JUDGMENT : Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. 1. The court of Special Judge (Prevention of Atrocity) SC/ST Act, Jhalawar vide impugned judgment dated 29.2.2008, convicted two brothers namely Narayan Singh and Bal Chand for offences under Sections 120-B, 302 read with Section 120-B and 201 IPC for causing murder of Bhairu Lal. Both the accused Narayan Singh and Bal Chand are sons of Duli Chand, whereas Bhairu Lal is son of Puri Lal. It has come in the evidence that Duli Chand and Puri Lal were brothers, hence, the deceased Bhairu Lal and the accused namely Narayan Singh and Bal Chand are closely related. 2. The trial Judge having convicted the appellants vide impugned judgment dated 29.2.2008, vide a separate order of even date sentenced the appellants as under:- U/s. 120-B IPC-to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one year S.I. U/s. 302 r/w 120-B IPC-to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one year S.I. U/s. 201 IPC-to undergo five years R.I. and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months S.I. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. Narayan Singh and Bal Chand had directed D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 427/2008 to challenge their conviction and sentence. The accused, Narayan Singh and Bal Chand had also sent an appeal through Jail in which defect was pointed out by the Registry that the same was time barred by 35 days. The said appeal sent through Jail was assigned number as D.B. Criminal Jail Appeal No. 924/2012 and was clubbed with D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 427/2008. Hence, on behalf of both the appellants, two appeals have been filed to assail the same judgment of conviction and order of sentence. We shall decide both the appeals together. 4. The prosecution has led no direct evidence and hence, conviction of the appellants rests on circumstantial evidence led by the prosecution. 5. The circumstances relied against the appellants have been very aptly described by the trial Judge in Para 7 of the impugned judgment. We shall decide both the appeals together. 4. The prosecution has led no direct evidence and hence, conviction of the appellants rests on circumstantial evidence led by the prosecution. 5. The circumstances relied against the appellants have been very aptly described by the trial Judge in Para 7 of the impugned judgment. We reproduce the circumstances culled out by the trial Judge for ready reference as under:- ^^1- vijk/k gsrq (Motive) 2- Jh Hks:yky dks thfor voLFkk esa vfUre ckn fnukad 22-03-2007 dks jkf= dks vfHk;qDrx.k ds lkFk ns[kk x;kA 3- vfHk;qDrx.k us Jh Hks:yky ds 'ko dks lcls igys f'koyky ds dqos ij iM+k gqvk gksuk crk;k rFkk fQj mUgksus lfØ; Hkwfedk dk fuoZgu djrs gq, HkS:yky ds 'ko dks dqos ls fudkyus esa lg;ksx fd;k rFkk iqfyl dks bl ckjs esa lwpuk u nsus esa Hkwfedk fuHkkbZ rFkk fQj lfØ; Hkwfedk dk fuoZgu djrs gq, Jh HkS:yky ds 'ko dk nkg laLdkj djk fn;kA 4- fnuakd 22-3-2007 rFkk 23-3-2007 dks e/; jkf= ds le; vfHk;qDrx.k e`rd HkS:yky dh d`f"kHkwfe ds vkl ikl lafnX/k voLFkk esa ?kwers gq, ns[ks x;sAa 5- fnukad 23&03&2007 ls fnukad 27-03-2007 ds izkr% dky rd tc Jh HkS:yky dk 'ko dqos ls cjken fd;k x;k] ds e/; vfHk;qDrx.k dks lafnX/k voLFkk esa bl dqos ds vkl ikl pDdj dkVrs gq, ns[kk x;kA 6- vfHk;qDrx.k dh lwpuk o fu'kknsgh ls jDrjaftr lCcy rFkk jtkbZ rFkk iRFkj vuqla/kku ds nkSjku cjken fd;s x;s rFkk tc bu oLrqvksa ij yxs jDr rFkk dqos ds ikl ls cjken gqos jDr jaftr iRFkjks dk jDr jkl;fud fo'ys"k.k ls feyku fd;k x;k rks buesa lekurk ikbZ xbZA 7- vfHk;qDrx.k }kjk ih-M+&8 lqtkuflag] ih-M+10 jk;flag] ih-M+ 14 j?kqukFk ds le{k mDr mijk/kksa ds laca/k esa Lohd`fr dh xbZA^^ 6. We may notice here that the trial Judge has not relied upon circumstance No. 6 regarding recovery of Sabbal, quilt and blood stained stones. The trial Judge made elaborate discussion in Para 54 of the judgment. Before we take note of the findings given by the trial court and recapitulate the evidence of the witnesses, it will be apposite for us to give sequence of events. 7. Kalawati Bai (P.W. 3) wife of Bhairu Lal deceased had gone on night of 22nd and 23rd March, 2007 to serve meals to her husband Bhairu Lal in the fields, where Bhairu Lal was guarding coriander /kfu;k crop. 7. Kalawati Bai (P.W. 3) wife of Bhairu Lal deceased had gone on night of 22nd and 23rd March, 2007 to serve meals to her husband Bhairu Lal in the fields, where Bhairu Lal was guarding coriander /kfu;k crop. Kalawati Bai (P.W. 3) has stated that at that time, the accused were sitting with her husband Bhairu Lal. This witness further stated that both the accused are first cousins of deceased Bhairu Lal being sons of Kaka Sasur (uncle father-in-law). 8. The occurrence, as per prosecution had taken place on the intervening night of 22nd and 23rd March, 2007. It is the further case of the prosecution that both the appellants from the well of Shiv Lal had recovered the dead body of Bhairu Lal on 27.3.2007 and on the said day itself, had cremated the body in the cremation ground. 9. The written report (Exhibit-P/2) leading to registration of FIR (Exhibit-P/3) bearing No. 53/07 registered at Police Station Bakani, District Jhalawar, was presented by Kalawati Bai (P.W. 3) on 7.4.2007 before Dhuli Chand (P.W. 2), who was then posted as SHO, Police Station Bakani. 10. Thus, in the present case, after the evidence of last seen on 22.3.2007, the dead body was recovered after four days i.e. on 27.3.2007. The written report (Exhibit-P/2) leading to registration of FIR was presented on 7.4.2007 after ten days of the cremation of the dead body. 11. It has come in the evidence that the dead body was putrefied, highly decomposed and was emitting foul odour. 12. Out of the circumstances enumerated by the trial Judge, evidence of last seen, conduct of the accused to cremate the dead body and evidence of extra-judicial confession are material circumstances, and if these three circumstances are not relied, chain of circumstances will fall and it will be difficult to draw an inference that the offence has been committed by the accused alone and by nobody else. 13. Evidence of last seen has emerged in the testimony of Kalawati Bai (P.W. 3), Nathu Lal (P.W. 4) and Raja Ram (P.W. 7). Regarding the conduct of the accused, the prosecution has examined Devi Singh (P.W. 16) and Chhitar Lal (P.W. 11). Regarding motive, the case of the prosecution rests on the testimony of Kalawati Bai (P.W. 3) and Salag Ram (P.W. 9). Regarding the conduct of the accused, the prosecution has examined Devi Singh (P.W. 16) and Chhitar Lal (P.W. 11). Regarding motive, the case of the prosecution rests on the testimony of Kalawati Bai (P.W. 3) and Salag Ram (P.W. 9). To prove extra-judicial confession, the prosecution has relied upon testimony of Rai Singh (P.W. 10), Sujan Singh (P.W. 8) and Raghu Nath (P.W. 14). 14. We are conscious of the fact that extra-judicial confession if inspires confidence without corroboration is sufficient to record conviction of the accused. Therefore, it has become incumbent for us to dissect and analyze evidence of extra-judicial confession. Before we do so, it will be appropriate for us to briefly notice the contents of written report (Exhibit-P/2) submitted by Kalawati Bai (P.W. 3), widow of the deceased Bhairu Lal. Kalawati Bai (P.W. 3) in her written report (Exhibit-P/2) submitted before Dhuli Chand (P.W. 2) SHO Police Station Bakani, Jhalawar, stated that on 22.3.2007, Thursday, her husband Bhairu Lal had gone to village well in the field to guard coriander crop. At 8:00 P.M., she had gone to field to serve meals to her husband. Then two sons of Duli Chand, Kaka Sasur (uncle-in-law) namely Narayan Singh and Bal Chand came to their field. They were having talks with her husband. She leaving two accused at the well, returned to her house. Next day in the morning at 7:00 A.M., Kalawati Bai (P.W. 3) went to the field to serve tea to her husband. There she found that her husband and his bedding were missing. She waited for her husband and thereafter, carried search, returned to her house and informed Raja Ram (P.W. 7) and Badri Lal (P.W. 6) that her husband and his bedding are missing. It was further stated that on 27.3.2007, from the well of Shiv Lodha, dead body of her husband was found by Narayan Singh and Bal Chand. They had taken the dead body out of the well, carried the same to the cremation ground and cremated the same. The complainant made a grievance that the dead body of her husband was not brought at home and she was not shown the face of the deceased. Thereafter, Narain had also threatened her to remain mum. They had taken the dead body out of the well, carried the same to the cremation ground and cremated the same. The complainant made a grievance that the dead body of her husband was not brought at home and she was not shown the face of the deceased. Thereafter, Narain had also threatened her to remain mum. The complainant stated that she was informed by Nathu Lal (P.W. 4), Devi Singh (P.W. 16), Rai Singh (P.W. 10) and Sujan Singh (P.W. 8) that her husband has been killed by Narayan Singh and Bal Chand. The complainant stated that accused were having grudge that her husband one month before the occurrence had sold the Bada to Salag Ram (P.W. 9) and at that time, Narayan Singh had raised dispute with her husband and had extended a threat. It was stated that due to the said grudge, Narayan Singh and Bal Chand had abducted her husband and they had also taken with them bedding of her husband. 15. Now we shall deal with material circumstances relied by the prosecution. Evidence of extra-judicial confession: 16. Sujan Singh (P.W. 8) in the court deposed that he knew Narayan Singh. He was member of Panchayat. After 3-4 days of the death of Bhairu Lal, Narayan Singh came to him and admitted his guilt. ^^eq>ls dgk Fkk fd eq>ls xyrh gks xbZ gSA eSusa HkS:yky dh gR;k djds mldh yk'k dks dqa, esa Qsad fn;k gSA^^ 17. Rai Singh (P.W. 10) in the court deposed that he knew Bal Chand. After third day ceremony i.e. Teesra ¼rhljk½ of Bhairu Lal, Bal Chand came and informed that the deceased was killed by Narayan Singh and thereafter both have thrown the dead body in the well. 18. Raghu Nath (P.W. 14) ¼thtk½ i.e. the husband of sister of the deceased Bhairu Lal, stated that on his asking Kalawati Bai (P.W. 3) had lodged the report. Narayan Singh and Bal Chand came to him at Bakani and both stated that they committed a mistake and have murdered Bhairu Lal. 19. Thus, from the testimony of above three witnesses, it is evident that Narayan Singh had made extra-judicial confession before Sujan Singh (P.W. 8) within 3-4 day of the death of Bhairu Lal. Narayan Singh and Bal Chand came to him at Bakani and both stated that they committed a mistake and have murdered Bhairu Lal. 19. Thus, from the testimony of above three witnesses, it is evident that Narayan Singh had made extra-judicial confession before Sujan Singh (P.W. 8) within 3-4 day of the death of Bhairu Lal. Bal Chand admitted before Rai Singh (P.W. 10) that he had only thrown the dead body in the well, whereas the murder was committed by his brother Narayan Singh. Raghu Nath (P.W. 14) in the court deposed that both the accused made joint confession before him in chorus form. 20. It is settled legal position that any joint confession made in chorus form is not admissible in evidence. Hence, we cannot place much reliance on the testimony of Raghu Nath (P.W. 14). So far Rai Singh (P.W. 10) is concerned, he stated that only Bal Chand came to him and admitted that he had thrown the dead body along with Narayan Singh in the well. Thus, the extrajudicial confession of Bal Chand is only qua the offence under Section 201 IPC. Whereas, Sujan Singh (P.W. 8) has stated that Narayan Singh came and admitted his guilt. However, both the witnesses Sujan Singh (P.W. 8) and Rai Singh (P.W. 10) corroborate each other to the effect that the extra-judicial confession was made within 3-4 days of the recovery of the dead body. 21. In the written report (Exhibit-P/2), which was lodged on 7.4.2007, it has been stated that Rai Singh (P.W. 10) and Sujan Singh (P.W. 8) had informed the complainant that murder has been committed by Narayan Singh and Bal Chand. However, the written report is silent regarding any admission or extra-judicial confession made by the accused. In this context, we may refer to the testimony of witnesses to extra-judicial confession. 22. Sujan Singh (P.W. 8) in the court stated that Narayan Singh came to him at 10:00 - 11:00 A.M. and he had not disclosed to any villagers about the facts narrated by Narayan Singh. This witness stated that after the last ceremony was performed, he was called by SHO, Police Station Bakani, and he had narrated the occurrence. 22. Sujan Singh (P.W. 8) in the court stated that Narayan Singh came to him at 10:00 - 11:00 A.M. and he had not disclosed to any villagers about the facts narrated by Narayan Singh. This witness stated that after the last ceremony was performed, he was called by SHO, Police Station Bakani, and he had narrated the occurrence. This witness further stated that when extra-judicial confession was made, Parmanand and Devi Singh were present but as to why their names were not recorded in the statement (Exhibit-D/3) recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., no explanation could be offered by the witness. This witness further stated that it has not been specified in statement Exhibit-D/3 made under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that the accused had made confession after 3-4 day of the occurrence. The portion of the cross-examination is reproduced as under:- ^^ml le; fnu ds 10&11 ct jgs FksA ukjk;.k us ;g ckr eq>s crkbZ rks eSusa xkao ds fdlh Hkh vkneh dks ;g ckr ugha crkbZ FkhA dk;ZØe gksus ds ckn Fkkusnkj th us eq>s cdkuk Fkkus esa cqykdj eq>ls iwNk Fkk rc eSus ;g ckr mudks crkbZ FkhA eSusa vius iqfyl c;ku esa ;g crk fn;k Fkk fd tc ukjk;.k esjs ikl vk;k rc ijekauan vkSj nsohflag Hkh esjs ikl FksA eq>s irk ugha fd ;g ckr esjs iqfyl c;ku izn'kZ Mh-3 esa D;ksa ugh fy[kh gS ?kVuk ds 3&4 fnu ckn ukjk;.k us eq>s ;g ckr crkbZ] ;g 3&4 fnu ckn ukjk;.k us eq>s ;g ckr crkbZ] ;g 3&4 fnu okyh ckr Hkh izn'kZ Mh-3 esa D;ksa ugh fy[kh gS ;g eS ugh crk ldrkA^^ 23. Rai Singh (P.W. 10) in the court admitted that what was told to him by Bal Chand was not narrated to anybody. He had informed the police after 2-3 days of the last ceremony of deceased Bhairu Lal. SHO himself had come to the village. We reproduce pertaining lines from the cross-examination of Rai Singh (P.W. 10) as under:- ^^ckypan us tks ckr eq>s crkbZ Fkh og eSusa fdlh dks ugha crkbZ FkhA eSus iqfylokyks dks ;g ?kVuk HkS:yky ds fØ;kdeZ ds 2&3 fnu ckn crkbZ FkhA Fkkusnkj th Loa; xkao esa eq>s ysus vk;s FksA^^ 24. As to why immediately after confession was made by the accused, Sujan Singh (P.W. 8) and Rai Singh (P.W. 10) had not informed the police, no explanation is forthcoming. As to why immediately after confession was made by the accused, Sujan Singh (P.W. 8) and Rai Singh (P.W. 10) had not informed the police, no explanation is forthcoming. Sujan Singh (P.W. 8) is member of Panchayat. Rai Singh (P.W. 10) is also member of Panchayat. They permitted the accused to leave their house silently after they had made extra-judicial confession. Thereafter, they remained silent. They were called by the police. They purportedly told the police about the confession, but police neither recorded their statement nor proceeded with investigation till 7.4.2007. The conduct of the witnesses is improbable. They made no effort to inform the police. They had not informed any co-villagers that accused had made confession. It has also come in evidence that the accused were not very close to these witnesses. Therefore, the witnesses had no reason to shield the accused. 25. We may now examine the evidence of extra-judicial confession from another angle also. 26. Dhuli Chand (P.W. 2) in the court admitted that he had summoned both Sujan Singh (P.W. 8) and Rai Singh (P.W. 10) as their names were reflected in the FIR. Thus, till 7.4.2007, the statement of Sujan Singh (P.W. 8) and Rai Singh (P.W. 10) were not recorded. Both the witnesses have stated that third day of occurrence when Teesra rhljk was performed, the accused had come and made a confession. 27. Kalawati Bai (P.W. 3) stated that the last remains of the deceased Bhairu Lal on the third day were picked up by both the accused Narayan Singh and Bal Chand. At that time, all relations had also come. Thus, till third day, no finger of suspicion was towards the accused. There was no occasion for them to make extra-judicial confession. We reproduce the following lines from the cross-examination of Kalawati Bai (P.W. 3), as under:- ^^;g lgh gS fd rhljs ds fnu esjs ifr dh vfLFk;ka ukjk;.k vkSj ckypan us gh pquh Fkh vkSj ml fnu Qwy pquus esjs ifjokj ds yksx gh x, Fks ftuesa eqyfteku Hkh FksA ;g lgh gS fd fQj gekjs lHkh fj'rsnkj feyus cSBus ds fy, gekjs ?kj ij vk, FksA^^ 28. Badri Lal (P.W. 6) had stated that accused had accompanied him and Chandra Singh, Radhey Shyam, Kalawati Bai to search for Bhairu Lal. Badri Lal (P.W. 6) had stated that accused had accompanied him and Chandra Singh, Radhey Shyam, Kalawati Bai to search for Bhairu Lal. This witness further stated that when Bhairu Lal was not found for 3-4 days, he had heard from someone that on the next day Kalawati Bai (P.W. 3) had gone to the police station to lodge the report. This witness further admitted that police used to visit the village and police had found the dead body. ^^;g lgh gS fd iqfyl xkao esa vkrh tkrh jgh o iqfyl us Hkh HkS:yky dks <w<kaA^^ This witness further admitted that when police came, they had interrogated Kalawati Bai (P.W. 3). This witness further stated that there were 5-7 persons of the village present when dead body was cremated and they had also tried to inform on telephone to Bakani Police Station. This witness further stated that after the cremation of the dead body, for 10-11 days, relations used to come. This witness further stated that he heard after recovery of dead body, police was visiting village. This witness stated that after the recovery of the dead body, he was concealing himself fearing that he may not be named as accused. This witness further stated that after 7-8 days of the recovery of the dead body, he was detained at the police station and was interrogated as to how the deceased Bhairu Lal had died. 29. Raja Ram (P.W. 7) had stated in the court that after the recovery of the dead body, information was given to the police thereafter whole of the village was filled with police and he had narrated everything to the police on the next day of the recovery of the dead body. If that is so, the name of the accused ought to have surfaced in the investigation after three days of the occurrence. We reproduce the following portion from the cross-examination of Raja Ram (P.W. 7), as under:- ^^yk'k feyrs gh iqfyl dks lwpuk dj nh Fkh] xkao esa iqfyl gh iqfyl gks xbZ FkhA eSa tks vkt c;ku ns jgk gwa] ;s lc ckrsa yk'k feyus ds nwljs fnu gh iqfyl dks crk nh FkhA 30. Chhitar Lal (P.W. 11) was declared hostile to the prosecution. This witness admitted that after 2-3 days of the recovery of the dead body, Narayan Singh and Bal Chand were detained at the police station. Chhitar Lal (P.W. 11) was declared hostile to the prosecution. This witness admitted that after 2-3 days of the recovery of the dead body, Narayan Singh and Bal Chand were detained at the police station. ^^;g lgh gS fd yk'k feyus ds nwljs rhljs fnu gh iqfyl us ukjk;.k o ckypan dks cSBk fy;k FkkA^^ 31. The dead body was recovered on 27.3.2007. However, the police vide arrest memo Exhibit-P/67 and Exhibit-P/68 had depicted arrest of the accused on 7.4.2007. The testimony of Chhitar Lal prove that accused were detained on second and third day of the recovery of dead body, but their arrest was reflected late in the record. In case, accused were detained by the police and were in custody of police on second and third day of the recovery of dead body alleged confession made after third day of cremation to Sujan Singh (P.W. 8) and Rai Singh (P.W. 10) will be hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. 32. Taking totality of circumstances, we are of the view that it is not safe to place implicit reliance upon the circumstance of extra-judicial confession. Hence, we shall rule out the same from consideration. Evidence of conduct of the accused: 33. It has come in evidence that when the dead body was cremated, number of family members had assembled at the cremation ground. Badri Lal (P.W. 6) in the court had stated that Narayan Singh and Bal Chand came to his house and they requested for giving ox driven cart. ^^fQj esjs ?kj ukjk;.k o ckypan xkM+h cSy eakxus vk;s Fks fd ge HkS:yky dh yk'k ysus tk jgs gSA^^ 34. Badri Lal (P.W. 6) further stated that he followed the accused. This witness stated that Narayan Singh went inside the well and brought out the dead body from the well. ^^fQj ukjk;.k dqosa esa mrjk o HkS: dh yk'k fudkyhA HkS: dh yk'k ds ekFks esa yxh gqbZ FkhA^^ 35. Badri Lal (P.W. 6) further stated that Narayan Singh after had taken out the dead body from the well, in the ox driven cart, along with them had brought the dead body to the cremation ground. This witness further stated that the dead body was emitting foul odour. It has come in the testimony of Badri Lal that the dead body was recovered at the instance of the police. This witness further stated that the dead body was emitting foul odour. It has come in the testimony of Badri Lal that the dead body was recovered at the instance of the police. If that is so, Narayan Singh and Bal Chand being a close relatives had helped to take out the dead body and they had carried the dead body to the cremation ground along with other relations. 36. Raja Ram (P.W. 7) stated that after the dead body was recovered, for 8-10 days, they had not informed anybody. It is apparent that family was not having any suspicion. This witness further stated that the dead body was so putrefied, decomposed and was emitting foul odour that he could not take his meal for 2-3 days. 37. Therefore, it is apparent that after the dead body was recovered, family was not having any suspicion and they had cremated the dead body. It has also come in evidence that Kalawati Bai (P.W. 3) the complainant was having cordial relations ¼Ek/kqj laEc/ka½ with Nathu Lal (P.W. 4). It has also come in evidence that Kalawati Bai (P.W. 3) was being interrogated by the police and she was a prime suspect. It has also come in the evidence that villagers suspecting Kalawati Bai (P.W. 3) to be accused had disowned her. Chhitar Lal (P.W. 11) stated as under:- ^^;g ckr lgh gS fd HkS:yky dh yk'k feyus ds ckn xkao okyksa us dykorh ckbZ ij 'kd djds] fd bls rqeus gh ejok;k gS] dykoyh ckbZ dks tkfr ls ckgj dj fn;k FkkA^^ 38. Thus, the conduct of the accused that they took out the dead body from the well and they carried the same to the cremation ground and in the company of other villagers had cremated the dead body cannot be construed as adverse circumstance. Evidence of last seen: 39. Kalawati Bai (P.W. 3) stated that on 22.3.2007 when she had gone to serve meals to her husband, accused were sitting there. The accused are the first cousins of the deceased Bhairu Lal. Their sitting with their cousins cannot be construed as evidence of last seen. It has also come in evidence that the fields of the accused are nearby and to pursue their agriculture fields they had to pass on to the same passage. The accused are the first cousins of the deceased Bhairu Lal. Their sitting with their cousins cannot be construed as evidence of last seen. It has also come in evidence that the fields of the accused are nearby and to pursue their agriculture fields they had to pass on to the same passage. Nathu Lal (P.W. 4) has stated as under:- ^^;g ckr lgh gS fd eqyfteku vius [ksr ij blh jkLrs ls vkrs&tkrs FksA^^ 40. Raja Ram (P.W. 7) stated that he had also seen accused talking with the deceased Bhairu Lal. The evidence of last seen is a weak type of evidence. The Supreme Court regarding evidence of last seen, in the case of State of Goa Vs. Sanjay Thakran and Anr., (2007) 3 SCC 755 ], has held as under:- "31. .... It is a settled rule of criminal jurisprudence that suspicion, however grave, cannot be substituted for a proof and the courts shall take utmost precaution in finding an accused guilty only on the basis of circumstantial evidence. This Court has applied the above-mentioned general principle with reference to the principle of last seen together in Bodhraj v. State of J & K as under: (SCC p. 63, para 31) "31. 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. It would be difficult in some cases to positively establish that the deceased was last seen with the accused when there is a long gap and possibility of other persons coming in between exists. In the absence of any other positive evidence to conclude that the accused and the deceased were last seen together, it would be hazardous to come to a conclusion of guilt in those cases. .." [See also: State of U.P. v. Satish (SCC para 22) and Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy v. State of A.P. (SCC para 27)]. 32. In the absence of any other positive evidence to conclude that the accused and the deceased were last seen together, it would be hazardous to come to a conclusion of guilt in those cases. .." [See also: State of U.P. v. Satish (SCC para 22) and Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy v. State of A.P. (SCC para 27)]. 32. In Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy, this Court further opined that even in the cases where time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive and when the deceased was found dead is too small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible, the courts should look for some corroboration. 33. In Jaswant Gir v. State of Punjab, it was observed that (SCC p. 441, para 5) "5. ..... In the absence of any other links in the chain of circumstantial evidence, it is not possible to convict the appellant solely on the basis of the 'last seen' evidence, even if the version of P.W. 14 in this regard is believed. .." 34. From the principle laid down by this Court, the circumstance of last-seen together would normally be taken into consideration for finding the accused guilty of the offence charged with when it is established by the prosecution that the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were found together alive and when the deceased was found dead is so small that possibility of any other person being with the deceased could completely be ruled out. The time gap between the accused persons seen in the company of the deceased and the detection of the crime would be a material consideration for appreciation of the evidence and placing reliance on it as a circumstance against the accused. But, in all cases, it cannot be said that the evidence of last seen together is to be rejected merely because the time gap between the accused persons and the deceased last seen together and the crime coming to light is after a considerable long duration. But, in all cases, it cannot be said that the evidence of last seen together is to be rejected merely because the time gap between the accused persons and the deceased last seen together and the crime coming to light is after a considerable long duration. There can be no fixed or straight jacket formula for the duration of time gap in this regard and it would depend upon the evidence led by the prosecution to remove the possibility of any other person meeting the deceased in the intervening period, that is to say, if the prosecution is able to lead such an evidence that likelihood of any person other than the accused, being the author the crime, becomes impossible, then the evidence of circumstance of last seen together, although there is long duration of time, can be considered as one of the circumstances in the chain of circumstances to prove the guilt against such accused persons. Hence, if the prosecution proves that in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, there was no possibility of any other person meeting or approaching the deceased at the place of incident or before the commission of the crime, in the intervening period, the proof of last seen together would be relevant evidence. For instance, if it can be demonstrated by showing that the accused persons were in exclusive possession of the place where the incident occurred or where they were last seen together with the deceased, and there was no possibility of any intrusion to that place by any third party, then a relatively wider time gap would not affect the prosecution case". 41. In the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence of last seen alone is not sufficient to record conviction. Evidence of motive: 42. Salag Ram (P.W. 9) is the only witness regarding the motive. This witness has stated in the court that 8-10 days before the death of Bhairu Lal, he had purchased his Bada for sale consideration of Rs. 8,000/-. This witness further stated that thereafter, he was threatened by Narayan Singh that by purchasing the Bada he has not done right thing. It is the case of the prosecution that Narayan Singh due to sale of Bada to Salag Ram (P.W. 9) was feeling offended as he himself was interested to buy Bada. 43. 8,000/-. This witness further stated that thereafter, he was threatened by Narayan Singh that by purchasing the Bada he has not done right thing. It is the case of the prosecution that Narayan Singh due to sale of Bada to Salag Ram (P.W. 9) was feeling offended as he himself was interested to buy Bada. 43. Kalawati Bai (P.W. 3) has also admitted that even after Bada was sold, the relations of accused with the deceased Bhairu Lal remained cordial and they were on talking terms. 44. We would have taken the evidence of Salag Ram (P.W. 9) as an independent circumstance for purposes of corroboration, however, we find that on this material aspect, his statement recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Exhibit-D/4) is silent. In cross-examination, this witness has stated as under:- ^^eq>s Hkh tkus ls ekjus dh /kedh nsus okyh ckr eSusa iqfyl dks crk nh FkhA ;g ckr esjs iqfyl c;ku izn'kZ Mh-4 esa D;ks ugha fy[kh gS] ;g eS ugha crk ldrkA ;g dguk xyr gS fd eSusa ;g ck<+k lk<+s lkr gtkj :i;s esa [kjhnk gks cfYd] vkB gtkj :i;s esa [kjhnk FkkA izn'kZ Mh-4 ds Hkkx , ls ch esa eSusa ;g ck<+k lk<+s lkr gtkj :i;s esa [kjhnus dh ckr ugh fy[kkbZ FkhA^^ 45. To us, Salag Ram (P.W. 9) has also made material improvements and hence, his evidence cannot be accepted at the face value. 46. As already stated by us, the trial court has disbelieved the recovery of quilt, sabbal and blood stained stones. 47. In view of above discussion, we are convinced that it is not safe to hold the conviction and sentence of the appellants. Hence, we shall extend benefit of doubt to the accused as a matter of abundant caution. 48. Consequently, the appeals are accepted and the conviction and sentence awarded upon the appellants are set aside and they are acquitted of all the charges. 49. In view of above, we order that the appellants Narayan Singh and Bal Chand be released forthwith, if in custody and not required in any other case. 50. Keeping, however, in view the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellants Narayan Singh and Bal Chand are directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- each, and surety bond in the like amount, before the trial court. 50. Keeping, however, in view the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellants Narayan Singh and Bal Chand are directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- each, and surety bond in the like amount, before the trial court. The bonds so furnished shall be effective for a period of six months. The bonds shall contain an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the judgment or on grant of leave, the appellants on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon'ble Apex Court.