JUDGMENT : Dinesh Chandra Somani, J. 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by Om Prakash @ Nanchhoo accused-appellant under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C., 1973 who has been convicted and sentenced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Chomu, Jaipur, District Jaipur vide judgment dated 02/12/2008 in Sessions Case No. 26/2007. 2. After conviction, the accused-appellant was sentenced as follows :- For the offence under Section 302 IPC sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,00/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months additional simple imprisonment. For the offence under Section 201 IPC sentenced to five years simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2,00/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's additional simple imprisonment. 3. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The prosecution story in brief is that on 17/07/2007 at about 10.30 PM one Kailash Chand Sharma (PW-9) gave information from village Nangal Siras through telephone to the SHO, Police Station Harmada, Jaipur to the effect that one person and a motorcycle are beonfire in Johad of railway-line phatak in Talai. The person who raised fire, fled on motorcycle towards Chomu, who may be two also etc. After conveying this information to the higher officers, SHO Rajendra Singh CI proceeded to the spot along with the police force. 4. On reaching the police party on the spot, one Madan Lal Meena (PW-1) submitted a written report (Ex. P-1) on 18/07/2007 at 6.10 AM to the effect that he is Sarpanch of Nangal Siras. On 17/07/2007 at 10:30 PM in night, one Kailash of Village Daulatpura Panchayat Nangal Siras informed him on mobile that some unknown person put a man under a motorcycle, raised fire and fled, which place is near railway phatak and Talai of Nangal Siras. On information of Kailash, he reached on spot and saw that many villagers were assembling there and a burning motorcycle was lying on an unknown person. Motorcycle and the man have been burnt to much extent. Kailash was informed by Kaluram Jat of the village and it was told that police has been informed by Kailash. The deceased is not known. It appears that some unknown persons killed him to commit his murder and raised fire on motorcycle and the person in order to hide the identity etc. 5. Kailash was informed by Kaluram Jat of the village and it was told that police has been informed by Kailash. The deceased is not known. It appears that some unknown persons killed him to commit his murder and raised fire on motorcycle and the person in order to hide the identity etc. 5. On the above report a FIR (Ex. P-30) was registered at Police Station Harmada being FIR No. 260/2007 for commission of offence under Section 302, 201 of IPC. 6. During the course of investigation, police prepared a site plan, collected and seized the articles as evidence from the spot, recorded statements of witnesses, obtained call details of mobile which was lying on the spot near the deceased, obtained post-mortem report of the deceased, the accused-appellant was arrested and recoveries were made on information given by him under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and after completion of usual investigation the charge-sheet was filed against the accused-appellant for commission of offence under Sections 302, 201 of IPC in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Chomu (Jaipur). The offences being triable by the Court of Session, case was committed to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, who in turn transfered it to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Chomu, Jaipur District, Jaipur for trial where it was registered as Sessions Case No. 26/2007. 7. Learned trial court framed charges against the accused-appellant Om Prakash @ Nanchhoo for offence under Section 302 and 201 of IPC. The charges were read over and explained to the accused-appellant who pleaded not guilty and sought to be tried. 8. During trial, prosecution examined as many as 23 witnesses and exhibited Ex. P-1 to Ex. P-59 in documentary evidence and Article 1 to 21 also to prove the charges levelled against the accused-appellant. Thereafter learned trial Court put oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses and documentary evidence produced by the prosecution to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. In reply to the prosecution evidence, the accused stated that evidence adduced against him is incorrect and pleaded that he has been falsely implicated. After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused examined DW-1 Gopal. Accused got exhibited two documents Ex. D-1 and Ex. D-2. 9. After completion of trial, the learned trial Court convicted the accused-appellant as indicated hereinabove. 10. After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused examined DW-1 Gopal. Accused got exhibited two documents Ex. D-1 and Ex. D-2. 9. After completion of trial, the learned trial Court convicted the accused-appellant as indicated hereinabove. 10. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence awarded to the accused-appellant, he preferred the present appeal before this Court against judgment of the learned trial Court dated 02/12/2008. 11. We gave anxious consideration to the rival submissions of learned counsel for the accused-appellant and learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record. 12. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant contended that learned trial Court has committed serious error of law by convicting the appellant. The findings arrived at by the learned trial Court are based totally on uncorroborated evidence of the prosecution witnesses as such the findings of the learned trial Court are bad in the eye of law. The learned trial Court has failed to take into account that the prosecution witnesses have not fully supported the prosecution story that the death of the deceased was caused by the appellant. Learned counsel also submitted that the story putforth by all the prosecution witnesses is wholly doubtful as they have come with quite contradictory evidence which cannot be made basis for conviction of the appellant. To connect a person with a crime, something incriminating should have come on record but no incriminating article has been recovered at the instance of the accused-appellant, therefore the conclusion of the trial Court is bad in the eyes of law and the same deserves to the quashed and set aside. Learned counsel has also submitted that it is crystal clear from the evidence of prosecution witnesses that the complainant party entangled the appellant in the crime due to some grudge. Most of the witnesses did not name accused that he did commit the alleged crime, thus the prosecution story is completely concocted. The prosecution has failed to prove the motive and intention of the accused for commission of the crime which is the backbone in the cases like present one, therefore, accused-appellant is entitled for benefit of doubt. Most of the witnesses did not name accused that he did commit the alleged crime, thus the prosecution story is completely concocted. The prosecution has failed to prove the motive and intention of the accused for commission of the crime which is the backbone in the cases like present one, therefore, accused-appellant is entitled for benefit of doubt. Learned counsel further submitted that there is no eye witness of occurrence and the prosecution's case is solely based on circumstantial evidence, thus every link chain of incident should be well connected with each other but it is missing in the instant case and thus the conviction is bad in the eye of law. Learned counsel also contended that learned trial Court did not evaluate the evidence in the proper legal perspective and grossly misread the evidence with the result it turned into the manifest misappreciation of evidence which in turn caused great prejudice to the appellant, therefore the impugned judgment is legally untenable and merits to be set aside. In support of the arguments, learned counsel for the appellant relied on :- Vijay Shankar vs. State of Haryana, (2015) 12 SCC 644 . 13. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor for the State submitted that the circumstantial evidence relied upon by the prosecution has been proved by cogent evidence and the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the accused-appellant, thus conviction does not warrant any interference. 14. There is no eye witnesses to the occurrence and the entire case is based upon circumstantial evidence. 15. The prosecution mainly based it's case on the circumstances:- (i) Motive (ii) Location of deceased and accused at the same place according to mobile tower location. (iii) Recovery of clothes and shoes of the accused which were worn by him at the time of incident and of the motorcycle used in the commission of the offence from his house and documents of deceased from the nursery, in consequence of informations given by him under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. (iii) Recovery of clothes and shoes of the accused which were worn by him at the time of incident and of the motorcycle used in the commission of the offence from his house and documents of deceased from the nursery, in consequence of informations given by him under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Vijay Shankar vs. State of Haryana reported in (2015) 12 SCC 644 (supra) has held that a normal principle is that in a case based on circumstantial evidence the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be established cogently and firmly; that these circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; that the circumstances taken cumulatively should form the chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and he should be incapable of explanation of any hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocence. (i) Motive:- From the statement of PW-7 Banshidhar who is brother of deceased, PW-14 Rameshwarlal who is father of the deceased, DW-1 Gopal who is uncle of deceased, sale deed Ex. P-13 registered on 16/07/2007, sale deed Ex. P-14 registered on 17/07/2007 and consent letter Ex. D-2, it appears that it is not in dispute that two sale deeds were got prepared on 16/07/2007 in favour of Mst. Keshari Devi (mother of accused-appellant) and four aunts of the appellant. Out of those, one document Ex. P-13 was registered on the same day and another document Ex. P-14 was produced for registration on next day i.e. 17/07/2007 after deletion of name of said Mst. Keshari Devi. The case of the prosecution is that due to deletion of his mother's name in sale deed, the accused Om Prakash became annoyed and gave threatening on that day and thereafter committed murder of Raju (Rajendra Saini) for this grudge. PW-14 Rameshwar in his statement recorded in court, has stated that accused Om Prakash threatened Raju (deceased) & Banshi because name of Mst. Keshari Devi was deleted. Om Prakash used to threaten as and when the brothers had a talk regarding land. Om Prakash has committed murder of Raju (Rajendra Saini) due to grudge. PW-14 Rameshwar in his statement recorded in court, has stated that accused Om Prakash threatened Raju (deceased) & Banshi because name of Mst. Keshari Devi was deleted. Om Prakash used to threaten as and when the brothers had a talk regarding land. Om Prakash has committed murder of Raju (Rajendra Saini) due to grudge. Statement of this witness under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 23/07/2007, whereas incident is of 17/07/2007 and this delay has not been explained by the prosecution. In statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the witness did not say about threatening to deceased Raju, whereas in the court statement the witnesses speaks about threatening to deceased Raju. Further, PW-14 Rameshwar in his court statement has stated that Gopal (DW-1) came to his house in evening and told that Raju (deceased) and Om Prakash (accused) are at bus stand of Achrol. Later on Gopal told him on telephone that Raju & Om Prakash went to Chandwaji. Whereas in statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., PW-14 has not stated that his brother Gopal told him that Raju & Om Prakash together are at bus stand, Achrol. In this way, the witness has materially improved his statement in the Court. PW-14 Rameshwar has admitted that deceased Raju and the accused Om Prakash were good friends. The witness admitted in cross-examination about the fact that on 18/07/2007, he told to the police that some unknown persons have murdered his son Raju. The witness also says that shoes and clothes of accused Om Prakash were seized, because of that he believed that Raju was murdered by Om Prakash only. According to prosecution story, grievance of the accused was about deleting the name of his mother Mst. Keshari Devi in the sale deed which is the reason behind the murder of Raju. DW-1 Gopal is real brother of PW-14 Rameshwar and uncle of deceased Raju who has not been examined by the prosecution, despite his name is there in the list of prosecution witnesses. Gopal has been examined by defence as DW-1. According to DW-1 Gopal, sale deed was registered in favour of four ladies and a consent letter Ex. D-2 was executed for Keshari Devi because no share was given to her in the sale deed. No dispute was there at the time of registry and the work was done happily. Gopal has been examined by defence as DW-1. According to DW-1 Gopal, sale deed was registered in favour of four ladies and a consent letter Ex. D-2 was executed for Keshari Devi because no share was given to her in the sale deed. No dispute was there at the time of registry and the work was done happily. Consent letter was signed by PW-14 Rameshwar, witness himself and other three. During cross-examination, the witness has denied the suggestion that the consent letter was executed because a dispute arose at the time of registration. The witness further stated that the consent letter was executed before registration of the sale deed. PW-7 Banshidhar who is real brother of the deceased Raju, has stated in cross-examination that he has no knowledge if any consent letter would have been executed among his uncles & father in consideration of share of Smt. Keshari Devi and his father would have signed the same. In this regard, the accused produced the said consent letter and got it exhibited as Ex. D-2. DW-1 Gopal has proved the signatures of all executants including PW-14 Rameshwar, witness himself and his other brothers. Ex. D-2 consent letter destroys the prosecution theory relating to motive that grievance of the accused about deleting the name of his mother Smt. Keshari Devi was the reason behind murder of Raju. According to Ex. D-2, the rate of stamp duty was the reason for deleting the name of Smt. Keshari Devi, otherwise sub-registrar would have assessed stamp duty treating it to be urban land. Because entire prosecution story, revolves around the statement of PW-14 Rameshwar whose statements for the reasons mentioned above are not sterling worth, therefore, the motive story purported by PW-14 Rameshwar is not convincing in the ordinary course of nature. In Vijay Shankar vs. State of Haryana (supra) Hon'ble the Apex Court has also held that in each and every case it is not incumbent on the prosecution to prove motive for the crime. Often, motive is indicated to heighten the probability of offence, that the accused was impelled by that motive to commit the offence. Proof of motive only adds to the weight and value of evidence adduced by the prosecution. Often, motive is indicated to heighten the probability of offence, that the accused was impelled by that motive to commit the offence. Proof of motive only adds to the weight and value of evidence adduced by the prosecution. If the prosecution is able to prove its case on motive, it will be a corroborative piece of evidence but even if the prosecution has not been able to prove it's case on motive that will not be a ground to throw prosecution case nor does it corrode the credibility of the prosecution case. Absence of proof of motive, only demands careful scrutiny of evidence adduced by the prosecution. As discussed above, in the present case, convincing evidence as to motive is absent, therefore, the Court should be circumspect while assessing the evidence produced on record. (ii) Last Seen theory (location of mobile tower):- The learned trial Court has based the conviction of the appellant on the call details of mobile phones of deceased Raju and accused-appellant Om Prakash. The case of prosecution is that sim of mobile No. 9214315913 was in the name of PW-15 Surajmal, who gave this sim to accused Om Prakash and was being used by the accused till the date of incident. Another sim of mobile No. 9252106302 was in the name of Ram Karan and was being used by the deceased Raju till the date of incident. According to statements of PW-11 Sanjay Kumar constable and PW-21 Ravi Choudhary, Nodal Officer of Tata Telecom Service and Ex. P-21, location of deceased Raju on 17/07/2007 at 6:30 PM was in Gram Sadalvas, at 8:30 PM and 8:49 PM his location was Sitaram Sharma Dhaba, Rainwal Road and location of accused at about 9:16 PM was also Sitaram Sharma Dhaba. According to prosecution, the accused made a call to deceased Raju at 6:30 PM, thus, it appears that at about 9:00 PM accused Om Prakash and deceased Raju were together. In this respect PW-21 Ravi Choudhary has stated in his cross-examination that it is possible that even if persons are at a distance of 10 kilometers then also locations of both the persons can be of one mobile tower. Even otherwise also, the call details produced by the prosecution as Ex. In this respect PW-21 Ravi Choudhary has stated in his cross-examination that it is possible that even if persons are at a distance of 10 kilometers then also locations of both the persons can be of one mobile tower. Even otherwise also, the call details produced by the prosecution as Ex. P-20 is not admissible in evidence in view of the provisions of Section 65B (4) of the Evidence Act because the requisite certificate is not accompanied with the electronic record produced in evidence as mobile call details of deceased Raju. Except above evidence, there is no evidence that deceased and accused-appellant were last seen together. If the prosecution establishes the last seen theory, an inference can be drawn against the accused, which may lead to the finding of the guilt. Considering the statement of PW-21 Ravi Choudhary and the improbabilies, evidence of PW-21 neither inspires confidence nor does it lead to a conclusion that the deceased was last remained with the accused-appellant. (iii) Recoveries:- Prosecution has tried to connect the accused Om Prakash with the incident on disclosure statements made by him under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and recoveries made in consequence thereof. As regard recovery of shoes made from the accused vide Ex. P-9 is concerned, a pair of shoes was seized from the house of the accused alleged to be worn by him at the time of incident. According to the statement of PW-23 Rajendra Singh, the Investigation Officer, he got prepared moulds of foot-wear impression from the spot and sent to Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), as also the pair of shoes seized from the house of the accused. According to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report Ex. P-55, foot-wear sole impression in the moulds were poorly reproduced, hence could not be compared with the shoe sole of the accused-appellant. 16. According to the prosecution, during investigation, tyre impression reproduced in the mould were prepared on the spot and motorcycle of the accused was also seized from his house vide Ex. P-11. Tyre impression reproduced in the mould and motorcycle seized from the house of the accused were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL). According to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report Ex. P-55, tyre impressions reproduced in the mould is similar to the rear side tyre of the motorcycle seized from the house of the accused-appellant. P-11. Tyre impression reproduced in the mould and motorcycle seized from the house of the accused were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL). According to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report Ex. P-55, tyre impressions reproduced in the mould is similar to the rear side tyre of the motorcycle seized from the house of the accused-appellant. Admittedly a burnt motorcycle was found lying on the dead body of the deceased. The possibility of tyre impressions obtained from the spot belonging to aforesaid burnt motorcycle or any other motorcycle is not ruled out from Ex. P-55. Therefore, without any other corroborative evidence, the accused cannot be connected with the alleged crime only on this evidence. 17. According to prosecution, pant and shirt seized from the house of the accused at his instance vide Ex. P-10 were sealed and marked J. These clothes are alleged to be worn by the accused at the time of incident and the shirt was having a spot appears to be of blood. But no evidence has been produced by the prosecution with regard to the examination of said clothes of the accused-appellant by Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), thus, the accused-appellant cannot be connected with the crime on mere recovery of pant and shirt from his house without any other corroborative evidence. 18. The prosecution has also tried to connect the accused- appellant with the crime on the pretext that Ration Card and Voter Identity Card of deceased Raju (Rajendra Saini) were lying in the dickie of his motorcycle, which were taken out by the accused-appellant and both the documents were seized by the police at the instance of accused in consequence of information given by him. The place of alleged recovery i.e. nursery is an open place. In this respect PW-8 Ganga Ram and PW-12 Shrawan have been examined as witnesses of recovery memo Ex. P-16 relating to recovery of Ration Card and Votor Identity Card of deceased. According to Ex. P-36, the accused gave an information to the police that he threw the documents in secluded place near phatak, whereas the alleged recovery has been made from the nursery of Forest Department. Motbir witness of recovery memo Ex. P-16 relating to recovery of Ration Card and Votor Identity Card of deceased. According to Ex. P-36, the accused gave an information to the police that he threw the documents in secluded place near phatak, whereas the alleged recovery has been made from the nursery of Forest Department. Motbir witness of recovery memo Ex. P-16, Ganga Ram PW-8 in his Court statement has not stated that the recovery was made from nursery, rather he stated that recovery of documents was made from the place which comes after nursery and he cannot identify the accused. According to other witness of recovery memo PW-12 Shrawan, neither the police personnels were searched by him nor he was searched by police personnels before going to nursery. In view of above, the evidence produced by the prosecution regarding recovery of Ration Card and Voter Identity Card of deceased cannot be made basis of conviction of the appellant. 19. Police recovered a knife from the spot alleged to be used in commission of crime and pieces of beer bottle but there are no finger prints on the knife and/or pieces of beer bottle, to connect the accused-appellant with the crime. There is no evidence to connect the accused-appellant like that the knife belongs to accused-appellant or he purchased the knife from a certain place. In absence of such evidence, the accused- appellant cannot be connected with weapon alleged to be used in the incident. It is also significant to note that there is no evidence regarding accused-appellant's presence at the place of incident or coming to the place of incident or going from the place of incident. 20. Prosecution has also tried to connect the appellant with the incident on the basis of verification of the place of occurrence by the appellant in consequence of information given by him under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. According to prosecution, the occurrence took place in the intervening night of 17th and 18th July 2007, the police reached on the place of occurrence on 18/07/2007 and prepared site plan. According to the prosecution, disclosure statement of the accused-appellant for verification of the place of occurrence was recorded on 21/07/2007 and in consequence thereof the appellant verified the place of occurrence on 22/07/2007, which is of no consequence as the police already reached and inspected the place of occurrence in the intervening night of 17/07/2007 and 18/07/2007. 21. According to the prosecution, disclosure statement of the accused-appellant for verification of the place of occurrence was recorded on 21/07/2007 and in consequence thereof the appellant verified the place of occurrence on 22/07/2007, which is of no consequence as the police already reached and inspected the place of occurrence in the intervening night of 17/07/2007 and 18/07/2007. 21. It is necessary that all chains of circumstances must be connected together and speaks only one answer that it is the accused who is responsible for the incident. 22. This is settled law that before a case against an accused resting on circumstantial evidence can be said to be fully established only when the following conditions are fulfilled:- (i) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established; (ii) The facts so established should be consistent with the hypothesis of 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. 23. Considering the totality of the evidence, the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are not established by convincing evidence and they do not form a complete chain pointing to the guilt of the accused-appellant. The conviction recorded by the learned trial Court is not supported by credible evidence and the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt and benefit of doubt is to be given to the appellant. 24. In the result, the appeal filed by the accused-appellant Om Prakash @ Nanchhoo is allowed. Impugned judgment dated 02/12/2008 passed by the learned trial court in Sessions Case No. 26/2007 is set aside. Conviction and sentence of accused- appellant for offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC is also set aside. He is acquitted of all the charges. He is in Jail and be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. 25. Conviction and sentence of accused- appellant for offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC is also set aside. He is acquitted of all the charges. He is in Jail and be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. 25. Keeping, however, in view the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant, namely, Om Prakash @ Nanchhoo 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 (Judl.) of this Court, which shall be effective for a period of six months, undertaking that in the event of Special Leave Petition being filed against this judgment or on grant of leave, he, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court.