JUDGMENT : Mohammad Rafiq, J. 1. This appeal is directed against judgment dated 18.09.1987 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No. 4, Jaipur City, Jaipur (for short ‘the trial court’) whereby accused-appellant Suresh Chandra Bhattar has been convicted for offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default whereof, he was to further undergo two years imprisonment. The accused-appellant has been further convicted for offence under Section 411 IPC and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of whereof, he was to further undergo six months imprisonment. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Facts of the case are that on 15.02.1984 at 6.30 P.M. Kalyan Sahai (P.W.3) submitted a written report (Exhibit P-4) to Bhanwar Lal Chouhan (P.W.32), SHO, Police Station Shastri Nagar, Jaipur alleging therein that he was Manager of ‘Pitliyo Ki Dharamshala’, Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur. On 12.02.1984 at about 8.00 P.M., two travellers came to Dharamshala for night stay, entry of which was made in the register and their signatures were obtained. One traveller was having a black suitcase of medium size and the other was having a ‘chaddar’ of blackish colour in his hand. They were allotted the room, which was under tin shed. They stayed in the room for the whole night and on Monday, i.e. 13.02.1984, in the early morning locked the door and went away without informing anyone. They were not noticed by anybody. On that day, when he saw that room was closed for two days, some suspicion arose in his mind and he went near the gate of the room and he felt some foul smell, which strengthened his suspicion. Travellers did not come back by that time. He requested for unlocking of the lock and doing the needful. On this information, the in-charge of the police station reached the spot and broke the lock and found dead body of a man inside. It revealed that somebody had murdered him. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid written report, a regular FIR No. 30/1984 (Exhibit P-50) was registered under Section 302 IPC. Post mortem of the dead body was conducted. During investigation, accused Suresh Chandra was arrested. It revealed that somebody had murdered him. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid written report, a regular FIR No. 30/1984 (Exhibit P-50) was registered under Section 302 IPC. Post mortem of the dead body was conducted. During investigation, accused Suresh Chandra was arrested. After completion of investigation, the police submitted charge sheet against the accused-appellant for offence under Section 302, 380 and 411 IPC before the competent court, wherefrom the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Jaipur City. Ultimately, the trial of the case was made over to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 4, Jaipur City, Jaipur. The trial court framed charges against the accused-appellant for offence under Sections 302, 380 and 411 IPC, which he denied and claimed to be tried. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 33 witnesses and exhibited 57 documents. Thereafter, accused-appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., who pleaded innocence and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case. In defence, five witnesses were produced and 25 documents were got exhibited. The trial court, on conclusion of trial, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment and order dated 18.09.1987 in the manner indicated hereinabove. Hence, this appeal. 4. Mr. Biri Singh Sinsinwar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of accused-appellant argued that the trial court erred in law in convicting the accused-appellant on the basis of evidence of discrepant, unreliable and impeachable witnesses. There is no eye witness of the incident and entire case of the prosecution hinges on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution could not prove the individual circumstance by clinching and convincing evidence, but also such circumstances when joined do not form a chain so complete as to pin pointedly prove guilt of the accuse-appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Story of the prosecution that the accused murdered the deceased at Jaipur and thereafter brought weapon of offence, knife and his clothes to Udaipur and threw them in Fatehsagar Lake at Udaipur is highly unbelievable. Evidence of last seen against the accused-appellant is not reliable. Statement of Kalyan Sahai (P.W.3), Manager of Dharamshala where the murder took place does not inspire confidence. Apart from evidence of Kalyan Sahai (P.W.3), there is no iota of evidence against the accused-appellants that he was lastly seen with the deceased. Evidence of Kalyan Sahai (P.W.3) is sketchy and cannot be believed for several reasons. Statement of Kalyan Sahai (P.W.3), Manager of Dharamshala where the murder took place does not inspire confidence. Apart from evidence of Kalyan Sahai (P.W.3), there is no iota of evidence against the accused-appellants that he was lastly seen with the deceased. Evidence of Kalyan Sahai (P.W.3) is sketchy and cannot be believed for several reasons. Name and identification marks of the accused-appellant does not appear in the register of dharamshala. Signature of the accused in the register are not legible and have not been sent to hand writing expert to ascertain whether it was actually signed by the accused or not. Not a single article belonging to the appellant was recovered from the room of the dharamshala. Though the police seized hairs lying near the dead body in the dharamshala room but report of the expert was not obtained to ascertain whether these hairs belong to the appellant. 5. Learned Senior Counsel argued that as per his own version, he (Kalyan Sahai) saw the accused in the night only for some time and therefore, it was difficult for him to remember the face of the accused. No other inmate of the Dharamshala was examined to prove that the accused was seen in the Dharamshala. It is argued that accused was taken into custody on 24.02.1984 but his arrest was shown on 28.02.1984. The prosecution has not led any evidence that the accused was kept ‘baparda’ (muffled face). Even the witnesses of recoveries have admitted that the accused was with open face. Burden lies on the prosecution to prove that the accused was kept ‘baparda’, which has not been discharged. 6. Learned Senior Counsel argued that test identification parade in this case cannot be believed as Kalyan Sahai (P.W.3) did not give identification marks of the accused either in the first information report or in his police statement. At the identification parade also, no such specific marks were indicated. Witnesses are shown to have taken three rounds of the accused before identifying him. Similar persons were not mixed up with the accused. This creates doubt on the genuineness of the identification parade. It is argued that during test identification parade, appellant specifically mentioned to Siddharth Jain, RJS (P.W.28) that his photographs were taken by the police photographer at Ajmeri Gate, Traffic Police Headquarter, prior to test identification parade. Similar persons were not mixed up with the accused. This creates doubt on the genuineness of the identification parade. It is argued that during test identification parade, appellant specifically mentioned to Siddharth Jain, RJS (P.W.28) that his photographs were taken by the police photographer at Ajmeri Gate, Traffic Police Headquarter, prior to test identification parade. It was clarified by Khinv Singh (D.W.3), Jailor that accused remained in jail from 13.03.1984 to 26.03.1984. There was thus no possibility that any photograph of the accused was taken on 21.03.1984. What could have been the purpose of taking photograph of the accused is a question which makes the case of the prosecution doubtful. The prosecution in this case has not come with clean hands. The accused appellant could not be convicted solely on the basis of alleged recovery which is highly doubtful. Evidence of Shyam Sunder is that he had taken the deceased at udaipur Railway Station and there he saw the accused-appellant with two tickets waiting for the accused. There is absolutely no corroboration to his evidence because no other witness has been produced to prove that accused-appellant was seen coming to Jaipur with the deceased by train. This is, therefore, a missing link in the chain of the circumstances because the fact that the accused was carrying two tickets does not lead to the inference that they left together. 7. It is argued that story of taking ornaments at the time of leaving Udaipur also becomes doubtful because the prosecution had not proved that any information was lodged by the family members of the deceased at Udaipur. Unless, identification of the articles is proved beyond reasonable doubt, it cannot be said that the ornaments belong to the complainant party. Evidence of Jagdish Chand (P.W.19) in this regard is also not reliable. Further, in the register, on the date of issuing some overwriting has been made which proves that register of previous year has been used to create the evidence. The prosecution has not examined any other witness to corroborate the evidence of Jagdish Chand, though it cited Radhey Shyam for the said purpose but for the reasons best known to it, he was dropped from the list of witnesses. 8. The prosecution has not examined any other witness to corroborate the evidence of Jagdish Chand, though it cited Radhey Shyam for the said purpose but for the reasons best known to it, he was dropped from the list of witnesses. 8. Learned Senior Counsel further argued that another circumstance against the accused-appellant is that of recovery of knife and clothes of the deceased from the Fatehsagar Lake at Udaipur, but the evidence of motbirs thereabout is contradictory on this point. The accused was arrested on 28.02.1984 but the recovery was made on 05.03.1984. Thus, the delay in making the recovery has not been explained by the prosecution, which casts a serious doubt on the prosecution version. Learned Senior Counsel argued that the trial court has wrongly appreciated the evidence with regard to admission of the accused in Ayurvedic Sansthan Udaipur. From the documents on record, it is proved that the accused was admitted in the hospital as indoor patient on 10.02.1984 and remained there till 14.02.1984. It is argued that the trial court has wrongly convicted the accused appellant for offence under Section 411 IPC because neither theft nor misappropriation has been proved by the prosecution. It is, therefore, prayed that this appeal be allowed and accused-appellant be acquitted of the charges framed by the trial court. 9. Ms. Sonia Shandilya, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the appeal and supported the judgment of the trial court. She referred to statements of prosecution witnesses and exhibits and submitted that the learned trial court has appreciated the evidence in correct perspective and recorded sound reasoning in support of findings of conviction of the accused-appellant, which do not call for any interference and the appeal be, therefore, dismissed. 10. We have given our anxious consideration to rival submissions and carefully perused the record of the trial court. 11. It is trite that in a case which entirely rests on circumstantial evidence, conclusion of guilt of the accused should be proved beyond reasonable doubt by a well knit chain of circumstances which does not admit of any missing link. Circumstances so established should be consistent with only hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Such circumstance should be of conclusive nature and rule out every single hypothesis of innocence of the accused. Circumstances so established should be consistent with only hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Such circumstance should be of conclusive nature and rule out every single hypothesis of innocence of the accused. Chain of circumstances sought to be proved by the prosecution should be so complete as not to leave any reasonable doubt for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probabilities, offence must have been committed by accused and none else. All the circumstances should conclusively point the finger of doubt towards the accused that it must be he and none else, who committed murder. In the present case the learned trial court has analysed individual circumstance separately, but failed to decipher that chain of circumstances formed thereby has several missing links. 12. The trial court has heavily relied on the testimony of Kalyan Sahai (P.W.-3), Manager of Dharamshala where the accused-appellant allegedly stayed with the deceased but in the register of Dharamshala produced by the prosecution name of the accused does not appear inasmuch as no specific identification mark of the accused has been mentioned therein. Even though Kalyan Sahai (P.W.3) has asserted that the accused put his signature against the entry he made in relevant column of the register but the signatures are not legible. Besides, the prosecution failed to sent the signatures or entry of the register to the handwriting expert of Forensic Science Laboratory to establish that this was in the handwriting of the accused. The police recovered many articles from the room where the dead body of the deceased was found but the prosecution has failed to prove that any one of the articles was belonging to the appellant. Not only finger prints, but foot prints and thumb impression of the accused were also not found on any of the articles recovered from the room. Since the accused was not known to Kalyan Sahai (P.W.3), test identification parade became very important. Arrest of the accused was shown on 28.02.1984 but the prosecution has failed to produce any proof of the fact that the accused was kept with muffled face as and when he was taken out of the jail to the court for the purpose of remand. Arrest of the accused was shown on 28.02.1984 but the prosecution has failed to produce any proof of the fact that the accused was kept with muffled face as and when he was taken out of the jail to the court for the purpose of remand. The accused-appellant remained in the police custody from 28.02.1984 to 13.03.1984 and during this period, various recoveries were made at his instance and he was taken to different places. But nothing is forthcoming whether due care was taken to keep the accused appellant muffled face. 13. Another witness of the significance is Bhagwan Sahai (D.W.1), police photographer who is employee of the police department of the State Government. He has been produced by the defence to prove that he received a written requisition dated 13.03.1984 for taking photograph of the accused belatedly on 21.03.1984 and eventually he took photographs of the accused on that day, i.e. 21.03.1984. Written requisition was Exhibit D-12 and negatives of the photographs were Exhibit D-13 to Exhibit D-15. 14. Khinv Singh (D.W.3), Jailor of the Central Jail, Jaipur has been produced by the defence, who has stated that record of entry and exit of the prisoners is maintained in the jail. Accused appellant entered the Central Jail, Jaipur at 5.35 P.M. on 13.03.1984 and thereafter he was taken out of the jail only on 27.03.1984 for his appearance before the court. As per the record, the accused did not go out of jail from 13.03.1984 to 26.03.1984 and there is no entry in the record that he was taken out of jail on 21.03.1984. Relevant register was Exhibit D-20. During that period, the accused appellant remained out of jail only on 27.03.1984 and then brought back in the jail on the same day. The purpose of taking photographs of the accused becomes doubtful as to on which date photographs of the accused were taken has not been proved by the prosecution. It has also not been cleared by the prosecution that what was the purpose of taking photographs of the accused. Defence has alleged that the photographs were taken for the purpose of showing the same to Kalyan Sahai (P.W.3). It has also not been cleared by the prosecution that what was the purpose of taking photographs of the accused. Defence has alleged that the photographs were taken for the purpose of showing the same to Kalyan Sahai (P.W.3). In fact when test identification parade was conducted on 20.03.1984, Siddharth Jain (P.W.28), Judicial Magistrate in column 11 of the test identification report (Exhibit P-15) has made a note on the basis of statement of the accused that he was shown to the witness Kalyan Sahai (P.W.3) in the police station and his photographs were taken in the Traffic Control Room, Near Ajmeri Gate, Jaipur with four different angles and the police had taken him to the court for remand purposes with open face. Defence has thus been able to cause sufficient dent to the evidence of test identification parade. 15. As regards evidence of last seen, Shyam Sunder (P.W.15) has stated that he left the accused with the deceased at railway station, who was waiting for him with two tickets. As rightly argued, the prosecution has not proved that anyone saw them leaving together in the train going to Jaipur. Shyam Sundar (P.W.15) has not stated that he saw the accused and the deceased boarding in train together and the train leaving Railway Station, Udaipur for Jaipur. No other witness has been produced to prove this fact or the fact that accused and the deceased were seen together at Railway Station Jaipur or else where. Statement of Shyam Sundar (P.W.15) was recorded with delay of 15 days on 27.02.1984, even then he did not give any details about the clothes, which the accused was wearing at the time when he left Udaipur. And if the accused and the deceased left Udaipur on 10.02.1984 at 5.00 P.M., they should have arrived Jaipur in the morning on 11.02.1984 but Kalyan (P.W.3) stated that they came to Dharamshala at 8.00 P.M. on 12.02.1984. The prosecution has not established by any evidence whatsoever as to where did they remain for the whole day on 11.02.1984 or in the night intervening 11-12 February, 1984. 16. Moreover, it does not appeal to logic that the accused after having committed murder of the deceased would carry weapon of offence i.e. knife as also his own clothes to Udaipur to be thrown into Fatehsagar Lake there. 16. Moreover, it does not appeal to logic that the accused after having committed murder of the deceased would carry weapon of offence i.e. knife as also his own clothes to Udaipur to be thrown into Fatehsagar Lake there. Besides, knife was not shown to doctor to elicit for his opinion as to whether injuries sustained by the deceased could be caused thereby or not. Accused-appellant was admitted in Ayurvedic Sansthan, Udaipur as indoor patient on 10.02.1984 and remained there till 14.02.1984 but as per the prosecution, it was not the accused-appellant and some other Suresh Chand was admitted in the hospital from 09.02.1984 to 14.02.1984 as indoor patient. Not much investigation was conducted by the Investing Officer to dispel the doubt created by the defence on this aspect because it was a ground set up where fake entries could not be so easily made. 17. Further, story of the accused taking ornaments with him while leaving Udaipur also becomes doubtful because Pyarelal (P.W.16) admitted that report was lodged by them at Udaipur regarding theft of ornaments but such report has not been produced in the court. Pyarelal (P.W.16) also admitted that list of the articles was also given to the police at the time of submission of report, even then this list has not been produced. It cannot be believed that ornaments of all the brothers, sister and also of the mother of the deceased would be entrusted to the accused for being kept, especially when his wife was not present in the house and had gone to attend marriage of daughter of her sister. Further, evidence of Jagdish (P.W.19), goldsmith of Pali also does not conclusively prove entries in the Register maintained by him which does not bear signatures of the accused. Moreover, if the accused had been so panic that he did not make entry in the register of Dharamshala in his own name and made the entry in fictitious name so as not to create any evidence against himself, it cannot be believed that he would make entry in his own name. 18. In view of above, discussion, it is evident that the chain of circumstances against the accused has several missing links and is not so complete as to definitely point out finger of doubt against the accused that it must be he and none else who committed murder of the deceased. 18. In view of above, discussion, it is evident that the chain of circumstances against the accused has several missing links and is not so complete as to definitely point out finger of doubt against the accused that it must be he and none else who committed murder of the deceased. Such chain of circumstances admits of many hypothesis which are compatible with innocence of the accused-appellant. He is therefore entitled to benefit of doubt. 19. In the result, the appeal deserves to be succeed and is accordingly allowed. Impugned judgment dated 18.09.1987 passed by the trial court is set aside and the accused-appellant is acquitted of the charges of offences under Sections 302 and 411 IPC. He is on bail and need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged.