JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of the present appeal, appellant/State has challenged the judgment passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Shimla, in Sessions Trial No. 17-S/7 of 2010, dated 30.06.2012, vide which, learned trial Court has acquitted the accused persons for commission of offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. 2. The case of the prosecution was that on 16.06.2010, Laxmi Singh, Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Dhamandri, informed Police Post, Fagu, on telephone that a dead body was lying in the courtyard of Bhuteshwar Temple covered with a gunny bag at village Majholi. Constable Mohan Singh telephonically forwarded the said information to Sub Inspector at Police Station, Theog, who on receipt of the said information reached Dhamandri alongwith other police officials. Statement of Hira Singh was recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C., who told the police that he was an agriculturist by profession and was having two sons and one daughter. His elder son Suresh Kumar had gone to Theog on 15.06.2010 to attend a case. His son did not return back on that night and on 16.06.2010, he received telephonic call from his sisterin- law Begi Devi to the effect that Suresh Kumar was lying dead in village Majholi. On receipt of the said information, he alongwith his wife went to village Majholi and found one dead body in the verandah of the inn. Removal of the gunny bag revealed that the dead body was of their son. There were sharpedge weapon wounds on his head and left leg. Besides, the said two major injuries, there were many injuries on the back and stomach of the dead body, which was smeared in pool of blood. He also found blood near the shop of Devi Ram. The complainant informed the police that he was sure that his son was killed by Devi Ram and his associates. On the basis of the said information, FIR was registered. The dead body was sent for postmortem. On 17.06.2010 accused were arrested. While in police custody, accused Dhyan Singh, Sanjay and Roop Singh made disclosure statements to the effect that they can identify the place where they had hidden the sticks and on the basis of the said disclosure statements, weapon of offence were recovered. Case property was sent to FSL, Junga and call details of the accused persons were also obtained. While in police custody, accused Dhyan Singh, Sanjay and Roop Singh made disclosure statements to the effect that they can identify the place where they had hidden the sticks and on the basis of the said disclosure statements, weapon of offence were recovered. Case property was sent to FSL, Junga and call details of the accused persons were also obtained. Investigation revealed that the accused gave beatings to the deceased near the shop of Devi Ram with sticks and thereafter, they dragged him from the shop of Devi Ram and took him upto Bhuteshwar Temple inn and after beating him, they left the dead body in the courtyard. On 16.06.2016 accused Sanjay covered the dead body with gunny bag with the help of accused Roop Singh. After completion of investigating, challan was presented and as a prima facie case was found against the accused, they were charged and put to trial for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Setcion 34 I.P.C. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 3. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution in all examined 35 witnesses. Defence also examined 5 witnesses. 4. On the basis of material produced on record by the prosecution, the learned trial Court held that there was no direct evidence of the offence and the prosecution depended upon circumstantial evidence, namely, (a) disclosure statement of the accused, (b) accused and the deceased having been last seen together and (c) existence of a motive and the learned trial Court held that the prosecution was not able to complete the chain of circumstances so as to link the accused with the commission of offence and accordingly, learned trial Court acquitted the accused by giving them benefit of doubt. 5. Mr. V.S. Chauhan, learned Additional Advocate General, strenuously argued that the judgment passed by the learned trial Court was not sustainable as the findings returned by the learned trial Court were perverse and not borne out from the material on record. Mr. Chauhan argued that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused, however, the learned trial Court totally misread and mis-appreciated the evidence on record and grave miscarriage of justice had been committed by acquitting the accused. He also argued that the learned trial Court had erred in concluding that there was no evidence that the accused had killed the deceased. He also argued that the learned trial Court had erred in concluding that there was no evidence that the accused had killed the deceased. According to him, the presence of main accused Rajinder Thakur stood established as per record and PW-10 Guman Singh had specifically stated that when they were going towards Bhuteshwar Temple, Suresh Heta came from other side and he was drunk. He also shook hands with Suresh Heta and also asked him as what was the matter to which he responded that it had no concern with him. He also admitted that in his presence Suresh Heta gave fist blows to Rajidner Thaikur and Karan Singh. Mr. Chauhan also submitted that PW-8 Rukmani had also categorically stated that on 15th of the month her husband was at Gharat and her son had gone to Dhalli and it was little dark when she heard noise coming from the side of Devi Ram’s shop. As she was alone at home, she got frightened and that is why she did not come out from the house. According to Mr. Chauhan, all these important aspects of the matter which directly linked the accused with the commission of the offence were erroneously ignored by the learned trial Court. Mr. Chauhan, further argued that the disclosure statements of the accused had led to the recovery of the weapons of offence and further the finding returned by the learned trial Court to the effect that the prosecution could not prove the motive behind the murder was totally perverse because it stood proved on record by way of the statement of PW-1 that there was old enmity between the parties. Accordingly, on these basis, it was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court was not sustainable and was liable to be set aside and the accused were liable to be convicted for commission of offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents and learned Amicus Curiae, have submitted that there was no merit in the present appeal and the judgment passed by the learned trial Court was neither perverse nor was there any infirmity in the same. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents and learned Amicus Curiae, have submitted that there was no merit in the present appeal and the judgment passed by the learned trial Court was neither perverse nor was there any infirmity in the same. It was contended by the learned counsel for the respondents as well as learned Amicus Curiae that the judgment passed by the learned trial Court was a well reasoned judgment and the conclusions arrived therein were based on material which had been placed on record by the prosecution which did not link the accused with the commission of the offence. It was further submitted by the learned counsel that accused were facing criminal charge and it was a well settled law that the onus was upon the prosecution to prove their case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, which the prosecution had failed to do in the present case. Accordingly, they submitted that the appeal deserved dismissal and the judgment passed by the learned trial Court be confirmed in the interest of justice. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and Mr. Pradeep Kumar Sharma, Advocate, learned Amicus Curiae and have also gone through the records of the case as well as the judgment passed by the learned trial Court. 8. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to take note of the statements made by the relevant prosecution witnesses. 9. Hira Singh has entered into the witness box as PW-1 and stated that the deceased was his son, who left the house on 15.06.2010 at around 8.00 A.M. for attending Court hearing at Theog. He did not return back on the night of 15.06.2010. On 16.06.2010 Begi Devi, his sister-in-law (Sali) telephonically informed him that Suresh had a quarrel at Majholi on 15.06.2010 and on receipt of the said information at 2.30 P.M., he and his wife went to Majholi. He further deposed that they went to the premises of Bhuteshwar Temple Sarai at Majholi and they found that dead body of his son was lying covered with gunny bag in the verandah. The walls and the floor were smeared with blood. There was shop of Devi Ram about 20 mtrs. From Temple and they went to the shop of Devi Ram. The walls and the floor were smeared with blood. There was shop of Devi Ram about 20 mtrs. From Temple and they went to the shop of Devi Ram. They found that the earth from the verandah of the shop of Devi Ram right upto the road was showing signs of dragging. There was blood on the road uptill where the signs of dragging could be found. He further deposed that they suspected Devi Ram because people used to drink in his shop and they also suspected Moda since he used to remain in the shop of Devi Ram all time. He also stated that they also suspected Rajinder son of Karam Singh because Rajinder had quarreled with the complainant in the year 1997. 10. Smt. Suni Devi, mother of the deceased, entered the witness box as PW-2 and she has also stated that the deceased had gone to Theog to attend a case and he did not return home during night. She further deposed that on 16.06.2010 she received a call from her sister Begi Devi, who enquired whether Suresh had returned previous night. She told her that he had not returned, whereupon she told her that he had a quarrel at Majholi Dhar on the evening of 15.06.2010 and Suresh was lying dead at Majholi Dhar. Thereafter, she and her husband went to Majholi. On reaching there, they found that dead body of Suresh was lying in the verandah of Temple Sarai, covered with a gunny bag. She also stated that on removal of gunny bag, it revealed that Suresh was having numerous injuries on his body. She also stated that blood was also found on the road below the shop of Devi Ram. She also stated that they heard that Suresh had a quarrel with sons of Negi previous night and long back, Negi had quarrel with her husband regarding land. In her cross-examination, she admitted that her son might be consuming liquor. 11. Kanshi Ram has entered into the witness box as PW-3 and stated that his house is adjoining to Bhuteshwar Temple. On 16.06.2016, his cattle were grazing nearby the temple and he was alongwith his cattle. The dead body was lying in the verandah of Sarai and it was covered with a gunny bag. Blood stains were on the wall and also on the floor. On 16.06.2016, his cattle were grazing nearby the temple and he was alongwith his cattle. The dead body was lying in the verandah of Sarai and it was covered with a gunny bag. Blood stains were on the wall and also on the floor. He went to Pradhan Laxmi Singh, who was not at his house and he was stated to be available in the Panchayat Ghar. On this, PW-3 went to Dhamandri and informed the factum of dead body lying in the verandah of Sarai to the Pradhan who telephonically intimated the incident to the police. 12. Laxmi Singh has entered into the witness box as PW-4 and stated that he was Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Dhamandri from 2006 to 2010 and for a few months in the year 2011. On 16.06.2010 he was in the Panchayat Ghar and was informed in the Panchayat Ghar that one dead body was lying in the Sarai of Bhuteshwar Temple and he further informed the police telephonically about this fact. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the police reached the spot at around 3.00 P.M. and remained there till 7.00 – 8.00 P.M. 13. Virender Heta has entered into the witness box as PW-5 and stated that the deceased was his nephew. He has also deposed that on 15.06.2010 Suresh had come to the Court at Theog to attend hearing of a case, which was fixed for three consecutive dates from 15th June to 17th June, 2010. He was representing Suresh in the Court proceedings. On Suresh 16.06.2010 Suresh did not come to the Court and he received call from Vijay Heta that Suresh was lying dead in Majholi. He further deposed that on receipt of the said information he and Rakesh, brother of the deceased, went to the spot where they found the dead body of Suresh in the verandah of Sarai. In his cross-examination, he has stated that Suresh was required to attend hearing on and with effect from 15.06.2010 in a case registered against him under Sections 323, 341 and 506 I.P.C. 14. Deep Ram has entered the witness box as PW-6 and he deposed that on 16.06.2010 he was in his field when he received a call at 11.00 A.M. that body of Suresh was lying in Majholi. He immediately went to Majholi around 11.30 A.M. - 12 noon. Deep Ram has entered the witness box as PW-6 and he deposed that on 16.06.2010 he was in his field when he received a call at 11.00 A.M. that body of Suresh was lying in Majholi. He immediately went to Majholi around 11.30 A.M. - 12 noon. Dead body was lying covered with gunny bag in the Sarai and when they uncovered it, the body was of Suresh. He also stated that he and Vijay had gone to the spot together and that dead body was having injuries on head, face and legs. 15. Bal Krishan has entered into the witness box as PW-7 and stated that he has a stone crusher on Kotkhai road, short of Chaila. He was at the crusher site when he received call from Virender Heta that dead body of Suresh was lying in Majholi and as such, he went to Sainj. From Sainj, he Virender and Rakesh went to Majholi. Suresh was lying dead. He further deposed that on 20.06.2010, he and Vijay came to Police Station, Theog, in connection with this case and in their presence the accused gave clothes to the police in Police Station Theog. He has also deposed that Dhyan Singh, Roop Singh and Sanjay made disclosure statements to the effect that they only knew about the Dandas used in the commission of crime and the place where they were concealed by each of them and their disclosure statements were separately recorded by the police which were signed by accused, him, Vijay and Madsan Singh. Thereafter, he has deposed with regard to the discovery of the weapon of offence on the basis of said disclosure statements. 16. Rukmani has entered the witness box as PW-8 and stated that she is a resident of Majholi and her house is below the road. On the fateful day, her husband was at Gharat. She also stated that the shop of Devi was above the road. It was little dark when she heard noise coming from the side of Devi Ram’s shop. None else was present in the house at that time except her. That commotion lasted quite long. She did not come out of her house. She got frightened. She took the children of Ramesh and went for sleep. Children of Ramesh were school going and they were studying in 5th and 3rd classes. None else was present in the house at that time except her. That commotion lasted quite long. She did not come out of her house. She got frightened. She took the children of Ramesh and went for sleep. Children of Ramesh were school going and they were studying in 5th and 3rd classes. On the next day, when many persons collected there, she came to know that a dead body was lying covered in a house type temple. The said witness was declared as hostile. 17. PW-9 Keshav Ram has stated that Suresh was his nephew and on 16.06.2010 he was going to Court at Theog. He met Rakesh, who was under stress and confused. On his asking, Rakesh told that Suresh had a quarrel and he had died in that. He further stated that he informed Begi Devi, his sister, on phone about this fact. 18. PW-10 Guman Singh, stated that he runs hotel at Maipul and he also used to drive taxi bearing No. HP-01- 3400. He also deposed that least year during summer, he brought passengers from Maipul to Hoti but he did’nt know the names of those passengers since he ferried many passengers. He was also declared as a hostile witness. 19. PW-11 Akash, PW-12 Manoj Kumar, PW-23 Devi Ram, PW-24 Vinod Kumar, PW-25 Prem Lal, PW-26 Chaman Lal, PW-29 Sandeep Kumar, PW-30 Joginder and PW-31 Laxmi Singh, were also declared as hostile witnesses as they resiled from their previous statements which were made by them before the police. All these witnesses were subjected to lengthy cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor but nothing cogent and relevant could be extracted from the cross-examination of the said witnesses to further the case of the prosecution. 20. PW-13 Partap Singh, PW-14 Pradeep Kumar, PW-15 Constable Ramesh Chand, PW-16 Surinder Singh, PW- 17 Constable Mohar Singh, PW-19 HHC Ramesh Chand, PW- 20 H.C. Sunil Kumar, PW-22 HC Dev Raj and PW-27 Naseeb Singh Patial, are formal witnesses. 21. PW-18 MHC Het Ram has stated about the factum of the case property being deposited with him and being registered in the Malkhana. He has also stated that he sent all these articles to FSL Junga for chemical examination through Constable Ramesh Chand, who after depositing the same with FSL handed over receipt to him. 22. Dr. 21. PW-18 MHC Het Ram has stated about the factum of the case property being deposited with him and being registered in the Malkhana. He has also stated that he sent all these articles to FSL Junga for chemical examination through Constable Ramesh Chand, who after depositing the same with FSL handed over receipt to him. 22. Dr. Pawan Sharma has entered into the witness box as PW-21 and stated that on 17.06.2010 an application Ext. PW21/A alongwith inquest papers was filed and he conducted preliminary examination and issued PMR Ext. PW21/B, which is in his hand and bears his signatures. He also stated that he did not open the body and referred the matter to IGMC, Shimla. He also gave the description of the injuries which were found on the body of the deceased. In his cross-examination, he has stated that lacerated wounds, contusions and abrasions, can occur if he a person falls or rolls down on a hard surface. He also stated that if a person is in a state of intoxication, there is possibility of his rolling down or falling while walking. 23. PW-28 Ajay Sehagal, Scientific Officer, Biology and Serology Department, FSL, Dharamshala, has deposed that sealed parcels pertaining to the present case were received from Crime Branch, State FSL, Junga, by him from Physics and Ballistic Division, FSL, on various dates. He has further deposed that as per report, human blood of group A was found on “Boru, Pant Rajinder Thakur, blood of Suresh Kumar”. On the shoes analyzed, the blood was not sufficient in quantity and therefore, determination of grouping was not possible. He has also deposed that blood group of deceased Suresh Kumar was A Group. 24. ASI Mohan Singh has entered the witness box as PW-32 and stated that on 16.06.2010 at around 2.25 P.M., Laxmi Singh, Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Dhamandri, telephonically informed Incharge Police Post Fagu that a dead body was lying in the verandah the Sarai of Bhuteshwar Temple. This fact was telephonically informed by him to SHO Ram Phal and Incharge ICPP Fagu on his mobile phone and he alongwith constable Kanwar Singh went to the spot as per the directions of the S.H.O. He has further deposed that he reached the spot alongwith constable Kanwar Singh and SHO Ram Phal came alongwith other police officials. This fact was telephonically informed by him to SHO Ram Phal and Incharge ICPP Fagu on his mobile phone and he alongwith constable Kanwar Singh went to the spot as per the directions of the S.H.O. He has further deposed that he reached the spot alongwith constable Kanwar Singh and SHO Ram Phal came alongwith other police officials. They found a dead body on the verandah of Bhuteshwar Temple Sarai which was covered with a big gunny bag. Blood was spread in the verandah of Sarai near the dead body. He further stated that when they removed the gunny bag, they came to know that the dead body was of Suresh Kumar resident of village Odar. Thereafter, they took photographs of the spot and the dead body and statement of Hira Singh was recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he talked with SHO Theog Ram Phal on telephone at 2.25 P.M. He has further deposed that Majholi was at a distance of 25 K.M. away from Police Post Fagu. He further stated that he reached there at 4.15 P.M. He also stated in his cross-examination that they first time came to know that the dead body was that of Suresh when they removed the gunny bag from over the dead body. According to him, S.H.O. and other police officials reached 2-3 minutes after his arrival. Virender Heta, Deep Ram and Hira Singh were already on the spot. He has also stated that Devi Ram was not on the spot and he did not spot any blood stain in between the shop of Devi Ram and the road leading from there to Sarai. He admitted it to be correct that Majholi was thickly populated. According to him, the dead body was sent to hospital with constable Suridner Kumar between 6.00 P.M. to 6.15 P.M. 25. PW-33 Baldev Thakur has deposed that he had partly investigated the case and recorded statements of the witnesses on 24.07.2010. He has also stated that he presented challan in the Court and also received report from FSL Junga. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he was not aware whether Rukmani Devi was earlier associated in the investigation or not. He has further stated that her statement was recorded in the Police Station. He has also stated that the statements of the witnesses were recorded as per their version. 26. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he was not aware whether Rukmani Devi was earlier associated in the investigation or not. He has further stated that her statement was recorded in the Police Station. He has also stated that the statements of the witnesses were recorded as per their version. 26. S.I. Ram Phal Yadav has entered into the witness box as PW-34 and stated that on 16.06.2010 he received information from Police Post Fagu that one dead body covered in a gunny bag was lying in the verandah of Bhuteshwar Temple Sarai. On receiving the said information, the same was entered in the daily diary register and thereafter, he alongwith other police officials proceeded towards the spot. He has stated that when he reached the spot, Hira Singh and other villagers were already present there. HC Mohan alongwith one constable of Police Post Fagu was also there. He has also stated that Hira Singh got his statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. with him and on the basis of the said statement, FIR was registered under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. In his cross-examination, he has stated that prior to 2.30 P.M., he had not received any information regarding the dead body in the Sarai of Bhuteshwar Temple. He has denied that Viredner Heta and Rakesh Heta approached him before 2.30 P.M. at Police Station Theog. According to him, they did not give any information regarding dead body either telephonically or in person before 2.30 P.M. He has admitted that before he reached the spot, Hira Singh had seen the dead body and identified the deceased as Suresh Kumar. He has also admitted that sister of Hira Singh told Hira Singh that the dead body of Suresh Kumar was lying in the temple complex. He has also stated that he did not spot blood soaked soil in between the shop of Devi Ram and the road and between Bhuteshwar Temple and the road. He has also admitted that Suresh was having criminal history and there were many cases pending against him. He has also stated that it had not come in his investigation that any altercation took place between Rajinder and the complainant in between 1997 to 2010. He has also admitted that the witnesses associated on 16.06.2010 had not seen any altercation between the deceased and the accused. He has also stated that it had not come in his investigation that any altercation took place between Rajinder and the complainant in between 1997 to 2010. He has also admitted that the witnesses associated on 16.06.2010 had not seen any altercation between the deceased and the accused. He has also admitted that he had not associated any witness from Theog while recording the statements of the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act or recovery of clothes. 27. Dr. Sangeet Dhilon, has entered into the witness box as PW-35 and stated that on 17.06.2010 an application was filed alongwith inquest papers for the autopsy of Suresh Kumar son of Hira Singh. She has given details of multiple antemortem injuries which were found on the body of the deceased. According to her, the deceased died as a result of antemortem head injury and his blood alcohol concentration was 204.58 ml percent. 28. Defence also examined 5 witnesses. DW-1 HC Surinder Kumar produced on record details of the cases pending against deceased Suresh Heta. As per the said record, three criminal cases were pending against Suresh Heta. 29. DW-2 Sandeep Kumar stated that Rajinder Negi was his cousin and clothes Ext. P-25 to P-27, did not belong to Rajinder Negi nor were they taken by the police from their house between 17.06.2010 to 20.06.2010. There is Court observation that clothes Ext. P-25 to Ext. P-27 were over sized whereas Rajinder Negi was having a small built. 30. DW-3 Bhagat Singh has stated that Dhyan Singh was his younger brother and the clothes and chappal, Ext. P-21 to Ext. P-23 did not belong to Dhyan Singh nor they were taken from their house between 17.06.2010 to 20.06.2010. 31. DW-4. Tara Devi has stated that Sanjay was her son and the clothes and shoes Ext. P-17 to Ext. P-19, did not belong to Sanjay Kumar nor they were taken by the police from their house in between 17.06.2010 to 20.06.2010. 32. DW-5 Reena Thakur deposed that Rajinder Thakur was her husband and clothes and shoes Ext. P-12 to Ext. P-15 did not belong to Rajinder Thakur nor they were taken from their house between 17.06.2010 to 20.06.2010. 33. Admittedly, in the present case, there is no eye witness. 32. DW-5 Reena Thakur deposed that Rajinder Thakur was her husband and clothes and shoes Ext. P-12 to Ext. P-15 did not belong to Rajinder Thakur nor they were taken from their house between 17.06.2010 to 20.06.2010. 33. Admittedly, in the present case, there is no eye witness. No person has seen the occurrence of the incident and there is no witness who has actually seen the accused committing the offence of murder or placing the dead body of the deceased in the courtyard of Temple Sarai. Therefore, everything depends upon the circumstantial evidence. 34. During the course of arguments, learned Additional advocate General has culled out the following circumstances connecting the accused with the commission of the offence:- “1. Last seen together. 2. Recovery of the dead body. 3. Disclosure statements. 4. Motive. 35. The Honble Supreme Court in Vijay Thakur Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2014) 14 SCC 609 , has carved out the following salient points on the basis of which guilt of the accused can be brought home in the case of circumstantial evidence: “(i) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must or should be and not merely ‘may be’ fully established; (ii) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; (iii) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; (iv) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and (v) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.” 36. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manthuri Laxmi Narsaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2011) 14 SCC 117 has held as under: “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.” 37. 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.” 37. It is settled law that 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. 38. 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. 39. 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. 1. Last seen together: 40. To prove the said circumstance, out attention has been drawn to the statements of PW-8, PW-10, PW-23 and PW-24. 41. A perusal of the statement of PW-8 Rukmani demonstrates that all she has stated is this that on the fateful night she heard noise coming from the side of Devi Ram’s house but she did not come out of her house as she was frightened and on the next day, she came to know that a dead body was lying covered in a house type temple. Even perusal of her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. reveals that it is not mentioned there in that she actually saw the accused fighting or having an altercation with the deceased. 42. PW-10 Guman Singh has not supported the case of the prosecution. In his cross-examination, he has stated that on the fateful day Karm Singh was sitting on the front seat of the vehicle and Rajinder Thakur on the rear seat. 42. PW-10 Guman Singh has not supported the case of the prosecution. In his cross-examination, he has stated that on the fateful day Karm Singh was sitting on the front seat of the vehicle and Rajinder Thakur on the rear seat. He has admitted it to be correct that they had come to Bhuteshwar Temple from Hoti and when they were going towards Bhuteshwar Temple, Suresh Heta came from other side and he was drunk. He has also admitted that he shook hands with Suresh Heta and also asked him as to what was the matter to which he responded that he had no concern with it. He also admitted that in his presence Suresh Heta gave fist blows to Rajinder Thakur and Karam Singh. He has further admitted that Karam Singh had come back from Majholi in his vehicle and got down at Hoti, whereas Rajinder Thakur and Suresh remained at Majholi. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he was not knowing Rajinder Thakur and Karam Singh previously. He has further stated that he cannot say that the person who was drunk and had met them on that day was Suresh Heta or some one else. 43. PW-23 Devi Ram, who according to the prosecution, was an eye witness, has not supported the case of the prosecution. He has denied that on 15.06.2010 at around 6.00 P.M. - 6.30 P.M. any altercation took place between the deceased and the accused. He has not admitted the contents of his statement to this effect recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. In fact, he has denied the factum of having made any such statement before the Investigating Officer on 17.06.2010. 44. PW-24 Vinod Kumar has also not supported the case of the prosecution and denied that on 15.06.2010, at around 7.00 P.M., when he was returning from the field of Devi Ram, he found accused and the deceased sitting in Bhuteshwar Temple and enjoying drinks. He has also denied the factum of having made any statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 45. Similarly, PW-25 Prem Lal has also not supported the case of the prosecution and he has denied that on 15.06.2010, at around 7.30 P.M., he had gone to the shop of Devi Ram and he had seen the accused and deceased sitting near Bhuteshwar Temple. Similarly, PW-25 Prem Lal has also not supported the case of the prosecution and he has denied that on 15.06.2010, at around 7.30 P.M., he had gone to the shop of Devi Ram and he had seen the accused and deceased sitting near Bhuteshwar Temple. He has also denied the factum of having given any statement as was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 46. From a perusal of the testimony of the said witnesses, it cannot be said that the prosecution has placed on record any cogent material from which it can be concluded and deciphered beyond reasonable doubt that on the fateful evening the deceased and the accused were last seen together. The evidence placed on record by the prosecution is shaky and does not appear to be trustworthy. None of the witnesses relied upon by the prosecution has supported its case to prove the factum of the deceased having been last seen with the accused. Therefore, in our considered view, the prosecution has not been able to prove this circumstance against the accused. 2. Recovery of the dead body: 47. The factum of recovery of the dead body of the deceased from Sarai of Bhuteshwar Temple though is a matter of record, however, in this regard also, there are some glaring discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. 48. PW-32 ASI Mohan Singh has categorically stated that on 16.06.2010 at 2.25 P.M., Laxmi Singh, Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Dhamandri telephonically informed Police Post Fagu that a dead body was lying in the verandah of Bhuteshwar Temple Sarai and on receipt of the said information, he inter alia, passed the said information to SHO Ram Phal at Police Station Theog and went to the spot alongwith constable Kanwar Singh. He has further stated that when he reached the spot they found one dead body in the verandah of Bhuteshwar Temple Sarai which was covered with a big gunny bag. It is only after they removed the gunny bag that they came to know that the dead body was that of Suresh Kumar. The relevant extract of his examination-in-chief is quoted herein-below:- “We found one dead body in the veranda of Bhuteshwar Temple Sarai, which was covered with a big gunny bag. Blood spread in the veranda of Sarai near the dead body. The relevant extract of his examination-in-chief is quoted herein-below:- “We found one dead body in the veranda of Bhuteshwar Temple Sarai, which was covered with a big gunny bag. Blood spread in the veranda of Sarai near the dead body. When we removed the gunny bag, we came to know that the dead body is of one Suresh Kumar, resident of village Odar.” 49. Thus, it is apparent from his deposition that according to him till the time the gunny bag was not removed, it was not in the knowledge of anyone as to whose dead body it was. 50. However, PW-34 SI Ram Phal has stated in his cross-examination that before he reached the spot, Hira Singh had seen the dead body and had come to know that the same was of Suresh Kumar. Incidentally, as per PW-32, SI Ram Phal reached the spot after him. Now when we peruse the statement of complainant Hira Singh PW-1, he has deposed that on 16.06.2010, his sister-in-law Begi Devi informed him that the deceased had a quarrel at Majholi on 15.06.2010 and on receipt of the said information, he alongwith his wife Suni Devi went to Majholi and found the dead body of their son lying covered with gunny bag in verandah of the Sarai. PW-3 Virender Heta has deposed that on 16.06.2010, he received call from Vijay Heta that Suresh was lying dead in Mjaholi and on receipt of the said information, they went to Majholi and when they reached there, they found that a dead body was lying in the verandah of Sarai of Bhuteshwar Temple covered with gunny bag. He further deposed that besides them, the parents of Suresh and 15-20 other persons of their family, were also there. When the gunny bag was removed, they found that deceased had received injuries on head, chest, back and on both legs. He has also stated that the police reached at about 3.00 P.M. PW-6 Deep Ram has stated that on 16.06.2010 he received a call that body of Suresh was lying in Majholi and he went to Majholi at around 11.30 A.M.- 12.00 Noon and found that the dead body was lying covered with gunny bag in the Sarai. He has further stated that when they uncovered it, the dead body was found to be that of Suresh. He and Vijay had gone to the spot together. 51. He has further stated that when they uncovered it, the dead body was found to be that of Suresh. He and Vijay had gone to the spot together. 51. On the basis of what has been mentioned above, it is apparent that there are discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witness with regard to the mode and manner leading to the discovery of the fact that the dead body was that of Suresh. According to PW-6 Deep Ram, he reached the spot between 11.30 A.M.-12.00 Noon and uncovered the dead body, which was in gunny bag and discovered the same as that of Suresh. PW-34 in his statement has stated that before he alongwith the police party reached there, the father of the deceased had already seen the dead body and identified it to be that of Suresh. However, PW-32 in his statement has stated that the factum of the dead body was that of Suresh was discovered only when the police party had reached the spot and thereafter, the gunny bag was removed from the body. There is not even an iota of evidence produced on record by the prosecution to connect the accused with the death of the deceased. There is no eye witness who has supported the case of the prosecution that an altercation took place between the deceased and the accused and that deceased was killed by accused. No person has deposed that the accused were seen placing the body of the deceased in the verandah of the Sarai of Bhuteshwar Temple. Therefore, in our considered view, this circumstance has also not been able to be proved by the prosecution, so as to link the accused with the commission of the offence. 3. Disclosure statements: 52. The case of the prosecution is that while the accused were in custody, they have given statements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, which has led to the recovery of alleged weapon of offence. The disclosure statements are Ext. PW7/B, Ext. PW7/C and Ext. PW7/D. We will deal with the said disclosure statements one by one. 53. Ext. PW7/B is the disclosure statement made by Dhyan Singh to the effect that he can get the place demarcated where he had hidden “Dandas” with which the deceased was beaten. This statement is dated 20.06.2010 and Vijay Kumar and Bal Krishan are witnesses to the said statement. 53. Ext. PW7/B is the disclosure statement made by Dhyan Singh to the effect that he can get the place demarcated where he had hidden “Dandas” with which the deceased was beaten. This statement is dated 20.06.2010 and Vijay Kumar and Bal Krishan are witnesses to the said statement. Vijay Kumar has not been examined by the prosecution. Bal Krishan has entered the witness box as PW-7. Ext. PW7/C is the disclosure statement of accused Roop Singh of the same date, to the same effect and this statement is also made in the presence of Vijay Kumar and Bal Krishan. Ext. PW7/D is the disclosure statement of accused Sanjay Kumar of the same date, to the same effect and this statement is also made in the presence of Vijay Kumar and Bal Krishan. 54. Recoveries Memos are Ext. PW7/F, Ext. PF7/H and Ext. PW7/K. Recovery has been effected in the presence of Vijay Kumar and Bal Krishan. The alleged Dandas recovered on the basis of the disclosure statements of the accused are Ext. P-35, Ext. P-37 and Ext. P-40. 55. It is a matter of record that despite the fact that there were 39 injuries on the body of deceased Suresh, the alleged weapon of offences Ext. P-35, Ext. P-37 and Ext.P-40 were not found having even single drop of blood on them. These weapon of offence were never shown to the Doctor, who conducted the autopsy, so as to have the opinion of the said Doctor as to whether the injuries which were found on the body of the deceased could have been inflicted with said Dandas or not. Bal Krishan has not been able to satisfactorily explain as to what he was doing at the Police Station on 20.06.2010 when the alleged disclosure statements were made by the accused in his presence and in the presence of Vijay, who was closely related to the deceased. He has admitted that he was related to the deceased and he had good relations with the family of the deceased. He has also admitted that he went to the spot, where the dead body of the deceased was found at village Majholi on 16.06.2010. 56. He has admitted that he was related to the deceased and he had good relations with the family of the deceased. He has also admitted that he went to the spot, where the dead body of the deceased was found at village Majholi on 16.06.2010. 56. Even otherwise, it is settled law with regard to Section 27 of the Evidence Act, that what is important is discovery of the material object at the disclosure of the accused but such disclosure alone would not automatically lead to the conclusion that the offence was also committed by the accused. In fact, thereafter, burden lies on the prosecution to establish a close link between discovery of the material object and its use in the commission of the offence. What is admissible under Section 27 of the Act is the information leading to discovery and not any opinion formed on it by the prosecution. 57. Thus, it is apparent from the statement of PW-7 that he is an interested witness as he was related to the deceased and was having good relations with the family of the deceased. His testimony does not inspires confidence. The appellant has not been able to satisfy this Court that why no independent witness was associated either with the recording of the disclosure statements of the accused or with the recovery effected on the basis of the said disclosure statements of the accused. Further, the prosecution has also not been able to place any material on record from which the Dandas recovered on the basis of the disclosure statements can be connected with the commission of the offence. In this view of the matter, in our considered view, even this circumstance has not been proved by the prosecution against the accused. 4. Motive: 58. The prosecution has attributed that the accused had a motive to do away with Suresh Heta, as there was some dispute between the father of the deceased and Rajinder Thakur since the year 1997 over some land but there is nothing on record to substantiate this. Not only this, PW-34 has clearly stated that it has not come in his investigation that any altercation took place in between Rajinder and complainant i.e. father of the deceased between 1997 to 2010. On the other hand, it stands established on record that the deceased was having criminal record and there were criminal cases pending against him. Not only this, PW-34 has clearly stated that it has not come in his investigation that any altercation took place in between Rajinder and complainant i.e. father of the deceased between 1997 to 2010. On the other hand, it stands established on record that the deceased was having criminal record and there were criminal cases pending against him. It has also come on record that at the time of his death, he was intoxicated. Be that as it may, the fact of the matter remains that the prosecution has not been able to bring any cogent material on record from where it can be inferred by this Court that the accused had a motive to do away with the deceased. Therefore, this circumstance has also not been proved by the prosecution against the accused. 59. It is settled position of law that suspicion however strong cannot be a substitute for proof. In a case resting completely on the circumstantial evidence the chain of circumstances must be so complete that they lead only to one conclusion, that is, the guilt of the accused. 60. Therefore, when we take into consideration all these circumstances together alongwith the material produced on record by the prosecution to prove the said circumstances and to link the accused with the commission of the offence, the only conclusion which can be arrived at is that the prosecuting has miserably failed to prove either of the circumstances and it has has failed to link the accused with the commission of the offence. 61. A perusal of the judgment passed by the learned trial Court, also demonstrates that all these aspects of the matter have been gone into by the learned trial Court and thereafter, it has come to the conclusion that the prosecution was not able to prove its case against the accused. In our considered view, the judgment so passed by the learned trial Court is neither perverse nor the conclusions arrived at by the learned trial Court are not borne out from the record. 62. Therefore, we uphold the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court and dismiss the present appeal being devoid of any merit. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged. 63. We place on record our appreciation for the assistance rendered to the Court by learned Amicus Curiae in the adjudication of the case.