JUDGMENT : K.S. Jhaveri, J. 1. This appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated judgment and order dated 18.5.2006 passed by learned Special Judge, City Sessions Court No. 9, Ahmedabad City, in Atrocity Criminal Case No. 5 of 2003. By the impugned judgment, learned trial Judge has convicted the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "IPC") and sentenced them to suffer rigorous life imprisonment and two years' rigorous imprisonment was awarded to the accused for offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC. For offence under Section 364 of IPC, the accused were awarded two years' imprisonment. For offence under Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act, the accused were awarded one month's imprisonment. Fine of Rs. 5,000/- each was imposed on the accused, and in default of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment of six months was imposed. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, accused persons have preferred present appeal. 2. The facts in brief giving rise to the filing of present appeal are as under: 2.1 The complaint was filed by the wife of the deceased on 31.3.2002 before Gomatipur Police Station, Ahmedabad, inter alia, alleging that her husband was kidnapped in presence of her son Dharmesh and was brutally murdered by the kidnappers. In the complaint, names of the accused were not given, however, after investigation their names were revealed. It is the case of the prosecution that after Godhra train carnage, riots broke out in various parts of the State of Gujarat, including Ahmedabad City. On 30.3.2002 at about 22 hours, the accused formed an unlawful assembly and gathered near Madni Mohalla (Vaghari Vas) and they started pelting stones and burning rags at Nana Vankarvas. It is alleged that son of the complaint informed her that the deceased was dragged and kidnapped by some persons of the mob. Thereafter, the deceased was untraceable, therefore, the aforesaid complaint was filed. After twelve days, dead body of the deceased was found, which was cut down in various pieces and sodium and acid were used to screen the evidence and dead body was also covered with plastic bag and buried in a pit. Thereafter, the deceased was untraceable, therefore, the aforesaid complaint was filed. After twelve days, dead body of the deceased was found, which was cut down in various pieces and sodium and acid were used to screen the evidence and dead body was also covered with plastic bag and buried in a pit. Thereafter, accused were arrested and it is alleged that with an intention to kill the deceased accused had hit him with the brick on his mouth and caused injuries with the weapons which they were carrying. Accordingly, the accused killed the deceased. Thereafter, the accused cut the dead body and tried to destroy the evidence. It is also alleged that since there was curfew imposed, the accused have also committed an offence by gathering in violation of Commissioner's Notification. Accordingly, the investigation was carried out in the complaint filed by the complainant. 2.2 At the end of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused before the Magistrate Court. Since the offence was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to Sessions Court and, ultimately, trial was initiated and charge came to be framed in Atrocity Criminal Case No. 5 of 2003. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, recording of evidence also started and when it was about to complete, two absconding accused were arrested and supplementary charge sheet was filed against them in Atrocity Criminal Case No. 1 of 2005. Therefore, the trial against all the accused was consolidated and Sessions Case No. 5/2003 and 1/2005 were tried together. 2.3 During the trial, the prosecution had examined following witnesses:- P.W.No. Name Exh. 1 Induben Devanand Solanki. 15 2 Dharmesh Devanand Solanki-hostile. 19 3 Dilipbhai Nanji Solanki-hostile. 20 4 Vishwanath Kantilal Shrimali-hostile. 21 5 Ravindrakumar M.Parmar-hostile. 22 6 Kishor Kantilal Shrimali-panch. 23 7 Rehmanbhai Rasulbhai Mansuri-hostile. 24 8 Tikesh Khushaldas Makwana-panch. 25 9 Bipinkumar Bhikhubhai-panch 27 10 Sureshbhai Vishnuprasad Pandit-panch. 28 11 Pravinbhai Bhimabhai Parmar-panch. 30 12 Chandrakant Maganlal Parmar-panch. 33 13 Kanaiyalal Khusaldas Parmar-panch. 35 14 Chhanabhai Bhulabhai Solanki-hostile. 37 15 Dr. Bharat R. Solanki. 38 16 Ranjikant Ranchhodbhai Jadav. 40 17 Patel Jaswantbhai Chhanabhai-Executive Magistrate. 41 18 Maheshbhai V. Parmar-hostile. 42 19 Navinbhai K. Parmar-hostile. 43 20 Gunvantbhai B. Chauhan-hostile. 44 21 Kishorbhai Khumar-panch. 46 22 Ambalal S. Parmar-panch-hostile. 48 23 Kumarihansaben Panchal-FSL officer. 51 24 Gauridutt Sharma-Scientific Officer, FSL. 53 25 Dr. Vikram Parghi-Postmortem. 56 26 Dr. 37 15 Dr. Bharat R. Solanki. 38 16 Ranjikant Ranchhodbhai Jadav. 40 17 Patel Jaswantbhai Chhanabhai-Executive Magistrate. 41 18 Maheshbhai V. Parmar-hostile. 42 19 Navinbhai K. Parmar-hostile. 43 20 Gunvantbhai B. Chauhan-hostile. 44 21 Kishorbhai Khumar-panch. 46 22 Ambalal S. Parmar-panch-hostile. 48 23 Kumarihansaben Panchal-FSL officer. 51 24 Gauridutt Sharma-Scientific Officer, FSL. 53 25 Dr. Vikram Parghi-Postmortem. 56 26 Dr. Gopal Makwana-blood collected for DNA. 60 27 Dr. Parulaben Vaghela-blood collected for DNA of Tejiben. 65 28 Prabhatsinh Vechansinh Chauhan-ASI blood samples given to him by doctor. 67 29 Annarav Gadhvi-PSI. 68 30 M.B. Gadhvi, Head Constable. 71 31 B.M. Goswami-panch, cotton gloves recovery. 72 32 Rameshbhai N. Parmar-panch. 78 33 Nageshkumar Jadav-PI. 84 34 Manjibhai B. Chauhan-PSI, Panch. 88 35 B.C. Gadhvi, IO, PI Crime. 92 36 H.P. Agrawat, PI, Crime. 118 2.4 The prosecution had also produced and relied upon following documentary evidence:- Sr. No. Description Exh. 1 Caste Certificate of the complainant. 16 2 Inquest panchnama. 26 3 Panchnama of three forms and sealed bottles. 29 4 Panchnama of sealed bottle after P.M. of the deceased. 31 5 Panchnama of collecting blood from wall by cotton gloves. 34 6 Discovery panchnama collecting lathi from Mohammad Zahir. 36 7 Panchnama of the scene of offence. 47 8 FSL report of visiting the site of offence once againt. 52 9 Report of FSL of the spot visit. 54 10 FSL report of visiting the site of the offence once againt. 55 11 Postmortem report of deceased Devanand Solanki. 57 12 Death certificate of deceased Devanand Solanki. 58 13 DNA report of Induben Solanki dt. 15.7.2002. 62 14 DNA report of Bindiyaben Devanand Solanki dt. 15.7.2002. 63 15 DNA report of Dharmesh Solanki dt. 15.7.2002. 64 16 Copy of blood group of Tejiben. 66 17 Panchnama regarding cotton gloves collected by FSL officer. 73 18 Panchnama in presence of Executive Magistrate Shri J.S. Patel. 79 19 Muddamal panchnama slips. 80, 81 & 82 20 Copy of complaint. 85 21 Report under Section 157 of Cr.P.C. 86 22 Panchnama of FSL recovering muddamal on the spot. 89 23 Panchnama collecting various pieces of the body of the deceased. 93 24 Dispatch notes to FSL regarding muddamal dt. 15.4.2002. 94 25 Discovery panchnama collecting hockey by accused Zakirhusen. 95 26 Discovery panchnama collecting dhariya from Fakruddin Kamruddin. 96 27 Discovery panchnama collecting sword from Mohammad Afzal. 89 23 Panchnama collecting various pieces of the body of the deceased. 93 24 Dispatch notes to FSL regarding muddamal dt. 15.4.2002. 94 25 Discovery panchnama collecting hockey by accused Zakirhusen. 95 26 Discovery panchnama collecting dhariya from Fakruddin Kamruddin. 96 27 Discovery panchnama collecting sword from Mohammad Afzal. 97 28 Dispatch notes to FSL for inspection of muddamal dt. 4.5.2002. 98 29 Receipt from FSL receiving four sealed parcel dt. 6.5.2001. 99 30 FSL letter regarding four sealed parcels. 100 31 Letter of FSL to DCB. 101 32 FSL report to DCB. 102 33 Serological analysis of FSL. 103 34 FSL letter to DCB for muddamal. 104 35 Result of analysis of FSL. 105 36 Serological analysis report of FSL. 106 37 Vardhi of police control room. 106 38 FSL analysis report dt. 20.4.2002. 107 39 Panch slip of mark ‘L’. 108 40 Panch slip of mark ‘H’. 109 41 Panch slip of mark ‘G’. 110 42 Panch slip of mark ‘B’. 111 43 Panch slip of mark ‘C’. 112 44 Panch slip of mark ‘D’. 113 45 Panch slip of mark ‘E’. 114 46 Panch slip of mark ‘F’. 115 47 Injury certificate of Dharmesh Solanki. 119 48 Kachcha map of the site of offence. 120 49 Dispatch letter to FSL by DCB. 121 50 Receipt regarding packet received by FSL. 122 51 Notification under Bombay Police Act by Police Commissioner. 123 & 124 52 DNA report from FSL Chandigadh dt. 14.5.2002. 125 53 Vardhi of control room. 126 54 Closing purshis given by ld. APP dt. 19.1.2006. 128 55 An application of the Shri Ravindra Ambalal Solanki dt. 4.4.2002. 132 56 An application to the Hon’ble Chief Minister of one Shri Prakashbhai Somabhai Parmar dt. 10.4.2002. 133 57 A letter written by the office of the Police Commissioner dt. 2.5.2002. 134 58 A letter written by the office of Police Commissioner to the Crime Branch dt. 17.5.2002. 135 59 A letter written from Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Seva Trust to the Police Commissioner dt. 16.4.2002. 136 2.5 At the end of trial, the Court below recorded further statements of accused persons under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and thereafter, passed the impugned judgment and order awarding the sentence to the accused, as aforesaid. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of the trial Court, present appeal is preferred before this Court by the original accused. 3. Mr. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of the trial Court, present appeal is preferred before this Court by the original accused. 3. Mr. B.B. Naik, learned Senior Advocate appearing with Mr. M.M. Tirmizi for the appellants-original accused has taken us through the evidence and submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the appellants. Mr. Naik submitted that the trial Court has committed an error in convicting the appellants on the basis of statements of four prosecution witnesses, who were recalled and whose statements were again recorded by the trial Court. He further submitted that these four witnesses i.e. PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 have deposed totally against their earlier statement recorded in the same case, therefore, their statements cannot be relied upon to convict the accused. He submitted that these four witnesses were claiming to be eye-witnesses in Atrocity Criminal Case No. 1 of 2005 and they have deposed totally in contradiction to their earlier statements recorded in Atrocity Criminal Case No. 5 of 2003. He further submitted that this case is based on circumstantial evidence and there is no evidence except the statements of these witnesses to involve the appellants in the offence. He further submitted that these witnesses were recalled in view of arrest of absconding accused and filing of supplementary charge sheet against them, therefore, there was no need to record their statements with regard to present appellants-accused Nos. 1 to 4, as their statements were already recorded in this regard. He further submitted that by relying upon subsequent statements, the accused have been convicted and thereby the trial Court has committed serious error. He further submitted that panchas and other witnesses have turned hostile. He also submitted that Indumatiben, widow of the deceased in her statement recorded on 16.3.2005 in Atrocity Criminal Case No. 1 of 2005 has stated that she had not given names of any of the accused in the complaint and no Test Identification Parade was carried out and none of the accused were identified by her. Therefore, by relying upon such evidence the accused could not have been convicted, as per the submission. Therefore, by relying upon such evidence the accused could not have been convicted, as per the submission. He further submitted that another witness Dharmesh Devanand Solanki, Son of the deceased, in his evidence recorded on 23.3.2005 in Atrocity Criminal Case No. 1 of 2005 has deposed totally contrary to his earlier statement recorded in Atrocity Criminal Case No. 5 of 2003. He further submitted that in the cross-examination of this witness, he has categorically stated that it was completely dark at the place from which his father was taken away by the accused and faces of the accused were covered. He also deposed that no Test Identification Parade was held. This witness has also stated that stone pelting was so heavy that nothing could be seen and since faces of the accused were covered, he was not in a position to identify them and he was not knowing them earlier also. PW-3, Dilipbhai Nanjibhai had turned hostile. So far as evidence of PW-4, Vishwanath Kantilal Shrimali in Atrocity Criminal Case No. 1 of 2005 is concerned, he submitted that there are serious contradictions in the statements of this witness also. He further submitted that all these witnesses have improved upon their earlier statements and the trial Court has committed an error in convicting the accused only on the basis of such statements of the accused. He further submitted that considering all these aspects of the matter, this appeals may be allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment convicting the accused. 4. On the other hand, Mr. J.M. Panchal, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has submitted that the order of conviction recorded against the appellants-accused is just and proper and he has supported the conviction recorded by impugned judgment. He further contended that taking into consideration the evidence on record, the view taken by the trial Court is just and proper and no interference is called for. Mr. Panchal further submitted that the trial Court has not committed any error in convicting the accused by relying upon the statements of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-4 and PW-14, who were re-examined in Atrocity Criminal Case No. 1 of 2005. Mr. Panchal further submitted that the trial Court has not committed any error in convicting the accused by relying upon the statements of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-4 and PW-14, who were re-examined in Atrocity Criminal Case No. 1 of 2005. He submitted that these witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and they have also explained as to why they have not given the names of the accused persons earlier in their first version recorded immediately after the riots in 2003. He further submitted that these witnesses, who were re-examined, had no motive to implicate the accused persons falsely. He further submitted that blood of "O" group was found from the place of incident, which is also a link connecting the accused with the crime. He further submitted that counsel for the defence had an opportunity to confront these witnesses with their earlier statements, which were recorded in Atrocity Criminal Case No. 5 of 2003, however, it has not been done in the present case. He further submitted that these witnesses have stated that they were under fear and therefore correct statements were not given by them earlier. He submitted that there is no reason to disbelieved the explanation given by these witnesses. He, therefore, submitted that the learned trial Judge has not committed any error while imposing the sentence on the accused and no interference is called for in the present appeal. 5. We have heard Mr. B.B. Naik, learned Senior Advocate for the appellants-original accused and Mr. J.M. Panchal, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State. We have also gone through the impugned judgment as well as evidence on record. From the impugned judgment, it is clear that the trial Court has relied upon the subsequent versions of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 recorded in Atrocity Criminal Case No. 1 of 2005 to convict the accused persons. This is a case of circumstantial evidence and there is no other evidence except the statements of these witnesses to convict the accused. Aforesaid witnesses were recalled in view of filing of supplementary charge-sheet against absconding accused in Atrocity Criminal Case No. 1 of 2005, therefore, the trial Court should have recorded their statements only in connection with the accused persons who were arrested subsequently i.e. accused of Atrocity Criminal Case No. 1 of 2005 and there was no need to record their fresh statement against accused Nos. 1 to 4 of Atrocity Criminal Case No. 5 of 2003 as it was already recorded. From the evidence on record, it is clear that these witnesses have improved upon their earlier statements with a view to see that present appellants are convicted. In our view, the trial Court has committed an error in relying upon the subsequent statements of aforesaid witnesses to convict the appellants herein. In their earlier statements, the accused were not implicated by these witnesses. Moreover, this is a case based on circumstantial evidence and the normal principle in a case based on circumstantial evidence is that the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; that those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; that the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and they should be incapable of explanation on any hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocence. In the present case, there is no substantial piece of evidence connecting the accused with the offence except the statements of the witnesses which were recorded after recalling them. In our view, this evidence could not have been relied to convict the appellants herein, therefore, benefit of doubt is required to be granted to the appellants. Though we do not exonerate the appellants-accused from the charges levelled against them, we grant them benefit of doubt. In view of this, present appeal is required to be allowed. 6. For the foregoing reasons, this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 18.5.2006 passed by learned Special Judge, City Sessions Court No. 9, Ahmedabad City, in Atrocity Criminal Case No. 5 of 2003 is quashed and set aside so far as present appellants are concerned. The appellants herein-original accused in Atrocity Criminal Case No. 5 of 2003 are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them by granting benefit of doubt. Bail bond, if any, of the accused stands cancelled. Record and Proceedings, if lying here, be sent back to the concerned trial Court forthwith.