Sanjay Karol, J. Assailing the judgment dated 21.12.2013, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. (Circuit Court, Indora), in Sessions Case (RBT) No.23-I/VII/2013/2010, titled as The State of Himachal Pradesh Versus Rajesh Singh, whereby accused stands acquitted, State has filed the present appeal under the provisions of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. It is the case of prosecution that sometime in the night intervening 22/23.05.2010 accused murdered Inder Kant. Thereafter he stole his personal belongings, including mobile phone and identity card. The sim of the Mobile phone as also the identity card were thrown away in the bushes. Later on dead body of the deceased came to be noticed by Uttam Chand (PW.1), who immediately informed the police and his statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. (Ex.PW.1/A) came to be recorded by Inspector Karam Singh (PW.18). With the preparation of inquest report (Ex.PW.12/B), dead body was sent for postmortem, which was conducted by Dr. Amod Kumar (PW.12) and report (Ex.PW.12/D) taken on record. During the course of investigation, accused made two disclosure statements (Ex.PW.2/D) in the presence of Janak RaJ (PW.2) and (Ex.PW.4/A) in the presence of Rai Singh (PW.4), which led to recovery of incriminating articles vide memos (Ex.PW.2/E, Ex.PW.2/F & Ex.PW.6/A). Prima facie, finding the accused to have been involved in the crime, challan came to be presented in the Court. 3. The accused was charged under the provisions of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for having committed murder of Inder Kant, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. Finding the prosecution not to have established its case against the accused, trial Court acquitted the accused on all counts. The correctness of such findings returned by the trial Court, vide judgment dated 21.12.2013, is subject matter of challenge before this Court. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties as also perused the record, we see no reason to interfere with the present appeal. 6. The first question which arises for consideration is the identity of the deceased, which in the instant case, we find not to have been established on record. None has come forward to disclose that the dead body which came to be recovered by the police, postmortem of which was conducted by Dr.Amod Kumar (PW.12), was that of deceased Inder Kant. The first question which arises for consideration is the identity of the deceased, which in the instant case, we find not to have been established on record. None has come forward to disclose that the dead body which came to be recovered by the police, postmortem of which was conducted by Dr.Amod Kumar (PW.12), was that of deceased Inder Kant. Deceased Inder Kant was gainfully employed and residing in a hut at Kandrori. Neither has Smt. Pooja Devi (PW.15), wife of the deceased identified the dead body nor has it come on record through the testimony of the employer, that Inder Kant had stopped reporting to duty. Even from the testimony of Rai Singh (PW.5), it cannot be said that the dead body of the deceased was got identified through him. Father and brother of the deceased, who according to the wife had visited the spot, have not been examined in Court nor was the dead body got identified from them. 7. It has come in the testimony of police officials Karam Singh (PW.18) and Joginder Singh (PW.19) that during the course of investigation, police suspected involvement of several other persons who were also interrogated. This included Rai Singh, Rakesh Singh and Jeet Singh and more specifically Subh Karan. Now significantly, these police officials have not ruled out the possibility of involvement of such persons in the crime. 8. It has also come in the testimony of police officials that the accused had no animosity with Inder Kant or motive to murder him. 9. The dead body came to be recovered on 23.05.2010. What led the police to the arrest of the accused has also not emerged on record. Karam Singh (PW.18) does state that till the time he was Incharge of investigation, no person had made any statement with regard to animosity or motive for commission of crime. Joginder Singh (PW.19) simply states that on 22.06.2010, accused was arrested. But on what basis? remains a shrouded secret. But then, this fact alone has not weighed in coming to our conclusion. 10. Joginder Singh admits that it had come in his investigation that deceased Inder Kant was not seen in the company of accused or any other person prior to the commission of crime. He further admits that there was no evidence of the accused having seen lastly in the company of the deceased. 11. 10. Joginder Singh admits that it had come in his investigation that deceased Inder Kant was not seen in the company of accused or any other person prior to the commission of crime. He further admits that there was no evidence of the accused having seen lastly in the company of the deceased. 11. Most significantly, Investigating Officer Karam Singh (PW.18), admits that it had come in the FSL report (Ex.PA), as is so also proved on record by Dr. Amod Kumar (PW.12), that at the time of death, the person whose postmortem was conducted, had consumed alcohol, which as per the report (Ex.PA) was 268.24 mg %. Now possibility of the deceased sustaining injuries by way of a fall under the influence of alcohol and dying as a result thereof, has not been ruled out by the prosecution. 12. At this point in time, on this issue, it would be relevant to notice that the deceased died as a result of head injury with “intracranial haemorrhages with shock with alcoholic intoxication (very drunk)” and in response to the query put by the Court, Dr. Amod Kumar (PW.12) has deposed that “At this level of alcohol in the blood the patient/deceased was very drunk in which he may have marked in coordination of thought, speech and action, staggering reeling gait with tendency to lurch and fall vomiting, amnesia coupled with mental confusion. Answer based on Parikh’s Text book of jurisprudence and toxicology page 836”. 13. In the instant case, prosecution wants the Court to believe that the accused murdered the deceased Inder Kant with a danda. Now significantly , weapon of offence i.e. danda was found near the spot from where dead body was recovered. But prosecution has failed to link the same to the accused. No finger prints were found on the same 14. Prosecution further wants the Court to believe that on 22.06.2010, accused Rajesh had disclosed to Rai Singh that on 22.05.2010, he had gone with deceased Inder Kant to Bandyal village. For establishing such fact, our attention is invited to the testimony of Rai Singh (PW.5). This circumstance cannot be used against the accused for various reasons: (i) the witness himself alongwith Jeet Singh was a suspect. For establishing such fact, our attention is invited to the testimony of Rai Singh (PW.5). This circumstance cannot be used against the accused for various reasons: (i) the witness himself alongwith Jeet Singh was a suspect. He was being repeatedly called by the police for interrogation; (ii) the witness had made improvements with regard to his deposition in Court and as such cannot be treated as a trustworthy person; (iii) to whom did this witness narrate such fact remains undisclosed by him, for it is not the case of Joginder Singh (PW.19) that such fact came to be disclosed by this witness; and (iv) Also his version being inculpatory in nature cannot be used against the accused. 15. Prosecution further wants the Court to believe that during the course of interrogation, accused made disclosure statements (Ex.PW.2/D and Ex.PW.4/A) in the presence of Janak Raj (PW.2) and Rai Singh (PW.4) respectively. When we peruse the testimony of these witnesses, we do find that accused led the police party in effecting recovery of certain articles. But what are these articles, which stand recovered by the police? Can it be said that it is a discovery of fact linking the accused to the crime or not. Vide recovery memos (Ex.PW.2/A & Ex.PW.2/F), police recovered one mobile phone and certain toiletries. Then except for the disclosure statement/confessional statement of the accused there is nothing on record, linking the toiletries to deceased Inder Kant and the toiletries are not costly, so as to allure any person to retain the same after murdering someone. And to whom did the mobile belong is a mystery. It is neither linked to the deceased Inder Kant or to the accused. 16. Prosecution further invites our attention to the recovery of sim card issued in the name of Sukh Raj Singh (PW.11) allegedly used by the deceased. Recovery memo (Ex.PW.2/F) is on record to such effect. But then, when we peruse the testimony of Sukh Raj Singh, we do not find his version to be inspiring in confidence. The deceased was not his relative or hailing from his village or having a special relationship with him. Why would a co-worker give his sim is clearly not borne out from the record. But then, when we peruse the testimony of Sukh Raj Singh, we do not find his version to be inspiring in confidence. The deceased was not his relative or hailing from his village or having a special relationship with him. Why would a co-worker give his sim is clearly not borne out from the record. Also no record of calls is placed on record to establish that the very same sim was being used by deceased Inder Kant for having conversation with his wife Smt. Pooja Devi (PW.15) or anyone else in his village. 17. Our attention is also invited to the recovery of torn business identity card, so recovered by the police vide memo (Ex.PW.6/A), allegedly thrown by the accused after tearing it into pieces. On this issue, we find that even such discovery of fact and recovery of evidence do not link the accused to the crime. And this we say so for the reason that no finger prints of the accused were found on the card, so recovered by the police. In fact, we have our doubts as to whether any such card came to be issued in the name of Inder Kant or not. The card has not been issued by the employer. Allegedly it was got prepared privately from a privately run computer centre run by Dilshad Ali (PW.16). On whose instance such card came to be prepared, remains un-established. Most crucially neither the signatures nor the name of the shop or the stamp are found on the identity card (Ex.P-16). Also this witness admits that he did not approach the police informing that he had prepared the card. His testimony is uninspiring in confidence. The question which arises for consideration is as to how did the police reach to him. In any event, discovery of the card (Ex.P-16) in itself cannot be a circumstance or reason good sufficient enough to convict the accused, more so in the light of law laid down by the Apex Court in State of Rajashthan Versus Talevar & Anr., (2011) 11 SCC 666 , wherein the Court observed that:- “7. Thus, the sole question remains to be decided whether adverse inference could be drawn against the accused merely on the basis of recoveries made on their disclosure statements. Thus, the sole question remains to be decided whether adverse inference could be drawn against the accused merely on the basis of recoveries made on their disclosure statements. 7.1 In Gulabi Chand v. State of M.P., AIR 1995 SC 1598 (1995 SCW 2504), this Court upheld the conviction for committing dacoity on the basis of recovery of ornaments of the deceased from the possession of the person accused of robbery and murder immediately after the occurrence. 7.2 In Geetaganda Somaiah v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2007 SC 1355 , this Court relied on the judgment in Gulab Chand, ( AIR 1995 SC 1598 ) (supra) and observed that simply on the recovery of stolen articles, no inference can be drawn that a person in possession of the stolen articles is guilty of the offence of murder and robbery. But culpability for the aforesaid offences will depend on the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of evidence adduced. It has been indicated by this Court in Sanwat Khan v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1956 SC 54 : (1954 Cr LJ 150), that no hard and fast rule can be laid down as to what inference should be drawn from certain circumstances. 7.3 In Tulsiram Kanu v. State, AIR 1954 SC 1 : (1954 Cri LJ 225), this Cuort has indicated that the presumption permited to be drawn under Section 114, Illustration (a) of the Evidence Act, 1872 has to be drawn under the ‘important time factor’. If the ornaments in possession of the deceased are found in possession of a person soon after the murder, a presumption of guilt may be permitted. But if a long period has expired in the interval, the presumption cannot be drawn having regard to the circumstances of the case. 7.4 In Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1983 SC 446 : (1983 Cri LJ 846), this Court held that the nature of the presumption under Illustration (a) of Section 114 of the Evidence Act must depend upon the nature of evidence adduced. No fixed time-limit can be laid down to determine whether possession is recent or otherwise. Each case must be judged on its own facts. the question as to what amounts to recent possession sufficient to justify the presumption of guilt varies according “as the stolen article is or is not calculated to pass readily from hand to hand”. No fixed time-limit can be laid down to determine whether possession is recent or otherwise. Each case must be judged on its own facts. the question as to what amounts to recent possession sufficient to justify the presumption of guilt varies according “as the stolen article is or is not calculated to pass readily from hand to hand”. If the stolen articles were such as were not likely to pass readily from hand to hand, the period of one year that elapsed could not be said to be too long particularly when the appellant had been absconding during that period. 7.5 Following such a reasoning, in Sanjay alias Kaka etc. etc. v. The state (NCT of Delhi), AIR 2001 SC 979 : (2001 Cr LJ 1231), this Court upheld the conviction by the trial court since disclosure statements were made by the accused persons on the next day of the commission of the offence and the property of the deceased was recovered at their instance from the places where they had kept such properties, on the same day. The Court found that the trial Court was justified in holding that the disclosure statements of the accused persons and huge recoveries from them at their instance by itself was a sufficient circumstance on the very next day of the incident which clearly went to show that the accused persons had joined hands to commit the offence of robbery. Therefore, recent and unexplained possession of stolen properties will be taken to be presumptive evidence of the charge of murder as well. 7.6 In Ronny alias Ronald James Alwaris & Ors. V. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1998 SC 1251 : (1998 Cri LJ 1638), this Court held that apropos the recovery of articles belonging to the family of the deceased from the possession of the appellants soon after the robbery and the murder of the deceased remained unexplained by the accused, and so the presumption under Illustration (a) of Section 114 of the Evidence Act would be attracted: “It needs no discussion to conclude that the murder and the robbery of the articles were found to be part of the same transaction. The irresistible conclusion would therefore, be that the appellants and no one else had committed the three murders and the robbery.” (Se also: Baijpur v. State of Madhy Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 522 ; and Mukund alias Kundu Mishra & Anr. The irresistible conclusion would therefore, be that the appellants and no one else had committed the three murders and the robbery.” (Se also: Baijpur v. State of Madhy Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 522 ; and Mukund alias Kundu Mishra & Anr. V. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1997 SC 2622 ) : (1997) Cri LJ 3182 : 1997 AIR SCW 2580). 18. From the material placed on record, prosecution has failed to establish that accused are guilty of having committed the offence, he has been charged with. The circumstances cannot be said to have been proved by unbroken chain of unimpeachable testimony of the prosecution witnesses. The guilt of the accused does not stand proved beyond reasonable doubt to the hilt. The chain of events does not stand conclusively established, leading only to one conclusion, i.e. guilt of the accused. Circumstances when cumulatively considered do not fully establish completion of chain of events, indicating to the guilt of the accused and no other hypothesis other than the same. 19. Thus, to our mind, prosecution has not been able to establish by leading clear, cogent, convincing and reliable piece of evidence so as to prove that accused committed murder of Inder Kant by intentionally or knowingly causing his death. 20. The accused has had the advantage of having been acquitted by the Court below. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Mohammed Ankoos and others versus Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (2010) 1 SCC 94 , since it cannot be said that trial Court has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record or that acquittal of the accused has resulted into travesty of justice, no interference is warranted in the instant case. 21. For all the aforesaid reasons, present appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. Bail bonds furnished by the accused are discharged. Record of the trial Court be immediately sent back.