JUDGMENT 1. - This DB Cr. Appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C., has been filed against the judgment dated 20.4.2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Sambar Lake, Distt. Jaipur in Sessions Case No. 2/2005 whereby the present appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Under Section 460 IPC: to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each. In default of payment of fine to further undergo six months' simple imprisonment. Under Section 302/34 IPC: to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each. In default of payment of fine to further undergo six months' simple imprisonment. Under Section 380 IPC: to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each. In default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' simple imprisonment. 2. The short facts of the case as per the prosecution is that PW/1 Ramraj has lodged a written report Ex. P/1 before SHO, Police Station, Phagi with the contention that he is resident of Chapri. His elder mother i.e. wife of father's elder brother Jamku Devi resides alone about one KM away from the village. On 26.8.2004 at about 11.00 AM when Nanchi Devi wife of Porkharam Bairwa went to the house of Jamku Devi, she found Jamku Devi dead having two injuries on her head and it has been found that someone after killing Jamku Devi has taken her silver ornaments Kadiya, ear rings and also gold Mandaliya. It has also been found that after breaking the locks of the room, two boxes with household utensils and cloths have also been taken and the incident is of the intervening night of 25-26.8.2004. On this formal FIR has been registered and investigation started. The present appellants Ram Swaroop and Gopal have been arrested. At the instance of Gopal, iron box and iron rod have been recovered and on the instance of Ram Swaroop the silver kadiya has been recovered from the shop of co-accused Jagdish. After usual investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against the appellants for the offence under Sections 302 read with 34 IPC. The case was committed to Additional Sessions Judge, Sambhar Lake. 3. The charges have been framed against the appellants for the offences under Sections 460, 302/34 and 380 IPC which were denied by the accused persons and they claimed to be tried. 4. The case was committed to Additional Sessions Judge, Sambhar Lake. 3. The charges have been framed against the appellants for the offences under Sections 460, 302/34 and 380 IPC which were denied by the accused persons and they claimed to be tried. 4. Prosecution has examined PW/1 Ramraj, PW/2 Ramdev, PW/3 Ramdayal, PW/4 Bajranglal, PW/5 Krishnagopal, PW/6 Hariram, PW/7 Syoji, PW/8 Gopal, PW/9 Ganesh Bairwa, PW/10 Purshottam Kumawat, PW/11 Pokhar, PW/12 Ramkishan, PW/13 Nanchi, PW/14 Nandu, PW/15 Mukesh, PW/16 Dr. Pradeep Salodiya, PW/17 Dr. K.K. Maheshwari, PW/18 Anggautam, PW/19 Dr. Upendrakumar Sharma, PW/20 Satyaveersingh, PW/21 Pradeep Kumar, PW/22 Ramjilal, PW/23 Babulal and PW/24 Satish Kumar and produced Ex. P/1 to P/43. Statements of accused persons have been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 5. Appellants have been examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and in defence, no oral evidence has been examined but they have produced Ex. D/1 to D/5. After conclusion of trial, the present appellants have been convicted and sentenced as indicated above. Hence this appeal has been preferred. 6. The contention of the present appellants is that there is no direct evidence to connect the appellants. The case rests only on circumstantial evidence and chain of the circumstances has not been complete which could lead the irresistible conclusion that no other except the appellants have committed the offence. Only on the recovery of cycle, box and rod, the appellants could not be convicted for the offence of murder. As per medical evidence, the deceased has died from sharp edged injury whereas rod has been recovered at the instance of appellants. The appellants deserves to be acquitted.Per contra, the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor is that blood stained iron rod has been recovered at the instance of accused Gopal and cloths of the deceased has been seized and in report of Forensic Science Laboratory human blood group 'B' has been found on the iron rod as well as on the cloths of the deceased which connects the appellants with the crime. Apart from it, box has been recovered at the instance of the appellants Gopal and from accused Ram Swaroop, silver jewellery has been recovered and when recovery is not doubtful, the same could be made a ground for conviction and no interference is needed. 7. Apart from it, box has been recovered at the instance of the appellants Gopal and from accused Ram Swaroop, silver jewellery has been recovered and when recovery is not doubtful, the same could be made a ground for conviction and no interference is needed. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned Public Prosecutor and perused the impugned judgment as well as the original record of the case. 8. PW/1 Ramraj has lodged the report about the incident and has also testified the fact that on the information of Nanchi PW/13, he has preferred First Information Report Ex. P/1. PW/13 Nanchi has stated that one day before the incident, she went at the place of deceased and again on the fateful day when she went to the house of her mother-in-law at 11.00 AM, he found blood in the open space and her mother-in-law was dead lying in pool of blood. Jewellery articles were missing, thereafter First Information Report has been lodged. 9. The case rests on the circumstantial evidence as there is no eye-witnesses to the incident. PW/24 Satish Kumar is the Investigating Officer who has arrested appellants Ram Swaroop and Gopal vide Ex. P/9 and 8 respectively on the instance of Ram Swaroop one Atlas Cycle has been recovered from his residential house vide Ex. P/11 but this recovery could not connect the appellants Ramswaroop with the crime as admittedly, no cycle has been stolen from the house of the deceased Jamku Devi. PW/3 Ramdayal is the independent witness in whose presence the cycle has been recovered from Ram Swaroop and PW/4 Bajranglal has also testified the same fact but admittedly, recovery of cycle could not connect the appellants with the crime. Apart from it, PW/4 Bajranglal has categorically stated that first articles have been recovered and thereafter his statement has been recorded, hence recovery of cycle could not connect the appellant with the crime.Further contention of the Investigation Officer is that at the instance of Ram Swaroop, silver Kadiya (Ankle bracelet) has been recovered vide Ex. P/11, admittedly the recovery has been made from the possession of co-accused Jagdish and only on the information given under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the appellant Ramswaroop could not be held guilty for the murder of the deceased. P/11, admittedly the recovery has been made from the possession of co-accused Jagdish and only on the information given under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the appellant Ramswaroop could not be held guilty for the murder of the deceased. Mere recovery from another person on the information of the appellant would not complete the chain as to convict the appellant for the crime.PW/10 Purshottam Kumawat has also stated that silver kadiya has been recovered from the possession of Jagdish and he has not stated about the presence of Ram Swaroop of that time. 10. PW/4 Bajranglal is the witness to the recovery of silver Ankle bracelet but admittedly, the recovery has been made from the possession of Jagdish and that too after 10 to 15 days of occurrence, hence this recovery could not connect the appellant with the crime.One box has been recovered from the house of the appellant Gopal which is a residential house and not in exclusive possession of the appellant. In FIR, the report has been made as regards to theft of two box but one box has been found in the same house hence recovery could not inspire confidence. 11. PW/8 Gopal and PW/9 Ganesh Bairwa are the witnesses of recovery of iron rod at the instance of Gopal and both the witnesses have stated that recovery has been effected from open place from an agricultural field in possession of a person of Jat community. PW/9 Ganesh Bairwa has gone to the extent of saying that recovery has not been effected in his presence rod has been shown to him and they have affixed their signatures. Hence the recovery of rod is from the open place and could not connect the appellants with the crime. Recovery of cycle has no significance in the matter and admittedly silver Kadiya has been recovered from the possession of other accused person Jagdish, hence the prosecution has utterly failed to bring any connecting evidence to book the appellants with the crime. 12. PW/16 Dr. Pradeep Salodiya, PW/17 Dr.K.K. Maheshwari and PW/19 Dr. Upendrakumar Sharma have conducted the post mortem and prepared report Ex. P/24, the cause of death is coma caused by intra cranial hemorrhage due to multiple scalp injuries and as per post mortem report, four incised wounds have been found on the person of deceased and PW/17 Dr. 12. PW/16 Dr. Pradeep Salodiya, PW/17 Dr.K.K. Maheshwari and PW/19 Dr. Upendrakumar Sharma have conducted the post mortem and prepared report Ex. P/24, the cause of death is coma caused by intra cranial hemorrhage due to multiple scalp injuries and as per post mortem report, four incised wounds have been found on the person of deceased and PW/17 Dr. K.K. Maheshwari has specifically stated that all the injuries suffered by the deceased are of sharp edged weapon whereas the prosecution has tried to connect the appellants Gopal with the recovery of rod whereas no injury by blunt weapon has been suffered by the deceased. 13. The prosecution has further relied upon report of Forensic Science Laboratory Ex. P/43 in which blood group 'B' has been found on the iron rod recovered at the instance of Gopal and the cloths of the deceased. Only on the evidence of alleged blood group, the appellants cannot be convicted. No evidence has been brought on record to prove the blood group of the appellants, hence Ex. P/43 also could not connect the appellants with the crime. 14. The appellants have relied upon Wakkar & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2011) 3 SCC 306 wherein basic principles of basing the conviction on the circumstantial evidence are explained: "It is well settled and needs no restatement at our hands that the principle for basing a conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence is that: "each and every incriminating circumstance must be clearly established by reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances so proved must form a chain of events from which the only irresistible conclusion about the guilt of the accused can be safely drawn and no other hypothesis against the guilt is possible." It is also well settled as held by this Court in more than one decision that the Courts have to be watchful and avoid the danger of allowing the suspicion to take the place of legal proof for sometime, unconsciously it may happen to be a short step between moral certainty and legal proof. "That there is a long mental distance between 'may be true' and 'must be true' and the same divides conjectures from sure conclusions." 15. Here in the present case, admittedly there is no eye-witness to the occurrence. "That there is a long mental distance between 'may be true' and 'must be true' and the same divides conjectures from sure conclusions." 15. Here in the present case, admittedly there is no eye-witness to the occurrence. Even no evidence has been submitted by the prosecution to show that the present appellants either seen entering in the house of deceased or coming out of the house. The entire case of the prosecution rests only on circumstantial evidence and chain of the circumstances could not be held to be complete. It is settled proposition of law that the chain of circumstances should be complete in such a manner that it leads to only one and one inference of guilt. Here in the present case, the only circumstance which has been brought on record is the recovery of some ordinary articles and of little value which no accused would have carried after committing a crime, hence recovery of certain articles on the information of the accused is too weak a piece of evidence to sustain conviction of the accused. Reliance is placed on Bhagwan Singh & ors. v. State of M.P., (2003) 3 SCC 21 . In the factual matrix, the presumption under Section 114 (a) of the Evidence Act cannot be stretched to commission of murder by them when court is not in a position to know the actual details of the occurrence and should adopt a cautious approach and reliance is placed on Limbaji & ors. v. State of Maharashtra, (2001) 10 SCC 340 . 16. In the above backdrop, there is no direct evidence to connect the appellants with the crime, the case rests only on circumstantial evidence and the circumstances which has been brought on record against the appellants are that some recoveries have been made at their instance the chain of circumstantial evidence is incomplete and conviction of appellants cannot be sustained on the above evidence.Upon evaluation of the entire evidence as well as the incriminating material available on record and in view of the foregoing discussion we are unable to concur with the finding of guilt recorded against the accused appellants by the trial Court.In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the accused appellants are entitled for benefit of doubt and deserve to be acquitted.Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The judgment under appeal dated 20.4.2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Sambar Lake, Distt. Jaipur in Sessions Case No. 2/2005 is quashed and set-aside. Both the appellants are acquitted of all the charges. Appellants Ramswaroop and Gopal are in jail. They be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.Keeping in view, however, the provisions of Section 437A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, accused appellants Ramswaroop and Gopal are directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- each and a surety bond in the like amount, before the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this 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 appellants, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court. *******