (PW10) wife of the appellant stated that Surajbhan confessed before her that he has killed her father and brother but admittedly, this fact has not been narrated by this witness in her previous statement. Ex D4 She further deposed that Surajbhan used to ill treat her. In examination-in-chief, she has not stated anything as regards to extra judicial confession. Ex D4 She further deposed that Surajbhan used to ill treat her. In examination-in-chief, she has not stated anything as regards to extra judicial confession. Hence, the extrajudicial confession seems to be designed one and the extrajudicial confession is a weak type of evidence and when the appellant was not having cordial relations with his wife, there was no reason for the appellant to confess his guilt before his wife. Hon'ble Apex Court in Chattar Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 2009 SC 378 , held in paras 17 and 18 thereof, as under:- "17. Confessions may be divided into two classes i.e. judicial and extra-judicial. Judicial confessions are those which are made before a Magistrate or a court in the course of judicial proceedings. Extra-judicial confessions are those which are made by the party elsewhere than before a Magistrate or court. Extra-judicial confessions are generally those that are made by a party to or before a private individual which includes even a judicial officer in his private capacity. It also includes a Magistrate who is not especially empowered to record confessions under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the 'Code') or a Magistrate so empowered but receiving the confession at a stage when Section 164 of the Code does not apply. As to extra-judicial confessions, two questions arise: (i) were they made voluntarily? and (ii) are they true? As the section enacts, a confession made by an accused person is irrelevant in criminal proceedings, if the making of the confession appears to the court to have been caused by any inducement, threat or promise, (1) having reference to the charge against the accused person, (2) proceeding from a person in authority, and (3) sufficient, in the opinion of the court to give the accused person grounds which would appear to him reasonable for supposing that by making it he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature in reference to the proceedings against him. It follows, that a confession would be voluntary If It is made by the accused on a fit state of mind, and if it is not caused by any inducement, threat or promise which has reference to the charge against him, proceeding from a person in authority. It follows, that a confession would be voluntary If It is made by the accused on a fit state of mind, and if it is not caused by any inducement, threat or promise which has reference to the charge against him, proceeding from a person in authority. It would not be involuntary, if the inducement, (a) does not have reference to the charge against the accused person; or (b) it does not proceed from a person in authority; or, (c) it is not, sufficient, in the opinion of the court to give the accused person grounds which would appear to him reasonable for supposing that, by making it, he would gain any advantage or, avoid any evil of a temporal nature in reference to the proceedings against him Whether or not the confession was voluntary would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case, judged in the light of Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short 'Evidence Act'). The law is clear that a confession cannot be used against an accused person unless the court is satisfied that it was voluntary and at that Stage the question whether it is true or false does not arise. If the facts and circumstances surrounding the 'making' of a confession appear to cast a doubt on the veracity or voluntariness of the confession, the court may refuse to act upon the confession, even if it is admissible in evidence. One important question, in regard to which the court has to be satisfied with is, whether when accused made the confession, he was a free man or his movements were controlled the police either by themselves or through some other agency employed by them for purpose of securing such a confession. The question whether a confession is voluntary or not is always a question of fact. All the factors and all the circumstances of the case, including the important factors of the time given for reflection, scope of the accused getting a feeling of threat, inducement or promise, must be considered before deciding whether the court is satisfied that in its opinion the impression caused by the inducement, threat or promise, if any, has been fully removed. A free and voluntary confession is deserving of the highest credit, because it is presumed to flow from the highest sense of guilt. A free and voluntary confession is deserving of the highest credit, because it is presumed to flow from the highest sense of guilt. (See R. v. Warickshall) It is not to be conceived that a man would be induced to make a free and voluntary confession of guilt, so contrary to the feeling and principles of human nature, if the facts confessed were not true. Deliberate and voluntary confessions of guilt, if clearly proved, are among the most effectual proofs in law. An involuntary confession is on which is not the result of the free will of the maker of it. So where the statement is made is a result of harassment and continuous interrogation for several hours after the person is treated as an offender and accused, such statement must be regarded as involuntary. The inducement may take the form of a promise or of a threat, and often the inducement involves both promise and treat, a promise of forgiveness if disclosure is made and threat of prosecution if it is not. (See Woodroffe's Evidence, 9th Edn., p. 284.) A promise is always attached to the confession alternative while a threat is always attached to the silence alternative; thus, in one case the prisoner is measuring the net advantage of the promise, minus the general undersirability of a false confession, as against the present unsatisfactory situation; while in the other case he is measuring the net advantages of the present satisfactory situation, minus the general undesirability of the confession against the threatened harm. It must be borne in mind that every inducement, threat or promise does not vitiate a confession. Since the object of the rule is to exclude only those confessions which are testimonials untrustworthy, the inducement, threat or promise must be such as is calculated to lead to an untrue confession. On the aforesaid analysis the court is to determine the absence or presence of an inducement, promise etc. or its sufficiency and how or in what measure it worked on the mind of the accused. If the inducement, promise or threat is sufficient in the opinion of the court, to give the accused person grounds which would appear to him reasonable for supposing that by making it he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil, it is enough to exclude the confession. If the inducement, promise or threat is sufficient in the opinion of the court, to give the accused person grounds which would appear to him reasonable for supposing that by making it he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil, it is enough to exclude the confession. The words "appear to him" in the last part of the section refer to the mentality of the accused. 18. An extra-judicial confession, if voluntary and true and made in a fit state of mind, can be relied upon by the court. The confession will have to be proved like any other fact. The value of the evidence as to confession, like any other evidence, depends upon the veracity of the witness to whom it has been made. The value of the evidence as to the confession depends on the reliability of the witness w ho gives the evidence. It is not open to any court to start with a presumption that extrajudicial confession is a weak type of evidence. It would depend on the nature of the circumstances, the time when the confession was made and the credibility of the witnesses who speak to such a confession. Such a confession can be relied upon and conviction can be founded thereon if the evidence about the confession comes from the mouth of witnesses who appear to be unbiased, not even remotely inimical to the accused, and in respect of whom nothing is brought out which may tend to indicate that he may have a motive of attributing an untruthful statement to the accused, the words spoken to by the witness are clear, unambiguous and unmistakably convey that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime and nothing is omitted by the witness which may militate against it. After subjecting the evidence of the witness to a rigorous test on the touch stone of credibility, the extra-judicial confession can be accepted and can be the basis of a conviction if it passes the test of credibility." Here in the present case confession to the wife with whom the appellant was not having cordial relations is doubtful and cannot be treated as creditable to base the conviction be treated as creditable to base the conviction. 13. 13. Ram Kauri (PW9) is wife of deceased-Ramdeva Ram and Ramchandra (PW 11) is son of the deceased-Ramdeva Ram, who testified the fact about the death of Ramdeva Ram and Hoshiyar Singh and stated that there was a trail of a motorcycle at the spot and the prosecution on has tried to implicate the appellant on the fact that he was roaming on motorcycle on the previous night and trails of motorcycle were found at the spot. 14. Parmesh Chandra (P W13) is owner of Bajaj Boxer Motorcycle No.RJ-23M2607 and he has stated that Jai Singh told him that Surajbhan took his motorcycle. Statement of Par-mesh Chandra (PW 13) is untrustworthy. He has not reported the missing of his motorcycle to the police. 15. Vijaypal (PW 12) Constable at the relevant time in the office of Superintendent of Police took the fire-prints of motorcycle and moulds of footwear from the scene of occurrence vide Ex.P7 and he also took the tire-prints from the motorcycle, which was recovered at the instance of the appellant and moulds of footwear (chappal) of the appellant on 8.9.2003 but no expert report was submitted for the same. Bhanaram (PW1) pointed out in his cross-examination that many persons visited the place of occurrence prior to him. Dead body was found from an open place, which was accessible to all hence, presence of trails of motorcycle tires or footwear cannot by any stretch of imagination connect the appellant with the crime. Counsel for the accused-appellants has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Aman & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 10 SCC 44 : 1997 (4) Supreme 635 , contending that since the science of identification of footprints is not too well developed, it is a weak sort of evidence for convicting the accused. Moreover, the identity of the culprit has to be established firstly, by other evidence before the footprints can be used for their identification. But here in the present case, admittedly, there is no evidence to connect the identity of the culprit and only on the evidence of trails of motorcycle tires and footwear that is also too shaky as observed earlier, the chain of circumstance is not complete, which could lead to the inescapable conclusion that only the appellant has committed the crime. This Court in D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1011/2012, Sunder & Ors. This Court in D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1011/2012, Sunder & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan decided on 27.1.2015 had an occasion to explain the procedure regarding lifting of the footprints, and while elaborating the provisions of Rule 6.26 of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965, the court has held, as under:- "6.26. Importance of footprints and track evidence-(1) Footprints are of the first importance in the investigation of crime. For this reason all officers in-charge of police stations shall instruct their subordinates as well as all chowkidars that, when any crime occurs all footprints and other marks existing on the scene of the crime should be carefully preserved and a watch set to see that as few persons as possible are permitted to visit the scene of the crime. (2) When it is desired to produce evidence of the identity of tracks found at the scene of or in connection with a crime, the procedure for securing the record of such evidence shall be similar to that prescribed in Rule 7.31 for the identification of suspects: The attendance of a Magistrate of the highest available status, shall be secured or, if that is impossible, independent witnesses of reliable character shall be summoned. In the presence of the magistrate or other witnesses, and in conformity with the reasonable directions which they may give, ground shall be prepared for the tests. On this ground the suspect or suspects, and not less than five other persons shall be required to walk. The magistrate, or in his absence the police officer conducting the test, shall record the names of all persons and the order in which they the test ground. While these preparation preceding the tracker or other witness, who is to be asked to identify the tracks shall prevent from approaching the place or seeing any of the persons concerned in the tests. When all preparations are complete the witness shall be called up and required to amine both the original tracks and those on the test ground, and thereafter to make his statement The Magistrate, or in his absence the police officer conducting the test shall record the statement of the witness as tot grounds of his claim to identify the tract and shall put such other questions as he may deem proper to test his bona fides. The officer investigating the case and his assistants shall be allowed no share in the conduct the test. Track found, which it is desired to test comparison as above, shall be protected:: mediately of discovery, and their nature measurements and peculiarities shall be recorded at the time in the case diary of a investigating officer. The details of the preparation of the test ground and the actions required of these suspect and those with whom his tracks are mixed must vary according to the circumstances stances of the case. The officer conducting the test in consultation with the Magistrate or independent witnesses, shall so arrange that the identifying witness may be given in a fair chance, but under the strictest safe guards, of comparing with the original trad other tracks made on similar ground and in similar conditions. (3) The evidence of a tracker or other expert described in the foregoing rule can be substantiated by the preparation of moulds of oh footprints of the criminal or criminals font at the scene of the crime. (4) The footprints found on scene of the crime must be pointed out to the reliable witness at the time and these same witnesses mu be present during the preparation of the moulds. (b) The latter must also be signed or marked by the witnesses and the officer preparing them while still setting. (c) After the procedure described in Sub-rule. (2) above has been completed a mould should be prepared in the presence of the Magistrate or witnesses of one of the foot prints of the suspect made in their presence. This mould should be signed by the Magistrate or witnesses when still setting. (d) Both moulds should be carefully preserved for production in court for identification by witnesses and comparison by the Court." Thus, Rule 6.26(3) requires that prior to taking the impression of the footprints and before making a mould, the footprints found on scene of the crime must be pointed out to the reliable witnesses. [However, in the present case, neither Prahlad Singh (PW22), nor Jagdish (PW13) states that the foot-prints of the alleged accused persons were pointed lout to them. According to Rule 6.26(3)(c), the [moulds of the footprints should be made either in [front of Magistrate, or in front of witnesses. The said moulds have to be signed either by the Magistrate, or the witnesses. According to Rule 6.26(3)(c), the [moulds of the footprints should be made either in [front of Magistrate, or in front of witnesses. The said moulds have to be signed either by the Magistrate, or the witnesses. According to Rule 16.26(3)(d), during the course of trial the mould [should be produced in the court for identification by the witnesses and comparison by the court. However, in the present case, the trails of motorcycle tires and moulds of footwear (chappal) were lifted from an open and accessible place and it is a very weak type of evidence and it is not safe to be relied upon. 16. The other evidence, which has been brought against the appellant, is that axe has been recovered at his instance. Balram Singh (PWI9), the investigating officer stated that the axe was recovered at the instance of the appellant. Choturam (PW5) is attesting witness. Balram Singh (PW 19) has also seized the shirt from the appellant but he admits in cross-examination that no blood was found on the shirt and no information under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 has been suffered by the appellant as regards to recovery of shirt. Recovery of shirt cannot connect the appellant with the crime Balram Singh (PW 19) also admits the fact that agriculturists used to keep the axe in their houses. Hence, recovery of axe is also of no significance. Furthermore, as per F.S.L. Report (Ex.P48), 'A' blood group was found on the clothes of both the deceased-Ramdeva Ram and Hoshiyar Singh as well as on the axe and shirt. No specific blood group of the deceased or the appellant has been brought on record by the prosecution hence, F.S.L. report remained inconclusive to connect the appellant with the crime. 17. Balram Singh (PW 19) also admits the fact that Jai Singh was also with the appellant since evening and he tried to interrogate Jai Singh but as he was deaf & dumb, he could not record his statement. it can be noted that Jai Singh was material witness in the matter but prosecution withheld his evidence and he was not even interrogated during investigation. 18. it can be noted that Jai Singh was material witness in the matter but prosecution withheld his evidence and he was not even interrogated during investigation. 18. The prosecution has tried to implicate the appellant relying on the fact that he was roaming in the village on the motorcycle and trails of motorcycle were found at the scene of occurrence but Girdhari Singh (PW8) and Lekh Ram (PW 15) did not point out number of the motorcycle on which appellant came to their house. Khetaram (PW 17) has also not pointed out the number of the motorcycle and the motorcycle, which was seized vide Ex P11 is admittedly not of the appellant and Parmesh Chandra (PW13) created an unnatural story that appellant-Surajbhan, who was not even known to him accompanied by Jai Singh, took his motorcycle but he did not report the matter to the police hence, the whole prosecution story seems to be doubtful. Appellant was arrested on 2.9.2003, whereas the incident was of 20-21.8.2003 and the recoveries were made after a considerable delay. 'Kulhadi' was recovered on 5.9.2003, motorcycle was recovered on 7.9.2003 and shirt, which the appellant was wearing even at the time of arrest, was seized on 7.9.2003 and as the F.S.L. report provides no link evidence, recovery of these three articles cannot connect the appellant with the crime. 19. Dr. Nareshwar (PW 18) conducted the autopsy on the dead-bodies of deceased-Hoshiyar Singh and Ramdeva Ram. As per post-mortem report (Ex.P26), following injuries were found on the dead-body of Hoshiyar Singh: "1. Lacerated wound 5x23/4cm over left temporal region. Underlying fractured skull is visible at the base of wound. Clotted blood is present over the surrounding skin. 2. Lacerated wounds over the posterior surface of left Pinna measuring 5mm x 2mm & 8 mm x 3 mm. Lower wound is through & through and is opening at opening of left ear posteriorly. 3. Deformity of lower jaw due to Fracture of mandible 4. Multiple Abrasions over the lower part of scalp & upper part of neck on left side behind left ear. 5. Abrasion 5 cm x 314 cm over the superior surface of right shoulder. 6. Bleeding from both nostrils & right ear. The cause of death is opined to be Head Injury and mode of death is Neurogenic Shock. Multiple Abrasions over the lower part of scalp & upper part of neck on left side behind left ear. 5. Abrasion 5 cm x 314 cm over the superior surface of right shoulder. 6. Bleeding from both nostrils & right ear. The cause of death is opined to be Head Injury and mode of death is Neurogenic Shock. As per post-mortem report (Ex.P27), following injuries were found on the dead-body of Ramdeva Ram: "1. Incised wound 7 x 1½ cm over left temporal region. The wound is showing cut scalp margin following skull & brain from outside inwards. 2. Incised wound 6 x 2½ cm over left side temporal region & extending posteriorly to occipital region. It is bone deep. 3. Lose of upper part of Left Pinna of ear. The margins of the cutedge are smooth, regular & shows skin, cartilages & skin. 4. Incised wound over the left side of neck measuring 4 x 1½ cm, base of the wound shows partially cut thyroid cartilages. The cause of death is opined to be injury to brain & bleeding from injuries and mode of death is Hemorrhagic shock." Dr. Nareshwar (PW18) has also medically examined Jai Singh, who also suffered injuries but as considered earlier, Jai Singh has been withheld by the prosecution and the investigating officer has not even tried to record his evidence hence material witness has been withheld by the prosecution and as such, benefit goes to the accused-appellant. 20. The case rests on circumstantial evidence 25-26, August, 2015 and it is the settled proposition of law that in case of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution mu establish a cogent and reliable evidence" told hypothesis accepting guilt of the accused. In other words, the circumstances must be incriminating character and all circumstances must provide complete chain and no link of which should be missing. A critical and holistic analysis of the evidence thus clearly reveals that the prosecution has failed to travel the distance between "may beta and "must be true". Although the prosecution produced certain evidence, but there are too mat pieces of the jigsaw puzzle, which are conspicuous missing. The evidence is neither cogent evidence convincing for upholding the conviction oft appellant for the alleged crime. Although the prosecution produced certain evidence, but there are too mat pieces of the jigsaw puzzle, which are conspicuous missing. The evidence is neither cogent evidence convincing for upholding the conviction oft appellant for the alleged crime. Our view has bet fortified by judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sampath Kumar v. Inspector of Police Krishanagiri, (2012) 4 SCC 124 wherein the Apex Court has he that motive alone in the absence of any other circumstantial evidence would not be sufficient to convict the appellant. On the materials on record, there may be some suspicion against the accuse but as is often said, suspicion, howsoever, strong cannot take the place of proof. 21. The chain of circumstances cannot lead to a conclusion of guilt and even circumstances hat: not been fully established in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Our view has been fortified by judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of M.P., AIR 1952 SC 343 and further by another judgment recent passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Vasanta Sampat Dupare v. State of Maharashtra, (2015) 1 SCC 253 wherein Their Lordships haver reiterated the principles governing the appreciation of evidence in a case based on circumstantial evidence and held, as under: "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 in the first instance be fully established, and all the fact so established should be consistent only wit 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. 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." 22. Hence, in the totality of the circumstances, we are not persuaded to uphold the conviction of the accused appellant, which is founded entirety on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution has utterly failed to prove complete chain of circumstances. Hence, in the totality of the circumstances, we are not persuaded to uphold the conviction of the accused appellant, which is founded entirety on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution has utterly failed to prove complete chain of circumstances. The chain of circumstances against the accused appellant has got several missing links. Neither individual circumstances are established against the accused appellant beyond any reasonable doubt nor do they form a chain of circumstances so complete, as to rule out every reasonable hypothesis that may be compatible with his innocence. The circumstances do not conclusively prove that it was only the accused-appellant, who could have committed the murder of deceased and cone-else. The individual act independently or collectively, which has been brought on record against the appellant, is not sufficient to connect him with the alleged crime and hence, it would not be safe to record his conviction. Therefore, we grant the benefit of doubt to the appellant. 23. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned-judgment dated 21.4.2004 rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Sikar in Sessions Case No.8/2004 is set-aside. The accused-appellant Soorajmal @ Suryabhan S/o Ganesha ton is acquitted of the charge for offence u/Sections 447 and 302 IPC. He be released forthwith, if in custody and not required in any other case. However, in case, he is on bail, he need not surrender and his bail bonds shall be discharged subject to compliance of Section 437A Cr.P.C. The records be sent back to the trial Court forthwith and court forthwith. Keeping in view, however, the provisions of Section 437A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the accused appellant is directed to forth with furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000 131 (Rupees Twenty Thousand) and a surety bond of the like amount, before the trial court, which shall be effective for a period of six months to the effect that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against this judgment or on grant of leave, the said appellant, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before Hon'ble the Supreme Court.