JUDGMENT : Mohammad Rafiq, J. This criminal appeal is directed against judgment dated 17.12.2008 of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Ajmer, in Sessions Case No.110/2007, whereby accused-appellant Mahendra Singh @ Ghoda has been convicted for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/- and in default he has to further undergo three months simple imprisonment. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a First Information Report No.246/2007 (Exhibit P-1) was registered at Police Station Christian Ganj, Ajmer on 09.09.2007 by one Sohan Singh S/o Mr. Shakta Singh against unknown person alleging therein that his wife Smt. Geeta went on the mines to work on 08.09.2007 and did not return therefrom till 7.00 pm in the evening. It was further alleged in the F.I.R. that when he came to his house he was told that his wife had gone to search the goat on nearby hills and did not return therefrom. Dhara Singh, Jairam, Bhawani went to search her on nearby hills, where they found dead body of deceased Geeta. It was further alleged that her wife had died due to the injury of axe caused by someone. Some more villagers came on the spot and thereafter the F.I.R. was lodged. The police commenced investigation and appellant was arrested and a charge sheet under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was filed by the police against him. Since the case was exclusively triable by the court of sessions, the same was committed to the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Ajmer. The court framed charge under Section 302 IPC against the appellant. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 3. While the prosecution examined 24 witnesses in support of its case and produced 50 exhibits, the defence neither produced any witness nor any exhibits. The accused in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., pleaded innocence and alleged for his false implication. Learned trial court, on conclusion of the trial, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as indicated above. Hence this appeal. 4. We have heard learned counsel for accused- appellant and learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material on record. The accused in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., pleaded innocence and alleged for his false implication. Learned trial court, on conclusion of the trial, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as indicated above. Hence this appeal. 4. We have heard learned counsel for accused- appellant and learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material on record. In order not to overburden the judgment by repetition, we shall deal with rival submissions at the appropriate stage while we proceed to render our findings with reasoning, upon considering correctness of the impugned judgment. 5. There being no direct evidence, prosecution case in the present matter hinges entirely on circumstantial evidence. Learned trial court at Page 18 of the judgment has recorded following eight circumstances to support its findings as to the proof of guilt of the accused for the offence of murder beyond reasonable doubt:- 1. Prior to the incident, the accused and deceased were seen going towards hill of village Boraj and thereafter deceased Mahendra was seen descending the hills alone and Geeta was later found dead on the hill. 2. An amount of Rs.1050/-, which was received by the deceased on that day towards wages, was not found with her. 3. Signs of struggle were found at the place of incident. 4. In pursuance of the information furnished by the accused, blood stained 'kulhari' and blood stained clothes were recovered at the instance of the accused. 5. Human blood was detected on 'kulhari' and clothes recovered at the instance of the accused, and also in the soil lifted from the place of incident. 6. No explanation was furnished by the accused with regard to the human blood found on 'kulhari' as also on his clothes. 7. No explanation was furnished by the accused with regard to one week's old injury found on index finger of his right hand. 8. Accused is a person of dubious character and his absence in the panchayat called in the village after the incident took place. 6. The first circumstance against the accused- appellant cannot be said to be a circumstance based on the concept of last seen theory because what is alleged is that the accused and deceased both prior to incident were seen going towards the hill of village Boraj and thereafter accused was seen alone descending from that hill, where deceased Geeta was later found dead. The witnesses, who has supported this circumstance, are Ganpat Singh (PW-6) and Madan Singh (PW-15). Ganpat Singh (PW-6) runs a shop. His house is situated at the foothills of village Boraj. He stated that on the fateful day he went to his shop at 3.00 pm. He saw accused Mahendra going towards the hill at around 4/4.30 pm, who at that time, was wearing black T-shirt. Deceased Geeta came there about 25 minutes thereafter and enquired from this witness whether he saw her goat. When this witness denied having seen the goat, she went towards the hill in search. This witness has stated that he runs a grocery shop near 'chamunda' temple on the hill. He stated that on 08.09.2007 he reached 'chamunda' temple at 6.30 in the evening and on completion of prayer ('aarti') he descended the hill at 7.30/8.00 pm, and at that time he saw Mahendra @ Ghoda descending from hill, which is known as 'dholi da pahadi', and going towards the 'fai sagar' crossing. Mahendra was maintaining a distance from him and he was appearing to be perturbed. In cross-examination, he stated that he saw Mahendra from a distance of about 20 steps, but he did not converse with him and that he did not hear any cry from the hill either while climbing the steps towards the temple or getting down. It is on the basis of this evidence that learned trial court has constructed theory of last seen. 7. In the case decided by the Supreme Court in Harishchandra Ladaku Thange Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2007 SC 2957 , the witness had not actually seen the accused and deceased together. What he stated was that accused was seen present at some distance nearby field in which deceased was working, and held that that does not bring the concept that deceased being seen last together. 8. In Prakash Vs. State of Karnataka, (2014) 12 SCC 133 , the Supreme Court was dealing with a case where the High Court reversed acquittal of the accused therein and the accused filed appeal there against before the Supreme Court. Allegation in that case was that accused Prakash was present at the house of the deceased at about 1.00 PM on 05.11.1990 and was thus last seen with him. Allegation in that case was that accused Prakash was present at the house of the deceased at about 1.00 PM on 05.11.1990 and was thus last seen with him. The Supreme Court concluded that it does not necessarily follow that he was present at 8.00 PM at deceased's house on that day. There was, thus, absence of some degree of trustworthiness and certainty about Prakash's presence at deceased's house at that point of time. The Supreme Court held that the view taken by the trial court giving benefit of doubt to the deceased was plausible view and in the absence of any perversity in the view taken, the High Court ought not to have upset the conclusion arrived at. 9. The second circumstance relied against the accused by learned trial court is the attribution of motive to the accused in the terms that the deceased on that date received a sum of Rs.1050/- as her wages. In this regard, Sohan Singh (PW-2) has stated that his wife used to work in a mine and on that day, she had gone to collect her wages. In cross-examination, he stated that all the ornaments on the body of his wife were found intact. Saleem Ali (PW-22), who was working as a mason in the mineral factory of Arvind Kumar Garg, situated at Ladpura Road, has stated that his owner has a mine of mica. Wages of the labours used to be paid between 1st and 10th of every month. His owner, while leaving for Jhunjhunu on 07.09.2007, gave Rs.13,000/- to him for distribution of wages. On that day, he paid a sum of Rs.12775/- to 12 labourers including Geeta. Details of the distributed sum were maintained in the account-books, copy of which was produced as Exhibit P-41. This documents shows that a sum of Rs.1050/- was paid to Geeta at the rate of Rs.70/- per day for 15 days towards her wages. But then, the police has not recovered any such amount from the possession or even at the instance of accused-appellant. This documents shows that a sum of Rs.1050/- was paid to Geeta at the rate of Rs.70/- per day for 15 days towards her wages. But then, the police has not recovered any such amount from the possession or even at the instance of accused-appellant. Not only this, the panchayat-nama of dead body (Exhibit P-2) of the deceased prepared by the police, indicates that the deceased at the time of her death was having several ornaments, both of silver and gold, which were found on her body, for example, the earrings of silver, anklet of silver in both the legs, gold ring on the little finger of the right hand and silver ring in the middle finger of the left hand etc. Motive of loot thus stand weakened by reason of the fact that all the ornaments of the deceased were found intact on her body. Even otherwise, the amount of Rs.1050/- has not been recovered and investigating agency has failed to prove as to where the amount has ultimately gone. 10. The third circumstance relied against the accused to base his conviction is that there were signs of struggle found at the place of incident. This circumstance by itself does not lead to any proof against the accused-appellant because there is no direct evidence and entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. The fourth circumstance is to the effect that blood stained 'kulhari' and blood stained clothes were recovered at the instance of the accused-appellant. In this regard, Sohan Singh (PW-2), who is husband of deceased Geeta, in his examination-in-chief, has categorically stated that when they went towards 'dauli- dant' in search of Geeta, while climbing the steps of 'chamunda' temple, they found the dead body of Geeta. They also saw a 'kulhari' lying nearby. In cross-examination, this witness again stated that 'kulhari' was lying near dead body of his wife and this 'kulhari' was picked up by the police. Police then carried the 'kulhari' with them. He also stated that not only he but Dhara Singh, Jairam, Bhawani Singh and Kansingh and other persons accompanied him while searching for Geeta and they saw 'kulhari' lying near her dead body. Manmohan (PW-10), in cross-examination, stated that he was also with Sohan Singh while they were on search of Geeta. Police then carried the 'kulhari' with them. He also stated that not only he but Dhara Singh, Jairam, Bhawani Singh and Kansingh and other persons accompanied him while searching for Geeta and they saw 'kulhari' lying near her dead body. Manmohan (PW-10), in cross-examination, stated that he was also with Sohan Singh while they were on search of Geeta. In cross-examination, however, he stated that he did not see 'kulhari' because it was dark at that time and he could not see whether 'kulhari' was lying there. He saw the dead body only when the police brought it down on the ground from the hill, but he had heard that 'kulhari' was lying near the dead body and that the police had taken away the same with them. Accused is shown to have given information under Section 27 vide information-memo (Exhibit P-43) with regard to 'kulhari' and that he led the police to the place where he had concealed the 'kulhari', which was recovered vide Exhibit P-7. Perusal of Exhibit P-7 indicates that 'kulhari' was recovered from a hollow pit beneath the stones of the hill and that it was blood stained. Recovery of 'kulhari' thus becomes highly suspect. 11. As far as clothes of the accused-appellant are concerned, statement of Rajendra Tyagi (PW-24), in this connection, makes even this recovery quite suspect. The date of incident is 08.09.2007 and the accused is shown to have been arrested on 16.09.2007 vide arrest-memo (Exhibit P-13). The accused gave information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act on 18.09.2007 vide Exhibit P-44 that he had concealed the clothes near 'Vishram Sthali' of 'Ana Sagar', which he was wearing at the time of incident. The clothes were recovered vide Exhibit P-10. The Investigating Officer and one witness Mohan Singh followed him to that place. The accused got pant and t-shirt, which were blood stained, recovered from near 'babool' tree near 'Vishram Sthali'. In further cross-examination, this witness stated that at the time of 'dargah' fair at Ajmer, several pilgrims stay at the 'Vishram Sthali'. There is no restriction if anyone wants to stay there at any point of time throughout the year. He also admitted that many people left their old worn and used clothes at the 'Vishram Sthali', wherefrom recovery of pant and t-shirt was made at the instance of the accused. There is no restriction if anyone wants to stay there at any point of time throughout the year. He also admitted that many people left their old worn and used clothes at the 'Vishram Sthali', wherefrom recovery of pant and t-shirt was made at the instance of the accused. Indisputably, this recovery has been made ten days after the incident and that too from an open place. It is highly unsafe to rely such recovery in a blindfolded manner. Moreover, the Investigating Officer, in cross-examination, clearly admitted that he did not get the blood of the accused checked from the medical college, which was necessary to rule out whether the blood on the said clothes was not that of the accused himself. Even otherwise, the alleged blood on pant and t-shirt in the FSL Report were found to be of human origin but its group remained inconclusive. 12. The fifth circumstance against the accused- appellant is that the human blood was detected on 'kulhari' and clothes recovered at the instance of the accused, and also in the soil lifted from the place of incident. This circumstance by itself cannot be the basis to determine the guilt of the accused-appellant. The sixth circumstance against the accused-appellant is that he failed to give any explanation with regard to the human blood found on 'kulhari' as also on his clothes. Even this circumstance would be read against the accused only if recovery of 'kulhari' and clothes is found proved against him by clinching evidence, which is absent in the present case. Attesting witnesses of recovery of 'kulhari' are Panchu Singh and Vijay Singh. While Vijay Singh has not been produced, Panchu Singh, who has been examined as PW-9, has stated that Sohan Singh, husband of deceased, happens to be his cousin. Attesting witnesses of recovery memo (Exhibit P-10) are Bhairon Singh and Harchand @ India. Bhairon Singh has not been produced in evidence, but Harchand has been examined as PW-11, who, in cross- examination, admitted that the place from where recovery of clothes was made, was an open place and 'Vishram Sthali' was not locked and it was surrounded by lot of shrubs. Neither the clothes were measured in his presence nor was the accused made to wear them to know whether they were his clothes. This witness also stated that Sohan Singh happens to be his first cousin. Neither the clothes were measured in his presence nor was the accused made to wear them to know whether they were his clothes. This witness also stated that Sohan Singh happens to be his first cousin. This circumstance is also therefore not an additional or independent circumstance. 13. The seventh circumstance against the accused- appellant is that the accused has failed to furnish any explanation with regard to one week's old injury found on index finger of his own right hand. Exhibit P-24 is the injury report of the accused, which was prepared on 17.09.2007. This injury report indicates that there was healed wound on the dorsal of right index finger of the accused, measurement of which was 1x1 cm, which was simple in nature caused by blunt object. This injury by itself cannot be a determinative factor for deciding the guilt of the accused-appellant. 14. The eighth and last circumstance, which learned trial court relied to prove guilt of the appellant, is that conduct of the accused-appellant was abnormal and that he did not participate in the meeting called in the village after the incident took place. Ganpat Singh (PW-6) has stated that 'panchayat' was convened in the village on the next date of the incident and all other male persons of the village attended the 'panchayat' but Mahendra, who is a person of criminal nature, did not attend that 'panchayat'. Madan Singh (PW-15), another witness who has also given the statement to the same effect. But merely because accused-appellant did not attend the 'panchayat' does not prove that any male member of the village, who did not attend such 'panchayat' should be presumed to be guilty. No significance can be attached to the factum of non-appearance of the accused-appellant in 'panchayat', to raise the same at the level of proof against him. 15. It is trite that in a case of circumstantial evidence not only each circumstance should be proved against accused but all of them, when joined together, should unerringly point to the guilt of the accused and none else and rule out every single hypothesis, which may be compatible with his innocence. 15. It is trite that in a case of circumstantial evidence not only each circumstance should be proved against accused but all of them, when joined together, should unerringly point to the guilt of the accused and none else and rule out every single hypothesis, which may be compatible with his innocence. In the present case, not only each of the circumstances not individually proved against the accused beyond reasonable doubt but formation of chain of such circumstance leaves very many missing link, thus not making the chain so complete as to be incompatible with innocence of the accused-appellant. 16. In Krishnan alias Ramasamy & Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2014) 12 SCC 279 , there was contradictory versions of prosecution witnesses as to where deceased was last seen with the accused. There was no other positive material on record to show that the deceased was last seen with the accused and during intervening period of seven days, there was nobody in contact with the deceased. There was contradiction about the place where the accused was last seen with the deceased. Conviction of the accused therein based on last seen together theory was set aside. 17. The Supreme Court in Ashok Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2015) 4 SCC 393 held that initial burden of proof is always on prosecution to adduce sufficient evidence pointing towards guilt of accused. However, in case it is established that accused was last seen together with the deceased, the prosecution is exempted to prove exact happening of incident as the accused himself would have special knowledge of incident and thus, would have burden of proof as per Section 106 of the Evidence Act. But, last seen together itself is not conclusive proof but along with other circumstances surrounding the incident, like relations between accused and deceased, enmity between them, previous history of hostility, recovery of weapon from accused, etc. non-explanation of death of deceased, etc. may lead to a presumption of guilt of accused. In that case, no other clinching evidence was produced by the prosecution in support of the last seen together theory so as to shift burden of proof onto accused. 18. The Supreme Court in Kanhaiya Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2014) 4 SCC 715 was dealing with a case where last seen together was the only circumstantial evidence against the accused. 18. The Supreme Court in Kanhaiya Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2014) 4 SCC 715 was dealing with a case where last seen together was the only circumstantial evidence against the accused. It was held that circumstance of last seen together does not by itself necessarily lead to inference that it was accused, who committed crime. There must be something more establishing connection between accused and crime, that points to guilt of accused and none less. Mere non-explanation of being last seen together with deceased person on part of accused, by itself cannot lead to proof of guilt against him. Conviction of the accused- appellant therein was reversed. 19. In view of above, we are of the opinion that evidence in the matter is not such, which unerringly point to the guilt of accused Mahendra Singh @ Ghoda and none else and the chain of circumstances, as far as he is concerned, is not so complete as may form the basis for the conclusion that it was he alone, who must have committed this murder and none else. It is trite that before arriving at certain conclusion regarding accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence, every reasonable hypothesis, which may be compatible with his innocence, must be ruled out, whereas the evidence in the present case falls short of qualifying that stringent test. 20. In the result, the criminal appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 17.12.2008 of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Ajmer in Sessions Case No.110/2007, is set-aside. Conviction and sentence of accused-appellant Mahendra Singh @ Ghoda S/o Sh. Chhotu Singh for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is set aside. He is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. He is in jail and be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. 21. Conviction and sentence of accused-appellant Mahendra Singh @ Ghoda S/o Sh. Chhotu Singh for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is set aside. He is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. He is in jail and be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. 21. Keeping, however, in view the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, appellant Mahendra Singh @ Ghoda 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 (Judicial) of this Court, which shall be effective for a period of six months, with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against this judgment or on grant of leave, he, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court.