JUDGMENT : 1. The instant Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellants Prem Singh and Chhinder Singh @ Chinderpal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 12.7.1990 in Sessions Case No. 72/1987 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar whereby both the accused-appellants were held guilty for offence under Sections 302 and 302/34 I.P.C. respectively and sentence for life imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 500/- each were imposed against them. 2. As per brief facts of the case, the complainant PW-1 Dalip Singh lodged an F.I.R. (Ex.P/1) at Police Station Gharsana on 16.5.1987 at 8.15 am stating therein that he and his father-in-law Karam Singh (deceased) purchased one square (Bigha) land at about seven years back. The said land was distributed and cultivated by them separately and they are living separately in their houses. As per complaint his brother-in-law Tara Singh S/o Shri Karam Singh was residing at Village Maluwala, Punjab was not having good relations with his father. 3. As per allegations in the F.I.R. about five months back Prem Singh S/o Shri Tara Singh came there and started living with his grandfather Karam Singh. After some time, Prem Singh asked his grandfather that your land may be transferred in his name, but Karan Singh grandfather refuse to transfer his land, therefore, quarrel took place in between them. 4. After quarrel, Prem Singh went back to Punjab and before one month from the date of incident Tara Singh and his wife came there and started living with his father Karan Singh. They asked one Fateh Singh that he may intervene and make request to Karam Singh to transfer the land in their favour. Upon inquiry by the Fateh Singh, Karam Singh inform that his grandson Prem Singh will kill him, so I will not keep Prem Singh with him nor transfer the land, thereafter Tara Singh and his wife went back to Punjab. 5. As per information on 15.5.1987, when he was coming from Village Khajuwala, in the village, Prem Singh, Chinderpal and Hamir Singh met and he asked them to come at his house. At that time Prem Singh asked that you may request his grandfather Karam Singh to transfer the land otherwise he will kill him. After saying so all the three persons went to the house of Shyam Singh and informant went to his own house. At that time Prem Singh asked that you may request his grandfather Karam Singh to transfer the land otherwise he will kill him. After saying so all the three persons went to the house of Shyam Singh and informant went to his own house. As per complaint at about 3.30 am in the night, one Mahendra Singh came to his house and informed that Karam Singh has been murdered, upon said information the informant immediately went to the house of Karam Singh and saw that his dead body was lying on cot. Upon aforesaid report submitted by the complainant Dalip Singh (PW-1), F.I.R. (Ex.P1) was registered at Police Station Gharsana. 6. After registration of F.I.R. the police went on spot and prepared site plan and Panchnama of the dead body so also took other material in possession from place of occurrence for investigation and prepared (Ex.P/2), site plan (Ex.P/3), details of dead body (Ex.P/4), Panchnama of dead body (Ex.P/6), the blood sustained cot was also taken in possession, the dead body if the deceased Karam Singh was taken to the Government Hospital for postmortem where postmortem was conducted and report (Ex.P/21) was prepared on 16.5.1987. As per postmortem report Ex.P/21), the cause of death was Comma due to injury on the brain. 7. The dead body of the deceased was handed over to Dalip Singh son-in-law of Karam Singh for cremation vide Ex.P/7. The accused appellants were arrested vide Ex.P/16 and P/17 respectively. Upon information (Ex.P/16) given by the accused appellant Prem Singh under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, one wooden stick (Lathi) was recovered vide Ex.P/8 and all the articles recovered during investigation, were sent for chemical examination to the FSL from where the FSL report Ex.P/19 was received. 8. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused-appellants on the basis of extra judicial confession and recovery of Lathi and other articles in the Court of Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Anupgarh from where case was committed to the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar for trial. 9. In the trial after providing an opportunity of hearing, the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. was framed against both the accused appellant, but they denied the charge and prayed for trial. 10. Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar for trial. 9. In the trial after providing an opportunity of hearing, the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. was framed against both the accused appellant, but they denied the charge and prayed for trial. 10. In the trial, statements of ten prosecution witnesses were recorded and thereafter statement of the accused appellants were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they denied all the allegations made by the prosecution witness and said that it is a case of false implication. The accused appellant Prem Singh gave following explanation, which reads as under:- ftl jkst dk okd;k crk;k x;k gS eSa ml fnu vius xkao eyqokyk esa FkkA eSa ;gka ugha vk;kA nyhi flag ihMCY;w&1 esjs nknk dh tehu dks gM+iuk pkgrk Fkk ftlesa vU; xokgksa ds lkFk lkaB&xkaB dj esjs f[kykQ >wBk eqdnek cuk fn;kA eSa funksZ"k gwaA 11. Accused appellant Chandar Singh while denying the allegations oil prosecution witnesses gave following explanation which reads as under:- ftl jkst dk okd;k crk;k x;k gS eSa ml fnu vius xkao eyqokyk esa FkkA eSa ;gka ugha vk;kA nyhi flag ihMCY;w&1 esjs nknk dh tehu dks gM+iuk pkgrk Fkk ftlesa vU; xokgksa ds lkFk lkaB&xkaB dj esjs f[kykQ >wBk eqdnek cuk fn;kA eSa funksZ"k gwaA 12. In defence statement of Karam Singh (DW-1) S/o Hira Singh were I recorded in defence. After recording evidence of both the sides, the learned Trial I Court finally decided the case vide judgment dated 12.7.1990 in Sessions Case I No. 72/1987 whereby the accused appellant Prem Singh was convicted for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and accused appellant Chinder Singh @ Chhinderpal was convicted for offence under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and sentence mentioned above was passed against them. 13. In this appeal, the appellants have challenged the validity of the impugned judgment dated 12.7.1990 on various grounds. 14. Learned accused appellant submits that there is no eye-witness in this case so as to connect to the accused appellant with the crime. 13. In this appeal, the appellants have challenged the validity of the impugned judgment dated 12.7.1990 on various grounds. 14. Learned accused appellant submits that there is no eye-witness in this case so as to connect to the accused appellant with the crime. The author of F.I.R. is son-in-law of the deceased Karam Singh and accused appellants are grandsons of the deceased, there was no reason for them to kill their own grandfather because they were already having their right in the land in question being grandson of the deceased, whereas the complainant Dalip Singh was having motive to kill his father-in-law to grab the entire land because land was jointly purchased by the deceased Karam Singh and complainant Dalip Singh, therefore, a false story was concocted by the complainant Dalip Singh so as to held the appellants guilty for the alleged offence which is not committed by them. Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that, upon perusal of the statement of Complainant Dalip Singh it will reveal that he has categorically stated in the cross-examination that there were 15 to 20 injuries upon the body of the deceased but this allegation has not been proved by the postmortem report because as per the postmortem report there was only one injury upon the head of the deceased, therefore, it is obvious that in absence of any reliable and trustworthy evidence, the accused appellants are convicted solely on the basis of extra judicial confession and as per settled Principle of Law the evidence of extra judicial confession is very weak type of evidence. It is also submitted that upon perusal of statement of both the witnesses of extra judicial confession Fatah Singh (PW-6) and Amar Singh (PW-9), it will reveal that the allegations are far from the truth and such type of statement cannot be taken into consideration so as to convict the accused because the evidence of motive has been concocted by the complainant so as to grab the entire land of deceased Karam Singh. It is also submitted that there was no reason for the appellants to make confession before two interested witnesses PW-6 and Amar Singh PW-9 Fateh Singh because they are close relatives of the complainant. 15. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that entire prosecution case is based upon testimony of ten prosecution witnesses. It is also submitted that there was no reason for the appellants to make confession before two interested witnesses PW-6 and Amar Singh PW-9 Fateh Singh because they are close relatives of the complainant. 15. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that entire prosecution case is based upon testimony of ten prosecution witnesses. Out of ten witnesses Mohan Singh (PW-3) SHO, P.S. Gharsana was Investigating Officer of the case, the witness Mohan Singh (PW-3) accepted in his statement that during investigation, statements of Dalip Singh, Mahendra Singh, Laxmi Bai, Fateh Singh, Angat Dev and Shyam Singh (Ex.P-10 to Ex.P-15) were recorded by him. 16. Admittedly, statements of Laxmi Bai (Ex.P-12) W/o deceased Karam Singh were recorded on 16.5.1987 soon after the occurrence and the said witness categorically stated in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that the day on which occurrence took place she was in the house and sitting just behind the deceased, therefore, she was eye-witness of the case but not produced by the prosecution in the trial to prove the case. While inviting attention towards the statements of Mahendra Singh (PW-8) it is submitted that the statement of Mahendra Singh were recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Ex.P-15) on 17.5.1987, in which no fact was disclosed that any confession was made before him by the accused appellants whereas, in the Court statements the witness Mahendra Singh (PW-8) stated before the Court that on the date of occurrence Laxmi Bai wife of Karam Singh, came to his house and upon asking "What happened Mataji." It is replied by her that my grandsons killed my husband but this fact has not been proved because the witness Laxmi Bai wife of the deceased has not been produced as witness before the Court to corroborate such allegation levelled by the PW-8 Mahendra Singh. 17. The crux of argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that, the entire prosecution case is based upon testimony of PW-6 Amar Singh, PW-7 Shyam Singh, PW-8 Mahendra Singh, PW-9 Fateh Singh and P\AM Dalip Singh and all these witnesses are close relatives. There is no independent witness to corroborate the allegation of prosecution except so called extra judicial confession and recovery of Lathi. There is no independent witness to corroborate the allegation of prosecution except so called extra judicial confession and recovery of Lathi. The so called Lathi was recovered during investigation as per information given by accused appellant Prem Singh in presence of two witnesses Kashmir Singh and Dalip Singh (complainant), therefore, such interested witnesses cannot be treated as independent witness, the other witness Kashmir Singh nowhere disclosed on which date Lathi was recovered by the police. In the cross-examination it is specifically stated by Kashmir Singh (PW-5) that the place where Lathi was recovered there was no door or roof and the said Lathi was recovered near the Kikar tree. Both the witnesses accepted that they are close relative of Dalip Singh as well as deceased Karam Singh, therefore, on the basis of such statement of these two witnesses it cannot be said that prosecution has proved the recovery of Lathi at the instance of accused appellant Prem Singh. 18. According to appellant, finding of learned Trial Court to held accused appellant guilty on the basis of recovery of Lathi and extra judicial confession is not sustainable in law, therefore the impugned judgment may kindly be quashed. 19. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that it is a case in which two grandsons with motive inflicted injury upon head of their grandfather Karam Singh and committed murder of him only to get land for which the grandfather was not agreeable to transfer in their favour. 20. Learned Public Prosecutor further argued that as per evidence on record there was dispute in between appellants and deceased in connection with the land which is purchased by the deceased alongwith the complaint. The complaint has proved the fact that land was purchased by him and deceased and Prem Singh and his father Tara Singh were repeatedly insisting the deceased Karam Singh to transfer the land in question in their names but deceased refused to do so, therefore, it is a case in which prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of reliable evidence of extra judicial confession and recovery of Lathi because both the facts are proved by the prosecution against the accused appellants, therefore, there is no question to say that the Trial Court has committed an error so as to hold accused appellant guilty. 21. 21. Learned Public Prosecutor further argued that upon Lathi recovered, as per information given by the accused appellant, blood was found and other articles collected from the place of occurrence were sent to the FSL for examination in which it is reported by the FSL that blood of 'O' group was found upon Lathi and other articles were recovered from the place of occurrence, therefore, on the basis of evidence of extra judicial confession and recovery of blood sustained Lathi, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the instant appeal may kindly be dismissed. 22. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, we have minutely scanned entire evidence of the case. Upon consideration of evidence it is obvious that prosecution case is based upon statement often prosecution witnesses out of which PW-2 Niranjan Singh, PW-3 Mohan Singh (SHO P.S. Gharsana), PW-10 Angad Dev (Medical Officer) are the witnesses of investigation whereas PW-1 Dalip Singh son-in-law of the deceased is author of the F.I.R. (Ex.P/1) and accused appellants are grandsons of the deceased Karam Singh. 23. The witness PW-1 Dalip Singh accepted in his statement that before 7-8 years I and my father-in-law purchased land in Chack 13 DOL jointly. The partition of land has already been taken place, therefore, upon half of the land deceased Karam Singh was having possession being title holder. 24. Tara Singh son of deceased Karam Singh is having three sons Prem Singh, Chhinder Singh and Sukha Singh. The witness PW-1 Dalip Singh alleged that Prem Singh was repeatedly asking his grandfather deceased Karam Singh to transfer the land in his name but Karam Singh flatly refused to transfer the said land, therefore, Prem Singh left the house before six months and thereafter, his father Tara Singh son of deceased came and asked the witness Fateh Singh to insist Karam Singh to transfer the land in their favour. As per allegation of the complainant Dalip Singh, the deceased Karam Singh refused to transfer the lane in the name of Prem Singh, therefore, there is doubt that Prem Singh and Chhinder Singh might have killed his grandfather. But admittedly, Dalip Singh is not eye-witness of the incident. He is the person who lodged the F.I.R. on the basis of doubt. 25. Upon perusal of the statement of Dalip Singh (PW-1) further it is revealed that one Lathi was recovered in his presence. But admittedly, Dalip Singh is not eye-witness of the incident. He is the person who lodged the F.I.R. on the basis of doubt. 25. Upon perusal of the statement of Dalip Singh (PW-1) further it is revealed that one Lathi was recovered in his presence. The said witness specifically stated in his statement that ^^eqyfte izseflag ls tfj;s QnZ izn'kZ ihŒ 8 ,d lksVk cjken iqfyl fd;k ftl ij , ls ch esjs gLrk{kj gSA** 26. It is obvious that there is no whisper in the statement of Dalip Singh whether the said weapon Sota was blood sustained whereas the other witness Kashmir Singh (PW-5) stated before the Court that: ^^djhc <+kbZ lky igys dh ckr gS eSa pd 7 dsŒ,uŒMhŒ ls pd 13 MhŒvksŒ,yŒ tk jgk Fkk eq>s jkLrs esa iqfyl feyh muds lkFk eqyfte izseflag fxjrkj 'kqnk FkkA iqfyl us eq>s dg fd pd 13 MhŒvksŒ,yŒ pyuk gS ogka ls dqN cjkenxh djuh gSA eSa muds lkFk pyk x;kA pd 13 MhŒvksŒ,yŒ esa ulZjh tks fd ou foHkkx dh gS esc us gq, dPps dksBk esa ls izseflag eqyfte us ,d ykBh cjken djokbZA ftl ykBh ds [kwu yxk gqvk FkkA iqfyl us ml ykBh dks lhy djds gekjs nLr[kr djk;sA ;s lkjh dk;Zokgh ogha ekSds ij gh dhA ml oDr nyhi flag Hkh ekStwn FkkA eSa 7 oha Dykl ikl gwaA iqfyl us ykBh cjkenxh dh QnZ cukbZ gks izn'kZ ihŒ 8 gS ftl ij th ls ,p esjs gLrk{kj gSA** In the cross-examination it is specifically stated by him that: ^^lqcg ds 10&11 cts ds le; eqyfte izseflag us ykBh cjken djk;h FkhA ftl dksBs ls ykBh cjken djokbZ ml dksBs ds fdokM ugha FksA mlds dksbZ Nr Hkh ugha FkhA tks ykBh cjken djokbZ mldh yEckbZ lk<+sa ikap QqV FkhA ykBh dhdj dh FkhA** 27. Upon consideration of the statements of both these witnesses of recovery of Lathi it can be said that prosecution has failed to prove recovery of Lathi beyond doubt because there are major contradictions in the statements of both the witnesses with regard to shape of the Lathi. The witness Dalip Singh (PW-1) nowhere said that Lathi was having blood whereas Kashmir Singh stated that Lathi which is part of Keekar tree was sustained the blood. The witness Dalip Singh (PW-1) nowhere said that Lathi was having blood whereas Kashmir Singh stated that Lathi which is part of Keekar tree was sustained the blood. In view of above evidence, it is obvious that prosecution has failed to prove the recovery of Lathi which is said to be used to crime. Therefore, the finding of the learned Trial Court so as to treat recovery of Lathi proved is not acceptable. 28. We have considered the entire evidence to ascertain whether fact of extra judicial confession inspired any confidence or not? For the said purpose, first of all, we have perused the statements of two witnesses PW-6 Amar Singh and PW-9 Fateh Singh. During investigation, statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of both the witnesses of extra judicial confession were recorded on 17.05.1987 vide Ex.P-13 and vide Ex.P-14. The witness Amar Singh (PW-6) accepted in his statement that deceased Karam Singh was his neighbor and author of F.I.R. Dalip Singh is his close relative. Similarly, Fateh Singh (PW-9) accepted in his statement that deceased Karam Singh was his maternal uncle. 29. Upon consideration of statement of both these witnesses recorded in the trial. It emerges that both the witnesses categorically stated before the Court that both the accused appellants met them when they were standing on the bus stand. Similarly, Fateh Singh (PW-9) accepted in his statement that deceased Karam Singh was his maternal uncle. 29. Upon consideration of statement of both these witnesses recorded in the trial. It emerges that both the witnesses categorically stated before the Court that both the accused appellants met them when they were standing on the bus stand. The statement of PW-6 Amar Singh for extra judicial confession of the appellants, which reads as under:- ^^ftl fnu deZflag dk jkr dks dRy gqvk mlds nwljs fnu lqcg lk<+s 6 cts djhc eSa o Qrsg flag pd 8 dsŒ,uŒMhŒ ds cl vM~Mk ij [kMs Fks tks fd gekjs xkao ls djhc 3 fdŒehŒ dh nwjh ij gSaA ogka ij eqyfteku gkftj vnkyr cl vM~Mk ij vk;s geus iwNk fd rqe ?kcjk;s gq, D;ksa gks rks eqyfte izseflag cksyk fd geus vius nknk deZflag dks ekj fn;k gSA vkSj mUgksus dgk fd geus mls vkt jkr dks gh ekjk gSA Qrsg flag us dgk mls D;ksa ekjk rks mlus dgk fd ekjk fn;k tks gksxh ns[kh tkosxhA Qrsg flag us iwNk fd dSls ekjk rks izseflag us crk;k fd fNUnziky flag us deZflag dks lks;s gq, dks idM+ fy;k vkSj eSaus mls ykBh ls ekjkA rks geus izseflag ls iwNk fd rqEgkjh nksuks ds lkFk vkSj dksbZ Fkk D;k rc mlus dgk fd gekjs lkFk vehjflag Hkh FkkA fQj ;s eqyfteku cl vM~Ms ls pys x;s vkSj eSa o Qrsgflag vuwix<+ dke gksus dh otg ls pys x;sA ge vuwix<+ ls 'kke dks okfil vk;sA mlds nwljs fnu lqcg iqfyl feyh vkSj eSaus iqfyl dks c;ku ns fn;kA** 30. Similarly PW-9 Fateh Singh gave following statement to prove the allegation of extra judicial confession, which reads as under:- ^^eq>s ftl fnu deZflag dk dRy gqvk ds okd;k ds ckjs esa irk ugha eq>s nwljs fnu lqcg irk yxkA eSa 8 dsŒ,uŒMhŒ ds cl vM~Ms ij [kM+k Fkk esjs lkFk vej flag Fkk ge nksuksa ogka ls vuwix<+ ds fy, [kM+s FksA izseflag ls eSus iwNk fd dSls vk;k rks mlus dgk fd dke Fkk jkr dks ge vk;s FksA eSaus dgk fd rqe nkns ds ikl D;ksa ugha x;s rks izseflag cksyk fd nkns dks ge ekj vk;s gSA eSaus izse flag ls dgk fd rwus D;ks ekjk gS bl ij mlus dgk fd nknk gekjs dks tehu ugha nsrk gS blfy, ekjk gSa eSaus izseflag ls iwNk nkns dks dSls ekjk gS rks izseflag us dgk fd nkns ds flj esa Mkax ls ekjk gSA izseflag us dgk fd nknk dks ekjus esa vfHk;qDr fNUnzflag Hkh lkFk FkkA og dgrk Fkk fd ml oDr vehj flag Hkh esjs lkFk x;k Fkk eSaus eqyfteku ls dgk fd rqeus nkns dks ekj dj vPNk ugha fd;k gSA tehu rks vkidh gh gSA fQj ge yksx cl esa cSB dj vuwix<+ ds fy, jokuk gks x;s esjs lkFk vejflag Hkh FkkA eSa vuwix<+ ls nwljs fnu okfil vk;kA iqfyl esjs dks 13 MhŒvksŒ,yŒ dh vkcknh esa nwljs fnu feyh vkSj esjs c;ku fy;sA** 31. Upon objective consideration of entire evidence by us, it is revealed that an F.I.R. was filed by PW-1 Dalip Singh in the morning on 16.5.1987 at 8.15 am and the statement of PW-6 Amar Singh and PW-9 Fateh Singh were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 17.5.1987 to create the evidence of extra judicial confession because it is beyond imagination that after committing murder accused will made confession to the person standing on bus stand which is public place. It is also obvious that there is no reason for the appellants to made confession before the witnesses who are close relatives of complainant Dalip Singh as well as the deceased. Further, both these witnesses were not such person having influence to protect the accused, therefore, the story narrated by the accused appellant for extra judicial confession is seriously doubtful and fabricated evidence so as to connect the accused appellant. Further, both these witnesses were not such person having influence to protect the accused, therefore, the story narrated by the accused appellant for extra judicial confession is seriously doubtful and fabricated evidence so as to connect the accused appellant. There is no dispute that appellants are grandsons of the deceased Karam Singh and it is also not in dispute that appellants were having right over the land being grandsons of the deceased. If the appellants were having right over the land then there was no question to kill their own grandfather so as to grab the land. It emerges from the facts that prosecution case is based upon presumption of complainant Dalip Singh who was having interest over the land because land in question was purchased jointly by him and deceased Karam Singh due to relationship of father-in-law and son-in-law. We have also examine the conduct of the witnesses of confession PW-6 Amar Singh and PW-9 Fateh Singh from their statement made during investigation and trial. In our opinion, if any person made confession before close relative of the deceased then obviously first of all the person before whom confession is made will inform the family members of the deceased or immediately went to the house of his relative. But upon perusal of the statement of both the witnesses it is obvious that even after having knowledge of alleged murder by the appellants, they left the village and come back on next day and thereafter gave statement to the police. Such type of story deserves to be disbelieved because these witnesses were required to inform the police of incident they went Anupgarh without informing the person. Therefore, the evidence of extra judicial confession which is relied upon by the Trial Court does not inspired any confidence to uphold the conviction. It is also one of the important aspect of the matter that eye-witness Laxmi Bai who was present in the house when occurrence took place, not produced before the Court. Therefore, the whole prosecution story become doubtful, but the learned Trial Court ignored the said important fact and erroneously convicted the accused appellants for the alleged charge of murder on the basis of extra judicial confession and recovery of Lathi which is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the whole prosecution story become doubtful, but the learned Trial Court ignored the said important fact and erroneously convicted the accused appellants for the alleged charge of murder on the basis of extra judicial confession and recovery of Lathi which is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is settled principle of law that prosecution is required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and in this case, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt therefore appellants are entitled for benefit of doubt. 32. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Raj Kumar Singh @ Raju @ Batya vs. State of Rajasthan, (2013) 5 SCC 722 and Jose @ Pappachan vs. Sub-Inspector of Police, Koy Handy and Others, (2016) 10 SCC 519 , held that if two views are possible from the evidence of prosecution then the view goes to favour the accused should be followed, therefore, it is obvious from the prosecution evidence that two views are possible, therefore, finding of the Trial Court so as to hold accused appellant guilt for offence under Sections 302/34 and 324/34 I.P.C. is not sustainable in law. 33. In the case of Raj Kumar Singh @ Raju @ Batya (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court while discussing earlier judgments rendered by Apex Court, held as infra: "21. Suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot take the place of proof, and there is a large difference between something that may be proved and will be proved. In a criminal trial, suspicion no matter how strong, cannot and must not be permitted to take place of proof. This is for the reason, that the mental distance between may be and must be is quite large and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. In a criminal case, the Court has a duty to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take the place of legal proof. The large distance between may be true and must be true, must be covered by way of clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence produced by the prosecution, before an accused is condemned as a convict, and the basic and golden rule must be applied. The large distance between may be true and must be true, must be covered by way of clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence produced by the prosecution, before an accused is condemned as a convict, and the basic and golden rule must be applied. In such cases, while keeping in mind the distance between may be true and must be true, the Court must maintain the vital distance between conjectures and sure conclusions to be arrived at, on the touchstone of dispassionate judicial scrutiny based upon a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all features of the case, as well as the quality and credibility of the evidence brought on record. The Court must ensure, that miscarriage of justice is avoided and if the facts and circumstances of a case so demand, then the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused, keeping in mind that a reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely probable doubt, but a fair doubt that is based upon reason and common sense......... 22. In Kali Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1973 SC 2773 , this Court observed as under: "Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in cases where in the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence." xxx xxx xxx 25. In M.G. Agarwal vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1963 SC 200 , this Court held, that if the circumstances proved in a case are consistent either with the innocence of the accused, or with his guilt, then the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. In M.G. Agarwal vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1963 SC 200 , this Court held, that if the circumstances proved in a case are consistent either with the innocence of the accused, or with his guilt, then the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. When it is held that a certain fact has been proved, then the question that arises is whether such a fact leads to the inference of guilt on the part of the accused person or not and in dealing with this aspect of the problem, benefit of doubt must be given to the accused and a final inference of guilt against him must be drawn only if the proved fact is wholly inconsistent with the innocence of the accused, and is entirely consistent with his guilt. 26. Similarly, in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (Supra), this Court held as under: "Graver the crime, greater should be the standard of proof. An accused may appear to be guilty on the basis of suspicion but that cannot amount to legal proof. When on the evidence two possibilities are available or open, one which goes in the favour of the prosecution and the other benefits an accused, the accused is undoubtedly entitled to the benefit of doubt. The principle has special relevance where the guilt or the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence." xxx xxx xxx 47. In view of the above, we have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution failed to prove the case against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt and thus, he becomes entitled for benefit of doubt. Thus, the appeals succeed and are allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the Appellant are set aside. The Appellant be released forthwith unless wanted in some other case." In the case of Jose @ Pappachan (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held as infra: "56. Thus, the appeals succeed and are allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the Appellant are set aside. The Appellant be released forthwith unless wanted in some other case." In the case of Jose @ Pappachan (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held as infra: "56. It is a trite proposition of law, that suspicion however grave, it cannot take the place of proof and that the prosecution in order to succeed on a criminal charge cannot afford to lodge its case in the realm of "may be true" but has to essentially elevate it to the grade of "must be true." In a criminal prosecution, the Court has a duty to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take the place of legal proof and in a situation where a reasonable doubt is entertained in the backdrop of the evidence available, to prevent miscarriage of justice, benefit of doubt is to be extended to the accused. Such a doubt essentially has to be reasonable and not imaginary, fanciful, intangible or nonexistent but as entertainable by an impartial, prudent and analytical mind, judged on the touch stone of reason and common sense. It is also a primary postulation in criminal jurisprudence that if two views are possible on the evidence available, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the one favourable to the accused ought to be adopted." 34. In view of above discussion, we are of the opinion that the circumstances put-forth by the prosecution did not rule out with absolute terms the hypothesis of involvement of the appellants with the alleged crime. Thus, it is unsafe to maintain the finding of conviction recorded by the Trial Court on the basis of circumstantial evidence. The conclusion drawn by the Trial Court for conviction is not tenable on the basis of evidence available on record, therefore, while following the aforesaid judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the accused appellants are entitled for benefit of doubt. 35. Consequently, the instant appeal is hereby allowed. The judgment dated 12.7.1990 passed in Sessions Case No. 72/1987 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar convicting and sentencing the accused appellants for the offence under Sections 302 and 302/34 I.P.C. is hereby quashed and set aside. The accused appellants are on bail, therefore, their bail bonds are discharged. They are not required to surrender again. 36. The judgment dated 12.7.1990 passed in Sessions Case No. 72/1987 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar convicting and sentencing the accused appellants for the offence under Sections 302 and 302/34 I.P.C. is hereby quashed and set aside. The accused appellants are on bail, therefore, their bail bonds are discharged. They are not required to surrender again. 36. Keeping in view, however, the provisions of Section 437A Cr.P.C. the accused appellants are directed to forthwith furnish personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount each, before the learned Trial Court, which shall be effective for a period of six months to the effect that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the judgment or for grant of leave, the appellants, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before Hon'ble the Supreme Court.