JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of the present appeal, State has challenged the judgment passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (II), Kangra at Dharamshala in Sessions Trial No. 29/2011 dated 24.09.2011 vide which, learned trial Court has acquitted the accused for commission of offence punishable under Section 304 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, was that on 19.10.2009, husband of the complainant had gone to Palampur Bazaar at around 10:00 a.m., but he did not return back in the evening. Complainant Poonam tried to contact her husband Rajinder on his mobile, but the phone of Rajinder was switched off. In these circumstances, she apprised her mother-in-law of the said facts and her mother-in-law lodged missing report of Rajinder at Police Station, Palampur on 20.10.2009. Further as per the prosecution, on 22.10.2009, one Santosh Kumar found the dead body of Rajinder near Neugal Khad bridge. The dead body was identified by the brother of the deceased. At the instance of Poonam, wife of the deceased, FIR was registered wherein she alleged that on 19.10.2009 in the evening, her husband had gone with accused Raj Kumar and Sadhu Ram towards Bundla in the vehicle of Ramjan Mohammad and near Kandi bridge, her husband had consumed liquor with Raj Kumr and Sadhu and at that moment, quarrel took place between deceased Rajinder and the accused regarding payment of some money and accused pushed the deceased in the Nallah, as a result of which Rajinder expired. The body of the deceased was sent for post mortem and on the basis of the FIR so lodged, investigation was carried out by the police. Investigation revealed that on 19.10.2009, during day time, accused Raju, Sadhu as well as deceased had gone to the shop of Raj Kumar, son of Rattan Chand, who had seen all of them together at Palampur Bazaar in the afternoon of 19.10.2009. Police visited the spot and prepared the spot map also and from the spot, chappal of the deceased alongwith five glasses, empty packet of namkeen were also recovered. Statement of Ramjan Mohammad was recorded before learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Palampur under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The print out of the telephone calls of the deceased was obtained. Statement of Ramjan Mohammad was recorded before learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Palampur under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The print out of the telephone calls of the deceased was obtained. After completion of the investigation, challan was filed in the Court and as a prima facie case was found against the accused, accordingly they were charged for commission of offence punishable under Section 304 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 3. On the basis of material produced on record both ocular as well as documentary by the prosecution, learned trial Court concluded that the evidence produced on record by the prosecution was not specific to connect the accused with the commission of offence. It further held that the testimony of the complainant was not free from reasonable doubts and there were material improvements in her statement. It was further held by learned trial Court that there was no direct or circumstantial evidence against the accused and accordingly, accused could not be held liable for commission of offence on the basis of last seen theory. On these basis, learned trial Court acquitted the accused for commission of offence punishable under Section 304 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Mr. V.S. Chauhan, learned Additional Advocate General vehemently argued that the judgment of acquittal passed by learned trial Court was not sustainable in law as learned trial Court while acquitting the accused erred in not appreciating that the prosecution had placed sufficient material on record to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Mr. Chauhan further argued that learned trial Court had erred in not believing the cogent and reliable testimony of the prosecution witnesses on material points. According to Mr. Chauhan, the testimony of the prosecution witnesses was disbelieved by learned trial Court on whimsical grounds without appreciating that the testimony of the said witnesses besides being cogent and reliable was also truthful. Mr. Chauhan further argued that learned trial Court failed to appreciate the prosecution evidence in right perspective and mislead itself by placing reliance on irrelevant material and by ignoring the testimony of Dr. Harjeet Pal Singh, who entered the witness box as PW-9. Accordingly, on these basis, it was urged by Mr. Mr. Chauhan further argued that learned trial Court failed to appreciate the prosecution evidence in right perspective and mislead itself by placing reliance on irrelevant material and by ignoring the testimony of Dr. Harjeet Pal Singh, who entered the witness box as PW-9. Accordingly, on these basis, it was urged by Mr. Chauhan that the judgment of acquittal passed by learned Court below was not sustainable and the same be set aside and accused be punished for the commission of offence punishable under Section 304 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Ms. Anjali Soni Verma, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, argued that the judgment of acquittal passed by learned trial Court did not want any interference because the conclusions arrived at by learned trial Court were duly borne out from the records of the case. Ms. Verma further argued that the prosecution had miserably failed to link the accused with the commission of offence and accordingly, no perversity or illegality was committed by the learned trial Court in acquitting the accused for commission of offence for which they were charged. Ms. Verma further argued that neither the guilt of the accused was proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution nor it stood established on the basis of material on record that the accused had committed any offence for which they were charged. According to Ms. Verma, the accused were falsely implicated in the matter and learned trial Court had rightly acquitted them. Thus, Ms. Verma prayed that as there was no merit in the appeal, the same be dismissed. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the records of the case as well as the judgment passed by learned trial Court. 7. Before we proceed further, it is relevant to take note of the fact that in the present case, there is no eye witness. No one has actually seen the commission of the offence with which the accused were charged. This is a case of circumstantial evidence. During the course of arguments, learned Additional Advocate General has culled out the following circumstances connecting the accused with the commission of the offence: “1. Last seen together 2. Recovery of dead body 3. Motive 4. Mobile calls 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vijay Thakur Vs. This is a case of circumstantial evidence. During the course of arguments, learned Additional Advocate General has culled out the following circumstances connecting the accused with the commission of the offence: “1. Last seen together 2. Recovery of dead body 3. Motive 4. Mobile calls 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vijay Thakur Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2014) 14 SCC 609 has held on circumstantial evidence: “18. It is to be emphasized at this stage that except the so-called recoveries, there is no other circumstances worth the name which has been proved against these two appellants. It is a case of blind murder. There are no eyewitnesses. Conviction is based on the circumstantial evidence. In such a case, complete chain of events has to be established pointing out the culpability of the accused person. The chain should be such that no other conclusion, except the guilt of the accused person, is discernible without any doubt. Insofar as these two appellants are concerned, there is no circumstance attributed except that they were with Rajinder Thakur till Sainj and the alleged disclosure leading to recoveries, which appears to be doubtful. When we look into all these facts in entirety in the aforesaid context, we find that not only the chain of events is incomplete, it becomes somewhat difficult to convict the appellant only on the basis of the aforesaid recoveries. 19. In Mani v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2008) 1 SCR 228 , this Court made following pertinent observation on this very aspect: “26. The discovery is a weak kind of evidence and cannot be wholly relied upon on and conviction in such a serious matter cannot be based upon the discovery. Once the discovery fails, there would be literally nothing which would support the prosecution case....” 20. There is a reiteration of the same sentiment in Manthuri Laxmi Narsaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2011) 14 SCC 117 in the following manner: “6. It is by now well settled that in a case relating to circumstantial evidence the chain of circumstances has to be spelt out by the prosecution and if even one link in the chain is broken the accused must get the benefit thereof. We are of the opinion that the present is in fact a case of no evidence.” 21. It is by now well settled that in a case relating to circumstantial evidence the chain of circumstances has to be spelt out by the prosecution and if even one link in the chain is broken the accused must get the benefit thereof. We are of the opinion that the present is in fact a case of no evidence.” 21. Likewise, in Mustkeem alias Sirajudeen v. State of Rajasthan, (2011) 11 SCC 724 , this Court observed as under: “24. In a most celebrated case of this Court, Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 , in para 153, some cardinal principles regarding the appreciation of circumstantial evidence have been postulated. Whenever the case is based on circumstantial evidence the following features are required to be complied with. It would be beneficial to repeat the same salient features once again which are as under: (SCC p.185) “(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.” 25. With regard to Section 27 of the Act, what is important is discovery of the material object at the disclosure of the accused but such disclosure alone would not automatically lead to the conclusion that the offence was also committed by the accused. In fact, thereafter, burden lies on the prosecution to establish a close link between discovery of the material object and its use in the commission of the offence. What is admissible under Section 27 of the Act is the information leading to discovery and not any opinion formed on it by the prosecution.” It is settled position of law that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the character of proof. 22. What is admissible under Section 27 of the Act is the information leading to discovery and not any opinion formed on it by the prosecution.” It is settled position of law that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the character of proof. 22. We, therefore, have no hesitation in allowing these appeals and setting aside the conviction and sentence of the two appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code. We order accordingly. The appellants are directed to be released from jail forthwith, if not required in any other case.” 9. Thus, the salient points which have been carved out by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case of circumstantial evidence, on the basis of which the guilt of the accused can be brought home are as under: “(i) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must or should be and not merely ‘may be’ fully established; (ii) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; (iii) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; (iv) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and (v) Thee must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.” 10. Further, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sangili alias Sanganathan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2014) 10 SCC 264 has held: “15. To sum up what is discussed above, it is a case of blind murder. There are no eyewitnesses. Conviction is based on the circumstantial evidence. In such a case, complete chain of events has to be established pointing out the culpability of the accused person. The chain should be such that no other conclusion, except the guilt of the accused person, is discernible without any doubt. In the present case, we find, in the first instance, that the appellant was roped in with suspicion that it was a case of triangular love and since he also loved PW-3, he eliminated the deceased when he found that the deceased and PW-3 are in love with each other. In the present case, we find, in the first instance, that the appellant was roped in with suspicion that it was a case of triangular love and since he also loved PW-3, he eliminated the deceased when he found that the deceased and PW-3 are in love with each other. However, we are of the view that this motive has not been proved. The evidence of last seen is also not established. Father of the deceased only said that the deceased had received a call and after receiving that call he left the house. In his deposition, he admitted that he had not seen the appellant before and he did not recognize his voice either. Therefore, he was unable to say as to whether the phone call received was that of the appellant. Proceeding further, we find that the deceased was not seen by anybody after he left the house. When we look into all these facts in entirety in the aforesaid context, we find that not only the chain of events is incomplete, it becomes somewhat difficult to convict the appellant only on the basis of the aforesaid recoveries. 16. In Mani v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2009) 17 SCC 273 , this Court made following pertinent observation on this very aspect: “26. The discovery is a weak kind of evidence and cannot be wholly relied upon and conviction in such a serious matter cannot be based upon the discovery. Once the discovery fails, there would be literally nothing which would support the prosecution case....” There is a reiteration of the same sentiment in Manthuri Laxmi Narsaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2011) 14 SCC 117 in the following manner: “6. It is by now well settled that in a case relating to circumstantial evidence the chain of circumstances has to be spelt out by the prosecution and if even one link in the chain is broken the accused must get the benefit thereof. We are of the opinion that the present is in fact a case of no evidence.” 17. Likewise, in Mustkeem alias Sirajudeen v. State of Rajasthan, (2011) 11 SCC 724 , this Court observed as under: “24. In a most celebrated case of this Court, Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 , in para 153, some cardinal principles regarding the appreciation of circumstantial evidence have been postulated. Likewise, in Mustkeem alias Sirajudeen v. State of Rajasthan, (2011) 11 SCC 724 , this Court observed as under: “24. In a most celebrated case of this Court, Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 , in para 153, some cardinal principles regarding the appreciation of circumstantial evidence have been postulated. Whenever the case is based on circumstantial evidence the following features are required to be complied with. It would be beneficial to repeat the same salient features once again which are as under: (SCC p.185) “(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.” 25. With regard to Section 27 of the Act, what is important is discovery of the material object at the disclosure of the accused but such disclosure alone would not automatically lead to the conclusion that the offence was also committed by the accused. In fact, thereafter, burden lies on the prosecution to establish a close link between discovery of the material object and its use in the commission of the offence. What is admissible under Section 27 of the Act is the information leading to discovery and not any opinion formed on it by the prosecution.” (emphasis supplied) 18. It is settled position of law that suspicion however strong cannot be a substitute for proof. In a case resting completely on the circumstantial evidence the chain of circumstances must be so complete that they lead only to one conclusion, that is, the guilt of the accused. In our opinion, it is not safe to record a finding of guilt of the appellant and the appellant is entitled to get the benefit of doubt. In a case resting completely on the circumstantial evidence the chain of circumstances must be so complete that they lead only to one conclusion, that is, the guilt of the accused. In our opinion, it is not safe to record a finding of guilt of the appellant and the appellant is entitled to get the benefit of doubt. We, therefore, allow the appeal and set-aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant. The appellant be set at liberty unless required in any other case.” 11. 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. 12. We will deal with each of the circumstance independently in order to satisfy ourselves as to whether the chain of circumstances as culled out by learned Additional Advocate General linked the accused with the commission of offence or not in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 1. Last seen together: 13. According to Mr. Chauhan, the factum of the deceased having been last seen together with the accused was substantiated by the testimonies of PW-5 Raj Kumar and PW-6 Ramjan Mohammad. PW-5 Raj Kumar has stated that he runs a photography shop in Palampur Bazaar and on 19.10.2009 as it was Monday, the market was closed. This witness further deposed that his house is behind his shop and on the relevant day, he was carrying out repairs of his house, therefore, half of the shutter of his shop was open. He further deposed that at around 11 a.m., Rajinder came to him and as he had kept a chair outside his shop, Rajinder sat on the same. After about 10 minutes, accused Raj Kumar also came there and thereafter, both Raj Kumar and Rajinder went away. This witness further deposed that on the same day in between 3:30 and 3:45 p.m., he again saw Raj Kumar, Rajinder and one third person, whose name was Happy standing by the side of Red Light Pole, which was about 10 meters away from his shop. Thereafter, all of them went away and at about 8:00 p.m, accused Raj Kumar came to him and asked about Rajinder. Thereafter, all of them went away and at about 8:00 p.m, accused Raj Kumar came to him and asked about Rajinder. On the next morning, wife of Rajinder came to him and on her inquiry, he told her that Rajinder had not come to him during the previous night. He further deposed that after 3-4 days, he came to know that Rajinder had expired and his body was recovered from the Neugal Khad. In his cross-examination, he denied that he had told the police that dead body of Rajinder was recovered from Neugal Khad on 22.10.2009. He was confronted with his statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein it was so recorded. He further deposed that he had disclosed to the police that on 19.10.2009 at around 11:00 a.m. both Rajinder and accused Raj Kumar had gone away together from his shop. He was again confronted with his statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein it was not so recorded. 14. PW-6 Ramjan Mohammad deposed that on 19.10.2009, deceased and the accused came to him at around 5/5:15 p.m. and they hired his taxi up to Bundla. He also stated that before Bundla, some namkeen and glasses were purchased. He further deposed that thereafter deceased and the accused sat about 150 yards ahead of Kandi bridge. This witness further stated that thereafter, he received a phone call from the house of Shankar Bag at Palampur, who required his taxi. Thereafter, he came back by asking the deceased and the accused that they were free to contact him on his telephone. He further deposed that thereafter said persons did not call him on telephone and he came to know that deceased was missing and then he informed the police of the above facts. He further stated that he was taken to Kandi bridge by the police and in his presence, police took into possession glasses and empty packet of namkeen. He also stated that police also recovered one chappal and at that relevant time, Manohar was with them. In his cross-examination, this witness stated that it was correct to suggest that he came to know about the death of Rajinder on 22.10.2009. He also stated that he did not give any statement to the police on 22nd and 23rd October, 2009. In his cross-examination, this witness stated that it was correct to suggest that he came to know about the death of Rajinder on 22.10.2009. He also stated that he did not give any statement to the police on 22nd and 23rd October, 2009. He further mentioned that he did not notice accused consuming liquor with the deceased. He further admitted it to be correct that after he dropped the said persons ahead of Kandi bridge and came back, thereafter he was not aware as to who had gone to the spot and met the aforesaid persons. 15. In our considered view, on the basis of the testimony of the said two witnesses, the prosecution was able to establish that on 19.10.2009, the deceased was last seen with the accused ahead of Kandi bridge, where they were left by PW-6 Ramjan Mohammad in his taxi. 2. Recovery of dead body: 16. The factum of recovery of dead body has been proved on record by PW-7 Manohar Lal brother of the deceased as well as by PW-10 Smt. Poonam wife of the deceased. PW-7 Manohar Lal has deposed that on 20th October, 2009, report was lodged with police by his mother regarding the factum of deceased being missing. He further stated that on 22nd October, 2009, they recovered the dead body of his brother ahead of Kandi bridge near Neugal Khad and he identified the dead body. He further deposed that one taxi driver Ramjan Mohammad had told him that on 19.10.2009, deceased and the accused had gone to Kandi bridge in a vehicle of PW-6. 17. PW-10 Poonam deposed that on 19.10.2009, she was informed by the police that dead body of her husband was found in the bushes near Kandi bridge and thereafter she got the FIR registered in the Police Station. She further stated that during the course of investigation, police came to their house and she had gone to the house of accused Raju, who on her asking had told her that he was also searching for Rajinder as mobile phone of Rajinder was found switched off. This witness further deposed that before that on 19.10.2009 in the evening, accused Raju had come to her house to inquire whether her husband had come back or not. This witness further deposed that before that on 19.10.2009 in the evening, accused Raju had come to her house to inquire whether her husband had come back or not. This witness further deposed that accused Raju had told her that he alongwith Happy and the deceased had gone to Bundla and consumed liquor and a quarrel had taken place between them and her husband regarding payment of some money and the accused had also told her that he had pushed Rajinder, as a result of which, Rajinder had fallen down and died. In her cross-examination, this witness stated that when her mother went to lodge the missing report, she did not express any suspicion over anybody. This witness further deposed that at that relevant time, they did not name Raju as accused because they were not having any knowledge. She further stated that she had not seen the accused going with her husband, however, her mother-in-law had seen so. She further stated that she visited the house of accused Raju on 20.10.2009. She admitted it to be correct that she did not disclose this fact to the police on 20.10.2009. She denied that accused had not told any of the facts to her as were narrated by her in her cross-examination. 18. It is apparent from the testimony of PW-7 and PW-10 that body of the deceased was in fact recovered from behind the bushes on 22.10.2009, but the important and relevant aspect of the matter is as to whether the prosecution was able to link the accused with the death of the deceased so as to convict them for commission of offence punishable under Section 304 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code or not. This aspect of the matter shall be dealt with by us in the subsequent part of the judgment. 3. Motive: 19. According to learned Additional Advocate General, accused were having a motive to do away with the deceased and the said motive was that there was some dispute with regard to money between accused and the deceased and in fact the accused had thrown the deceased in the Khad after quarrel broke between the accused and the deceased on the fateful day with regard to money when all of them were under the influence of liquor. 20. 20. In our considered view, the element of there being any motive with the accused to do away with the deceased has not been substantiated at all by the prosecution. There is not even an iota of evidence on record to prove and substantiate that on account of any enmity, animosity or dispute over monetary transaction, there was disharmony between the accused and the deceased and, therefore, the accused were having some motive to do away with the deceased. Accordingly, in our considered view, this circumstance has not been proved by the prosecution against the accused. 21. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pankaj Vs. State of Rajasthan in Criminal Appeal No. 2135 of 2009 decided on 9th September, 2016 that it is a well settled principle of law that when the genesis and manner of the incident is doubtful, the accused cannot be convicted. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has further held that when the evidence produced by the prosecution has neither quality nor credibility, it would be unsafe to rest conviction upon such evidence and in such circumstances, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt. It has further been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that motive is not sine qua non for the conviction of the accused, however, the effect of not proving motive raises a suspicion in the mind of the Court. 22. In our considered view also, keeping in view the fact that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the accused had any motive to do away with the deceased, it seriously raises question mark over the credibility of the case of the prosecution. 4. Mobile calls: 23. As per learned Additional Advocate General, this circumstance stood proved by the testimony of PW-2 Vinod Kumar, PW-3 Parestha Devi, PW-4 Darshan Devi, PW-7 Manohar Lal and PW-15 Inspector Jagdish. Vinod Kumar entered the witness box as PW-2 and stated that he runs a electronic shop in main Bazaar, Palampur. This witness further stated that on 25.10.2009, he alongwith police and one lady Parestha had gone to Neugal Khad, from where one mobile phone Ex. P-12 was recovered. Vinod Kumar entered the witness box as PW-2 and stated that he runs a electronic shop in main Bazaar, Palampur. This witness further stated that on 25.10.2009, he alongwith police and one lady Parestha had gone to Neugal Khad, from where one mobile phone Ex. P-12 was recovered. PW-3 Parestha Devi stated that she remained associated with police during the investigation of the case and in fact while she was collecting fuel wood in the bushes below the LIC building Palampur, she recovered one mobile phone in the bushes which she handed over to her brother Darshan. She also identified the said mobile to be Ex. P-12. PW-4 Darshan Ram stated that on 25th police had come and taken the mobile phone and 2-3 days prior to this, his sister Parestha had given him the said mobile phone. This witness further deposed that she told him that she had recovered the mobile phone from the bushes and thereafter he had inserted his SIM in mobile and made the same functional. PW-7 Manohar Lal, brother of the deceased deposed to the effect that possession of mobile phone Ex. P-12 was taken in his presence vide recovery memo Ex. PW2/B. PW-15 Inspector Jagdish deposed that on 25.10.2009, he took into possession the mobile phone of the deceased from Parestha Devi vide recovery Memo Ex. PW2/B 24. A careful perusal of the testimony of these five witnesses though points towards the factum of the mobile phone of the deceased having been recovered from the possession of PW-4 by the prosecution, however, we fail to understand as to how on the basis of the testimony of the abovementioned witnesses any inference can be drawn that the recovery of the mobile phone of the deceased from PW-4 is a pointer that the accused had in fact pushed the deceased in the Nallah, as a result of which, he died. Therefore, in our considered view, the prosecution has not been able to prove this circumstance against the accused. 25. Therefore, according to us, the chain of circumstances enumerated above by learned Additional Advocate General does not in any manner forms a complete chain linking the accused with the commission of the alleged offence. 26. Therefore, in our considered view, the prosecution has not been able to prove this circumstance against the accused. 25. Therefore, according to us, the chain of circumstances enumerated above by learned Additional Advocate General does not in any manner forms a complete chain linking the accused with the commission of the alleged offence. 26. Besides this, one more very important aspect of the matter is that the testimony of the wife of the deceased, i.e. the complainant does not inspire confidence as the same neither appears to be cogent nor the same appears to be reliable. As per the case of the prosecution, deceased went missing on 19.10.2009 and report to this effect was initially lodged at Police Station, Palampur on 20.10.2009 by the mother of the deceased. FIR was lodged subsequently on 23.10.2009 on the complaint of wife of the deceased PW-10 Smt. Poonam. Smt. Poonam deposed in the Court as PW-10 that in the evening of 19.10.2009, accused Raju had come to her house and inquired about her husband. She further deposed that accused Raju had told her that he, other accused had gone to Bundla alongwith the deceased and had consumed liquor there and a quarrel took place between them with regard to payment of some money and he had pushed Rajinder, as a result of which Rajinder had fallen down and died. Incidentally, none of these facts find mentioned in the FIR Ex. PW10/A, which was registered at the behest of the complainant. As per the prosecution, earlier to that a missing person report was also lodged by the mother of the deceased which is Ex. PW7/A on 20.10.2009 at 13:35 hours. It has come on record that this missing person report was lodged by the mother of the deceased after the factum of the deceased being missing was brought to her notice by the complainant. Even in this missing person report, there is no averment to the effect that accused Raju had come to the house of the deceased on 19.10.2009 and admitted/disclosed that a quarrel had taken place between the accused and the deceased after consuming liquor and deceased had died as a result of his being pushed by accused Raju. Even in this missing person report, there is no averment to the effect that accused Raju had come to the house of the deceased on 19.10.2009 and admitted/disclosed that a quarrel had taken place between the accused and the deceased after consuming liquor and deceased had died as a result of his being pushed by accused Raju. Even otherwise, it is not understood that if the factum of accused Raju having pushed deceased Rajinder had been brought to the notice of the complainant in the evening on 19.10.2009 itself, then why neither she disclosed these facts either to her relatives or to the police and why these facts were subsequently also not disclosed by her to anyone including to police. The only inference which can be drawn in the absence of any cogent explanation coming forth from the prosecution as to why these facts were not earlier revealed by the complainant, is that the statement to this effect by PW-10 is nothing but an afterthought and a concocted version. Further, no material has been produced on record by the prosecution to corroborate this version of the complainant. In this background, the testimony of PW-10 becomes highly doubtful and the conviction of the accused cannot be based on the testimony of such witnesses. Further, a perusal of the judgment passed by learned trial Court also demonstrates that after taking into consideration the entire material produced on record by the prosecution and after discussing the same in detail, learned trial Court held that the prosecution was not able to complete chain of circumstantial evidence against the accused nor the testimony of the complainant was free from reasonable doubts and the prosecution had not been able to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts. 27. In our considered view, the findings so returned by learned trial Court are neither perverse nor it can be said that the finding of acquittal returned by learned trial Court in favour of the accused is not borne out from the records of the case. According to us also, the prosecution has not been able to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused were guilty of commission of offence punishable under Section 304 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 28. According to us also, the prosecution has not been able to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused were guilty of commission of offence punishable under Section 304 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 28. In view of above discussion, we do not find any infirmity with the judgment which has been passed by the learned trial Court acquitting the accused of the charges levelled against him. It cannot be said that the judgment passed by the learned trial Court is either perverse or that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused, but learned trial Court erred in acquitting him. According to us, the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the judgment passed by the learned trial Court is up-held and the present appeal is accordingly dismissed being devoid of any merit.