JUDGMENT : MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the accused-appellant Narendra Singh challenging judgment dated 14.08.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge(Fast Track) No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur(for short ‘the trial court’) whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted for offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. For offence under Section 302 IPC, he has been sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he was to further undergo six months’ simple imprisonment. For offence under Section 201 IPC, he has been sentenced to three years’ simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default thereof, he was to further undergo two months’ simple imprisonment. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Facts of the case as emerging from the record are that a written report(Exhibit P-54) was submitted by Jahid Ali(P.W.1), Manager, Anjum Guest House, Ramganj Bazar, Jaipur to S.H.O. Police Station Ramganj, Jaipur stating therein that on 05.04.2006 at about 3.50 P.M., two boys came to his guest house and stayed in Room No. 126. One of them disclosed his identity as Mukesh son of Birham Singh and of another boy, as Saurabh. Mukesh was aged about 25 years and Saurabh was aged about 17 years. Aforesaid room was locked since 06.04.2006. On 08.04.2006, servants of the hotel felt something stinking in the aforesaid room. When they peeped into the room from the window, one person was seen lying on the bed. Therefore, they made a phone call to the police that dead body of one out of two persons staying in the aforesaid room of the hotel, was lying in that room, who had died due to unknown reasons. Action be taken against the culprits. The matter was entrusted to Kamal Nayan(P.W.19) for proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. He submitted his mrig report along with Post Mortem Report(Exhibit P-25) and other material before SHO, Police Station Ramganj, Jaipur at 8.40 A.M. on 12.04.2006. In earlier part of the written report, the facts alleged in the complaint by Jahid Ali(P.W.1), were reiterated, but in the later part it was stated that key of the room was with either of the two boys, who stayed therein and therefore, the lock had to cut by cutter. Dead body of one person was found lying on left side of the double bed. Dead body of one person was found lying on left side of the double bed. Blood was spread over the floor and also on the bed sheet. The bed sheet was giving stinking smell. After preparation of inquest, dead body was removed to S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur for being placed in deep fridge. Bed sheet, glass, suitcase(‘attachy’), clothes, shoes and lock, which was cut for opening the room, sample of blood spread on the ground and other liquid and register of the hotel were seized. Place of incident was photographed during proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and site plan was prepared. 3. That the police team was deputed to go to the place, which was noticed from the sticker affixed to the collar of the shirt of the deceased, which led the police to Rohitash, maternal grand father of the deceased and Mordhwaj(P.W.3), maternal uncle of the deceased. They disclosed identity of the deceased as Saurabh son of late Mahesh Chand caste Brahman, aged 16 years resident of Village Khalore, Police Station Jahagirabad, District Bulandshahar(UP). They told that he had gone to Gujarat with Narendra son of Bhram Singh caste Jat, aged 22-23 years resident Khalore District Bulandsahar to earn his livelihood. When Narendra returned back to his native, Rohitash enquired well being of Saurabh from him. Thereupon, he told that Saurabh had got down from the train. Post mortem of the deceased was conducted and viscera was preserved for chemical examination. In the report, the Medical Board opined the cause of death to be asphyxia due to strangulation and fracture of C-3 and C-4 vertibra, which was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. It was a case of culpable homicide amounting to murder, punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, therefore, FIR No.183/2006(Exhibit P-55) was registered and investigation commenced. Upon completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the accused-appellant before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, No.4, Jaipur City, Jaipur which committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge, Jaipur City wherefrom it was made over to the trial court. Trial court framed charges against the accused-appellant under Section 302 and 201 IPC, which he denied and claimed to be tried. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 19 witnesses and exhibited 60 documents. Trial court framed charges against the accused-appellant under Section 302 and 201 IPC, which he denied and claimed to be tried. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 19 witnesses and exhibited 60 documents. Accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he pleaded innocence and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case. Defence produced three witnesses and exhibited 15 documents. The trial court, on conclusion of trial, vide judgment and order dated 14.08.2007 convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant in the manner indicated above. Hence this appeal. 4. Mr. S.R. Surana, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-appellant argued that the accused-appellant has been falsely implicated in the case only because he travelled with the deceased from Porbandar. While he reached home on time, the deceased decided to get down from the train at Jaipur. The deceased has died suicidal death, which is evident from the Post Mortem Report(Exhibit P-25), proved by Dr. J.K. Goyal(P.W.8), who has stated that ligature mark was present on the neck of the deceased at the level of thyroid Carlene starting below the left ear and continuing on front side and the level of thyroid Carlene running backwards up to below the right ear. Size of the ligature mark was indicated to be 2 c.m. to 1.5 c.m. According to learned Senior Counsel, this kind of ligature mark could be result of suicidal death and is possible only if someone hangs himself. Dr. J.K. Goyal(P.W.8) has proved the testimony of Jahid Ali(P.W.1) and Govind(P.W.18) that accused and the deceased consumed some material and also tea because he has stated that stomach of the deceased was found empty. Explaining the meaning of word “Asphyxia”, this witness stated that this kind of mark could be caused if someone hangs himself. If somebody is forcibly throttled, he would pose resistance and try to free himself. There were no marks of struggle. Ligature marks on collar and neck up to the place below ear is possible only in the case of hanging. 5. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that evidence of last seen against the accused-appellant is a very weak kind of evidence inasmuch as accused was shown to Jahid Ali(P.W.1) before he was subjected to test identification parade. Ligature marks on collar and neck up to the place below ear is possible only in the case of hanging. 5. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that evidence of last seen against the accused-appellant is a very weak kind of evidence inasmuch as accused was shown to Jahid Ali(P.W.1) before he was subjected to test identification parade. Referring to arrest memo of the accused(Exhibit P-23), learned Senior Counsel argued that the wordings that accused was kept with covered face from place ‘E’ to ‘F’ were subsequently added. In this connection, learned Senior Counsel referred to statement of Ashok Chauhan(P.W.17), Investigating Officer, who in his cross-examination has stated that he was not sure as to whether there was a ceiling fan in the hotel room no. 126 but he has also stated that no ceiling fan was indicated in the site plan. The prosecution has failed to prove motive on the part of the accused as to why he would commit murder of the deceased. It is alleged that the accused owed to the deceased a sum of Rs. 2,000/- and he gave further amount of Rs. 1,700/- to him, when they started from Porbandar. Mahesh Giree(P.W.10), hotel owner where both the accused and the deceased were working has stated that he gave Rs. 2,900/- to accused-appellant Narendra @ Mukesh and to the deceased Saurabh Rs. 2,183/-. The police at the instance of accused-appellant recovered only a sum of Rs. 700/- vide Exhibit P-21 on 21.04.2006 from his house at Khalore District Bulandshahar, which was highly insignificant amount to motivate the accused to commit murder of his companion. It is argued that accused-appellant was arrested on 12.04.2006(Exhibit P-23) at Kharole and recovery of currency notes amounting to Rs. 700/- has been belatedly shown at his instance on 21.04.2006 (Exhibit P-21), i.e. nine days thereafter which hardly inspires any confidence and is nothing but result of fabrication by the police. 6. Learned Senior Counsel argued that prosecution has heavily relied on the testimony of Mordhwaj(P.W.3), maternal uncle, who has stated that the accused-appellant returned to his native on 08.04.2006. Accused told him that Saurabh got down from the train and had also taken away his (of accused) suitcase containing his clothes and currency notes of Rs. 18,000/-. He had shown railway tickets of both of them. Accused told him that Saurabh got down from the train and had also taken away his (of accused) suitcase containing his clothes and currency notes of Rs. 18,000/-. He had shown railway tickets of both of them. Thereupon, he made a phone call to the hotel owner where both were working, who told him that he gave a sum of Rs. 2,000/- to Saurabh and Rs. 3,000/- to Mukesh, i.e. accused-appellant. When the police reached their native place on 10.04.2006, they had photograph of Saurabh and informed that his dead body was lying in hospital at Jaipur. This witness came to Jaipur along with Rohitash(P.W.6) and identified his dead body. He claimed that two railway tickets, which were given by accused-appellant to him, were seized vide Exhibit P-18. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that if the accused had any guilty mind or had indeed committed murder of the deceased, there was no question of his carrying railway tickets as well as the key of the room, which was also shown to have been recovered from him by the police at the time of his arrest. Learned Senior Counsel argued that Mordhwaj(P.W.3) in his cross-examination has clearly stated that when the police came to their native place on 10.04.2006, then only he gave the railway tickets to police, but admitted that he did not give these tickets to police when they were in Jaipur on 11.04.2006 at about 1.00 P.M. He even went to the extent of admitting that he did not inform the police that he was having two railway tickets because the police did not enquire from him. 7. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that as against statement of this witness, Rohitash Kumar(P.W.6), when confronted with his police statement(Exhibit D-7), he failed to explain that why he did not inform the police about the tickets in possession of Mordhwaj(P.W.3), though stated that accused-appellant gave these tickets to Mordhwaj(P.W.3) and when they came to Jaipur, Mordhwaj(P.W.3) gave these two tickets to police. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that statements of these witnesses Mordhwaj(P.W.3) and Rohitash Kumar(P.W.6) stand falsified when read with statement of Jahid Ali(P.W.1), Manager of the hotel, who stated that when the police searched the room, they also found railway tickets and police personnel had taken these tickets along with them, but they did not prepare any seizure of it. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that statements of these witnesses Mordhwaj(P.W.3) and Rohitash Kumar(P.W.6) stand falsified when read with statement of Jahid Ali(P.W.1), Manager of the hotel, who stated that when the police searched the room, they also found railway tickets and police personnel had taken these tickets along with them, but they did not prepare any seizure of it. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the prosecution has relied upon the entry made by Jahid Ali(P.W.1) in the hotel register(Exhibit P-17A) in which name of Mukesh @ Narendra and Saurabh was entered in English by Jahid Ali(P.W.1). Jahid Ali(P.W.1) in the court statement has stated that accused-appellant signed the register, but the original register was taken away by the police at the time of investigation and was still with the police when his statement was recorded in the Court. If the register was having signature of the appellant, even if in the vague name, that was the best evidence which should have been sent to hand writing expert to ascertain whether actually the appellant signed the same or not. When the original register has not been tendered in evidence, this cannot be used as an evidence against the accused-appellant. It is argued that Rohitash Kumar(P.W.6) in his cross-examination has stated that when the police came to their native place they brought the keys of the room also along with them. Thus, recovery of key shown at the instance of accused-appellant Narendra @ Mukesh is clearly a case of police padding. It cannot be believed that as a normal human conduct, if the appellant had committed murder of the deceased, he would have carried along with him keys of the room for as long as six days and would not throw away the same. 8. Learned Senior Counsel argued that the prosecution has wrongly relied upon statement of Rohitash Kumar(P.W.6), who has stated that the police had brought keys of the room of the guest house along with them to their native place. This witness has neither been re-examined, nor has been declared hostile, therefore, the prosecution is bound by his testimony. It is argued that the prosecution has failed to explain why the deceased, who was extremely poor, would get down from the train to risk the loss of money spent by him on purchase of the railway ticket. This witness has neither been re-examined, nor has been declared hostile, therefore, the prosecution is bound by his testimony. It is argued that the prosecution has failed to explain why the deceased, who was extremely poor, would get down from the train to risk the loss of money spent by him on purchase of the railway ticket. It is contended that only basis by which the prosecution seeks to support the conviction of the accused-appellant is the evidence of last seen followed by his identification by Jahid Ali(P.W.1). But the prosecution has not got the accused identified by Govind(P.W.18) in the dock, as he did not appear as witness in the test identification parade. His statement for the first time was recorded in the Court on 26.06.2007, in which he claimed to have identified the accused-appellant, cannot be believed. Learned Senior Counsel therefore submitted that mere evidence of last seen cannot be sufficient basis for sustaining conviction of the accused-appellant, that too, in a case of circumstantial evidence. Several circumstances which are sought to be proved by the prosecution do not form a complete chain so as to rule out every hypothesis compatible with the innocence of the accused-appellant. Learned Senior Counsel in support of his arguments relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Sattatiya Alias Satish Rajanna Kartalla Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 3 SCC 210 ; Sujoy Sen Alias Sujoy Kr. Sen Vs. State of W.B., (2007) 6 SCC 32 ; Khalil Khan Vs. State of M.P., (2003) 11 SCC 19 ; Bahadul Vs. State of Orissa, AIR 1979 SC 1262 and judgment of this Court in Anwar Ali Vs. State of Rajasthan, (1997) (2) RCD 176 (Raj.). 9. Mr. R.S. Raghav, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the appeal and submitted that evidence of the prosecution especially Jahid Ali(P.W.1) and Govind(P.W.18) has proved that it was the accused and nobody else, who stayed with the deceased in that room and was lastly seen with him. Thereafter, Saurabh was found dead in that room, keys of which have been recovered at the instance of the accused-appellant when the police arrested him. Two railway tickets of the appellant and the deceased, which they bought for travelling in train from Porbandar to Delhi were also produced before the police by Mordhwaj(P.W.3) and these tickets were given to Mordhwaj(P.W.3) by none other than the accused-appellant. Two railway tickets of the appellant and the deceased, which they bought for travelling in train from Porbandar to Delhi were also produced before the police by Mordhwaj(P.W.3) and these tickets were given to Mordhwaj(P.W.3) by none other than the accused-appellant. Accused-appellant narrated a false story to Mordhwaj(P.W.3) that the deceased got down from the train with his suitcase containing his clothes and a sum of Rs. 18,000/- whereas actually a sum of Rs. 2,183/- was given to the deceased and a sum of Rs. 2,900/- was given to the accused-appellant by Mahesh Giree(P.W.10). Copy of the hotel register(Exhibit P-10) clearly shows that the accused disclosed his identity as Mukesh and even from the statement of Mahesh Giree(P.W.10), it is evident that he disclosed his identity as Mukesh. This also indicates guilty mind of the accused-appellant that he had planned to commit murder of the deceased and therefore, purposely gave a wrong identity in the register. Since the register did not contain signatures either of the appellant or the deceased and entry was made in the hand writing of Jahid Ali(P.W.1), which matches with other entries in the same register, therefore, there was no need for sending the same to the hand writing experts. 10. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that Jahid Ali(P.W.1) has identified the accused appellant in test identification parade and also in the court. Report of test identification parade(Exhibit P-16) has been proved by Devendra Singh(P.W.16). Apart from Jahid Ali(P.W.1) and Ayaj(P.W.2) in whose restaurant the accused and the deceased had dinner together, Govind(P.W.18), who supplied tea to the appellant identified him in the court. The key, which was recovered at the instance of the accused, was sent to the forensic science laboratory to test that whether the lock, which was seized by the police (Exhibit P-3), can be operated by such key. Report of FSL(Exhibit P-60) has proved that a metallic key apparently made of steel bearing the engraved description ‘Niki 576916’ with a key ring and a brass metallic plate bearing the embossed description ‘PH.570534 ANJUM GUEST HOUSE M.M. KHAN HOTEL 115. RAMGANJBAJAR JAIPUR AND ‘126’ on the back side is written with green paint, which has been marked as exhibits K/1, K/2 and K/3 can easily be operated with the key Exhibit K/1. Learned Public Prosecutor also referred to the statement of Ashok Chauhan(P.W.17), who proved different stages of investigation. RAMGANJBAJAR JAIPUR AND ‘126’ on the back side is written with green paint, which has been marked as exhibits K/1, K/2 and K/3 can easily be operated with the key Exhibit K/1. Learned Public Prosecutor also referred to the statement of Ashok Chauhan(P.W.17), who proved different stages of investigation. He also referred to statement of Kamal Nayan(P.W.19), who conducted proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C.. Chain of circumstances against the accused-appellant is fully complete and points towards guilt of the accused-appellant and none else. 11. We have given anxious consideration to rival submissions and perused the material on record as well as the record of the case. 12. We may at the outset observe that in so far as evidence of the prosecution as to the recovery of two railway tickets and recovery of key from the possession of the appellant is concerned, the same is quite sketchy. The defence has been able to create sufficient doubt about veracity of prosecution evidence in that regard. Jahid Ali(P.W.1) stated that when the police searched the room, they took away various articles belonging to the deceased lying in that room and at that time, the police had also taken the railway tickets lying therein. The police has, however, prepared Exhibit P-18 seizure memo of two railway tickets. This exhibit has been proved by Mordhwaj(P.W.3) and Rohitash Kumar(P.W.6), who stated that two tickets were produced before the police by Mordhwaj(P.W.3). These are ordinary tickets of general coach and names of accused-appellant and deceased were not mentioned in the reservation chart or the tickets. Tickets originated from the accused-appellant, but testimony of Mordhwaj(P.W.3) in this regard stands on sketchy ground. When it was put to him that tickets were brought by the police with them from Jaipur, he denied such suggestion and stated that police did not have the tickets before he gave the same to them. But then, he also did not dispute the fact that when the police earlier came to their native, tickets were given to him by accused-appellant and why the same were retained by him till 11.04.2006 even then he did not disclose this fact to anybody, not even to the police which reached their village on 10.04.2006 and did not give these tickets to them. When he was asked to explain the reasons of that, he stated that since the police did not enquire from him about tickets, therefore, he did not give tickets to them. 13. It is quite surprising that when the police had come with the photograph of the deceased and informed this witness and others in the village that deceased has been murdered, still Mordhwaj(P.W.3) did not disclose the fact that these tickets were given to him by accused-appellant, thus the conduct of this witness is quite unnatural. He had no explanation why did he not give tickets to the police in the first instance. Even though he admits that the police had shown photograph of deceased and his statement was recorded by the police when he went to Police Station Ramganj on 11.04.2006. Apparently, it is on that day, the police has shown seizure of the tickets at the instance of this witness, which it had already seized from the hotel room. 14. Statement of Rohitash Kumar(P.W.6) in this behalf is also not convincing when he stated that these tickets were given to Mordhwaj(P.W.3) in his presence. When this witness was asked to explain whether he enquired from the accused whether Ticket Collector did not collect the tickets from them, he replied that he did not ask this question from the accused-appellant. His police statement(Exhibit D-7) was recorded on 12.04.2006 at 9.20 A.M. and no mention whatsoever was made about two tickets therein and when this witness was asked to explain this discrepancy, he failed to give explanation. He also admitted that police came to their village for the first time on 10.04.2006 and on that day, he did not inform the police about these two tickets. 15. Coming now to incriminating circumstance of key of the hotel room recovered from the possession of the accused-appellant on 12.04.2006, as has been rightly argued that why a person with guilty mind having committed murder of his companion in the room would continue to carry the key of that very room particularly when he had come far away from the hotel room to his native place. This is rather difficult to believe and sounds quite unnatural. This is rather difficult to believe and sounds quite unnatural. It is alleged that accused-appellant left the hotel on 06.04.2006 and the police arrested him on 12.04.2006 at 11.45 A.M. and soon thereafter shown recovery of key at 11.55 A.M. Therefore, case of the prosecution in this behalf also is amply damaged. Critical examination of the testimony of Mordhwaj(P.W.3) revealed that he has stated that when the police came to their village, they brought with them key of the guest house room. Besides, hotels or guest houses normally retain one duplicate key of every room so that in case of any emergency, the room can be opened. Mordhwaj(P.W.3) has neither been re-examined, nor has been declared hostile. He was prosecution witness, therefore, the prosecution cannot easily over come the difficulty posed by his statement. Prosecution would be rather bound by his testimony. We may in this connection refer to judgment of the Supreme Court in Raja Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2005) 5 SCC 272 wherein it was held that if the evidence of prosecution witness does not support the prosecution case and the witness has not been declared hostile, the defence can rely upon evidence of such witness and it would be binding on the prosecution. Reference may also be made to another judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajendra & Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2009) 13 SCC 480 wherein it was held that testimony of hostile witness may not be totally rejected and subject to close scrutiny, a portion thereof which is consistent with case of prosecution or defence may be accepted to find out whether the accused was guilty or not. Therefore, this circumstance cannot be held to have been proved by clinching evidence. 16. Third incriminating circumstances against the accused-appellant is the entry of his name in the hotel register. Jahid Ali(P.W.1) in the court stated that during investigation, he told the police that the person, who accompanied Saurabh to their guest house had signed against the entry in the hotel register and the original register was taken away by the police. But even this statement has not been proved and the same falls flat on the ground when we examine Exhibit P-17A, which shows that only the names of the inmates were mentioned and no signatures were obtained. But even this statement has not been proved and the same falls flat on the ground when we examine Exhibit P-17A, which shows that only the names of the inmates were mentioned and no signatures were obtained. In the normal course, hotels or guest houses are duty obliged to obtain ID of the guest and at least obtain, their signatures and if someone does not know how to sign, then obtain his/her thumb impression. But in the present case, none of that was done. Entry in the hotel register does not, therefore, prove anything against the accused-appellant. 17. Coming now to motive, Mahesh Giree(P.W.10) stated that he had given amount of Rs. 2,900/- to the accused-appellant and Rs. 2,183/- to the deceased. As per the case of the prosecution, deceased had given a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as debt to the accused-appellant during their previous visit to the native village and the deceased this time also gave additional amount of Rs. 1,700/- to the accused-appellant, but insisted that upon reaching the village, the appellant should repay this amount of Rs. 1,700/- apart from the previous amount of Rs. 2,000/-. According to the prosecution, since the accused-appellant did not want to return this money to the deceased, therefore, he put him to death. Police has recovered a sum of Rs. 700/- from the accused and that too belatedly on 21.04.2006 whereas evidence shows that the police visited the village on 10.04.2006 and 12.04.2006. Arrest of the accused-appellant was made as early as on 12.04.2006. There is no reason why the recovery of amount of Rs. 700/- was not made on that very day. Besides, amount recovered at the instance of the accused-appellant is also insignificant and does not inspire confidence in the story of the prosecution that accused would take the extreme step of committing murder of his fellow worker for such a petty amount, particularly when as per own showing of the prosecution, it was the accused, who secured the job to the deceased. 18. Another incriminating circumstance, which the prosecution has been able to somewhat substantially prove against the accused-appellant is that of last seen on the strength of statements of Jahid Ali(P.W.1); Ayaj(P.W.2) and Govind(P.W.18). Now therefore, this Court has to examine whether the accused-appellant can be convicted on the basis of evidence of last seen alone. 19. 18. Another incriminating circumstance, which the prosecution has been able to somewhat substantially prove against the accused-appellant is that of last seen on the strength of statements of Jahid Ali(P.W.1); Ayaj(P.W.2) and Govind(P.W.18). Now therefore, this Court has to examine whether the accused-appellant can be convicted on the basis of evidence of last seen alone. 19. We may in this connection refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mohibur Rahman and Another Vs. State of Assam, (2002) 6 SCC 715 wherein it has been held that the circumstance of last seen together does not by itself necessarily lead to the inference that it was the accused, who committed the crime. There must be something more establishing connectivity between the accused and the crime. There may be cases where on account of close proximity of place and time between the event of the accused having been last seen with the deceased and the factum of death, a rational mind may be persuaded to reach an irresistible conclusion that either the accused should explain how and in what circumstances the victim suffered the death or should own the liability for the homicide death. In the facts of that case, it was held that there is no such proximity of time and place as in that case dead body was recovered after/about 14 days from the date on which the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused. Although in the present case, time gap between the date on which the accused was lastly seen with the deceased and the date on which dead body was recovered is only 2-3 days, but in our view and in totality of the circumstances of the present case, the chain of circumstances, which the prosecution has sought to prove against accused, when all other incriminating circumstances, are found to be disproved, solitary circumstance of having been lastly seen with the deceased may not by itself perhaps form a complete chain, without having missing links, to raise inference that it was accused-appellant and none else, who could have committed murder of the deceased. It is no doubt true that charges against an accused can be proved not only by direct evidence but also by circumstantial evidence where there is no direct evidence. It is no doubt true that charges against an accused can be proved not only by direct evidence but also by circumstantial evidence where there is no direct evidence. The Court can draw an inference of guilt when all incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be totally incompatible with the innocence of accused. However, circumstances from which an inference of guilt is drawn has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and should be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. 20. The Supreme Court in Kanhaiya Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2014) 4 SCC 715 held that last seen together circumstance does not by itself necessarily lead to inference that it was accused who committed crime, but there must be something more to connect the accused with the crime and to point out the guilt of the accused and none else. The Supreme Court in Shyamal Ghosh Vs. State of W.B., (2012) 7 SCC 646 on the basis of the evidence in that case held that reasonableness of the time gap is of some significance. If the time gap is very large, then it is not only difficult but may not even be proper for the court to infer that the accused had been last seen alive with the deceased and the former, thus, was responsible for commission of the offence. 21. In view of above discussion as also evidence on record, we are not inclined to uphold the conviction of the appellant recorded by the trial court on the basis of chain of circumstances, which is found to have many missing links and the factum of last seen alone would not be sufficient evidence to uphold the conviction of the accused-appellant in the present case. 22. In the result, present appeal deserves to succeed and is accordingly allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 14.08.2007 passed by the trial court is set aside. The accused-appellant Narendra Singh is acquitted of the charges for offences under Section 302 and 201 IPC. He be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. 23. In the result, present appeal deserves to succeed and is accordingly allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 14.08.2007 passed by the trial court is set aside. The accused-appellant Narendra Singh is acquitted of the charges for offences under Section 302 and 201 IPC. He be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. 23. Keeping, however, in view the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant, namely, Narendra Singh is directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- 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, he, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court.