JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. 1. Aggrieved by acquittal of respondents/accused vide judgment dated 21.04.2012, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Mandi in Sessions Trial No. 11/2011, in case FIR No. 298/2010 dated 25.11.2010 registered under Sections 302, 201, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code in Police Station Sadar, District Mandi, H.P. the State has preferred present appeal with prayer to set aside impugned judgment and to convict respondents/accused under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General for the appellant-State has advanced arguments that there is sufficient circumstantial evidence on record to prove the guilt of respondents/accused under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and has prayed for allowing appeal to punish respondents/accused accordingly whereas Mr. G.R. Palsra, learned counsel for respondents/accused has vehemently submitted that prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and there is no circumstance incriminating respondents/accused and has sought dismissal of appeal. 3. PW-6 Bhagirath is father of deceased Tilak Raj Gupta. Tilak Raj Gupta was an employ in Forest Department, posted in the Office of Range Officer, Pandoh. On 25.11.2010, FIR Ex. PW-19/A was registered in Police Station Sadar, Mandi, District Mandi, on the basis of statement of PW-6 Bhgirath Ex. PW-6/B recorded under Section 154 Cr.PC by PW-27 ASI Ram Lal. As per his statement deceased Tilak Raj had left his village on 09.10.2010 at about 9.00 AM for his office at Pandoh. On 11.10.2010, at about 7.15 AM PW-11 Parveen Kumar son of deceased Tilak Raj had contacted him for an amount of Rs.1000/- to be paid to Meson working in his house in native village upon which deceased Tilak Raj had conveyed to his son that he will be sending Rs.1000/- through a driver of Private Bus being plied on the route passing through Village Surahi Khad i.e. native village of deceased. However on approaching driver of bus PW-11 Parveen Kumar by driver that deceased Tilak Raj had not sent any amount. Thereafter, PW-11 had again made a call to his father on his mobile but mobile of his father was found to be switched off. On 13.10.2010, wife of deceased Tilak Raj had received a call from Range Officer Pandoh at about 3.00 PM informing that deceased Tilak Raj Gupta was absent from duty since 11.10.2010. Thereafter, PW-11 had again made a call to his father on his mobile but mobile of his father was found to be switched off. On 13.10.2010, wife of deceased Tilak Raj had received a call from Range Officer Pandoh at about 3.00 PM informing that deceased Tilak Raj Gupta was absent from duty since 11.10.2010. After receiving this message deceased Tilak Raj Gupta was searched by family by making telephone calls to relations and on 14.10.2010 PW-11 Parveen Kumar and PW-6 Bhagirath had visited Office of deceased Tilak Raj Gupta and thereafter they had lodged missing report Ex. PW-27/A in Police Post, Pandoh on the same day. 4. On 25.10.2010, dead body was found in gunny bag in river Beas. PW-6 Bhagirath was called by police to identity dead body whether or not it was that of his son. PW-11 was also informed by one Pankaj that a dead body had been found in Gunny bag in the river. PW-6 had gone to place known as ‘Teen Peepal’ where dead body in gunny bag was taken out of river. From feet of dead body, PW-6 Bhagirath had identified the body of his deceased son Tilak Raj. It was stated by PW-6 that respondents Mani Devi, Sant Ram and their companions had murdered deceased Tilak Raj Gupta and had destroyed the dead body and they had thrown it after taking it in gunny bag as deceased Tilak Raj Gupta was regular visitor of the house of Mani Devi and Sant Ram and also having visiting terms with Mani Devi. 5. After lodging of FIR, investigation was carried out by PW-27 ASI Ram Lal. On opening of gunny bag, it was found that dead body was tied with stone with the help of rope before putting it in gunny bag. Articles recovered from dead body of deceased were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW-7/B which includes Vial of Calphos. Dead body was sent for post-mortem to General Hospital, Mandi and PW-22 Dr. Jiwa Nand Chauhan had conducted the post-mortem. He had found that there was no external injury on the body nor was there any sign of violence. As per his opinion, it appeared that deceased died due to ingestion of phosphite and ethyl alcohol. The post-mortem report is Ex. Jiwa Nand Chauhan had conducted the post-mortem. He had found that there was no external injury on the body nor was there any sign of violence. As per his opinion, it appeared that deceased died due to ingestion of phosphite and ethyl alcohol. The post-mortem report is Ex. PW-22/B. He had stated that because of pungent smell Calphos, it could not be administered to anyone by third persons but it could be taken voluntarily or could be administered to a man under intoxication. The spot was also visited by a team of Forensic Science headed by Assistant Director State FSL, PW-20 Dr. V.S. Jamwal who had inspected spot, examined body of the deceased and had issued reports Ex.PW-20/A and Ex.PW-20/B after examining of Viscera of deceased and articles found alongwith dead body. As per his reports aluminum of ethyl alcohol and Calphos (Phosphide) were detected in parts of stomach, spleen, small intestine, liver and kidney of deceased. As per post-mortem report, appropriate time between injury and death could not be ascertained and between death and post-mortem time of three to six weeks was opined. 6. On 26.11.2010, respondents Mani Devi and Sant Ram were arrested and on 28.11.2010 respondent Sangat Ram was also arrested. As per prosecution story, on 29.11.2010 during custody of respondent Mani Devi had made disclosure statement Ex. PW-1/A under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act in Police Post, Pandoh in presence of witnesses PW-1 Ved Prakash and PW-7 Kamal Kishore disclosing that she had concealed one mobile phone, thread and needle in her house which she could got recovered. Thereafter, respondent Mani Devi had led police party to her house and Mobile Nokia phone, Rs.10,000/- White Thread and needle were recovered at her instance vide seizure memo Ex.PW-1/B, PW-1/D and PW-1/C. The police had also taken into possession one vial of ‘Super fighter’ poison vide memo Ex.PW-1/C from house of respondent Mani Devi. On 30.11.2010, respondents Mani Devi and Sant Ram had led police party to house of Mani Devi and had identified place of wrapping dead body in jute bag and throwing dead body in river. In this regard, identification memos are Ex.PW-7/E and Ex.PW-7/F. 7. On 30.11.2010, respondents Mani Devi and Sant Ram had led police party to house of Mani Devi and had identified place of wrapping dead body in jute bag and throwing dead body in river. In this regard, identification memos are Ex.PW-7/E and Ex.PW-7/F. 7. It is case of prosecution that during intervening night of 12/13.10.2010, respondents had administered poison to deceased Tilak Raj Gupta in liquor and after his death Vial of poison was put in his pocket and in the intervening night of 12/13.10.2010 dead body of deceased was thrown in river Beas by respondents Mani Devi and Sant Ram. Investigating Officer had also found that deceased was also used to collect money for recurring deposit of Post Office as an agent and was having cash of Rs.13,000/- out of which Rs.10,000/- was recovered from respondent Mani Devi and remaining amount of Rs.3,000/- was disbursed by respondent Mani Devi to other respondents. 8. In the present case, prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence and has relied upon ‘last seen together theory’ supported by recovery of mobile phone, Rs.10,000/- thread, needle and Vial of poison from house of respondent Mani Devi at her instance and also identification of spot of packing dead body, throwing it and administering poison to deceased by respondent. 9. Prosecution has examined 22 witnesses to prove guilt of respondent. For ‘last seen together’ the prosecution has relied upon statements of PW-8 Prem Bhushan and PW-10 Inder Singh. PW-1 Ved Prakash and PW-7 Kamal Kishore are witnesses to disclosure statement made by respondent Mani Devi and recovery of articles followed by her disclosure statement. 10. PW-3 Inder Pal, cloth merchant, had been examined to prove that respondent Sant Ram had purchased clothes from him in which dead body was wrapped. PW-4 Vinay Kumar, a Karyana Merchant, had been examined to prove sale of needle and thread by respondent Sant Ram with which the gunny bag was stitched after putting dead body in the bag. Statement of PW-6 Bagirath Gupta father of deceased, PW-11 Shri Parveen Kumar son of deceased and PW-12 Kanta Devi wife of deceased had also been relied upon by prosecution in support of its case. PW-2 and PW-5 had also been examined to prove chain of circumstances against respondents. Statement of PW-6 Bagirath Gupta father of deceased, PW-11 Shri Parveen Kumar son of deceased and PW-12 Kanta Devi wife of deceased had also been relied upon by prosecution in support of its case. PW-2 and PW-5 had also been examined to prove chain of circumstances against respondents. Other witnesses PW-9 Lekh Raj, PW-13 Thakur Singh, PW-14 Parma Nand, PW-15 Narender Kumar PW-16 Vikas Sharma, PW-17 Sanjay Kumar, PW-18 Ami Chand, PW-19 Amar Nath, PW-23 Surender Pal and PW-26 Ramesh Kumar were official witnesses who had performed their respective role in completing investigation which may be relevant only in case complete chain of circumstantial evidence is proved against respondents-accused. 11. PW-20 Dr. V.S. Jamwal, Assistant Director, Forensic Science Department had visited the spot and had examined dead body of the deceased. PW-24 Dr. Arun Sharma had conducted Biological and Serology analysis to the belongings of deceased and had found human blood on the clothes of deceased. 12. PW-25 Rajesh Kumar, Assistant Director, Physics and Ballistics Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Mandi had given report regarding comparison of thread recovered from the house of respondent Mani Devi with thread with which gunny bag was stitched. As per his opinion, both thread were found to be similar on the basis of colour, microscopic appearance and number of plies. Opinion is that needle found in Ex. E/6 can be used for stitching by using thread found in Ex. E/4, Ex. E/5 and Ex. E/6 (thread roll). As per his opinion, needle recovered at the instance of respondent Mani Devi could be used for stitching by using thread examined by him. He had found nothing abnormal in clothes of deceased except a cut mark on back side of Pants near the back pocket. He has admitted that thread examined by him was commonly available in market and found in the houses. He has further stated that such types of thread were also used by the police to seal parcels and also used for stitching quilts etc. 13. PW-8 in examination-in-chief had claimed to had noticed respondents Mani Devi and Sant Ram with deceased Tilak Raj Gupta in veranda of house of Mani Devi on 11.10.2010 at about 7.30 PM from slab of his house on second floor. He had also claimed that on 12.10.2010 during night at about 12.30 AM he had heard noise of walking from house of Mani Devi. He had also claimed that on 12.10.2010 during night at about 12.30 AM he had heard noise of walking from house of Mani Devi. In cross-examination, he had admitted that portion of verandah of house of respondent Mani Devi was not visible from his house. He came to know about death of Tilak Raj on 12.11.2010 and prior to that he was not having any information about his death and police had come to him on 04.12.2010 and on that day when he had informed police about presence of respondent Mani Devi and Sant Ram alongwith deceased Tilak Raj Gupta in verandah of Mani Devi on 12.10.2010 and prior to 04.12.2010, he had not disclosed this fact. He had seen deceased Tilak Raj Gupta with respondents but could not remember exactly whether he had seen deceased Tilak Raj in the house of respondent Mani Devi on 10.10.2010 or not. He had admitted that he could not tell exact date before 11.10.2010 on which date he, Sant Ram and Tilak Raj Gupta were in the house of Mani Devi. He had stated that he had seen only deceased at about 7.30 PM on 11.10.2010 and at that time it was neither quite dark nor quite daylight and there was no light in the verandah of Mani Devi at that time. He had stated that he had not seen anybody in the house of Mani Devi on the night of 12.10.2010 at 12.30 AM. However, he heard noise of walking of somebody in house of respondent Mani Devi. He had stated that he had no knowledge whether or not any other members of his family heard the noise of walking in the house of Mani Devi in the night of 12.10.2010. He had also not discussed this fact with any member of his family. He had admitted that litigation was pending between him and Mani Devi with respect to land existing in between their houses. However, he had clarified the matter was compromised and land was left to respondent Mani Devi as per compromise. He had admitted that the land was in the name of his father. He had also admitted that deceased Tilak Raj Gupta was having good relations with Mani Devi. Conduct of this witness creates doubt about his truthfulness. He had seen deceased Tilak Raj Gupta coming to respondents on 11.10.2010. He had admitted that the land was in the name of his father. He had also admitted that deceased Tilak Raj Gupta was having good relations with Mani Devi. Conduct of this witness creates doubt about his truthfulness. He had seen deceased Tilak Raj Gupta coming to respondents on 11.10.2010. He was having knowledge about missing of Tilak Rajm Gupta w.e.f. 11.10.2010. He was in speaking terms with deceased Tilak Raj Gupta but prior to 04.12.2010 he had never disclosed that presence of Tilak Raj Gupta was noticed by him in home of respondent Mani Devi on 11.10.2010. He had not even discussed this with his family members. For the first time, only on 04.12.2010, he suddenly came as a witness to ‘last seen together’ deceased Tilak Raj Gupta with respondents. From his statement inimical relations with respondent Mani Devi are also evident. Therefore, this witness cannot be relied upon. 14. PW-10 Inder Singh had stated that he had noticed deceased Tilak Raj Gupta on 9th October, 2010 in the Verandah of Mani Devi who had asked him to prepare food. After preparation of food deceased Tilak Raj Gupta had come to office and after taking meals had slept in the room of Durga Ram who was also working as clerk in the Range office. As per this witness, deceased Tilak Raj Gupta worked in the office of Range Officer for whole day on 10.10.2010 and in the evening at about 8.00 PM, he left the office in a vehicle after taking little quantity of liquor in office. Deceased had returned back to office and had slept in the room of Durga Ram on 11.11.2010. When this witness was coming to office on call of deceased Tilak Raj Gupta, respondent Mani Devi had met him on the way who had told that she had received a call from house of deceased Tilak Raj Gupta. As per him, Bhagat Ram, who had gone to market to buy vegetables in the evening, had informed him that deceased was eating and drinking in verandah of Mani Devi and Sant Ram was also there. In his deposition, this witness, had nowhere stated that he himself had seen Tilak Raj Gupta coming to respondents on 11.10.2010. As per him, Bhagat Ram, who had gone to market to buy vegetables in the evening, had informed him that deceased was eating and drinking in verandah of Mani Devi and Sant Ram was also there. In his deposition, this witness, had nowhere stated that he himself had seen Tilak Raj Gupta coming to respondents on 11.10.2010. His statement was based upon information given by Bhagat Ram but said Bhagat Ram had not been examined as witness, therefore, the statements of this witness had no evidentiary value for proving circumstance of last seen together against respondents. 15. Even if it is considered that mobile phone, currency notes, needle, thread and Vial of poison was recovered from house of respondent Mani Devi at her instance, then also unless these articles are linked with the offences alleged to be committed by respondents, the disclosure statement as well as recovery of these articles cannot be considered as evidence against respondents. Mobile Phone, recovered from respondent Mani Devi claimed to be identified by PW-7 Kamal Kishore and PW-11 Parveen Kumar son of deceased, is having no special identification mark and Investigating Officer had admitted that recovered Mobile phone is easily available in the market. It is pertinent to mention here that recovered Mobile phone was not having any Sim. There is no evidence placed on record proving that Sim of deceased was used in the Mobile set alleged to be belonging to the deceased recovered from the house of respondent Mani Devi. For want of specific evidence this mobile phone does not connect respondents with commission of crime. 16. Recovery of currency notes cannot also be taken as piece of evidence for linking respondents with murder of deceased for the reasons that there was no evidence on record that currency notes recovered from house of respondent Mani Devi were belonging to deceased. 17. Recovery of needle and thread from house of respondent Mani Devi cannot be considered to infer that gunny bag in which body of deceased was found, was stitched with the same needle and thread. 17. Recovery of needle and thread from house of respondent Mani Devi cannot be considered to infer that gunny bag in which body of deceased was found, was stitched with the same needle and thread. Though, PW-25, Rajesh Kumar Assistant Director Physics and Ballistics Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Mandi had opined that said thread was found similar to the thread with which gunny bag was stitched and the needle could be used for stitching by said thread, however, at the same time he had also admitted that thread compared by him is commonly available in market as well as in houses and such type of thread were also used by police to seal parcels and thread was also used for stitching quilts etc. Therefore, recovery of thread and needle as well as report of State FSL cannot be considered to hold that it was the same thread and needle with which gunny bag containing dead body of deceased was stitched recovered from house of respondent Mani Devi. 18. PW-1 Ved Prakash and PW-7 Kamal Kishore cousin of deceased Tilak Raj, were witnesses to disclosure statement Ex.PW-1/A made by respondent Mani Devi and they had also witnessed recovery of Mobile Phone, currency notes, needle and thread, Vial of poison at the instance of respondent Mani Devi on the basis of disclosure statement made by her. PW-1 has claimed that respondent Mani Devi had got recovered articles in his presence, whereas PW-7 had stated that respondent Mani Devi and two lady constables had gone inside the house of respondent Mani Devi and others remained out side meaning thereby that alleged recovery of articles were effected in presence of two lady constables who had not been examined. Version of PW-7 Kamal Kishore contradicts statement of PW-1 Ved Prakash. It had also come in statement of PW-1 Ved Prakash that respondent Mani Devi had taken key of house from a person sitting outside her house which means that at that time house of respondent Mani Devi was in control and possession of someone else. Claim of prosecution that recoveries were effected at the instance of respondent Mani Devi on the basis of her disclosure statement, is shrouded by suspicion. 19. PW-7 Kamal Kishore was also witness to disclosure statement made by Sant Ram and Sangat Ram regarding identification of places and throwing dead body into river by respondents. Claim of prosecution that recoveries were effected at the instance of respondent Mani Devi on the basis of her disclosure statement, is shrouded by suspicion. 19. PW-7 Kamal Kishore was also witness to disclosure statement made by Sant Ram and Sangat Ram regarding identification of places and throwing dead body into river by respondents. On the basis of identification Memo Ex.PW-7/F was prepared. This disclosure statement had been claimed to be made on 30.11.2010 whereas prior to 30.11.2010 since 25.11.2010 everyone in the locality was having knowledge about place from where dead body was recovered and also about house of respondent Mani Devi. There was nothing in that disclosure statement showing that facts disclosed were not known to anyone else. On the basis of this statement no recovery of any incriminating articles has been effected. 20. Another article stated to be recovered at the instance of respondent Mani Devi was Vial of poison Ex. P/28. This Vial was containing lable ‘Super Fighting’ and was 25% empty. Investigating Officer had stated that he didn’t know super fighter is generally used by agriculturist to spray it on vegetables. There is another aspect which creates doubt on prosecution story. In articles recovered from clothes of dead body, there was an empty Vial of poison. Case of prosecution is that after administering poison to deceased the said Vial was put in the pocket of deceased by respondents. If it was so, then Vial Ex.PW-28 could not be Vial of poison which was administered to deceased by respondents. 21. Statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act will be admissible against respondent only in case it leads to discovery of facts which has direct outcome of such information and only such portion of information given will be admissible against respondents which has distinguishly related with such recovery. The statement leading to recovery of incriminating articles or things will be admissible and not in case of discovery. In present case, as discussed above, there is no article recovered which can be considered incriminating against the respondents. So far as identification of the spot is concerned, it was open secret known to all that dead body of deceased was found to be thrown at a place known as ‘Teen Pipal’ at Pandoh. Identification of other spots of poison and sleeping of deceased and packing of dead body also not leads to incriminating recovery. So far as identification of the spot is concerned, it was open secret known to all that dead body of deceased was found to be thrown at a place known as ‘Teen Pipal’ at Pandoh. Identification of other spots of poison and sleeping of deceased and packing of dead body also not leads to incriminating recovery. Therefore, disclosure statement relied upon against the respondents is not admissible against them. 22. Prosecution has also relied upon PW-2 Bhagirath who was on patrolling duty during night of 12.10.2010. He had stated that at about 2.00-2.30 AM respondent Sangat Ram had met them near BBMB Hospital, on the way coming from downside who had replied on questioning that he had gone to answer the call of nature and his clothes were wet at that time. On questioning about wetting of clothes, he had replied that he had slipped in the water and he had disclosed that he was staying in house of his sister respondent Mani Devi. As per him respondent Sangat Ram was directed to report in Police Post in the morning. This witness had claimed that he was on official duty but his departure from police post and arrival report were not produced in the Court and he had also admitted that respondent Mani Devi was known to him since 2009. He had stated that he had not asked address of respondent Sangat Ram. He had stated that Sangat Ram did not come in the morning. He had stated that they had informed Chowki In-charge about Sangat Ram who was noticed by him during night but he had shown his ignorance about any Chowki entered any entry of report that effect He, himself, Yashpal and Ghanshyam who were accompanying him, had not recorded any such report. Yashpal and Ghanshyam have not been examined. The statement of this witness also does not inspire confidence. He was knowing respondent Mani Devi since 2009 and it was in his knowledge that there was a toilet in the house of respondent Mani Devi did not ask Sangat Ram as to why Sangat Ram had not used toilet in the house of Mani Devi. PW-2 being on patrolling duty was supposed to ask this question from Sangat Ram in a natural manner. The conduct of Bhagirath creates doubt rendering his introduction by prosecution in order to complete the link to prove the guilt of respondents. 23. PW-2 being on patrolling duty was supposed to ask this question from Sangat Ram in a natural manner. The conduct of Bhagirath creates doubt rendering his introduction by prosecution in order to complete the link to prove the guilt of respondents. 23. Prosecution had also examined PW-3 Inderpal, a cloth merchant alleging that Sant Ram had purchased a shining cloth from his shop in which dead body of deceased was found wrapped. He had stated that bright clothes were used for deity and funeral purposes and shining clothes on dead body of deceased was same which accused Sant Ram had purchased from his shop. His statement was recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC on 04.12.2010. He had stated that balance cloth had already been sold by that time. As per him he made entries in cash memos regarding sale of cloth but he had not produced any counterfoil of such cash memos in Court. He did not remember that how many persons had purchased clothes from his shop on 12.10.2010 or from ‘Thaan’ which was 16-25 meter. He did not remember names of persons to whom he had sold balance cloth and on which date. He had admitted that clothes Ex.P-30 (shining clothes) found on dead body was easily available in the market and there was no special identification of Ex.P-30. He had admitted that he was present on spot alongwith police officials at the time of recovery of dead body from river on 25.11.2010 but he had not disclosed to police on that day that the cloth in which dead body was wrapped was purchased by accused Sant Ram from his shop. He had admitted that his statement was recorded in police station by calling him by PW-27 ASI Ram Lal. Therefore, version of this witness is also shrouded by suspicion. 24. PW-4 Vijay Kumar, a Karyana Merchant, had been examined to prove that needle and thread were purchased by Sant Ram from his shop in the month of July, 2010. Initially, he did not lend any support to prosecution case and was declared hostile and during his cross-examination he had stated that Sant Ram might have purchased needle and thread from his shop in the month of July-August, 2010. Thereafter he had stated that he did not remember that he had sold bundle of needle and thread to Sant Ram. Initially, he did not lend any support to prosecution case and was declared hostile and during his cross-examination he had stated that Sant Ram might have purchased needle and thread from his shop in the month of July-August, 2010. Thereafter he had stated that he did not remember that he had sold bundle of needle and thread to Sant Ram. He had further stated that thread and needle were used in every house. He had disclosed this fact to police first time on asking of Chowki In-charge. He had stated that he had never stated in his statement recorded by police that respondent Sant Ram used to purchase things from his shop for respondent Mani Devi. 25. For proving motive to commit murder by respondent Mani Devi prosecution has propounded hypothesis that respondent Mani Devi had borrowed money from deceased Tilak Raj Gupta and Mani Devi did not repay the said amount for which relations of respondent Mani Devi and deceased Tilak Raj Gupta were strained and for this reason respondent Mani Devi had murdered deceased with help of other respondents. It had come in the evidence that PW-5 Netar Singh PW-10 Inder Singh and PW-11 Parveen Kumar as also in statement of PW-6 Bagirath that deceased used to visit house of respondent Mani Devi and respondent Mani Devi also used to come to meet Tilak Raj Gupta and they were having good relations. It had also come in evidence that deceased Tilak Raj Gupta was treating respondent Mani Devi as ‘Bua’ and deceased Tilak Raj Gupta used to praise Mani Devi in his house and also used to take milk, ghee, curd etc. to his house from respondent Mani Devi and PW-12 Kanta, wife of deceased, had stated that on missing of her husband she had made a call to respondent Mani Devi and at the first instance she had admitted that her husband had friendly relations with respondent Mani Devi and she had admitted that respondent Mani Devi used to pay respect to her husband. Though in later part of her statement this witness had stated that her husband was having inimical relation with accused but in earlier part she had admitted in unequivocal words that her husband was having friendly relations with respondent Mani Devi and her husband was having friendly relation with Sant Ram and Sangat Ram. Though in later part of her statement this witness had stated that her husband was having inimical relation with accused but in earlier part she had admitted in unequivocal words that her husband was having friendly relations with respondent Mani Devi and her husband was having friendly relation with Sant Ram and Sangat Ram. Though she had stated that her husband had advanced money to respondent Mani Devi but she did not disclose exact amount of money given to respondent Mani Devi. PW-12 is breathing hot and cold one and the same time, therefore story of prosecution of lending money by deceased Tilak Raj Gupta to respondent Mani Devi is also not reliable. 26. It is evident from the aforesaid discussion that chain of circumstantial evidence to prove the guilt of accused is not complete and prosecution evidence cannot be treated as cogent, reliable, credible and sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused-respondent beyond reasonable doubt. There are material contradictions in the testimonies of material witnesses. Thus, having perused the testimonies of prosecution witnesses on record, it cannot be said that prosecution has been able to prove its case that respondent-accused has committed offence under Sections 302, 201 and 120B and 511 of the Indian Penal Code. It cannot be said that the learned trial court has not appreciated the evidence correctly and completely and acquittal of the accused has resulted into travesty of justice or has caused miscarriage of justice. 27. It is a settled principle of law that acquittal leads to presumption of innocence in favour of an accused. To dislodge the same, onus heavily lies upon prosecution. Accused has been acquitted by trial Court. No case for interference is made out. 28. Present appeal, devoid of any merit is dismissed, so also the pending applications, if any. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by respondents/accused are discharged. Records of Court below be sent back immediately.