JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. This appeal has been filed against judgment dated 30.09.2008 vide which the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi has acquitted the accused of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code in Sessions Trial No. 15 of 2007. 2. The case of the prosecution was that in the morning of 01.01.2007 at around 5:30 a.m., accused Avneesh Patyal went to Police Station, Sarkaghat, District Mandi and disclosed to Sub-Inspector Uttam Singh, Station House Officer of Police Station, Sarkaghat that his sister Miss Anjana Patyal who was undergoing E.T.T. training from Jammu and who had come to her native village was sleeping in her room in the ground floor of their house on the intervening night of 31st December, 2006 and 1st January, 2007 and he was sleeping in the adjacent room in the same house. He heard voice of someone talking from the room of his sister at 2:00 a.m. On hearing the said voice, he got up and went to the door of his sister’s room and opened the same and saw that Kamal Kishore @ Kamlu, son of Jiva Nand of the same village was in her room with her. On seeing Kamal Kishore with his sister in her room at such odd night hour, he went out of rage and picked up a drat from gallery of the house and killed both Kamal Kishore as well as his sister Anjana Patyal by giving blows with drat. He further disclosed that after killing both of them, he locked door of the room and kept the drat in the gallery of the house and thereafter came to the Police Station, where he disclosed the occurrence to SHO Uttam Singh. 3. This information was entered by the SHO in daily diary No. 28 dated 1.1.2007, on the basis of which FIR Ex. PW14/N under Section 302 I.P.C. was registered against the accused. The accused was confined at Police Station, Sarkaghat by the SHO. He alongwith police officials went to village Karari. He called photographer Sanjeev Kumar, Pardhan Brij Lal, Ward Member Tulsi Ram of Gram Panchayat, Paplog to the spot. Villagers Promila Devi etc. were also on the spot. PW14/N under Section 302 I.P.C. was registered against the accused. The accused was confined at Police Station, Sarkaghat by the SHO. He alongwith police officials went to village Karari. He called photographer Sanjeev Kumar, Pardhan Brij Lal, Ward Member Tulsi Ram of Gram Panchayat, Paplog to the spot. Villagers Promila Devi etc. were also on the spot. Thereafter, lock of the door of the room in the house of the accused was opened by mother of the accused Smt. Kanta Devi in the presence of Pardhan Brij Lal, Ward Member Tulsi Ram and other villagers. The dead bodies of Kamal Kishore and Anjana Patyal were lying on the floor of the room in a pool of blood. SI Uttam Singh inspected the dead bodies and prepared inquest reports. The photographer took the photographs of the spot and those of the dead bodies. Thereafter, SI Uttam Singh sent both dead bodies to Referral Hospital, Sarkaghat for conducting post mortem examination. He also collected blood in two vials, hair, cap, lock and key and after sealing the same in separate parcels took the same in possession vide memo Ex. PW1/A. The drat Ex. P-11 was also recovered by him from the gallery of the house. He also prepared sketch of the same and took the same into possession vide memo Ex. PW1/C. The accused was arrested. On 02.01.2007, the accused handed over his track suit vide Ex. P-14 and Ex. P-15 to SI Uttam Singh which was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW12/A 4. Thereafter on 03.01.2007, one mobile hand set Nokia 2100 alongwith Sim card was recovered from the trunk kept in the room of deceased Anjana Patyal, which was also taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW-5/A. The post mortem reports were also collected from the Medical Officer, Referral Hospital, Sarkaghat by Sub Inspector. The articles recovered from the spot including drat Ex. P-11, blood stained track suit of the accused were sent to the Chemical Examiner, FSL Junga in sealed parcels and the report of the Chemical Examiner is Ex. -PX. 5. On completion of the investigation, the SHO of Police Station, Sarkaghat prepared the report under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused and the same was sent to the Court. Charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. -PX. 5. On completion of the investigation, the SHO of Police Station, Sarkaghat prepared the report under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused and the same was sent to the Court. Charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Trial was held by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi. 6. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses. 7. PW-1 Brij Lal Sharma was Pardhan of Gram Panchayat, Paplog. He has stated that parcel Ex.-P7 was packed and sealed in his presence, in which lock and key were packed. He further deposed that photographs were also taken at the time when the door was opened and the photographer was with the police. One drat was also taken into possession from the gallery of the house. In his cross-examination, he has mentioned that he was elected Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat in the month of December, 2005. He has further stated that when he reached the spot, police alongwith other residents of the locality including neighbourers were already present. He further mentioned that he was knowing the persons present there and police did not inquire about the occurrence of the incident from those persons present there in his presence. As per him, he remained with the police on the spot till 1:30 p.m. He has further deposed that police did not bring the accused on the spot on that day or thereafter at any time in his presence. He has further stated that deceased Kamal Kishore was brahaman by caste, whereas Avneesh is rajput by caste. 8. PW-2 Smt. Yamuna Devi has stated that her house is situated adjoining to the house of father of the accused. She was awake up to 2:30 a.m. on the fateful day as the birthday of her husband was falling on 01.01.2007 and she was preparing babrus. Kanta Devi mother of deceased Ranjana was asking her to open the door, however, she was not opening the door, so Avneesh got up and opened the door. PW-2 has further stated that she is not aware how he opened the door. She has further deposed that thereafter she heard the sound as if Avneesh was attacking someone. She heard the shrieks of Ranjana, who was saying not to attack as people were hearing. PW-2 has further stated that she is not aware how he opened the door. She has further deposed that thereafter she heard the sound as if Avneesh was attacking someone. She heard the shrieks of Ranjana, who was saying not to attack as people were hearing. She further deposed that then she heard Kanta weeping. She also stated that the daughter of Kanta was called as Ranjana by her name. According to her, house of Sham Lal was also adjacent to her house, but nobody was residing in that house. She has further deposed that next morning she came to know that Ranjana and Kamal Kishore had been killed by Avneesh. 9. PW-3 Rita Devi has deposed that she resides in the house which is at a distance of 20-25 meters from the house of Rajvir, father of accused. As per her, during the night of 31.12.2006 at around 3 O’ Clock, she heard shrieks of a girl from the house of Rajvir. Shrieks were heard on the intervening night of 31.12.2006 and 01.01.2007. At this, her dog also started barking. She came out of the house and as nothing could be heard, she went to the roof of her house and there she saw light in the house of Rajvir. Next day, she came to know that Kamal Kishore and Ranjana had been killed. 10. PW-4 Jiva Nand has deposed that he personally knew the accused and had good relations him. He was on duty at B.B.M.B. Hospital, Sundernagar on 01.01.2007, when at about 8:00 a.m. he received a telephonic call from his nephew Pritam that Kamal Kishore was seriously ill and he was asked to come home immediately. When he reached the village, he saw gathering of villagers and relatives at his house and later on police told him that his son Kamal Kishore had been killed in the house of Rajvir. 11. PW-5 Satish Kumar has deposed that the accused was his cousin and police had asked him on 01.01.2007 to take clothes, i.e. track suit from the house of Rajvir Singh. The track suit was stained with blood, which was lying hanging in the room. He was declared as hostile witness. 12. PW-6 Dr. P.L. Verma conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Anjana Kumari. The track suit was stained with blood, which was lying hanging in the room. He was declared as hostile witness. 12. PW-6 Dr. P.L. Verma conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Anjana Kumari. He has stated that in his opinion, deceased Anjana Kumari died due to haemorrhagic shock due to cutting of major vessels of the neck and suffocation caused due to tracheal cut. He further mentioned that probable time between injury and death was few minutes and time between death and post mortem was between 12 hours to 24 hours. He has issued post mortem report Ex. PW6/8. He has further stated that injuries detailed by him were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. He has further deposed that on the same day, he also conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Kamal Kishore. In his opinion, the deceased had died due to haemorrhagic shock caused by cutting of major neck vessel. The probable time between injury and death was few minutes and between death and post mortem was 12 to 24 hours. 13. PW-7 Sanjeev Kumar stated that he runs Amba Photo Studio at Sarkaghat for the last 7-8 years and on 01.01.2007, as per requirement of police, he took photographs of the spot in the house of Avneesh Patyal in village Karari. 14. PW-8 Smt. Kanta Devi mother of the accused has stated that she had two children deceased Anjana and accused Avneesh Patyal. Anjana Kumari was undergoing training of E.T.T. from Jammu in the year 2007 and Avneesh Patyal was studying in college. She has further deposed that during the night of 31.12.2006, she was watching television in her room alongwith her children. At 9:00 p.m., both Anjana and Avneesh after taking milk went to sleep in the ground floor of the house. They were sleeping in different rooms. A function was being celebrated in the house of Rita on the eve of new year, therefore, due to noise of the function, she could not sleep till 12:00 O’ Clock mid night. Thereafter, she was sleeping and got up at 7:00 a.m. next morning. By that time, police came to her house. When she went to milk buffalo, police came to their house and asked about the members of her family. Thereafter, she was sleeping and got up at 7:00 a.m. next morning. By that time, police came to her house. When she went to milk buffalo, police came to their house and asked about the members of her family. She told them that she alongwith her two children was at house, whereas her husband was at Pangi. Police conducted the search of the house and 3-4 houses adjoining her house. She did not hand over key of her house to police. She was also declared as hostile witness. 15. PW-9 Head Constable Dalip Singh has deposed that on 01.01.2007, SI Uttam Singh deposited with him seven parcels sealed with seal impression ‘U’. One parcel was stated to be containing drat and another parcel lock and key. Two parcels were stated to be containing blood samples of deceased Anjana Kumari and Kamal Kishore and other two parcels were stated to be containing hair. One other parcel was stated to be containing cap. Again on 02.01.2007, SI Uttam Singh deposited one more parcel with him with seal impression ‘R’, which was stated to be containing track suit. Thereafter on 03.01.2007, SI Uttam Singh again deposited another parcel with him sealed with impression ‘U’, which was containing mobile hand set of Nokia. Thereafter on 04.01.2007, SI Uttam Singh again deposited with him two parcels stated to be containing blood stained clothes of Kamal Kishore and Anjana. He had made entries about the aforesaid parcels in register No. 19 maintained by him. He has further deposed that on 12.01.2007, he sent nine parcels vide R.C. No. 8/2007 through Constable Bhal Chand to F.S.L., Junga. Two parcels containing lock and key and a mobile hand set were sent to F.S.L., Junga. Constable Bhal Chand after depositing nine parcels with F.S.L., Junga had deposited the receipt with him. He has further deposed that as long as the case property remained in his custody, he did not interfere with the seal on the same. 16. PW-10 Constable Bhal Chand has stated that on 12.01.2007, MHC Dalip Singh handed over to him nine sealed parcels vide R.C. No. 8/2007. He took these parcels alongwith specimen seal impression to F.S.L. Junga and deposited them there. On return, he handed over the receipt issued by F.S.L. to MHC and so long as the case property remained in his custody, he did not interfere with seal impression on the same. 17. He took these parcels alongwith specimen seal impression to F.S.L. Junga and deposited them there. On return, he handed over the receipt issued by F.S.L. to MHC and so long as the case property remained in his custody, he did not interfere with seal impression on the same. 17. PW-11 Raj Pal Singh has stated that he is a practicing Advocate at Sarkaghat for the last 25 years. Rajvir was personally known to him as he had been his client for the last 15 years. According to him, the accused never came to him on 01.01.2007 at 4 :00 a.m. He was also declared as hostile witness. 18. PW-12 HC Parakaram Singh has deposed that he was posted as Head Constable/I.O. at Police Station, Sarkaghat since the year 2006. On 02.01.2007, he was at Police Station, Sarkaghat. Accused was wearing a Track suit. Satish Kumar, brother of the accused brought clothes of Avneesh Patyal and then Avneesh Patyal changed his clothes and then he handed over the track suit to police and put on the clothes brought by his brother. The track suit was stained with blood and on the back of shirt of the track suit G.C. Sarkaghat was printed. The track suit was packed in a parcel and was sealed with seal impression ‘R’ and after taking specimen seal impression, the same was handed over to him. 19. PW-13 Constable Om Parkash deposed that he was posted as M.C. at Police Station, Sarkaghat and on 01.01.2007, S.H.O. Uttam Singh got recorded daily diary No. 28 in the presence of the accused and the same was recorded by him. Copy of the same was exhibited as Ex. PW-13/A and the accused had signed the daily diary No. 28. He identified the signatures of the accused on the same. 20. PW-14 SI Uttam Singh has narrated the incident as mentioned in the FIR. As per him, he was posted as SI/SHO Police Station Sarkaghat. On 01.01.2007 at around 5:00 a.m., HHC Ram Singh who was on telephone duty came to him and told that one person wanted to meet him. He told HHC Ram Singh to bring the person to him. This person was brought by HHC Ram Singh to his residence and he asked the person to sit in his room. On 01.01.2007 at around 5:00 a.m., HHC Ram Singh who was on telephone duty came to him and told that one person wanted to meet him. He told HHC Ram Singh to bring the person to him. This person was brought by HHC Ram Singh to his residence and he asked the person to sit in his room. On inquiry, the person disclosed his name as Avneesh Patyal, S/o Rajvir Patiyal, R/o Village Karari and on inquiry Avneesh Patyal told him that he had committed the murder of his sister and Kamal Kishore with a drat and thereafter locked the door of the room and kept the drat in the gallery and come to inform him in the Police Station. He further deposed that thereafter he got the facts recorded in the daily diary, on which the signatures of the accused were also taken. On the basis of daily diary, FIR under Section 302 I.P.C. was registered. After handing over the accused in the custody of MHC and M.C., he asked the photographer on telephone to come to the spot and he alongwith police staff also went to the spot. He reached at village Karari around 7:00 a.m. and made inquiries from the residents of the village. He went to the house of the accused and on calling from outside of the house, mother of the accused appeared on first storey of the house and he asked her to come down. He asked Kanta Devi about the accused who told him that he might be sleeping in his room or might have gone to ease himself in the morning. He asked about her daughter and she told him that she was sleeping in her room. He asked Smt. Kanta to check her son and daughter in the room and then she went to the room of the accused who was not there. Then she checked door of room of Anjana Patyal, which was locked. In the meantime, villagers of the locality also came there, which included Baldev and Bhagwan Dass and few women. Then he inquired about the Pardhan and Up-Pardhan. The house of Pardhan Brij Lal was quite far away and he could not contact him on telephone. He sent HHC Ravi Kumar to call Pardhan from his house. In the meantime, villagers of the locality also came there, which included Baldev and Bhagwan Dass and few women. Then he inquired about the Pardhan and Up-Pardhan. The house of Pardhan Brij Lal was quite far away and he could not contact him on telephone. He sent HHC Ravi Kumar to call Pardhan from his house. In the meantime, photographer Sanjay Kumar had also come to the village and thereafter Pardhan Brij Lal and Ward Member Tulsi Ram reached on the spot at around 10:00 a.m. He then asked Smt. Kanta Devi to bring key of the lock on the door of Anjana Patyal and she brought the key. The lock on the door was opened by Smt. Kanta Devi and photographs were also taken by the photographer. When the door was opened, two dead bodies of a girl and a boy were found in the room in pool of blood and there were injuries caused with sharp edged weapon on the neck and head of the dead bodies. These dead bodies were identified by Baldev and Bhagwan Dass to be that of Anjana Kumari and Kamal Kishore. Thereafter, photographs of the room and dead bodies were taken. Hair etc. lying there were taken into possession and packed in a polythene and sealed. Bloodstained drat was lying in the gallery of the house. Photographs of the same were taken and the drat was taken into possession and the sketch of the same was prepared. Parcels prepared were signed by Brij Lal and Tulsi Ram. After completion of all the formalities, he got recorded the statements of Brij Lal, Tulsi Ram, Smt. Promila Devi and Smt. Kanta Devi under Section 161 Cr. P.C. He made inquiries from 3-4 residents of the village and the dead bodies were sent to hospital for post mortem examination. 21. PW-15 Inspector Jhonphi Ram had prepared the challan of the case. 22. The defence has also examined two DWs. 23. DW-1 Vipin Sharma, Copyist in the office of S.D.J.M., Sarkaghat had brought the summoned record with regard to the case file of Civil Suit No. 172 of 1999 titled Rajvir Vs. Hira Lal. 24. DW-2 Urmila Devi Head Teacher, Government Primary School, Kakari Paploh, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi had brought the admission and withdrawal register maintained in the School, as per which, the date of birth of Kashmir Singh was 18.10.1960. 25. Hira Lal. 24. DW-2 Urmila Devi Head Teacher, Government Primary School, Kakari Paploh, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi had brought the admission and withdrawal register maintained in the School, as per which, the date of birth of Kashmir Singh was 18.10.1960. 25. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C. He denied the case of the prosecution and claimed himself to be innocent. His contention was that on the day of occurrence on 1.1.2007, he left his house early in the morning for jogging and when returned home, he was apprehended by SI Uttam Singh and was taken to Police Station, Sarkaghat. His track suit was lying in the room where murder took place which was taken into possession by the police. He was not wearing the track suit in issue. He further stated that deceased Kamal Kishore had no acquaintance with his sister and on the intervening night of 31.12.2006 and 01.01.2007, deceased Kamal Kishore was with Vickey alias Vikas, Pritam and Goldi, who were celebrating new year eve in the house of Smt. Rita Devi till late night. All of them had consumed liquor. Police had detained Vikas alias Sunny, son of Rita Devi, Goldi, son of Kamuna Devi and Pritam. Later on, Rita Devi and Jamuna Devi became false prosecution witnesses, who were inimical towards the family of the accused and thus Goldi and Vikas were let off by the police and a false case had been fabricated against him. He further stated that he was tortured by the police and his signatures were taken on Rojnamcha and other blank papers under pressure. According to him, he had not committed the murder of his sister Anjana Patyal and Kamal Kishore. A false case had been fabricated against him due to enmity with family of Rita Devi and Jamuna Devi. 26. As per judgment of the learned trial Court, learned Public Prosecutor urged before it that it stood proved that accused in the morning on 1.1.2007 had gone to Police Station, Sarkaghat at 5:30 a.m. and disclosed to SI/SHO Uttam Singh that he had killed his sister Anjana Patyal and Kamal Kishore with drat. 26. As per judgment of the learned trial Court, learned Public Prosecutor urged before it that it stood proved that accused in the morning on 1.1.2007 had gone to Police Station, Sarkaghat at 5:30 a.m. and disclosed to SI/SHO Uttam Singh that he had killed his sister Anjana Patyal and Kamal Kishore with drat. The track suit which the accused was wearing at the time of committing the murder was handed over by the accused to SI Uttam Singh, which was sent for chemical examination and as per report of the Chemical Examiner Ex.- PX, there were stains of blood group ‘A’ on the same which tallied with the blood group ‘A’ collected from the room. Thus, according to learned Public Prosecutor, it was proved that the accused had committed the murder of his sister Anjana Patyal and Kamal Kishore. According to learned Public Prosecutor, the case of the prosecution also stood proved as per statement of PW-2 Jamana Devi and PW-3 Rita Devi. Learned Public Prosecutor had submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts and accordingly the accused was liable to be convicted and sentenced for having committed brutal murder of his sister Anjana Kumari and Kamal Kishore. 27. The contention of the defence was that the alleged confessional statement made by the accused to the Station House Officer as was recorded in daily diary No. 28, i.e Ex. PW-13/A was a confession made to a Police Officer and the same was therefore inadmissible in evidence as per the provisions of Section 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 and the same could not have been used against the accused. It was further argued that the track suit was in fact lying in the room from where the dead bodies were recovered and the Investigating Officer had fabricated the facts that the accused was wearing the same when he went to the Police Station. It was further argued that the other suspects, namely Vikas and Goldi had been let off because their mothers have become prosecution witnesses and the accused was being implicated falsely on account of the enmity that existed between the family of the accused and the families of Rita Devi and Jamuna Devi. It was further argued that the other suspects, namely Vikas and Goldi had been let off because their mothers have become prosecution witnesses and the accused was being implicated falsely on account of the enmity that existed between the family of the accused and the families of Rita Devi and Jamuna Devi. It was further argued that the case of the prosecution is solely based on circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has failed to prove the chain of circumstances in order to prove its case that the offence was in fact committed by the accused. It was also argued by the defence that there was not even an iota of evidence against the accused which could connect him with the alleged crime. 28. Learned trial Court on the basis of the material produced before it, came to the conclusion that the evidence led by the prosecution was not sufficient enough to warrant conviction of the accused. Accordingly, it acquitted the accused of the charge framed under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against him. . 29. Learned Assistant Advocate General has strenuously argued that the judgment passed by the learned trial Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law. According to him, acquittal of the accused who has committed such a heinous crime is nothing but travesty of justice. It was urged that the accused after committing the crime, had voluntarily gone to the Police Station and confessed the commission of the same. All the recoveries were made on the basis of the statement of the accused. There was no reason to implicate the accused in any false case as was being contended on behalf of the accused. The evidence led by the prosecution was clinching and it was established beyond any reasonable doubt that the murders were in fact committed by the accused when he found his sister with Kamal Kishore in the same room in the odd hours of the night. Thus, on this basis it was submitted by the learned Assistant Advocate General that the judgment passed by the learned trial Court was liable to be set aside and the accused should be convicted for the offence committed by him. 30. We have heard the learned Assistant Advocate General and also gone through the records of the case as well as the judgment passed by the learned trial Court at length. 31. 30. We have heard the learned Assistant Advocate General and also gone through the records of the case as well as the judgment passed by the learned trial Court at length. 31. In the present case, there is no eye witness. The case of the prosecution is also that it is the accused who voluntarily come to the Police Station in the morning on 01.01.2007 and disclosed the commission of the crime, which was alleged to have been committed by him. Except for his statement, there is nothing on record to connect the accused with the commission of the offence. There is no eye witness who has seen the accused committing the crime. 32. At this stage, it is relevant to take note of the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court on circumstantial evidence in Vijay Thakur Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2014) 14 Supreme Court Cases 609, relevant paras of which are quoted below: “18. It is to be emphasized at this stage that except the so-called recoveries, there is no other circumstances worth the name which has been proved against these two appellants. It is a case of blind murder. There are no eyewitnesses. Conviction is based on the circumstantial evidence. In such a case, complete chain of events has to be established pointing out the culpability of the accused person. The chain should be such that no other conclusion, except the guilt of the accused person, is discernible without any doubt. Insofar as these two appellants are concerned, there is no circumstance attributed except that they were with Rajinder Thakur till Sainj and the alleged disclosure leading to recoveries, which appears to be doubtful. When we look into all these facts in entirety in the aforesaid context, we find that not only the chain of events is incomplete, it becomes somewhat difficult to convict the appellant only on the basis of the aforesaid recoveries. 19. In Mani v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2008) 1 SCR 228 , this Court made following pertinent observation on this very aspect: “26. The discovery is a weak kind of evidence and cannot be wholly relied upon on and conviction in such a serious matter cannot be based upon the discovery. Once the discovery fails, there would be literally nothing which would support the prosecution case....” 20. The discovery is a weak kind of evidence and cannot be wholly relied upon on and conviction in such a serious matter cannot be based upon the discovery. Once the discovery fails, there would be literally nothing which would support the prosecution case....” 20. There is a reiteration of the same sentiment in Manthuri Laxmi Narsaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2011) 14 SCC 117 in the following manner: “6. It is by now well settled that in a case relating to circumstantial evidence the chain of circumstances has to be spelt out by the prosecution and if even one link in the chain is broken the accused must get the benefit thereof. We are of the opinion that the present is in fact a case of no evidence.” 21. Likewise, in Mustkeem alias Sirajudeen v. State of Rajasthan, (2011) 11 SCC 724 , this Court observed as under: “24. In a most celebrated case of this Court, Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 , in para 153, some cardinal principles regarding the appreciation of circumstantial evidence have been postulated. Whenever the case is based on circumstantial evidence the following features are required to be complied with. It would be beneficial to repeat the same salient features once again which are as under: (SCC p.185) “(i) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must or should be and not merely 'may be' fully established; (ii) 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) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; (iv) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and (v) 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.” 25. With regard to Section 27 of the Act, what is important is discovery of the material object at the disclosure of the accused but such disclosure alone would not automatically lead to the conclusion that the offence was also committed by the accused. With regard to Section 27 of the Act, what is important is discovery of the material object at the disclosure of the accused but such disclosure alone would not automatically lead to the conclusion that the offence was also committed by the accused. In fact, thereafter, burden lies on the prosecution to establish a close link between discovery of the material object and its use in the commission of the offence. What is admissible under Section 27 of the Act is the information leading to discovery and not any opinion formed on it by the prosecution.” It is settled position of law that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the character of proof. 22. We, therefore, have no hesitation in allowing these appeals and setting aside the conviction and sentence of the two appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code. We order accordingly. The appellants are directed to be released from jail forthwith, if not required in any other case.” 33. Thus, the salient points which have been carved out by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of circumstantial evidence, on the basis of which the guilt of the accused can be brought home are as under: “(i) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must or should be and not merely ‘may be’ fully established; (ii) 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) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; (iv) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and (v) Thee 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.” 34. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sangili alias Sanganathan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2014) 10 Supreme Court Cases 264 has held as under: “15. To sum up what is discussed above, it is a case of blind murder. There are no eyewitnesses. Conviction is based on the circumstantial evidence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sangili alias Sanganathan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2014) 10 Supreme Court Cases 264 has held as under: “15. To sum up what is discussed above, it is a case of blind murder. There are no eyewitnesses. Conviction is based on the circumstantial evidence. In such a case, complete chain of events has to be established pointing out the culpability of the accused person. The chain should be such that no other conclusion, except the guilt of the accused person, is discernible without any doubt. In the present case, we find, in the first instance, that the appellant was roped in with suspicion that it was a case of triangular love and since he also loved PW-3, he eliminated the deceased when he found that the deceased and PW-3 are in love with each other. However, we are of the view that this motive has not been proved. The evidence of last seen is also not established. Father of the deceased only said that the deceased had received a call and after receiving that call he left the house. In his deposition, he admitted that he had not seen the appellant before and he did not recognize his voice either. Therefore, he was unable to say as to whether the phone call received was that of the appellant. Proceeding further, we find that the deceased was not seen by anybody after he left the house. When we look into all these facts in entirety in the aforesaid context, we find that not only the chain of events is incomplete, it becomes somewhat difficult to convict the appellant only on the basis of the aforesaid recoveries. 16. In Mani v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2009) 17 SCC 273 , this Court made following pertinent observation on this very aspect: “26. The discovery is a weak kind of evidence and cannot be wholly relied upon and conviction in such a serious matter cannot be based upon the discovery. Once the discovery fails, there would be literally nothing which would support the prosecution case....” There is a reiteration of the same sentiment in Manthuri Laxmi Narsaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2011) 14 SCC 117 in the following manner: “6. Once the discovery fails, there would be literally nothing which would support the prosecution case....” There is a reiteration of the same sentiment in Manthuri Laxmi Narsaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2011) 14 SCC 117 in the following manner: “6. It is by now well settled that in a case relating to circumstantial evidence the chain of circumstances has to be spelt out by the prosecution and if even one link in the chain is broken the accused must get the benefit thereof. We are of the opinion that the present is in fact a case of no evidence.” 17. Likewise, in Mustkeem alias Sirajudeen v. State of Rajasthan, (2011) 11 SCC 724 , this Court observed as under: “24. In a most celebrated case of this Court, Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 , in para 153, some cardinal principles regarding the appreciation of circumstantial evidence have been postulated. Whenever the case is based on circumstantial evidence the following features are required to be complied with. It would be beneficial to repeat the same salient features once again which are as under: (SCC p.185) “(i) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must or should be and not merely 'may be' fully established; (ii) 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) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; (iv) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and (v) 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.” 25. With regard to Section 27 of the Act, what is important is discovery of the material object at the disclosure of the accused but such disclosure alone would not automatically lead to the conclusion that the offence was also committed by the accused. In fact, thereafter, burden lies on the prosecution to establish a close link between discovery of the material object and its use in the commission of the offence. In fact, thereafter, burden lies on the prosecution to establish a close link between discovery of the material object and its use in the commission of the offence. What is admissible under Section 27 of the Act is the information leading to discovery and not any opinion formed on it by the prosecution.” (emphasis supplied) 18. It is settled position of law that suspicion however strong cannot be a substitute for proof. In a case resting completely on the circumstantial evidence the chain of circumstances must be so complete that they lead only to one conclusion, that is, the guilt of the accused. In our opinion, it is not safe to record a finding of guilt of the appellant and the appellant is entitled to get the benefit of doubt. We, therefore, allow the appeal and set-aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant. The appellant be set at liberty unless required in any other case.” 35. In these circumstances because it is a case of circumstantial evidence, this Court has to satisfy its judicial conscience as to whether by way of circumstantial evidence produced on record by the prosecution, it has been able to link the commission of the offence with the accused or not. 36. Now, we will apply the above salient features to the facts of the present case in order to ascertain as to whether there is any infirmity or perversity with the judgment passed by the learned trial Court in the present case. Neither there is any direct evidence nor there is any eye witness who allegedly has seen the accused committing the crime. Thus, the case of the prosecution is solely based on circumstantial evidence. Where a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence in order to base conviction, must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. The circumstances upon which the appellant has relied upon are as under: (i) Confessional statement made by the accused to SI/SHO Uttam Singh on 1.1.2007 at 5:00 a.m., which formed basis of the first information report. (ii) Recovery of blood stained track suit Ex. P14 and Ex. P15 from the accused person and as per report Ex. The circumstances upon which the appellant has relied upon are as under: (i) Confessional statement made by the accused to SI/SHO Uttam Singh on 1.1.2007 at 5:00 a.m., which formed basis of the first information report. (ii) Recovery of blood stained track suit Ex. P14 and Ex. P15 from the accused person and as per report Ex. PX of F.S.L., same blood group ‘A’ on the track suit as well as on the articles and blood stained clothes, recovered from the room in question. (iii) Evidence of PW-2 Yamuna Devi alias Jamuna Devi and PW-3 Rita Devi. (iv) Dead bodies of Anjana and Kamal Kishore recovered from the house of the accused, where he was sleeping during intervening night of 31.12.2006 and 1.1.2007.” 37. These circumstances also find mention in the judgment passed by the learned trial Court. We will also deal with all the circumstances one by one. (i) Confessional statement made by the accused to SI/SHO Uttam Singh on 1.1.2007 at 5:00 a.m., which formed basis of the first information report. 38. Learned Assistant Advocate General has argued that the learned trial Court has erred in not appreciating the statements of PW-13 Constable Om Parkash and PW-14 SI Uttam Singh while deciding the circumstance in correct perspective. As per the appellant, it stood proved from the material on record that it was the accused who went to the Police Station in the morning on 1.1.2007 at 5:00 a.m. and disclosed the incident before PW-14. It was on the basis of his statement that SI Uttam Singh went to the spot and recovered the dead bodies as well as drat with which the crime was committed. Thus, according to the appellant, the confessional statement made by the accused directly linked him with the commission of the crime. 39. However, in our considered view, the so called confessional statement Ex. PW-13/A is hit by the provisions of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. PW-14 had stated that the said confessional statement of the accused was reduced into writing in the daily diary which formed the basis of registration of first information report. Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act contemplates that no confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence. 40. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Aghu Nagesia Vs. Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act contemplates that no confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence. 40. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Aghu Nagesia Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 119 has held that if the first information report is given by the accused to a police officer and amounts to a confessional statement, proof of the confession is prohibited by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. 41. In this view of the matter, the so called confessional statement made by the accused to PW-14, in our considered view, is of no help to the prosecution and the learned trial Court also has correctly held that Ex. PW13/A was hit by the provisions of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. The said confessional statement is inadmissible and neither it can be read in evidence nor it can be made basis of conviction of the accused. (ii) Recovery of blood stained track suit Ex. P14 and Ex. P15 from the accused person and as per report Ex. PX of F.S.L., same blood group ‘A’ on the track suit as well as on the articles and blood stained clothes, recovered from the room in question. 42. It has been argued by the learned Assistant Advocate General that the learned trial Court has erred in not appreciating that the bloodstained track suit which the accused was wearing at the time of the commission of the crime, was not only handed over by him to the police but it stands proved from the report of the Chemical Examiner that the bloodstains of ‘A’ group which were found on the said track suit were the same as were found from the blood samples of Kamal Kishore and the clothes which were being worn by Anjana. 43. Incidentally, the blood group of both deceased as well as accused was ‘A’ group. It has come in the statement of PW-14 that when he inspected the person of the accused, he found injuries on left hand and left leg of the accused. 43. Incidentally, the blood group of both deceased as well as accused was ‘A’ group. It has come in the statement of PW-14 that when he inspected the person of the accused, he found injuries on left hand and left leg of the accused. As per PW-14, the accused was sent for medical examination to Sarkaghat Hospital and the Medical Officer after examining the accused had issued M.L.C., wherein as per the opinion of the Medical Officer, there were simple injuries on the body of the accused caused with blunt object on the person of the accused. However, the said M.L.C. of the accused has not been produced on record by the prosecution. In this background, keeping in view the fact that the blood group of the accused was ‘A’, this possibility cannot be ruled out that the track suit of the accused was stained with the blood which oozed out of the injuries of the accused himself. There is no plausible explanation given by the prosecution as to why the M.L.C. of the accused was not produced on record. Therefore, an adverse inference has to be drawn against the prosecution in this regard and this chain of circumstances, in our considered view, also has not been established beyond any reasonable doubt by the prosecution. (iii) Evidence of PW-2 Yamuna Devi alias Jamuna Devi and PW-3 Rita Devi. 44. As far as the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3 is concerned, they are not eye witnesses. PW-2 Jamuna Devi has deposed that on the fateful night, she was awake as she was preparing babrus on account of birthday of her husband which falls on 1.1.2007. At around 2:30 a.m., according to her, Kanta Devi asked her daughter to open the door, but she did not open the same. Thereafter, the accused got up and he opened the door. She has deposed that how he opened the door is not in her knowledge. Thereafter, she deposed that she heard sounds as if accused was attacking some one and she also heard shrieks of Ranjana and her saying not to attack as people were hearing. Thereafter, as per the said witness, she heard their mother Kanta crying. When the statement of this witness made in the Court is seen vis-à-vis her statement recorded under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, it can be inferred that she has made improvements in the same. Thereafter, as per the said witness, she heard their mother Kanta crying. When the statement of this witness made in the Court is seen vis-à-vis her statement recorded under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, it can be inferred that she has made improvements in the same. These improvements, in our considered view, amount to contradictions and are not saved by the explanation attached to Section 162 Cr. P.C. Another relevant factor is that this witness cannot be termed to be a disinterested witness because there is long standing litigation going on between her and the father of the accused. The alleged explanation given by her as to why she was awake at 2:30 a.m. on the fateful night is that she was preparing babrus on account of birthday of her husband Kashmir Singh which falls on 1.1.2007. However, Ex. DW2/A demonstrates that the date of birth of her husband is 18.10.1960 as per the records of Government Primary School, Karari. In these circumstances, the statement of this witness cannot be said to trustworthy or inspiring any confidence. Her credibility has been impinged by the defence. Her conduct is quite unnatural which is evident from the fact that as per her, the factum of her hearing hues and cries from the house of the accused on the fateful night and two dead bodies being recovered from the house of the accused in the morning was not disclosed by her to other members of her family till her examination in the Court. 45. As far as PW-3 Smt. Rita is concerned, her son Vikas Patyal @ Sunni was interrogated by PW-14 as the deceased Kamal Kishore was with him and other boys during the night till mid night on 31.12.2006. She has deposed that on the fateful night, she heard the shrieks of girl from the house of Rajbir, but as she could not hear anything, she went on the roof and saw light in the house of Rajbir. Thereafter, as per her, next morning she came to know that Kamal Kishore and Ranjana had been killed. Another important factum which has to be taken into consideration is that her house was not situated near to the house of Rajvir as there were houses of other persons including Labh Singh, Saroj, Suresh and Ramesh in between her house and the house of Rajvir. Another important factum which has to be taken into consideration is that her house was not situated near to the house of Rajvir as there were houses of other persons including Labh Singh, Saroj, Suresh and Ramesh in between her house and the house of Rajvir. Besides this, as per the prosecution, there was a function in her house on eve of new year which incidentally has been denied by her. The factum of her being inimical towards the family of the accused is also apparent as her husband had appeared as witness against the father of the accused in a Civil Suit filed by the husband of PW-2. This inference can also not be ruled out that Rita Devi has deposed in the manner in which she has to save her son from being implicated in the case. Therefore, even this witness is not an independent witness and her statement also does not inspire any confidence and is not trustworthy. It does not even seem to be truthful and appears to be doubtful and suspicious. Thus, in our considered view, it can be said that the statements of PW-2 and PW-3 do not further the cause of the prosecution and cannot be said to be a proving link which can connect the accused with the commission of the crime. (iv) Dead bodies of Anjana and Kamal Kishore recovered from the house of the accused, where he was sleeping during intervening night of 31.12.2006 and 1.1.2007.” 46. It is apparent from the statements of PW-1 and PW-14 that the room in which the dead bodies were found, i.e. room of Anjana Patyal was having two doors. One of the said door was opening towards gallery and the second was opening towards back side of the house of Rajvir. On this back side, there was a village road. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that it was only the accused in the ground floor who could have an excess to the room in which the dead bodies were found is belied. The prosecution has not been able to prove that the door which opened towards the back side of the house was locked. Therefore, this inference cannot be ruled out that anyone could have excess to the room through the second door which opens towards back side of the house of Rajvir. The prosecution has not been able to prove that the door which opened towards the back side of the house was locked. Therefore, this inference cannot be ruled out that anyone could have excess to the room through the second door which opens towards back side of the house of Rajvir. PW-14 in his statement has himself stated that there was a function being celebrated in the house of Rita Devi on the eve of new year which continued till 12 O’ Clock. He has also admitted that as per entry in the case diary prepared by him, Vikas Patyal alias Sunny son of Rita Devi alongwith other boys were with Kamal Kishore during night till 12 O’ Clock midnight. Therefore, the door through which Kamal Kishore accessed the room of deceased Anjana was also open and accessible to others including the boys with whom he was till 12 O’ Clock. Therefore, even if the contention of the prosecution is to be believed for a minute, even then the conclusion which could be drawn is merely ‘may be’. However, this ‘may be’ cannot be substituted for ‘must or should be’. Thus, it cannot be said that this circumstance has also been proved by the prosecution. Besides this, learned trial Court has gone into all these aspects of the matter and has thereafter concluded that the prosecution has failed to establish its case against the accused. 47. After going through the judgment passed by the learned trial Court and after going through the records of the case at length, we are also of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused. They have not been able to link the accused with the crime beyond any reasonable doubt. The chain of circumstance is neither complete nor it links the accused with the crime beyond all reasonable doubt. 48. Therefore, according to us, there is neither any infirmity nor any perversity with the judgment which has been passed by the learned trial Court and the same warrants no interference and accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.