JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J.: By way of the present appeal, State has challenged judgment passed by the court of learned additional Sessions Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, in Sessions Trial No. 6/7 of 2008 dated 16.11.2010, vide which, learned Appellate Court has acquitted accused for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. 2. In brief, the case of the prosecution was that on 12.03.1997 accused Malkiat Singh, Davinder Pal, Dinesh Kumar, Bablu & Munjna came to Bilaspur and stayed at Chandel Hotel for one night. Thereafter, on 13.03.1997 these accused hired taxi bearing registration No. HP-02-4532 from Bilaspur to Deot Sidh. Deceased Kishori Ram was driver of the said taxi. In between 9.00-10.00 A.M. while they were proceeding towards Shah Talai, Kishori Ram stopped the taxi at Awari to meet his grand father. Kashu Ram PW-3 met the deceased at Awari and he also saw four passengers in the taxi who were traveling in the same. This also included accused Dinesh Kumar. Thereafter, deceased left for Shah Talai. PW-1 Ram Lal on 13.03.1997 had gone to village Balsihna to meet Jiwa Ram, Lumberdar, in relation to the preparation of a Will. On the same day at 8.30 P.M. while he was coming from back from Balsihna to his village Ghandeer and had reached about 1 K.M. before his village, he saw one white car parked on the upper side of the road and one person crying below the road. PW-1 enquired from the said person as to what had happened but he received no reply. PW-1 presumed that the said person was either drunk or was a victim of an accident. Accordingly, he left for his village so as to make some arrangement of ight etc. in order to provide help to the said person. While PW-1 was just about to reach his village two persons called him from behind and tried to pounce upon him. They tried to catch PW-1 but failed to do so. PW-1 immediately after reaching his home called 10-15 persons of the village and arranged for light etc. Thereafter they came back and found that the person who was crying earlier was lying dead in the bushes. 2-3 blood stained stones were also lying near the dead body and there was also blood on the ground. PW-1 immediately after reaching his home called 10-15 persons of the village and arranged for light etc. Thereafter they came back and found that the person who was crying earlier was lying dead in the bushes. 2-3 blood stained stones were also lying near the dead body and there was also blood on the ground. PW-1 alongwith other persons visited Police Station Talai and matter was reported to the police and on the basis of the statement of PW-1, FIR was registered. 3. PW-26 Hari Ram visited the spot, prepared site plan and also took into custody articles lying near the car. The vehicle as well as the dead body were taken into possession. Postmortem was got conducted and Dr. Sushil P. Vermani PW-13 opined that the deceased died due to head and maxillofacial injury. Deceased was identified by PW-3 Kashu Ram. Among the articles which were recovered at the spot, one diary of accused Dinesh Kumar was also taken into possession by PW-26. He alongwith PW-5 Dev Raj and PW-14 HC Daljit Singh went to Mandi Govindgarh on the basis of address mentioned in the diary Ext. PW24/D. They contacted Ram Chand, father of accused Dinesh Kumar, who informed that the accused was residing in the rented house of Tara Chand. Thereafter, PW-26 proceeded to Dalip Nagar where rented house was situated and found the same locked from outside. However, he heard some noise inside the house and PW-26 knocked the door. When no one responded, the door was broken open. Malkiat Singh and Davinder Pal were found inside the house. When the house was searched, one blood stained pant and jacket were recovered from the house which were taken into possession. Both Malkiat Singh and accused disowned that the pant and jacket belonged to them. Thereafter, PW-26 visited Ganganagar to apprehend accused Dinesh Kumar. Accused Malkiat Singh and Davinder Pal were arrested and brought to Police Station and on 20.03.1997 accused Malkiat Singh made a disclosure statement Ext. PW5/C in presence of witnesses Dev Raj and Rafiq Mohamad, on the basis of which accused demarcated the place of occurrence Ext. PW5/D and Investigating Officer accordingly prepared site plan of the place so demarcated vide Ext. PW24/A. In the course of investigation register of Chandel hotel Bilaspur, where accused Dinesh Kumar and other co-accused, were staying, were also taken into possession. 4. PW5/D and Investigating Officer accordingly prepared site plan of the place so demarcated vide Ext. PW24/A. In the course of investigation register of Chandel hotel Bilaspur, where accused Dinesh Kumar and other co-accused, were staying, were also taken into possession. 4. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to take note of the fact that Malkiat Singh and Davinder Pal who were arrested during investigation of the case for commission of offence under Section 302 I.P.C. were sent for trial and they were acquitted by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur. The judgment of acquittal was challenged by the State before this Court. Vide judgment dated 29.10.2010 in Criminal Appeal No. 92 of 1999, the appeal so filed by the State stands dismissed. We were informed by learned Additional Advocate General that the said judgment of this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 92 of 1999 has attained finality. 5. Accused Dinesh Kumar was arrested on 07.01.2008 and put to trial. Investigation revealed that the accused in furtherance of common intention alongwith other co-accused had murdered Kishori Ram and thrown his dead body in the bushes which was identified by PW-3. 6. After completion of the investigation, challan was presented in the Court and as a prima facie case was found against the accused, he was accordingly charged for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C., to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 7. Learned trial Court on the basis of material produced on record by the prosecution concluded that the prosecution had failed to satisfy the tests laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court for convicting accused Dinesh Kumar on circumstantial evidence as the chain of circumstances was not complete and the same was full of suspicious circumstances. Learned trial Court further held that mere suspicion cannot take place of proof of guilt and as no reliable evidence was produced on record to connect accused Dinesh Kumar with the commission of offence, accordingly it acquitted the accused. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the records of the case as well as judgment passed by learned trial Court. 9. It is an admitted case that there is no direct evidence to link the accused with the commission of evidence for which he has been charged. The entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. 10. 9. It is an admitted case that there is no direct evidence to link the accused with the commission of evidence for which he has been charged. The entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. 10. 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.” 11. 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.” 12. 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. 13. 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. 13. 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. 14. 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. 15. During the course of arguments, learned Additional Advocate General has culled out the following circumstances to connect accused Dinesh Kumar with the commission of offence:- (i) Accused Dinesh Kumar stayed in Chandel hotel at Bilaspur on 12.03.1997 and made entry in the name of Avinash Sharma son of Ram Kumar. (ii) On 13.03.1997 he hired taxi of the deceased and left towards Deot Sidh alongwith other co-accused. While on his way to Shah Talai, Kishori Ram, driver halted at Awari to see his grand father where PW-3 Kashu Ram met the deceased and noticed four persons in his taxi including Dinesh Kumar. (iii) Recovery of the diary of the accused near the place of occurrence. (iv) Recovery of blood stained pant from the rented premises of Tara Chand where accused was residing. (v) The factum of the accused absconding after the commission of offence. 16. We will discuss all these circumstances one by one. Circumstance No. (i). Accused Dinesh Kumar stayed in Chandel otel at Bilaspur on 12.03.1997 and made entry in the name of Avinash Sharma son of Ram Kumar. 17. A perusal of the records of the case demonstrate that despite the fact that accused Dinesh Kumar was arrested on 07.01.2008, he was never brought to Chandel hotel at Bilaspur for the purpose of identification nor any official of the said hotel was examined by the prosecution to prove the factum of Dinesh Kumar having stayed in the said hotel alongwith other accused on 12.03.1997. No sufficient and cogent explanation has been given by the prosecution as to why no official of the said hotel was summoned as a witness to testify the story of the prosecution that Dinesh Kumar in fact had stayed there on 12.03.1997. Mr. V.S. Chauhan, learned Additional Advocate General, submitted that non-examination of the official of the hotel is totally immaterial because it stands proved from the report of the handwriting expert that handwriting on the register of the hotel was that of accused Dinesh Kumar. We are afraid that in the absence of any primary evidence linking accused having stayed in the said hotel on 12.03.1997 the same cannot be solely proved on the basis of the report of the testimony of the expert witness especially in view of the fact that it is well settled law that report of handwriting expert is only a corroborative piece of evidence and not primary evidence. It is settled law that evidence of handwriting expert is only an opinion evidence and it can very very rarely take place of substantive evidence. Before acting upon the said evidence it has to be seen whether this evidence is corroborated by any direct evidence or any circumstantial evidence. In the present case, there is no direct evidence to the effect that accused stayed in the said hotel on 12.03.1997. 18. It is settled law that the testimony of handwriting expert is a weak type of evidence and it is highly unsafe to pass conviction on such type of evidence. (See: Magan Bihari Lal Vs. The State of Punjab, AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1091, Fakhruddin Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1967 Supreme Court 1326 and Jagmal Singh Yadav Vs. Aimaduddin Ahmed Khan, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 308). 19. Therefore, in our considered view, in view of the above discussion, it cannot be said that this circumstance has been proved by the prosecution against the accused. Circumstance No. (ii): On 13.03.1997 he hired taxi of the deceased and left towards Deot Sidh alongwith other co-accused. While on his way to Shah Talai, Kishori Ram, driver halted at Awari to see his grand father where PW-3 Kashu Ram met the deceased and noticed four persons in his taxi including Dinesh Kumar. 20. In order to prove this circumstance, the prosecution have heavily relied on the testimony of PW-3 and PW-4. While on his way to Shah Talai, Kishori Ram, driver halted at Awari to see his grand father where PW-3 Kashu Ram met the deceased and noticed four persons in his taxi including Dinesh Kumar. 20. In order to prove this circumstance, the prosecution have heavily relied on the testimony of PW-3 and PW-4. The testimony of PW-3 Kashu Ram has to be read with caution keeping in view the fact that he is an interested witness as the deceased was his nephew. According to this witness, on 13.03.1997, the deceased went to Shah Talai and there were four passengers in his taxi. In his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. with which he has been confronted during his cross-examination, this witness has no where stated that he either saw four passengers travelling in the taxi or that accused Dinesh Kumar was also one of the said four passengers. 21. As we have already mentioned above, this witness is closely related to the deceased. His statement neither seems to be trustworthy nor it inspires any confidence. Further, his credibility has been impinged by the defence. 22. Similarly, as far as testimony of PW-4 Sadda Ram is concerned, it is of no help to the prosecution for the reason that this witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and in his cross-examination, nothing material could be elucidated by learned Public Prosecutor. It cannot be inferred from the testimony of this witness that it can be positively said that the accused was duly identified as one of the alleged four passengers in the taxi of the deceased. 23. Now, coming to the testimony of PW-1 Ram Lal. This witness has also not supported the case of the prosecution and neither he has identified accused Dinesh Kumar. Therefore, this circumstance has also not been proved by the prosecution against the accused. Circumstance No. (iii): On 13.03.1997 he hired taxi of the deceased and left towards Deot Sidh alongwith other co-accused. While on his way to Shah Talai, Kishori Ram, driver halted at Awari to see his grand father where PW-3 Kashu Ram met the deceased and noticed four persons in his taxi including Dinesh Kumar. 24. Circumstance No. (iii): On 13.03.1997 he hired taxi of the deceased and left towards Deot Sidh alongwith other co-accused. While on his way to Shah Talai, Kishori Ram, driver halted at Awari to see his grand father where PW-3 Kashu Ram met the deceased and noticed four persons in his taxi including Dinesh Kumar. 24. The case as has been put forth by the prosecution with regard to the recovery of the diary of accused Dinesh Kumar from a Pithu bag lying near the place of occurrence is concerned, has also not been duly proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. According to PW-26 Investigating Officer Hari Ram one Pithu bag was near the rain shelter Paroh which contained articles including a diary allegedly of accused Dinesh Kumar. As per this witness, he proceeded to Mandi Govindgragh and reached at the address found in the diary, where he met father of accused, who informed that accused was residing in a rented premises of Tara Chand. This witness has further deposed that he went to the house of Tara Chand which was found locked and voices were coming from inside the house and he knocked the door and when nobody responded, he broke the lock. When the door of the house was opened, accused Malkiat Singh and Davinder Pal were found inside the house. This witness has further deposed with regard to the recoveries which were made from the said rented accommodation. The factum of the said diary having been recovered from a Pithu bag from the place of occurrence stands belied by the statements of PW-5 Dev Raj and PW- 12 Dharam Pal, according to whom, the diary in issue was recovered from the shop of the father of accused Dinesh Kumar at Mandi Govindgrah. In this view of the fact when there are contradictions with regard to the alleged recovery of the diary of the accused from the site of occurrence, this circumstance also cannot be said to have been proved by the prosecution against the accused. At the most even if we believe the testimony of PW-26,the same only raises a suspicion against the accused but the fact of the matter still remains that suspicion cannot be substituted for proof and we are afraid that the prosecution has not been able to establish beyond suspicion this circumstance against the accused. At the most even if we believe the testimony of PW-26,the same only raises a suspicion against the accused but the fact of the matter still remains that suspicion cannot be substituted for proof and we are afraid that the prosecution has not been able to establish beyond suspicion this circumstance against the accused. Circumstance No. (iv): Recovery of blood stained pant from the rented premises of Tara Chand where accused was residing. 25. The recovery of the blood stained pant and jacket of the accused from the rented accommodation is proved on record again by PW-26 Hari Ram. According to HC Daljit Singh who entered the witness box as PW-14, clothes which were recovered from the said premises were claimed to be his by accused Davinder Pal. Incidentally, testimony of PW-12 Dharam Pal is to the effect that when police made inquiries about the house of accused Malkiat Singh, they led the police to the house of Malkiat Singh which was found locked. Further, as per this witness, after breaking the lock, police entered the room and Malkiat Singh and Davinder Pal were thereafter arrested. This testimony of PW-12 is in contradiction to the case of the prosecution because as per prosecution, these two accused were arrested from the accommodation which was taken on rent by accused Dinesh Kumar. In our considered view, the above mentioned contradictions about the recovery of the blood stained clothes of Dinesh Kumar as well as the arrest of the other accused who stand acquitted and whose judgment of acquittal stand upheld by this Court also raises grave doubts and suspicion about the version as has been putforth by the prosecution with regard to this circumstance. Therefore, in our considered view, it cannot be said that the prosecution has been able to prove this circumstance clinchingly against the accused Circumstance No. (v): The factum of the accused absconding after the commission of offence. 26. Therefore, in our considered view, it cannot be said that the prosecution has been able to prove this circumstance clinchingly against the accused Circumstance No. (v): The factum of the accused absconding after the commission of offence. 26. As far as this circumstance is concerned, keeping in view the fact that the chain of circumstances culled out by the State has not been proved and keeping in view the fact that the other co-accused stand acquitted and their acquittal stand upheld by this Court in appeal, in our considered view, the factum of the accused having absconded cannot be construed as a sufficient proof to infer the guilt of the accused and to convict him for the offence with which he was charged. It is settled law that in a case of circumstantial evidence, the circumstantial evidence should be so complete that it should not lead to any other inference except towards the guilt of the accused. We are afraid that in the present case it cannot be said that the circumstantial evidence which has been gathered by the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused in fact was guilty of the offences with which he was charged. The State has not been able to point out as to what was the motive with the accused to do away with the deceased. 27. Besides this, we have also gone through the judgment passed by learned trial Court. A perusal of the said judgment demonstrates that learned trial Court has taken into consideration the entire evidence produced on record by the prosecution and after a careful consideration and appreciation of the same, learned trial Court has returned the findings of acquittal in favour of the accused. 28. In our considered view, there is no infirmity or perversity with the findings so returned by learned trial Court. Accordingly, while upholding the judgment of acquittal passed by learned trial Court, we dismiss the present appeal being devoid of any merit. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged.