JUDGMENT : Gopal Krishan Vyas, J. The instant Cr. appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan under Section 378(3) and (1) of the Cr.P.C. to challenge the judgment dated 31.1.1996 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No. 45/1994 by which the learned trial court acquitted the respondents from the charges levelled against them under Sections 306, 498A and 406 IPC and in the alternative under Section 302 IPC while giving benefit of doubt. 2. As per the brief facts of the case, PW - 1 Brij Lal lodged oral report at Police Station Lalgarh Jatan on 17.11.1986 at about 12.30 pm, upon which FIR No. 99 (Ex.P/1) was registered. In the FIR filed by the complainant PW - 1 Brijlal it was alleged that marriage of his daughter Shimla was solemnized with accused Ram Narayan, 10-11 years ago and out of the wedlock of respondent Ram Narayan and his daughter, two daughters and one son was born and at the time of birth of son, some ornaments and cloths were given worth about Rs. 14 thousand, but in-laws of his daughter were not happy with the ornaments and cloths and they made demand of motorcycle, but it was not possible for him to give motorcycle. As per facts stated in the FIR on 12.111.1996 the marriage of the sister-in-law of his daughter Chandra Kanta was solemnized but they were not invited by the in-laws of his daughter deceased Shimla after marriage, complainant sent his son to brought Shimla for some time, but in-laws refused to send her. 3. As per allegation Shimla told his son that her mother-in-law and father-in-law take her ornaments and give to her sister-in-law Chandra Kanta whose marriage is solemnized on 12.11.1996 and they are very angry and they will kill her. In the FIR it is also stated that Shivlal and Surja Ram came to him today and asked that your daughter Shimla died in the night and upon receiving such information, the complainant along with Bhagwat Singh, Raghuveer Singh and Mool Singh went to the house of Ram Narayan where they saw that dead body of Shimal was lying on farsh and there were mark of abrasion and scratches on face and there was bleeding from the mouth of Shimla. 4. 4. The complainant raised doubt that in-laws of her daughter Shimla might have given beating to her and gave poison substance to kill her, therefore, action may be taken against them. 5. On above information, the FIR No. 99 was registered on 17.11.1996 under Sections 498A, 406 and 306 IPC at Police Station Lalgarh Jatan, District Sri Ganganagar and after investigation, charge-sheet was submitted in the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Shadulshahar from where case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar from where case was further transferred to the court of Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar for trial. The learned trial court framed charge under Section 306, 498A, 406 IPC and in the alternative under Section 302 IPC. In the trial statement of 7 prosecution witnesses were recorded including the statement of PW - 1 Brijlal, father of the deceased and PW - 6 Dr. Rajendra Gupta. Thereafter, the statements of respondents were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. but in defence no evidence was produced by the respondents. 6. The learned trial court finally heard the arguments of both the parties and acquitted the respondents from the charges levelled against them vide judgment dated 31.1.1996, against the said judgment, the instant appeal has been preferred by the State of Rajasthan. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that gross error of law has been committed by the learned trial court in acquitting the respondents from the charges levelled against them because there is ample trustworthy circumstantial evidence on record to prove the fact that ornament of the deceased Shimla were forcible taken by her in-laws before her death and due to the said reason, Shimla committed suicide, therefore, it is a case in which prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt for offence under Section 306 IPC. It is also argued that by leading trustworthy evidence, the prosecution has established the case that deceased Shimla died due to unnatural death in her in-laws house and there is no sufficient explanation by the husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law how she died, therefore, this circumstance itself is sufficient to hold respondents guilty for charges levelled against him, but learned trial court committed grave error while acquitting the respondents from the charges levelled against them. Learned Public Prosecutor further argued that finding given by the trial court that prosecution has failed to establish the allegation of cruelty and demand of dowry is not correct because there were injuries upon the body of the deceased Shimla and as per the statement of doctor she died due to consumption of pesticides which was forcibly given to her as per the statement of PW - 3 Raghuveer Singh, brother of the deceased. In view of the above, it is submitted that prosecution led trustworthy evidence to prove the fact that death of the deceased Shimla was unnatural. More so, she was subjected to cruelty and murdered by giving pesticides forcibly, therefore, finding arrived at by the learned trial court deserves to be quashed and respondents are liable to be punished for offence under Sections 306, 406 and 498A IPC and in the alternative under Section 302 IPC. 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that there is no error in the finding given by the learned trial court because to prove the prosecution case, the statement of 7 prosecution witnesses were recorded and there is no direct evidence on record to establish any evidence for offences levelled against the respondents. The case is based upon circumstantial evidence. The learned trial court while considering the statements of PW - 1 Brijlal and PW - 3 Raghuveer Singh, father and brother of the deceased, gave finding that it is a case of suicide by the deceased and there is no evidence for abatement, therefore, the finding which is given by the learned trial court on the basis of oral evidence led by the prosecution does not require any interference. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that admittedly marriage of deceased Shimla was solemnized with respondent Ram Narayan 10-11 years back from the date of incident and as per the statement given under Section 313 Cr.P.C. by the respondents the financial conditions of the family was not good, therefore, on 12.11.1986 when marriage of sister - in-law was solemnized, the ornaments of deceased Shimla were given by her with a view to take back after some day, but due to delay in getting back those ornaments, she committed suicide by consuming pesticides which is to be used in the agricultural field of the respondents. The finding given by the learned trial court is further corroborated from the statement of PW - 6 Dr. Rajendra Kumar Gupta who performed post mortem, so also, FSL report (Ex.P/19). Learned counsel for the respondents further argued that there is no iota of evidence against the respondents to connect them with the offence as on the day on which the deceased committed suicide, the respondent husband was not there because he went to take ornaments back and Dr. Rajendra Kumar Gupta stated in his statement that the bangles of deceased were intact when he performed post mortem, her cloths were not damages, she was wearing some ornaments and as per his opinion, she died due to consumption of pesticides. Therefore, it is a case in which the learned trial court has rightly relied upon the testimony of prosecution witnesses and gave finding that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the finding given by the learned trial court does not require any interference because it is a case in which the deceased Shimla herself consumed pesticides and due to that she died, therefore, the instant appeal may kindly be dismissed. 11. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we have perused the finding given by the learned trial court, so also, the statements of all the 7 prosecution witnesses. 12. PW - 1 Brijlal father of the deceased Shimla. He gave information to the police on the basis of information given by his son PW - 3 Raghuveer, therefore, obviously, his testimony is based upon hear say evidence with regard to allegation of taking ornament forcibly. 13. PW - 2 Bhagwant Singh was Up-Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Ladhuwala. The said witness stated before the court that whole incident was narrated to him by PW - 1 Brijlal. 13. PW - 2 Bhagwant Singh was Up-Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Ladhuwala. The said witness stated before the court that whole incident was narrated to him by PW - 1 Brijlal. The following statement was given by PW - 2, which reads as under:- ^^vkt ls djhc 7 lky igys lqcg ds oDr c`tyky us eq>s crk;k fd dy j?kqchj dks f'keyk dks ykus ds fy, ds fy, Hkstk Fkk ysfdu f'keyk dh llqjkyokyksa us mldks ugha Hkstk] o f'keyk us j?kqchj dks dgk fd mlds llqjkyokyksa us mlds lc tsoj ys fy, vkSj mldh uun dh 'kknh esa uun dks Mky fn,A llqjky okys f'keyk ls cgqr ukjkt gSaA mls ekjsaxsA firk dks dg nsuk fd eq>s xkao ys vkosA ;g ckr f'keyk us j?kqchj dks dgh vkSj c`tyky us eq>s crk;h FkhA c`tyky us eq>s ;g Hkh dgk fd vHkh&vHkh iUuhokys ls ';ksyky o lqjtkjke us vkdj eq>s dgk fd rsjh yM+dh f'keyk dks nkSjk vkus ls jkr mldh e`R;q gks x;h gSA bl ij eSa] j?kqchj flag] c`tyky] o vU; dbZ vkneh iUuh;kokyh x,A** 14. Meaning thereby his testimony is also based upon hear say evidence. 15. PW - 3 Raghuveer is brother of the deceased Shimla. This witness also not present at the time of occurrence. The said witness stated that on 16.11.1986 he went to the house of his sister but testimony of this witness is not accepted by the learned trial court for the simple reason that marriage of sister-in-law of deceased was solemnized on 12.11.1986 and he went to the house of his sister on 16.1.1986 and there is no corroborative evidence on record to support the testimony of PW - 3 Raghuveer. 16. PW - 4 Kashi Ram stated that Brijlal is my childhood friend and marriage of his daughter was solemnized before 20 years and at the time of marriage I was present and in marriage ornaments and some more articles were given and at the time of birth of son Rs. 5000/- was given but no allegation is made by this witness with regard to cruelty or beating by the respondents or any incident of cruelty. Therefore, the learned trial court did not rely upon the statements of this witness. 17. PW - 5 Bhan Singh is the Investigating Officer. PW - 6 is Dr. 5000/- was given but no allegation is made by this witness with regard to cruelty or beating by the respondents or any incident of cruelty. Therefore, the learned trial court did not rely upon the statements of this witness. 17. PW - 5 Bhan Singh is the Investigating Officer. PW - 6 is Dr. Rajendra Kumar Gupta who stated before the court that post mortem report (Ex.P/8) was conducted by him and as per his opinion the cause of death was poison and the injuries which is found upon the body of the deceased can be caused if she fell down. The PW - 6 Dr. Rajendra Kumar Gupta stated in the cross-examination that izn'kZ ih&8 esa ntZ [kjksap o lkstu fxjus ls vk ldrh gSA feJ.k esa tks ,UmkslyQkWu ik;k x;k gS oks dhVuk'kd nokbZ gSA 18. PW - 7 Kashi Ram is also witness of investigating agency. He was working as ASI at Police Station Lalgarh Jatan on 17.11.1986 and he has supported in the investigation. 19. Upon assessment of the above evidence and finding given by the learned trial court, we are of the opinion that there is no direct evidence on record to prove the allegation of abatement or any intention to kill the deceased Shimla. More so, upon perusal of statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. it is obvious that deceased became angry when her ornaments were not returned within the time and due to that she consumed pesticides which is used by the agriculturists in their agricultural field. 20. It is obvious from the record of the case that there is no direct evidence and case is based upon circumstantial evidence. It is settled principle of law that for conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence, prosecution is required to produce evidence to complete the chain of circumstances so as to hold accused guilty for the offence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622 laid down the following parameters/guidelines, which reads as under:- "A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established: the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between 'may be proved' and 'must be or should be proved' as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra(') where the following observations were made: "Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions." (2) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence." 21. We have considered the entire evidence of this case in the light of aforesaid principles and found that the finding given by the learned trial court that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt does not require any interference because prosecution has failed to produce any trustworthy evidence to prove the allegation of abatement or motive/intention of the respondents for committing murder or abatement to commit suicide by the deceased Shimla. 22. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that no error has been committed by the learned trial court to acquit the respondents from the charges levelled against them while giving benefit of doubt vide judgment dated 31.1.1996 passed in Sessions Case No. 45/1994. Therefore, the instant Cr. appeal is hereby dismissed.