JUDGMENT : Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. 1. Anil Kumar (PW-11) was a registered owner of the truck bearing registration No. RJ-32-G-1017. He had employed Raseed Khan (deceased), as driver of the said truck and Nafees Khan, present appellant, as Khalasi/cleaner of the truck. On 30.05.2007 said truck loaded with the goods had left for Delhi after the goods were unloaded. The truck for return journey was again loaded with the goods at Delhi and was coming back for the destination. 2. On 02.06.2007 at about 04:00 A.M. near Gunti bus stand at National Highway No. 8 while going towards Jaipur, Raseed Khan, driver of the truck, bearing registration No. RJ-32-G-1017 was murdered, as a result of shot fired at him. 3. Investigating Agency, after registration of the First Information Report (Exhibit-P/10), during investigation, nominated Nafees Khan, Khalasi/cleaner of the truck as an accused for having caused murder of Raseed Khan, driver of the truck. 4. The Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Behror, District Alwar (Rajasthan), vide its impugned judgment dated 04.01.2008, held the appellant guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, and vide a separate order of even date, sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six month's rigorous imprisonment. 5. Aggrieved against his conviction and sentence, Nafees Khan, present appellant has instituted the present appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 6. In the present case, a First Information Report (Exhibit-P/10) bearing registration No. 249/2007 was registered at Police Station, Behror, District Alwar, on the basis of written-report (Exhibit-P/1) presented by Chimman Lal Saini (PW-1), owner of the Saini Hotel, N.H. 8, near Gunti Bus Stand. 7. The written-report (Exhibit-P/1) presented by Chimman Lal Saini (PW-1), when translated into English reads as under:-- "To, The Station House Officer, Police Station Behror Sir, It is submitted that on 02.06.2007 at about 04:00 A.M., Khalasi of the truck bearing registration No. RJ-32-G-1017 came, disclosed his name as Nafees and stated that driver of the truck, namely Raseed resident of Tonk, has been shot at a distance of kilometer by unidentified hooligans (badmash), dead-body is lying in the truck. The said hooligans looted them. The truck bearing registration No. RJ-32-G-1017 containing dead-body is parked at N.H. No. 8 in front of my hotel. The said hooligans looted them. The truck bearing registration No. RJ-32-G-1017 containing dead-body is parked at N.H. No. 8 in front of my hotel. Report is submitted. The legal action be taken. Applicant Chimman Lal Saini S/o. Hariram, resident of Kotputli presently Owner Saini Hotel, N.H. No. 8" 8. In the Court, Sub Inspector - Mahesh Kumar (PW-13), who was then posted as Station House Officer, Police Station, Behror, has deposed that on 02.06.2007 he received a telephonic call from the owner of Saini Dhaba that Khalasi of the truck, standing before him, disclosed that driver of the truck due to firing of shot has been killed. Dead-body was present in the truck. Upon receipt of above information, this witness reached at the spot, where Chimman Lal Saini (PW-1) presented above written-report (Exhibit-P/1) and the same through Constable - Ransingh, who has not been examined, was sent to the Police Station for registration of the case. This witness, being Investigating Officer of the case, commenced investigation. Investigating Officer stated that near the bonnet of the truck, a pistol was recovered vide memo Exhibit-P/2. The said memo Exhibit-P/2 was attested by Chimman Lal Saini (PW-1) and Rohitash (PW-2). Investigating Officer further stated that before taking pistol into possession, finger prints of the pistol were also lifted by Prahladswaroop (PW-6), who was then posted as Head Constable in M.U. Branch, Superintendent of Police, Alwar. The said finger prints were developed and handed over to the Investigating Officer vide memo Exhibit-P/4. Lastly, Investigating Officer also carried inquest proceedings vide memo Exhibit-P/15. The truck was taken into possession vide memo Exhibit-P/5. The said memo was also attested by Chimman Lal Saini (PW-1) and Rohitash (PW-2) respectively. 9. A perusal of memo Exhibit-P/5 reveals that from the driver side of the truck, Rs. 11,150/- were also recovered from the glove box of the truck. On the very same day, i.e. on 02.06.2007 at about 05:30 P.M. vide memo Exhibit-P/7 also, Nafees Khan was arrested by the Investigating Officer. Two days after arrest of the accused, i.e. on 04.06.2007, Head Constable - Prahladswaroop had taken specimen finger prints of the accused vide memo Exhibit-P/8 in presence of Constable -Yogendra Singh (PW-3) and Constable - Mahaveer Singh, not examined. 10. Two days after arrest of the accused, i.e. on 04.06.2007, Head Constable - Prahladswaroop had taken specimen finger prints of the accused vide memo Exhibit-P/8 in presence of Constable -Yogendra Singh (PW-3) and Constable - Mahaveer Singh, not examined. 10. Prosecution, in order to secure conviction of the appellant, had examined as many as thirteen witnesses, namely Chimman Lal (PW-1), Rohitash (PW-2), Yogendra Singh (PW-3), Mange Ram (PW-4), Siya Ram (PW-5), Prahlad Swaroop (PW-6), Bhagwan Lal (PW-7), Satyaveer (PW-8), Dr. Satveer Yadav (PW-9), Bunty (PW-10), Anil Kumar (PW-11), Sampat Khan (PW-12) and Mahesh Kumar (PW-13) respectively. The prosecution has also proved on record documents Exhibit-P/1 to Exhibit-P/17 respectively. 11. Thereafter, prosecution closed its evidence and the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused denied all incriminating circumstances put to him and raised a plea that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. 12. No witness was examined in defence. The defence only got exhibited statements of Chimman Lal Saini (PW-1) and Anil Kumar (PW-11) recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as Exhibit-D/1 and Exhibit-D/2 respectively. 13. Before the trial Court, Chimman Lal Saini (PW-1), being owner of the Saini Hotel, has deposed regarding presentation of written-report (Exhibit-P/1) and the fact that accused came to him and disclosed that driver of the truck has been murdered. This witness had also attested various memos regarding recovery of pistol vide memo Exhibit-P/2 from the cabin of the truck, preparation of the site-plan, vide memo Exhibit-P/3, lifting of the chance finger prints from the pistol of the truck vide memo Exhibit-P4 and regarding recovery of the truck vide memo Exhibit-P/5. 14. In cross-examination, this witness (PW-1) admitted that before occurrence, neither driver nor conductor of the truck were not known to him. This witness further admitted that when Nafees Khan came to him, at that time, Police arrived at the spot and the truck was lying parked. Lastly, this witness admitted that Nafees Khan came to him and informed that the driver of the truck has been killed by unidentified hooligan (badmash). 15. Rohitash (PW-2), another witness to the various memos prepared at the spot, turned hostile to the prosecution. 16. Yogendra Singh (PW-3), in the Court deposed that in his presence, accused was arrested vide memo Exhibit-P/7 and Police vide memo Exhibit-P/8 had taken specimen finger prints of the accused. 17. 15. Rohitash (PW-2), another witness to the various memos prepared at the spot, turned hostile to the prosecution. 16. Yogendra Singh (PW-3), in the Court deposed that in his presence, accused was arrested vide memo Exhibit-P/7 and Police vide memo Exhibit-P/8 had taken specimen finger prints of the accused. 17. A.S.I. Mangeram (PW-4) stated that on 02.06.2007 Constable -Ransingh brought a written-report (Exhibit-P/1) on the basis of which he had drawn a formal First Information Report (Exhibit-P/10). 18. Siyaram (PW-5) turned hostile to the prosecution and stated that the Police had not prepared any site-plan in his presence. 19. Head Constable - Prahlad Swaroop (PW-6) stated that on 02.06.2007 he was posted in the M.U. Branch, Superintendent of Police, Alwar. On information received from Station House Officer, Behror, he reached at the spot. This witness had lifted finger prints from the window of the driver side. 20. Constable - Sunderlal (PW-7) stated that he had carried two sealed packets, which included chance finger prints to the State Forensic Science Laboratory Rajasthan, Jaipur. 21. Satyaveer (PW-8) deposed that after Post Mortem, ring and pellets recovered from the dead-body were taken into possession by the Police vide memo Exhibit-P/9. 22. Dr. Satveer Yadav (PW-9) proved Post Mortem Report (Exhibit-P/13) and as per opinion of the Doctor, cause of death was shock, as a result of injury caused to the liver by the firearm. 23. Bunty (PW-10) was called at the spot, being photographer. He proved on record photographs of the spot vide memo Exhibit-P/14 to Exhibit-P/18 respectively. 24. As stated earlier, Anil Kumar (PW-11) is owner of the truck. 25. Sampat Khan (PW-12) stated that he was posted as Head Constable at Police Station, Behror. This witness being Incharge of the Malkhana, proved on record receipt of sealed packets and their onward transmission to the State Forensic Science Laboratory Rajasthan, Jaipur through Constable - Sunderlal (PW-7). 26. Sub Inspector - Mahesh Kumar (PW-13) had proved on record various facets of the investigation. 27. We have heard Mr. Raghunandan Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant, as well as, Mr. Aladeen Khan, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Rajasthan, and perused the impugned judgment as well as, entire record of the case. 28. In the present case, no eye-witness of the alleged occurrence has been examined. It is a case of circumstantial evidence. Raghunandan Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant, as well as, Mr. Aladeen Khan, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Rajasthan, and perused the impugned judgment as well as, entire record of the case. 28. In the present case, no eye-witness of the alleged occurrence has been examined. It is a case of circumstantial evidence. The prosecution had relied upon following two circumstances:-- "(A) THAT accused was last present, along with the deceased and in his presence, occurrence had taken place. (B) THAT from the truck, pistol, weapon of offence was recovered and from the said truck chance finger prints were lifted and later specimen finger prints of the accused were also taken into possession." 29. We have perused the report submitted by the Director, Finger Prints Bureau, Rajasthan, Jaipur on 30.11.2007. The said report has not been exhibited on the record. As per report, chance finger prints marked C, C/2, C/3 and C/5 were unfit for comparison as ridge details of finger prints were not readable. However, as per report, photograph marked as C/1 of finger print lifted from spot is similar and identical with the specimen left middle finger print photograph marked S of Nafees Khan. Similarly, chance finger print marked C/4 is similar and identical with the specimen of right index finger photograph marked S/1 of Nafees Khan. C/1 specimen finger print has been lifted from the back side glass pane of window on the driver side, whereas chance finger prints C/4 was also lifted from the glass window panes of the truck. The finger print lifted from the pistol C/3, as per report was not fit for comparison. Thus, prosecution has failed to tally the finger prints on the pistol with the specimen finger prints of the accused. 30. So far as presence of the finger prints of the accused on various portions of the truck is concerned, they are bound to be there, as admittedly, accused-appellant was employed as Khalasi/cleaner on the truck, therefore, this circumstance cannot be relied upon against the accused. 31. So far as presence of the accused in the truck is concerned, he had admitted his presence. He had offered his explanation that unidentified hooligan (badmash) came, fired shot and caused death of Raseed Khan. 31. So far as presence of the accused in the truck is concerned, he had admitted his presence. He had offered his explanation that unidentified hooligan (badmash) came, fired shot and caused death of Raseed Khan. The explanation given by the accused may be true or may be false, but that in itself is not sufficient for us to uphold his conviction. Furthermore, prosecution has miserably failed to prove the chain of circumstance to arrive at a conclusion that the offence, if any, has been committed by the appellant alone and by nobody else. 32. A Division Bench of this Court to which one of us (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.) was a Member, in D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 823/2006 (Manveer & another v. State of Rajasthan), decided on May 13, 2015, had noted the law regarding circumstantial evidence as under:-- "18) We are thus of the considered opinion that the present case rests on circumstantial evidence and it is the settled proposition of law that in case of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish "a cogent and reliable evidence" to lead a hypothesis accepting guilt of the accused. In other words, the circumstances must be incriminating in character and all circumstances must provide a complete chain and no link of which should be missing. A critical and holistic analysis of the evidence thus clearly reveals that the prosecution has failed to travel the distance between "may be true" and "must be true". Although the prosecution has produced certain evidence, but there are too many pieces of the jigsaw puzzle, which are conspicuously missing. The evidence is neither cogent nor convincing for upholding the conviction of the appellants for the alleged crime. Our view has been fortified by judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sampath Kumar v. Inspector of Police, Krishanagiri, (2012) 4 SCC 124 , wherein the Apex Court has held that motive alone in the absence of any other circumstantial evidence would not be sufficient to convict the appellant. On the materials on record, there may be some suspicion against the accused but as is often said, suspicion, howsoever, strong cannot take the place of proof. (19) The circumstances, which have been brought against the appellants, cannot lead to a conclusion of guilt and even circumstances have not been fully established in the facts and circumstances of the present case. (19) The circumstances, which have been brought against the appellants, cannot lead to a conclusion of guilt and even circumstances have not been fully established in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Our view has been fortified by judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of M.P.: AIR 1952 SC 343 and further by another judgment recently passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Vasanta Sampat Dupare v. State of Maharashtra: (2015) 1 SCC 253 , wherein Their Lordships have reiterated the principles governing the appreciation of evidence in a case based on circumstantial evidence and held, as under:-- "It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused." 33. In view of above discussion, therefore, we are not persuaded to uphold the conviction of the accused-appellants, which is founded entirely on circumstantial evidence. The chain of circumstances against the accused-appellant has got several missing links. Neither individual circumstances are established against the accused-appellant beyond any reasonable doubt nor do they form a chain of circumstance so complete, as to rule out every reasonable hypothesis that may be compatible with his innocence. The circumstances do not conclusively prove that it was only the accused-appellant, who could have committed the murder of deceased and none-else. The individual act independently or collectively, which have been brought on record against the appellant, are not sufficient to connect him with the alleged crime and hence, it would not be safe to record his conviction. Therefore, we grant the benefit of doubt to the appellant. 34. In the result, the present appeal is allowed. The individual act independently or collectively, which have been brought on record against the appellant, are not sufficient to connect him with the alleged crime and hence, it would not be safe to record his conviction. Therefore, we grant the benefit of doubt to the appellant. 34. In the result, the present appeal is allowed. The impugned-judgment dated 04.01.2008 rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Behror in Sessions Case No. 38/2007 (29/2007) is set-aside. The accused-appellant is acquitted of the charge for offence under Sections 302 IPC. He be released forthwith, if is in custody and not required in any other case. However, in case, he is on bail, he need not surrender and his bail bonds shall be discharged subject to compliance of Section 437A Cr.P.C. The records be sent back to the trial court forthwith. 35. Keeping, however, in view the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, appellant is directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- [Rupees Twenty Thousand Only] and a 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 appellant, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court.