Judgment M.R. Shah, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, Banaskantha at Palanpur in Sessions Case No. 162/2005 by which the learned Judge has convicted the appellant herein-original accused No. 1 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code with a fine of Rs. 250/- and in default to undergo one year Simple Imprisonment, the appellant herein-original accused No. 1 has preferred the present Criminal Appeal. 2. On 21/07/2005, P.S.I. of Ambaji Police Station lodged a Complaint with respect to having found the dead body of a unknown person killed by stone. Thereafter the Police Inspector of Ambaji Police Station, Shri Bhailal Patel, started the investigation. On inquiry, it was found that the dead body was of one Shri Mohanbhai. He started further investigation, prepared the panchnama of the place of the incident, inquest panchnama etc.. He also recorded the statement of the witnesses on 21/07/2005 to 23/07/2005. On 27/07/2005, all of a sudden he recorded the statement of one Shri Nodabhai Kanabhai, the so called alleged eye witness. Shri Nodabhai Kanabhai had stated in his statement that at 12:00 mid night he was alongwith the deceased Mohanbhai and the accused Shri Sadabhai Saburabhai Garasia Parmar and Shri Rameshbhai @ Ramiyo Tutabhai Aadivasi Gamar and all of them had taken liquor and all of a sudden there was quarrel between the accused and Mohanbhai and thereafter, after the quarrel he ran away from the place of the incident. On the basis of the statement of the said Shri Nodabhai Kanabhai, which was recorded on 27/07/2005 and on the basis of the last seen together of the accused with the deceased at about 12:00 mid night on 20-21/07/2005 the Investigating Officer arrested both the accused. Thereafter, he discovered the clothes of accused No. 1-Sadabhai Saburabhai Garasia Parmar having blood stains of the deceased and he also prepared the panchnama of discovery of his clothes. He also discovered the stone, which had blood stains of the deceased. He also prepared the panchnama of discovery of the stone/weapon used by accused No. 1. He also recorded the statement of the panchas. At this stage, it is required to be noted that after the arrest of original accused Nos. 1 and 2 further investigation was carried out by P.S.I, Shri S.M. Chauhan. He also prepared the panchnama of discovery of the stone/weapon used by accused No. 1. He also recorded the statement of the panchas. At this stage, it is required to be noted that after the arrest of original accused Nos. 1 and 2 further investigation was carried out by P.S.I, Shri S.M. Chauhan. Thereafter, after conclusion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the chargesheet against both the accused for the offences punishable under Section 302 and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The case was exclusively tried by the Court of Sessions. The learned Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court, Banaskantha at Palanpur, which was numbered as Sessions Case No. 162/2005. Both the accused pleaded not guilty and, therefore, they came to be tried by the learned Sessions Judge. The learned trial Court framed the charge against both the accused at Exh. 6 for the offence punishable under Section 302 and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. After conclusion of the evidence by the prosecution, further statement of both the accused came to be recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which both of them denied having committed any offence. 2.1 To prove the case against the accused, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses, which reads as under; PW No. Witnesses Exh. No. Designation/Position 1. Dr. Jayantibhai Abaram Patel 10 Witness 2. Prabhubhai Savabhai 13 Witness 3. Shakrabhai Fathabhiai 15 Witness 4. Kankiben Shakrabhai 16 Witness 5. Samuben @ Saabhiri Bhurabhai 17 Witness 6. Babubhai Hansabhai 18 Witness 7. Genabhai Chelabhai 19 Witness 8. Nodabhai Kanabhai 20 Eye witness 9. Lakshmansingh Mohabatsingh Chauhan 21 P.S.I., Complainant 10. Ashokkumar Nathulal Agarwal 28 Panch Witness 11. Premsingh @ Mohanlal Dunhaluman Sindhi 32 Panch witness 12. Shaileshkumar Vitthalal Patel 38 Panch witness 13. Hitendrakumar Sureshkumar Agarwal 43 Panch witness 14. Bhailalbhai Jagjivanbhai Patel 44 P.S.I. Investigation Officer Through the aforesaid witnesses the prosecution also brought on record the following documentary evidences; Sr. No. Exh. No. Documents 1. 14 Postmortem Note 2. 14 True copy of Attendance statement 3. 22 Complaint 4. 23 Suchipatra 5. 24 Inquest panchnama 6. 25 Panchnama of scene of offence 7. 26 Panchnama of recovery of clothes from dead body 8. 29 Panchnama of recovery of clothes of accused 9. No. Exh. No. Documents 1. 14 Postmortem Note 2. 14 True copy of Attendance statement 3. 22 Complaint 4. 23 Suchipatra 5. 24 Inquest panchnama 6. 25 Panchnama of scene of offence 7. 26 Panchnama of recovery of clothes from dead body 8. 29 Panchnama of recovery of clothes of accused 9. 33 Panchnama under section 27 of Evidence Act with regard to place of offence shown by accused Sadabhai 10. 34 Panchnama under section 27 of Evidence Act with regard to place of offence shown by accused Rameshbhai 11. 37 Panchnama of seizure of butts recovered from the place of offence 12. 45 Copy of Despatch note vide muddamal was sent to FSL 13. 46 Despatch letter sent to FSL 14. 47 Muddamal Analysis Report of FSL 15. 48 Report of Serological Department of FSL 16. 49 True copy of notification of weapon prohibition During the trial the panchas have turned hostile. On appreciation of the remaining witnesses, more particularly, solely and mainly relying upon the deposition of (PW 8) Nodabhai kanabhai at Exh.20, the deposition of (PW 2) Prabhubhai Savabhai at Exh.13 and (PW 6) Babubhai Hansabhai at Exh.18, by the impugned judgment and order the learned trial Court has held original accused No. 1-Sadabhai Saburabhai Garasia Parmar guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has acquitted original accused No. 2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence imposed by the learned trial Court holding original accused No. 1 guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant herein-original accused No. 1 has preferred the present Criminal Appeal. 3. Shri Padhya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant-original accused No. 1 has vehemently submitted that the learned trial Court has committed a grave error in convicting the appellant herein-original accused No. 1 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 3.1 Shri Padhya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant-original accused No. 1 has vehemently submitted that the learned trial Court has materially erred in holding the appellant herein-original accused No. 1 guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code solely and mainly relying upon the deposition of (PW 8) Nodabhai Kanabhai. 3.1 Shri Padhya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant-original accused No. 1 has vehemently submitted that the learned trial Court has materially erred in holding the appellant herein-original accused No. 1 guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code solely and mainly relying upon the deposition of (PW 8) Nodabhai Kanabhai. It is vehemently submitted that as such the said witness, Shri Nodabhai Kanabhai, cannot be said to be reliable and trustworthy on whose evidence there can be conviction. It is submitted that, which is even admitted by Shri Nodabhai Kanabhai in his cross examination that, he did not disclose either before the Police or even before the village people and/or the relatives of the deceased that all of them were together at about 12:00 mid night and having liquor and at that time there was quarrel between the deceased and original accused No. 1. It is submitted that all of a sudden the Investigating Officer records his statement on 27/07/2005 in which the said Shri Nodabhai Kanabhai claimed to be the eye witness. Relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chanan Singh Vs. The State of Haryana reported in AIR 1971 SC 1554 it is vehemently submitted by Shri Padhya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that the learned trial Court has materially erred in believing the said witness, Shri Nodabhai Kanabhai, and convicting the appellant herein-original accused No. 1 on the basis of the evidence of the said sole witness. It is submitted that his abnormal conduct after occurrence of the crime and not reporting the incident to the relatives of the deceased and/or village people would create a reasonable doubt and/or at least on the basis of the deposition of such sole witness and in absence of any other evidence on record, the learned trial Court ought not to have convicted the appellant. 3.2 It is further submitted by Shri Padhya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant herein-original accused No. 1 that even otherwise the case is resting on circumstantial evidence only. It is submitted that as per catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case resting on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish the complete unbroken chain of events leading to the conclusion of the guilt of the accused. It is submitted that as per catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case resting on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish the complete unbroken chain of events leading to the conclusion of the guilt of the accused. It is submitted that in the present case, if the evidence of the alleged sole eye witness, Shri Nodabhai Kanabhai, is discarded and/or disbelieved, in that case, there is no other evidence on behalf of the accused. It is submitted that in the present case the prosecution has failed to establish complete unbroken chain of events leading to the conclusion of the guilt of the accused. It is submitted that no panch witnesses, including the panch witnesses of the panchnama of the discovery of the clothes of the accused No. 1, the panchas of the panchnama of the place of the incident, the panchas of panchnama of discovery of the stone have supported the case of the prosecution. It is submitted that therefore the learned trial Court has materially erred in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Shri Padhya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant herein-original accused No. 1 has heavily relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on circumstantial evidence and/or conviction/the case resting on circumstantial evidence. (1) Ramreddy Rajeshkhanna Reddy and Anr Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2006 (2) GLH 271; (2) State of Goa Vs. Sanjay Thakran and Anr reported in (2007) 3 SCC 755 ; (3) Madhu Vs. State of Kerala reported in (2012) 2 SCC 399 ; (4) Rumi Bora Dutta Vs. State of Assam reported in (2013) 7 SCC 417 . 3.3 It is further submitted by Shri Padhya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant-original accused No. 1 that even the discovery of the weapon (stone) creates reasonable doubt. It is submitted that the Dr., in his deposition, has categorically stated that the injuries, which were found on the dead body of the deceased, was not possible by the size of the stone discovered. It is submitted that in the deposition the DR has specifically stated that such injury was only possible by big stone. It is submitted that the Dr., in his deposition, has categorically stated that the injuries, which were found on the dead body of the deceased, was not possible by the size of the stone discovered. It is submitted that in the deposition the DR has specifically stated that such injury was only possible by big stone. It is submitted that therefore the entire story of the prosecution that the appellant herein-original accused No. 1 caused the injury on the deceased by stone, which was discovered, alleged to have been at the instance of the accused, is doubtful. He has reiterated that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the discovery of the stone/weapon alleged to have been used by the appellant herein-original accused No. 1. Making the above submissions, it is requested to allow the present Criminal Appeal and quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned trial Court at least by giving benefit of doubt as the case rests on circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has failed to complete the chain of events. 4. The present Criminal Appeal is opposed by Shri Himanshu Patel, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State. It is vehemently submitted by Shri Himanshu Patel, learned APP that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Sessions Judge has not committed any error in holding the appellant herein-original accused No. 1 guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the death of the deceased Shri Mohanbhai. It is further submitted by Shri Patel, learned APP that it is true that in the present case the case rests on circumstantial evidence, however, the prosecution has successfully established the chain of events leading to the conclusion that it was the appellant herein-original accused No. 1, who caused the injury on the deceased Mohanbhai. It is submitted that the presence of the appellant herein-original accused No. 1 was established by the prosecution at different times. It is submitted that first at 4:30 p.m. (PW 2) Prabhubhai Savabhai was examined at Exh.13. It is submitted that presence of original accused No. 1 alongwith the deceased was then established at about 6:00 p.m. by examining (PW 6) Babubhai Hansabhai at Exh.18. It is submitted that first at 4:30 p.m. (PW 2) Prabhubhai Savabhai was examined at Exh.13. It is submitted that presence of original accused No. 1 alongwith the deceased was then established at about 6:00 p.m. by examining (PW 6) Babubhai Hansabhai at Exh.18. It is submitted that thereafter presence of original accused No. 1 has been established by the prosecution at 12:00 mid night by examining (PW 8) Nodabhai Kanabhai at Exh.20. It is submitted that the appellant herein-original accused No. 1 therefore was last seen together with the deceased at about 12:00 mid night on 20-21/07/2005. It is submitted that as such (PW 8) Nodabhai Kanabhai is the eye witness of the incident and he had seen that there was quarrel between the deceased and the appellant herein-original accused No. 1. It is submitted that therefore the complete chain of events has been established by the prosecution. It is further submitted by Shri Patel, learned APP that even the panchnamas have been proved by the prosecution by examining the Investigating Officer. It is further submitted that the weapon (stone), which was discovered, was having the blood stains of the deceased. It is further submitted that even the clothes of original accused No. 1 were recovered by the Investigating Officer, which were having the blood stains of the deceased. It is submitted that therefore the only conclusion, which can be drawn and which is rightly drawn by the learned trial Court, is that the original accused No. 1 caused the injury on the deceased due to which immediately he succumbed to injury and died. It is submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court and the finding recorded holding the appellant herein-original accused No. 1 guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is on appreciation of evidence, which cannot be perverse and, therefore, it is requested to dismiss the present Criminal Appeal. 5. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. We have gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Court and the finding recorded by the learned Sessions Judge. We have re appreciated the entire evidence on record. 5. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. We have gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Court and the finding recorded by the learned Sessions Judge. We have re appreciated the entire evidence on record. 5.1 From the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court it appears that and it is not in dispute that as such the case rests on circumstantial evidence only on the ground that original accused No. 1 was last seen together with the deceased at about 12:00 mid night. The law on the circumstantial evidence is very clear in the case of Rumi Bora Dutta (Supra). The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed and held that when a case totally hinges on circumstantial evidence, it is the duty of the Court to see that circumstances which lead towards guilt of the accused have been fully established and they must lead to a singular conclusion that the accused is guilty and rule out the probabilities which are likely to allow the presumption of innocence of the accused. It is further observed and held that the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. While relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. It is further observed and held that the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. While relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116 in paragraph 12 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed and held that the golden principles which have been stated to constitute the panchsheel of the proof of the case based on circumstantial evidence are; (i) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must or should be and not merely "may be" fully established, (ii) 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, (iii) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (iv) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (v) 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. 5.2 In the case of Madhu (Supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the case resting on circumstantial evidence. In the aforesaid decision it is observed and held that when the case is resting on circumstantial evidence, the care and caution required while evaluating the evidence and that only circumstantial evidence of a very high order can satisfy test of proof in criminal prosecution. It is further observed and held that in case resting on circumstantial evidence, prosecution must establish a complete unbroken chain of events leading to inescapable conclusion of guilt of the accused. It is further observed and held that in absence of convincing circumstantial evidence, an accused would be entitled to benefit of doubt. 5.3 In the recent decision in the case of Tomaso Bruno and Anr Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2015) 7 SCC 178 . The Hon'ble Supreme Court again reiterated the above principle. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in paragraph Nos. 13 to 15 as under; "13. 5.3 In the recent decision in the case of Tomaso Bruno and Anr Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2015) 7 SCC 178 . The Hon'ble Supreme Court again reiterated the above principle. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in paragraph Nos. 13 to 15 as under; "13. There is no doubt that conviction can be based solely on the circumstantial evidence. But it should be tested on the touchstone of the law relating to circumstantial evidence. This Court in C. Chenga Reddy Vs. State of A.P. held as under; "21. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further, the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence. In the present case the Courts below have overlooked these settled principles and allowed suspicion to take the place of proof besides relying upon some inadmissible evidence." 14. After referring to a catena of cases based on circumstantial evidence in Shivu Vs. High Court of Karnataka this Court held as under (SCC 717-18, para 12); "12. It has been consistently laid down by this Court that where case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person (See Hukum Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, Eradu Vs. State of Hyderabad, Earabhadrappa Vs. State of Karnataka, State of U.P. Vs. Sukhbasi, Balwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Ashok Kumar Chatterjee Vs. State of M.P.) The circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. In Bhagat Ram Vs. State of Punjab and Ashok Kumar Chatterjee Vs. State of M.P.) The circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. In Bhagat Ram Vs. State of Punjab it was laid down that where the case depends upon the conclusion drawn from circumstances, the cumulative effect of the circumstances must be such as to negative the innocence of the accused and bring home the offences beyond any reasonable doubt." 15. In Padala Veera Reddy Vs. State of A.P. it was laid down that in a case of circumstantial evidence such evidence must satisfy the following test; "(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established. (2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused. (3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. (See Gambhir Vs. State of Maharashtra)" 5.4 In the aforesaid decision, it is further observed that in every case based on circumstantial evidence, the question that needs to be determined is, whether the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are proved by reliable and cogent evidence and whether all the links in the chain of circumstance are complete so as to rule out the possibility of innocence of the accused. 5.5 Adverting to the case on hand, it emerges that the learned trial Court while convicting the appellant herein-original accused No. 1 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code has heavily and mainly relied upon the evidence of (PW 8) Nodabhai Kanabhai at Exh.20. What further weighed with the learned trial Court is the deposition of (PW 2) Prabhubhai Savabhai at Exh.13 and the deposition of (PW 6) Babubhai Hansabhai at Exh.18. What further weighed with the learned trial Court is the deposition of (PW 2) Prabhubhai Savabhai at Exh.13 and the deposition of (PW 6) Babubhai Hansabhai at Exh.18. By the deposition of (PW 2) Prabhubhai Savabhai the prosecution has tried to establish that original accused No. 1 was with the deceased at 4:30 p.m. By examining (PW 6) Babubhai Hansabhai at Exh.18 the prosecution has tried to prove that original accused No. 1 was with the deceased at 6:00 p.m.. By examining (PW 8) Nodabhai Kanabhai at Exh. 20 the prosecution has tried to prove that original accused No. 1 was in the company of the deceased at 12:00 mid night alongwith Nodabhai Kanabhai. However, the conduct of (PW 8) Nodabhai Kanabhai deserves serious consideration, more particularly, when the conviction of original accused No. 1 is based upon the sole alleged eye witness (PW 8) Nodabhai Kanabhai. According to (PW 8) Nodabhai Kanabhai and so stated by him he was with the deceased and original accused No. 1 and original accused No. 2 at the place of the incident at 12:00 mid night and after taking liquor all of a sudden quarrel took place between the deceased and original accused No. 1 and, thereafter, he ran away and in the next day morning he came to know about the death of the deceased. However, it is required to be noted and it is not in dispute that till 27/07/2005 he did not disclose anything about the aforesaid to any of the relatives of the deceased and/or even the village people. All of a sudden police records the statement of Nodabhai Kanabhai on 27/07/2005 and immediately original accused No. 1 came to be arrested. (PW 8) Nodabhai Kanabhai has tried to explain in the cross examination why he did not disclose anything about the fact that they were together up to 12:00 mid night and about the quarrel between the deceased and original accused No. 1 by submitting that he was afraid that the police will arrest him. However, it is required to be noted that there was no reason for him not to tell anything to the relatives of the deceased and/or the village people. The aforesaid is required to be appreciated considering the fact that the case rests on circumstantial evidence only. However, it is required to be noted that there was no reason for him not to tell anything to the relatives of the deceased and/or the village people. The aforesaid is required to be appreciated considering the fact that the case rests on circumstantial evidence only. Considering the overall conduct of (PW 8) Nodabhai Kanabhai, the Investigating Officer failed to explain on what basis all of a sudden he records the statement on 27/07/2005 and, therefore, we are of the opinion that solely on the basis of the deposition of (PW 8) Nodabhai Kanabhai, it will not be safe to convict the accused. Evidence of (PW 8) Nodabhai Kanabhai is not trusworthy and/or reliable so as to convict the accused. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish and prove the complete chain so as to warrant conviction of original accused No. 1 on circumstantial evidence. Except the above, there is no other corroborative evidence. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the prosecution discovered the weapon (stone) used by original accused No. 1. Apart from the fact that the panchnama of discovery of stone has not been proved as the panchas have turned hostile, considering the deposition of the Dr. that the injuries found on the dead body of the deceased were not possible by the stone, which was discovered, the discovery seems to be doubtful. 5.6 At this stage, it is required to be noted that though from the deposition of (PW 8) Nodabhai Kanabhai he stated that even Rameshbhai @ Ramiyo Tutabhai Adivasi Gamar was with them at 12:00 mid night, the learned trial Court has, as such, acquitted original accused No. 2 by giving benefit of doubt but however has convicted original accused No. 1 solely and mainly relying upon the deposition of (PW 8) Nodabhai Kanabhai. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the learned trial Court has committed a grave error in convicting the appellant-original accused No. 1 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, more particularly, relying upon the deposition of (PW 8) Nodabhai Kanabhai, the sole alleged eye witness. 6. Under the circumstances, the present Criminal Appeal succeeds. 6. Under the circumstances, the present Criminal Appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Banaskantha, Palanpur convicting the appellant herein-original accused No. 1 is hereby quashed and set aside and the appellant herein-original accused No. 1-Sadabhai Saburabhai Garasia Parmar is acquitted for the offence for which he was tried. As it is reported that the appellant herein-original accused No. 1 is on bail his bail bond stands cancelled. Appeal Allowed.