JUDGMENT : Mohammad Rafiq, J. This appeal has been filed by Hemant Kumar Sharma challenging judgment dated 16.12.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Sikar (for short ‘the trial court’) whereby he has been convicted for offences under Sections 302 and 201/302 IPC and sentenced, under Section 302 IPC to life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and under Section 201/302 IPC to rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Facts of the case are that Duli Chand(P.W.12) submitted a written report(Exhibit P-32) to SHO, Police Station Laxmangarh on 17.05.2009 at Dando Ka Kuwa stating therein that his younger brother Chajuram used to run a book stall at Bus Stand, Laxmangarh. His wife Babita telephoned the informant on 14.05.2009 and informed that Chajuram was missing since 13.05.2009 and had not returned back home. She also informed that Hemant Sharma owed to Chajuram a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Hemant Shama informed her that he had already paid to Chajuram a sum of Rs. 97,000/- on 13.05.2009 and left him in the market. He already had Rs. 3,000/-. She was worried because Chajuram was not traceable for last two days. Informant reached the house of Chajuram and made enquiries, which revealed that Hemant had taken Chajuram with him at 1.00 P.M. on 13.05.2009 in the presence of his son Sonu on the pretext that he would return his money. Chajuram left the book stall with him and asked his son to take care of his son Sonu. Thereafter, he was not traceable. His dead body had been found in the well (‘Dhandon Ka Kuwan’) on 17.05.2009 with multiple injuries. Hemant Sharma was a teacher in Bagadi Private School. He took Chajuram with him on the pretext of returning money and thereafter caused injuries to him and threw his body in the well. Action be taken against him. 3. On the basis of above report, a formal F.I.R. No. 116/2009(Exhibit P-44) was registered at Police Station Laxmangarh, for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. The Investigating Agency embarked upon investigation of the offence. Action be taken against him. 3. On the basis of above report, a formal F.I.R. No. 116/2009(Exhibit P-44) was registered at Police Station Laxmangarh, for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. The Investigating Agency embarked upon investigation of the offence. During the course of investigation, inquest proceedings were drawn on dead body of the deceased, certain seizures were made from the place from where dead body was recovered, the dead body was subjected to postmortem examination, the accused appellant was arrested, certain information under Section 27 of Evidence Act was elicited from the accused and some recoveries were effected pursuant to information given by him under Section 27 of Evidence Act, site plan of the place of incident was prepared. The recoveries effected as also the seizures made from the place of incident, were sent for chemical examination to F.S.L., F.S.L. report was obtained, etc. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against the accused appellant for offences punishable under Section 302 and 201 I.P.C., in the court of concerned Magistrate, Laxmangarh. The case being triable by a Court of Session, was committed to the Sessions Court, Sikar from where, it was made over to the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Sikar for trial. The trial court framed charges against the accused appellant for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. The accused appellant denied the charges and claimed trial. To secure conviction of the accused-appellant, the prosecution examined 16 witnesses and got 46 documents exhibited. In explanation under Sections 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant pleaded false implication as also innocence. However, in defence, neither any witness was produced nor any document was exhibited by him. Upon completion of trial, the trial court vide judgment dated 16.12.2010 convicted and sentenced the accused( 4 of 21) appellant in the manner indicated hereinabove. Hence, this appeal. 4. Mr. V.R. Bajwa, learned counsel for the accused-appellant argued that the accused appellant is innocent, he has committed no offence. The trial court has fallen in grave error in convicting the accused appellant, purely on surmises and conjectures, which has led to complete failure of justice. Admittedly, the case is based on circumstantial evidence. Prosecution has miserably failed to establish the so called incriminating circumstances, with the aid of cogent and convincing evidence. The proverbial chain of circumstances is completely missing in the instant case. Admittedly, the case is based on circumstantial evidence. Prosecution has miserably failed to establish the so called incriminating circumstances, with the aid of cogent and convincing evidence. The proverbial chain of circumstances is completely missing in the instant case. The so called insipid pieces of circumstantial evidence, in order to pin point the guilt of the appellant, are neither here nor there. The stray circumstances, in the instant case, can be explained on numerous hypothesis. In the charges itself, the learned trial court has categorically stated that the deceased had died and thereafter the dead body was thrown in a well. The said charge fails on the simple premise that as per the medical evidence i.e. postmortem report all the injuries on the person of the deceased happen to be ante-mortem in nature. There is not a single injury which is postmortem in nature. In such a situation, the charge against the accused appellant would summarily fail on this solitary circumstance. As far as the circumstance of “last seen” is concerned, for that the prosecution was relying upon Sonu (P.W. 15) (son of the deceased), Surendra Singh (P.W.2) and Umesh (P.W.11). All the three witnesses have turned hostile, refusing to toe the line of prosecution case. 5. It is argued that in such circumstances, the only formidable circumstance of “last seen” completely gets lost, leaving the prosecution with no legs to stand. The learned trial court, as far as last seen is concerned, has endeavoured to rely upon the testimony of Smt. Babita (P.W.6) (wife of the deceased) and Bhanwar Lal (P.W.8). The learned trial court in its approach, has fallen in grave error as the testimony of above two prosecution witnesses only happens to be witness of hearsay, with respect to last seen evidence. These two witnesses only state that Sonu (P.W.15) had divulged the fact to them, about last seen of accused with the deceased. In such circumstances, the learned trial court fell in grave error in coming to the erroneous conclusion that last seen evidence stood proved from the testimony of Smt. Babita (P.W.6) and Bhanwar Lal (P.W.8), as their evidence was inadmissible for the fact of last seen, being hear say in nature. Duli Chand (P.W.12) (brother of the deceased), who happened to be informant in the instant case, has turned hostile, resiling from the F.I.R. which he is said to have given to the police. Duli Chand (P.W.12) (brother of the deceased), who happened to be informant in the instant case, has turned hostile, resiling from the F.I.R. which he is said to have given to the police. In such circumstances, the F.I.R. itself could not stand proved, for the prosecution. It is trite law that the contents of an F.I.R. are there to contradict or corroborate the maker thereof. But, the learned trial court fell in legal error in endeavouring to prove the contents of the F.I.R. from the testimony of Babita (P.W.6). The learned trial court also fell in grave legal error in considering the contents of report (Ex.P.32), as substantive evidence. 6. Learned counsel argued that the medical evidence on record does not corroborate the stray version of the prosecution, so much so that as per the ipse dixit of the prosecution case, deceased is conjectured to have been inflicted with a blow on his head with a glass bottle. However, no sharp injuries were found on the person of the deceased, to be caused with the glass. As per the prosecution case, deceased and accused are alleged to have consumed alcohol, prior to execution of the crime. The entire evidence/material collected from the place of incident i.e. from where the dead body was recovered, is made to betray, by the prosecution, that deceased and accused consumed alcohol. But, the F.S.L. report (Ex.P.45) of the visceras of the deceased, shows negative test for the presence of alcohol. The motbir witness of the alleged recoveries namely, Kishore (P.W.13), has turned hostile and has stated that all the documents were prepared at the Police Station. The information under Section 27 of Evidence Act of the accused (Ex.P.40) is to the effect that he could get a pair of chapel recovered from a tree in the Jungle in Laxmangarh. But, interestingly, recovery pursuant to the information (Ex.P.17) is of one Sandal. The said inconsistency completely demolishes the aforesaid circumstance, against the accused appellant. The pointing out of the place of incident at the instance of the appellant on 19.05.2009 (Ex.P.18) is again inadmissible in evidence, being hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C., as no discovery is effected from the said document as knowledge about the place of incident was already with the police, as they had inspected the place of incident much prior on 17.05.2009 and prepared a site plan to this effect, which is Ex.P.10. 7. It is argued that the learned trial court has fallen in grave error in holding the case to be completely proved against the appellant, merely on the basis of testimony of Smt. Babita (P.W.6) and Bhanwar Lal (P.W.8). The prosecution has miserably failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt the alleged motive of the crime. As per the prosecution case, appellant was doing some society work and in the aforesaid backdrop, deceased had deposited money, intermittently, with the former and upon his asking back the money, the accused refused to pay and instead liquidated the deceased. Prosecution had produced Somnath Pareek (P.W.7) to establish that accused was doing society work. But the said witness turned hostile, refusing to oblige the prosecution. Apart from that, no document worth the name was got exhibited and proved by the prosecution to establish any such money transaction between the accused and the deceased. The alleged recoveries happened to be effected from open places, while was accessible to all and sundry. The F.S.L. report about existence of blood namely, Ex.P.43 is of no help to the prosecution, as it completely fails to establish any nexus between the offence and the accused. As far as the identification of Shirt and Sandal of the deceased at the instance of his son Sonu is concerned, Sonu turned hostile in court and refused to even identify those articles. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that it is trite law that a first information report is not a substantive piece of evidence and can only be used to corroborate the statement of the maker under Section 157 of the Evidence Act. It cannot be used as evidence against the maker at the trial if he himself becomes an accused, nor to corroborate or contradict other witnesses. Reliance in this connection is placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Nisar Ali Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1957 SC 366 and Sheikh Hasib alias Tabarak Vs. The State of Bihar, (1972) 4 SCC 773 . Learned counsel argued that dead body was recovered by the police from Dhandon Ka Kuwan even before the accused was arrested and this place was well known to the police, yet it had on the basis of information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act given by the appellant, discovered the place of incident at his instance vide Exhibit P-18. Learned counsel argued that dead body was recovered by the police from Dhandon Ka Kuwan even before the accused was arrested and this place was well known to the police, yet it had on the basis of information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act given by the appellant, discovered the place of incident at his instance vide Exhibit P-18. This cannot be taken as evidence against the accused-appellant and information given by the accused did not lead to discovery of any new fact. Reliance in this connection has been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vijender etc. Vs. State of Delhi, 1997 (1) Crimes 158 and State of Haryana Vs. Jagbir Singh & Another, JT 2003 (Suppl.2) SC 393. 9. Mrs. Sonia Shandilya, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the appeal and supported the judgment passed by the trial court. Learned Public Prosecutor argued that even if some of the prosecution witness turned hostile, but Smt. Babita (P.W.6), wife of the deceased and Bhanwar Lal(P.W.8) have supported case of the prosecution and stated that Sonu divulged this fact to them that the deceased was lastly seen in the company of accusedappellant, who had taken him on the pretext of returning money. Learned Public Prosecutor argued that Smt. Babita(P.W.6) wife of the deceased has stated that there was money transaction between deceased and the accused and amount of Rs. 1,60,000/- belonging to the deceased was with the accused and on some pretext or other, he started avoiding to pay back the money. On 13.05.2009, Babita asked her husband to somehow get the money back. It was in this context that the accused came to the shop of deceased at 1.00 P.M. and asked him to come with him by saying that he would give the money. Thereafter accused came to the shop at 05.00-06.00 P.M. and asked Sonu, son of the deceased about his father, who told that he had gone with the accused himself. Statement of this witness is relevant as last seen evidence as well as it explains the motive of murder. She gave information to complainant Duli Chand (P.W.12) on 14.05.2009 that money transaction was between deceased and accused and the deceased went along with accused on 13.05.2009 in the presence of son of the deceased namely Sonu. Statement of this witness is relevant as last seen evidence as well as it explains the motive of murder. She gave information to complainant Duli Chand (P.W.12) on 14.05.2009 that money transaction was between deceased and accused and the deceased went along with accused on 13.05.2009 in the presence of son of the deceased namely Sonu. On the basis of above information, Bala Ram(P.W.16), SHO, Police Station Laxmangarh, who conducted investigation, has proved all the stages of investigation. There is no reason as to why a police official would make incorrect statement. 10. Learned Public Prosecutor argued that Bhanwar Lal(P.W.8) is independent witness and has corroborated the fact that deceased owed money to the accused and also stated that he advised the accused to return the money. He further stated that wife and son of the deceased came to his shop on 14.05.2009 and informed that deceased who had gone with the accused, has not returned yet. This witness then advised them to lodge the report with police to this effect. Not only this, Sonu also told him that his father went along with the accused. This witness has also supported recoveries of two empty bottles of liquor (Exhibit P-12), Site plan of recovery (Exhibit P-13), blood stained broken glass (Exhibit P-14). White shirt of the deceased was recovered at the instance of accused vide Exhibit P-15, other articles were also recovered at the instances of the accused-appellant. In the present case, dead body was recovered on 17.05.2009 and the accused was arrested on the same date. Further recoveries were made by the investigating officer without any delay. Total 10 packets were sent to FSL examination. The FSL report (Exhibit P- 43) is of entire material except the viscera of the deceased. Packets were received in FSL on 29.05.2009. FSL Report is (Exhibit P-43) which shows positive human blood on underwear and blood smeared pieces of cement floor. There is positive human blood on kameej and pair of chappal. FSL report also shows presence of human blood on underwear and pieces of cement floor, kameej of the deceased and pair of chappal of the deceased which were recovered at the instance of the accused and the same connect the accused-appellant with the crime. Rajendra Prasad(P.W.3) is constable who took the 8 sealed packets to FSL, receipt of which is Exhibit P-4. Rajendra Prasad(P.W.3) is constable who took the 8 sealed packets to FSL, receipt of which is Exhibit P-4. Exhibit P-45 is the FSL examination of the viscera which gave negative test for metallic poison, ethyl and methyl alcohol etc. Absence of alcohol in the viscera of the deceased would not hamper prosecution case because this was not the case of prosecution that deceased and the accused had consumed drinks together on the fateful day. 11. Learned Public Prosecutor argued that in fact, it is revealed from the statement of Smt. Babita (P.W.6) that the accused came to the shop of deceased at 01.00 P.M. in the day time and took the deceased along with him. Further, the accused came to the shop of the deceased at about 5-6 P.M. on the same date and inquired about the deceased from his son. Generally liquor is consumed in the post evening hours rather than in the day time. Learned Public Prosecutor argued that recoveries made by the investigating officer have been proved and the same connect the accused with the crime. In this connection, learned Public Prosecutor referred to the statements of Bala Ram (P.W.16); Bhanwar Lal (P.W.8); Pawan Kumar (P.W.4) and Sonu (P.W.15). It is argued that the accused was lastly seen with the deceased, after the arrest several recoveries were made at his instance and he identified the place of occurrence. FSL report is conclusive regarding the match of the materials and further no explanation has been tendered by the accused with regard to the incriminating material against him, which also provides the missing link. The prosecution has proved all the circumstances which only points towards the guilt of the accused that he is the only perpetrator of the crime and nobody else. Learned Public Prosecutor relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Sushil Sharma Vs. State of NCT Delhi, (2014) 4 SCC 317 ; Prem Shivan Vs. State, (2015) 13 SCC 300 ; Muna Kumar Upadhay Vs. State of Andhra Praadesh, (2012) 6 SCC 174 ; Mahadev Jadhav Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 15 SCC 177 . State of Maharashtra Vs. Suresh, (2000) 1 SCC 471 ; Raja Vs. Staet of Haryana, (2015) 12 SCC 664; Surender Singh Vs. State of Haryana, (2006) 9 SCC 247 and Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Punjab, (2015) 3 SCC 220 . 12. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 15 SCC 177 . State of Maharashtra Vs. Suresh, (2000) 1 SCC 471 ; Raja Vs. Staet of Haryana, (2015) 12 SCC 664; Surender Singh Vs. State of Haryana, (2006) 9 SCC 247 and Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Punjab, (2015) 3 SCC 220 . 12. We have given our anxious consideration to rival submissions and carefully perused the material on record. 13. The trial court found the contents of FIR fully corroborated from the statement of Smt. Babita (P.W.6), who has proved the motive of the accused as to why he would commit murder of the deceased. She stated that the deceased had in fact given to accused-appellant huge amount of Rs. 1,60,000/- and when they demanded money back from the accused-appellant, he always avoided to return the money on one pretext or the other. They were in dire need of money therefore, they demanded the same. Hemant asked them to wait for one or two months. After completion of that period, they again demanded money from Hemant on 08.05.2009. He again started making excuses and promised to pay the money on the next date. On 13.05.2009 she asked her husband to positively take money from the accused-appellant. Her husband and son Sonu went to book stall. Hemant after some time came to book stall at around 1 O’ Clock and asked the deceased to accompany him as he wanted to return the money. He believed him and went with him. In the evening, Hemant Sharma returned and her husband did not come back. Hemant rather asked Sonu as to where his father was. Thereupon, Sonu put cross question to him by saying that since his father accompanied him (accused-appellant) he would better know. Thereupon, the accused-appellant, who was of guilty mind stated that his father would not return today and he should go home after closing the book stall. Sonu told all this story to his mother, Smt. Babita (P.W.6). 14. Bhanwar Lal (P.W.8) has also stated that he knew accused and the deceased both. The deceased had told him 3-4 months before his death that the accused-appellant owed more than Rs. 1,00,000/- to him. He used to deposit his savings with Hemant. When once Hemant met him, he (this witness), asked Hemant to pay the money to Chajuram. 14. Bhanwar Lal (P.W.8) has also stated that he knew accused and the deceased both. The deceased had told him 3-4 months before his death that the accused-appellant owed more than Rs. 1,00,000/- to him. He used to deposit his savings with Hemant. When once Hemant met him, he (this witness), asked Hemant to pay the money to Chajuram. Hemant assured that he shall repay the money within one or one and a half months time. On 14.05.2009, wife of Chajuram and his son came to shop of this witness and told him that Chajuram had gone from his shop with Hemant Kumar in the noon of 13.05.2009 and had not returned back. Then on his suggestion, they went to police station to lodge the report. Son of Chajuram told him that Hemant had taken his father with him on the pretext of paying money and that Hemant returned back around 5.00 P.M. and told him (Sonu) that his father (Chajuram) would not return back on that day and he would have to close the shop and return back to home. Thereafter, this witness stated that he heard on 17.05.2009 that dead body of Chajuram was found in the well (‘dhandon ka kuwan’). Hemant murdered him and threw his dead body into well. This witness has stated that accused Hemant was arrested by the police on 17.05.2009 in his presence and then on 19.05.2009 at 4.00 P.M. two empty quarter of Bagpiper Whisky were recovered at the instance of accused-appellant vide Exhibit P-12 which contained his signatures. Site plan of the place of recovery was Exhibit P-13. Pieces of broken bottle was also recovered at the instance of accused-appellant by the police vide Exhibit P-14 memo which also contains his signature. Thereafter, half sleeves shirt of white colour of the deceased was recovered at the instance of accused-appellant. Son of the deceased identified this shirt to be of his father. Recovery memo of this shirt was Exhibit P-15 which also contains his signatures. On 21.05.2009, Hemant also got his own clothes namely one pant of cream colour, one shirt of blue colour and two sandals recovered vide memo Exhibit P-16. On that day, leather sandal of the deceased was also recovered at the instance of the accused-appellant at some distance from the place of occurrence vide memo Exhibit P-17. 15. On 21.05.2009, Hemant also got his own clothes namely one pant of cream colour, one shirt of blue colour and two sandals recovered vide memo Exhibit P-16. On that day, leather sandal of the deceased was also recovered at the instance of the accused-appellant at some distance from the place of occurrence vide memo Exhibit P-17. 15. We have to examine the correctness of the impugned judgment on consideration of the fact that whether findings of conviction could have been recorded by the trial court only on the basis of testimony of Babita (P.W.6) and Bhanwar Lal (P.W.8) because their testimony has been heavily relied by the learned trial court. In fact, the trial court relied on the contents of FIR (Exhibit P-44) that the appellant claimed to have paid a sum of Rs. 97,000/- out of total amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the deceased on 13.05.2009 and that the appellant came to the shop of the deceased and took the deceased with him in the noon of 13.05.2009 on the pretext of paying his due amount. Smt. Babita (P.W.6) informed Dulichand, elder brother of the deceased, who resides at Tada District Hoshiyapur, Punjab about the aforesaid. He came to Laxmangarh and dead body of the deceased was found in the well (‘dhandoh ka kuwan’) and that appellant Hemant Kumar Sharma by causing injuries to the deceased and after committing his murder, threw him into the well. Here the most important missing link between what has been stated by Smt. Babita (P.W.6) and what was told to her son Sonu (P.W.15) has been overlooked by the learned trial court because Sonu (P.W.15) has turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. In fact, Bhanwar Lal (P.W.8), another witness, which the trial court has chosen to rely has also stated in his statement that the fact that Hemant took the deceased Chajuram with him from his shop is based on the information given to him by Sonu (P.W.15). He further stated that Smt. Babita (P.W.6) wife of the deceased and his son came to him at his shop on 14.05.2009 and they narrated entire sequence of events. He further stated that Smt. Babita (P.W.6) wife of the deceased and his son came to him at his shop on 14.05.2009 and they narrated entire sequence of events. Sonu (P.W.15) told him that in the noon of previous day, accused Hemant had taken Chajuram with him on the pretext of paying money and then he returned back to his shop at around 5.00 P.M. and told him that the deceased would not return back on that day and he (Sonu) should go home after closing the shop. Later he (this witness) learnt that dead body of Chaju was found in the well (‘dhandoh ka kuwan’). What has been stated by Smt. Babita (P.W.6) and Bhanwar Lal (P.W.8) is based on the information given to them by Sonu (P.W.15), son of the deceased, who has not supported the prosecution case. Therefore, testimony of Babita (P.W.6) and Bhanwar Lal (P.W.15) falls in the category of hearsay evidence and cannot form the base for convicting the accused-appellant for the murder of Chajuram. 16. Apart from Sonu, no other witness has come forward to prove that the deceased was lastly seen with the accused around the time of incident. Not only Sonu, but informant Dulichand (P.W.12), elder brother of the deceased has also not supported the case of the prosecution and has rather stated that written report, which he was made to sign, was in fact prepared by the natives of his town and police made him to sign the written report. The police also obtained his signatures on certain papers. At that time, he did not have mental equilibrium, therefore, was not in a position to make a proper statement, even then, the police recorded his statement. He was confronted with his police statement (Exhibit P-33), which he denied. He also denied the fact that Smt. Babita (P.W.6) wife of his younger brother and Sonu, his son informed about the incident. Moreover, the FIR cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence because it can be used only to corroborate the statement of its maker under Section 157 of the Evidence Act or to contradict him or other witnesses. He also denied the fact that Smt. Babita (P.W.6) wife of his younger brother and Sonu, his son informed about the incident. Moreover, the FIR cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence because it can be used only to corroborate the statement of its maker under Section 157 of the Evidence Act or to contradict him or other witnesses. The Supreme Court in Nisar Ali (supra) held that a first information report is not a substantive piece of evidence and can only be used to corroborate the statement of the maker under Section 157, Evidence Act, or to contradict it under Section 145 of that Act. It cannot be used as evidence against the maker at the trial if he himself becomes an accused, nor to corroborate or contradict other witness. The Supreme Court in Sheikh Hasib alias Tabarak (supra) held that the principal object of the first information report from the point of view of the informant is to set the criminal law in motion and from the point of view of the investigation authorities is to obtain information about the alleged criminal activity so as to be able to take suitable steps for tracing and bringing to book the guilty party. The first information report does not constitute substantive evidence though its importance as conveying the earliest information regarding the occurrence cannot be doubted. It can, however, only be used as a previous statement for the purpose of either corroborating its maker under Section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act or for contradicting him under Section 145 of that Act. It cannot be used for the purpose of corroborating or contradicting other witnesses. 17. The prosecution has sought to set up a case that the accused and the deceased consumed liquor before the incident and in order to substantiate this, empty quarter of liquor bottle of Bagpiper Brand was recovered vide Exhibit P-12 and another empty broken bottle of liquor of 500 ML was recovered vide Exhibit P-14. The case of the prosecution was that accused-appellant made the deceased to consume liquor and then accused-appellant murdered him, which is not substantiated because as per FSL Report (Exhibit P-45), viscera of the deceased tested negative for the presence of ethyl and methyl alcohol. 18. The case of the prosecution was that accused-appellant made the deceased to consume liquor and then accused-appellant murdered him, which is not substantiated because as per FSL Report (Exhibit P-45), viscera of the deceased tested negative for the presence of ethyl and methyl alcohol. 18. Identification of the place of incident by the accusedappellant pursuant to information given by him under Section 27 of the Evidence Act also cannot be taken as a circumstance against him as the place of incident was already known to the investigating officer/police before and such identification would be hit by the provisions of Section 162 Cr.P.C. and this cannot be taken as discovery of any new fact. 19. Information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act (Exhibit P-40) is shown to have been obtained from the accused-appellant for recovery of a pair of footwear (‘chappal’) from a tree in Jungle, but what has been eventually recovered vide Exhibit P- 17 is one sandal, not a pair of footwear (‘chappal’) and this was found at a short distance from the place of incident. Blood stained shirt of the deceased was recovered pursuant to information given by the accused-appellant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act (Exhibit P-37) from his house vide Exhibit P-15, which according to the prosecution was identified by Sonu (P.W.15), son of the deceased, but he in his statement before the Court has denied having identified that shirt as that of the deceased, his father. Moreover, it does not appeal to reason that accused after committing murder of the deceased especially when it is alleged that his dead body was thrown into the well, would take out blood stained shirt of the deceased and carry the same to his house. Vest (‘baniyan’), pant and underwear of the deceased were found on his body, therefore, it becomes doubtful that how blood stained shirt of the deceased would be taken off from his body and carried by the accused-appellant for concealing the same in his house, facilitating his linkage to the crime of murder. Though, Bhanwar Lal (P.W.8) has supported such recovery, but Kishore (P.W.13) another attesting witness of recovery has not supported case of the prosecution and was declared hostile. 20. Though, Bhanwar Lal (P.W.8) has supported such recovery, but Kishore (P.W.13) another attesting witness of recovery has not supported case of the prosecution and was declared hostile. 20. The prosecution has also sought to set up a case that the deceased was put to murder by accused by inflicting injuries by broken glass bottle, but there was no such injury on the body of the deceased as per Post Mortem Report (Exhibit P-1), which was proved by Dr. Naval Kishore Saini (P.W.1), who has stated that if any injury is caused by broken glass bottle it would result in stab wound and cut, but there was none on the body of the deceased. 21. Analytical study of the evidence as discussed above would clearly show that there are several missing links in the chain of circumstances sought to be proved against the accused-ppellant. Incriminating circumstances against the accused-appellant are not such which may conclusively point towards his guilt and to hold that it must be the appellant and none else, who would have committed murder of the deceased. Only circumstance of motive sought to be proved by evidence of Smt. Babita (P.W.6) and Bhanwar Lal (P.W.8) alone may not be sufficient to complete the chain of circumstances against the accused-appellant which otherwise has several missing links. Motive can be used only as a corroborating circumstance where there is otherwise sufficient and cogent evidence to prove the guilt of the accused-appellant. Therefore, it cannot be said that chain of circumstances sought to have been proved against the accused-appellant is not compatible with his innocence. 22. The Supreme Court in Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR (1952) SC 343, in para 10 of the judgment, held as under:- “It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence in 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 pendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and pendency 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...” 23. The Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 , held that before a case against an accused resting on circumstantial evidence can be said to be fully established, following conditions must be fulfilled, 1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established; 2. The facts so established should be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt and the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; 3. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; 4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and 5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. 24. In view of above discussion, present appeal deserves to succeed and is allowed. Impugned judgment dated 16.12.2010 passed by the trial court is set aside. The accused-appellant is acquitted of the charges under Sections 302 and 201/302 IPC. Accused-appellant is in jail and be set at liberty forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case. 25. Keeping, however, in view the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant, namely, Hemant Kumar Sharma is 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, he, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court.