JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. 1. By way of present appeal, the State has challenged the judgment passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur, Sessions Division at Rampur Bushahr in Sessions Trial No. 45 of 2010 dated 17.06.2011, vide which the learned trial Court has acquitted the accused for offences under Sections 364, 302, 201, 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Case of the prosecution was that FIR No. 6/2010 was registered under Section 364 read with Section 34 at Police Station, Ani Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment on 11.01.2010 on the basis of a complaint sent by complainant Jasbir Singh through fax. The complainant, who is resident of Village Naldehra, Post Officer and Tehsil Ani, District Kullu made a complaint dated 04.01.2010 to SHO, Police Station, Ani with regard to kidnapping of his daughter Aninder Kaur. According to the complainant, the husband of deceased Aninder Kaur, accused Praveen Kumar (hereinafter referred to as ‘A-1’) had provided her with an accommodation at Rampur Bushahr/Jagatkhana in the house of one Sh. K.C. Thakur on rent. On 31.12.2000, accused Bakshi Ram (hereinafter referred to as ‘A-3’) father-in-law of Aninder had called her to Ani on the pretext that he had to register land/house in her name. As on that date the documents were not complete, he again called her to Ani on 04.01.2010. According to the complainant, Aninder told him on mobile on 03.01.2010 that on 04.01.2010, she was going to Tehsil Office, Ani as instructed by A-3. On 04.01.2010 at around 8 a.m., she told the complainant to meet her at Bus Stand, Ani at 9:45 a.m. Accordingly, the complainant reached Ani Bus Stand at 9:30 a.m. on 04.01.2010 to meet his daughter. She reached there at 10:45 a.m. by Chowai bus. He took her to a shop at Ani bazaar for having tea. She told him that her father-in-law had called her on mobile for execution of registry of a house in her favour. While they were having tea, his daughter received a call from A-3, who inquired from her as to why she had not reached Ani. She told A-3 that she was having tea with her father and that she had reached Ani. On this, A-3 asked her to meet him at Kiran bazaar, Ani. While they were having tea, his daughter received a call from A-3, who inquired from her as to why she had not reached Ani. She told A-3 that she was having tea with her father and that she had reached Ani. On this, A-3 asked her to meet him at Kiran bazaar, Ani. He again rang her and asked her to reach the Tehsil alone as it was a matter only between them. On this, she left for Tehsil alone. After 15-20 minutes, the complainant received a call from Sh. K.C. Thakur informing him that he had been asked by A-3 to come to Tehsil for being cited as witness and that at Tehsil, nether Aninder had reached nor A-3 or his son Praveen Kumar (A-1) had reached. He also told him that their phones were being reported as switched off. The number of his daughter was 94186-15611 and the same was not responding till 11 p.m. on 04.01.2010 and thereafter it was reported to be switched off. 3. During investigation, the call details of the said number as well as those of A-1, A-3, Karam Chand, landlord and the complainant were obtained. Search was made for Aninder, but of no avail. 4. Investigation revealed that A-1 had got attested an affidavit on 27.10.2009 from Public Notary at Rampur regarding being married to Aninder. As A-1 was not taking her to his house, Aninder pressurized him to transfer his property in her name. Karam Singh brought this fact into the knowledge of A-3, who talked with Aninder on telephone. Through landlord Sh. K. C. Thakur, she demanded Rs. 20-30 lakhs or transfer of the house at Ani in her name. On 31.12.2009, A-1, A-3, Aninder and Sh. K.C. Thakur gathered at Tehsil, on which date, the registry could not be effected on account of non-availability of Kisaan Pass Book. The next date to do the needful was accordingly proposed as 04.01.2010. On 04.01.2010, A-3 contacted Aninder on her mobile seven times between 7-27.43 to 11-53.45 a.m. He had asked her to come alone to Tehsil. 5. Investigation further revealed that at abut 11 a.m., when she reached near a under construction Hospital, A-1 alongwith his cousin Diwan Chand (hereinafter referred to as ‘A-2’) were waiting for her in his Car bearing registration No. HP-35-0638. She talked for a while with A-1 and thereafter boarded the Car. 5. Investigation further revealed that at abut 11 a.m., when she reached near a under construction Hospital, A-1 alongwith his cousin Diwan Chand (hereinafter referred to as ‘A-2’) were waiting for her in his Car bearing registration No. HP-35-0638. She talked for a while with A-1 and thereafter boarded the Car. Instead of taking the Car to Tehsil, she was driven away via Barad road. While in custody, A-1 made a disclosure statement to the effect that the dead body of Aninder was thrown in river Sutluj from Loohri-Suni road with the help of A-2 near Baru temple after killing her because he was fed up with the demands of Rs. 30/- lakhs. On this, the demarcation of the spot was done from where the dead body was alleged to have been thrown into the river Sutluj by A-1 and A-2. 6. As per the prosecution, Daya Nand and Bikham had seen A-1 and A-2 throwing the dead body in river Sutluj. It further came in investigation that on 04.01.2010, Sh. Deep Chand and Ashwani Kumar had seen A-1 taking Aninder at around 11 a.m. from near under construction Hospital in his Car with A-2. 7. Investigation further revealed that A-1 to A-3 had entered into a criminal conspiracy and under that conspiracy, Aninder was called to Ani on 04.01.2010 on the pretext that A-3 was to get the registry executed in the name of deceased. Thus, on this pretext, the conspiracy was hatched to do away with the deceased. 8. After completion of the investigation, challan was presented in the Court. As a prima facie case was found against the accused, accordingly they were charged for commission of offence under Sections 364, 302, 201, 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 9. On the basis of material produced on record by the prosecution, the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution had not been able to prove that any criminal conspiracy was entered into between the accused to kidnap and kill Aninder and further in order to screen themselves from legal punishment to throw her dead body into river Sutluj. Learned trial Court further concluded that the prosecution has also not been able to prove that A-1 and A-2 in furtherance of their common intention had kidnapped Aninder and thereafter committed her murder and threw her dead body in river Sutluj near a place at Baru temple. Accordingly, the learned trial Court acquitted the accused of the offences alleged against them. 10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the records of the case. 11. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution in all examined 22 witnesses. 12. PW-1 Jasbir Singh has deposed that deceased was his daughter and was married to accused Praveen Kumar. Marriage took place in a temple and thereafter an affidavit to this effect was got attested from Notary on 27.10.2009. Thereafter, he has deposed what he had stated in his complaint with regard to the occurrence of the incident. He also deposed that he suspected that his daughter might have been kidnapped by the accused persons and accordingly, he made a report at Police Station, Ani Ex. PW1/A. He further deposed that as no FIR was lodged till 10.01.2010 on the basis of his report Ex. PW1/A, accordingly on 11.01.2010, he sent a written complaint to Superintendent of Police, Kullu through registered post and also through fax. On the basis of the same, FIR was registered on 11.01.2010 and accused Praveen Kumar was arrested on 19.01.2010. 13. PW-2 Sandeep has deposed that he runs a tea shop in the name and style of Babaji Sweet Corner. He further deposed that he knew deceased and also her father Jasbir Singh. As per him, on 04.01.2010 at around 10/10:30 a.m. the deceased and her father came to his shop and took tea. Thereafter, first deceased went away and thereafter her father left the shop after making payment. He also deposed that deceased was married to accused Praveen Kumar with whom she was residing. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he knew the deceased being neighbour. 14. PW-3 Sangat Ram has deposed that he remained as a Document Writer at Ani and on 31.12.2009, accused Bakshi Ram came to him for getting scribed the sale deed which he wrote partly. The document could not be completed as he had asked Bakshi Ram to bring one year average of the property and also agriculture certificate of the vendee. PW-3 Sangat Ram has deposed that he remained as a Document Writer at Ani and on 31.12.2009, accused Bakshi Ram came to him for getting scribed the sale deed which he wrote partly. The document could not be completed as he had asked Bakshi Ram to bring one year average of the property and also agriculture certificate of the vendee. The sale deed partially scribed by him was Ex. PW3/A. He also deposed that on that date, Bakshi Ram was not accompanied by any lady. 15. PW-4 Meena Ram did not support the case of the prosecution and stated that nothing had happened in his presence. He was declared as a hostile witness. In his cross-examination, he denied that any disclosure statement was ever made in his presence by accused Praveen Kumar, though he admitted his signatures on the said disclosure statement. He stated that his signatures were taken on the said document in the Police Station, where he was called. 16. PW-5 Himesh Sood has stated that he runs a shop of utensils and on 11.1.2010, someone called him and asked to give fax tone and thereafter he gave fax tone and received complaint Ex. PW1/B, which he sent to Police Station, Ani. 17. PW-6 Bhikham Ram has deposed that one year back, he was cutting fuel wood across river Sutluj and Daya Nand was also present guarding the crop from monkeys. At about 2/2:30 p.m., he saw something in the shape of katta being thrown in river Sutluj by two persons who had come in a saleti colour vehicle. Throwing of the gunny bag in the river created sound. After throwing the said gunny bag, those two persons went away in the vehicle towards Sunni side. He has further deposed that thereafter he rang a shopkeeper Heera Lal, who was at his shop some distance away from Badu temple in order to know the number of the vehicle as something had been thrown by the occupants in the river. Heera Lal told him that he was at Karsog. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the vehicle in which those persons had come was similar to a Tata Sumo. He also stated that from that point, he was at a distance of about 1 km. across the river. 18. PW-7 Hira Lal has deposed that he has a shop at place known as Nathan at Sunni road. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the vehicle in which those persons had come was similar to a Tata Sumo. He also stated that from that point, he was at a distance of about 1 km. across the river. 18. PW-7 Hira Lal has deposed that he has a shop at place known as Nathan at Sunni road. He had received a call from Daya Nand that near Badu temple, something had been thrown in river Sutluj and for this reason, he had asked him to note the number of the vehicle in which those persons had come. He further deposed that he told Daya Nand that he was at Karsog. 19. PW-8 M.L. Sharma has deposed that he was working as Assistant Nodal Officer, Reliance Communication, Shimla and he had provided the details of mobile numbers. 20. PW-9 Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, who was posted as TM in B.S.N.L., Rampur Bushahr has also proved the details of mobile numbers. 21. PW-10 Constable Mohinder Singh is witness to taking into possession of Santro Car, which was bearing registration No. HP-35-6031 vide Ex. PW10/A. 22. PW-11 HHC Gulab Singh is witness to taking into possession of documents of the above mentioned Santro Car. 23. PW-12 Head Constable Pushp Dev is witness to receipt of fax Ex. PW1/B at Police Station, Ani on 11.01.2010, on the basis of which FIR Ex. PW12/A was registered and was marked to ASI Jagat Singh for investigation. 24. PW-13 Pratap Chand has stated that he remained posted as SHO, Police Station Ani. According to him, on 10.04.2010, Inspector Amar Singh handed over the case file after completion of investigation to him and he prepared the challan and presented the same in the Court. 25. PW-14 HHC Roshan Lal is witness to taking into possession of incomplete sale deed papers. 26. PW-15 SI Jagat Singh had recorded the statements of Jasbir Singh, Prabhjit Kaur and K.C. Thakur under Section 161 Cr. P.C. He also recorded the statement of Sandeep Kumar on 14.01.2010. 27. PW-16 Diwan Singh has stated that he was working as Notary Public. On 27.10.2009, Praveen Kumar and Aninder Kaur had come with Karam Chand for attestation of marriage affidavit, which was attested by him. 28. PW-17 Kuldeep Kumar did not support the case of the prosecution and he resiled from his earlier statement. Accordingly, he was declared as hostile witness. 29. PW-18 Dr. On 27.10.2009, Praveen Kumar and Aninder Kaur had come with Karam Chand for attestation of marriage affidavit, which was attested by him. 28. PW-17 Kuldeep Kumar did not support the case of the prosecution and he resiled from his earlier statement. Accordingly, he was declared as hostile witness. 29. PW-18 Dr. Chhering proved on record that accused Bakshi Ram was working as M.P.W. in Sub Centre, Olwa and on 04.01.2010, he was on compensatory leave. 30. PW-19 Lady Constable Tikma Devi produced on record rapat No. 21A dated 04.01.2010 Ex. PW19/A. 31. PW-20 Balbir Thakur also did not support the case of the prosecution and he resiled from his previous statement. 32. PW-21 Inspector Amar Chand deposed that he partially investigated the case by recording the statements of Hira Lal, Prabhjeet Kaur and Bodh Raj as per versions given by them. He further deposed that he also recorded the statements of Bhikham Ram and Daya Nand. He also arrested accused Bakshi Ram and handed over the case file to Inspector Pratap Singh. 33. PW-22 SI Gurbachan Singh deposed that accused Praveen Kumar made a disclosure statement Ex. PW4/A under Section 27 of the Evidence Act while in custody and on the basis of the said disclosure statement, demarcation of the place from where dead body of Aninder Kaur was thrown in a gunny bag was done. He has also stated that the said disclosure statement was made in the presence of witnesses Balbir and Mina Ram. 34. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the records of the case as well as the judgment passed by the learned trial Court at length. 35. In the present case, there is no eye witness who has supported the case of the prosecution inter-alia to the effect that the deceased was kidnapped by A-1 and A-2 from near the under construction hospital and thereafter she was murdered. Thus, the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. 36. At this stage, it is relevant to take note of the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court on circumstantial evidence in Vijay Thakur Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2014) 14 SCC 609 , relevant paras of which are quoted below: “18. Thus, the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. 36. At this stage, it is relevant to take note of the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court on circumstantial evidence in Vijay Thakur Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2014) 14 SCC 609 , relevant paras of which are quoted below: “18. It is to be emphasized at this stage that except the so-called recoveries, there is no other circumstances worth the name which has been proved against these two appellants. It is a case of blind murder. There are no eyewitnesses. Conviction is based on the circumstantial evidence. In such a case, complete chain of events has to be established pointing out the culpability of the accused person. The chain should be such that no other conclusion, except the guilt of the accused person, is discernible without any doubt. Insofar as these two appellants are concerned, there is no circumstance attributed except that they were with Rajinder Thakur till Sainj and the alleged disclosure leading to recoveries, which appears to be doubtful. When we look into all these facts in entirety in the aforesaid context, we find that not only the chain of events is incomplete, it becomes somewhat difficult to convict the appellant only on the basis of the aforesaid recoveries. 19. In Mani v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2008) 1 SCR 228 , this Court made following pertinent observation on this very aspect: “26. The discovery is a weak kind of evidence and cannot be wholly relied upon on and conviction in such a serious matter cannot be based upon the discovery. Once the discovery fails, there would be literally nothing which would support the prosecution case....” 20. There is a reiteration of the same sentiment in Manthuri Laxmi Narsaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2011) 14 SCC 117 in the following manner: “6. It is by now well settled that in a case relating to circumstantial evidence the chain of circumstances has to be spelt out by the prosecution and if even one link in the chain is broken the accused must get the benefit thereof. We are of the opinion that the present is in fact a case of no evidence.” 21. Likewise, in Mustkeem alias Sirajudeen v. State of Rajasthan, (2011) 11 SCC 724 , this Court observed as under: “24. We are of the opinion that the present is in fact a case of no evidence.” 21. Likewise, in Mustkeem alias Sirajudeen v. State of Rajasthan, (2011) 11 SCC 724 , this Court observed as under: “24. In a most celebrated case of this Court, Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 , in para 153, some cardinal principles regarding the appreciation of circumstantial evidence have been postulated. Whenever the case is based on circumstantial evidence the following features are required to be complied with. It would be beneficial to repeat the same salient features once again which are as under: “(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; (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.” 37. Thus, the salient points which have been carved out by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of circumstantial evidence, on the basis of which the guilt of the accused can be brought home are as under: “(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; (v) Thee 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.” 38. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sangili alias Sanganathan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2014) 10 SCC 264 has held as under: “15. To sum up what is discussed above, it is a case of blind murder. There are no eyewitnesses. Conviction is based on the circumstantial evidence. In such a case, complete chain of events has to be established pointing out the culpability of the accused person. The chain should be such that no other conclusion, except the guilt of the accused person, is discernible without any doubt. In the present case, we find, in the first instance, that the appellant was roped in with suspicion that it was a case of triangular love and since he also loved PW-3, he eliminated the deceased when he found that the deceased and PW-3 are in love with each other. However, we are of the view that this motive has not been proved. The evidence of last seen is also not established. Father of the deceased only said that the deceased had received a call and after receiving that call he left the house. In his deposition, he admitted that he had not seen the appellant before and he did not recognize his voice either. Therefore, he was unable to say as to whether the phone call received was that of the appellant. In his deposition, he admitted that he had not seen the appellant before and he did not recognize his voice either. Therefore, he was unable to say as to whether the phone call received was that of the appellant. Proceeding further, we find that the deceased was not seen by anybody after he left the house. When we look into all these facts in entirety in the aforesaid context, we find that not only the chain of events is incomplete, it becomes somewhat difficult to convict the appellant only on the basis of the aforesaid recoveries. 16. In Mani v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2009) 17 SCC 273 , this Court made following pertinent observation on this very aspect: “26. The discovery is a weak kind of evidence and cannot be wholly relied upon and conviction in such a serious matter cannot be based upon the discovery. Once the discovery fails, there would be literally nothing which would support the prosecution case....” There is a reiteration of the same sentiment in Manthuri Laxmi Narsaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2011) 14 SCC 117 in the following manner: “6. It is by now well settled that in a case relating to circumstantial evidence the chain of circumstances has to be spelt out by the prosecution and if even one link in the chain is broken the accused must get the benefit thereof. We are of the opinion that the present is in fact a case of no evidence.” 17. Likewise, in Mustkeem alias Sirajudeen v. State of Rajasthan, (2011) 11 SCC 724 , this Court observed as under: “24. In a most celebrated case of this Court, Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 , in para 153, some cardinal principles regarding the appreciation of circumstantial evidence have been postulated. Whenever the case is based on circumstantial evidence the following features are required to be complied with. In a most celebrated case of this Court, Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 , in para 153, some cardinal principles regarding the appreciation of circumstantial evidence have been postulated. Whenever the case is based on circumstantial evidence the following features are required to be complied with. It would be beneficial to repeat the same salient features once again which are as under: “(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; (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.” 39. Where a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence in order to base conviction, must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of 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. 40. In these circumstances because it is a case of circumstantial evidence, this Court has to satisfy its judicial conscience as to whether by way of circumstantial evidence produced on record by the prosecution, it has been able to link the commission of the offence with the accused or not. 41. Now, we will apply the above salient features to the facts of the present case in order to ascertain as to whether there is any infirmity or perversity with the judgment passed by the learned trial Court in the present case. 42. The first important circumstance is the alleged kidnapping of the deceased by A-1 and A-2 on 04.01.2010 from near the under construction Hospital at Ani. 42. The first important circumstance is the alleged kidnapping of the deceased by A-1 and A-2 on 04.01.2010 from near the under construction Hospital at Ani. Case of the prosecution is that on 04.01.2010, the deceased was called at Ani by A-3 on the pretext that sale deed had to be executed in her favour with regard to a house. This fact was brought into the notice of her father by the deceased. Further, as per the prosecution, on the morning of 04.01.2010, deceased met her father at Bus Stand Ani, from where they went to Babaji Sweet Corner and had tea. When they were having tea, deceased received a call from A- 3 Bakshi Ram and the deceased was asked to reach at Tehsil Office alone. On this, deceased left her father for Tehsil Office. The case of the prosecution further is that A-1, husband of the deceased met her near the under Construction Hospital at Ani and the deceased thereafter left alongwith her husband A-1 in the Santro Car. After this, the deceased was never seen. According to the prosecution, Deep Chand and Ashwani Kumar had seen A-1 taking the deceased from near the under construction Hospital in his vehicle alongwith A-2. Incidentally, neither Deep Chand nor Ashwani Kumar were examined by the prosecution as witnesses. Therefore, there is no material on record to substantiate this contention of the prosecution that A-1 met the deceased near the under construction Hospital at Ani and from there, the deceased left with A-1 and A-2 in a Santro Car. Further, according to the prosecution, A-1 while in custody made a disclosure statement to have thrown the dead body of Aninder with the help of A-2 in river Sutluj after killing her. The disclosure statement alleged to have been made by A-1 in police custody under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act has not been exhibited and is on record only as a marked document. Further, according to the prosecution, A-1 and A-2 were seen by Daya Nand and Bikham while throwing the dead body of Aninder in river Sutluj from Loohri-Suni road. Bhikham Ram has entered into the witness box as PW-6. Daya Nand has not been examined by the prosecution. Further, according to the prosecution, A-1 and A-2 were seen by Daya Nand and Bikham while throwing the dead body of Aninder in river Sutluj from Loohri-Suni road. Bhikham Ram has entered into the witness box as PW-6. Daya Nand has not been examined by the prosecution. PW-6 has stated that he was cutting fuel wood across river Sutluj and Daya Nand was also present guarding the crop from monkeys, when around 2/3:30 p.m. he saw that something in the shape of Katta was thrown in river Sutluj by two persons who had come in a saleti colour vehicle. He further deposed that on account of the gunny bag being thrown, sound was generated and after throwing the gunny bag, the said two persons went towards Sunni side in the said vehicle. He further deposed that as the gunny bag went into the flowing water, nothing could be observed. Thereafter, he rang a shopkeeper Heera Lal, who had his shop near Badu temple in order to inquire the number of the vehicle. However, Heera Lal told that he was at Karsog. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the vehicle in which the persons had come was similar to Tata Sumo. He has further deposed that point, i.e. from the point from which the gunny bag was allegedly thrown by A-1 and A-2, he was at a distance of about 1 km. across the river. In his statement, PW-6 has nowhere stated that the alleged bag which he saw being thrown in river Sutluj by two persons was actually being thrown by A-1 and A-1 or that he saw A-1 and A-2 when they threw the said gunny bag in river Sutluj. His statement otherwise seems to be improbable because according to him, he saw bag being thrown in river Sutluj from a distance of about 1 km. He further states that what drew his attention was the noise of the bag being thrown in river Sutluj. In our considered view, the testimony of this witness seems to be highly improbable and on the basis of such statement, it cannot be said that the prosecution has been able to connect the accused with the commission of the offence. He further states that what drew his attention was the noise of the bag being thrown in river Sutluj. In our considered view, the testimony of this witness seems to be highly improbable and on the basis of such statement, it cannot be said that the prosecution has been able to connect the accused with the commission of the offence. This is for the reason that neither the said witness has said that he saw A-1 and A-2 throwing a gunny bag in river Sutluj nor it seems humanly possible that a person will hear the noise of a bag being thrown in a river from a distance of 1 km. As per the prosecution the Car in which the deceased was taken from near the under construction Hospital by A-1 and A-2 was Santro Car. However, according to PW-6 the vehicle in which the persons came to threw the bag was Tata Summo. Thus, it is apparent that the testimony of this witness is neither cogent nor reliable. Further, the truthfulness of this witness has also been impinged by the defence. Accordingly, it cannot be said beyond reasonable doubt that the accused threw the dead body of the deceased in river Sutluj in the manner as has been put forth by the prosecution. 43. Another important aspect of the matter is that PW-4 Meena Ram has not supported the case of the prosecution that any disclosure statement was made by accused Praveen Kumar in his presence and in the presence of Balbir Singh. Though he admits his signatures on the statement made under Section 27 of the Evidence Act allegedly by A-1, however, according to him, the said signatures of his were obtained by the police in the Police Station where he was called. He was declared as a hostile witness. In his cross-examination by the defence, he has admitted it to be correct that A-1 did not take the police to the spot, i.e. Badu temple nor any demarcation/Nishandehi of any place was conducted on the basis of the statement made by A-1. 44. Similarly, PW-20 Balbir Thakur has also not supported the case of the prosecution with regard to the disclosure statement. Though both the above witnesses were declared as hostile, however, the prosecution has not been able to elucidate anything cogent or fruitful to further their cause from the cross-examination of the said witnesses. 45. 44. Similarly, PW-20 Balbir Thakur has also not supported the case of the prosecution with regard to the disclosure statement. Though both the above witnesses were declared as hostile, however, the prosecution has not been able to elucidate anything cogent or fruitful to further their cause from the cross-examination of the said witnesses. 45. Ex.-PY, which is the statement of Daya Nand recorded by a Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Karsog also does not furthers the case of the prosecution because Daya Nand has not mentioned in his statement that the persons who allegedly threw bag in river Sutluj were accused A-1 and A-2. 46. Therefore, on the basis of the evidence placed on record, it cannot be said that the prosecution has been able to prove its case to the effect that A-1 and A-2 kidnapped Aninder while acting in furtherance of their common intention and thereafter they killed her and allegedly threw her body in river Sutluj. Neither the last seen evidence nor circumstantial evidence placed on record by the prosecution is able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused. Further, a perusal of the judgment passed by the learned trial Court demonstrates that all these aspects of the matter have been gone in detail by the learned trial Court. It has taken into consideration all the material placed on record by the prosecution and after analyzing the same in detail, it has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 47. We fully concur with the findings so returned by the learned trial Court. In our considered view also, the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution has not been able to establish that Aninder was kidnapped, murdered and thereafter her body was thrown in river Sutluj in furtherance of a conspiracy hatched in this regard by the accused. Therefore, we uphold the judgment passed by the learned trial Court and dismiss the present appeal being devoid of any merit.