JUDGMENT : Mohammad Rafiq, J. In this matter trial was held against eight accused-persons, one being a juvenile, proceedings against him were conducted in Juvenile Court. Initially, all seven accused-appellants, namely, Jagphool @ Nanhe, Rajbeer @ Kala, Mukesh @ Gulab, Surendra @ Sundra, Niranjan @ Ninja, Santa @ Santlal and Sanjay Malik @ Bhola, preferred D.B. Criminal (Jail) Appeal No.865/2008. Thereafter, two accused-appellants, namely, Mukesh @ Gulab and Rajbeer @ Kala, also preferred D.B. Criminal Appeal No.866/2008, through Superintendent, Central Jail, Jaipur. Both the appeals against judgment dated 24.07.2008 in Sessions Case No.16/2007 passed by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Ajmer, have been preferred by seven accused-appellants, whereby they have been held guilty of committing crime for offence under Sections 395, 396, 307 and 307/149 IPC. For offence under Section 396 IPC, they have been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/- each; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months' simple imprisonment. For offence under Section 395 IPC, they have been sentenced to undergo ten years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/- each; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months' simple imprisonment. For offence under Section 307-307/149 IPC, they have been sentenced to undergo seven years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of L500/- each; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months simple imprisonment. 2. Facts giving rise to these appeals are that one Ram Ratan (PW-10) S/o Mr. Prabhu Ram Jat, R/o Bhainswan Kalan, Police Station Dodwa, District Sonipat, Haryana, gave a 'parcha bayan' to Station House Officer, Police Station, Nasirabad Sadar, District Ajmer, stating that he was working as second driver in trailer No.HR-38-E-5093 for last 5-6 months. His cousin Rajendra was the main driver in the said trailer. On the fateful day they were carrying eight Maruti cars in the said trailer. They started from Gurgaon for Hyderabad on 06.09.2006 with eight Maruti cars loaded in the trailer. They stopped near over bridge at Kishangarh (Rajasthan) at 2.30 AM for tea in a hotel. Another trailer of Chetak company also came there. One person got down from the said Chetak trailer and enquired from them about their destination. They started from Gurgaon for Hyderabad on 06.09.2006 with eight Maruti cars loaded in the trailer. They stopped near over bridge at Kishangarh (Rajasthan) at 2.30 AM for tea in a hotel. Another trailer of Chetak company also came there. One person got down from the said Chetak trailer and enquired from them about their destination. When the informant and his co-driver told him that they were going to Hyderabad, he stated that they were going to Trivandrum and that they did not know the way to Trivandrum, therefore they would follow trailer of the informant. The informant further stated that when trailer crossed Srinagar of Ajmer district in Rajasthan and thereafter covered the distance of about 4-5 kilometers, the said trailer of Chetak company overtook them and suddenly stopped after one kilometer. A person got down from that trailer and came to them. He informed that one of the tyres of the trailer has got punctured and therefore they will have to stay for some time. Then two three more persons got down from that trailer and entered the trailer of informant and started beating them. One of the persons put a rope around the neck of Rajendra, trailer driver, and other two started pulling the same. One person sat on the driving seat and took control of the vehicle from Rajendra and started driving the trailer. They looted a sum of Rs. 22000/- from the pocket of Rajendra. After some time, the informant also became unconscious. When he gained consciousness at about 7-8 AM in the following morning, he found himself near a Shiv temple. Even as he had walked for some distance, he found dead body of his cousin Rajendra lying along side the road. However, trailer was not seen there. The information alleged that accused, by beating them, have snatched money and looted the trailer. 3. On the basis of aforesaid 'parcha bayan', a regular first information report being F.I.R.196/2006, was lodged at Police Station Nasirabad, District Ajmer, on 07.09.2006. The police investigated the matter. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against eight accused-persons for offence under Sections 395, 396, 302, 307, 302/149 and 307/149 IPC in the court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Ajmer and against one accused Kuldeep @ Tau, being minor, charge-sheet was filed against him in Juvenile Justice Court. The police investigated the matter. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against eight accused-persons for offence under Sections 395, 396, 302, 307, 302/149 and 307/149 IPC in the court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Ajmer and against one accused Kuldeep @ Tau, being minor, charge-sheet was filed against him in Juvenile Justice Court. Charges for offence under Sections 395, 396, 302, 307, 302/149 and 307/149 IPC were framed against the accused-persons. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined 27 witnesses and got 100 documents exhibited. The defence did not examine any witness, however, got one document exhibited. The accused-persons, in their examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., denied the allegations and alleged their false implication in the matter. Learned trial court, on conclusion of trial, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants in the manner indicated above. One of accused Devendra @ Nesha has however been acquitted of all the charges. 4. Mr. Hemant Gupta with Mr. Deshraj Kalwania, learned counsel for appellant Jagphool @ Nanhe, Niranjan @ Ninja and Sanjay Malik, Mr. Rajendra Singh Tanwar for Mr. Jitendra Singh Tanwar, learned counsel for appellant Surendra @ Sundra and Santa @ Santlal, and Mr. Ashvin Garg, learned counsel for appellant Mukesh @ Gulab and Rajbeer @ Kala, have argued that Ram Ratan (PW-10) in his 'parcha bayan' (Exhibit P-9) recorded on 07.09.2006 as also in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Exhibit D-1) and the F.I.R. (Exhibit P-10) lodged on the basis of 'parcha bayan', consistently alleged that only three persons entered into the trailer, whereas in his court statement, he made tremendous improvement and implicated as many as ten persons as accused. In earlier statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., he stated that only one person wrapped the rope around the neck of Rajendra and thereafter the rope was wrapped on the neck of informant Ram Ratan himself, but the police recovered one rope from the place of incident on the same day and another rope from beneath the driver seat of the trailer of the accused-persons on 24.09.2006. Learned counsel submitted that Ram Ratan (PW-10), in his statement, admitted that the accused were shown to him at the Police Station before test identification parade. Photographs of the accused were published in the newspapers but when, this question was put to the Investigating Officer Arjun Ram (PW-25), he merely expressed ignorance about this fact. Mr. Learned counsel submitted that Ram Ratan (PW-10), in his statement, admitted that the accused were shown to him at the Police Station before test identification parade. Photographs of the accused were published in the newspapers but when, this question was put to the Investigating Officer Arjun Ram (PW-25), he merely expressed ignorance about this fact. Mr. Pradeep Kumar Verma (PW-22), the Judicial Magistrate, has also stated that objections were raised by the appellants that they were shown to the witnesses in the police station. This fact is mentioned in the memos of test identification parade, which are Exhibits P-11 to P- 19. Ram Ratan (PW-10), while in his court statement claimed that one person (choti-wala boy) got down from another trailer and came to them, but said version is not found in his 'parcha bayan' (Exhibit P-9). In court statement, he has stated that at the time of incident, Rajendra was driving the trailer but in his police statement (Exhibit D-1) he stated that he was driving the vehicle and Rajendra was asleep. The prosecution has thus miserably failed to connect the accused with the crime. 5. Learned counsel argued that nothing has been said about the looted articles mentioned in the 'parcha bayan' and the first information report. Ram Ratan (PW- 10), in the court statement, stated that appellants looted the amount of Rs. 22000/-, driving license and mobile phone of deceased Rajendra but none of these articles have been recovered at the instance of the accused. Recoveries of jack, battery and other tools, allegedly looted from the trailer of deceased, were not made by the investigating agency in the present case but have been taken in possession on the basis of recovery memos prepared by the police of Madhya Pradesh State. Arjun Ram (PW-25), the investigating officer, in his statement, has clearly stated that those recoveries were made by the MP police before 07.09.2006. Moreover, those articles were also not produced before the trial court. The informant has not identified any of these articles. Besides, the learned counsel argued that recoveries of jack, battery and other tools as also stepney from the trailer, being carried by the accused, cannot be a factor against them because in their trailer also Maruti cars having all these articles, were being transported. Alleged recovery of jacks vide Exhibits P-66 to P-68 shown at the instance of accused-appellants, are false. Alleged recovery of jacks vide Exhibits P-66 to P-68 shown at the instance of accused-appellants, are false. These articles have not been produced by the prosecution and attesting witnesses have not been examined. They were falsely prepared by the police of Police Station Nagda, District Dhar (MP). Suresh Kumar Maurya (PW-13), Manager of T.C.I. Company, who entrusted the accused Niranjan the task of transporting eight Maruti cars to Hyderabad, has alleged that when they checked the loaded Maruti cars in the trailer, they found two batteries, six jacks and six radium plates missing but interestingly the Investigating Officer, in the present case, has shown recoveries of nine batteries, which clearly indicates fabrication of evidence. Thus, even the batteries and jacks etc. of other trailer are also shown to have been recovered in the present case. Learned counsel argued that when it was suggested to Investigating Officer Arjun Ram (PW-25) in cross-examination that the place where the incident took place, is pro-dacoity area, where the loot of this nature is common, he admitted that sometimes even he also went that area on night patrolling. Police escort is provided to the vehicles passing through that area. Thus, the possibility that this could be handy work of the tribes residing in the nearby villages, can not be ruled out. 6. Learned counsel further argued that the prosecution has failed to prove any motive, muchless, motive of looting money. The accused, so large in number, could not have possibly conspired to murder of Rajendra only for looting small amount of Rs. 22000/-, which amount, in any case, has not been recovered. If they had intention to commit dacoity, they would not have looted jacks or batteries, but rather looted the Maruti cars. In fact, as per own case of the prosecution, the accused were also having a trailer bearing number HR-38-J-4943. The trailer of the complainant was bearing number HR-38- E-5093. Dead body of deceased Rajendra has been recovered from open place. Recovery of rope vide Exhibit P-4 has also been made from open place. Learned counsel argued that Bhanwar Singh (PW-5) has not supported the prosecution case and has denied any knowledge about the incident of robbery and specifically stated that he did not know about the same. Dead body of deceased Rajendra has been recovered from open place. Recovery of rope vide Exhibit P-4 has also been made from open place. Learned counsel argued that Bhanwar Singh (PW-5) has not supported the prosecution case and has denied any knowledge about the incident of robbery and specifically stated that he did not know about the same. Kailash Chand (PW-9), who is attesting witness of memo of site plan of place of incident (Exhibit P-8), has also turned hostile and stated that same was not prepared by police in his presence. Police came to him and he signed the documents, namely, site plan (Exhibit P-8) and Panchayatnama (Exhibit P-6) because Sarpanch of his village asked him to do so. 7. Learned counsel argued that the prosecution, in the present case, has based its case entirely on the earlier case registered against accused-appellants in the State of MP vide FIR No.1/2006 for offence under Sections 399 and 402 IPC, lodged with Police Station Nagda, District Dhar (MP), but learned counsel submitted that accused-appellants have been acquitted by the court of MP State vide judgment dated 17.02.2008 in Sessions Case No.242/2007 – State of M.P. v. Devendra @ Nesha and therefore there is no basis for convicting them in the present case. Copy of the aforesaid judgment has been produced for perusal of the court. 8. It is argued that Arjun Ram (PW-25), the Investigating Officer, has not given any proof as to in what manner he got the information about arrest of the accused by MP police in Police Station Nagda, District Dhar (MP). In his court statement, he has stated that he reached the Police Station Nagda on receiving the said information but Leela Makwana (PW-24), SHO Police Station Nagda, District Dhar, has stated that she did not send copy of the FIR or Rojnamcha to Police Station Nasirabad, District Ajmer (Rajasthan). She also could not say as to on which date and at what time the wireless information was received from Police Station Nasirabad, District Ajmer. Thus, there is no corroborative evidence on record to prove the manner in which such information was received by Arjun Ram (PW-25), Investigating Officer. In fact, Arjun Ram (PW-25), in his statement, admitted that he did not produce on record copy of original application or even its carbon copy, by which he obtained articles from Police of MP State. Thus, there is no corroborative evidence on record to prove the manner in which such information was received by Arjun Ram (PW-25), Investigating Officer. In fact, Arjun Ram (PW-25), in his statement, admitted that he did not produce on record copy of original application or even its carbon copy, by which he obtained articles from Police of MP State. He made an entry about visit of Nagda police station in Rojnamcha but copy thereof was also not produced on record. He admitted that all cars were found loaded in both the Trailers. He also stated that he did not obtain bill, vouchers and bilty from trailer No.HR-38-J-4943 of the accused. He further admitted that two trailers carried similar articles. 9. It is argued that Ram Ratan (PW-10) in his 'parcha bayan alleged that he walked to Kota T-point and then highway petrolling jeep came and took him to police station. But, in the court statement, he has admitted the fact that every trailer of transport company has wireless set through which the official of the transport company could remain in contact. No explanation has been given as to why did he not convey about the incident to the company. Ram Ratan (PW-10), neither in 'parcha bayan' nor in police statement, gave any physiognomy of the accused and therefore it was not possible for him to identify all the accused in test identification parade. He has not attributed any specific overt act to any accused. Ram Ratan has received only simple injury and therefore it is difficult to believe that he remained unconscious for all the night and gained consciousness only in the next morning. 10. Mr. Aladeen Khan, learned Public Prosecutor for the State, supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the trial court has rightly convicted the accused-appellants on the basis of cogent and reliable evidence, which proved their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. One rope recovered at the instance of the accused Jagphool @ Nanhe, vide Exhibit P-4, and another rope recovered from the trailer of the accused on 24.09.2006 vide Exhibit P- 26, were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory and the FSL has proved that both the pieces of rope were part of the same rope. This connects the accused with the crime. This connects the accused with the crime. Learned Public Prosecutor has taken the court through the statement of various prosecution witnesses, especially the statements of Ram Ratan (PW-10), Arjun Ram (PW-25) and Leela Makwana (PW-24), who was the officer of MP State, which we shall deal with at appropriate place hereinafter. 11. It is argued that Ram Ratan (PW-10) fully proved the incident and involvement of accused therein. He has correctly identified all the accused except one Devendra @ Nesha. Recovery of looted articles has been made at the instance of accused-appellants. Minor contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses cannot be a basis to discard entire prosecution case. Conviction of accused-appellants has been rightly made by the learned trial court. 12. We have given our anxious consideration to submissions of learned counsel for accused-appellants as also learned Public Prosecutor for the State, and perused the material on record. 13. Indisputably, all the accused persons are not residents of alleged tribal area, where the incident took place. In fact, they are residents of almost the same place from which deceased Rajendra and injured Ram Ratan came. While all the accused are residents of village Dodwa, Police Station Gohana, District Sonipat (Haryana), Ram Ratan (PW-10), as per his disclosure in the court statement, is resident of Bhainswan Kalan, District Sonipat (Haryana), which is also part of Police Station Dodwa. Strangely, the police has not made any investigation into this aspect as to what could be effect of accused-persons as well as the deceased Rajendra (cousin of Ram Ratan – PW-10) being residents of same place. They belonged to same caste and were also engaged in similar kind of profession as driver or second driver/khalasi etc. on transport vehicles and in this case both were having the trailers and were carrying the Maruti cars therein. The alleged motive of loot appears to be founded on a very weak pedestal. The prosecution has alleged that accused looted a sum of Rs. 22,000/- from deceased Rajendra and they also took away his wallet, but neither the money has been shown to have been recovered nor wallet is shown to have been recovered at the instance of any of the accused. 14. Starting first of all with the analysis of testimony of star witness of the prosecution Ram Ratan (PW-10), his statement is not free from doubt. 14. Starting first of all with the analysis of testimony of star witness of the prosecution Ram Ratan (PW-10), his statement is not free from doubt. While in the 'parcha bayan', on the basis of which FIR was registered, Ram Ratan (PW-10) has alleged that when he and deceased Rajendra were taking tea in a hotel near Kishangarh (Rajasthan), one trailer of Chetak company stopped there and a person, alighted from that trailer, and came to them. He enquired as to where they were going. When informant told him that they were going to Hyderabad, that person stated that they would follow the informant because they did not know the way to Trivandrum, but 4-5 kilometers after when the trailer stopped, one person came to them that their vehicle has got punctured and thereafter 2-3 other persons also followed him and they all entered the trailer of the deceased from both the sides and started beating them. If this version of Ram Ratan (PW-10) is believed, then there were maximum four persons, who entered the trailer, but in the court statement, while appearing as PW-10, he has stated that after the first person came to inform them about the puncture of tyre of the trailer, he called 6-7 other persons and 3-4 persons climbed on the trailer from the side of conductor and 3-4 persons climbed from the side of driver, and they all started beating them. They were having one rope with them. One of them wrapped the rope around the neck of deceased Rajendra and two accused-persons started pulling it and thus strangulated his throat resulting into his death. Similarly, he has alleged that they put a rope around his neck as well and started pulling him, as a result of which he became unconscious. This witness has not given the physiognomy or any identifying mark of any of the accused, but he is shown to have identified seven out of eight accused. 15. Arjun Ram (PW-25), the Investigating Officer, has admitted that trailer of deceased was recovered from open place under Section 102 Cr.P.C. by the MP police. He admitted that both the Trailers, bearing registration number HR-38-J-4943 and HR-38-E-5093, were carrying Maruti cars and other articles, namely, jacks, batteries, wheel, spanner (pana), radium plates etc., thus implying that these articles were common in both the trailers. He admitted that both the Trailers, bearing registration number HR-38-J-4943 and HR-38-E-5093, were carrying Maruti cars and other articles, namely, jacks, batteries, wheel, spanner (pana), radium plates etc., thus implying that these articles were common in both the trailers. He further admitted that neither the skin nor the hairs of the deceased were present on the rope recovered from the place of incident. This witness also admitted that while recovery of miscellaneous articles vide memo Exhibit P-59 shows that nine recovered batteries were of Exide Company, whereas Article 8 is of Speed company and not of Exide Company. He also admitted that it has not been verified from where the radium plates were purchased by Maruti company. He also could not recover the allegedly looted money of Rs. 22,000/- and wallet of the deceased. This witness further admitted that there were cuttings and overwriting in the memo of recovery of rope (Exhibit P-4). 16. Leela Makwana (PW-24), who was Inspector posted at Police Station Nagda, District Dhar of State of MP, has stated that jacks, batteries, wheel, spanner (pana), radium plates etc. were recovered from the accused-persons but she admitted that memos of recovery prepared by her in the investigation of F.I.R. No.1/2006 were not produced on record of this case. She has also stated that she did not check whether those articles were available in the Maruti cars being transported from the trailer of the accused. She admitted that she did not prepare site plan of the place from where the recovery of articles was made. She did not record statement of any witness in the proceedings under Section 102 Cr.P.C. She also admitted that she did not seize bilty and vouchers of the trailer and did not get recovered articles identified by the complainant. 17. Critical examination of the evidence shows that the manner in which the arrest of accused-appellants was shown also does not inspire much confidence. Leela Makwana (PW-24), Inspector, Police Station Nagda, District Dhar (MP), has alleged that while she was on patrolling duty, she received an information that certain persons were preparing to commit offence of loot of trucks at Dhar-Dhamnot road. She reached there and arrested the accused-persons on 10.09.2006. She alleged that they were having one container and parts of Maruti cars, such as, batteries, jacks etc. She reached there and arrested the accused-persons on 10.09.2006. She alleged that they were having one container and parts of Maruti cars, such as, batteries, jacks etc. According to evidence of the prosecution, one battery, wheel and two spanners of Maruti car have been shown recovered at the instance of accused Sanjay Malik vide Exhibit P-59; one jack of Maruti car was recovered at the instance of accused Devendra @ Nesha vide Exhibit P-60, one jack of Maruti car was recovered at the instance of accused Surendra vide Exhibit P-61; one jack was recovered at the instance of Niranjan vide Exhibit P-62, one battery of Maruti car, one new battery of Maruti and one new jack were recovered at the instance of accused Jagphool vide Exhibit P-63, one jack of big truck and two new radium plates were recovered at the instance of accused Santa @ Sube Singh vide Exhibit P-64, one container truck No. HR- 38-J-4943 with ten Maruti van were recovered at the instance of accused Niranjan vide Exhibit P-65, one new big jack of truck, one new radium plate were recovered at the instance of accused Rajbeer vide Exhibit P-66; one new jack of Maruti and two radium plates were recovered at the instance of accused Kuldeep vide Exhibit P-67 and one new jack of Maruti, two radium plates were recovered at the instance of accused Mukesh vide Exhibit P-68. Surprisingly, the attesting witnesses of all the aforementioned recovery memos, namely, Ashok and Rajmal, have not been produced during the trial. Evidently, the manner of recovery of all these articles raises serious doubt about the veracity of the same. Admittedly, the accused were also travelling in a trailer and Maruti vehicles were also being carried in that container. It has not come on record as to whether these batteries, jacks, wheel spanners etc. did not belong to the vehicles found in that very trailer. 18. Besides, the accused have alleged that they were all shown to the witnesses before test identification parade was conducted. Mr. Pradeep Kumar Verma (PW-22), the Judicial Magistrate, has proved the identification memos of accused from Exhibit P-11 to Exhibit P-19. Arjun Ram (PW-25), the SHO, has not explicitly denied the suggestion of defence put to him that the photographs of the accused were published in the newspapers. He did not directly deny this suggestion but only pleaded ignorance about the same. Arjun Ram (PW-25), the SHO, has not explicitly denied the suggestion of defence put to him that the photographs of the accused were published in the newspapers. He did not directly deny this suggestion but only pleaded ignorance about the same. The articles shown to have been recovered by the MP police at the instance of the accused, have not been put to identification. This, even otherwise, could not make any difference because they allegedly belonged to new Maruti cars and both the trailers of accused and deceased were transporting new Maruti cars. This possibility has not been ruled out that those articles did not belong to Maruti cars being carried by accused in their trailer. Even the stepney has not been put to identification by Ram Ratan (PW-10) to verify whether it belonged to their trailer. Memo of information (Exhibit P-93) allegedly given by accused Jagphool @ Nanhe under Section 27 of the Evidence Act with regard to rope, records that this accused informed that he and his companions used two ropes; one of which was concealed beneath the seat of driver of trailer of Chetak company. This information is shown to have been allegedly given much belatedly on 24.09.2006 by accused Jagphool @ Nanhe, whereas he was arrested on 18.09.2006 and the incident took place on 06.09.2006. The case was registered with Police Station Nagda, District Dhar of MP State on 10.09.2006, whereas piece of rope found near the dead body of Rajendra was shown to have been recovered on 07.09.2006 vide Exhibit P-4. As per the information given by accused Jagphool @ Nanhe under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, accused had two pieces of ropes but the prosecution now was alleging that it was one rope, which was divided into two parts and when both the parts of the rope were sent to FSL, they matched with each other. There is no evidence to show that both the ropes were different. One piece of rope recovered at the instance of the accused vide Exhibit P-4, and another piece of rope recovered from the trailer of the accused on 24.09.2006 vide Exhibit P-26, have been proved by the FSL to be part of the same rope. In the setting of the facts of the present case where the factum of recovery of other articles also raise serious doubt about its truthfulness. In the setting of the facts of the present case where the factum of recovery of other articles also raise serious doubt about its truthfulness. Possibility of the same rope being divided into two parts and sent to FSL, cannot be ruled out. Moreover, the accused-appellants have already been acquitted of the charges in the case registered against them for offence under Sections 399 and 402 IPC in FIR No.1/2006 registered at Police Station Nagda, District Dhar (MP). In the facts of the present case, it would be highly unsafe to rely on the testimony of Ram Ratan (PW-10) to sustain conviction of the accused-appellants. 19. The law on question of circumstantial evidence is well settled that an accused can be convicted in a case of circumstantial evidence only if the chain of circumstances against him is so complete as to rule out every single hypothesis that may be compatible with his innocence. Standard of proof in a criminal matters is always beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the prosecution in every such case is required to prove guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. If there is any scope of reasonable doubt, benefit of such doubt has to be extended to the accused. The rival submissions have to be therefore tested on that yardstick to find out whether alleged offences against the accused appellant have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. 20. The Supreme Court in Ashish Batham v. State of M.P., (2002) 7 SCC 317 , in Para 8 of the judgment, held as under:- "Realities or Truth apart, the fundamental and basic presumption in the administration of criminal law and justice delivery system is the innocence of the alleged accused and till the charges are proved beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of clear, cogent, credible or unimpeachable evidence, the question of indicting or punishing an accused does not arise, merely carried away by heinous nature of the crime or the gruesome manner in which it was found to have been committed. Mere suspicion, however, strong or probable it may be is no effective substitute for the legal proof required to substantiate the charge of commission of a crime and grave the charge is greater should be the standard of proof required. Mere suspicion, however, strong or probable it may be is no effective substitute for the legal proof required to substantiate the charge of commission of a crime and grave the charge is greater should be the standard of proof required. Courts dealing with criminal cases at least should constantly remember that there is a long mental distance between `may be true' and `must be true' and this basic and golden rule only helps to maintain the vital distinction between `conjectures' and 'sure conclusions' to be arrived at on the touch stone of a dispassionate judicial scrutiny based upon a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all features of the case as well as quality and credibility of the evidence brought on record." 21. It may be noted that in Ashish Batham, supra, the case was entirely based on circumstantial evidence in which recovery of chain of the deceased and knife used in the commission of offence as well as blood stained clothes of the accused crept suspicion about role of the accused but recovery being delayed, having been made after second remand of the accused, was itself held to be doubtful and the factum about motive that accused was in love with the deceased also not accepted. It was held that only for this reason it cannot even remotely presumed that this could be the cause of murder unless it was substantiated by credible evidence that affair broken beyond redemption. Motive factor was held to have no legal basis to constitute sufficient circumstance to connect the appellant with the crime. The accused was therefore acquitted. 22. In Mohd. Arif v. State (NCT of Delhi) – (2011) 13 SCC 621 , the Supreme Court held that each of the circumstances has to be assessed on its own merits. Quality rather than quantity of evidence is crucial factor in a case of circumstantial evidence. The court has to be cautious against imaginary inferences or its prejudices, which may unwittingly creep in. Its verdict must be based on clear and irrefutable logic. Responsibility of the prosecution in a case of circumstantial evidence is more as compared to the cases where ocular testimony or the direct evidence is available. 23. The court has to be cautious against imaginary inferences or its prejudices, which may unwittingly creep in. Its verdict must be based on clear and irrefutable logic. Responsibility of the prosecution in a case of circumstantial evidence is more as compared to the cases where ocular testimony or the direct evidence is available. 23. In Kulvinder Singh v. State of Haryana – (2011) 5 SCC 258 , also it was held by the Supreme Court that in exceptional cases, conviction of accused can be based solely on circumstantial evidence but in that case the prosecution has to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt and cannot derive any strength from weakness of defence put up by accused. Circumstances from which guilt is to be drawn should be fully established and should be of a conclusive nature and exclude all possible hypotheses except the one to be proved. Facts so established must be consistent with hypothesis of guilt of accused and chain of evidence must be so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with innocence of accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by accused and none else. 24. In Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu v. John David – (2011) 5 SCC 509 , also the Supreme Court sounded a word of caution that the court must be cautious against conjectures and surmises taking place of proof. Circumstances so proved must form a chain of events pointing to guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt without there being possibility of any other hypothesis. Each and every incriminating circumstance must be clearly established by reliable and clinching evidence, and the circumstances so proved must form chain of proof from which natural and irresistible conclusion could be drawn as to the guilt of accused and no other hypothesis against guilt is possible. It was further observed by their Lordships that in a case depending largely upon circumstantial evidence, there is always a danger that conjectures and surmises may take place a legal proof. The court must satisfy itself that various circumstances in the chain of events have been established clearly and such complete chain of events must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of innocence of the accused. The court must satisfy itself that various circumstances in the chain of events have been established clearly and such complete chain of events must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of innocence of the accused. The court has to be watchful and avoid the danger of allowing the suspicion to take the place of legal proof. There is a long mental distance between 'may be true' and 'must be true' and the same divides conjectures from sure conclusions. It was further observed that when important link goes, the chain of circumstances gets snapped. This is what has happened in the present case because of failure of the prosecution to conclusively connect the accused with the crime. 25. It is thus trite that in a case of circumstantial evidence there must be complete chain of evidence, which should lead to conclusion that the accused was the only person, who could have committed offence and none else. Each of circumstances that is proved against the accused should form a chain so complete so as to rule out every other hypothesis, which may be compatible with innocence of the accused. Though the prosecution sought to produce a large number of independent witnesses to prove the factum of last seen, motive and recovery against accused-appellants but their testimony stands on a shaky ground and has many contradictions, inconsistencies and does not prove any of those three factors, viz., last-seen, recovery and motive, beyond reasonable doubt. Prosecution has not been able to prove any of these three circumstances independently beyond reasonable doubt, let alone forming a chain of circumstance. Analysis of the evidence that we have made above, makes it evident that there are several missing links in the chain of circumstances, which cannot be accepted to be so complete as to point to the guilt of the accused and none else and when every single possibility of accused being innocent is ruled out. 26. Analysis of the evidence that we have made above, makes it evident that there are several missing links in the chain of circumstances, which cannot be accepted to be so complete as to point to the guilt of the accused and none else and when every single possibility of accused being innocent is ruled out. 26. The Supreme Court in a recently delivered judgment in Vasanta Sampat Dupare v. State of Maharashtra – (2015) 1 SCC 253 , held that the five golden principles, which have been stated to constitute the "panchsheel" of the proof of the case based on circumstantial evidence, are (i) that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must or should be and not merely "may be" fully established; (ii) that 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; (iii) that the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; (iv) that they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and, (v) that 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. 27. In view of the above discussion, we are not inclined to uphold conviction of the accused-appellants, which is entirely based on circumstantial evidence for the reason that chain of circumstances sought to be proved against them has several missing links, which cannot be said to exclude every reasonable possible hypothesis that may be compatible with their innocence. 28. In the result, the appeals succeed. Conviction and sentence awarded to accused-appellants, namely, Jagphool @ Nanhe, Rajbeer @ Kala, Mukesh @ Gulab, Surendra @ Sundra, Niranjan @ Ninja, Santa @ Santlal and Sanjay Malik @ Bhola, by impugned judgment dated 24.07.2008 passed by the trial court in Sessions Case No.16/2007 is set-aside. The accused-appellants are in jail. They shall be released forthwith, if not required to be detained in connection with any other case. 29. The accused-appellants are in jail. They shall be released forthwith, if not required to be detained in connection with any other case. 29. Keeping, however, in view the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellants, namely, Jagphool @ Nanhe, Rajbeer @ Kala, Mukesh @ Gulab, Surendra @ Sundra, Niranjan @ Ninja, Santa @ Santlal and Sanjay Malik @ Bhola, are directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount each, before the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, which shall be effective for period of six months, undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against this judgment or on grant of leave, the appellants, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court. The appeals are accordingly allowed. Registry to place a copy of this judgment in connected matter.