JUDGMENT 1. - Aggrieved by the judgment dated 25.2.2004, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Ajmer, two different appeals have been filed before this court by the appellants, namely by Sohan @ Sovan, and Mohan. While Sohan @ Sovan has filed D.B. Cr. Appeal No.530/2004, Mohan has filed D.B. Cr. Appeal 341/2004. By judgment dated 25.2.2004, the learned Judge has convicted and sentenced both the appellants as under:-Appellant Sohan @ Sovan:For offence under Section 302 IPC: Life imprisonment, fined Rs. 5000/-, and further directed to undergo six months of simple imprisonment in default thereof.For offence under Section 379 IPC: Three years of rigorous imprisonment, fined Rs. 2000/-, and further directed to undergo two months of simple imprisonment in default thereof.For offence under Section 201 IPC: Three years of rigorous imprisonment, fined Rs. 2000/-, and further directed to undergo two months of simple imprisonment in default thereof.Appellant Mohan Singh:For offence under Section 411 IPC: Two years of rigorous imprisonment, fined Rs. 2000/-, and further directed to undergo two months of imprisonment in default thereof.Meanwhile, the learned Judge had acquitted Smt. Gaini, a co-accused in this case, for offences under Sections 364, 302, 120B, 384, 201 IPC. Since both the appeals are out of the same impugned judgment, they are being decided by this common judgment. 2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that on 5.3.1998, one Hari Singh submitted a written report (Ex.P.30) before the Superintendent of Police, Ajmer wherein he claimed that, "I Hari Singh S/o. Harji Singh, by caste Rawat, am resident of village Kotda. My wife, Smt. Roopi Devi, aged 40 years sells vegetables at Padav and my son, Vijay Singh, aged 21 years also sells vegetables on a handcart in front of the Oriental Bank. On 1.3.1998, my wife, Roopi Devi, aged 40 years, closed her vegetable stall at 8.00 PM and told my son, Vijay Singh, that she is going with Byanji (a son's/daughter's mother-in-law), who has a motorcycle, in order to see a girl at Makadwali. She further told him that either she would come back at that night itself, or by tomorrow morning. Even earlier on 18.2.1998, Sohan S/o. Nanu, his wife, my wife and my wife's uncle (Phoopha) had gone to Village Bhawani Khera for arranging a matrimonial relation for my brother-in-law's (Sala's) son. They had come back on the next day. She further told him that either she would come back at that night itself, or by tomorrow morning. Even earlier on 18.2.1998, Sohan S/o. Nanu, his wife, my wife and my wife's uncle (Phoopha) had gone to Village Bhawani Khera for arranging a matrimonial relation for my brother-in-law's (Sala's) son. They had come back on the next day. After this, on 1.3.1998, Sohan and his wife have taken my wife away on the pretext of showing her a girl. But we don't know where she is. I have searched for her at the places where I have relatives. My wife was wearing certain jewelry including a gold 'Bor' (an ornaments worn by married women in Rajasthan over their forehead), gold 'Mandliya' (pieces of gold strung together in a blanket), a gold 'Nath' (nose ring), gold earrings, silver anklets, silver 'Aanwale', silver Kadas (bracelets). She was also carrying about Rs. 2000-2500 with her, which she had earned by selling vegetables. I suspect that both the husband and the wife have abducted my wife and have killed her. Therefore, I request you to investigate in detail, and to apprehend these two persons because on 1.3.1998 at about 8.00 P.M., my son Vijay Singh had seen my wife with Sohan's wife. Two more boys, who sell their vegetables near Vijay, namely Mohan S/o. Kalu Singh Rawat, r/o. Ladpura, and Sookha S/o. Gaina, r/o. Kanas, have also seen my wife leaving with Sohan's wife. We have not been able to locate my wife so far. We inquired from Sohan and his wife also. But they claimed that my wife did not go with them. I am submitting this report after having searched for her for many days. Appropriate legal action should be taken." 3. The said report was sent by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Ajmer to the SHO, Police Station Clock Tower with a direction to register a case. On the same day at 5.00 PM, the complainant submitted the same report before the Police Station Clock Tower. On the basis of the said report, a formal FIR (Ex.P.31), namely FIR No. 35/1998 was chalked out for offence under Section 366 IPC; the investigation commenced. 4. During the course of investigation, both Sohan and his wife, Gaini, were arrested. On the same day at 5.00 PM, the complainant submitted the same report before the Police Station Clock Tower. On the basis of the said report, a formal FIR (Ex.P.31), namely FIR No. 35/1998 was chalked out for offence under Section 366 IPC; the investigation commenced. 4. During the course of investigation, both Sohan and his wife, Gaini, were arrested. Upon a statement (Ex.P.32) given by Sohan under Section 27 of Evidence Act, the dead body of Roopi Devi, the complainant's wife, was recovered from a culvert near Anna Sagar lake (a lake situated in center of Ajmer). Also during the course of investigation, the police arrested the other co-accused, namely Mohan. After completion of the investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet against Sohan, his wife, Gaini, and Mohan. After the case was committed to the Sessions Court, the accused were charged for offences under Sections 364, 302, 120B, 384 and 201 IPC. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined twenty-four witnesses, and submitted forty-seven documents. The defense examined a single witness, and submitted three documents. After completing the trial, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced Sohan and Mohan, as aforementioned, and acquitted Smt. Gaini of the charges mentioned above. Hence, both these appeals by Sohan and Mohan before this court. 5. Mr. Vinay Pal Yadav, the learned counsel for the appellants, has raised the following contentions before this court: firstly, the case is based entirely on circumstantial evidence. However, none of the links of the chain of circumstances even remotely point to the guilt of the appellants. The prosecution stands on a very weak wicket. They have failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt against the appellants. 6. Secondly, the prosecution has stacked the following evidence against Sohan @ Sovan: (a) Roopi Devi's dead body was recovered at his instance; (b) during investigation, allegedly, he informed the police that he had traded the silver bangles and the anklets worn by Roopi Devi at Lekhraj's shop. From Lekhraj (P.W.10) he had bought new silver bracelets and anklets for his wife, Smt. Giani. From Lekhraj (P.W.10) he had bought new silver bracelets and anklets for his wife, Smt. Giani. Upon this information, the new silver bracelets and anklets were recovered from Sohan's wife, Smt. Gaini; (c) a gold nose ring and a pair of earrings, worn by Roopi Devi, were also recovered at his behest; (d) the rope which was used to tie the gunny bag in which Roop Devi's dead body was tied up, the remaining part of the said rope was also recovered at the behest of this accused; (e) the motorcycle which was used to take away Roopi Devi was also recovered at the instance of this accused; (f) the place where Roopi Devi was allegedly killed was also pointed out by this accused. 7. However, according to the learned counsel since the dead body was recovered from an open culvert, it was recovered from an open place. Therefore, the specific knowledge that the dead body is lying at an open place cannot be attributed to the accused. Further, the recovered gold ornaments, worn by the deceased, were never subjected to a test identification parade. Therefore, the recovery of the nose ring and the gold earrings loses its significance. Furthermore, the mere recovery of the motorcycle and the recovery of the remaining part of the rope are innocuous. For, the motorcycle has not been identified by the witnesses who claimed to have last seen Roopi Devi with the accused. Further, since the rope did not contain any blood, the recovery of a piece of rope is immaterial. Moreover, there is no evidence to prove that the discovered piece of rope belonged to the same rope which was used to tie up the gunny bag. Lastly, since no incriminating evidence was recovered from the place where allegedly Roopi Devi was killed, the pointing out of the said place is irrelevant. Therefore, these disjointed pieces of evidence do not even form a chain of circumstances pointing towards the guilt of the accused, Sohan. 8. Thirdly, as far as Mohan is concerned, the learned counsel has claimed that the following evidence were read against him: (a) the accused has pointed the place where Roopi Devi was allegedly killed; (b) upon his information given under Section 27, Evidence Act (Ex.P.40), Roopi Devi's 'Jooties' (shoes) were recovered from the possession of the accused; (c) upon his information given under Section 27, Evidence Act (Ex.P.42), Rs. 700/- were recovered as the amount paid by this accused to Mr. Shankar Lal (P.W.18) for repairing Sohan's motorcycle; (d) the gold 'Bor' and the 'Mandliya' worn by the deceased were recovered at the instance of this accused. 9. However, according to the learned counsel, since the jewelry pieces and the Jooti, allegedly belonging to the deceased, were never subjected to a test identification parade, therefore, the recovery of these articles was meaningless. Further, merely pointing out the room where allegedly Roopi Devi was killed is equally irrelevant. For, no incriminating evidence was picked-up from the said room by the investigating agency. Lastly, the recovery of Rs. 700/- looses its significance as Mr. Shankar Lal (P.W.18) has turned hostile and has claimed that this accused never brought a motorcycle to his shop for repairing. Therefore, mere recovery of Rs. 700/- is immaterial. 10. On the other hand, Mr. N.S. Dhakar, the learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently raised the following pleas: firstly, the prosecution has well established its case against both the appellants. 11. Secondly, Durga Singh (PW.11) and Mr. Vijay Singh (P.W.7) have categorically stated that they saw Roopi Devi going with Sohan and his wife on a motorcycle. Sohan has not offered any explanation about the whereabouts of Roopi Devi after she was last seen with him and his wife. 12. Thirdly, as far as Sohan is concerned, Roopi Devi's dead body was recovered at his instance; the place where she was allegedly killed was pointed out by him; he has offered an explanation with regard to the silver jewelry worn by his wife which was also recovered from his wife, Smt. Gaini. Roopi Devi's gold nose ring and the earrings were also recovered from the possession of Mr. Lekhraj (P.W.10) to whom this accused had pawned the jewelry. Lastly, the motorcycle which was used for taking away Roopi Devi was also recovered at the instance of this accused. All these pieces of evidence when fused together positively point to the guilt of this accused. 13. Fourthly, as far as Mohan is concerned, like Sohan he too pointed out the place where Roopi Devi was allegedly killed; at his instance the jewelry belonging to the deceased was recovered by recovery memo (Ex.P.11). Thus, the prosecution has also succeeded in establishing its case against this accused. Therefore, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment. 14. Fourthly, as far as Mohan is concerned, like Sohan he too pointed out the place where Roopi Devi was allegedly killed; at his instance the jewelry belonging to the deceased was recovered by recovery memo (Ex.P.11). Thus, the prosecution has also succeeded in establishing its case against this accused. Therefore, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment. 14. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and examined the impugned judgment. 15. Needless to say, the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. The rule governing appreciation of evidence in case based on circumstantial evidence is not only well known, but has also been recently reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Balkar Singh v. State of Haryana [ 2014 (13) SCALE 63 ]. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- (1).Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. 16. Therefore, these principles would have to be kept in mind while appreciating the evidence in the present case. 17. It is, indeed, trite to state that One of the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence is that there is a vast distance between "may be true" and "must be true". The prosecution has to cover the said distance. The prosecution is required to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The case must be proven by cogent and convincing evidence. Therefore, no matter how strong the suspicion may be, but it cannot take the place of proof. [Ref. The prosecution has to cover the said distance. The prosecution is required to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The case must be proven by cogent and convincing evidence. Therefore, no matter how strong the suspicion may be, but it cannot take the place of proof. [Ref. to Mohammad Faizan Ahmad @ Kalu v. State of Bihar, (2013) 2 SCC 131 , Rajkumar Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (2013) 5 SCC 722 , Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam, 2013 Cr.L.J. 3140 (SC) ]. 18. As far as Sohan is concerned, the first piece of evidence against him is the evidence of last seen. However, this evidence is extremely weak evidence against him. For, in his examination-in-chief, Vijay Singh (P.W.6) informs the court that "Sohan's wife, Gaini, came to my mother around 2.00-2.30 P.M. Gaini told my mother and told her that she has come to take her to Makadwali for the purpose of showing a girl for my uncle's (Mama's) son. Around 8.00 P.M., after closing the vegetable stall, my mother came to me at my handcart. My mother told me that she is going with Gaini Byanji to Makadwali for the purpose of seeing a girl. She also told me that Gaini's husband, Sohan, has a motorcycle, and that he is waiting for us at the Clock Tower (Ghanta Ghar). She is going with them and will be back either tonight, or tomorrow morning". This testimony clearly proves that Vijay Singh saw his mother leaving only with Gaini, but not with Sohan. Therefore, on the last occasion he had seen his mother leaving only with Gaini and not with Sohan. 19. Similarly, Mohan Singh (P.W.4) informs the court that he saw Roopi leave with Gaini. Therefore, even according to this witness, Roopi was not seen going with Sohan. 20. Although, Durga Singh (P.W.11) claims to have seen Roopi Devi leave with Sohan and Gaini, and a child, but even the trial court has not believed him. For, according to the learned trial court, Durga Singh seems to be narrating the incident of 19.2.1998 and not of the incident of 1.3.1998. Moreover, Durga Singh claims that "when Roopi was leaving, even her husband, Hari Singh, was present there who left his daughter to look after the vegetable stall run by Roopi Devi." However, this part of Durga Singh's testimony has not been corroborated by Vijay Singh (P.W.6). Moreover, Durga Singh claims that "when Roopi was leaving, even her husband, Hari Singh, was present there who left his daughter to look after the vegetable stall run by Roopi Devi." However, this part of Durga Singh's testimony has not been corroborated by Vijay Singh (P.W.6). Therefore, considering the testimonies of these three witnesses, it cannot be said that they had seen Roopi Devi for the last time in the company of Sohan. Therefore, the evidence of 'last seen' cannot be read against Sohan. 21. Even if the theory of last seen were to be accepted theoretically, the difference between the time when Roopi Devi was last seen and the time when her body was discovered is too great. Allegedly, she was last seen on 1.3.1998 with Gaini, and her body was discovered on 5.3.1998, i.e. after a delay of four days. The investigating agency has failed to discover if Gaini had, indeed, taken Roopi Devi to Makadwali, or not? Or if from Makadwali Roopi Devi had returned in the company of Gaini and Sohan or not? Moreover, there is no evidence to show that the place where Roopi Devi's body was eventually discovered is near about the place where she was last seen in Gaini's company. The difference in 'distance and time' has snapped the linking evidence of last seen. Most importantly, the evidence of last seen is too weak an evidence for convicting the accused, especially in the present case when the said evidence is not very cogent and convincing. Hence, it is a folly to read the evidence of last seen against Sohan. 22. The prosecution has stressed on the fact that from Sohan the gold nose ring and a pair of earrings were discovered at his instance by recovery memo (Ex.P.6). According to Madho Singh (P.W.24), on 7.3.1998, Sohan gave an information under Section 27, Evidence Act (Ex.P.34) wherein he claimed that he had pawned a gold nose ring and two earrings belonging to Roopi Devi to a Jeweler, Lekhraj (P.W.10) and he could take the police to Lekhraj's shop. Consequently, Sohan took the police to a place called 'Golpyau' and pointed to a shop belonging to Lekhraj (P.W.10). He informed the police that the person standing there is Lekhraj (P.W.10) to whom he had pawned the articles. Consequently, by recovery memo (Ex.P.6), the police recovered both the articles. Consequently, Sohan took the police to a place called 'Golpyau' and pointed to a shop belonging to Lekhraj (P.W.10). He informed the police that the person standing there is Lekhraj (P.W.10) to whom he had pawned the articles. Consequently, by recovery memo (Ex.P.6), the police recovered both the articles. However, Lekhraj (P.W.10) has turned hostile, as he has refused to identify the person who had pawned the gold nose ring (Article-1). Moreover, he has claimed that the person had pawned only a nose ring (Article-1) and not the earrings (Article-2). 23. Most importantly, the nose ring and the two earrings allegedly recovered upon Sohan's information were never subjected to a test identification parade. Madho Singh (P.W.24), the investigating officer, explains in his cross-examination that the reason why he did not subject the recovered jewelry to a test identification parade is "because at the time of recovery, Hari Singh, the complainant, was with him. When jewelry items were recovered, Hari Singh immediately identified the jewelry items as belonging to Roopi Devi." However, such an explanation is clearly unacceptable. For, Rule 7.32 of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965, ('the Police Rules', for short) prescribes complete procedure for conducting a test identification parade of recovered property. 24. Rule-7.32 of the Rajasthan Police Rules is as under:- "7.32 Identification of property.- (i) It is of utmost importance that the articles of property seized by the investigating agency shall be properly scaled on the spot and it should be ensured that the seals are intact. (ii) The number of articles to be mixed up with the articles of property required to be put to identification test should rest with the Magistrate before whom the proceedings are to be carried on. (iii) The articles of property to be mixed up to with the articles of property put for the purpose of identification should also be contained in scaled bundles. (iv) The seals must be all along intact and can only be opened before the Magistrate conducting the identification proceedings. (v) As in the identification parade of suspects, witnesses are to be called one by one and no succeeding witness should communicate in any manner with the preceding one. (vi) It is also important to note that the articles to be mixed up should be similar in appearance to those for identification. (v) As in the identification parade of suspects, witnesses are to be called one by one and no succeeding witness should communicate in any manner with the preceding one. (vi) It is also important to note that the articles to be mixed up should be similar in appearance to those for identification. (vii) The prosecuting inspector or the prosecuting sub-inspector may be present at the time of identification proceedings. (viii) The articles to be mixed up should be arranged for production according to the instructions of the Government which they may issue in this behalf. However, there should be given no chance, whatsoever for an objection that the articles brought for being mixed up were exposed to the identifying witness before identification proceedings took place. The arranging of such articles to all intents and purposes should be by an agency other than the police. (ix) Proceedings of the identification of property shall be recorded in Form 7.32(ix)." 25. According to this provision, a Magistrate is supposed to ensure that similar looking articles are mixed with the recovered articles. The witnesses are supposed to identify the recovered articles while they are mixed with other similar looking articles. However, the said procedure has not been followed in the present case. 26. Moreover, according to Madho Singh (P.W.24) since Hari Singh had expired, he could not subject the recovered articles to a test identification parade. But even this explanation is a mere excuse and not a valid justification. For, even after the expiry of Hari Singh, his son, Vijay Singh (P.W.6) was readily available to the investigating agency. Vijay Singh, being Roopi Devi's son, could have readily identified his mother's jewelry. 27. In catena of cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly observed that in case a recovered article is not subjected to test identification parade, the recovery loses its significance. Since the gold jewelry recovered both at the instance of Sohan and at the instance of Mohan have never been subjected to a test identification parade, the recoveries from both the appellants are irrelevant. 28. Similar reasoning can also be applied to the alleged recovery of the Jooties (shoes) made at the instance of Mohan. For, even the said Jooties was not put up for a test identification parade. Therefore, whether the actual Jooties belonging to the deceased were recovered at Mohan Singh's instance, is a fact which is unknown. 28. Similar reasoning can also be applied to the alleged recovery of the Jooties (shoes) made at the instance of Mohan. For, even the said Jooties was not put up for a test identification parade. Therefore, whether the actual Jooties belonging to the deceased were recovered at Mohan Singh's instance, is a fact which is unknown. Therefore, the alleged recovery of the Jooties made at Mohan's instance is immaterial. 29. The prosecution has also stressed on the fact that at Sohan's instance, the remaining part of the rope which was used to tie-up a gunny bag in which Roopi's body was recovered from his room. However, there is no evidence to establish the fact that the recovered rope at Sohan's instance was, indeed, "the remaining part of the rope used to tie-up the gunny bag." For, there is no FSL report which establishes the fact that the fibers of the rope are similar in their texture, design or direction. In the absence of this evidence, an inference cannot be drawn that the recovered piece of rope belonged to the rope used for tying up the gunny bag. Further, ropes are not unusual articles which cannot be found in a person's house. Thus, the alleged recovery does not connect Sohan to the alleged crimes. 30. Both Sohan and Mohan had allegedly identified the room where allegedly Roopi Devi was killed. However, as no incriminating evidence was recovered from the said room, therefore the mere identification of the room is irrelevant. Moreover, since Sohan had already identified the said room, the identification by Mohan loses its significance. 31. Another piece of evidence said to be against Sohan is the fact that during the police custody he informed the investigating agency that he had given the silver bracelet and anklets belonging to Roopi Devi to Hemendra (P.W.8) for buying new bracelet and anklet for his wife, Gaini. Upon this information, the police had the new silver bangles and the anklets, worn by Gaini, photographed (Ex.P.44 and Ex.P.45). The new silver bangles and anklets were also recovered by recovery memo (Ex.P.5). 32. But in his examination-in-chief, Hemendra (P.W.8) tells the court that "About four or four and a half years ago, I was called by the police. I had gone to the police station Clock Tower. They asked me about the silver bangles and the silver anklets that I had made. 32. But in his examination-in-chief, Hemendra (P.W.8) tells the court that "About four or four and a half years ago, I was called by the police. I had gone to the police station Clock Tower. They asked me about the silver bangles and the silver anklets that I had made. A woman named Gaini and a man with her had brought old silver to my shop. Since its long time ago, therefore, I cannot recognise them. The man and woman were thin. But I cannot recognise them today. I could recognise the bangles and the anklets, which I had made, and which were worn by this woman at the police station. I charged them Rs. 255 to 250 for labor. While the bangles were about 225 gms., the anklets were about 450 gms. in weight. The jewelry I had recognised was left at the Police Station. I cannot remember if the police had the jewelry weighed or not. The police was conducting its investigation, but what it was doing I do not remember. I don't remember as to when the police asked me to sign Exhibit-P.5". At this stage, the Additional Public Prosecutor declared this witness as hostile. 33. In further examination by the Additional Public Prosecutor this witness stated that "It is true that the police had asked me to cut the bangles and the anklets, which I did. But I do not remember whether police had sealed these articles in a piece of cloth. It is true that Exhibit-P.5 was prepared before me and bears my signature". 34. In his cross-examination by the defense counsel, this witness stated that "He was called at the police station in the afternoon. When he signed the paper, Lekhraj was also there. The police kept me in the police station till the evening. What is written in Exhibit-P.5, I do not remember. I cannot tell for what reasons Exhibit-P.5 bears three different seals. I was not asked to identify these articles before a Magistrate. I do not maintain any accounts of my shop. I make new jewelry from old silver. It is incorrect to say that a woman by the name of Gaini did not bring old silver to me and that I did not make new anklets for her. I have no knowledge about What the police was writing,". 35. I do not maintain any accounts of my shop. I make new jewelry from old silver. It is incorrect to say that a woman by the name of Gaini did not bring old silver to me and that I did not make new anklets for her. I have no knowledge about What the police was writing,". 35. A bare perusal of this testimony clearly reveals that the witness does not claim that Gaini and a man with her had brought with them silver bangles and silver anklets. He merely claims that "old silver" was brought to him. What was the nature and form of "the older silver" has not been revealed by this witness. Therefore, it cannot be inferred that Gaini and the man with her had given this witness a pair of old silver bangles and a pair of old silver anklets. Moreover, this witness does not give any description of the jewelry allegedly given by Gaini and the man with her. Even these new silver bangles and new anklets have not been subjected to a test identification parade. For, the witness clearly stated that these new silver bangles and anklets were not identified by him before a Magistrate. Further, this witness does not reveal the basis for his identifying the new silver bangles and new silver anklet as having been manufactured by him. Most importantly, he does not identify Sohan and Gaini, in the court, as the persons who had brought "old silver" to his shop. Thus, the statement given by Sohan that he had given the old silver bangles and old silver anklets belonging to Roopi Devi to this witness cannot be read against him. For, the said statement was given by him during his police custody. Hence, the recovery of the new set of silver bangles and silver anklet cannot be read against Sohan. 36. The last piece of evidence against Sohan is the alleged recovery of the motorcycle. However, even this recovery is innocuous. For, no incriminating evidence has been procured from the said motorcycle. Moreover, no one has identified the motorcycle as the one used by Sohan for driving away Roopi Devi with his wife. Therefore, the recovery of the motorcycle does not connect Sohan to the alleged offence. 37. However, even this recovery is innocuous. For, no incriminating evidence has been procured from the said motorcycle. Moreover, no one has identified the motorcycle as the one used by Sohan for driving away Roopi Devi with his wife. Therefore, the recovery of the motorcycle does not connect Sohan to the alleged offence. 37. As far as the recovery of the jewelry items is concerned from Mohan, since the prosecution has failed to prove that the items so recovered actually belonged to Roopi Devi, the learned Judge is unjustified in concluding that Mohan had received, or kept stolen property. Hence, his conviction for offence under Section 411 IPC is clearly unjustified. 38. The recovery of Rs. 700/- at the instance of Mohan has not been believed by the trial court itself. Therefore, we need not comment about the said recovery. 39. The prosecution case is like a jigsaw of puzzle with many pieces of the jigsaw of missing. Instead of illuminating the mysteries of this case, the prosecution evidence leaves the court groping in the dark. Thus, the prosecution has failed to cover the long distance between 'may be true' and 'must be true'. Since the prosecution has failed to prove its case through cogent and convincing evidence, it merely leaves a sense of suspicion in the mind of the court. But suspicion, no matter how strong, cannot take the place of proof. Therefore, this court has no other option, but to give benefit of doubt to both the appellants. 40. For the reasons stated above, both the appeals are hereby allowed; the impugned judgment dated 25.2.2004 is set aside. Both the appellants are acquitted of the charges framed against them. Since Sohan @ Sovan is languishing in Jail, he shall be set at liberty forthwith if not wanted in any other criminal case. Mohan's bail bonds stand duly discharged. 41. Keeping, however, in view the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C, the appellants, namely Sohan @ Sovan and Mohan Singh, are directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- each and a surety bond each in the like amount, before the trial court. The bonds so furnished shall be effective for a period of six months. Keeping, however, in view the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C, the appellants, namely Sohan @ Sovan and Mohan Singh, are directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- each and a surety bond each in the like amount, before the trial court. The bonds so furnished shall be effective for a period of six months. The bonds shall contain an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the judgment or on grant of leave, the appellants, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon'ble Apex Court.Appeals allowed. *******