ORDER Mohammad Rafiq, J. 1. This appeal is directed against judgment dated 27.02.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Kotputli, District Jaipur, in Sessions Case No.21/2007 (24/2006), whereunder accused-appellant Naresh @ Tekchand @ Sumit, has been convicted for offence under Sections 364A, 302 and 201 IPC. For offence under Section 201 IPC, he has been sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months imprisonment. For offence under Section 364A IPC, he has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.4000/-; in default whereof, to further undergo two months imprisonment. For offence under Section 302 IPC, he has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5000/-; in default whereof, to further undergo two months imprisonment. All the aforesaid substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that a written report (Exhibit P-44) was submitted by one Hari Prasad Arora (PW-38) to Jhabbu Ram (PW-42), Station House Officer, Police Station Kotputli, at about 11.30 PM on 19.05.2005 stating therein that his son Deepak had left his shop on that day at about 10.00 AM without any information. His wife Smt. Shanti (PW-3) received a telephonic call on phone from an unknown person, who enquired from her about the informant (Hari Prasad Arora). She told that informant was not in house, the unknown person stated that he would again call later. Thereafter, another phone call was received at about 3.00 PM. This time, the caller told Smt. Shanti (PW-3) that if she wanted to save life of her son Deepak, the informant should deliver Rupees one lac at Jaipur Railway Station. Smt. Shanti (PW-3) asked him to give phone to Deepak, but he disconnected the phone. After two hours again phone call was received and the caller demanded the ransom. After receipt of aforesaid call, a written report was submitted to the police. The police on that basis, registered FIR No.309/2005 (Exhibit P 45) and investigation commenced. On completion of investigation, the police submitted negative final report. 3. Later on, the investigation was again started. Accused-appellant was arrested on 18.06.2006 vide memo Exhibit P-9 by Mohan Singh (PW-31), the investigating officer. The police on that basis, registered FIR No.309/2005 (Exhibit P 45) and investigation commenced. On completion of investigation, the police submitted negative final report. 3. Later on, the investigation was again started. Accused-appellant was arrested on 18.06.2006 vide memo Exhibit P-9 by Mohan Singh (PW-31), the investigating officer. The accused-appellant gave information on 27.06.2006 (Exhibit P-41) to the effect that on 19.05.2005 he caused murder of Deepak in a room of Ram Bhawan, Kotputli, and kept the dead body in a box and put lock on it and that he took the box to Jaipur in a bus, where he put the same in a train (Bareilly-Bhuj express) going to Bhuj (Gujarat). During investigation, site-plan (Exhibit P-1) was prepared and the box, which was seized in presence of Heeralal (PW-19) and Bhajanlal (PW-21), was identified by Ram Kumar (PW-2) in presence of Tehsildar Surendra Singh (PW-29) and memo (Exhibit P-2) in this respect was prepared. The police, after completion of investigation, submitted challan against accused-appellant for offences under Sections 302, 201 and 364A of the IPC in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kotputli, District Jaipur, from where it was committed to the Court of Sessions and thereafter the case was transferred to the court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Kotputli, District Jaipur, for trial. Learned trial court framed charges for offence under Sections 302, 201 and 364A of the IPC. Accused- appellant denied the charges and claimed to be tried. The prosecution, in support of its case, got 42 witnesses examined and exhibited documents from Exhibit P-1 to Exhibit P-48A. Learned trial court, vide judgment dated 27.02.2008, convicted and sentenced the accused appellant, as indicated above, by placing reliance on circumstantial circumstances. Aggrieved thereby, accused-appellant has filed this appeal. 4. Shri Rajesh Kala, learned counsel for accused-appellant, argued that learned trial court, while recording finding of conviction against accused-appellant, has relied on statements of prosecution witnesses, namely, Devendra (PW-4), Yunus Mohammad (PW 5), Puranmal (PW-6), Ami Chand (PW-8), Mahesh Pareek (PW-9), Vishwabandhu Sharma (PW-10) and Manish Sharma (PW-35). He argued that there is no direct evidence against accused-appellant. Entire prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. Learned trial court has heavily relied on statements of Ami Chand (PW-8) and Vishwabandhu Sharma (PW-10). Both these witnesses are planted witnesses. He argued that there is no direct evidence against accused-appellant. Entire prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. Learned trial court has heavily relied on statements of Ami Chand (PW-8) and Vishwabandhu Sharma (PW-10). Both these witnesses are planted witnesses. Ami Chand (PW-8), who claims to be a rickshaw puller in Kotputli, stated that one boy came to him and asked to drop him in Ram Bhawan. He (Ami Chand) brought that box to the bus-stand in his rickshaw. Ami Chand (PW-8) claims to have identified accused-appellant in the court as that boy. In cross- examination, however, he admitted that he for the first time saw the accused in the court. This witness is highly unnatural. This is fortified from the fact that his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Exhibit D-6) was recorded by the police after 14 months of the incident. Learned counsel argued that his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Exhibit D-6) clearly shows that the Investigating Officer with a view to fill up the lacunae, planted him as a witness. Ami Chand (PW-8) stated that he himself came forward to record his statement after 14-15 months of the alleged incident. This would be highly unnatural for a person, who pulls rickshaw. The manner in which Ami Chand (PW-8) has given the location and internal plan of Dharamshala clearly shows that he was not only planted but also a tuited witness. Ami Chand (PW-8) has stated that he himself appeared before the police whereas in cross- examination he stated that he was called at the police station by the police to record his statement. In cross-examination, he further stated that he for the first time saw the accused-appellant in police station. Learned counsel argued that this statement of Ami Chand (PW-8) was false because the accused-appellant was arrested on 16.06.2005 and was sent in judicial custody on 01.07.2005, whereas, the statement of Ami Chand (PW 8) was for the first time recorded on 05.08.2006 when the accused-appellant was in judicial custody and there was every occasion for him to see the appellant at the police station. In cross-examination, Ami Chand (PW-8) has further stated that his marriage took place about five years back, but he was unable to remember the exact date of his marriage. Ami Chand (PW-8), in cross- examination, further stated that he did not know Hari Prasad Punjabi (PW-38). In cross-examination, Ami Chand (PW-8) has further stated that his marriage took place about five years back, but he was unable to remember the exact date of his marriage. Ami Chand (PW-8), in cross- examination, further stated that he did not know Hari Prasad Punjabi (PW-38). However, when Ami Chand was called for re-examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he was shown his photographs (Exhibit D-9 to Exhibit D-15) of working in the shop of Hari Prasad (PW-38) as his servant and then he admitted that he was seen in those photographs. Learned counsel argued that Ami Chand (PW 8) in fact was working on the shop of Hari Prasad Punjabi (PW-38) and thus he was a made up witness and cannot be relied. 5. Shri Rajesh Kala, learned counsel submitted that Vishwabandhu Sharma (PW-10), another witness relied on by learned trial court, stated that he had seen many boys with the deceased, among which there was also the accused-appellant, which fact he told to Yunus. He also identified accused-appellant for the first time in court and his identification by this witness was not conducted by the police in the jail. In absence of previous identification parade, it is wholly unsafe to rely on his testimony regarding identification of accused for the first time in court. Statement of Vishwabandhu Sharma (PW-10) was also recorded by the police after about 15 months of the incident, which is fatal and vitiates the prosecution case. Even if statement of Vishwabandhu Sharma (PW-10) to the extent of seeing Deepak at about 10-11 AM at 'Rewari-Wali-Dukan' along-with one boy is accepted, the same cannot be relied as evidence of last seen and learned trial court has erred in relying thereon to base his conviction under Section 364A IPC. 6. Learned counsel argued that as per prosecution case, the deceased was kidnapped from the shop of Hari Prasad Punjabi (PW-38) and thereafter he was taken to Shri Ram Bhawan Dharamshala, Kotputli in its Room No.24 by accused, where Deepak was murdered. In this regard, Mahesh Pareek (PW-9), the Manager of Sri Ram Bhawan Dharamshala, was examined. In examination in chief, he did not state that Deepak came to the said Dharamshala. He was declared hostile. In cross-examination, he admitted that whatever he has stated was told to him by the police. He admitted that he did not see the accused-appellant either coming to Dharamshala or going out. In examination in chief, he did not state that Deepak came to the said Dharamshala. He was declared hostile. In cross-examination, he admitted that whatever he has stated was told to him by the police. He admitted that he did not see the accused-appellant either coming to Dharamshala or going out. As per prosecution case, the appellant stayed in the said Dharamshala by the name of Vijay Kumar S/o Shri Mahavir Prasad, by Caste Sain, resident of R/o 108, Sultanpuri Mod, Nagloi, Delhi, but no enquiry in relation to the said name and address was made from the Municipal Corporation, Delhi, and no evidence whatsoever was collected in this regard. The prosecution has failed to establish its case in relation to taking the room in the said Dharamshala on rent by accused-appellant, and his stay or leaving the Dharamshala with alleged box. It is argued that as per prosecution case, the accused stayed in Dharamshala by fake name of Vijay Kumar and to establish the same, the prosecution has produced documents Exhibit 5A and Exhibit 43A, which were got exhibited by Mahesh Pareek (PW-9), Hotel Manager, Ram Bhawan Dharamshala, Kotputli, and Manish Sharma (PW-35), Hotel Manager, Kastoori Dharamshala, Near Railway Station, Jaipur, but both the witnesses failed to prove the prosecution case, because normally as per norms/practice the identity proof of the visitors are taken, but no such identity proof was taken from the accused and such statement were not believable. Besides, no test identification parade was conducted from both these witnesses to identify the accused-appellant. 7. It is argued that learned trial court, at page 41 of impugned judgment, has categorically observed that investigation was not conducted properly by the police, yet without giving any cogent reason, it proceeded to convict the accused-appellant on the basis of surmises and conjectures. On alleged information of accused, recovery of certain goods and articles (Exhibit P-32) was made by Mohan Singh (PW-31) in presence of Shankar Lal (PW-20) and Ami Chand (PW-27). Both these witnesses were police officials and no independent witness was associated, though were available, while conducting recovery. Moreover, Shankar Lal (PW-20), in examination in chief, has said nothing about the recovery. The accused allegedly purchased the empty steel trunk from shop of Ram Kumar (PW-2) and the same was got identified by him, but he has been declared hostile. Both these witnesses were police officials and no independent witness was associated, though were available, while conducting recovery. Moreover, Shankar Lal (PW-20), in examination in chief, has said nothing about the recovery. The accused allegedly purchased the empty steel trunk from shop of Ram Kumar (PW-2) and the same was got identified by him, but he has been declared hostile. The prosecution has thus failed to prove its case in relation to purchase of steel trunk from his shop. 8. It is argued that statement of complainant Hari Prasad (PW-38) is improbable and highly exaggerated. Learned trial court itself on page 43 of the judgment, observed that there is exaggeration in statement of complainant Hari Prasad (PW-38), but still it has placed reliance on his testimony. No telephone call details were produced, in the absence of which the accused-appellant could not be connected with alleged commission of crime. Hari Prasad (PW-38), in examination in chief, has stated that he lastly saw Deepak accompanying the accused-appellant Naresh, whereas this important fact was not at all mentioned by him in the first information report, which clearly shows that he has improved upon his version in the examination in chief. It is highly improbable and unbelievable that accused-appellant, who was 21 years of age, first kidnapped the deceased and thereafter, caused murder of deceased for the purpose of ransom in the manner as alleged by the prosecution. From the evidence led by the prosecution, it cannot reasonably be inferred or presumed that it was the accused- appellant alone and none else, who had committed murder of deceased. The circumstances relied by the prosecution are weak and they do not at all connect the accused-appellant with alleged crime. Bannalal, Head Constable, was deputed at the residence of complainant Hari Prasad (PW-38) to hear the telephone calls, but he has not been produced by the prosecution. Further, no call details were produced and thus there is no evidence whatsoever to prove the demand of ransom by the accused-appellant. 9. Bannalal, Head Constable, was deputed at the residence of complainant Hari Prasad (PW-38) to hear the telephone calls, but he has not been produced by the prosecution. Further, no call details were produced and thus there is no evidence whatsoever to prove the demand of ransom by the accused-appellant. 9. As per prosecution case, the identification of deceased was made by Hari Prasad (PW-38) only on the basis of last wearing clothes (Exhibit P-31), which is not sufficient to prove the fact of death of Deepak, whereas in the FIR Hari Prasad (PW-38) has not at all disclosed the particulars about the age, height, colour of the deceased and so also the clothes lastly worn by deceased Deepak. 10. Shanti (PW-3), mother of deceased, stated that height of the deceased was equal to the accused- appellant. As per the arrest-memo, the height of accused-appellant is 5'4”, wheres the body recovered by the Gujarat Police is 5'8”, which is evident from the evidence of Dr. Banshidhar Ganpat Lal Gupta (PW-32). Therefore, the presumption that the dead body in question belonged to Deepak, is wholly unfounded. Dr. Banshidhar Ganpat Lal Gupta (PW-32), who conducted the postmortem of dead body, the age of dead-body was 30 years and the colour of hair of the dead-body was shown as 'white', whereas, as per prosecution case, the age of Deepak was only 20 years, therefore, the dead body so recovered, cannot be taken as dead body of Deepak. Shanti (PW-3), in cross-examination, stated that Deepak was wearing 'white chhoti saran kurta', whereas, as per Exhibit P-31, the identification of dead body was made on the basis of recovery of shirt, hence dead body was wrongly identified as that of Deepak on the basis of his clothes. 11. The steel trunk was allegedly put by Ami Chand (PW-8) in the bus at Kotputli coming to Jaipur and thereafter the accused-appellant reached Jaipur Railway Station and put the said steel trunk in the train, which was coming from Bareilly and going to Bhuj (Gujarat) on 19.05.2005. There was no such evidence on record for appellant's coming to Jaipur and putting the alleged steel box in the train. Several circumstances in the entire chain of events are missing. As per prosecution, the alleged box was heavy and it was not possible for the accused-appellant alone to carry such heavy box. There was no such evidence on record for appellant's coming to Jaipur and putting the alleged steel box in the train. Several circumstances in the entire chain of events are missing. As per prosecution, the alleged box was heavy and it was not possible for the accused-appellant alone to carry such heavy box. The trial court itself in its judgment has raised serious doubts about the reliability and credibility of the prosecution evidence in this regard and in such circumstances, the accused-appellant was entitled to benefit of doubt, but still it has proceeded to pass the order of conviction against him. 12. It is argued that learned trial court has relied upon following nine circumstances against accused-appellant to prove his guilt and to record the findings of conviction against him: “1. Abducted Deepak and accused Naresh @ Tekchand studied together and were friend. On 19.05.2005 at near about 11.00 in the morning, they were last seen at Kotputli eating something at Rewari Misthan Bhandar. 2. Repeatedly telephone calls were made at the house of complainant on behalf of accused demanding ransom of Rs.100,000/- for release of Deepak 3. Stay of accused on 18.05.2005 in Ram Bhawan, Kotputli, by hiring a room and left the same in the afternoon of 19.05.2005 by vacating the room. 4. Taking a heavy box of white tin sheet by the accused in a rickshaw from the Ram Bhawan to the crossing of Bus Stand Kotputli and getting the same loaded in the bus bound to Jaipur. 5. Thereafter finding of a human dead body in an unclaimed box at the last station Bhuj in a train bound to go from Bareilly to Bhuj via Jaipur, and later proving its identity to that of abducted Deepak on the basis of recovered ring, bracelet, photo. 6. Visit of accused to Kisturi Bhawan Dharamshala, near Railway Station, Jaipur, with attachi containing his personal papers/luggage in the night of 19.05.2005 and stay there by hiring a room and on 20.05.2005 asking for the address of S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur, and thereafter leaving the said Dharamshala on 21.05.2005 without intimating its management by leaving the attachi and disclosure of all this information at the instance of the accused, and on the basis of documents, album, photo, etc., disclosing the identity of the accused, and that all these facts being in the knowledge of accused alone. 7. 7. Finding of dead body in Gujarat and proving its death as a result of homicide and proving of box containing dead body to have been built and sold in Kotputli. 8. Giving wrong and incorrect clarification by the accused and not giving the justified explanation. 9. Absconding of accused after the incident to an unknown place concealing his identity and abode. 13. However, none of the above circumstances is proved against the accused-appellant, to connect him with alleged commission of crime. In relation to circumstance no.1, learned trial court has relied on evidence of Vishwabandhu Sharma (PW-10), who is in fact a planted witness. To prove the circumstance no.2, the prosecution has not produced any evidence what to say the call details. No statement of owner of telephone under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded. In relation to circumstance no.3, evidence of Mahesh Pareek (PW-9) was relied on, but he has been declared hostile. The prosecution has relied on statement of Ami Chand (PW-8) to prove the circumstance no.4 but his evidence is not reliable. In relation to circumstance no.5, the identification of dead body as of Deepak is absolutely wrong and based on mere presumption. Circumstance no.6 does not relate to alleged commission of crime and there is no cogent evidence to prove the fact of stay of accused-appellant in Kastoori Bhawan Dharamshala, near Railway Station, Jaipur. In relation to circumstance no.7, there is no cogent evidence to prove that accused-appellant purchased the box in question and committed murder of Deepak. The prosecution has thus completely failed to prove its case by producing cogent and reliable evidence. In relation to circumstance no.8, the accused-appellant did not give any false statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In relation to circumstance no.9, the accused-appellant never concealed his identity and location. 14. Learned counsel for appellant further argued that it is settled proposition of law that an accused can be convicted in a case of circumstantial evidence only if the chain of circumstances against him is so complete as to rule out every single hypothesis that may be compatible with his innocence. Standard of proof in a criminal matter is always beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution in every such case is required to prove guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. Standard of proof in a criminal matter is always beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution in every such case is required to prove guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. In present case, however, circumstances against accused-appellant are not cogently and firmly established so as to connect him with the alleged commission of crime. 15. Learned counsel for accused-appellant argued that the charge was originally framed for offence under Sections 364, 302 and 201 IPC but on the application of the Public Prosecutor filed under Section 216 Cr.P.C., which was moved after entire trial was over and barely ten days before judgment was pronounced, the charge under Section 364 was altered to Section 364A IPC, which has seriously prejudiced the defence of accused- appellant. 16. Learned counsel for accused-appellant, in support of his arguments, has relied on judgments of the Supreme Court in Jawaharlal Das Vs. State of Orissa – AIR 1991 SC 1388 , Sevaka Perumal and Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu – (1991) 3 SCC 471 , Mani Kumar Thapa Vs. State of Sikkim – (2002) 7 SCC 157 , Prithi Vs. State of Haryana – (2010) 8 SCC 536 , Prithipal Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Another – (2012) 1 SCC 10 , and that of this Court in Pratap Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan – 2011 (1) RLW 258 (Raj.) and Sudesh Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan – D.B. Criminal Appeal No.134/2004 decided on 12.09.2013. 17. Learned Public Prosecutor for the State as well as learned counsel for complainant opposed the appeal and argued that the trial court has rightly convicted the accused-appellant for offence under Sections 364A, 302 and 201 IPC because his guilt has been proved beyond reasonable doubt by overwhelming evidence. It was proved that accused-appellant was a classmate of deceased Deepak. Vishwabandhu Sharma (PW-10) proved that they were last seen together at about 11.00 AM on 19.05.2005 in 'Rewari-Misthan-Bhandar', Kotputli. It is argued that demand of ransom by accused-appellant was also proved. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for complainant, in this connection, have referred to statement of Hari Prasad (PW-38), who has stated that he recognised voice of accused-appellant Naresh because he used to often call deceased Deepak on his cellphone number 9352212771. It is argued that demand of ransom by accused-appellant was also proved. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for complainant, in this connection, have referred to statement of Hari Prasad (PW-38), who has stated that he recognised voice of accused-appellant Naresh because he used to often call deceased Deepak on his cellphone number 9352212771. Learned Public Prosecutor, in this connection, also referred to statement of Hari Prasad (Exhibit D-8), given to police on 19.05.2005 under Section 161 Cr.P.C., in which he has narrated the entire prosecution case, but the investigation was misled because father of accused- appellant Naresh also filed a criminal complaint against father of deceased, wherein the same telephone number, referred to above, as that of deceased, was mentioned. It was alleged therein that complainant party in this case was responsible for abduction and disappearance of deceased Deepak. It has also been proved that accused occupied and stayed in a room of Shri Ram Bhawan Dharamshala, Kotputli, and left the room on 19.05.2005. This has been proved by Mahesh Pareek (PW-9). Sohan Lal Swami (DW-4) has proved the contents of criminal complaint and that of last seen. It is also proved that it was accused, who hired rickshaw to take the box from Dharamshala to bus-stand and then got the same loaded on a bus. Learned Public Prosecutor argued that it has not been proved by cogent evidence that Ami Chand (PW-8) in fact was working on shop of Hari Prasad (PW-38). Mere photographs (Exhibit D-9 to Exhibit D-15) not prove this fact. It could be a case of trick photography. It has not been proved by any cogent evidence that Ami Chand was an employee of Hari Prasad. Negatives of photographs were not produced. No neighbour of the shop has been examined to prove this fact. Learned trial court, vide order dated 02.11.2007, allowed the application dated 30.10.2007 filed by complainant for further cross-examination of Ami Chand. 18. Learned Public Prosecutor argued that even though, the dead body of Deepak could not be recovered, but identification of deceased was made on the basis of his ring and photographs. The steel box was found to have been loaded in the train going to Bhuj and subsequently dead body of the deceased was recovered by the police but identification of the body was made on the basis of ring, photographs, bracelet, etc. The steel box was found to have been loaded in the train going to Bhuj and subsequently dead body of the deceased was recovered by the police but identification of the body was made on the basis of ring, photographs, bracelet, etc. It has been proved that the accused-appellant stayed in Kastoori Bhawan Dharamshala, near Railway Station, Jaipur. While leaving the occupied room in hotel at Jaipur, the accused-appellant did not carry his suit case, but he left the hotel room on 21.05.2005 without intimating the hotel management but subsequently, at his instance, the aforesaid suit case was recovered. Album, photographs, documents and other belongings recovered therefrom fully prove this fact. The dead body recovered in Bhuj (Gujarat) has thus been rightly proved to that of deceased Deepak. The conduct of accused-appellant was also dubious because after the incident, he disappeared and his whereabouts were not known for one year. 19. Learned Public Prosecutor further argued that mere delay in recording police statement of Ami Chand would not be fatal to the prosecution because evidence in entirety points towards guilt of accused-appellant Naresh and none other. Each circumstance is not proved individually and chain of circumstances is so complete against accused-appellant to rule out every possibility of his innocence and proves that it was he and he alone, who committed said crime. It is therefore prayed that the appeal be dismissed. 20. We have given our thoughtful consideration to rival submissions and perused material on record. 21. We would first consider the contention of learned counsel for accused-appellant that defence of accused-appellant was prejudiced because originally the charges were framed against him for offence under Sections 364, 302 and 201 IPC and, thereafter, on application of the Public Prosecutor under Section 216 Cr.P.C., the charge under Section 364 IPC was altered to that of Section 364A IPC, at the stage when entire trial was almost complete. We find that charge for offence under Section 302 IPC was separately framed against accused, which was in addition to charge under Section 364 IPC. Mere alteration of that charge under Section 364A IPC, which makes the offence of kidnapping and abduction for ransom on threat to cause death, cannot be said to have caused any prejudice to the accused-appellant. We find that charge for offence under Section 302 IPC was separately framed against accused, which was in addition to charge under Section 364 IPC. Mere alteration of that charge under Section 364A IPC, which makes the offence of kidnapping and abduction for ransom on threat to cause death, cannot be said to have caused any prejudice to the accused-appellant. While for offence under Section 364 IPC, which relates to Kidnapping or abducting in order to murder, maximum punishment provided is of imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term, which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, Section 364A IPC provides that whoever kidnaps or abducts any person or keeps a person in detention after such kidnapping or abduction and threatens to cause death or hurt to such person etc., shall be punishable with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine. Section 302 IPC, for which charge was framed against accused- appellant, carries punishment of death or life imprisonment. Charge for offence under Section 364 IPC was separately framed, maximum punishment wherefor is life imprisonment. The contents of allegation on which aforesaid charges were originally framed, would justify framing of charge under Section 364-A IPC and the accused-appellant fully understood the charges and went to trial on a charge, which also included the allegation of abduction, demand of ransom and threat of murdering the abducted person. 22. Purpose of framing the charge is to put the accused at notice regarding offence for which he is being tried before the court and to ensure that accused receives details thereabout so that he does not suffer prejudice. The charge that was framed in this case categorically stated that the accused had abducted Deepak with intention to extract ransom of Rs.1,00,000/-and to murder him. First Information Report in this case was registered for offence under Section 364A IPC and even the charge-sheet was filed against the accused-appellant for offence under Sections 302, 201 and 364A, IPC. Due to inadvertent mistake, however, Section 364 IPC was inducted instead of Section 364A. A charge can be altered at any stage of the proceedings. All the circumstances that were borne out even from the statement of prosecution witnesses, were put to accused in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused fully understood the same and defended the matter. Due to inadvertent mistake, however, Section 364 IPC was inducted instead of Section 364A. A charge can be altered at any stage of the proceedings. All the circumstances that were borne out even from the statement of prosecution witnesses, were put to accused in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused fully understood the same and defended the matter. No prejudice therefore can be said to have been caused to him. Mere alteration of charge under Section 364 IPC to that of Section 364A IPC, therefore cannot be said to have caused any prejudice to the accused-appellant, because charge for offence under Section 302 framed against him in any case carried the penalty of death. We therefore reject this argument. 23. There being no direct evidence, the case of the prosecution entirely hinges on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution, as per impugned judgment, has sought to prove as many as 13 circumstances against accused- appellant, of which 9 have been held to be proved by learned trial court, and on that basis it has recorded the finding of conviction. We shall have to dealt with those nine circumstances to find out in the light of the submissions made on behalf of the accused-appellant and countered by learned Public Prosecutor, whether those circumstances have rightly been held to have been proved or whether they make a chain of circumstances so complete against accused-appellant as to unerringly point the finger of guilt towards him and none other and that they rule out every hypothesis that may be compatible for his innocence. 24. First circumstance, which has been held proved against accused-appellant, is that he was seen around 11.00 AM on 19.05.2005 with deceased in Rewari Misthan Bhandar, Kotputli. For recording this finding, learned trial court has relied on testimony of Vishwabandhu Sharma (PW-10). If his statement is subjected to critical examination, it is noted that his police statement for the first time was recorded on 27.06.2006 i.e. 15 months after the date of incident. Vishwabandhu Sharma (PW-10), in his statement, has stated that he had gone to 'Rewari Wali Dukan' for taking juice. While he was taking juice from that shop at around 10-11 AM, he saw Deepak along with one boy, who were eating something. That boy was seen with Deepak previously also. Yunus was their classmate. Vishwabandhu Sharma (PW-10), in his statement, has stated that he had gone to 'Rewari Wali Dukan' for taking juice. While he was taking juice from that shop at around 10-11 AM, he saw Deepak along with one boy, who were eating something. That boy was seen with Deepak previously also. Yunus was their classmate. In the evening, he saw a crowd in front of house of deceased Deepak and his mother was weeping. When she enquired from him about Deepak, he told that he saw Deepak in the said shop at about 10-11 in morning. He also told this fact to Yunus and gave the physiognomy of accused-appellant. Yunus then recognized him as Naresh @ Tekchand. Surprisingly, if this was the fact, why all facts were not mentioned in the written report submitted by Hari Prasad to S.H.O., Police Station Kotputli, which was submitted at 11.30 PM on 19.06.2005. Jhabburam (PW-42), the Investigating Officer, when asked in cross-examination about this, has flatly denied and stated that he went to the house of complainant after registration of the F.I.R. and made enquiry from his friends. He stated that complainant Hari Prasad, in his police statement (Exhibit D-8) has not alleged about friendship of deceased with appellant and that deceased could have accompanied the appellant. It was therefore that he did not make any enquiry from Vishwabandhu and that in fact his name was not mentioned before him by any other friend of deceased. He did not find any person by name of Vishwabandhu when he went to the house of deceased. Even if the deceased was seen consuming some eatables in sweet shop, that by itself cannot be accepted as evidence of last seen, as it is not known that where the deceased went thereafter and whom he accompanied. 25. Second circumstance, that has been found proved against accused-appellant, is that accused-appellant severally called on phone the complainant and demanded ransom of Rs.1,00,000/-. Neither in the written report submitted to the police nor even in statement of informant given to police (Exhibit D-8), the allegation has been made that the deceased was lastly seen in the company of accused-appellant. In fact, Hari Prasad (PW 38) in the court statement, has gone to the extent of stating that one boy came to his shop at around 10 o'clok in the morning and called Deepak outside. In fact, Hari Prasad (PW 38) in the court statement, has gone to the extent of stating that one boy came to his shop at around 10 o'clok in the morning and called Deepak outside. He further stated that his wife received a phone call at about 12 o'clock in the noon at his house and asked her to give the phone to Hari Prasad and demanded ransom of Rs.1,00,000/-for the life of Deepak. His wife gave a phone call to him at 12 o'clock in the noon from his house informing about the ransom call. As against this, we find from statement of Vishwabandhu (PW-10) that he saw deceased in the company of the appellant at about 10-11 AM. It is difficult to reconcile two statements because accused was seen in the sweet shop with deceased till 11.00 AM and if the evidence of Vishwabandhu (PW-10) that they were friends of appellant and also they were seen together along-with Yunus, the third friend of theirs, nothing unusual can be taken. How then the deceased could be abducted by the appellant within one hour, is difficult to appreciate. Hari Prasad has stated that he went to his house and came back to shop and his elder son told him that the Deepak has gone with the boy who called him outside the shop in the morning at around 10 o'clock. This fact has not been mentioned by Hari Prasad in his written report. He also stated that Vishwabandhu @ Neelu told during enquiry that deceased was seen in the company of someone in the sweet shop around 10-11 AM and this fact was also not mentioned in the written report. He has gone to the extent of saying that he recognized the voice of the person demanding ransom and it was none other than Naresh and he gave explanation that since Naresh used to call his son Deepak on his cell phone for last 1½ to two years, he could recognize his voice. This fact was also not mentioned by him in the written report and in the police statement that phone call was received on 21.05.2005. About the phone call received on 25.05.2005 also he has stated that it was Naresh, who called on the phone on demand of ransom. 26. This fact was also not mentioned by him in the written report and in the police statement that phone call was received on 21.05.2005. About the phone call received on 25.05.2005 also he has stated that it was Naresh, who called on the phone on demand of ransom. 26. Third circumstance, held to have been proved against the accused-appellant, is that he hired a room in Ram Bhawan, Kotputli, on 18.05.2005 and vacated that room No.24 in afternoon of 19.05.2005. In this connection, Mahesh Pareek (PW-9), Manager of Shri Ram Bhawan Dharamshala, Kotputli, has been examined. He in examination-in-chief, has merely stated that accused came to Dharamshala at around 10.30 AM on 18.05.2005. He gave his name as Vijay Kumar S/o Mahaveer Prasad, By Caste Sain, R/o 108, Sultanpuri Mod, Nagloi, Delhi, and that he vacated the room on following day i.e. 19.05.2005 at around 2-2.30 PM. He carried a small bag but when he left the room he did not see him carrying any luggage. On the request of the Public Prosecutor, this witness was declared hostile. In cross- examination, he has stated that when aforesaid accused left the room, he was not there and one Shyam Sundar, another care taker of the Dharamshala, was on duty. In cross-examination, he further stated that if someone stays in the Dharamshala, he generally verifies his identify. They generally insist on production of identify card or identity proof, but on that day, they did not insist. He further stated in the cross examination that he has been told by the police about the accused present in the court that it was he, who stayed in Dharamshala and that the police had shown the accused to him after 1½ year after the date of incident and the police told him that this accused had taken Room No.24 on rent. 27. If the general practice of the Dharamshala was to obtain ID proof of the passengers staying with them, there should be every reason to presume that for allotting room to Vijay Kumar on his address at 108, Sultanpuri Mod, Nagloi, Delhi, also the Manager of Dharamshala must have insisted upon production of ID proof. No investigation whatsoever has been conducted by the police to find out existence of Vijay Kumar on the given address of Delhi. 28. No investigation whatsoever has been conducted by the police to find out existence of Vijay Kumar on the given address of Delhi. 28. Fourth circumstance, that has been held proved against accused-appellant, which has been sought to link with third circumstance that accused had carried a big iron box in the rickshaw from Shri Ram Bhawan Dharamshala and boarded the same in the bus at the bus stand of Kotputli, for being taken to Jaipur. To prove this very significant circumstance, the prosecution has produced Ami Chand (PW-8), who has been described as rickshaw puller. Significantly, this witness has been produced by the prosecution 13 months after the date of incident inasmuch his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Exhibit D-6) was recorded on 05.08.2006. He has stated that his rickshaw was hired by the accused and taken to Ram Bhawan Dharamshala, Kotputli, who told him that he should take the rickshaw up to corner room inside the Dharamshala, and then he took the rickshaw to the room. The accused loaded a very heavy box on rickshaw there. The witness says that he also helped the accused in doing so and enquired as to what was there in the heavy box. The accused told him that it contained equipments of Jim. Then they took the box to the crossing near Jeen Mata Temple and loaded the same on the bus going to Jaipur. Witness Ami Chand (PW-8) has identified the accused-appellant as the said person, who hired rickshaw on that day and also the box article-1. In cross-examination, he has stated that he was doing the work of rickshaw pulling for last 4-5 years. He has also stated in cross-examination that he had seen the accused-appellant in the police station and now in the court, and that the police told him about the accused-appellant in the police station. He admitted in the cross-examination that his statement for the first time was recorded by the police 13-14 months after the incident. In fact, the police called him at the police station. He admitted in the cross-examination that his statement for the first time was recorded by the police 13-14 months after the incident. In fact, the police called him at the police station. Surprisingly, no test identification parade was conducted to fix the identify of the accused before this witness could identify him in the court, which, in any case, also would not have carried any weight when there is clear admission of the witness that accused was shown to him in the police station and he told about the role of the accused in the matter. This witness as also Vishwabandhu Sharma (PW-10) both appears to be made up witnesses. They have been planted only to fill the lacunae in the prosecution case. Statement of Ami Chand (PW-8) that he himself went to police station for his statement 13-14 months after the incident and kept mum for all this time, is highly unnatural. It is also highly unnatural that he would identify the exact room, reference of location in Dharamshala and that he alone would carry such a big steel box and load the same on the roof of the bus. In fact, this witness, in his police statement, stated that he himself approached the police for recording his statement. But in cross-examination in the court he stated that he was called by the police to record his statement. In the cross-examination, when enquired, he merely stated that his marriage took place about five years ago but was unable to give the exact date of marriage. He had two children but he was not in a position to give their date of birth. It is highly unsafe to rely on memory of such witness, who remained completely silent for as long as 13 months about the incident, is highly unsafe. Moreover, the defence has been able to successfully impeach credibility of this witness. When asked in the cross-examination, this witness stated that he does not know Hari Prasad (PW 38). Later on, when he was called for re-examination on application under Section 313 Cr.P.C., this witness was shown his photographs (Exhibits D-9 to D-15) with Hari Prasad (PW-38), in which he was shown working in the shop of Hari Prasad. The defence sought to prove that this witness was an employee of Hari Prasad and that he has been planted as a witness only to obtain conviction of the appellant. The defence sought to prove that this witness was an employee of Hari Prasad and that he has been planted as a witness only to obtain conviction of the appellant. The witness has denied being employee of Hari Prasad but admitted that the person, who was taking the clothes out of the racks in photograph (Exhibit D-10, D-11, D-13 and D-14, and Exhibits D-12 and D-15), looks like him but he was not sure whether these were his photographs or not. Learned trial court on the basis of said admission of the witness, held that the possibility of his working as employee of Hari Prasad (PW-38) cannot be ruled out. If that was the case, how could he be relied as a witness, is difficult to appreciate. 29. Fifth circumstance is the recovery of dead body from general coach of the train at Bhuj in Gujarat and the articles of the deceased, namely, ring, bracelets, photo, shirt, underwear and vest and identification thereof by Hari Prasad (PW-38) in the presence of Heera Lal and Bhajan Lal (PW-21). Identification of the dead body found at Bhuj was made on the basis of last wearing clothes (Exhibit P-31) and not with reference to identification marks of deceased on his dead body. In fact, Shanti (PW-3), mother of deceased, in cross- examination, has stated that height of deceased was equal to accused-appellant. As per the arrest-memo, height of accused accused is 5'4” and the height of the person whose dead body was recovered by Gujarat police was 5'8”, which is evident from statement of Dr. Banshidhar Ganpat Lal Gupta, who conducted the postmortem. According to Dr. Banshidhar Ganpat Lal Gupta (PW-32), age of dead body was 30 years and colour of shirt on the dead body was shown to be white, whereas as per prosecution case age of Deepak was 20 years. Smt. Shanti (PW-3), mother of deceased, has stated that Deepak was wearing white chhota Saran Kurta, whereas as per Exhibit P-1, the identification of dead body was made on the basis of recovery of shirt, which makes the same doubtful. 30. We are cognizant of fact that in a trial for murder, it is neither an absolute necessity nor an essential ingredient to establish corpus delicti. The fact of the death of the deceased must be established like any other fact. 30. We are cognizant of fact that in a trial for murder, it is neither an absolute necessity nor an essential ingredient to establish corpus delicti. The fact of the death of the deceased must be established like any other fact. Corpus delicti in some cases may not be possible to be traced or recovered. There are a number of possibilities where a dead body could be disposed of without any trace, therefore, if the recovery of the dead body is to be held to be mandatory to convict an accused, in many a case, the accused would manage to see that the dead body is destroyed to such an extent which would afford the accused complete immunity from being held guilty or from being punished. Yet, we have to objectively scrutinize the evidence produced by the prosecution in this behalf whether it was actually the dead body of deceased Deepak. We must observe that the defence has been able to make serious dent to that finding recorded by the trial court. However, even without the corpus delicti found or proved, there should be reliable and plausible evidence to base a conviction for such a serious offence like murder. Since the prosecution, in order to prove the charge of murder against accused, has relied on aforesaid circumstance, we have subjected the findings so recorded by the trial court to critical examination. 31. Next circumstance against the accused-appellant that has been held proved by learned trial court is that he stayed in Kastoori Dharamshala, Near Railway Station, Jaipur,in the night of 19.05.2005 with personal suit case, containing his belongings and on the following night i.e. 20.05.2005 he enquired from Dharamshala address of S.M.S. Hospital and thereafter on 21.05.2005 he left the Dharamshala without informing the management and did not even carry his suit case with him. The suit case contained certain documents, album, photographs, etc, which belonged to accused- appellant. Manish Sharma (PW-35), Hotel Manager, Kastoori Dharamshala, Near Railway Station, Jaipur, has been produced to prove this fact. He has stated that accused was brought to Room No.8 of the Dharamshala by the police and he stayed therein by name of Vijay Kumar S/o Sheodan Singh, R/o 108, Sultanpuri Mod, Nagloi, Delhi. This contained some original documents and album and ration card and note book, one mark-sheet and admission letter and certificate. He has stated that accused was brought to Room No.8 of the Dharamshala by the police and he stayed therein by name of Vijay Kumar S/o Sheodan Singh, R/o 108, Sultanpuri Mod, Nagloi, Delhi. This contained some original documents and album and ration card and note book, one mark-sheet and admission letter and certificate. This circumstance alone by itself do not form a chain of circumstance against the accused-appellant because even the last circumstance, as it would have to be seen whether this along-with several other circumstances make a chain of circumstances so complete so as to rule out every hypothesis compatible with the innocence of the accused-appellant. But before that, we must examine the remaining three circumstances found proved against accused-appellant. 32. Next one i.e. 7th circumstance, being that the person having been murdered and found in box, which was built and sold in Kotputli. To prove this circumstance, Ram Kumar (PW-2) has been produced by the prosecution, who has not supported the prosecution case and has rather been declared hostile. When confronted with his police statement (Exhibit P-4), he has stated that most of the time, he and his father and employees stay in the shop, but on the day when the police brought some one to the shop he was not there. Similar to box Article-1 are manufactured by them and that he identified the box in presence of Tehsildar (Exhibit P 2). When Ram Kumar was confronted with his police statement (Exhibit P-4), he expressed his ignorance and stated that he did not remember whether the box was purchased by the accused person present in the court and that he did not tell the police that this box was purchased by the accused-appellant from his shop. 33. Next circumstance that has been used against the accused-appellant is that he gave false explanation and did not give any satisfactory explanation, can by itself be not a circumstance against him because it is dependent on several other circumstances. If they are not taken to be proved against the accused-appellant, as we have discussed threadbare herein-above, this circumstance also should not be considered against him. 34. If they are not taken to be proved against the accused-appellant, as we have discussed threadbare herein-above, this circumstance also should not be considered against him. 34. Ninth and last circumstance found proved against the accused-appellant is that he remained absconding after the incident by concealing his identity, also cannot be a reason to hold that him guilty because the police has not proved by sufficient evidence that how and in what manner the accused- appellant concealed his identity and secondly if the police was chasing the accused-appellant and he was evading arrest, that by itself would not be sufficient circumstance on which he can be convicted, unless other circumstances sought to be proved against him to sustain his conviction are proved by the cogent and reliable evidence. 35. The law on the question of circumstantial evidence is well settled that an accused can be convicted in a case of circumstantial evidence only if the chain of circumstances against him is so complete as to rule out every single hypothesis that may be compatible with his innocence. Standard of proof in a criminal matters is always beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the prosecution in every such case is required to prove guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. If there is any scope of reasonable doubt, benefit of such doubt has to be extended to the accused. The rival submissions have to be therefore tested on this yardstick to find out whether alleged offences against the accused appellant have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. 36. The Supreme Court in Ashish Batham vs. State of M.P.- (2002) 7 SCC 317 , in Para 8 of the judgment, held as under:- “Realities or Truth apart, the fundamental and basic presumption in the administration of criminal law and justice delivery system is the innocence of the alleged accused and till the charges are proved beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of clear, cogent, credible or unimpeachable evidence, the question of indicting or punishing an accused does not arise, merely carried away by heinous nature of the crime or the gruesome manner in which it was found to have been committed. Mere suspicion, however, strong or probable it may be is no effective substitute for the legal proof required to substantiate the charge of commission of a crime and grave the charge is greater should be the standard of proof required. Mere suspicion, however, strong or probable it may be is no effective substitute for the legal proof required to substantiate the charge of commission of a crime and grave the charge is greater should be the standard of proof required. Courts dealing with criminal cases at least should constantly remember that there is a long mental distance between `may be true' and `must be true' and this basic and golden rule only helps to maintain the vital distinction between `conjectures' and 'sure conclusions' to be arrived at on the touch stone of a dispassionate judicial scrutiny based upon a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all features of the case as well as quality and credibility of the evidence brought on record.” 37. It may be noted that in Ashish Batham, supra, the case was entirely based on circumstantial evidence in which recovery of chain of the deceased and knife used in the commission of offence as well as blood stained clothes of the accused crept suspicion about role of the accused but recovery being delayed, having been made after second remand of the accused, was itself held to be doubtful and the factum about motive that accused was in love with the deceased also not accepted. It was held that only for this reason it cannot even remotely presumed that this could be the cause of murder unless it was substantiated by credible evidence that affair broken beyond redemption. Motive factor was held to have no legal basis to constitute sufficient circumstance to connect the appellant with the crime. The accused was therefore acquitted. 38. In Mohd. Arif v. State (NCT of Delhi) – (2011) 13 SCC 621 , the Supreme Court held that each of the circumstances has to be assessed on its own merits. Quality rather than quantity of evidence is crucial factor in a case of circumstantial evidence. The court has to be cautious against imaginary inferences or its prejudices, which may unwittingly creep in. Its verdict must be based on clear and irrefutable logic. Responsibility of the prosecution in a case of circumstantial evidence is more as compared to the cases where ocular testimony or the direct evidence is available. 39. The court has to be cautious against imaginary inferences or its prejudices, which may unwittingly creep in. Its verdict must be based on clear and irrefutable logic. Responsibility of the prosecution in a case of circumstantial evidence is more as compared to the cases where ocular testimony or the direct evidence is available. 39. In Kulvinder Singh v. State of Haryana – (2011) 5 SCC 258 , also it was held by the Supreme Court that in exceptional cases, conviction of accused can be based solely on circumstantial evidence but in that case the prosecution has to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt and cannot derive any strength from weakness of defence put up by accused. Circumstances from which guilt is to be drawn should be fully established and should be of a conclusive nature and exclude all possible hypotheses except the one to be proved. Facts so established must be consistent with hypothesis of guilt of accused and chain of evidence must be so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with innocence of accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by accused and none else. 40. In Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu Vs. John David – (2011) 5 SCC 509 , also the Supreme Court sounded a word of caution that the court must be cautious against conjectures and surmises taking place of proof. Circumstances so proved must form a chain of events pointing to guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt without there being possibility of any other hypothesis. Each and every incriminating circumstance must be clearly established by reliable and clinching evidence, and the circumstances so proved must form chain of proof from which natural and irresistible conclusion could be drawn as to the guilt of accused and no other hypothesis against guilt is possible. It was further observed by their Lordships that in a case depending largely upon circumstantial evidence, there is always a danger that conjectures and surmises may take place a legal proof. The court must satisfy itself that various circumstances in the chain of events have been established clearly and such complete chain of events must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of innocence of the accused. The court must satisfy itself that various circumstances in the chain of events have been established clearly and such complete chain of events must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of innocence of the accused. The court has to be watchful and avoid the danger of allowing the suspicion to take the place of legal proof. There is a long mental distance between 'may be true' and 'must be true' and the same divides conjectures from sure conclusions. It was further observed that when important link goes, the chain of circumstances gets snapped. This is what has happened in the present case because of failure of the prosecution to conclusively connect the accused with the crime. 41. Critical scrutiny of the findings recorded by learned trial court clearly shows that not only the individual circumstance held to be proved against accused-appellant, cannot be said to have been satisfactorily proved but also those circumstances do not make any chain of circumstances also they do not make any chain of circumstances so complete against the accused- appellant so as to unerringly point the finger of guilt towards him and none other than him and they are not so complete so as to rule out every possible hypothesis which may compatible for his innocence. 42. In view of the above discussion, we are not inclined to uphold the conviction of the accused-appellant. In the result, the appeal succeeds. The conviction and sentence awarded to accused-appellant by impugned judgment dated 27.02.2008 passed by the trial court in Sessions Case No.21/2007 (24/2006) is set-aside. Accused-appellant is in jail. He be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in connection with any other case. 43. Keeping, however, in view the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant is directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/-and a surety bond in the like amount, before the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, which shall be effective for period of six months undertaking that in the event of filing of Special leave petition against this judgment or on grant of leave, the appellant, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court. 44. The appeal is accordingly allowed.