JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma,J.: By way of present appeal State of Himachal Pradesh has assailed the judgment dated 31.10.2009 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, whereby the respondents-accused, who were charged with and tried for the offences punishable under section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, have been acquitted. 2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 16th July, 2008 someone telephoned to Police Station, Padhar at Drang, vide Rapat No.38 informing that in a place called Megal, dead body of one person is lying. After receiving the aforesaid information, SI/SHO Shri Prem Dass of Police Station, Padhar at Drang alongwith ASI Lal Singh reached at Megal, where they were joined by Shri Rajinder Singh, Ward Panch, Gram Panchayat, Tandi and Shri Sawal Chand. 3. As per prosecution story, Shri Rajinder Singh, Ward Panch, Gram Panchayat, Tandi in statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. made before SI/SHO Prem Dass stated that on 16th July, 2008 at about 6.00 A.M., when he was going to Megal Nalla for attending the call of nature, he saw that a person was lying below the road. Immediately, thereafter, he and Shri Sawal Chand went near the dead body and found that one aged Sikh person, whose turban was lying near his legs and yellow coloured cloth (Patka) was strangulated around his neck. He and Sawal Chand saw the person after reaching near to him and found that he was dead. Thereafter, he informed the police from his mobile phone immediately. The police of Police Station, Padhar at Drang reached at spot and saw the factual position on the spot and the artificial teeth of the deceased were lying by the side of National Highway-20 and the yellow coloured cloth `Patka' was strangulated around his neck and there were marks on the neck and blood was also oozed out from the mouth and tongue was also bulging and from penis semen also came out and all these symptoms were indicating that some one had killed Sikh gentleman after strangulating him from the neck. As per story of prosecution, immediately after recording the statement of Shri Rajinder Singh, SI/SHO Prem Dass found that a case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is made out and on this he sent ruka for registration of case through Constable Dhani Ram, on the basis of which FIR was registered in Police Station. 4. Further, it is also the case of the prosecution that SI/SHO Prem Dass himself took the investigation of the case and prepared site plan and also obtained photographs from the government camera. The inquest forms were also prepared and the dead body was sent for conducting postmortem examination to Zonal Hospital, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh. The jaw of the artificial teeth, turban, hair, which were also lying on the spot, were also taken into possession vide memo and after autopsy of the dead body was performed in Zonal Hospital, Mandi. Thereafter, dead body was kept in Zonal Hospital, Mandi in the dead house for identification. The photographs of the dead body were developed and were displayed in local TV Channel. As per prosecution story, the police personnel were also sent to Pathankot and other public places alongwith the photographs in order to identify the dead body. Ultimately, on 19th July, 2008 after getting the orders from the Sub Divisional Magistrate, the dead body was cremated and receipt was handed over to the Committee. 5. It is further case of the prosecution that on 29th July, 2008, Sub Inspector Punjab Singh of Police Station, Sadar, Batala (Punjab), who had arrested the accused Kuldeep Singh in case FIR No.61 of 2008, dated 27.7.2008, lodged in Police Station, Batala, under Section 364 IPC, was brought to the Police Station, Padhar at Drang, District Mandi, H.P. for demarcation and he had also brought one Shri Dilbag Singh, cousin of the deceased Shri Gurmukh Singh since Shri Dilbag Singh, after seeing the photographs of deceased Gurmukh Singh, had identified the deceased as Gurmukh Singh, his cousin, son of Shri Payara Singh, caste Jat, resident of Saniya, Tehsil and Police Station, Sadar Batala, District Gurdaspur, Punjab, aged 62 years. Punjab Police had brought him to Mandi for identification of the body. Punjab Police had brought him to Mandi for identification of the body. After interrogation, accused Kuldeep Singh, disclosed to the SI/SHO Prem Dass that on the intervening night of 15th/16th July, 2008, he alongwith co-accused Wazir Masih alias Shabi and the deceased Gurmukh Singh had first taken liquor jointly and thereafter they all went to Batala market in the deceased vehicle bearing registration No.PB-18D-7476. As per prosecution story, both the above named accused motivated deceased Gurmukh Singh that they will perform his marriage in Himachal Pradesh. Their intention was to grab his property after killing him and as such they had taken him to Himachal Pradesh. As per story of prosecution, on the way, both the accused purchased one half of liquor and they administered medicine ?Alprix? in the wine glass of the deceased and they both consumed the liquor with the deceased. After taking liquor deceased Gurmukh Singh became unconscious and in unconscious state of deceased Gurmuikh Singh both the accused made him to lay on the rear seat of the car and came in the vehicle to Mandi side of Himachal Pradesh. According to the prosecution case, both the accused persons Wazir Masih alias Shabi and Kuldeep Singh made the car stationery by the side of the road where accused Wazir Masih alias Shabi strangulated the deceased after putting the cloth (Patka) around his neck and when the deceased started struggling, accused Kuldeep Singh pressed his feet and thereafter both the accused dragged the deceased from the rear seat of the car and thrown him in the `dhank'. After throwing the deceased in the dhank, both the accused took the car to Kullu, where they first met Shri Amit Kumar son of Shri Brij Mohan alias Pappu, who runs a mechanic shop near the Truck Union Office, Kullu and belongs to Batala, Punjab. As per prosecution story, at that time, Shri Amit Kumar and Brij Mohan were present in the shop, where accused Kuldeep Singh talked with them regarding selling of car but Amit Kumar and his father Brij Mohan refused to purchase the vehicle in the absence of original owner. The accused Kuldeep Singh also asked Shri Amit Kumar and his father to purchase gas kit but the same was also refused by the above named persons. 6. The accused Kuldeep Singh also asked Shri Amit Kumar and his father to purchase gas kit but the same was also refused by the above named persons. 6. It is also the case of the prosecution that thereafter both the accused took Shri Amit Kumar to Punjab National Bank, Akhara Bazar, State Bank of Patiala and S.B.I. Dhalpur, Kullu for withdrawal of money from ATM but they did not succeed in drawing the money. At this stage, Shri Amit Kumar put the petrol of Rs.100/- in car and then both the accused came towards Mandi side in the car. 7. Prosecution has further stated that after reaching Bhunter, Kullu, both the accused met with one Shri Vijay Kumar, who runs mechanic shop by the side of road and also belongs to Batala (Punjab) for selling of the car but Shri Vijay Kumar also refused to purchase the car. As per prosecution story, since both the accused were running short of money they sold Mobile phone Nokia-1100 in one shop for Rs.300/- and got the petrol filled in the car and came towards Mandi side. Prosecution has also stated that both the accused were going to Batala via Jogindernagar and at a place known as Narla, they also mortgaged the car stereo with the owner of ?Sahid Hira Singh Filling Station? and got ten liters petrol in the car then went to Batala. 8. It is also the case of the prosecution that accused Kuldeep Singh who was arrested on 1.8.2008 made disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and demarcated the spot and stereo which was mortgaged by the accused and lateron recovered by Punjab Police and bill book No.39501 to 40100 was taken into possession vide recovery memo. Prosecution has further stated in its case that another accused Wazir Masih alias Shabi was in judicial custody, in a case, of Police Station, Sadar, Batala, Gurdaspur, Punjab, and after obtaining production warrant from the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Mandi, accused was produced before the Court on 23.8.2008, wherein his custody was transferred in this case to the police and he was arrested. During police custody accused Wazir Masih alias Shabi also gave disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and consequently whereof, shoes of deceased Gurmukh Singh were recovered from the spot, which were identified by Shri Dilbag Singh, cousin of the deceased Gurmukh Singh and were taken into possession by the police and spot map was also prepared. As per prosecution story, at the demarcation of the accused Wazir Masih alias Shabi, Mobile Nokia-1100 belonging to the deceased Gurmukh Singh was also recovered from Bhunter and the said Mobile Nokia was also identified by his cousin Dilbag Singh and was taken into possession and memo was prepared to this effect. The car No.PB-18D-7476 belonging to the deceased Gurmukh Singh was also taken into possession by the Punjab Police vide memo alongwith its documents. 9. It is also the case of the prosecution that during investigation, it transpired that against both the accused an FIR No.61/08, dated 22.7.2008 under Section 364 IPC was registered at Police Station, Sadar Batala, Gurdaspur and another FIR No.135/08, dated 22.7.2008, under Sections 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code regarding theft of vehicle No.PB-18D-7476, was registered with Police Station, Kalkurd, District Firozpur (Punjab). 10. After investigating the case in detail, SHO, Police Station, Padhar at Drang prepared final report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and filed the same in the competent Court of law. After committal of the case to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, the case was assigned to the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Mandi. The Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Mandi framed the charge on 12.03.2009 against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian penal Code to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 11. The prosecution examined as many as 21 witnesses in all to prove its case against the accused. Statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. where they denied the case of the prosecution and claimed themselves to be innocent. According to them they have been falsely implicated in the case. 12. Learned trial Court below after examining the entire evidence oral as well as documentary made available on the record passed judgment dated 30.10.2009, where both the accused were acquitted of the charges framed against them. 13. According to them they have been falsely implicated in the case. 12. Learned trial Court below after examining the entire evidence oral as well as documentary made available on the record passed judgment dated 30.10.2009, where both the accused were acquitted of the charges framed against them. 13. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment dated 31.10.2009, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Mandi, the appellant-State filed the instant appeal on several grounds. 14. Mr.M.A. Khan, learned Additional Advocate General, while appearing for the appellant-State, has vehemently argued that the impugned judgment passed by learned trial Court is wrong on facts as well as on law since the same is based on hypothetical reasoning, surmises and conjectures. He further argued that learned trial Court has miserably failed to appreciate the evidence on record and has acquitted the accused persons on flimsy grounds. During arguments, he submitted that while passing judgment, learned trial Court has not taken prosecution evidence in its right perspective but has set unrealistic standard to evaluate direct as well as cogent prosecution evidence. He further submitted that reasoning given by the trial Court while acquitting the accused is manifestly un-reasonable and unsustainable because there was no reason at all for the trial Court to discard the well reasoned and consistent testimony of the prosecution witnesses on material points. 15. On the other hand Shri B.S. Chauhan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.Vaibhav Tanwar, Advocate, defended the judgment passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Mandi, dated 31.10.2009. He vehemently supported the reasoning given by the learned trial Court while acquitting the accused of the charges framed against them. 16. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case carefully. 17. Albeit, during the hearing of the case, we had gone through the statement of each and every material witness put forth by prosecution to prove its case, but it would be apt in the interest of justice to critically examine them once again. 18. PW-1, Rajinder Kumar, who is a Member of Gram Panchayat, Tandu, was the first person to see dead body of deceased Gurmukh Singh while he was going to attend the call of nature on 16.07.2008 at about 6.00 A.M. at Megal Nalla. 18. PW-1, Rajinder Kumar, who is a Member of Gram Panchayat, Tandu, was the first person to see dead body of deceased Gurmukh Singh while he was going to attend the call of nature on 16.07.2008 at about 6.00 A.M. at Megal Nalla. As per his statement he saw that the dead body was lying face downwards near Nalla and yellow/saffron coloured piece of cloth ?Patka? Ex.P3 was around the neck of the deceased and turban Ex.P4 was also found on the spot. As per his statement, he immediately informed the police of Police Station, Padhar at Drang and thereafter, police visited the spot and he gave statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW-1/A and his signatures were also obtained. He further states that in his presence police took into possession hair and the denture Ex.P1 and ?Patka? Ex.P3 vide recovery memo Ex.PW-1/B, which was also signed by him and Shri Sawal Chand in his presence. The artificial denture Ex.P1 was also taken into possession by the police vide memo Ex.PW-1/C. As per his statement, the inquest reports Ex.PW-1/D and Ex.PW-1/E were also prepared in his presence by the Investigating Officer. It is pertinent to point out at this stage that though accused did not dispute his statement but it remained unexplained that why prosecution has failed to associate Shri Sawal Chand as witness, who was also present with PW-1 Rajinder Kumar on 16.07.2008 at about 6.00 A.M. and saw the body alongwith Mr.Rajinder Kumar. Even as per statement of PW-1 Shri Rajinder Kumar Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 were taken into possession by the police vide recovery memo Ex.PW-1/B which was also signed by him and Shri Sawal Chand in his presence. 19. PW-2 Shri Chint Ram has been produced by the prosecution as a witness to the alleged disclosure statement Ex.PW-2/A made by accused Kuldeep Singh to the police in his presence as well as in the presence of another witness Shri Bhupender Sharma. As per his statement, accused Kuldeep Singh had taken him, the police party, and said Shri Bhupender Sharma to Megal and had shown the place where the body was thrown by them at Megal Nalla. In his statement he has stated that the identification memo Ex.PW-2/B was also prepared and he and Shri Bhupender Sharma signed it at point `B'. As per his statement, accused Kuldeep Singh had taken him, the police party, and said Shri Bhupender Sharma to Megal and had shown the place where the body was thrown by them at Megal Nalla. In his statement he has stated that the identification memo Ex.PW-2/B was also prepared and he and Shri Bhupender Sharma signed it at point `B'. In his statement he also stated that the bill book Ex.P5, which was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW-2/C from PW-3 Shri Rattan Singh, was also taken in his presence. In his cross-examination he has admitted that he is HHG personnel posted in Police Station, Drang, for the last 1½ years. In his cross-examination, he categorically admits that police of Police Station, Drang was already knowing the place where the dead body was lying and he was not aware that since when the accused was in police custody. According to him, the statement Ex.PW-2/A was recorded by SHO Prem Dass PW-21 at Police Station after coming from place of occurrence. He also states that both the memos i.e. Ex.PW- 2/B and Ex.PW-2/C were written in the police station after visiting the place of occurrence. He in his statement categorically stated that no statement of accused Kuldeep Singh was recorded before going to the spot and the entire papers were prepared after visiting the spot. As per his statement when they returned back from the spot one Bhupender Sharma was also called from his house to the police station and his signatures were obtained on the entire papers. He further denies in his cross-examination that he ever visited Filling Station at Narla. He categorically states in his cross-examination that his signatures on Ex.PW-2/C at point `A' were obtained in police station Padhar at Drang. He also denies that he knows Pankaj Kumar son of Shri Raghunath, resident of village Narla. In his cross-examination he has stated that signatures on Ex.P5 at Sr.No.39878 at Mark `K' were not done by any body in his presence. He also states in his cross-examination that he does not know the accused Wazir Masih alias Shabi nor he had seen him during the investigation of the case in the Police Station, Padhar at Drang. In his cross-examination he has stated that signatures on Ex.P5 at Sr.No.39878 at Mark `K' were not done by any body in his presence. He also states in his cross-examination that he does not know the accused Wazir Masih alias Shabi nor he had seen him during the investigation of the case in the Police Station, Padhar at Drang. From the perusal of the statement given by Shri Chint Ram, PW-2 it clarly emerges that police was already aware of the place of occurrence and all the documents were prepared while sitting in the Police Station and the alleged disclosure statement Ex.PW-2/A was never given by accused Kuldeep Singh as have been projected by prosecution. Statement of PW-2 clearly suggests that Bhupender Sharma was also not present on the spot and his signatures on papers etc. were also obtained in Police Station. At this stage, it is also not understood that once Bhupender Sharma was also taken with accused Kuldeep Kumar to the site of occurrence then why his statement was not got recorded and he was sited as a prosecution witness. Story of prosecution of procuring bill book Ex.P5 from Filling Station at Narla has not been supported by Shri Chint Ram PW-2, who has denied going to the Filling Station, Narla and, as such, question of taking into possession bill book Ex.P5 by the police does not arise at all. 20. PW-3 Shri Rattan Singh has not supported the prosecution case at all. He categorically states that he was not present on 16.07.2008 in Filling Station at Narla and he never handed over bill book Ex.P5 to the police vide recovery memo Ex.PW-2/C. He also denied that receipt No.39878 of bill book Ex.P5 was issued by him. He also denied that he hold deck/stereo with him in police station at Narla. He categorically stated that signatures were obtained by the police in some papers in Police Station, Padhar at Drang. However, this witness was declared hostile by the prosecution. 21. He also denied that he hold deck/stereo with him in police station at Narla. He categorically stated that signatures were obtained by the police in some papers in Police Station, Padhar at Drang. However, this witness was declared hostile by the prosecution. 21. PW-4 Shri Rajesh Kumar in his examination-in-chief stated that on 16.07.2008 at about 1.00 -1.30 P.M. when he was sitting in his shop near Bhunter bus stand, one maruti car in which accused Wazir Masih alias Shabi, present in the Court, came out and told him that since he has no money to buy the petrol, he wants to sell his Mobile Nokia-1100 Ex.P6 for a sum of Rs.700/-, which was purchased by him at the cost of Rs.300/-. He further stated that on 25.08.2008 he was called by Shri Rajesh Kumar to his shop at Bhunter where police was present alongwith accused Wazir Masih alias Shabi and Shri Rajesh Kumar asked him about Mobile Nokia set and he handed over it to the police vide memo Ex.PW-4/A in the presence of witness Shri Dhani Ram and Shri Rajesh Kumar. The Mobile Nokia was packed in a parcel and sealed with seal `S'. In his cross-examination he categorically stated that he was not knowing the accused Wazir Masih alias Shabi prior to that incident nor he has seen him thereafter. He also states that they are two brothers but he does not know the date of birth of his brother. In crossexamination he says that neither any Sikh person was with the police party on that day nor signatures of any Sikh person were obtained on the papers. He also stated in his crossexamination that he cannot tell the date that after how many days of his purchase of Mobile phone (Nokia) the police came again at Bhunter. According to him, no seal was affixed on the cover of cloth in which Mobile Nokia-1100 was packed and such type of mobiles are common and are easily available in the market. He further states in his cross-examination that the cost of Mobile Nokia is Rs.250/- in the market. Perusal of statement of aforesaid witness clear suggests that there is no special identification mark on Mobile Nokia-1100 Ex.P6 which, as per him, was easily available in the market. He further states in his cross-examination that the cost of Mobile Nokia is Rs.250/- in the market. Perusal of statement of aforesaid witness clear suggests that there is no special identification mark on Mobile Nokia-1100 Ex.P6 which, as per him, was easily available in the market. As per his statement, the date which he mentioned on selling the Mobile Nokia-1100 by accused Wazir Masih alias Shabi was told to him in the Court. As per his statement he saw accused Wazir Masih alias Shabi for one day only and thereafter he did not see him and the alleged identification by him of accused Wazir Masih alias Shabi in the Court also suggests that he was asked to depose against the accused at the instance of interested person. Again at this juncture it is not understood why the two crucial witnesses Dhani Ram and Rajesh Kumar did not come forward to support the version of PW-4 because as per statement of PW-4 he was called by Shri Rajesh Kumar to his shop at Bhunter on 25.08.2008 where police was present alongwith accused Wazir Masih alias Shabi. As per his statement, he had handed over Mobile Nokia-1100 vide memo Ex.PW-4/A to the police in the presence of witnesses Shri Dhani Ram and Shri Rajesh Kumar but certainly it remained unexplained that why prosecution failed to site them witnesses who could definitely strengthen the statement given by PW-4. 22. Shri Amit Kumar, PW-5, which was another material witness for the prosecuton has been stated to be resident of village Batala, District Gurdaspur. He stated in his statement that about 7-8 months earlier to his deposition in the Court accused came to him in Maruti 800 car and told him that he is having ATM Card of Oriental bank and wanted to withdraw money from the bank. He accompanied the accused to ATM of PNB, Akhara Bazar but the money could not be withdrawn of that ATM. Thereafter, he accompanied the accused to State Bank of Patiala, there also the money could not be withdrawn from machine after due application of ATM card in the machine. As per his statement, he even accompanied the accused Kuldeep Singh SBI, Dhalpur, there also the money could not be withdrawn. Thereafter, he accompanied the accused to State Bank of Patiala, there also the money could not be withdrawn from machine after due application of ATM card in the machine. As per his statement, he even accompanied the accused Kuldeep Singh SBI, Dhalpur, there also the money could not be withdrawn. He states in his statement that Manager, SBI, Dhalpur told accused Kuldeep Singh that since ATM has been newly issued and the money has to be drawn first by way of voucher. But the accused Kuldeep Singh did not apply for withdrawal of money through voucher. He was having a pass book of Oriental Bank and R.C. of the vehicle, which were in the name of Gurmukh Singh. 23. PW-5 in his statement further states that accused Kuldeep Singh told him about selling of car but since the Registration Certificate of the car was in the name of Gurmukh Singh so the purchaser of the vehicle told that if Gurmukh Singh sell the car to him only then he will purchase. The accused Kuldeep Singh thereafter went to Bhunter and did not come to them. But, in cross-examination PW-5 states that he has not seen ATM card, Registration Certificate and Pass Book in the Court. He categorically stated that he did not know the accused person prior to that incident nor he ever met that prior to that day. He has seen accused person only in the Court. He also denied having told to the police in his statement that he was knowing the accused Kuldeep Singh prior to that incident and he was serving in police department of Punjab and was known to his father. In his cross-examination he was also unable to state the name and address of the person of the purchaser who had agreed to purchase the alleged car. Though in his cross-examination he stated that it was told to the police that they had shown the car to some customer but admittedly in his statement mark `X' it is not so recorded. From the perusal of the statement of PW-5 it emerges that accused person 7-8 months prior to deposition made by PW-5 in the Court visited the shop of his father at Kullu and his statement was recorded on 3rd July, 2009. From the perusal of the statement of PW-5 it emerges that accused person 7-8 months prior to deposition made by PW-5 in the Court visited the shop of his father at Kullu and his statement was recorded on 3rd July, 2009. It clearly emerges from the statement that accused person had visited PW-4 7-8 months prior to deposition/statement recorded in the Court on 3rd July, 2009 but to the contrary the prosecution case is that the accused visited Kullu on 16th July, 2008. Interestingly, no ATM and pass book of the deceased Gurmukh Singh were ever taken into possession by the police and nor there is anything on record to suggest that any ATM was issued in the name of deceased Gurmukh Singh. Prosecution has also not attempted to ascertain whether the deceased Gurmukh Singh was having pass book of Oriental Bank and who was the Manager of SBI, Dhalpur, who asked Kuldeepp Singh that the money can be withdrawn by way of voucher. Moreover, it has been specifically stated by Amit Kumar, PW-5 that he was not knowing the accused prior to the incident nor he ever disclosed that who was the customer who had agreed to purchase the said car and what was the special identification mark of Maruti 800 car. It also remained unexplained that once as per the version of prosecution Amit Kumar had stated before the Police that vehicle was shown to the customer but he refused to purchase the vehicle in absence of original owner, why Investigating Officer did not make any attempt to associate the so called customer, if any. 24. Shri Satish Kumar PW-6, HHC Suresh Kumar, PW-7, HC Krishan Chand, PW-9 are formal witnesses and their statements are not required to be dealt with at this stage. 25. HC Leela Dhar PW-10 who was posted in Police Station Padhar at Drang as Investigating Officer and is the witness of alleged disclosure statement of Wazir Masih @ Shabi Ext.PW-10/A. This witness has admitted his signatures on Ext.PW-10/A at point –A and identification memo Ext.PW-10/B, Sample Seal Ext.PW-10/C and has identified the shoes Ext.PW-10/D and Ext.PW-10/E which are stated to be recovered from the spot at the instance of accused Wazir Masih @ Shabi. In his cross-examination, PW-10 states that the shoes Ext.PW- 10/D and Ext.PW-10/E are commonly available everywhere. In his cross-examination, PW-10 states that the shoes Ext.PW- 10/D and Ext.PW-10/E are commonly available everywhere. He then stated in his crossexamination that he was posted in Police Station Padhar since 2008 and accused Wazir Masih @ Shabi was in police custody for two days prior to the recovery of shoes. According to him, the statement was given by accused Wazir Masih @ Shabia at 10-11 AM on 24.8.2008 in the Police Station. He also states that Dilbag Singh had also come in the Police Station prior to 24.8.2008 but he cannot tell the date and time nor he knows that for what purpose Dilbag Singh PW-15 had come to the Police Station. As per his statement in cross-examination, the pair of shoes was kept at one place about 7-8 feet below the road and there is steep slope downwards from the road. He also does not know the number of car and its owner and driver. But he states that they all came from the Police Station in a private van. The statement of PW-10 has not pointed out the alleged exact place from where alleged shoes Ext.PW-10/D and 10/E were actually recovered because as per his statement, shoes were kept at one place about 7-8 feet below the road and there was a steep slope downwards the road. At this stage, if we peruse his statement in the light of the statement given by another witness Satish Kumar PW-11, there are lot of contradictions and cannot be relied upon. Though, we will point out the major discrepancies and contradictions while discussing the evidence of PW-11, one major contradiction, at this stage which can be pointed out is that as per statement of PW-10, they came from the Police Station on the spot in a private van but Santosh Kumar PW-11 has categorically stated that they went in the Mahinder Jeep. 26. Shri Santosh Kumar PW-11 stated that he had gone to the Police Station on 24.8.2008 in connection with his personal work and accused Wazir Masih @ Shabi gave disclosure statement Ext.PW-10/A wherein he also admitted the signatures on Ext.PW-10/A, identification Memo Ext.PW-10/B and has identified the shoes Ext.PW-10/D and Ext.PW-10/E. In his cross-examination aforesaid Santosh Kumar PW-11 states that his house is situated at a distance of 1 KM from Police Station Padhar. He also states that he was never elected as Pradhan, Panch, and other office bearer of the Panchayat. He visited the Police Station in connection with the verification regarding his land as there was necessity of verification of land though he had no knowledge that what type of verification was to be done by the Police when his father was alive on 24.8.2008, because as per record, his father died on 4.1.2009. He also stated that the statement of accused Wazir Masih @ Shabi was recorded by Shri Leela DharPW-10 which was also signed by him as writer of the same. Ext.PW-10/B was also prepared at Meghal and was written by HC Leela Dhar PW-10 and Ext.PW-10/D and Ext.PW-10/E were prepared after visiting Megal and effecting recovery. He also stated that SHO Sharif Mohmmad PW-18 has not signed these papers, which statement shows that actually he does not know about the alleged disclosure of the accused Wazir Masih @ Shabi. Apart from above, according to his version, both shoes were lying at a distance of 1½ feet from each other which statement is totally contrary to the statement given by the PW-10 who has categorically stated that shoes were kept at one place. He further stated that he reached in the Police Station at 9:30 AM and thereafter he reached at Meghal at 10:00 AM and returned from Meghal after ½ and ¾ hour. He further stated that they went in the Mahindra Jeep. He also admitted in his cross-examination that he is friendly with the police persons as his house is situated nearby the Police Station. If we carefully peruse the statement of Santosh Kumar PW-11 juxtaposing the same with the statement given by PW-10 HC Leela Dhar, it can be safely inferred that all the documents were prepared by HC Leela Dhar PW- 10 at Police Station after effecting alleged recovery. There are major contradictions in the statements made by PW-10 as well as PW-11 regarding all important facts stated in the alleged disclosure statement of accused Wazir Masih @ Shabi and the recovery effected on the basis of disclosure statement Ext.PW-10/A. According to the statement given by PW-11 Santosh Kumar they were at Megal at 10.00 AM whereas PW-10 gave statement at 10-11 AM at Police Station Padhar at Drang. Moreover, it also remained unexplained in the statement given by Santosh Kumar PW-11 that what he was doing in the Police Station Padhar at Drang at that relevant time because his version with regard to verification of land cannot be accepted as true because as per record his father was alive on 24.8.2008. 27. PW-12 HC Durga Dass and PW-13 Constable Mehar Chand are not material witnesses and as such they are not required to be dealt with at this stage. ASI Davinder Kumar PW-14, who remained posted as ASI Incharge Police Post Nudhk, District Firozpur, Punjab, brought the record of FIR No. 135 dated 22.7.2008 registered in Police Station Khalikhurd, District Firozpur. The photocopy of which is Ext.14/A and its Hindi translation is Ext.14/B. He in his statement has admitted that challan was presented against accused Raju alias Vikram S/o Shri Sleem, R/o Golbhag near Railway Station and accused Raju has confessed crime and was convicted by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozpur. He has denied that he has introduced the name of accused Kuldeep Singh and Wazir Masih @ Shabi to create evidence in this case and they have nothing to do with the said case. Admittedly, accused Raju @ Vikram was convicted for stealing Maruti Car No. PB-18D-7476. It is amply clear from the statement given by PW-14 Davinder Kumar that case qua the theft of Maruti Car No. PB-18D-7476, belonging to deceased Gurmukh Singh, was registered against Vikram Singh alias Raju and he stood convicted for stealing Maruti Car by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Admittedly accused in the present case have not been found to be connected in the case mentioned by PW- 14. Shri Dilbag Singh PW-15 cousin of deceased Gurmukh Singh in his statement stated himself to be the cousin of deceased Gurmukh Singh and stated that Gurmukh Singh were five brothers and all were living separately. As per his statement deceased Gurmukh Singh owned aforesaid Maruti Car in his name. Statement made by PW-15 also suggests that wife of deceased Gurmukh Singh had died two years prior to the death of Gurmukh Singh. After the death of his wife, Gurmukh Singh used to reside alone at his home. Shri Dilbag Singh PW-15 in his statement has also stated that deceased Gurmukh Singh was the owner of some land which was in the name of his father. After the death of his wife, Gurmukh Singh used to reside alone at his home. Shri Dilbag Singh PW-15 in his statement has also stated that deceased Gurmukh Singh was the owner of some land which was in the name of his father. He further stated that accused Kuldeep Singh used to visit Gurmukh Singh who was serving in Punjab Traffic Police Batala and both were god brothers. It has also come in the statement that accused Kuldeep Singh had been using the car of deceased Gurmukh Singh. As per statement of PW-15, on 15.7.2008 Kuldeep Singh and his friend Wazir Masih @ Shabi came to the house of Gurmukh Singh and on the same day, both the accused went in the car of Gurmukh Singh along with him towards Batala town/city. When Gurmukh Singh did not turn up to his home for 5-6 days, then they lodged the report with the Police of Police Station, Batala against both the accused for abduction of Gurmukh Singh. After lodging of report, accused Kuldeep Singh was spotted/caught by the Punjab Police while he was driving the car of deceased Gurmukh Singh. As per the statement given by PW-15, accused Kuldeep Singh was brought by Punjab Police at Megal and local persons of Megal were associated with the police. The accused Kuldeep Singh identified the spot at Megal Road from where he and his co-accused had thrown the dead body of Gurmukh Singh after killing by strangulating with his turban. He also identified the photographs Ext.PW-15/A to Ext.PW-15/E of the dead body of his cousin brother Gurmuk Singh. He also identified the shoes Ext.PW-10/D and Ext.PW-10/E which were stated to be recovered by police on the demarcation of accused Wazir Masih @ Shabi from the bushes. He also identified the clothes of the deceased Gurmukh Singh i.e. Patka. Ext.P-3, turbon Ext.P-4, Shirt P-7 and trouser Ext.P-8. He also admitted his signatures on the memos Ext.PW-15/A and Ext.PW-15/F. But in his cross-examination, PW-15 states that his house was situated at a distance of 100-150 meters away from the house of Gurmukh Singh deceased and his house is not visible from the house of Gurmukh Singh. Ext.P-3, turbon Ext.P-4, Shirt P-7 and trouser Ext.P-8. He also admitted his signatures on the memos Ext.PW-15/A and Ext.PW-15/F. But in his cross-examination, PW-15 states that his house was situated at a distance of 100-150 meters away from the house of Gurmukh Singh deceased and his house is not visible from the house of Gurmukh Singh. Here, at this stage, there is no explanation to the effect that how PW-15 came to know that on 15.7.2008 both the accused Kuldeep Singh Wazir Masih @ Shabi had come to the house of Gurmukh Singh because he nowhere states in this statement that he actually saw these accused coming to the house of Gurmukh Singh nor he says that he saw Gurmukh Singh leaving his house on 15.7.2008 with these two accused persons. Rather in his cross-examination he states that accused persons were good friend of deceased Gurmukh Singh and they oftenly enjoyed by taking liquor together. He also admits that after the death of deceased Gurmukh Singh, the information of his death was intimated by Batala Police in the house of Gurmukh Singh to his brother Balbir Singh. The aforesaid admission made by him in cross-examination clearly raises doubt about his earlier statement made in examination-inchief where he says that when Gurmukh Singh did not turn up in his home in 5-6 days then they lodged a report with Police Station Batala against both the accused persons for abduction of Gurmukh Singh. Moreover, he has specifically denied that Balbir Singh came to Mandi and identified the body of Gurmukh Singh before he was cremated at Mandi on 19.7.2008. Moroever, in his cross-examination he has categorically admitted that the accused was having no enmity with the accused Gurmukh Singh and to the contrary, they were very good friends of each other. It was also admitted by him that case regarding theft of maruti Car was registered in Kalkhurad Police Station against Raju alias Vikram S/o Shri Saleem and Raju alias Vikram has confessed his guilt and he was sentenced for the said crime. It has also come in the statement that report about missing of Gurmukh was lodged by his brother Balbir Singh on 22.7.2008 in the Police Station Sadar, Batala and the case regarding kidnapping against the accused persons is pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Punjab. It has also come in the statement that report about missing of Gurmukh was lodged by his brother Balbir Singh on 22.7.2008 in the Police Station Sadar, Batala and the case regarding kidnapping against the accused persons is pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Punjab. It is also stated by him that Balbir Singh brother of deceased in his statement before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, Punjab had admitted that he had identified the body of Gurmukh Singh at Mandi and attended the cremation on 19.7.2008. He also stated that both the accused have disclosed collectively regarding throwing of shoes in the bushes. The shoes were lying at a distance of half furlong from the main road. He also stated that on the day of recovery of shoes, he and the police personnel were there and there was no third person with them at the time of recovery. There is no specific identification marks on the shoes. The number of shoes of his cousin may be 6-7 or 8. He has also not denied that the deceased Gurmukh Singh wanted to dis-inherit his brothers and wanted to give his property to some other person and that he was got murdered by his brothers. He also stated that he does not know the number of Mobile Nokia of Gurmukh Singh and there were no specific marks of Nokia Mobile Ext.P-6. A careful perusal of the statement made in examination-in-chief as well as in cross-examination clearly suggests that story put forth by prosecution is not trustworthy as there are major contradictions in the statement given by PW31 15. If we analyze this statement vis-à-vis other prosecution witnesses discussed hereinbefore no credence can be given to his statement. Even at this juncture, it is important to point out that PW-15 categorically stated in his statement that information of death was intimated by Batala Police in the house of Gurmukh Singh to his brother Balbir Singh and as per his statement, report of about missing of Gurmukh singh was lodged by his brother Balbir Singh on 27.7.2008 in Police Station Sadar Batala and said balbir Singh had also deposed before the Additional Sessions Judge Gurdaspur, Punjab in the aforesaid case but it is not understood that why Investigating Officer did not associate him in the investigation and thereafter sited him as a prosecution witness. His absence at this stage definitely raises/casts suspicion on the story put forth by the prosecution. Even PW-15 in his statement that on the day of recovery of shoes only he and police personnel were there and there was no third person at the time of recovery. This very statement made by PW-15 shatters the entire case of prosecution because prior to this, all the prosecution witnesses have talked about associating two /three independent witnesses while recovering the shoes. 28. PW-16 HC Shamsher Singh of Police Station Sadar Batala has proved the copy of FIR Ext.PW-16/A registered against the accused persons. His statement is not required to be dealt with at this stage. 29. PW-17 Santokh Singh, who happens to be real brother of deceased Gurmukh Singh, in his examination-in-chief has in fact supported the statement of his cousin Dilbag Singh PW-15. He also produced the registration certificate of Maruti Vehicle No.PB-18D-7476, Insurance Certificate along with special Power of attorney Ext. PW-17/A. He also proved recovery memo Ext. PW-7/B and identified ?Patka' Ext.P-3, turban Ext.P-4, shirt Ext.P-7, trouser Ext.P-8 and photographs of deceased Gurmukh Singh. In his cross-examination, he categorically stated that he cannot tell the dates before 15.7.2008 when the accused Kuldeep Singh had come to the house of Gurmukh Singh deceased. Rather he states that on 15.7.2008, the deceased Gurmukh Singh was wearing leather shoes of 7 number i.e. ?Punjabi Jutti? and the shoes which have been shown to him in the Court are plastic shoes of four number. At this stage, it is important to point out here that this very statement of wearing leather shoes by the deceased Gurmukh Singh shatters the story of recovery of plastic shoes put-forth by prosecution because most of the witnesses discussed earlier have talked about the recovery of plastic shoes. He also stated that Dilbag Singh PW-15 and Balbir Singh had attended the funeral of Gurmukh Singh at Mandi. As per statement of PW-17 Santokh Singh, Dilbag Singh PW-15 and Balbir Singh had lodged FIR against the accused persons in Police Station Sadar, Batala regarding kidnapping of deceased Gurmukh Singh, have attended the funeral of deceased Gurmukh Singh and they were actually aware of the death of the deceased Gurmukh Singh much before the lodging of FIR against the accused persons in Police Station Batala. The statement of PW-17 regarding wearing of shoes by the deceased Gurmukh Singh falsifies the story of prosecution regarding recovery of plastic shoes of four number made at the instance of the accused Wazir Masih alias Shabi and as such no reliance can be placed on the alleged disclosure statement of accused Wazir Masih alias Shabi Ext.PW-10/A. If we read the statement of Santokh Singh PW-17 in its entirety juxtaposing the statement made by PW-15, we have no hesitation to hold that there are lot of contradictions and they both cannot be taken to be true and correct on its face value. 30. In the instant case, though, PW-18 is the Sub-Inspector/SHO Sharif Mohmmad who is the second Investigating Officer in the case and had taken over the investigation in hand after the transfer of Shri Prem Das PW-21 who since was initially Investigating Officer. It would be apt to analyze the statement of PW-21 at the first instance before discussing and analyzing the statement of PW-18. 31. Inspector Prem Dass PW-21 was the first Investigating Officer in the case. He in his examination-in-chief has corroborated the story put forth by prosecution, details whereof have already been given in the facts narrated in the beginning of the judgment. He has proved the site plan Ext.PW-21/A, the endorsement Ext.PW-21/B before sending Rukka for registration of FIR in the Police Station Padhar at Drang. He has also re-affirmed in his statement that he has recorded the statement of accused Kuldeep Singh Ext. PW-2/A under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act in the presence of two persons namely Shri Chint Ram PW-2 and Bhupinder Sharma. He has prepared memo Ext.PW-2/B and the site plan Ext.PW-2/C qua memo Ext.PW- 2/B. He also stated that he has taken into possession bill book Ext.P-5 vide memo Ext.PW-2/C including photographs Ext.PW-21/D to Ext.PW-21/F whose negatives are Ext.PW-21/G to Ext. PW-21/J. PW-21 in his cross-examination denied that there was no sign of strangulation on the neck of the dead body of Gurmukh Singh and he has made a wrong observation in the inquest reports. He has also admitted that before the alleged disclosure statement given by accused Kuldeep Singh regarding showing the place of dead body, the police was already knowing the said place. He has also admitted that before the alleged disclosure statement given by accused Kuldeep Singh regarding showing the place of dead body, the police was already knowing the said place. He also admitted that immediately after recovery of the dead body, the police issued advertisement in news paper along with photographs of dead body. In his cross-examination, he has denied that before cremation of dead body, i.e. before 19.7.2008, the brother of the deceased Gurmukh Singh came to Mandi/ Police Station Padhar and identified the dead body of his deceased brother Gurmukh Singh. He also denied that in connivance with the Punjab Police, he manipulated a false FIR in Punjab pertaining to the missing of Gurmukh Singh as well as regarding theft of his Maruti Car just to create a circumstantial evidence against the accused persons and thereafter, the story of bringing Kuldeep Singh accused to Mandi as well as regarding his alleged confessional statement regarding murder of Gurmukh Singh by him and coaccused azir Masih alias Shabi was made out. 32. In the present case, though PW-21 namely Prem Dass, who was the Investigating Officer in the case, has supported the story put forth by the prosecution but his versions with regard to not attending the funeral by brother of deceased Gurmukh Singh on 19.7.2008 at Mandi cannot be taken as a gospel truth in light of statement of PW-17. In view of the categorical statement given by PW-17, who in an unequivocal terms has stated that Dilbag Singh PW-15 and Balbir Singh who had lodged FIR against the accused persons in Police Station Sadar Batala regarding kidnapping of deceased Gurmukh Singh had attended the funeral of deceased Gurmukh Singh and were aware of the death of Gurmukh Singh much before lodging of FIR against accused persons in Police Station Sadar Batala. At this juncture, it also remains unexplained that what prevented the then Investigating Officer Shri Prem Dass PW-21 to record the statement of S.I. Punjab Singh who allegedly, as per the statement given by the prosecution witnesses, had come with the accused Kuldeep Singh for demarcation of the spot where the accused had thrown the body of the deceased Gurmukh Singh. Had Investigating Officer taken statement of S.I. Punjab Singh, who allegedly had brought Kuldeep Singh at the site of occurrence at the first instance and cited him as a prosecution witness, definitely it would have strengthen the case of the prosecution. 33. SI/SHO Shrif Mohmmad PW-18 was the second Investigating Officer in the case and had taken over the investigation in his hands after transfer of Shri Prem Das PW-21. In his examination-in-chief, he stated regarding alleged disclosure statement of Wazir Masih alias Shabi accused Ext.PW-10/A and different recoveries effected by him on the basis of the alleged disclosure statement of accused, preparation of memos. He presented the original challan against the accused and also prepared the supplementary challan after receiving FSL reports Ext.PO, Ext.PP and EXT.PQ and sought opinion of Dr. Amit Thakur PW-19 who conducted the autopsy and given post- mortem report Ext.PW-18/R. In his cross-examination, this witness has admitted that he never tried to know the number of mobile phone of the deceased Gurmukh Singh. Rather he contradicted the statements of other witnesses by stating that the statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act was given in the Police Station and its memo was prepared on the spot. He also admitted that he never tried to investigate whether any money was in the name of deceased Gurmukh Singh in any Bank at Punjab or anywhere else in India. He has also not investigated that there was any pass book issued in the name of Gurmukh Singh or he was holder of any ATM card. A bare perusal of the statement given by PW-18 itself suggests that how careless and callous police had been in investigating the murder case. In his crossexamination, he himself admitted that no effort was ever made to ascertain the number of mobile phone, if any, of deceased Gurmukh Singh. Neither any attempt was made to procure the ATM card nor any attempt was made to recover the Pass Book, if any, in the name of the deceased Gurmukh Singh. Even there is nothing on record to suggest that police had ever attempted to procure the ATM card as well as pass book as was mentioned by Shri Amit Kumar PW-5 in his statement. Even there is nothing on record to suggest that police had ever attempted to procure the ATM card as well as pass book as was mentioned by Shri Amit Kumar PW-5 in his statement. Moreover, statement given by PW-14 in his cross-examination regarding recording of statement under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act itself points out that Police had actually not recorded any statement on the spot and everything was done while sitting in the Police Station. The aforesaid statement made by PW-18 in his cross-examination clearly suggests that earlier statement given by prosecution witnesses suggesting that actual recovery was made and memos were prepared on the spot were incorrect. 34. Now, we advert to very material witness Dr.Amit Thakur PW-19 who had conducted the post-mortem of the dead body of Gurmukh Singh, after application Ext.PX given to him by the police. He has also filled up the form Ext.PW-19/A and took the samples. He also took vial sample of scalp hair Ext.PW-19/C, the blood sample Ext.PW-19/E. He has given final opinion after perusing the FSL report Ext.PW-18/P. According to him, there were multiple rib fractures and liver rupture found on post mortem examination of the dead body of Gurmukh Singh. The victim had also consumed alcohol. The victim died of combined effect of alcohol ingestion and hemorrhagic shock. In his cross-examination, he has stated that quantity of alcohol as per the report of chemical examiner is 188,98 mg. which quantity is too much excessive. As per him, if one is under the influence of above mentioned quantity of alcohol and by chance if he got down from the vehicle to urinate and rolled downwards, such injuries are possible. He also admitted that there is no injury on his neck showing any sign of strangulation. A bare perusal of the medical opinion given by PW-19 Amit Thakur falsify the story of strangulation put forth by prosecution. PW-19 has categorically stated that there was no injury on the neck showing sign of strangulation. To the contrary very basis of prosecution story was that deceased was strangulated by accused after using his 'Patka' around his neck. A bare perusal of the medical opinion given by PW-19 Amit Thakur falsify the story of strangulation put forth by prosecution. PW-19 has categorically stated that there was no injury on the neck showing sign of strangulation. To the contrary very basis of prosecution story was that deceased was strangulated by accused after using his 'Patka' around his neck. If we consider the report of doctor where he categorically stated that there was no injury on the neck, it is difficult to accept the story put forth by the prosecution that deceased was killed by accused by strangulating by using 'Patka' of the deceased Gurmukh Singh. It has also come in the report that quantity of alcohol as per the report of chemical examiner in the body of deceased was 188.98 mg which was definitely very high. He has been very very candid in saying that if one is under the influence of such quantity of alcohol, there is definitely a possibility of rolling down while urinating and one can have multiple rib fractures etc. 35. ASI Gian Chand PW20 has registered FIR Ext. PW-20/A on receipt of Rukka Ext. PW-1/A. This witness is formal in nature and, therefore, his statement is not required to be dealt with. 36. Now we advert to the defence taken by the accused. Apart from their statement made under Section 313 Cr.PC, they had also tendered in evidence certified copy of the judgment dated 15.3.2008 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Firozpur Camp at Central Jail Ext. DA and statement of Balbir Singh given by him before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, Punjab in case FIR No. 61 of 2008 under Section 364 of the I.P.C., Police Station Batala which are Ext. DB and Ext. DC. 37. We have already discussed above, case of theft with regard to Maruti Car No. PB 18 D 7476 registered at Police Station Kalakhurd District Firozpur in which accused Raju alias Vikram was convicted for stealing aforesaid Maruti Car. We have also discussed the statement given by Balbir Singh before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Punjab in case FIR No. 61 of 2008 under Section 364 Cr.PC registered in Police Station Batala Ext. DB and Ext. We have also discussed the statement given by Balbir Singh before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Punjab in case FIR No. 61 of 2008 under Section 364 Cr.PC registered in Police Station Batala Ext. DB and Ext. DC, where he had stated while discussing the statement of Shri Dilbag Singh PW-15, that in his crossexamination, he has stated that report of missing of his brother Gurmukh Singh was registered by him on 27.7.2008 in Police Station Sadar Batala, wherein he had also stated that case regarding kidnapping by the accused persons is pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, Punjab. PW-15 had also admitted in his cross-examination that the theft case was registered against Raju alias Vikram and Raju has confessed his guilt and was sentenced for the commission of said crime. 38. After perusing the entire oral as well as documentary evidence put forth by the prosecution on the record, we have no hesitation to hold that there was no witness who actually witnessed the occurrence or alleged incident. Rather, the entire case of the prosecution rests on the circumstantial evidence. There is no prosecution witness who has actually seen the alleged occurrence because all of them have stated about the incident/occurrence either happened prior to the incident or after the incident. It is a well settled law when the case rests upon the circumstantial evidence, prosecution must satisfy the following tests; (1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; (2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; (3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probabilities the crime was committed by the accused and none else. 39. In the present case, when we have perused all the prosecution witnesses in its entirety, we have no hesitation to conclude that prosecution has not satisfied three conditions as mentioned above where circumstantial evidence could be made basis for convicting the accused. The present case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has failed to prove the entire chain. Rather, there are major contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The present case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has failed to prove the entire chain. Rather, there are major contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. If we read the statements of prosecution witnesses juxtaposing qua each other, it appears and it can be safely inferred that prosecution has failed to link the evidence. The prosecution has miserably failed to point out any circumstance from which definite inference can be drawn that deceased Gurmukh Singh was killed by accused. None of the prosecution evidence has definitely and unerringly pointed out towards guilt of the accused. Moreover, the circumstance/facts which have been put forth by the prosecution, if taken cumulatively, have failed to form a complete chain and force us to conclude that with all probabilities crime was committed by the accused and none else. 40. In this regard, we may also refer, at this stage, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in AIR 1982 SC 1157 titled as Gambhir vs. State of Maharashtra where the aforesaid conditions and guidelines i.e. test on circumstantial evidence before the accused is already guilty of alleged offences has been laid down. 41. Their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dandu Jaggaraju vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2011) 14 Supreme Court Cases 674 have held that in a case relating to circumstantial evidence, motive is often a very strong circumstance which has to be proved by the prosecution. Their Lordships have held as under:- 9. It has to be noticed that the marriage between P.W. 1 and the deceased had been performed in the year 1996 and that it is the case of the prosecution that an earlier attempt to hurt the deceased had been made and a report to that effect had been lodged by the complainant. There is, however, no documentary evidence to that effect. We, therefore, find it somewhat strange that the family of the deceased had accepted the marriage for about six years more particularly, as even a child had been born to the couple. In this view of the matter, the motive is clearly suspect. In a case relating to circumstantial evidence, motive is often a very strong circumstance which has to be proved by the prosecution and it is this circumstance which often forms the fulcrum of the prosecution story. 42. In this view of the matter, the motive is clearly suspect. In a case relating to circumstantial evidence, motive is often a very strong circumstance which has to be proved by the prosecution and it is this circumstance which often forms the fulcrum of the prosecution story. 42. In the instant case, all the material witnesses have stated that accused Kuldeep Singh was good friend of deceased Gurmukh Singh and accused have been visiting the house of deceased Gurmukh Singh for years together, none of the prosecution witnesses cited any motive which could instigate or provoke the accused Kuldeep Singh to kill the deceased. The prosecution witnesses, who were brother of deceased, have categorically stated in their statements that there was no enmity between the accused and the deceased Gurmukh Singh. If we peruse the statements of PW-15 Shri Dilbag Singh and PW-17, who were cousin and real brother of deceased Gurmukh Singh, it nowhere pointed out any motive which the accused could have to kill the deceased Gurmukh Singh. Rather, the cumulative reading of statements of both these witnesses suggests that accused and deceased Gurmukh Singh were good friends and were meeting for years. It has come on record which suggests that accused Kuldeep Singh has occasionally been using the car of Gurmukh Singh earlier also. 43. Prosecution has also failed to bring on record any satisfactory evidence to suggest that Gurmukh Singh was last seen in the company of accused from 15.7.2008 as claimed by prosecution. Dilbag Singh PW15 clearly states in his statement that his house is at a distance of 100-150 meters, wherefrom the house of deceased Gurmukh Singh is not visible. In view of the above statement, it is not understood that how with such certainty, he could say that on 15.7.2008 accused had come to the house of Gurmukh Singh and thereafter they had gone together. Similarly, there is no explanation with regard to the statement given by PW-17 where he has stated that accused was wearing Punjabi Jutti of leather of No.7 and to the contrary, the police have put forth story of recovery of plastic shoes of number four. It has also come in record that deceased Gurmukh Singh was running taxi for the last 30-35 years and he used not to come to his house for several days and was also addicted to alcohol. It has also come in record that deceased Gurmukh Singh was running taxi for the last 30-35 years and he used not to come to his house for several days and was also addicted to alcohol. Interestingly, one Shri Balbir Singh, who appeared as PW-1 in Sessions Trial in case FIR No. 61 of 2008 under Section 364 read with Section 34 IPC, deposed before the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, Punjab that he accompanied the police of Police Station Batala to identify the body of his deceased brother and he also attended the funeral of deceased Gurmukh Singh, which fact has been denied by Dilbag Singh PW-15. Though mention with regard to existence of Balbir Singh brother of deceased Gurmukh Singh found mentioned in the statement of PW-15 Dilbag Singh, where he states that information with regard to the death of Gurmukh Singh was given to Balbir Singh by the Police Station Batala but it remained unexplained that why Balbir Singh was not associated by the Investigating Officer in the instant case. If the statements of PW-17 and PW-15 are read in its entirety vis-à-vis statement given by Shri Balbir Singh who appeared as PW-1 in Sessions Trial under Section 364 read with Section 34 of the IPC, we have no hesitation to conclude that there are lot of discrepancies and contradictions in the statements made by these witnesses and they cannot be considered to be trustworthy. 44. Even the alleged disclosure statements made by the accused Kuldeep Singh Ext.PW-2/A and Wazir Masih alias Shabi Ext.PW-10/A appear to be manipulated because of the prosecution witnesses cited to support the disclosure statement have given contradictory statements. PW-2 Chint Ram has categorically stated that both the memos i.e. Ex.PW-2/B and Ex.PW-2/C were written in the Police Station after visiting the place of occurrence. He has categorically stated that no statement of accused Kuldeep Singh was recorded before going to the spot and the entire papers were prepared after visiting the spot. Even Shri Bhupender Sharma, who was called from his house to the Police Station and had been shown to be present at the time of recovery, has not been made witness. PW-2 has stated that Bhupender Sharma was also called from his house to the Police Station and then his signatures were obtained on the entire papers. Even Shri Bhupender Sharma, who was called from his house to the Police Station and had been shown to be present at the time of recovery, has not been made witness. PW-2 has stated that Bhupender Sharma was also called from his house to the Police Station and then his signatures were obtained on the entire papers. On the other hand, PW-11 has stated that the statement of accused Wazir Masih @ Shabi was recorded by Shri Leela Dhar PW-10 which was also signed by him as writer of the same. He has categorically said that Ext.PW-10/B was prepared at Megal and was written by HC Leela Dhar PW-10 and Ext.PW-10/D and Ext.PW-10/E were prepared after visiting Megal and effecting recovery. He has also stated that SHO Sharif Mohammad PW-18 has not signed these papers. From the aforesaid statements it appears that there are lot of contradictions in the statements given by the aforesaid prosecution witnesses and as such they cannot be relied upon. 45. In the light of evidence gathered by the police and statements given by the prosecution, it is difficult to accept the story put forth by the prosecution that the deceased Gurmukh Singh and accused had come together from Batala towards Mandi side and thereafter accused had purchased one half of the liquor because there is no person who had seen deceased Gurmukh Singh with the accused either consuming liquor or being together on the relevant day. Rather, judgment dated 15.3.2008 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in theft case falsifies the story put-forth by prosecution of using car by the accused on the relevant date. 46. There is also nothing on record which could suggest that accused had purchased one half of liquor and administered medicine Alprix in the liquor of the deceased and deceased consumed the alcohol at the instance of the accused and became unconscious and after that he was strangulated by the accused persons from the neck. The Investigating Officer or prosecution has not associated any person who could tell from which shop liquor and medicine Alprix were purchased. Hence, in the totality of the circumstances discussed hereinabove, we can safely infer that prosecution has miserably failed to prove any motive which the accused could have to kill the deceased Gurmukh Singh. 47. The Investigating Officer or prosecution has not associated any person who could tell from which shop liquor and medicine Alprix were purchased. Hence, in the totality of the circumstances discussed hereinabove, we can safely infer that prosecution has miserably failed to prove any motive which the accused could have to kill the deceased Gurmukh Singh. 47. Their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pudhu Raja and another vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, (2012) 11 Supreme Court Cases 196 have held that the motive assumes great significance and importance in case of circumstantial evidence and absence of motive puts court on its guard and causes it to scrutinize each piece of evidence very closely in order to ensure that suspicion, emotion or conjecture do not taken the place of proof. Their lordships have held as under:- "16. Furthermore, in such a case, motive assumes great significance and importance, as the absence of motive puts the court on its guard and causes it to scrutinize each piece of evidence very closely in order to ensure that suspicion, emotion or conjecture do not take the place of proof. The evidence regarding existence of motive which operates in the minds of assailants is very often, not known to any other person. The motive may not even be known, under certain circumstances, to the victim of the crime. It may be known only to the accused and to none other. It is therefore, only the perpetrator of the crime alone, who knows as to what circumstances prompted him to adopt a certain course of action leading to the commission of the crime." 48. Their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rishi Pal vs. State of Uttarakhand, (2013) 12 Supreme Court Cases 551 have held that while motive does not have a major role to play in cases based on eye witness account of incident, it assumes importance in cases that rest entirely on circumstantial evidence. Their Lordships have further held that essence of requirements that must be satisfied in cases resting on circumstantial evidence is that not only should circumstances sought to be proved against the accused be established beyond reasonable doubt, but also that such circumstances form so complete a chain, as leaves no option for court, except to hold that accused is guilty of offences with which he is charged. Their Lordships have held as under: "15. Their Lordships have held as under: "15. The second aspect to which we must straightaway refer is the absence of any motive for the appellant to commit the alleged murder of Abdul Mabood. It is not the case of the prosecution that there existed any enmity between Abdul Mabood and the appellant nor is there any evidence to prove any such enmity. All that was suggested by learned counsel appearing for the State was that the appellant got rid of Abdul Mabood by killing him because he intended to take away the car which the complainant Dr. Mohd. Alam had given to him. That argument has not impressed us. If the motive behind the alleged murder was to somehow take away the car, it was not necessary for the appellant to kill the deceased for the car could be taken away even without physically harming Abdul Mabood. It was not as though Abdul Mabood was driving the car and was in control thereof so that without removing him from the scene it was difficult for the appellant to succeed in his design. The prosecution case on the contrary is that the appellant had induced the complainant to part with the car and a sum of Rs.15,000/-.The appellant has been rightly convicted for that fraudulent act which conviction we have affirmed. Such being the position, the car was already in the possession and control of the appellant and all that he was required to do was to drop Abdul Mabood at any place en route to take away the car which he had ample opportunity to do during all the time the two were together while visiting different places. Suffice it to say that the motive for the alleged murder is as weak as it sounds illogical to us. It is fairly well settled that while motive does not have a major role to play in cases based on eye-witness account of the incident, it assumes importance in cases that rest entirely on circumstantial evidence. [See Sukhram v. State of Maharashtra (2007) 7 SCC 502 , Sunil Clifford Daniel (Dr.) v. State of Punjab (2012) 8 SCALE 670 , Pannayar v. State of Tamil Nadu by Inspector of Police (2009) 9 SCC 152 ]. Absence of strong motive in the present case, therefore, is something that cannot be lightly brushed aside. 19. [See Sukhram v. State of Maharashtra (2007) 7 SCC 502 , Sunil Clifford Daniel (Dr.) v. State of Punjab (2012) 8 SCALE 670 , Pannayar v. State of Tamil Nadu by Inspector of Police (2009) 9 SCC 152 ]. Absence of strong motive in the present case, therefore, is something that cannot be lightly brushed aside. 19. It is true that the tell-tale circumstances proved on the basis of the evidence on record give rise to a suspicion against the appellant but suspicion howsoever strong is not enough to justify conviction of the appellant for murder. The trial Court has, in our opinion, proceeded more on the basis that the appellant may have murdered the deceased Abdul Mabood. In doing so the trial Court over looked the fact that there is a long distance between 'may have' and 'must have' which distance must be traversed by the prosecution by producing cogent and reliable evidence. No such evidence is unfortunately forthcoming in the instant case. The legal position on the subject is well settled and does not require any reiteration. The decisions of this Court have on numerous occasions laid down the requirements that must be satisfied in cases resting on circumstantial evidence. The essence of the said requirement is that not only should the circumstances sought to be proved against the accused be established beyond a reasonable doubt but also that such circumstances form so complete a chain as leaves no option for the Court except to hold that the accused is guilty of the offences with which he is charged. The disappearance of deceased Abdul Mabood in the present case is not explainable as sought to be argued before us by the prosecution only on the hypothesis that the appellant killed him near some canal in a manner that is not known or that the appellant disposed of his body in a fashion about which the prosecution has no evidence except a wild guess that the body may have been dumped into a canal from which it was never recovered." 49. In the present case, postmortem report of the deceased Gurmukh Singh clearly ruled out the death of Gurmukh Singh by strangulation. Dr. Amit Thakur PW-19 has stated that there was no injury mark on or around the neck. He has categorically stated that the victim had died due to consuming of excess alcohol. In the present case, postmortem report of the deceased Gurmukh Singh clearly ruled out the death of Gurmukh Singh by strangulation. Dr. Amit Thakur PW-19 has stated that there was no injury mark on or around the neck. He has categorically stated that the victim had died due to consuming of excess alcohol. As per the report of Chemical Examiner, the quantity of alcohol is 188.98 mg percentage in blood of deceased Gurmukh Singh which was much excessive as per Dr.Amit Thakur PW-19. If a person is under the influence of above mentioned quantity of alcohol and by chance if he got down from the vehicle to urinate and rolled downwards, such injuries are possible. He has categorically stated that no injury was found on the neck of the deceased Gurmukh Singh which shows sign of strangulation of 'Patka" and this very statement falsify the very basis of the prosecution story, because prosecution has put a case that when Investigating Officer saw the body, he could see that deceased was strangulated by 'patka' as there was injury on the neck of the deceased Gurmukh Singh. Hence, in the light of categorical statement made by PW-19, it cannot be ruled out that deceased Gurmukh Singh was under the effect of heavy intoxication and would have rolled downwards while he got down from the vehicle to urinate. This explanation gets further strengthened from the fact that no injury was found on the neck of the deceased Gurmukh Singh, which could be suggestive of strangulation. At this juncture, it is relevant to point out that according to Ext.PW-18/P, report of the FSL, the quantity of ehyl alcohol in Ext.P-5 (blood) was 188.98 mg%. A person with blood alcohol concentration of 150-300 mg% would be intoxicated, as per Lyon's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 11th Edition, page 626. Similarly in Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology by Dr. K. S. Narayan Reddy, Edition 2004 (Reprint), at page 590, a person who has consumed 150-300 mg% would be drunk. In Parikh's Text book of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology at page 855, it is stated that at a concentration of 0.15 percent (150 mg%), some are under the influence of alcohol and others decidedly would be drunk. With increasing concentrations the symptoms become more intense. In the instant case, the quantity of ethyl alcohol in Ext. P/% (blood) was 209.81 mg%. 50. With increasing concentrations the symptoms become more intense. In the instant case, the quantity of ethyl alcohol in Ext. P/% (blood) was 209.81 mg%. 50. Consequently, in view of the detailed analysis and discussion made hereinabove, we have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused have committed the murder of deceased Gurmukh Singh. The circumstances noticed by us certainly create reasonable doubt in the version of the prosecution. 51. Accordingly, we do not see any illegality and infirmity in the judgment dated 31.10.2009 passed by the learned Court below, as it appears to be passed on the correct appreciation of evidence on record. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.