JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. The instant appeal stands directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Solan, Himachal Pradesh, rendered on 1.9.2009, in Sessions Trial No. 20-NL/7 of 2008, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent/accused for committing offences punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34 IPC of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The facts, relevant to adjudicate the instant appeal, are that on 13.8.2008, Inspector Madan Kant Sharma, the then SHO Police Station, Baddi after receipt of an information recorded in Daily Diary register as report No. 54 along with ASI Kalyan Singh, HC Tejender Singh, Constables Sher Singh and Desh Raj proceeded to the spot. On reaching there, they found a dead body lying in bushes in a lonely place near Truck Union Baddi. The said Inspector after getting the dead body photographed, inspected the dead body of the deceased and found the person having been killed by strangulation with cloth used as Parna. He also found the blood having been oozed out of the nose of the deceased and also found injury marks on the backside of right ear and on the private part appearing to have been caused with pointed object. The vest and pants worn by the deceased were found torn. From the dead body an identity card issued by Election Commission was recovered on the basis of which the deceased was identified to be Harish Chander son of Satya Bhan resident of House No. 152 Aipura, Tehsil Bisauli, District Badayun. Thereafter, the dead body was identified by the co-villagers of the deceased, namely, Ram Bahadur and Naresh Kumar. Rukka was sent to the police Station concerned on the basis of which, FIR stood registered. 3. On conclusion of investigations into the offences allegedly committed by the accused a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stood prepared and presented in the competent Court. The inspector aforesaid also initiated proceedings under Section 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. against co-accused Ominder who had absconded. 4. Accused/respondent stood charged by the learned trial Court for committing offences punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. In proof of the prosecution case, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses. 4. Accused/respondent stood charged by the learned trial Court for committing offences punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. In proof of the prosecution case, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses. On closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, in which he pleaded innocence. On closure of proceedings under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused was given an opportunity to adduce evidence in defence yet he chose not to lead any evidence in defence. 6. On an appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court, returned findings of acquittal in favour of the accused/respondent. 7. The appellant/State stands aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court. The learned Additional Advocate General has concerted to vigorously contend qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court standing not based on a proper appreciation of evidence on record, rather, theirs standing se-quelled by gross mis-appreciation of material on record. Hence, he contends qua the findings of acquittal being reversed by this Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction and theirs being replaced by findings of conviction. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/accused has with considerable force and vigour, contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the Court below standing based on a mature and balanced appreciation of evidence on record and theirs not necessitating interference, rather theirs meriting vindication. 9. The prosecution case in its entirety stands hinged upon circumstantial evidence. Consequently, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to by adducing cogent evidence emphatically prove each of the links in the chain of circumstances. However, in the event of the prosecution failing to adduce conclusive evidence in proof of any of the links in the chain of circumstances, the entire chain would get severed whereupon the relevant benefit of doubt would stand afforded to the accused. The initial link in the chain of circumstances for connecting the accused in the commission of offence alleged stands comprised in PW-3, PW-11 and PW-12 testifiying qua theirs last seeing the deceased in the company of the accused. 10. PW-3 (Smt. Sunita) has voiced qua on 12.8.2008 at about 9.30 p.m. Umesh, Ominder and Harish Chander @ Sudhir visiting their Jhugi along with a bottle of liquor. 10. PW-3 (Smt. Sunita) has voiced qua on 12.8.2008 at about 9.30 p.m. Umesh, Ominder and Harish Chander @ Sudhir visiting their Jhugi along with a bottle of liquor. She continues to testify of the bottle of liquor standing consumed by Umesh, Ominder, Harish Chander @ Sudhir, Riyasat and her husband. Also she proceeds to testify qua Ominder requesting her husband for money for bringing more liquor, request whereof stood refused by her husband besides she testifies qua her husband thereafter proceeding to his Jhuggi for sleeping. Further more, she deposes of Riyasat departing from the Jhuggi whereafter Umesh, Ominder and Harish Chander also departed from her Jhuggi. However, she has omitted to bespeak in her testification qua her and PW-12 (Sitara) being also present at the relevant time when liquor was being consumed by the deceased, Ominder, Riyasat, Ram Bahadur and Umesh. The effect of her omission to testify qua her and PW-12 being present at the relevant time when the aforesaid were consuming liquor underscores an inference of both her and PW-12 standing disabled to unequivocally voice qua Ominder asking for money from her husband also both standing disabled to voice qua the confabulations which occurred inter-se them besides obviously qua what transpired thereat whereupon hence any testification by them qua the aforesaid factum holds no veracity. 11. Even PW-11 (Riyasat) who was sitting along with the deceased besides Umesh and Ominder at the relevant time they were consuming liquor at the relevant place, has testified qua accused Umesh requesting him on the bottle of liquor standing consumed by them to fetch another bottle of liquor, request whereof stood refused by him on score of his having no money whereafter there occurs an echoing in his testification qua him and the husband of PW-3 departing to their respective Jhuggi's. Also he omits to underscore in his testification qua the presence of PW-3 and PW-12 at the relevant place whereupon with amplifying vigor an obvious inference upsurges qua hence PW-3 and PW-12 standing disabled to depose qua the confabulations which occurred inter-se the persons who were consuming liquor besides PW-3 and PW-12 also concomitantly stand disabled to testify qua what transpired at the relevant site. With the witnesses aforesaid standing disabled to depose qua what transpired inter-se the persons who were consuming liquor fosters an inference of the prosecution wanting in adducing clinching evidence in portrayal of the relevant motive which stood nursed by the accused for murdering the deceased. In sequel, with motive assuming significance in a case resting upon circumstantial evidence also it constituting an important link in the chain of circumstances whereas its standing not clinched by emphatic proof takes a toll upon the ascription of an incriminatory role by the prosecution to accused wanting in vigor. Significantly, unless the accused had nursed a motive to murder the deceased he would not proceed to commit the relevant incriminatory act ascribed to him by the prosecution. Furthermore, on an incisive reading of the testimonies of PW-3 and PW-12, a visible unveiling stands unfolded qua their respective testifications qua the accused and deceased departing together from the relevant place whereupon the prosecution erects an espousal of both standing last seen together, standing harboured upon hearsay, inference whereof galvanizes strength from PW-11 (Riyasat) testifying qua after theirs consuming a bottle of liquor at the relevant place, he and the husband of PW-3 departing to their respective Jhugis yet he has omitted to disclose qua his sighting only the accused alongwith the deceased departing therefrom contrarily he deposes qua both accused Umesh and Ominder along with the deceased proceeding towards Truck Union to fetch liquor. Since this Court has concluded of PW-3 and PW-12 not remaining present at the relevant place whereat the aforesaid were consuming a bottle of liquor whereupon this Court has concluded of both standing disabled to disclose the happenings which occurred thereat conclusion whereof when stands conjointly construed with the afore-referred testimony of PW-11, unveils a concomitant inference qua theirs surmisingly testifying qua theirs last seeing the accused and the deceased significantly when PW-11 contrarily testifies qua apart from accused herein, absconding accused Ominder also accompanying the former along with the deceased towards the Truck Union for fetching liquor. Ominder, who, alongwith deceased and accused Umesh, was hence also purportedly last seen together with the latter, was the best person to depose qua the significant crucial moment when he alienated himself from their company wherefrom it could be invincibly concluded of after absconding accused Ominder alienating himself from the company of the accused herein and the deceased both the latter holding their intra se company wherefrom also it could be concluded of with the body of the deceased standing recovered on 13.8.2008 qua hence with visible proximity occurring inter-se both the accused and the deceased standing last seen together vis-à-vis the recovery of the body of deceased, the relevant incriminatory role ascribed by the prosecution to the accused standing conclusively proven. However, the aforesaid Ominder up to date has remained under absconsion whereupon the Investigating Officer concerned stood disabled to make apposite elicitations from him qua the relevant occurrence. Also his remaining under absconsion empowers this Court to conclude of after accused/respondent alienating himself from the company of Ominder and deceased, both the latter thereafter holding their intra se company. Also obviously a conclusion stands rested qua hence absconding accused Ominder being hence the person who was last seen with the deceased whereupon a concomitant inference is erectable qua hence his being the likely person who committed the offence alleged. The efficacy of recovery of screw driver Ext.P-18 recovered under memo Ext.PW-5/C is to be tested in the light of manifestations occurring in Ext.PW-14/B qua the demise of the deceased standing se-quelled by strangulation leading to asphyxia. While proceeding to hence construe the efficacy of effectuation of recovery of screw driver Ext.P-18 even if assumingly it holds efficacy, nonetheless its tenacity gets eroded when construed in conjunction with the post mortem report comprised in Ex.PW-14/B where-within recitals stand encapsulated qua ligature marks occurring in the middle of the neck tapering towards its end and its holding dimensions 6x3 cms. The factum aforesaid pronounces qua absence of exertion of pressure on the sides of the neck by the purported user thereon of the relevant strangulatory material also hence dispels the purported user thereon of the relevant strangulatory material necessarily also it enhances an inference of the demise of the deceased occurring not by strangulation. The factum aforesaid pronounces qua absence of exertion of pressure on the sides of the neck by the purported user thereon of the relevant strangulatory material also hence dispels the purported user thereon of the relevant strangulatory material necessarily also it enhances an inference of the demise of the deceased occurring not by strangulation. Consequently, the occurrence of ligature marks in the middle of the neck of the deceased besides absence of ligature marks on posterior aspect of the neck is magnificatory qua the strangulation of the deceased occurring not by tying of cloth around the neck. The erection of the aforesaid inference dispels the factum of user thereon of screw driver Ex.P-18 by the accused also dispels the factum of his purportedly by tying a Parna around the neck of the deceased strangulating him. Reiteratedly, hence when the user thereon of Screw Driver Ex.P-18 by the accused stands belied, it concomitantly wanes the factum of its recovery by the Investigating Officer under Memo Ext.PW-5/C at the instance of the accused preceding whereof his disclosure statement comprised in Ext.PW-5/A stood recorded predominantly when its recovery for reasons afore-stated holds no connectivity vis-à-vis accused qua its user begetting the demise of the deceased. Furthermore, also the lacerated wounds noticed by PW-14 (Dr. Amarjeet Singh) to be occurring on the relevant portion of the body of the deceased when stand testified by him in his cross-examination to stand suffered by the victim by fall on an unsmooth surface forcefully dispels their occurrence thereon standing seqeulled by user thereon of screw driver by the accused. Consequently, with the cause of demise of the deceased abysmally remaining unconnected with user thereon by a cloth by the accused or user thereon of screw driver by the accused, its recovery under memo Ext.PW-5/C by the Investigating Officer even if assumingly it holds efficacy does not constitute any efficacious link in the chain of the circumstances. Predominantly also the efficacy, if any, of recovery of screw driver Ext.P-18 at the instance of the accused gets subsumed in the trite factum of the pivotal link of the deceased standing last seen with the accused getting dismembered. 12. Also the prosecution has anvilled an espousal upon the purported extra judicial confession made by the accused to PW-3 for contending of hence the guilt of the accused standing clinchingly proven. 12. Also the prosecution has anvilled an espousal upon the purported extra judicial confession made by the accused to PW-3 for contending of hence the guilt of the accused standing clinchingly proven. However, the efficacy of the purported extra judicial confession besides its constituting a potent link in the chain of circumstances stands blunted, in the trite factum of PW-3 unveiling in her testification qua the purported extra judicial confession standing made by the accused to her on 13.8.2008 whereas hers making an inordinate delay up to 17.8.2008, to in tandem thereof record a statement before the Investigating Officer, in sequel thereof the aforesaid link in the chain of circumstances gets dismembered. 13. For the reasons which have been recorded hereinabove, this Court holds that the learned trial Court below has appraised the entire evidence on record in a wholesome and harmonious manner apart therefrom the analysis of the material on record by the learned trial Court does not suffer from any perversity or absurdity of mis-appreciation and non appreciation of evidence on record, rather it has aptly appreciated the material available on record. 14. In view of the above, we find no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. In sequel, the impugned judgment is affirmed and maintained. Record of the learned trial Court be sent back forthwith.