JUDGMENT : K.S. Jhaveri, J. 1. These appeals are filed against the judgment and order dated 12.10.2011, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar, in Sessions Case No. 129 of 2010, whereby, the present appellants-accused persons, were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 363,364, 201 of the IPC and under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. The conviction as recorded by the trial Court is as shown in the table below: Conviction under Sections Imprisonment In default of payment of fine 1) 302 of IPC 1) Rigorous life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10,000/- 1) Further rigorous imprisonment for one year 2) 363 of IPC 2) Rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and fine of Rs. 5,000/- 2) Further rigorous imprisonment for 6 months 3) 364 of IPC 3) Rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and fine of Rs. 5,000/- 3) Further rigorous imprisonment for 6 months 4) 201 of IPC 4) Rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs. 2,000/- 4) Further rigorous imprisonment for 3 months 5) 135 of the B.P.Act 5) Rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and fine of Rs. 1,000/- 5) Further simple imprisonment for 15 days. 2. Criminal Appeal No. 1451 of 2011, has preferred by original accused No. 1, in Sessions Case No. 129 of 2010, whereas Criminal Appeal No. 2008 of 2012, has been preferred by original accused No. 2, in Sessions Case No. 129 of 2010. We have therefore, heard these criminal appeals together. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 16.06.2010, at 12:30 in the afternoon, the accused persons keeping the suspicion that the minor Deepak kumar Maurya, the nephew of the complainant, aged 14 years, had an illicit relationship with his wife (wife of original accused No. 1), kidnapped the minor in the rickshaw of witness No. 30. Accused No. 2, being the cousin of accused No. 1, helped accused No. 1 and hatched a conspiracy and decided to give Rs. 50,000/- as 'supari' (contract to kill) and kill the minor. The deceased was taken to the field of witness No. 23, near the 'bor-well' and stabbed as many as 9 times, and thereafter, threw the dead body of the deceased in the well, and thereby tried to cause destruction of evidence. 50,000/- as 'supari' (contract to kill) and kill the minor. The deceased was taken to the field of witness No. 23, near the 'bor-well' and stabbed as many as 9 times, and thereafter, threw the dead body of the deceased in the well, and thereby tried to cause destruction of evidence. The accused also breached the Notification issued by District Magistrate of Prohibition of Arms and Weapons, in the event of killing the deceased. Therefore, the accused were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 363, 364, 201, 120-B of the IPC and also charged for offence punishable under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. 4. Upon filing of the complaint, investigation was carried out and the accused were arrested and charge-sheet was submitted in the Court of learned Magistrate. However, as the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the same was committed to the Sessions Court. Thereafter, the charges were framed against the accused persons, which was read over to them. The accused persons pleaded 'not guilty' and claimed to be tried. 5. During the trial, the prosecution has examined the following witnesses: Sr. No. Name Exhibit No. 1 Ratanlal Surajmal Maurya 11 2 Mahendrakumar Surajmal Maurya 14 3 Kanchandevi w/o Mahendrakumar Maurya 16 4 Nituben w/o Surendrakumar Mohanbhai 18 5 Monikaben Mahendrakumar Maurya 20 6 Jitendrakumar Chimanlal Prajapati 22 7 Kasambhai Haji Usmanbhai Vora 23 8 Habibmiyan Bhikumiyan Sumra 24 9 Sajidmiyan Usmanbhai Parmar 25 10 Dr. Sameer Sumanbhai Patel 26 11 Kishorekumar Shankarlal Joshi 29 12 Dashrathsinh lalusinh Rathod 32 13 Mahipalsinh Ranjitsinh Rajput 36 14 Chimallal Moganlal Prajapati 37 15 Natwarbhi Kadambhai Prajapati 39 16 Jashwantsinh Mangalsinh Makwana 40 17 Rajoosinh Pratapsinh Makwana 42 18 Gandabhai Somabhai Raval 43 19 Hasanbhai Alambhai Mansuri 45 20 Narendrakumar Bachubhai Patel 46 21 Nasir Mohd. Shafi Ullah Momin 48 22 Hamidbhai Jashubhai Shaikh 50 23 Bharatkumar Bhagwandas Sharma 51 24 Rameshbhai Kadabhai Pagi 53 25 Yunusbhai Kadubhai Shaikh 54 26 Sanjaykumar Jayantilal jayswal 55 27 Vithalbhai Manubhai Patel 56 28 Puranmal Shyamlal Sharma (Joshi) 58 29 Dahyabhai Ishwarbhai Patel 59 30 Sandeepbhai Gandabhai Patel 61 31 Dilawarkhan Ahmedkhan Pathan 62 32 Amrutbhai Mohanbhai Parmar 65 33 Mukeshkumar Dilipbhai Upadhyay 67 6. During the trial, the prosecution has also produced and relied upon the following documentary evidences: Sr. During the trial, the prosecution has also produced and relied upon the following documentary evidences: Sr. No. Description of the Documents Exhibits No. 1 Original Complaint 12 2 P.M.Yadi 27 3 P.M.Note 28 4 Yadi for identification of the accused 30 5 Identification Parade of the accused Persons 31 6 Yadi to draw map of the place of offence 33 7 Inquest Panchnama 38 8 Panchnama of the place of offence 41 9 Panchnama of the clothe of deceased 44 10 Panchnama of examination of the place of offence by FSL Officer 47 11 Arrest Panchnama of the accused persons 49 12 Panchnama of recovery of muddamal as per section 27 52 13 Panchnama of seizure of clothes Worm by the accused Surendra 57 14 Panchnama of seizure of school bag of the deceased Deepak 60 15 Copy of Station Dairy 66 16 Report of FSL 68 17 Yadi Regarding seeking information of Mobile No. 9974784413 by Investigating Officer 69 18 Yadi Regarding seeking information of Mobile No. 9974784413 by S.P. 70 19 Yadi by Bharti Airtel of Mobile No. 9974784413 71 20 Yadi Regarding seeking information of Mobile No. 9974784413 by Investigating Officer 72 21 Yadi Regarding seeking information of Mobile No. 9974784413 by S.P. 73 22 Detailed Yadi given by Vodafone of Mobile No. 99133858167 74 23 Receipt of Muddamal dispatch 75 24 Letter of FSL regarding Muddamal received by FSL 76 25 Letter of FSL regarding Muddamal received by FSL 77 26 Letter of FSL regarding recalling of Muddamal 78 27 Report of the FSL along with forwarding letter 79 28 Copy of Notification issued vide B.P. Act, Section 37(3) 80 29 Letter of FSL 81 30 Analysis Report of FSL 82 31 Report of Serological Department of FSL 83 32 Letter of FSL 84 33 Report of Biological Department of FSL 85 7. At the end of trial, after recording statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C, and hearing arguments on behalf of the prosecution and the defence, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellants of the charges levelled against them by the impugned judgment and order. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court, the appellant has approached this Court, by way of the present appeals. 8. Mr. Ashish M Dagli, learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that except witnesses Nos. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court, the appellant has approached this Court, by way of the present appeals. 8. Mr. Ashish M Dagli, learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that except witnesses Nos. 7, 10, 32 and 33, all the witnesses have turned hostile. Mr. Dagli, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that there is nothing on record to establish that the accused is involved in this case except the complaint. He further submitted that the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence and that the prosecution has not proved the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. He also contended that the trial Court has convicted the accused mainly on the basis of circumstantial evidence in spite of the fact that the chain is not complete. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent has contended that at the time of arrest panchnama of accused No. 1, identity card of the deceased Deepak was found from the pocket of accused No. 1, which is an important connecting link to the circumstantial evidence and connects the accused with the alleged crime. She further contended that the prosecution has been able to successfully establish involvement of the accused in the alleged crime by contending that the accused being the real brother of the deceased, have easily kidnapped him and the deceased-Deepak being younger brother of the accused could not have denied going with the accused in a rickshaw, who informed from the mobile of rickshaw driver on his land-line phone that he might come late on that day. Learned APP further contended that the knife used by the accused is identified by accused No. 2, on which blood stains of the deceased is found. Even, from the clothes of accused No. 1, blood stains of the deceased is found. Identity card of the deceased is also found from the pocket of accused No. 1. Thus, the prosecution has been successful enough in connecting the accused with the alleged offence. Even, from the clothes of accused No. 1, blood stains of the deceased is found. Identity card of the deceased is also found from the pocket of accused No. 1. Thus, the prosecution has been successful enough in connecting the accused with the alleged offence. Learned APP relied upon the deposition of the witnesses like the father, the mother, sister and even the accused wife, all of whom had said one thing in common that the deceased Deepak being brother-in-law of Nituben i.e. the wife of the accused had good relationship with her, which was disliked by the accused and the accused had suspicion that they i.e. his wife and his younger brother had an illicit relationship, and hence killed his own younger brother. She therefore, contended that the motive for killing Deepak was also very clear. In view of all these witnesses, medical evidence, motive and looking to the entirety of the case, learned APP contended that the trial Court has not committed any error in convicting the accused for the alleged offence. 10. Having heard learned advocates for both the sides and having gone through the records of the case, we are primarily of the view that this is a case based on circumstantial evidence. In that view of the matter, going by the settled principles of law in the case of circumstantial evidence, we are well aware that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, the circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Taking into consideration, the evidence on record, it appears that the case is based on circumstantial evidence. There is no eye witness to the present incident. In view of the fact, that majority of the witnesses have turned hostile, therefore, there is no substantive piece of evidence left. In that view of the matter, the learned trial Court has seriously committed an error in convicting the accused. 11. In the case of Rumi Bora Dutta v. State of Assam reported in : AIR 2013 SC 2422 , the Apex Court has held as under: "10. It is seemly to state here that the whole case of the prosecution rests on the circumstantial evidence. The learned trial Judge as well as the High Court has referred to certain circumstances. In the case of Rumi Bora Dutta v. State of Assam reported in : AIR 2013 SC 2422 , the Apex Court has held as under: "10. It is seemly to state here that the whole case of the prosecution rests on the circumstantial evidence. The learned trial Judge as well as the High Court has referred to certain circumstances. When a case is totally hinges on the circumstantial evidence, it is the duty of the Court to see that the circumstances which lead towards the guilt of the accused have been fully established and they must lead to a singular conclusion that the accused is guilty of the offence and rule out the probabilities which are likely to allow the presumption of innocence of the accused." 12. Similarly in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra reported (1984) 4 SCC 116 , the Apex Court has laid down five golden principles which have been stated to constitute the panchsheel of the proof of the case based on circumstantial evidence. They are (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. 13. In this regard, we are supported by a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar Singh alias Raju alias Batya v. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 2013 SC 3150 wherein the Apex Court has held that suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot take place of proof and there is a large difference between something that may be proved and will be proved and that in a criminal trial, suspicion no matter how strong, cannot and must not be permitted to take place of proof. It is further held that in criminal cases while keeping in mind the distance between may be true and must be true, the Court must maintain the vital distance between conjectures and sure conclusions to be arrived at, on the touchstone of dispassionate judicial scrutiny based upon a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all features of the case as well as the quality and credibility of the evidence brought on record. It is further held that the Court must ensure that miscarriage of justice is avoided and if the facts and circumstances of a case so demand, then the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused, keeping in mind that a reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely probable doubt, but a fair doubt that is based upon reason and common sense. 14. In the case of Shanmughan v. State of Kerala reported in, (2012) 2 SCC 788 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that when a case is sought to be proved by the prosecution on the basis of circumstantial evidence, the burden on the prosecution is that it must prove each circumstance in such a way as to complete the chain and at the same time it should be consistent with the guilt of the accused. It is further held therein that any reasonable doubt in proving the circumstances must be resolved in favour of the accused and that the accused must be given the benefit of any fact or circumstance which is consisted with his innocence, which is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved by chain of circumstances. 15. In our view the prosecution has not been able to prove any ingredient in a case resting on circumstantial evidence which would be the basis for concluding against the accused. We are even supported in our view by the recent decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Brajendrasingh v. State of M.P reported in (2012) 4 SCC 289 wherein it has been observed as under: "... There is no doubt that it is not a case of direct evidence but the conviction of the accused is founded on circumstantial evidence. It is a settled principle of law that the prosecution has to satisfy certain conditions before a conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be sustained. There is no doubt that it is not a case of direct evidence but the conviction of the accused is founded on circumstantial evidence. It is a settled principle of law that the prosecution has to satisfy certain conditions before a conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be sustained. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established and should also be consistent with only one hypothesis, i.e. the guilt of the accused. The circumstances should be conclusive and proved by the prosecution. There must be a chain of events so complete so as not to leave any substantial doubt in the mind of the Court. Irresistibly, the evidence should lead to the conclusion inconsistent with the innocence of the accused and the only possibility that the accused has committed the crime. To put it simply, the circumstances forming the chain of events should be proved and they should cumulatively point towards the guilt of the accused alone. In such circumstances, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person. Furthermore, the rule which needs to be observed by the Court while dealing with the cases of circumstantial evidence is that the best evidence must be adduced which the nature of the case admits. The circumstances have to be examined cumulatively. The Court has to examine the complete chain of events and then see whether all the material facts sought to be established by the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused, have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. It has to be kept in mind that all these principles are based upon one basic cannon of our criminal jurisprudence that the accused is innocent till proven guilty and that the accused is entitled to a just and fair trial." 16. Thus, we are convinced that there are material contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses and the prosecution has not been able to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and therefore the accused is required to be granted benefit of doubt in absence of the chain of circumstantial evidence being complete. For the foregoing reasons, the appeals are allowed. 17. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed. For the foregoing reasons, the appeals are allowed. 17. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 12.10.2011, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Himmatnagar, in Sessions Case No. 129 of 2010, is quashed and set aside. The appellants are acquitted of all the charges framed against them, by granting them the benefit of doubt. The appellant-accused in Criminal Appeal No. 1451 of 2011, is ordered to be set at liberty, if he is not required in connection with any other offence. Insofar as the appellant-accused in Criminal Appeal No. 2008 of 2012, is concerned, it is reported that he is absconding. However, since we have set aside the impugned judgment and exonerated the present accused of all the charges, no separate orders are required to be passed directing any authority to release him, since he is already absconding. Records and proceedings, if any, lying here be sent to the Court below forthwith.