JUDGMENT : (Delivered by Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta, J.) 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellants No. 1 to 3 namely Jaiveer, Babu Ram and Bahadur respectively against the judgment and order dated 25.8.1982 passed by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Mainpuri, in Sessions Trial No. 284 of 1982, Police Station Kishani, District Mainpuri whereby accused-appellants have been convicted under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short "IPC") and sentenced to life imprisonment. They have also been convicted under Section 394 IPC and sentenced to four years rigorous imprisonment and under Section 201 IPC three years rigorous imprisonment. The sentences of each of the accused have been directed to run concurrently. 2.The present appeal was filed in the year 1982 against the impugned judgment dated 25.8.1982 and it has come for hearing before us after the lapse of a period of about 34 years. 3. During the pendency of the appeal, Appellant No. 2, Babu Ram is reported to have died and the appeal on his behalf was dismissed as abated by order of this Court dated 19.5.2015. Thus, we are now proceeding to consider this appeal only with regard to the surviving Appellants Nos. 1 and 3, namely Jaiveer and Bahadur respectively. 4. The prosecution story, in a nutshell is as follows; 5. One Ram Naresh (deceased) S/o Ajab Singh resident of Nagla Naya R/o Rasoolpur, P.S. Barnahal, Mainpuri was the grandson of Suraj Sahai, Advocate, Mainpuri. Ram Autar (deceased) S/o Makrand Singh R/o Beoti, P.S. Kotwali, Mainpuri was the maternal uncle of Ram Naresh. Ram Naresh had purchased 20 bighas of land in village Rasoolpur from Maya Devi, the real sister of accused Bahadur. Ram Naresh, thereafter, moved an application for mutation. The mother-in-law of Maya Devi filed an objection against that application. One Sheopal Singh Pradhan, doing pairvi on behalf of Maya Devi, stated before the Tehsildar that Maya Devi had died much before the execution of the sale deed. A direction was issued by Court of Tehsildar to produce Maya Devi on 8.4.1980. On 7.4.1980 Ram Naresh, Ram Autar and the accused Babu Ram met Sri Suraj Sahai Advocate at the Collectorate Court Campus, Mainpuri and Babu Ram took away Ram Naresh and Ram Autar from there at 10.30 A.M. to bring Maya Devi from her village Jagnia for producing her in the Court of Tehsildar on the next day. On 7.4.1980 Ram Naresh, Ram Autar and the accused Babu Ram met Sri Suraj Sahai Advocate at the Collectorate Court Campus, Mainpuri and Babu Ram took away Ram Naresh and Ram Autar from there at 10.30 A.M. to bring Maya Devi from her village Jagnia for producing her in the Court of Tehsildar on the next day. At that time Ram Autar was carrying his licensed gun. P.W. 4 Man Singh in the afternoon on the very same day i.e. 7.4.1980 met Ram Naresh, Ram Autar and one Ram Kishan accompanied by the accused Babu Ram and Jaiveer at Katra Chauraha. Ram Autar told him that they were going to Bahadur's house at village Jagnia to bring her sister Maya Devi for producing her in the court for evidence on the next day. Thereafter, these five persons proceeded to Jagnia. On the same day at about 4 P.M., the prosecution witness P.W. 3 Gangadin met Sheo Pal and the accused Bahadur, and after a while met Ram Naresh, Ram Autar, Ram Kishan as well as the accused Babu Ram and Jaiveer in the village Jagnia and also had a talk with Ram Autar. Sheo Pal and Ram Autar had a rifle and a 1icensed gun respectively. Since thereafter Ram Kishan, Ram Auar and Ram Naresh were found missing from 7.4.1980, a missing report Ext. Ka 5 was lodged after 5 days by Sri Suraj Sahai Advocate at Police Station Kotwali on 12.4.1980 at 10.45 P.M. and continued to search for the deceased persons. 6. On the early morning of 17.4.1980 three dead bodies were found lying in a pond west of village Nagala Bagh Nagar. In this regard, a written report was lodged by P.W. 1 Ram Nath at 8.00 A.M. at Police Station Kishani. Suraj Pal Singh, Station Officer accompanied by other police officers went to the place where dead bodies were lying. The inquest reports and other connected papers concerning these three bodies i.e. Ext. Ka. 9 to Ext. Ka. 29 were prepared and the dead bodies were sealed and sent for post-mortem. Since the inquest reports mentioned that the dead bodies were of some unknown persons, an identification was held under the supervision of Sri Surendra Singh Sengar, Executive Magistrate, Mainpuri on 18.4.1980 and Memos Ext. Ka. 1 to Ext. Ka. 3 were prepared. The post-mortem of these three dead bodies was conducted by Dr. Since the inquest reports mentioned that the dead bodies were of some unknown persons, an identification was held under the supervision of Sri Surendra Singh Sengar, Executive Magistrate, Mainpuri on 18.4.1980 and Memos Ext. Ka. 1 to Ext. Ka. 3 were prepared. The post-mortem of these three dead bodies was conducted by Dr. R.K. Jain on 19.4.1980 and the post-mortem reports i.e. Ext. Ka. 6 to Ext. Ka 8 were prepared. After investigation in which the site plan Ext. Ka. 30 was prepared, the charge-sheet Ext. Ka. 31 was submitted against the three accused Jaiveer, Bahadur and Babu Ram. 7. The post mortem report Ext. Ka. 6 shows that following injuries were found on the dead body of Ram Kishan :- 1. Gun shot wound of entry 2 c.m. x 2 c.m. in epigastric, 9 c.m. above the umbilicus at 12 O' clock position. 2. Gun shot wound of exit 2 1/2 c.m. x 2 1/2 c.m. on the right side back lower part. 3. There is absence of flesh and left mandible. Only bones are exposed in an area of 22 c.m. x 10 c.m. extending over tip of nose of left steroclabical joint. Whole face below nose neck bone and upper two ribs on left side are exposed. 4. There is absence of flesh in an area of 6 cm x 20- cm on the left side shoulder to left arm upper to 2/3 bones are exposed. 8. The post-mortem report Ext. Ka. 7 shows that the dead body of Ram Naresh had following injuries:- 1. Gun shot wound of entrance 2 1/2 x 2 1/2 c.m. on right side 12 c.m. away from umblicus at 11 O' clock position. 2. Gun shot wound of exit 2 c.m., 1 on the left side back 13 c.m. above the uneblicees. 9. Ext. Ka 8 shows that the dead body of Ram Autar had following injuries :- 1. Gun shot wound of entry 2 1/2 c.m. x 2 1/2 c.m. on the right nipple. 2. Wound of exit 1 c.m. x 1 c.m. on right side scapular region. 3. Wound of exit 1 c.m. x 1 c.m. right outer region. 1 1/2 c.m. below injury No. 2. 10. Gun shot wound of entry 2 1/2 c.m. x 2 1/2 c.m. on the right nipple. 2. Wound of exit 1 c.m. x 1 c.m. on right side scapular region. 3. Wound of exit 1 c.m. x 1 c.m. right outer region. 1 1/2 c.m. below injury No. 2. 10. It was opined by the doctor that the death had occurred around 10 or 11 days prior to the post-mortem examination and that the cause of death was shock and hemorrhage due to injuries. 11. The accused were committed to the Court of Sessions on 26.5.1981. They appeared before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Mainpuri on 3.12.1981 and on that date Sri Ramkji Lal, Additional Sessions Judge framed charges against accused under sections 394, 302/34, 201 I.P.C. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. The prosecution has examined in all 7 witnesses. 12. P.W. 1 Ram Nath has stated that he knew Ram Autar, Ram Naresh and Ram Kishan. They have been murdered. He saw them alive two years back and thereafter these three persons went missing. In the month of Baisakh three dead bodies were found in a pond, west of village Bagh Nagar. During the examination-in-chief P.W. 1 has stated that an oral information was given by him at the police station regarding these three bodies. However, during cross examination he has stated that a written report was lodged by him at the police station. 13. Sri Suraj Sahai Advocate, P.W. 2 has stated that Ram Naresh was his daughter's son. Ram Autar was the maternal uncle of Ram Naresh. A sale-deed was executed by Maya Devi in favour of Ram Naresh in respect of the land at village Rusulpur. He moved an application for mutation and an objection was filed by Ganga Devi, mother-in-law of Maya Devi. Sheo Pal Singh, Pradhan who was doing parivi on behalf of Maya Devi of Katholi, gave a statement before the tehsildar that Maya Devi had died before the date of the execution of the sale deed. A direction was issued by the court to produce Maya Devi on 8.4.1980. On 7.4.1980, a day before, Ram Naresh, Ram Autar and accused Baburam met him in the collectorate at 10.30 A.M. and then they all proceeded to Jagnia on the said day i.e. 7.4.1980 to bring Maya Devi. A direction was issued by the court to produce Maya Devi on 8.4.1980. On 7.4.1980, a day before, Ram Naresh, Ram Autar and accused Baburam met him in the collectorate at 10.30 A.M. and then they all proceeded to Jagnia on the said day i.e. 7.4.1980 to bring Maya Devi. Ram Autar had the licensed gun with him. When Ram Autar and Ram Naresh could not be traced he lodged the missing report Ext. Ka 5 at P.S. Kotwali on 12.4.1980. After 5 days three bodies were found near Bagh Nagar in a Talab. On 18.4.1980 he moved an application before S.P. Mainpuri for the identification of these three dead bodies. This identification was held under the supervision of Surendra Singh Sengar, Executive Magistrate and these bodies were identified to be those of Ram Autar, Ram Naresh and Ram Kishan. 14. Gangadeen, P.W. 3 has stated that on 7.4.1980 when he was going to village Beena, he had reached near Jagnia at about 4 P.M. There Sheo Pal and the accused Bahadur met him. After a short while, he met Ram Naresh, Ram Autar, Ram Kishan and the accused Baburam along with Jaiveer, in the village. At that time also Bahadur and Sheo Pal were carrying a licenced gun and a rifle with them, respectively. 15. Man Singh, P.W. 4 has stated that on the afternoon of 7th April 1980 he came to Katra accompanied by Prakash. There Ram Kishan, Ram Autar, Ram Naresh and the accused Bahadur and Jaiveer met him and he was told by Ram Autar that they were going to Jagnia to bring Maya Devi, the real sister of Bahadur. 16. Asherfi Lal, P.W. 5 is the father of Ram Kishan. He has stated that on 7.4.1980 Ram Kishan had gone to Katra in the afternoon but did not come back. On 17.4.1980 three dead bodies were found in a Talab near Bagh Nagar and he also went there. He saw these dead bodies and identified the body of his son Ram Kishan by clothes worn by him. Subsequently, he identified his body at Mainpuri. 17. Bishambhar Singh, P.W. 6 has stated that about 2 years back, in the month of Baisakh, he was proceeding to Kattara at about 10 A.M. accompanied by Asherfi Lal and Ramdas. He was told by Asherfi Lal that Ram Kishan was not traceable. They decided to search for him. Subsequently, he identified his body at Mainpuri. 17. Bishambhar Singh, P.W. 6 has stated that about 2 years back, in the month of Baisakh, he was proceeding to Kattara at about 10 A.M. accompanied by Asherfi Lal and Ramdas. He was told by Asherfi Lal that Ram Kishan was not traceable. They decided to search for him. Next day they set out in search of Ram Kishan and reached village Bhag Nagar. On the way, they met Bahadur, Sheopal, Baburam and Jaiveer who were saying that they had disposed of three persons in such a manner that nobody would know about them. 18. Surendra Singh Sengar, Executive Magistrate, P.W. 7 has stated that identification of the three dead bodies was held under his supervision and that he prepared the identification Memos Ext. Ka 1 to Ka 3. 19. Besides this oral evidence, the prosecution has tendered documents viz.; post-mortem reports Ext. Ka 6 to Ka 8, the inquest report along with connected paper Ext. Ka 9 to Ka 29, site plan Ext. Ka 30 and the charge sheet Ext. 31. Genuineness of these documents has been admitted and the formal proof has been dispensed with. 20. The accused persons in their statement under section 313 Cr. P. C. have denied the prosecution's story and shown his ignorance about the sale deed executed by Maya Devi and the direction of the court to produce Maya Devi on 8.4.1980. He has denied that he met Gangadin on 7.4.1980 and that at that time Ram Naresh Ram Autar, Ram Kishan Bahadur and Baburam were also with him. He has further denied that he met Man Singh. He further stated that witnesses being very close relatives have given false evidence against him due to village enmity. Similar statements were given by the other accused also. They have not brought on record any oral or documentary evidence. 21. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that this is a case of circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has failed to establish its charges, as it failed to complete the chain of events supported by cogent and reliable evidences. Neither any motive whatsoever has been assigned to accused appellants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 namely Jaiveer, Babu Ram (since deceased) and Bahadur, respectively, nor any recovery has been made from their possession. Neither any motive whatsoever has been assigned to accused appellants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 namely Jaiveer, Babu Ram (since deceased) and Bahadur, respectively, nor any recovery has been made from their possession. It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the dead bodies of all the three deceased namely Ram Krishan, Ram Naresh and Ram Autar were found in a highly decomposed condition and were beyond recognization/identification and that in the inquest report it was mentioned that the dead bodies were of unknown persons therefore this fact clearly shows that at the time when the dead bodies were recovered and inquest was conducted, they were not identifiable. He further submitted that the prosecution has failed to complete the chain of events to bring home their culpability and even the Investigation Officer was not produced before the court below for adducing the evidence. He further submitted that the prosecution in order to work out the case and appease its bosses has maliciously implicated the appellants in the present case by producing three witnesses of last seen and one witness who alleges that he overheard the conversation of the accused-appellants talking amongst each other that they have killed three people and disposed their bodies clandestinely. It was further submitted that even though P.W. 1, Ram Nath and P.W. 5 (father of deceased Ram Naresh) were present on the spot when the dead bodies of the deceased were recovered, they were unable to identify the dead bodies of the deceased Ram Krishna, Ram Naresh and Ram Autar, however, amazingly on the very next day P.W. 2 and P.W. 5 are said to have identified the dead bodies of the deceased persons when the conditions of the dead bodies had become worse. No reasons were given as to why on the previous day they could not identify the dead bodies immediately when they were recovered from the pond. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sk. Yusuf Vs. State of West Bengal, 2011 (74) ACC 293 and Roopsena Khatun Vs. State of West Bengal, 2011 (74) ACC 230. 22. Per contra, learned AGA supported the impugned order as well as findings recorded by the trial court and emphasized that there was sufficient material before the court for convicting the appellants. Yusuf Vs. State of West Bengal, 2011 (74) ACC 293 and Roopsena Khatun Vs. State of West Bengal, 2011 (74) ACC 230. 22. Per contra, learned AGA supported the impugned order as well as findings recorded by the trial court and emphasized that there was sufficient material before the court for convicting the appellants. He further stated that this was a gruesome case of triple murder and the witnesses have categorically stated that they had seen the appellants in the company of the deceased persons. 23. Heard Sri Rahul Misra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-appellant No. 1, Jaiveer and Sri Pradymn Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-appellant No. 3, Bahadur. 24. Admittedly, this is case of circumstantial evidence and no recovery whatsoever has been made from the appellants. Perusal of the record shows that no motive has been assigned either to the appellant No. 1 Jaiveer or appellant No. 3 Bahadur. In the present case, the missing report was filed on 12.4.1980 after a delay of five days and no explanation whatsoever has been given as to why the missing report was lodged with so much delay. Even in the missing report dated 12.4.1980, the accused appellants Jaiveer and Bahadur were neither named nor any allegations were made against the accused-appellants. The only allegation was made against one of the co-accused-appellant No. 2 Babu Ram (since deceased) that he was present at the Basta (seat) of P.W. 2, Suraj Sahai Yadav, Advocate at the Tehsil and he left his chamber (Basta) along with the deceased Ram Autar and Ram Naresh in order to bring Maya Devi to produce her as a witness on the next day i.e. 8.4.1980. Further there was not even a whisper about the present appellants No. 1 and 3 namely Jaiveer and Bahadur respectively in the missing report. It is also notable that there is no mention or description in the missing report as to what clothes the deceased persons were wearing when they had left his Basta (seat) in the company of Babu Ram (since deceased). It is also notable that there is no mention or description in the missing report as to what clothes the deceased persons were wearing when they had left his Basta (seat) in the company of Babu Ram (since deceased). It is also noticeable that the bodies were discovered in a pond in the morning on 17.4.1980 and admittedly P.W. 1 Ram Nath and P.W. 2 Suraj Sahai Yadav, who is an advocate and grand father of one of the deceased namely Ram Naresh, close relative of deceased Bahadur, had gone to the spot to see the dead bodies and this fact has been admitted by both P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 in their testimonies. Despite the fact that they had seen the dead bodies, they could not identify them. Thereafter, the inquest on the dead body was conducted and in the inquest report the dead bodies were shown to be of "unknown persons" since no one including P.W. 1, Ram Nath and P.W. 2 Suraj Sahai Yadav could identify the dead bodies. A perusal of the inquest report shows that the bodies of the deceased were in a highly decomposed condition and as such they could not have been identified. At this stage, it would be useful to reproduce the extract of the Inquest Report showing the "condition of the dead bodies" which is as follows; 1- ^^gqfy;k&yk'k lgh gkyr esa ugha gS psgjk fcYdqy fcxMk gqvk gS cky flj ij f[kpMh djhc 1 Q 1 1@2 bap yEcs txg c txg gSA mez djhc 31 o"kZ ekywe iM+rh gSA** ^^jk; iapku≥ iapksa dh jk; esa vx;kr O;fDr dh yk'k dh ekSr dk dkj.k vx;kr gSA** ¼d&9½ 2-^^gqfy;k& yk'k lgh gkyr esa ugha gSA flj ij cky djhc 3-3** yEcs gSaA mez djhc 30 lky ekywe iM+rh gSA psgjk fcxM+k gqvk gSA** ^^jk; iapku≥ iapksa dh jk; esa vx;kr O;fDr dh 'kjhj ij yxs pksVksa d dkj.k ekSr gksuk ekywe iM+rk gSA ** ¼d&16½ ^^3- gqfy;k& yk'k lgh gkyr esa ugha gSA iwjs 'kjhj ls [kky mrj pqdh gSA flj ij cky djhc 2 ;k 2 1@2 bap djhc yEcs dkys psgjk fcxM+k gqvk gSA mez djhc 28 ekywe iM+rh gSA** ^^jk; iapku≥ iapksa dh jk; esa ekSr dk dkj.k 'kjhj ij yxs pksVksa ds dkj.k ekywe iM+rk gSA^^ ¼d&23½ 25. The record further reveals that P.W. 2, Suraj Sahai Yadav, Advocate, submitted an application before the authorities for conducing the identification of the dead bodies. Therefore, the dead bodies on the very next day were put for identification. The dead body of Ram Krishna was identified by P.W. 5, Asharfi Lal and P.W. 2 Suraj Sahai, Advocate. The dead body of Ram Naresh was identified by Suresh Singh and Suraj Sahai, Advocate and the dead body of Ram Autar was identified by Ram Naresh, Gulab Singh and Suraj Sahai, Advocate. 26. It is difficult to understand as to why on the previous day i.e. 17.4.1980 when the dead bodies were recovered could not be identified and how come on the very next date the P.W. 2 and P.W. 5 could identify the dead bodies when the dead bodies which were already in a highly decomposed condition had further decayed. No explanation in this regard has been given by the prosecution. Perusal of the panchayatnama as well as post-mortem report clearly indicates that the body was in a highly decomposed condition that hardly anyone could have identified it. 27. The ante mortem injuries found on the body of Ram Krishna (Ext. Ka. 6) is extracted below; 1. Gun shot wound of entry 2 c.m. x 2 c.m. in epigastric, 9 c.m. above the umbilicus at 12 O' clock position. 2. Gun shot wound of exit 2 1/2 c.m. x 2 1/2 c.m. on the right side back lower part. 3. There is absence of flesh and left mandible. Only bons are exposed in an area of 22 c.m. x 10 c.m. extending over tip of nose of left steroclabical joint. Whole face below nose neck bone and upper two ribs on left side are exposed. 4. There is absence of flesh in an area of 6 cm x 20- cm on the left side shoulder to left arm upper to 2/3 bones are exposed. 28. Thus, from the perusal of the aforesaid facts, it is clear that when the dead bodies of the deceased were recovered from the pond and the inquest was prepared, the dead bodies could not be identified, however, on the very next day, they were identified by the alleged witnesses, who had failed to identify them on the previous day when the dead bodies were recovered from the pond. This glaring inconsistency gives rise to a grave suspicion and it is highly doubtful whether in fact the dead bodies were of deceased persons namely Ram Krishna, Ram Naresh and Ram Autar. 29. In order to further appreciate the submission of the counsel for the parties, we have to carefully examine the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and the evidence available on record. 30. The alleged witness of last seen P.W. 1, Ram Nath in his examination-in-chief has deposed that on the day when the dead bodies were recovered he had not given the information in writing but had given it orally to the police station. However, later on in the cross-examination, he made a contradictory statement that a written report was submitted by him which was written by P.W. 2, Suraj Sahai Yadav on the day when the bodies were recovered. However, then again in his cross-examination he stated that neither any written report was lodged by him nor was any report prepared by P.W. 2 Suraj Sahai in this regard. In any case any such report has neither been proved nor has it been exhibited, as such, this Court cannot take the said report into consideration. P.W. 1 in his testimony has categorically stated that on the day when the bodies were recovered, he along with P.W. 2 had gone to the spot to see the dead bodies but neither he, nor P.W. 2 Suraj Sahai, Advocate were able to identify the dead bodies and therefore, the deposition of P.W. 1, Ram Nath does not in any way help the prosecution but supports the case of the defence, that P.W. 2 and P.W. 1 were unable to identify the dead bodies on 17.4.1980 when it was recovered from the pond and that no report was lodged on 17.4.1980. 31. Now, we have to test the veracity of testimony of P.W. 2, Suraj Sahai who was a practicing advocate and also the grand father of one of the deceased Ram Naresh and a close relative of Ram Autar (deceased). According to him, one of the deceased Ram Naresh had purchased 20 Bighas of land from Maya Devi and some dispute was going on with regard to the mutation in which the evidence was to be adduced by Maya Devi, pertaining to the said land. The mother-in-law of Maya Devi namely Ganga Devi had filed her objections. According to him, one of the deceased Ram Naresh had purchased 20 Bighas of land from Maya Devi and some dispute was going on with regard to the mutation in which the evidence was to be adduced by Maya Devi, pertaining to the said land. The mother-in-law of Maya Devi namely Ganga Devi had filed her objections. In the said case, one Sheo Pal Singh, Pradhan of village Katholi was doing parivi on behalf of Ganga Devi and had deposed that Maya Devi has already expired. The matter was fixed for 8.4.1980 in the court of tehsil. According to him, on 7.4.1980 Ram Naresh and Ram Autar had come to his Basta (seat) at collectorate along with accused Baburam (since deceased). Babu Ram left his chamber along with the deceased Ram Naresh and Ram Autar stating that they are proceeding to Jagnia to bring Maya Devi along with them to produce her as a witness in the court on the next day. For the first time during his testimony, P.W. 2 had described the clothes which were worn by the deceased Ram Naresh and Ram Autar at the time. Although in the missing report, no description about the clothes was given by him. The description of the clothes made for the first time during his deposition shows that it was an after thought in order to improve the prosecution's case, he admitted in his evidence that the dead bodies of the deceased were recovered from the pond after five days of the lodging of the missing report and the police had kept the bodies for identification. Thereafter, on 18.4.1980 he had written the letter to the S.P., regarding the identification of the dead bodies and ultimately on 18.4.1980 only he could identify the dead bodies. Later on, in his deposition he has admitted that when the bodies were recovered from the pond he had gone to see the dead bodies along with a number of people but the dead bodies could not be identified. The Investigating Officer was present on the spot when the bodies of the deceased persons were recovered from the pond. Had the bodies been identified on 17.4.1980 after its recovery by P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 5 (Ram Nath, Suraj Sahai and Asharfi Lal respectively) then the dead bodies would not have been shown as "unknown" in the inquest report. Had the bodies been identified on 17.4.1980 after its recovery by P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 5 (Ram Nath, Suraj Sahai and Asharfi Lal respectively) then the dead bodies would not have been shown as "unknown" in the inquest report. Being the grand father of the deceased Ram Naresh and a close relative of deceased Ram Autar, P.W. 2 ought to have identified the dead bodies after they were recovered from the pond on 17.4.1980 had they been in an identifiable condition. 32. The testimonies of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 clearly show that although on 17.4.1980 when the dead bodies were discovered, they were present on the spot however they were unable to identify the dead bodies, as such, there was no reason as to why the said prosecution witnesses was able to identify the dead bodies of the deceased persons on the very next day i.e. 18.4.1980, particularly when the bodies had further decayed. 33. Now, we will proceed to examine the testimony of P.W. 3, Ganga Deen who had stated that he had seen all the accused persons in the company of the deceased at Jagnia while he was going to village Bina by bus. The testimony of this witness on the face of it appears to be absurd and unbelievable and no reason has been assigned as to why he got down at Jagnia at all. He has admitted in his testimony that except Babadur, accused-appellant No. 3, he is not acquainted with anyone else at Jagnia. He further deposed that on 7.4.1980 while he was going to Bina, he got down from the bus at Katra and from there he was to go to Bina. Jagnia village was situated on the way and he reached there at 4 o' clock in the evening, where he came across one Sheo Pal and the co-accused appellant No. 3 Bahadur who were carrying rifle and licensee gun respectively. After a while he met Ram Naresh, Ram Autar, Ram Kishan and the accused Baburam and Jaiveer. From there, he proceeded to Bina. In his cross-examination he has stated that he has no relative living at Jagnia, except accused-appellant No. 3 Bahadur and that he is not acquainted with anyone else in the village. No reason whatsoever has been assigned by him as to why he stopped/halted at Katra and Jagnia. 34. From there, he proceeded to Bina. In his cross-examination he has stated that he has no relative living at Jagnia, except accused-appellant No. 3 Bahadur and that he is not acquainted with anyone else in the village. No reason whatsoever has been assigned by him as to why he stopped/halted at Katra and Jagnia. 34. From the perusal of record, it appears that the "last seen theory" was introduced by P.W. 3, Ganga Deen in consultation with I.O. to establish the prosecution case. This Court finds the presence of P.W. 3 Gangadeen at Jagania very doubtful and it inspires no confidence, hence no reliance can be placed on his fragile and shaky evidence. 35. P.W. 4, Man Singh is the real uncle of one of the deceased namely Ram Krishna. According to him, on 7.4.1980 he had seen the accused-appellants in the company of the deceased at Katra crossing and when being asked Ram Autar told him that they are going to Jagnia at Bahadur's place who is the brother of Maya Devi. 36. Now the question crops up for consideration before this Court is that when P.W. 4, Man Singh, who happens to be the real uncle of Ram Krishna, had seen the accused on 7.4.1980 then why was this fact was not disclosed by him to the police or any other person at the earliest, at least before the missing report was lodged. No reason has been shown as to why he did not disclose this fact specifically stating that all the deceased persons were seen in the company of accused-appellants No. 1 and 2 on 7.4.1980. There is no reason as to why he remained silent for so long and it is only when the bodies were recovered on 17.4.1980 after a lapse of 11-12 days that he came forward with a theory that he saw them in the company of the accused appellants. His testimony further shows that a hectic search was underway to trace the deceased persons, as according to him, P.W. 2, Suraj Sahai Advocate along with a hundred-fifty people had come to his place in connection with the search of the deceased persons, as such, it cannot be denied that he was not aware about their disappearance. His testimony further shows that a hectic search was underway to trace the deceased persons, as according to him, P.W. 2, Suraj Sahai Advocate along with a hundred-fifty people had come to his place in connection with the search of the deceased persons, as such, it cannot be denied that he was not aware about their disappearance. Despite the fact that deceased persons were missing for the last so many days, he did not disclose the names of the accused persons either to the P.W. 2 or the father of the missing persons or to the police authorities. Had he disclosed all these facts, the names of the present appellants definitely would have found place in the missing report. This fact shows that P.W. 4, Man Singh was also set up by the prosecution as witness of last seen. 37. P.W. 5, Asharfi Lal is the father of the deceased Ram Krishna and the maternal uncle of of the deceased Ram Autar. He claims to have identified the body of Ram Krishna when it was recovered from the pond. Had he really identified the dead bodies when they were recovered from the pond, the inquest reports would not have mentioned that the dead bodies were of some 'unknown persons'. He further admitted in his cross-examination that his brother Man Singh, P.W. 4 had not informed him about the last sighting of the accused in the company of the deceased persons on 7.4.1980 at Katra crossing. Had P.W. 4 Man Singh seen them together, he would have definitely disclosed this vital fact to the his real brother, who happens to be father of one of the deceased Ram Krishna. Therefore, the testimony of P.W. 5 is not reliable and it casts a cloud of deep suspicion upon the very credibility and trustworthiness of the prosecution's case. 38. The testimony of P.W. 6 Vishambhar of overhearing the conversation of the accused-appellants appears to be concocted and false on its face. In his testimony, he had deposed that he overheard the accused talking amongst themselves about the killing of three people and clandestinely disposing of their bodies. According to him, he had initially seen the accused persons in a very crowded place at Bhandara. Subsequently, after a long gap of time he overheard them talking about the alleged killing of three people and he apprehended that they might not have killed the deceased. According to him, he had initially seen the accused persons in a very crowded place at Bhandara. Subsequently, after a long gap of time he overheard them talking about the alleged killing of three people and he apprehended that they might not have killed the deceased. It is absolutely unbelievable that any person who had seen them in a crowd of hundreds and thousands of people would remember their facial image and profile after such a long lapse of time. If at all he had overheard the conversation of the accused then why had he remained silent for so many days and not disclosed this fact to the family members of the deceased as well as to the police, particularly when he himself had admitted in his evidence that after overhearing their conversation he grew suspicious. His testimony, therefore, does not inspire confidence at all and deserves to be outrightly rejected. 39. It is also notable that in the present matter the investigating officer has not been produced by the prosecution for recording his evidence before the trial court to show as to how he proceeded in the investigation and what efforts he had made to make any recovery. Non-examination of the material witness (Investigating Officer) in the court was detrimental to the prosecution's case. 40. Surendra Singh Sengar, SDM, P.W. 7 has stated that the faces of the deceased were completely decomposed, however, the dead bodies were in an identifiable position. This deposition is contrary to the post-mortem report as well as the inquest report which clearly shows that the dead bodies were in a highly decomposed conditions and it was not possible for anyone to identify the dead bodies. 41. After giving our careful consideration, we are unable to agree with findings recorded by the Court below. In the facts and circumstances of the case as they emerge from the record, the version of the prosecution cannot be held to be believable and sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused appellants. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses do not inspire confidence about the reliability of the prosecution's case. It is well settled that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish all the circumstances by independent evidence and the circumstances so established must form a complete chain in order to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. It is well settled that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish all the circumstances by independent evidence and the circumstances so established must form a complete chain in order to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. The circumstances so proved must also be consistent only with the guilt of the accused. Among the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution, in the light of these principles we find that circumstances are not incriminating. In number of cases it has been held that the only circumstance namely that the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused by itself is not sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused. It is no doubt true that the deceased's death was homicidal but since there is no direct witness connecting any of the appellants with the crime we should fall back on the circumstantial evidence and we are of the view that the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are hardly sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused appellants. 42. At this stage, it would be relevant to refer to paragraph 14 of the decision of the apex court in the case of Sk. Yusuf Vs. State of West Bengal, 2011 (74) ACC 293, which reads as follows; "14. The last seen theory comes into play where the time-gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were seen last alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible. (Vide: Mohd. Azad alias Samin v. State of West Bengal (2008) 15 SCC 449 ; and State thr. Central Bureau of Investigation v. Mahender Sing Dahiya, (2011) 3 SCC 109 ." 43. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Guru Dev Singh Vs. State of MP [2011 (74) ACC232], in paragraph No. 7 of the judgment has held as under : "7. The last circumstance "last seen" if at all can be used against the accused as a circumstance should have been connected with the time of death. Here is the case when the deceased was seen following the accused at about 10 a.m. on the earlier day whereas the body was found on the next day at about 2.30 p.m.. The last circumstance "last seen" if at all can be used against the accused as a circumstance should have been connected with the time of death. Here is the case when the deceased was seen following the accused at about 10 a.m. on the earlier day whereas the body was found on the next day at about 2.30 p.m.. The prosecution has not fixed the time of the death also. Therefore, there is no proximity between the time when the deceased and the accused were last seen together and the time of the death of the deceased. At least, the prosecution has not been able to establish the same. Therefore, even if that circumstance is viewed as an incriminating evidence, it would be of no significance." 44. At this juncture, we would also refer to the decision of this Court in Munish Mubar v. State of Haryana (2012) 10 SCC 464 wherein Dr. Justice Chauhan has very aptly and succinctly stated the following: "28.....The circumstantial evidence is a close companion of factual matrix, creating a fine network through which there can be no escape for the accused, primarily because the said facts, when taken as a whole, do not permit us to arrive at any other inference but one indicating the guilt of the accused." A court has to examine the entire evidence in its entirety especially in case of circumstantial evidence and ensure that the only inference drawn from the evidence is the guilt of the accused. If more than one inference can be drawn then the accused must have the benefit of doubt as it is not the court's job to assume and only when guilt beyond reasonable doubt is proved then it is fair to record conviction. In case of circumstantial evidence, each circumstance must be proved beyond reasonable doubt by independent evidence, and the circumstances so proved must form a complete chain without giving any chance of surmise or conjecture and must also be consistent with the guilt of the accused." 45. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Ashish Batham Vs. In case of circumstantial evidence, each circumstance must be proved beyond reasonable doubt by independent evidence, and the circumstances so proved must form a complete chain without giving any chance of surmise or conjecture and must also be consistent with the guilt of the accused." 45. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Ashish Batham Vs. State of MP [2002 (3)ACR 2994 (SC)], in paragraph No. 7 of the judgment has held as under : "It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused." 46. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar Singh @ Raju @ Batya Vs. State of Rajasthan [ AIR 2013 SC 3150 ], in paragraph No. 17 of the judgment has observed as under : "17. Suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot take the place of proof, and there is a large difference between something that `may be' proved and `will be proved'. In a criminal trial, suspicion no matter how strong, cannot and must not be permitted to take place of proof. This is for the reason, that the mental distance between `may be' and `must be' is quite large and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. In a criminal case, the court has a duty to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take the place of legal proof. The large distance between `may be' true and `must be' true, must be covered by way of clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence produced by the prosecution, before an accused is condemned as a convict, and the basic and golden rule must be applied. The large distance between `may be' true and `must be' true, must be covered by way of clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence produced by the prosecution, before an accused is condemned as a convict, and the basic and golden rule must be applied. In such cases, while keeping in mind the distance between `may be' true and `must be' true, the court must maintain the vital distance between conjectures and sure conclusions to be arrived at, on the touchstone of dispassionate judicial scrutiny based upon a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all features of the case, as well as the quality and credibility of the evidence brought on record. The court must ensure, that miscarriage of justice is avoided and if the facts and circumstances of a case so demand, then the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused, keeping in mind that a reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely probable doubt, but a fair doubt that is based upon reason and common sense. (Vide: Hanumant Govind Nargundkar & Anr. v. State of M.P., AIR 1952 SC 343 ; Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. v. State of Mahrashtra, AIR 1973 SC 2622 ; Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622 ; Subhash Chand v. State of Rajasthan, (2002) 1 SCC 702 ; Ashish Batham v. State of M.P., AIR 2002 SC 3206 ; Narendra Singh & Anr. v. State of M.P., AIR 2004 SC 3249 ; State through CBI v. Mahender Singh Dahiya, AIR 2011 SC 1017 ; and Ramesh Harijan v. State of U.P., AIR 2012 SC 1979 ) 47. Taking into account the totality of circumstances, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to complete the chain of circumstances to arrive at the conclusion that the offence was committed by the present appellants and not by anybody else. The present case is basically based on "last seen theory" but the 'last seen theory' has not been found trustworthy and sufficient for conviction of the appellants. The view taken by the Court below while convicting the appellants No. 1 and 3 namely Jaiveer and Bahadur respectively is palpably wrong and the findings recorded by the Court below are perverse, erroneous and cannot stand the scrutiny of law. The view taken by the Court below while convicting the appellants No. 1 and 3 namely Jaiveer and Bahadur respectively is palpably wrong and the findings recorded by the Court below are perverse, erroneous and cannot stand the scrutiny of law. The judgment passed by the trial court is based on a complete misreading of the case and misconception of the legal position relevant to the matter and has not considered the evidence on record in right perspective. The prosecution has not been able to prove the case beyond doubt. In our considered opinion the reasons given by the Trial Court are not sufficient to convict the appellants. Hence, we shall extend benefit of doubt to the appellants and shall acquit them of the charges. 48. The appeal having merit is liable to be allowed. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. 49. The impugned judgment and order dated 25.8.1982 passed by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Mainpuri in Sessions Trial No. 284 of 1982 is set-aside and the appellant No. 1 and 3 namely Jaiveer and Bahadur respectively are acquitted of the charges levelled against them and their conviction and sentence are hereby quashed and set-aside. The appellants No. 1 and 3 are on bail. They need not surrender. Their personal and surety bonds are hereby cancelled and sureties are discharged from their liability. 50. Let a copy of this judgment along with the trial court record be sent to the court concerned for compliance.