JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. : This appeal has been filed by the State against judgment dated 22.08.2008 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan in Sessions Trial No. 1-N/7 of 2005, under Sections 364 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code vide which, the learned trial Court has acquitted the accused of the offence alleged against him. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, was that deceased Mohinder Singh was working as a Beldar in H.P. P.W.D. department. On 10.10.2004, he went to Puruwala in order to purchase medicine at around 2:00 p.m., but did not return back. PW-1 Gohro Devi conducted search of her husband and when she could not locate him, she lodged a rapat with the police on 12.12.2004 regarding the fact that her husband was missing. Copy of the said rapat is Ex. PW1/A, which was recorded by HHC Amar Singh (PW-11), the then MC, Police Station, Paonta Sahib. The deceased in fact was seen going with the accused on a scooter towards Paonta Sahib on 10.10.2004 at about 5:00 p.m. by Mahima Nand (PW-2), whereas at about 2:00 p.m., the deceased and the accused had gone to the house of Parkasho Devi (PW-5) and thereafter, they had left towards Malwa for purchasing fish. Yusuf (PW-4) also saw the deceased with the accused on 10.10.2004 at about 7:00 p.m. sitting on a parapet on the side of the road near canal in village Kulhal consuming liquor and after one hour, when Yusuf (PW-4) returned back, then he saw that the accused was going alone on his scooter. Parkasho Devi (PW-5) on inquiry after 3-4 days told PW-1 Gohro Devi that the deceased had gone with the accused towards Malwa Cotton Mill. About one year before 10.10.2004, Gohro Devi (PW-1) was called by Rekha, wife of accused to her house and told that accused was suspecting that Rekha Devi was having illicit relations with the deceased. Therefore, she suspected that the deceased might have been kidnapped by the accused on account of the abovementioned suspicion in order to kill him. 3. On the basis of the report lodged by Gohro Devi (PW-1), FIR Ex. PW1/B was recorded in Police Station, Paonta Sahib by Inspector Narveer Singh (PW-17). Therefore, she suspected that the deceased might have been kidnapped by the accused on account of the abovementioned suspicion in order to kill him. 3. On the basis of the report lodged by Gohro Devi (PW-1), FIR Ex. PW1/B was recorded in Police Station, Paonta Sahib by Inspector Narveer Singh (PW-17). The accused on inquiry by Gohro Devi (PW-1) also told her that he had gone with the deceased on 10.10.2004 to the liquor shop near Malwa Cotton Mill and he had left the deceased at the liquor shop. Further, as per the prosecution, on 16.10.2004, Ram Kumar (PW- 10), who had gone to the fields in Village Jadhari at about 1:30 p.m. noticed that an unidentified body was lying in the canal. He gave a telephonic information to police at Police Station, Chacharoli, District Yamuna Nagar and on the basis of the same, rapat in the daily diary Ex. PW8/A came to be recorded by HC Dilbagh Singh (PW-8). On receipt of the said information, ASI Arjun Singh (PW-15) went to the spot and recorded the statement of Ram Kumar. The photographs of the dead body were taken by Suresh Kumar (PW-14) and the dead body was identified to be that of Mohinder Singh by his relatives. The inquest report Ex. PW10/A was prepared by ASI Arjun Singh (PW-15) and the body was sent for post mortem examination. The post mortem examination was conducted on 18.10.2004 by Dr. P.K. Paliwal (PW-19) and as per his opinion, the deceased died due to “alcohol poisoning” . 4. The accused was arrested on 16.10.2004 and while in police custody, he made a disclosure statement in the presence of Constable Navinder Singh (PW-6) that he could identify the place where he alongwith deceased had taken liquor near village Kulhal on the side of the canal and could get recovered one nip and disposable glasses. This information was reduced into writing as Ex. PW6/A. On the basis of this disclosure statement, the accused identified the place near canal in village Kulhal and got recovered one nip and two disposable glasses, which were put in a parcel and sealed with seal impression ‘H’ and were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW6/B in the presence of Constable Navinder Singh (PW-6) by SI Gurdeep Singh (PW-18). 5. PW6/B in the presence of Constable Navinder Singh (PW-6) by SI Gurdeep Singh (PW-18). 5. On the conclusion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Court No. 1, Paonta Sahib, who committed the case to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, from where the case was sent for trial to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan. 6. As a prima facie case was found against the accused, accordingly he was charged for the commission of offence under Section 364 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 7. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution in all produced 19 witnesses. Out of these, the relevant witnesses are PW-1 Smt. Gohro Devi (wife of the deceased), PW-2 Mahima Nand, PW-3 Ravinder Singh, PW-4 Yusuf, PW-5 Parkasho Devi, PW-6 Constable Navinder Singh and PW-18 SI Gurdeep Singh, whose statements shall be dealt with by us in detail. 8. On the basis of the material produced on record by the prosecution before the learned trial Court, the said Court concluded that none of the circumstance on which the prosecution was placing reliance was established on record beyond doubt and, as such, on the basis of the said circumstances, the accused cannot be held to be connected with the commission of the alleged offence. The learned trial Court further concluded that the circumstances, even if taken together, do not lead to the conclusion that it was the accused and none else who committed the murder of Mohinder Singh after kidnapping and abducting him. Thus, it held that the charges as framed against the accused could not be held to have been established by the prosecution by leading convincing, cogent, satisfactory and confidence inspiring evidence and the accused cannot be held guilty of the commission of offence punishable under Section 364 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the accused was accordingly acquitted. 9. We have heard the learned Additional Advocate General and the learned counsel for the respondents and also gone through the judgment passed by the learned trial Court as well as the records of the case. 10. 9. We have heard the learned Additional Advocate General and the learned counsel for the respondents and also gone through the judgment passed by the learned trial Court as well as the records of the case. 10. Learned Additional Advocate General primarily argued that this being a case of circumstantial evidence, the learned trial Court has erred in law in not appreciating that the chain of circumstances stood established by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt and there was no missing link in the chain connecting the accused with the murder of the deceased. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the learned trial Court has rightly dismissed the case of the prosecution because the prosecution has miserably failed to link the accused with the murder of the deceased. According to him, the circumstances neither stood established nor stood proved by the prosecution to link the accused with the murder of the deceased. Therefore, as per the learned counsel for the respondent, there was no merit in the appeal of the State and the same deserved dismissal. 12. In our considered view, this being a case of circumstantial evidence, where no eye witness was present, it has to be examined as to whether on the basis of the material on record, i.e. circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has been able to connect the accused with the commission of the offence alleged against him beyond all reasonable doubt or not. 13. According to the State, following are the circumstances and the same were duly proved by the prosecution: (1) Missing of the deceased since 10.10.2004; (2) Last seen; (3 ) Motive; (4) Disclosure statement of the accused; and (5) Recovery of the dead body. 14. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.” 15. 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.” 15. 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.” 16. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.” 17. 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. 18. 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. 19. We will test all the circumstances vis-à-vis material produced on record regarding each circumstance by the State separately. (1) Missing of the deceased since 10.10.2004: 20. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased went missing on 10.10.2004, when according to PW-1 at around 2:00 p.m., he had gone to purchase some medicine. In this regard, it is relevant to refer to the testimony of PW-1 and the rapat which has been registered by her on 12.10.2004. The copy of the rapat registered by PW-1 Gohro Devi is Ex. PW1/A. This rapat has been registered at 2:00 p.m. on 12.10.2004, i.e. two days after her husband went missing. It is stated in the said rapat that her husband Mohinder Singh was working as a Beldar in P.W.D. department and on 10.10.2004, which was a holiday on account of being Sunday, her husband was at home. At around 2:00 p.m., he stated that he was not feeling well and that he was going to Puruwala to purchase medicine. It is stated in the said rapat that her husband Mohinder Singh was working as a Beldar in P.W.D. department and on 10.10.2004, which was a holiday on account of being Sunday, her husband was at home. At around 2:00 p.m., he stated that he was not feeling well and that he was going to Puruwala to purchase medicine. She waited till evening, but he did not come back. In these circumstances, she searched for him in the morning alongwith her relatives and her brothers and brother-in-laws and other villagers all around. However, till the time of registration of the report, the whereabouts of her husband were not known. She also handed over to the police a photo of her husband. Incidentally, in the said rapat, there is neither any reference of the accused nor any apprehension has been expressed by the complainant (PW-1) that she apprehends that her husband is either abducted by the accused or he has been done away with by the accused. There is no reference in the said rapat that the accused suspected that the deceased was having illicit affairs with his wife. The said witness while deposing as PW-1 in the Court has stated that after her husband went missing on 10.10.2004, she searched for her husband and also inquired from her relatives and friends and accordingly, she lodged a report with regard to the missing of her husband on 12.10.2004. She has further deposed in the said statement that Parkasho Devi told her that her husband had gone with Budh Ram towards Malwa Cotton Factory and on this, she went to the house of Budh Ram to inquire about her husband, who told her that he alongwith her husband on 10.10.2004 had gone to liquor shop near Malwa Factory and the accused had left her husband at liquor shop. She has recorded in her statement that about one year ago from the date her husband went missing, the wife of accused Rekha had called her at her house and told her that Budh Ram, i.e. accused has suspicion that his wife has illicit relations with the deceased and she doubts that her husband was killed by the accused. She has recorded in her statement that about one year ago from the date her husband went missing, the wife of accused Rekha had called her at her house and told her that Budh Ram, i.e. accused has suspicion that his wife has illicit relations with the deceased and she doubts that her husband was killed by the accused. Incidentally, none of these facts find mention in the rapat dated 12.10.2004, which admittedly has been registered after two days since her husband went missing and which was reported by her after she made inquiries about whereabouts of her husband from her relatives as well as villagers and alongwith these people all around the area. 21. We would also like to refer to the FIR which was subsequently lodged with the police on 15.10.2004. Copy of FIR is Ex. PW1/B. In FIR which has been lodged on 15.10.2004, the earlier version reported in rapat dated 12.10.2004 is mentioned and thereafter it is stated that on the date of lodging of FIR, Parkasho Devi told her that on 10.10.2004, she had seen her husband with the accused at around 3-4 p.m. during day time going towards Malwa Cotton Factory on the scooter of the accused. On this she went to the house of Budh Ram, who told her that on 10.10.2004, her husband had gone with him till Malwa Cotton Factory. She disclosed this fact to her brother-in-law and brother, who made inquiries near the liquor shop around Malwa Cotton Factory, where one Ravinder told that on 10.10.2004 Budh Ram and Mohinder Singh had come to the liquor vend and they had purchased liquor from there and consumed it in his shop and thereafter they had left on the scooter towards Paonta. It was further mentioned in the FIR that now she has come to know that Budh Ram and her husband while going towards Paonta Sahib on scooter were also seen by some other officials of the PWD department, whereas Budh Ram was refuting all these facts. It was further mentioned that Budh Ram was suspecting that deceased was having illicit relations with his wife, on which issue, earlier an altercation had taken place between them and she suspected that her husband has been abducted by the accused with intent to kill him. 22. It was further mentioned that Budh Ram was suspecting that deceased was having illicit relations with his wife, on which issue, earlier an altercation had taken place between them and she suspected that her husband has been abducted by the accused with intent to kill him. 22. It is also relevant to refer to the statement of one Smt. Bala Devi (PW-7), who has stated that about one year ago from the date of incident, Rekha Devi, wife of Budh Ram accused had asked her to inform Gohro Devi that she wanted to meet him and she had informed Gohro Devi that Rekha Devi desired to meet her. 23. From the above facts, the factors which are evident are that the deceased went missing on 10.10.2004 after 2:00 p.m. PW-1 reported this matter to the police by way of rapat which was registered on 12.10.2004. In the said rapat, she did not make any reference that she suspected the accused to have had abducted her husband with intent to kill him, because the accused suspected her husband to be having illicit relations with his wife. These facts find mention only in the FIR which was lodged on 15.10.2004, though as per PW-1 herself the wife of the accused Rekha Devi has apprised her all these facts that her husband was suspicious of the deceased about one year back and also according to the complainant, the deceased and accused had stopped talking with each other for some time, but thereafter they were on talking terms. These facts, in our considered view, raise cloud on the trustworthiness of the said prosecution witness, who admittedly is an interested witness as the deceased was her husband. Even otherwise, on the basis of the said material, the factum of the deceased missing w.e.f. 10.10.2004 cannot be attributed beyond any reasonable doubt to the accused. (2) Last seen: 24. The second circumstance as per the appellant-State connecting the accused with the offence is that he was last seen with the deceased on 10.10.2004, i.e. the date from which the deceased went missing. 25. In order to substantiate this circumstance, the appellant has relied upon the statements of PW-2 to PW-5. 26. (2) Last seen: 24. The second circumstance as per the appellant-State connecting the accused with the offence is that he was last seen with the deceased on 10.10.2004, i.e. the date from which the deceased went missing. 25. In order to substantiate this circumstance, the appellant has relied upon the statements of PW-2 to PW-5. 26. PW-2 Mahima Nand stated that he was working in PWD department and on 10.10.2004, while returning from Paonta, he saw the accused and the deceased on a scooter coming from the opposite direction and proceeding towards Paonta Sahib at around 5:00 p.m. According to him, they met him at village Bhuppur/Kartarpur and the scooter was being driven by Budh Ram. 27. PW-3 Ravinder Singh has been declared as hostile witness as he has not supported the story of the prosecution and stated that he did not remember whether the deceased Mohinder Singh had come to his shop and consumed liquor on 10.10.2004 or not. 28. PW-4 Yusuf has stated that on 10.10.2004, he went to jungle in search of his cattle and at about 7:00 p.m., he saw accused Budh Ram and Mohinder sitting on a parapet on the side of the road consuming liquor. He has further deposed that when he returned back after about an hour, he saw only Budh Ram going on the scooter. He has further stated that there is canal on the side of the road and river Yamuna on the left side of the road and that he had seen them near “Mazar Baba Bhure Shah”, which is situated in Village Kulhal, Uttrakhand. 29. PW-5 Parkahsho Devi has deposed that she knew both accused and the deceased and about three years ago, deceased Mohinder Singh and accused Budh Ram had come to her house at about 2:00 p.m. to keep there wet towel and one bucket and then they went towards Malwa for purchasing fish and after 3-4 days, wife of Mohinder Singh came to her house to inquire about her husband and she told her that her husband had gone with accused Budh Ram towards Malwa Cotton Mill. 30. In his cross-examination PW-2 Mahima Nand has stated that village Bhuppur and Kartarpur are situated at a distance of two kilometers and the accused and deceased had met him on the road between the said two villages. 30. In his cross-examination PW-2 Mahima Nand has stated that village Bhuppur and Kartarpur are situated at a distance of two kilometers and the accused and deceased had met him on the road between the said two villages. He has further deposed that Gohro Devi (PW-1) had not inquired from him about the whereabouts of her husband on 10.10.2004 or thereafter. He came to know after 3-4 days that Mohinder Singh was missing. He has further stated that he was called by the police in the Police Station to record his statement. He has also deposed that he has not made any statement to the police that accused Mohinder Singh has met him at Bhuppur and Kadarpur. This witness has been confronted with the statement made under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, wherein he has stated that accused and Mohinder Singh had met him at Bhuppur and Kadarpur. Besides this, according to him, he did not tell PW-1 nor did she inquire from him about the whereabouts of her husband either on 10.10.2004 or 3-4 days thereafter. It is recorded in the FIR that PW-1 has stated therein that she had also come to know that the accused and her husband were seen going towards Paonta by some officials of PWD department. However, PW- 2 Sh. Mahima Nand, who happens to be serving in PWD department has clearly stated that Gohro Devi has not inquired from him about the whereabouts of her husband on 10.10.2004 or thereafter and it was after 3-4 days that he came to know that Mohinder Singh was missing. 31. Similarly, whereas PW-3 Ravinder Singh has not supported the version of the prosecution, according to PW-4 Yusuf, his village Kulhal is in Uttrakhand and he had seen the accused and the deceased near “Mazar Baba Bhure Shah”, which is situated in village Kulhal Uttrakhand. 32. PW-5 Parkasho Devi has also been confronted with her earlier statement in her cross-examination wherein the factum of the deceased and accused coming to her house to keep wet towel and bucket had not been recorded, nor the factum of the accused and the deceased having gone to purchase fish from their house was recorded. Most important fact is that in her cross-examination, she has stated that she does not remembers the date when Mohinder Singh and accused came to her house. Most important fact is that in her cross-examination, she has stated that she does not remembers the date when Mohinder Singh and accused came to her house. These in all are the witnesses, who according to the appellant/prosecution prove that the deceased was last seen with the accused whereafter he went missing. 33. As has been observed by us above, there are contradictions in the statements of PW-2 Mahima Nand, PW-4 Yusuf, PW-5 Parkasho Devi and PW-3 Ravinder Singh has not supported the story of the prosecution. Incidentally, PW-5 Parkasho Devi does not even remembers the date on which she saw the accused and the deceased together. Therefore, it cannot be said beyond reasonable doubt that the date when allegedly the said witness saw accused and deceased together was that very date on which the deceased went missing. Therefore, in our considered view, even this circumstance has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt against the accused by the prosecution. 34. Even as far as PW-4 Yusuf is concerned, according to him, he has seen both the accused and the deceased sitting on the parapet consuming liquor. He has not seen accused either pushing deceased into the canal nor he has deposed as to how he knew the accused and the deceased because he happens to be a resident of Uttrakhand. Further, the case of the prosecution is not that the accused died on account of consumption of liquor, but according to the prosecution, it is a case of liquor poisoning. We are afraid that no material has been produced on record by the prosecution to substantiate that the accused has poisoned the deceased. (3) Motive: 35. According to the prosecution, there was motive with the accused to do away with the deceased because he suspected that his wife was having illicit relations with the deceased. Interestingly, this angle of illicit relation has been introduced by PW-1 in the FIR which was got registered on 15.10.2004. As we have mentioned earlier also, in the rapat which was recorded by her on 12.10.2004, there was no mention of Budh Ram as a suspect. The statement of PW-1 in this regard also does not inspire any confidence. Interestingly, this angle of illicit relation has been introduced by PW-1 in the FIR which was got registered on 15.10.2004. As we have mentioned earlier also, in the rapat which was recorded by her on 12.10.2004, there was no mention of Budh Ram as a suspect. The statement of PW-1 in this regard also does not inspire any confidence. She has deposed that about one year before 10.10.2004, the wife of the accused Rekha Devi had called her to her house and when she went to her house, Rekha, mother of Budh Ram and 2-3 other ladies were present there and Rekha told her that Budh Ram suspects her that she was having illicit relations with the deceased. According to her, they also told her that they have never seen them in any suspicious circumstance. According to her, after that incident for few days her husband and the accused were not in speaking terms, but thereafter the relations were cordial. In her cross-examination, she has admitted that the accused used to visit her house 5-7 times in a month, but her husband never used to go to the house of the accused. From the deposition of the said witness, it can be safely inferred that save and except her bald statement, there is no other material produced on record by the prosecution to the effect that accused had any motive to do away with the deceased. Therefore, in our considered view, this circumstance has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution against the accused. We reiterate that “doubt” no matter how much strong cannot be a substitute for “proof”. (4) Disclosure statement of the accused: 36. The appellant has heavily relied upon the disclosure statement of accused Ex. PW-6/A, on the basis of which, the nip and the glasses in which the deceased and the accused allegedly consumed liquor were recovered. This disclosure statement has been witnessed by Navinder Singh and Joginder Singh. (4) Disclosure statement of the accused: 36. The appellant has heavily relied upon the disclosure statement of accused Ex. PW-6/A, on the basis of which, the nip and the glasses in which the deceased and the accused allegedly consumed liquor were recovered. This disclosure statement has been witnessed by Navinder Singh and Joginder Singh. As per the disclosure statement, the accused had stated that on 10.10.2004, the accused had brought Mohinder Singh on his scooter bearing No. HP-17A-0560 at Kulhal and he had taken him near the side of the Kanal adjacent to “Baba Bhure Shah”, where they both sat and consumed a nip of country liquor Sirmaur No. 1 and they had left two disposable glasses and liquor bottle at the spot and after Mohinder Singh got drink, he pushed him into the canal. 37. It is reiterated that as per Section 27 of the Indian Evidence 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 has been committed by the accused. In fact, thereafter, burden lies on the prosecution to establish that 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. 38. In the present case, PW-6 Navinder Singh and PW-18 SI Gurdeep Singh are the witnesses to the discovery statement. Both these witnesses are police officials. No explanation has been given by the prosecution as to why no independent witness was associated when the said disclosure statement was made by the accused. Be that as it may, we will independently scrutinize the statements given by PW-6 and PW- 18. 39. PW-6 Constable Navinder Singh has stated that on the basis of the disclosure statement, the site was visited and near the canal from the bushes, the accused got recovered one nip of Sirmaur No. 1 and two disposable glasses. In his cross-examination, he has mentioned that disclosure statement was recorded in Police Station, Paonta Sahib at 8:00 a.m. He has also stated that there are many shops near the Police Station. In his cross-examination, he has mentioned that disclosure statement was recorded in Police Station, Paonta Sahib at 8:00 a.m. He has also stated that there are many shops near the Police Station. He has further stated that he could not say that the disposable glasses and the nip which were found at the time of recovery were in standing position or in lying condition. He does not remember that if the lid of the nip was tied with the nip. He further stated that the nip and disposable glasses were recovered from just below the parapet. 40. PW-18 SI Gurdeep Singh has stated that the accused gave disclosure statement at around 9:30 a.m. He has further stated that the glasses and nip were found lying near the bushes just below the parapet on the bank of the canal and the glasses were found in lying condition. 41. It is apparent that there are major contradictions in the statements of both the said witnesses with regard to the time when the said disclosure statement was recorded. According to PW-6 Navinder Singh, it was recorded at 8:00 a.m., whereas according to PW-18, the same was recorded at 9:30 a.m. The prosecution has not been able to justify as to why there is material contradiction between the depositions of these two witnesses with regard to the time of the accused having recorded his disclosure statement. Further, PW-6 says that he does not remember as to in what condition glasses and bottle of liquor were found, whereas PW-18 has categorically stated that the said articles were lying near the bushes just below the parapet on the bank of the canal. Further, the appellant was not able to satisfy this Court as to why at the time when the accused allegedly made the disclosure statement, no independent witness was associated, whereas it is admitted case of the prosecution that the statement was recorded in the Police Station and there were many shops near the Police Station. Therefore, it can be easily inferred that even this circumstance has not been proved beyond doubt against the accused. (5) Recovery of the dead body: 42. Now coming to the last circumstance, i.e. recovery of the dead body. The relevant witnesses as far as recovery of the dead body is concerned are PW-8 HC Dilbagh Singh, PW-10 Ram Kumar, PW-15 ASI Arjun Singh and PW-19 Dr. P.K. Paliwal. 43. (5) Recovery of the dead body: 42. Now coming to the last circumstance, i.e. recovery of the dead body. The relevant witnesses as far as recovery of the dead body is concerned are PW-8 HC Dilbagh Singh, PW-10 Ram Kumar, PW-15 ASI Arjun Singh and PW-19 Dr. P.K. Paliwal. 43. PW-8 HC Dilbagh Singh has deposed that on 16.10.2004, a telephonic information was received from Ram Kumar regarding the presence of dead body in the canal at Jidhri bridge. Thereafter, a rapat to this effect was entered in rojnamcha and necessary steps were taken in this regard. PW-10 Ram Kumar deposed that on 16.10.2004, he had gone on account of some work to his fields in village Jadhari, which are situated near the canal and at about 1:30 p.m., he noticed an unidentified body in the canal and he passed this information to Police Station Chacharoli. Thereafter, police came to the spot and recorded his statement and the dead body was taken into possession. 44. PW-15 ASI Arjun Singh has deposed that after receiving information from Ram Kumar, he visited the spot and after recording the statement of Ram Kumar, took the dead body into possession and thereafter post mortem of the same was got conducted. He further says that he collected the post mortem report and viscera of the deceased and the dead body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased for cremation. PW-19 Dr. P.K. Paliwal conducted the post mortem and according to his opinion the cause of the death was alcohol poisoning. 45. Recovery of the dead body of the deceased per se cannot be said to be a conclusive evidence of the fact that he has been murdered by the accused. As we have already discussed above, the prosecution has failed to prove all the links of chain of circumstantial evidence against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt. The judgment passed by the learned trial Court has also taken into consideration the chain of circumstances and after discussing the material produced on record by the prosecution, it has also concluded that the prosecution had failed to link the chain of circumstances beyond any reasonable doubt, on the basis of which, the accused could have been convicted for the offences alleged against him. We agree with the said findings returned by the learned trial Court. 46. We agree with the said findings returned by the learned trial Court. 46. 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 reasonable doubt. The chain of circumstance is neither complete nor it links the accused with the crime beyond all reasonable doubt and the same cannot be made basis to convict the accused. 47. 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.