JUDGMENT : K.S. Jhaveri, J. 1. Both these appeals are filed against the judgment and order dated 17.8.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 6, Ahmedabad City in Sessions Case No. 339 of 2006. By the impugned judgment, learned trial Judge has convicted accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "IPC") and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 10,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for two months was imposed. Learned trial Judge has also convicted accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the offence under Section 120(B) of IPC and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for one month was imposed. Accused No. 2 is also held guilty for offence under Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act and ordered to undergo six months' imprisonment. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, both the accused have preferred present appeals. 2. Learned advocates Mr. Prabhakar Upadhyay as well as Mr. C.J. Vin have filed leave-notes today, however, Mr. Yogesh Lakhani, learned Senior Advocate along with learned advocate Mr. Thakkar have appeared for accused No. 2-appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 1348 of 2007, while learned advocate Mr. M.B. Gohil has appeared for accused No. 1, appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 1349 of 2007. Therefore, these appeals are taken up for final hearing today. 3. The facts in brief giving rise to the filing of present appeal are as under: 3.1 It is the case of the prosecution that Hemant, brother of the complainant Ushaben had borrowed Rs. 40,000/- from the accused and though the amount was demanded time and again by original accused No. 1 and accused No. 2, the amount was not given back. When the complainant was at home, three persons came and demanded money, which was borrowed by the deceased. On 20.2.2006, when father of the complainant came to their house, whereabout of the deceased was not found and upon inquiry being made, it came to their notice that a scuffle of the deceased took place with the accused near Shubham Pan Palace and thereafter his dead body was thrown near Kharikat Canal. With these allegations, the complaint was filed against the accused persons. With these allegations, the complaint was filed against the accused persons. 3.2 On complaint being filed, investigation was carried out and the accused came to be arrested. At the end of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused before the Magistrate Court. Since the offence was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to Sessions Court and, ultimately, trial was initiated and charge came to be framed. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 3.3 During the trial, the prosecution had examined following witnesses:- Sr. No. Name Exh. 1 Ushaben Mafatlal Shah, complainant 11 2 Ramanlal Gulabchand Jain 14 3 Vijaybhai Prahladbhai Patel 15 4 Hansaben Vijaykumar Patel 17 5 Devendrabhai Nagarbhai Joshi 18 6 Kantibhai Sayababhai Patni 19 7 Dr. Alpesh Gordhanbhai Dagani 32 8 Vinodkumar Natthuram Agrawal 34 9 Vipul Jayantibhai Christian 35 10 Jahur Ahemad Usmanmiya Shaikh 38 11 Mitesh Girishbhai Thakkar 40 12 Harshadbhai Amrutlal Shah 42 13 Gabhusinh Jashvantsinh Chavda 49 14 Jagdishbhai Laljibhai Patel 51 15 Vijay Arvindbhai Patel 55 16 Ramjagat Rambachchan Varma 61 17 Motibhai Mulabhai Parmar 62 18 Lalitkumar Dhulabhai Patel 63 19 Laxmansinh Parbatsinh Solanki 65 20 Kirit @ Lalbhai Shantilal 78 21 Natvarlal Ramanlal Jayswal 79 22 Prakashbhai Haribhai Patel 82 23 Kalidas Kevaji Modi 83 3.4 The prosecution had also produced and relied upon following documentary evidence:- Sr. No. Description Exh. 1 Original complaint 12 2 Report written to change officer 20 3 Report for addition of Section 364, 302, 120(B) of IPC and Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act. No. Description Exh. 1 Original complaint 12 2 Report written to change officer 20 3 Report for addition of Section 364, 302, 120(B) of IPC and Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act. 21 4 Xerox of the application made by deceased Hemant Shah to Naroda Police Station 22 5 FSL dispatch note 23 6 Opinion with covering letter of FSL 24 7 Receipt of FSL 25 8 Report with Covering letter of FSL 26 9 Report of biological department of FSL 27 10 Report made for getting mobile prints of the accused Mayank Shah along with print 28 11 Report made for getting mobile prints of the accused Vipul jayantilal along with print 29 12 Report made for getting mobile prints of the accused Prakash along with print 30 13 Print outs of Vinod Natthuram 31 14 Postmortem report 33 15 Station diary note 39 16 Panchnama of the place of offence shown by accused Mayank 41 17 Panchnama of the place of offence 43 18 Inquest panchnama 44 19 Panchnama of the things recovered from the body after postmortem 45 20 Panchnama of the viscera and other things after postmortem of the body 46 21 Note regarding injury into application at exh.21 50 22 Panch slips 52 to 54 23 Panchnama of the things produced by the accused Prakash 56 24 Panch slips 57 to 60 25 Panch slips 66-67 26 Report written of FSL officer to came to the place of offence 68 27 Analysis report of the place of offence by FSL officer 69 28 Panchnama of the things produced by accused-Parful 70 29 Panchnama of the things produced by accused-Mukesh 71 30 Panchnama of analysis done by FSL officer at the place of offence 72 31 Panchnama of seizure of mobile and clothes produced by accused-Mayank 73 32 Notification of the Police Commissioner 74 33 FSL receipt regarding muddamal 75 34 Panch slips 76-77 35 Panch slips 80-81 3.5 At the end of trial, the Court below recorded further statements of accused persons under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and thereafter, passed the impugned judgment and order awarding the sentence to accused Nos. 1 and 2, as aforesaid. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of the trial Court, present appeals are preferred before this Court by accused Nos. 1 and 2. 4. Mr. 1 and 2, as aforesaid. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of the trial Court, present appeals are preferred before this Court by accused Nos. 1 and 2. 4. Mr. Y.S. Lakhani, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant-original accused No. 2 has taken us through the evidence and submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the appellant. He has taken us through the medical evidence and postmortem report of the deceased person. He submitted that as per the case of the prosecution, the incident has occurred at three places, firstly the deceased was kidnapped from the place near Ronak Pan Corner, which is near to Radha Krishna temple and he was beaten there, secondly it is alleged that he was brought near Shubham Palace near Umiya Society and there he was beaten and lastly he was killed near Kharikat Canal and his dead body was thrown into the canal. Therefore, it is alleged that the offence has been committed at the aforesaid three places, however, it is submitted that out of these three places, no evidence is found regarding occurrence of such offence from the first two places. He submitted that the eye-witnesses to the incident, PW-3, Vijaybhai Prahladbhai and his wife Hansaben, PW-4, whose shop is near the shop of accused No. 2 where the deceased was allegedly beaten, have not supported the case of the prosecution. He also submitted that there is no substantive piece of evidence connecting the accused with the offence. He submitted that the present case is based on circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has failed to complete the chain, therefore, the accused is wrongly convicted by the trial Court. He further submitted that even if the complaint and evidence of Ushaben Mafatlal Shah, Exh.11 is believed regarding the phone call received from the accused along with panchnama at Exh.56, regarding recovery of the phone, then also it is difficult to believe the case of the prosecution as one of the witness has stated that one of the weapon (Tavetha) was collected from the milk shop by the police. He further contended that crucial links in the case are not proved. He also submitted that, on the basis of this evidence, it cannot be said that the accused had committed the offence in question. Mr. He further contended that crucial links in the case are not proved. He also submitted that, on the basis of this evidence, it cannot be said that the accused had committed the offence in question. Mr. Lakhani also submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove involvement of the accused in the present offence. He submitted that considering all these aspects of the matter, the trial Court has committed an error in convicting the accused and this appeal may be allowed by setting aside the conviction of the accused No. 2. 5. Mr. M.B. Gohil, learned advocate appearing for accused No. 1, appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 1398 of 2007, has accepted the submissions made by Mr. Lakhani and prayed to allow this Criminal Appeal by setting aside the conviction of accused No. 1 also. 6. On the other hand, Mr. L.R. Pujari, learned APP appearing for the State has submitted that the order of conviction recorded against the appellants-accused Nos. 1 and 2 is just and proper and he has supported the conviction recorded by impugned judgment. Learned APP has contended that taking into consideration the medical evidence, evidence of the complainant, and other witnesses, the view taken by the trial Court is just and proper and no interference is called for. He submitted that considering the evidence on record, the prosecution has proved the presence of the accused at the scene of offence and, therefore, they are rightly convicted by the trial Court. He further submitted that in view of the application, Exh.22, it is clearly established as to what was the motive behind commission of offence and why the accused have done away with the deceased. He submitted that the learned trial Judge has not committed any error while imposing the sentence on the accused and, therefore, no interference is called for in the present appeal. 7. We have heard Mr. Y.S. Lakhani, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant-original accused No. 2, Mr. M.B. Gohil, learned advocate for accused No. 1 and Mr. L.R. Pujari, learned APP for the State. We have also gone through the impugned judgment as well as evidence on record. From the medical evidence, it is clear that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained by him and, therefore, this is a case of culpable homicide amounting to murder. L.R. Pujari, learned APP for the State. We have also gone through the impugned judgment as well as evidence on record. From the medical evidence, it is clear that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained by him and, therefore, this is a case of culpable homicide amounting to murder. Considering the evidence on record, it is clear that the eye witness to the incident have turned hostile and they have not supported the case of the prosecution and there is no substantial piece of evidence connecting the accused with the offence. Even if recovery panchnama is taken into consideration, it can be said to be a corroborative piece of evidence and it cannot be relied to convict the accused persons. There is nothing on record to prove that anyone had seen the accused Nos. 1 and 2 along with the deceased on the day of the incident and the case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. The normal principle in a case based on circumstantial evidence is that the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; that those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; that 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 they should be incapable of explanation on any hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocence. In the present case, there is no direct or substantial evidence connecting accused Nos. 1 and 2 with the offence and the evidence relied upon by the trial Court can be said to be corroborative evidence and, on such evidence, conviction cannot be recorded. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the trial Court has committed an error in convicting accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. In view of all these, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused persons and the trial Court has committed an error in convicting the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120-(B) of IPC and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. In view of all these, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused persons and the trial Court has committed an error in convicting the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120-(B) of IPC and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. Hence, we are of the opinion that these Criminal Appeals is required to be allowed. 8. For the foregoing reasons, both these appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 17.8.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 6, Ahmedabad City in Sessions Case No. 339 of 2006 is quashed and set aside so far as present appellants-original accused Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned. The appellants herein-original accused Nos. 1 and 2 are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them. Bail bond, if any, of the accused stands cancelled. Record and Proceedings, if lying here, be sent back to the concerned trial Court forthwith.