JUDGMENT : Mr. Mohammad Rafiq, J. 1. These three appeals have been filed by accused-appellants Rajesh, Banwari and Laxmi Narayan, challenging judgment dated 09.12.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Tonk (for short ‘the trial court’) whereby the trial court has convicted the accused-appellants Rajesh, Banwari and Laxmi Narayan for offence under Section 302 read with Section 120-B IPC and sentenced each of them to life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default whereof, they were to further undergo one year’s simple imprisonment. The trial court has also convicted the accused-appellants Rajesh and Banwari for offence under Section 379 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo one year’s simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default whereof, they were to further undergo two months’ simple imprisonment. Aside of that, the trial court has also convicted the accused-appellants Rajesh and Banwari for offence under Section 201 IPC and sentenced each one of them to undergo two years’ simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default whereof, they were to further undergo one month’s simple imprisonment All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Facts of the case are that on 17.05.2009 Buddhi Prakash (P.W.11) submitted a written report (Exhibit P-25) at Police Station Aligarh, District Tonk stating therein that on that day at about 4.00 PM, he heard in the village that the dead body of an unknown person was lying near the anicut in the field of one Kana Dhakar, resident of Choru, who informed the police about the same on telephone. Thereafter, the police went to the place as informed and found a dead body. The inquest report was prepared and dead body was kept in the Hospital at Tonk. Thereafter, on 20.05.2009, one Satya Narayan S/o Sukhram submitted a written report (Exhibit P-2) at Police Station Uniara alleging therein that on 14.05.2009 Rajesh came to his house and told his father that next day he along with his father should go to Tonk to see the counting of votes and his father agreed upon it. Thereafter, Rajesh along with his father went to the well for taking bath where he washed the clothes of his father, after which they returned back to the house. On 15.05.2009, in the morning at about 8.15 AM, his father left the house and told that he is going to Madhopur where also he had a house. Thereafter, Rajesh along with his father went to the well for taking bath where he washed the clothes of his father, after which they returned back to the house. On 15.05.2009, in the morning at about 8.15 AM, his father left the house and told that he is going to Madhopur where also he had a house. His father had taken the keys of the safe, house of Madhopur, Telephone directory, passbook of the bank and flour and oil etc. along with him. On 16.05.2009 at around 11.30 A.M., he was informed on telephone by Mukh Chand that Rajesh and Banwari Meena dropped his father near Choth Ka Barwada after taking possession of the keys, bank passbook and directory of the telephone from his father. Thereafter again on 17.05.2009, Mukh Chand informed him about the incident of his father on telephone and asked him to come to Badoti, after which he went to Badoti to meet Mukh Chand and they went in search of his father but could not find out his whereabouts. At night, they stayed at Sawaimadhopur. It was further stated that he had also gone to the Police Station Bamanwas from where he came to know that on 17.05.2009 a dead body was found in the territory of Aligarh Police Station. On 18.05.2009, he along with Raju Lal Meena went to the Police Station where he was informed that the dead body was in Tonk Hospital and upon reaching there, he identified the dead body to be of his father. It was alleged that Mukh Chand had informed him that his father was taken by Banwari and Rajesh in Indica Car of Banwari and he was killed by them in the Car and his belongings were retained by them. Lastly, the complainant alleged that Rajesh, Banwari @ Banni and Mukh Chand Bairwa have committed murder of his father. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid written report, the police registered FIR No. 41/2009 (Exhibit P-39) for the offences Under Sections 302, 201 IPC and commenced investigation. The police recorded statement of Mukh Chand under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and thereafter arrested the appellants and other accused. After concluding the investigation submitted challan against the appellants for the offences under Section 302, 201 & 120-B IPC in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Uniara where from the case was committed to the Court of Sesisons, Tonk. The police recorded statement of Mukh Chand under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and thereafter arrested the appellants and other accused. After concluding the investigation submitted challan against the appellants for the offences under Section 302, 201 & 120-B IPC in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Uniara where from the case was committed to the Court of Sesisons, Tonk. Ultimately, it was transferred to Addition Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Tonk for trial. Learned trial court framed charges against the accused appellant Banwari and Rajesh for the offences under Section 302, 302/34, 302 read with Section 120-B, 201 & 379 IPC and against accused-appellant Laxmi Narayan, for offence under Section 302 read with Section 120-B IPC. The accused-appellants denied the charges and claimed to be tried. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 19 witnesses and exhibited 45 documents. Accused-appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they pleaded innocence and stated that they have been falsely implicated in the case. The defence produced three witnesses. The trial court, on conclusion of trial, vide judgment dated 09.12.2011 convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants in the manner as indicated herein above. Hence, these appeals. 4. Mr. B.R. Choudhary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-appellant Rajesh; Mr. Anil Upman, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-appellant Banwari and Mr. Vijay Poonia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-appellant Laxmi Narayan argued that accused-appellants have been wrongly convicted inasmuch as there is no evidence whatsoever to support the findings of conviction of the appellants recorded by the trial court. Statements of prosecution witnesses suffer from serious infirmities and contradictions. Entire case of the prosecution hinges on the circumstantial evidence. Neither each circumstance has been individually proved by clinching evidence, nor do all circumstances form a chain so complete as to rule out every single hypothesis compatible with the innocence of the accused. The prosecution has failed to establish the motive. The trial court has founded its judgment entirely on the testimony of Mukh Chand (P.W.1) whereas statement of this witness does not at all inspire confidence. If the statement of Mukh Chand (P.W.1) that he accompanied the accused throughout and stayed with them till the crime was committed is accepted, then he ought to have been also tried as co-accused. The trial court has founded its judgment entirely on the testimony of Mukh Chand (P.W.1) whereas statement of this witness does not at all inspire confidence. If the statement of Mukh Chand (P.W.1) that he accompanied the accused throughout and stayed with them till the crime was committed is accepted, then he ought to have been also tried as co-accused. The prosecution has not examined him as a accomplice after grant of pardon as per Section 306 Cr.P.C.. Therefore, statement of this witness cannot be relied upon. The conviction recorded by the trial court is not legally sustainable being contrary to the provisions of law as also from the material available on record and opposite to the provisions of law. The prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond the reasonable doubt and therefore, conviction of the accused-appellants cannot be sustained. 5. Learned counsel argued that the sentence as awarded by the learned trial court is excessive. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the manner in which the incident is alleged to have taken place, there is no justification to award excessive sentence. In such circumstances, the conviction and sentence of the appellants is liable to be quashed and set aside. It is argued that examination of the accused appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has not taken place in accordance with the provisions of law, as all incriminating circumstances were not put to them, and sufficient opportunity of defence was also not afforded. The prosecution witnesses are highly interested witnesses and their testimony also suffers from infirmities. Though, the independent witnesses were available, but they were not produced and examined, which is fatal for the prosecution. There is no direct or circumstantial evidence available on record so as to connect the appellants with the crime. There is no complete chain of circumstances so as to arrive at the conclusion that it was none else except the appellants, who had committed the murder. As per Mukh Chand statement, he himself is an accused, but the procedure prescribed for declaring an accused as Approver has not been followed, therefore, Mukh Chand (P.W.1) cannot be treated as an Approver and therefore, no reliance can be placed on the testimony of Mukh Chand (P.W.1). Statement of Mukh Chand (P.W.1) is self contradictory. He has made improvements in his statements which suffers from infirmity. Statement of Mukh Chand (P.W.1) is self contradictory. He has made improvements in his statements which suffers from infirmity. No reliance can be placed on the statement of Mukh Chand (P.W.1). It is argued that the prosecution has failed to establish the motive. Since the prosecution failed to establish the motive, the accused cannot be convicted for the alleged offences. From perusal of statement of Mukh Chand (P.W.1), it is clear that he was one of the associates of the accused and actively participated in the murder of the deceased. As per his testimony, he himself is an accused and the statement of the co-accused cannot be used against another accused. Therefore, the statement of Mukh Chand (PW-1) cannot be used against the appellants for recording their conviction and his testimony is liable to be rejected out rightly. No offence is made out against the appellants from the evidence produced by the prosecution. 6. Learned counsel argued that learned Trial Court has further failed to consider that while appreciating the evidence in a criminal case, the court should keep in view the two cardinal principles; (i) the guilt against the accused must be proved beyond all reasonable doubts; and (ii) the burden on the accused is not so heavy to prove the plea taken by him as it lay on the prosecution. The burden can be discharged by the accused merely by showing the preponderance of probability in favour of the plea taken by him/them. Conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court is not sustainable in law as entire story has been changed by the complainant in trial and there is substantial improvement in the statements of prosecution witnesses. It is further argued that no evidence was available on record because entire prosecution case was based on the statement of Mukh Chand (P.W.1), however according to his statement, dead body was not found on the place where it was alleged to be thrown by the accused. There is no evidence against the appellants as neither appellants were lastly seen with the deceased, nor any recovery was affected at their instance. Prosecution failed to give any explanation about the initial evidence, which was available against the appellants because all evidence which has been created in this case was fabricated after making arrest of the appellants. There is no evidence against the appellants as neither appellants were lastly seen with the deceased, nor any recovery was affected at their instance. Prosecution failed to give any explanation about the initial evidence, which was available against the appellants because all evidence which has been created in this case was fabricated after making arrest of the appellants. No reliable evidence has been produced by the prosecution, therefore, conclusion of the learned Trial Court on the basis of the fabricated evidence is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 7. It is argued that learned Trial Court has committed grave illegality in convicting the appellants under section 302 IPC with the aid of section 120B IPC because no reliable evidence of conspiracy is available on record against the appellants. There are material contradictions/ improvements/omissions in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses as they not only stated lies regarding the important facts and have improved upon original version but also true facts were withheld by them. It was further argued that all the prosecution witnesses are closes relatives of the deceased and prosecution failed to produce even a single independent witness in this case. Therefore learned Trial Court has committed grave illegality in recording conviction of the appellants on the basis of testimony interested witnesses. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, the defence version appears to be more plausible, as such; no offence is made out against the appellants. No proper appreciation has been made by the learned Trial Court with regard to the plea taken by the accused as well as the defence produced by them. There are serious defects in framing of charges against the appellants. 8. Learned counsel further argued that the Trial Court has erred in law in convicting the accused appellant for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. with the aid of Section 120B I.P.C., as there was no material evidence on record themselves. None of the prosecution witnesses has deposed before the Trial Court about hatching of conspiracy by the accused appellant Laxmi Narayan for committing murder of his father with the help of co-accused persons Rajesh and Banwari. On the contrary, the prosecution witness Mukh Chand (PW-1) specifically stated in the cross examination that accused-appellant Laxmi Narayan had cordial relation with his father and was always taking good care of his father. On the contrary, the prosecution witness Mukh Chand (PW-1) specifically stated in the cross examination that accused-appellant Laxmi Narayan had cordial relation with his father and was always taking good care of his father. It was also stated by the said witness that Sukh Ram (Deceased) used to indulge in giving money on interest basis to other people of the village. It was also stated by him that the “C” to “D” portion of statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Exhibit P-1) was stated by him under the pressure of S.H.O. Yad Ram (P.W.19) and Rajesh did not state anything regarding “C” to “D” portion of the Exhibit P.1. Therefore, the whole basis of convicting the accused-appellant Laxmi Narayan was demolished in the cross examination. In the event of denial by Mukh Chand (PW-1) in the court statement regarding the conspiracy of the murder of Sukh Ram conviction of the accused appellant Laxmi Narayan cannot survive. It is argued that the Trial Court has wrongly relied on the seizure of keys from the house of the accused appellant Laxmi Narayan, on the information given by the accused appellant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. In the alleged information given by the accused appellant, he stated that he could help in the recovery of keys of the house which were thrown by the accused Rajesh into his house. Further, Satya Narayan (PW-3) has specifically denied the fact of recovery of the keys in his presence. The said prosecution witness has further specifically stated that the keys, which were allegedly recovered from possession of Laxmi Narayan were not the keys of the house situated at Sawai Madhopur. It is further argued that the said prosecution witness Satya Narayan has been declared hostile in respect of the recovery of keys from the accused. The fact of declaring Satya Narayan (PW-3) hostile about the recovery of the keys from the accused appellant Laxmi Narayan demolishes the whole basis of conviction of the accused under Section 302 read with 120B I.P.C. as the chain of circumstances is evidently broken and the guilt of the accused appellant is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The fact of declaring Satya Narayan (PW-3) hostile about the recovery of the keys from the accused appellant Laxmi Narayan demolishes the whole basis of conviction of the accused under Section 302 read with 120B I.P.C. as the chain of circumstances is evidently broken and the guilt of the accused appellant is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Learned trial court has erred in law in convicting the accused-appellant Laxmi Narayan on the basis of the recovery of keys and on the basis of statement of Investigating Officer that the accused Laxmi Narayan previously also tried to kill his father by taking help of black magic, the finding of which is perverse. Further, the prosecution witness Satya Narayan (PW-3) has been declared hostile by the prosecution regarding the fact of recovery of keys. The fact of taking help of black magic by the accused appellant is baseless and does not survive in the eye of law. It is, therefore, prayed that present appeals may be allowed and the impugned judgment be set aside and the appellants be acquitted of the charges framed against them. 9. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the appeals and supported the impugned judgment passed by the trial court. It is submitted that evidence in the present case proves beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused-appellants. It is, therefore, prayed that present appeals be dismissed and judgment passed by the trial court be affirmed. 10. We have given anxious consideration to rival submissions and perused the material on record as also record of the case. 11. Mukh Chand (P.W.1) has stated that he was close friend of Satya Narayan son of Sukhram Meena. He along with Rajesh, Banwari and deceased Sukhram went in an Indica Car from Bichoch village to Tonk. Sukhram boarded the car from the flour mill of Mohan in Village Bichoch at around 8.00-9.00 A.M. While Banwari was driving the car, a friend of Banwari also boarded the car from village Badoti, but he alighted from the car at Madhopur. All of them had juice from juice shop. They went to Rameshwar Ghat towards Khandar Village and took bath at around 2.00-2.30 in the afternoon. Then they went to Indragarh and Kuwalji. Thereafter, Banwari and Sukhram had dinner at around 7.00-8.00 P.M. at a Dhaba at Indragarh. Mukh Chand and Rajesh had liquor and thereafter, they also had dinner. All of them had juice from juice shop. They went to Rameshwar Ghat towards Khandar Village and took bath at around 2.00-2.30 in the afternoon. Then they went to Indragarh and Kuwalji. Thereafter, Banwari and Sukhram had dinner at around 7.00-8.00 P.M. at a Dhaba at Indragarh. Mukh Chand and Rajesh had liquor and thereafter, they also had dinner. This witness further stated that since he was highly drunk, therefore, he sat on the rear seat of the car. They left for Madhopur at around 9.00-9.30 P.M. It was around 10.30 P.M. in the night that Banwari suddenly stopped the car. Sukhram was sleeping at that time. Banwari pressed the legs of Sukhram and caught hold of his hands and then he put towel around his neck. Both Rajesh and Banwari pulled both ends the towel in the opposite direction. When Sukhram cried for help, this witness tried to save him, but Rajesh slapped him twice or thrice and threatened that he would kill him (this witness), as well. Sukhram died of strangulation. They shifted dead body of Sukhram to rear seat of the car and after about 1-1.5 km, Rajesh and Banwari threw the dead body in a pit alongside the road. Rajesh told him that he would give him a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, if he does not tell about the incident to anyone. This witness further stated that Sukhram had keys, diary and a bundle of currency notes of Rs. 500/-. Rajesh took all these articles in his possession. Banwari took the pass book of the deceased. Then they went to in-laws of Rajesh where they had tea in the morning. His in-laws gave Rs. 10/- to each of them. They took bath on a hand pump in the village and came to village Bagadi in that very car. Rajesh again told this witness that he would give a sum of Rs. 5000/- to him and this witness should not tell to anyone about the incident. Mukh Chand (P.W.1) then got down from the car at Bagadi and came to village Barnala in a jeep. He called his friend Satya Narayan (P.W.3) on his telephone and asked him to come to Barnala on the pretext of urgent work. Satya Narayan (P.W.3) and another person of their village Gabul came to Barnala. He narrated entire incident to Satya Narayan (P.W.3) as to what happened to his father. He called his friend Satya Narayan (P.W.3) on his telephone and asked him to come to Barnala on the pretext of urgent work. Satya Narayan (P.W.3) and another person of their village Gabul came to Barnala. He narrated entire incident to Satya Narayan (P.W.3) as to what happened to his father. Satya Narayan (P.W.3) told this witness that he should first go to his village and bring some money and then he would go to police station Bamanwas. When they were going towards the police station, he saw Rajesh and Banwari sitting on the way. This witness was traveling in a jeep and somehow concealed himself by covering his face. But then he did not go to police station as he was frightened of Rajesh and Banwari, who were sitting on the way. He rather went to his maternal uncle at village Maharia and stayed there in the night. 12. Mukh Chand (P.W.1) further stated that on the following day, he again made telephonic call to Satya Narayan (P.W.3), who told this witness to come to Village Badoti, as they were to search for dead body of his father Sukhram. This witness then went to Badoti village where Satya Narayan (P.W.3) met him. They together went to Madhopur and hired a taxi and went in search of the dead body, but they could not trace out the same. Mukh Chand (P.W.1) then stated that they went to a police station, but he did not remember name of the police station. The police did not give any satisfactory answer to them, therefore, they returned back to Madhopur and stayed there in the night. In the night at around 11-12, Satya Narayan (P.W.3) received a call from Police Station Bamanwas that a dead body has been found by Police Station Aligarh and he should come there to identify whether it was of his father or not. In the following morning, they hired a taxi and went to Police Station Aligarh, but were told that the dead body had been sent to Hospital at Tonk where Satya Narayan (P.W.3) identified dead body of his father. In the following morning, they hired a taxi and went to Police Station Aligarh, but were told that the dead body had been sent to Hospital at Tonk where Satya Narayan (P.W.3) identified dead body of his father. When this witness was confronted with part of his statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate (Exhibit P-1), in which he alleged that Laxmi Narayan son of the deceased had conspired with the accused Rajesh and Banwari to murder his own father Sukhram and Rajesh told him that Laxmi Narayan had promised to give him a sum of Rs. 1.5 lacs and a Bolero Jeep, if they kill Sukhram, this witness denied having given any such statement, but in the very next sentence he admitted to having given such statement, but then stated that he uttered so because Investigating Officer, Yadram (P.W.19) pressurised him to state so or else he would also send him (this witness) to jail, just like Rajesh and Banwari. This witness has admitted that Sukhram and Laxmi Narayan had very cordial relations because they were son and father. They both cared for each other. Sukhram used to give loan to people on interest. He made allegations against Laxmi Narayan under the pressure of Investigating Officer, Yadram (P.W.9). This witness had admitted that police personnel brought him to the court on 08.03.2010 for giving statement. In the night of 08.03.2010, he stayed in the police station. He narrated entire story after three days of the incident when he went to police station Bamanwas. He denied the suggestion that the police arrested him on allegation of murder of Sukhram, he rather went to police station on his own on the day when post mortem of deceased Sukhram was conducted. He was detained in the police station till Rajesh and Banwari were arrested. Investigating Officer threatened to also implicate him in the crime if he did not give statement. He stayed in the police station for as long as 29 days. His statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded when he was in custody of the police. When his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Exhibit P-1) was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, Investigating Officer accompanied him to the Court and was sitting there. 13. He stayed in the police station for as long as 29 days. His statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded when he was in custody of the police. When his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Exhibit P-1) was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, Investigating Officer accompanied him to the Court and was sitting there. 13. Satya Narayan Meena son of the deceased Sukhram has been produced as P.W.3, who stated that he received call on his cell phone from Mukh Chand at around 11.00-11.30 A.M. that Rajesh and Banwari had snatched bank passbook, keys of house and safe and a sum of Rs. 40,000/- from his father and dropped him from the car en-route near Choth Ka Barwada. Mukh Chand (P.W.1) then again called him on 17.05.2009 and informed that he was at Badoti and this witness (Satya Narayan) should come at Badoti and they both would go in search of his father. This witness went to Badoti and then they both went to Madhopur in search of his father. They searched for the father of Satya Narayan at Choth Ka Barwada and at nearby places. Then they went to Police Station Choth Ka Barwada, but his whereabouts could not be known. Then they returned back to Madhopur. On 17.05.2009 at around 11.00-11.15 P.M., he received telephonic call from Police Station Bamanwas informing that a dead body was lying in Police Station Aligarh and this witness should come there to ascertain that whether or not it was of his father. Then, this witness along with Mukh Chand (P.W.1) went to Aligarh Police Station where they learnt that dead body was now lying in Saadat Hospital, Tonk. Then they came to Tonk where he identified the dead body to be of his father. It was only at that stage that Mukh Chand (P.W.1) informed him that Rajesh and Banwari strangulated his father to death by use of towel and they snatched from him pass book, keys of safe and house and a sum of Rs. 40,000/-. He did not lodge report with the police on 18.05.2009 because he was not in a balanced state of mind. He could therefore, lodged report on 20.05.2009. Police recovered pass book at the instance of Banwari. Dhoti, towel and shirt of his father were seized by the police vide Exhibit P-5. 40,000/-. He did not lodge report with the police on 18.05.2009 because he was not in a balanced state of mind. He could therefore, lodged report on 20.05.2009. Police recovered pass book at the instance of Banwari. Dhoti, towel and shirt of his father were seized by the police vide Exhibit P-5. Police also recovered towel, keys of safe and further a sum of Rs.2,000/- at the instance of Rajesh vide Exhibit P-6. He was attesting witness to all these memos. Set of three keys was recovered at the instance of Laxmi Narayan vide Exhibit P-10, but this recovery was not made in his presence. This witness denied the suggestion that he was denying seizure of these article from Laxmi Narayan because he happens to be his real brother. He also denied that Laxmi Narayan wanted to grab the property and therefore hired Rajesh and Banwari as contract killer for a sum of Rs. 1.5 lacs and a Bollero Jeep. Relations of his father and Laxmi Narayan were quite cordial and they used to take meals together. He identified dhoti, vest and towel of his father. He stated that a day before 15.05.2009, i.e. on 14.05.2009, his father had only Rs. 1200-1250 because in the night of that day, his father had counted money in his presence. This witness then stated that he enquired from Mukh Chand (P.W.1) that why he did not tell about murder of his father to him on 15th, 16th and 17th and he explained that since he was frightened and threatened by the accused, he could not inform him complete facts. 14. Dhan Singh (P.W.4) has been produced as another important witness by the prosecution. He stated that on 15.05.2009, when he called Banwari on phone, Banwari told him that they had to go to village Sheopur to drop a party and called him to Badoti. Banwari reached the said place within 10-15 minutes thereafter in Indica Car. Apart from Banwari, two boys and one more person were there in that car. Banwari told him that he had to go to Sheopur. This witness also sat in the car on the side of driver. They went in front of hospital at Sawaimadhopur and all of them had juice there. Apart from Banwari, two boys and one more person were there in that car. Banwari told him that he had to go to Sheopur. This witness also sat in the car on the side of driver. They went in front of hospital at Sawaimadhopur and all of them had juice there. He heard two boys, who were sitting in the car, talking to each other that they had to murder third old aged person sitting in the car. Rajesh was one of them. This witness then stated that he refused to accompany the accused any further and borrowed a sum of Rs. 20/- from Banwari and came to village Badoti and thereafter to Mandawari. In cross-examination, he admitted that he did not inform the police about conspiracy hatched by the accused to murder Sukhram because he was frightened. It was correct that he did not know Rajesh before that point of time. Since others were calling him by that name, he could know his name. In cross-examination, this witness further stated that neither Rajesh, nor Banwari told him that they would murder that old aged person, but when they were talking to each other, he heard them saying so. 15. Vishal Mishra(P.W.8), taxi owner has been produced to state that Banwari was driving his taxi (Indica) No. RJ14 TA 1204, but at another place he stated that registration number of his Indica Car was RJ 25 TA 0120. Smt. Rukmani Devi (P.W.9), wife of the deceased has stated that Rajesh came to their house around 8.00-9.00 A.M. on the fateful day and enquired about Sukhram. Sukhram was not at home and he returned back and found Sukhram on the way. Then they both came back to their house. She served breakfast to both of them. Rajesh told that he along with Sukhram would go to Tonk to see counting of votes on the following day. Her husband demanded keys of the safe and pass book. Then he told her that he was carrying a sum of Rs. 45,000/- with him to deposit in bank of Madhopur. Raju Lal (P.W.14) has stated that Satya Narayan (P.W.3) called him on phone around one and a half years ago that his father had been missing for last three days and he should come with his car to Badoti village and they would go in search of his father. 45,000/- with him to deposit in bank of Madhopur. Raju Lal (P.W.14) has stated that Satya Narayan (P.W.3) called him on phone around one and a half years ago that his father had been missing for last three days and he should come with his car to Badoti village and they would go in search of his father. This witness then asked Satya Narayan that he should directly come to Madhopur. Then Mukh Chand (P.W.1) informed Satya Narayan that Banwari and Rajesh had brought his father to Choth Ka Barwada. They both came to him at Madhopur and they went in the taxi to search for his father. Satya Narayan (P.W.3) received phone call from Police Station Bamanwas and on being informed about dead body, they first went to Police Station Aligarh and then to hospital at Tank where Satya Narain identified dead body of his father. 16. Dr. Hamid Hussain (P.W.16) has proved post mortem report (Exhibit P-31), which was conducted by medical board. Cause of death therein was indicated to be asphyxia due to strangulation. Rajeev Choudhary (P.W.17), Judicial Magistrate, Tonk has proved the statement of Mukh Chand (P.W.1) recorded by him under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Exhibit P-1). Satya Narayan son of Ramkunwar (P.W.18), constable in the police is attesting witness of arrest memo of accused Rajesh and Banwari (Exhibit P-35 and Exhibit P-36 respectively) and Laxmi Narayan (Exhibit P-29), seizure memo of indica car (Exhibit P-28), towel, key of the safe and a sum of Rs. 2,000/- at the instance of Rajesh (Exhibit P-6). 17. Yadram (P.W.19) investigating officer has proved all the stages of investigation. He has admitted in the cross-examination that his investigation did not prove that Sukhram was seen going along with Banwari and Rajesh in Indica Car in the village Badoti. He did not confront Dhan Singh with Mukh Chand, nor did he show photograph of deceased Sukhram to Dhan Singh to prove that old person he was referring to in his statement. He did not record statement of any witness from village Kuwalji where temple was situated, Indragarh and the hotel, where the accused and the deceased took dinner to ascertain that all of them were seen together. He admitted that he did not procure call details or locations of Rajesh and Banwari. He did not record statement of any witness from village Kuwalji where temple was situated, Indragarh and the hotel, where the accused and the deceased took dinner to ascertain that all of them were seen together. He admitted that he did not procure call details or locations of Rajesh and Banwari. He did not produce any witness, who had seen the accused Rajesh and Banwari throwing dead body of the deceased into pit. This fact was told by Mukh Chand (P.W.1). It is also correct that no identification parade of diary, pass book, keys and towel of the deceased was conducted by the Judicial Magistrate. In cross-examination, he further submitted that slip of Toll Tax (Exhibit P-17), which has been produced by the police to show that the accused were travelling in Indica Car, does not give complete registration number of the vehicle. Surendra Singh, working at Toll Tax did not inform about number of the vehicle, but stated that if photograph of Mukh Chand (P.W.1) was shown to him, he could identify him. This witness further stated that Smt. Rukmani Devi (P.W.9) told him that when the deceased left the house, he carried with him amount of Rs. 45,000/- and keys of the safe. His investigation did not prove that Rajesh and Banwari threw the dead body of Sukhram into a pit. His investigation also did not prove that there was Toll Tax on Uniara Road. All these facts were told to him by Mukh Chand (P.W.1). This witness further stated that his investigation did not reveal that the deceased had any enmity with Rajesh and Banwari. He further admitted that towels similar to article-2 were easily available in the market and that he did not ask the medical board by showing the towel that whether the deceased could be put to death by use of said towel. When he recovered towel, it did not have any blood stains. This witness denied suggestion that he did not make Mukh Chand(P.W.1) as accused because he wanted to save him. 18. Evidence produced by the prosecution in the present case when critically analysed in the light of findings recorded by the trial court, makes it clear that the Trial Court has solely relied upon the testimony of Mukh Chand (P.W.1) and Satya Narayan Meena (P.W.3) while accepting the argument of prosecution in that behalf to convict the accused-appellants. 18. Evidence produced by the prosecution in the present case when critically analysed in the light of findings recorded by the trial court, makes it clear that the Trial Court has solely relied upon the testimony of Mukh Chand (P.W.1) and Satya Narayan Meena (P.W.3) while accepting the argument of prosecution in that behalf to convict the accused-appellants. What has to be seen by this Court is that whether these two witnesses have been rightly relied by the trial court to convict the accused-appellants and whether these witnesses proved the various circumstances namely of last seen, recovery and motive against the accused to bring home their guilt. 19. Yad Ram (P.W.19), Investigating Officer recorded statement of Mukh Chand (P.W.1), u/s 161 Cr.P.C. on 20.05.2009 (Exhibit D-2), which contains his earlier version followed by his statement under Section 164 recorded by Judicial Magistrate on 24.06.2009 (Exhibit P-1) and then his statement in the Court as P.W.1 on 09.03.2010 and 10.03.2010. This witness has maintained consistency in all the three statements that he accompanied accused and the deceased in the same Car and remained with them till the deceased was put to death, but then placed entire blame on Banwari and Rajesh and exculpated himself. He stated that while Banwari was driving the car, after they had reached Indragarh, they had dinner in a hotel (‘dhaba’). Car was stopped by Banwari in the hotel. Rajesh had a quarter of liquor and shared the same with this witness, which they both consumed. Rajesh paid bill of Rs. 150/-. Thereafter, they started at around 10.00 P.M. He was feeling sleepy. Sukhram was sitting on the front seat, while Banwari was driving the vehicle. He was sitting behind Banwari and Rajesh was sitting behind Sukhram. After Toll Plaza, Rajesh put towel around the neck of Sukhram and pulled the same. When Sukhram tried to free himself from his clutches, Banwari caught his hands and pushed his legs. On seeing this, this witness forbade the accused from doing so and tried to save Sukhram but Rajesh pushed him aside. Tongue of Sukhram came out of his mouth and he died on the spot. Rajesh and Banwari threatened this witness that if he dared to tell anyone about the incident, he would also meet the same fate. Then they shifted the dead body of Sukhram to the rear seat. Tongue of Sukhram came out of his mouth and he died on the spot. Rajesh and Banwari threatened this witness that if he dared to tell anyone about the incident, he would also meet the same fate. Then they shifted the dead body of Sukhram to the rear seat. Rajesh took out bank pass book, telephone diary, keys and plastic bag containing certain currency notes from the pocket of the deceased. They told this witness that they would give Rs. 5,000/- to him if kept mum. If he told anyone about the incident, he would also be murdered. It was also stated by Mukh Chand (P.W.1) that Rajesh told him that Laxmi Narayan son of the deceased had given him contract of killing his father in lieu of Rs. 1.5 lacs and a Bollero Jeep. Laxmi Narayan was habitual alcoholic and whenever he used to demand money from Sukhram, he used to deny and they often quarreled with each other. After driving the vehicle for about 15-20 minutes, Banwari and Rajesh threw the dead body in a pit along with road side. Towel was also thrown there. 20. Somewhat similar version has been given by this witness in his statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Exhibit P-1) before the Judicial Magistrate. He has additionally stated that when Rajesh and Banwari were strangulating the deceased, he tried to save him, but Rajesh slapped him twice or thrice and threatened to kill him as well. He then stated that after the incident, he alighted from their car at village Bagadi and made a telephonic call to his friend Satya Narayan (P.W.3) and called him on the following day. Satya Narayan (P.W.3) came to him at around 12 in the noon on 16.05.2009 and he narrated entire incident to Satya Narayan, who asked this witness to directly go to police at Bamanwas and went to his village saying that he was to bring money. When he was going towards police station, Rajesh and Banwari met him on the way. He, due to fear, did not go to police station and rather went to Village Maharia to his maternal uncle and on the following day, he again made telephonic call to Satya Narayan (P.W.3) and told him the entire story. When he was going towards police station, Rajesh and Banwari met him on the way. He, due to fear, did not go to police station and rather went to Village Maharia to his maternal uncle and on the following day, he again made telephonic call to Satya Narayan (P.W.3) and told him the entire story. This witness, in the court while appearing as P.W.1, has also substantially made the similar statement especially that he told the entire incident, which took place with the deceased to Satya Narayan on 16.05.2009 while at village Bagadi where the accused had dropped him and called him to village Barnala. Though he called him there, but Satya Narayan went to his village to bring some money and asked him to go to police station. When he was about to go there, Rajesh and Banwari met him on the way and due to fear, he did not go to police station and rather went to his matrimonial uncle’s home at Village Maharia. On the following day, 17.05.2009, he again made telephonic call to Satya Narayan and asked him to come to village Badoti and from there, they both went to Sawaimadhopur and hired taxi and went in search of dead body. 21. Two very significant question arose from the statement of this witness, which cast serious doubt on his credibility. If he was aware of the incident of murder of Sukhram on 15.05.2009, when the accused dropped him at village Bagodi wherefrom he went in jeep, why did he not immediately inform the police about the incident. Thereafter, when he informed his friend about the entire incident, why did he not immediately go to police and lodge report. And when Satya Narayan (P.W.3) came to him on 16.05.2009, why did they both not go to police to lodge the report. Satya Narayan (P.W.3) rather than going to police, went back to his native and came back again to this witness Mukh Chand (P.W.1) at Badoti on 17.05.2009 wherefrom they went to Sawaimadhopur and hired taxi for searching the dead body. If this witness was aware, as per his version, where the dead body of Sukhram was thrown by Rajesh and Banwari, why he could not directly search out the dead body. There is no explanation by the prosecution to all these questions. 22. If this witness was aware, as per his version, where the dead body of Sukhram was thrown by Rajesh and Banwari, why he could not directly search out the dead body. There is no explanation by the prosecution to all these questions. 22. Statement of Satya Narayan(P.W.3) on this aspect does not inspire confidence and does not fully corroborate statement of Mukh Chand (P.W.1) because he stated that on 16.05.2009, Mukh Chand told that Rajesh and Banwari had snatched pass book, keys of the safe and house and a sum of Rs. 40,000/- from his father and dropped him at Choth Ka Barwada and then on 17.05.2009, he again called him to village Badoti saying that they would go in search of his father. Then they came to Sawaimadhopur and after hiring taxi, went in search of his father. This witness has not supported allegation of conspiracy against Laxmi Narayan and rather stated about cordial relations between Laxmi Narayan and his father and denied the allegation that Laxmi Narayan wanted to grab property of his father and gave contract of killing of his father to Rajesh and Banwari in lieu of Rs. 1.5 lacs and a Bollero Jeep. What is most surprising is that Mukh Chand (P.W.1), in the cross examination, has categorically stated that he named Laxmi Narayan as accused on allegation of conspiracy only because Investigating Officer, Yad Ram (P.W.19) pressurised him to do so and threatened him that if he did not abide by his command, he would also send him to jail and make him accused in this case. This witness has categorically admitted that he was detained in the police station for as long as 29 days and was released only after the arrest of Rajesh and Banwari. During this period, his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the investigating officer. Then his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was also recorded by the Judicial Magistrate. This witness categorically stated that when his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded, he was still in the custody of police and investigating officer was also present in the Court. In cross-examination, he also admitted that Rajesh and Banwari did not have any enmity with Sukhram. 23. This witness categorically stated that when his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded, he was still in the custody of police and investigating officer was also present in the Court. In cross-examination, he also admitted that Rajesh and Banwari did not have any enmity with Sukhram. 23. What is most surprising is that if Mukh Chand had told Satya Narayan Meena son of the deceased about murder of his father by the accused on 16.05.2009, why did they not inform the police immediately and why Satya Narayan Meena submitted written report to SHO, Police Station Aligarh as late as 20.05.2009. There is no explanation that when the dead body was identified by Satya Narayan Meena to be of his father on 18.05.2009, why did he not submit written report/FIR on that very day and when Satya Narayan Meena submitted written report on 20.05.2009 why did he not mention the fact that Mukh Chand (P.W.1) had informed him on 16.05.2009 by telephone that Rajesh Meena and Banwari Meena had murdered his father. He rather only stated that they had snatched keys and pass book and money from his father and dropped him at Choth Ka Barwada. Conduct of the Investigating Officer in the present case is also significant, who has stated that his investigation did not prove that accused Rajesh, Banwari and Mukhchand were seen together with Sukhram, leaving in Indica Car from village. He did not obtain any call details of Rajesh and Banwari to determine their locations and that nobody saw accused Rajesh and Banwari throwing the dead body of Sukhram into the pit. There is absolutely no evidence as to whether dead body was eventually recovered from that pit or from else where. Recovery even otherwise becomes doubtful because Mukh Chand (P.W.1) also stated that he called Satya Narayan (P.W.3) to Badoti, from where they went to Sawaimadhopur and hired taxi and then went together for search of dead body. If Mukhchand (P.W.1) stated that dead body of Sukhram was thrown into the pit along the road side by Rajesh and Banwari, why was he not able to take Satya Narayan to that pit to trace out dead body of Sukhram earlier than the police. If Mukhchand (P.W.1) stated that dead body of Sukhram was thrown into the pit along the road side by Rajesh and Banwari, why was he not able to take Satya Narayan to that pit to trace out dead body of Sukhram earlier than the police. Investigating Officer has also admitted that evidence did not prove that Sukhram, Banwari and Rajesh were seen passing through the Toll Tax around 10.00-11.00 on 15.05.2009 and that nobody saw Rajesh and Banwari throwing the dead body and then he ended up by saying that there was no Toll Tax Plaza near Uniara road and all these facts were told to him by Mukh Chand (P.W.1). Investigating Officer also stated that his investigation also did not reveal that there was any enmity among the deceased and Rajesh and Banwari and the towel so recovered by him was easily available in the market. 24. The Supreme Court in Dharam Deo Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 5 SCC 509 has held that circumstantial evidence is evidence of relevant facts from which, one can, by process of reasoning, infer about the existence of facts in issue or factum probandum. Each and every incriminating circumstance must be clearly established by reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances so proved must form a chain of events from which the only irresistible conclusion about the guilt of the accused can be safely drawn and no other hypothesis against the guilt is possible. Even when there is no eyewitness to support the criminal charge, but prosecution has been able to establish the chain of circumstances, which is complete leading to inference of guilt of accused and circumstances taken collectively are incapable of explanation on any reasonable hypothesis save of guilt sought to be proved, the accused may be convicted on the basis of such circumstantial evidence. 25. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid case relied upon its earlier judgment in Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of M.P., AIR 1952 SC 343 wherein it was held that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn, should in the first instance be fully established and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. 26. Careful examination of the evidence of the prosecution produced in the present case would reveal that individual circumstances such as last seen, recovery and motive have not been proved by clinching evidence against the accused. Chain of circumstances sought to be proved against them has so many missing links and is not so complete as to rule out every single hypothesis compatible with the innocence of the accused. Conviction of the accused-appellants cannot be, therefore, sustained. 27. In view of above discussion, the appeals deserve to succeed and are accordingly allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 09.12.2011 passed by the trial court is set aside. The accused-appellants Rajesh and Banwari are acquitted of the charges under Sections 302 read with Section 120-B, 379 and 201 IPC and accused-appellant Laxmi Narayan is acquitted of the charges under Section 302 read with Section 120-B IPC. They are in jail and be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. 28. Keeping, however, in view the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellants, namely, Rajesh, Banwari and Laxmi Narayan are directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- each and a surety bond in the like amount, before the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, which shall be effective for a period of six months, undertaking that in the event of Special Leave Petition being filed against this judgment or on grant of leave, each of them, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court. Office is directed to place a copy of this judgment on record of each connected appeal.