JUDGMENT : Mohammad Rafiq, J. 1. This appeal is directed against judgment dated 13.02.2013 passed by Special Judge, Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Jaipur (for short ‘the trial court’) whereby the trial court while acquitting the accused-appellant of the charge under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, has convicted him for offence under Sections 302 and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months’ simple imprisonment. 2. Facts of the case are that Jitendra Kumar Bunkar (P.W.1) submitted a written report (Exhibit P-1) on 17.07.2010 to SHO, Police Station Govindgarh, District Jaipur alleging therein that on 17.07.2010, Smt. Shanti Devi wife of Madan Lal, who is son of his uncle came to his house at 1.00 A.M. in the mid night and told him that Madan Lal had not returned back to home. She requested the informant to search him out. Daughter of the informant, Deepa awakened her uncle Lal Chand who then along with Jitendra went in search of Madan. First of all, they went towards Power House and then towards liquor shop where they awakened Girdhari Kumawat who used to run a canteen nearby and asked him about Madan. He told that Madan possibly would have gone towards Tejaji to take his wife. When these persons were returning home, they found dead body of Madan lying on the open land in front of Power House with his face up side down. Then they then went back to their house and brought Sohan, his father Prabhu Narain and brother Kajodmal. Information was given to the police on phone. There was no apparent injury visible on the body of Madan but ‘dupatta’ was found around his neck. In the morning they learnt that Surendra Kumar Bunkar had seen Madan in the liquor shop in the evening of previous day and at that time Girdhari Kumawat and Kamlesh Kumawat were also present there. All these facts were told to them by Surendra Kumar Bunkar. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid written report, the police registered FIR No. 183/2010 (Exhibit P-2) for alleged offence under Sections 302 IPC and investigation commenced. Upon completion of investigation, the police submitted charge sheet against the accused-appellant in the court of concerned Judicial Magistrate. All these facts were told to them by Surendra Kumar Bunkar. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid written report, the police registered FIR No. 183/2010 (Exhibit P-2) for alleged offence under Sections 302 IPC and investigation commenced. Upon completion of investigation, the police submitted charge sheet against the accused-appellant in the court of concerned Judicial Magistrate. The offence being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the court of learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Preventon of Atrocities) Jaipur. The learned trial court, after hearing the arguments on charge, framed charges against the accused-appellant for offence under Section 302 IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of the SC/ST Act. The accused-appellant denied the charges and claimed to be tried. During trial, the prosecution examined as many as 23 witnesses and got exhibited 48 documents in support of its case. Thereafter, the accused-appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he denied the prosecution case and stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case without any connecting or corroborating evidence. In defence, no evidence was produced but three documents were exhibited. Upon completion of trial, the trial court vide impugned judgment dated 13.02.2013 though acquitted the accused-appellant of the charge under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, but convicted the accused-appellant for offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him in the manner as indicated above. 4. Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the accused-appellant argued that judgment of the trial court is based on surmises and conjectures and is not founded on evidence on record. In fact, impugned judgment has been rendered by the trial court on the basis of circumstantial evidence, as there being no eye witness of the incident. The trial court failed to appreciate that circumstances sought to be proved against the accused( appellant do not form a chain so complete as to conclusively point out finger of guilt towards the accused-appellant and do not rule out every single hypothesis that may be compatible with his innocence. Referring to page 26 of the impugned judgment, learned counsel argued that as per FIR, accused and the deceased were known to each other, which is a neutral and natural circumstance and cannot be read against the accused-appellant as the accused and the deceased were engaged as mason in the work of construction. Referring to page 26 of the impugned judgment, learned counsel argued that as per FIR, accused and the deceased were known to each other, which is a neutral and natural circumstance and cannot be read against the accused-appellant as the accused and the deceased were engaged as mason in the work of construction. It is argued that second circumstance relied by the trial court is that some dispute arose between the appellant and Mukesh in connection with price money of mobile handset and deceased Madan Lal and Mohan Lal Yadav (P.W.16) intervened to resolve the dispute. When the deceased intervened, accused-appellant threatened him of dire consequences. It is argued that this circumstance cannot, in any manner, be held to be proved against the accused-appellant because star witness of the prosecution Mukesh, who was not produced and withheld by the prosecution. 5. Learned counsel argued that Mohan Lal Yadav (P.W.16) has also stated that though he also tried to mediate between Mukesh and the accused, but he has not stated that any threat was given by the accused to the deceased. Learned counsel argued that the deceased and the accused-appellant both were present at stall (lorry) of eggs being run by Girdhari Lal, who has been examined as P.W.4, has not supported case of the prosecution and stated that the deceased Madan was alone and immediately after purchasing eggs, he left in the evening. Fourth circumstances that has also wrongly been relied by learned trial court is that the deceased consumed liquor near the stall (lorry) of Girdhari Lal, but this circumstance has not been proved even by Girdhari Lal (P.W.4) himself. Fifth circumstance is that the deceased was going towards power house from stall (lorry) of eggs of Girdhari Lal and accused-appellant was following him from behind, but even if the statement of Surendra Kumar Bunkar (P.W.2) is taken into consideration, he has not stated any thing about the place of occurrence being power house and he has rather stated that they are in different directions. There was darkness on power house road and he could see Madan only for five seconds when he was going towards his house, but this witness has stated that he was not on talking terms with Madan. In fact, there is no evidence that at 5.30 P.M., both the accused-appellant and the deceased were present near the stall (lorry) of eggs or ‘theka’. In fact, there is no evidence that at 5.30 P.M., both the accused-appellant and the deceased were present near the stall (lorry) of eggs or ‘theka’. Puran Mal (P.W.3) has not stated that they were seen together. Seventh circumstance is that the accused appellant came to purchase ‘gutkha’ from Rakesh Verma (P.W.11), which was found near dead body of the deceased. It is argued that ‘gutkha’ is a common product which is used by people as mouth freshner and there is nothing unusual if same brand of ‘gutkha’ was found near the dead body, as the same was being sold around in that area. 6. Learned counsel argued that eighth circumstance that the deceased was seen dead at 1.00 A.M. cannot be considered as an incriminating circumstance against him as it is a neutral circumstance. Then comes the last circumstance that pant, T-shirt and Shoe were recovered at the instance of the accused-appellant. It is argued that trial court wrongly placed reliance on recovery of pant, T-shirt, shoe and ‘dupatta’ of accused and erroneously recorded finding that blood of B group was found on ‘dupatta’. In doing so, trial court failed to appreciate that pant, T-shirt, shoe and ‘dupatta’ belonged to accused-appellant has not been proved by any evidence. The prosecution has also failed to prove that ‘dupatta’ around the neck of the deceased belonged to accused-appellant. Learned counsel argued that trial court has committed serious irregularity in raising presumption under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act against the accused-appellant. Learned counsel therefore argued that chain of circumstances against the accused-appellant cannot be said to be so complete as to rule out every single hypothesis that may be compatible with his innocence. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the appellant relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Aghnoo Nagesia Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 119 ; Musheer Khan @ Badshah Khan & Another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2010 SC 762 and Chandu alias Chandrahas Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1992 SC 2302 . 7. Mrs. Sonia Shandilya, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the appeal and supported the judgment passed by the trial court. In doing so, learned Public Prosecutor referred to statements of prosecution witnesses as also the exhibits, which we shall deal with at appropriate stage hereinafter. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1992 SC 2302 . 7. Mrs. Sonia Shandilya, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the appeal and supported the judgment passed by the trial court. In doing so, learned Public Prosecutor referred to statements of prosecution witnesses as also the exhibits, which we shall deal with at appropriate stage hereinafter. Besides, learned Public Prosecutor argued that mere non-production of Mukesh may not be fatal to the case of the prosecution because a quarrel had taken place between Mukesh and accused-appellant and accused-appellant became angry with the deceased Madan Lal, who tried to intervene between both of them. The accused-appellant did not take it kindly and he got the opportunity for revenge when he found Madan Lal alone on ‘theka’ of liquor in the night around 8.30 P.M. after which, the accused-appellant followed him till an agricultural field and put him to death by strangulating his neck by use of ‘dupatta’. The accused-appellant caused injuries on the face of Madan Lal by kicks. Learned Public Prosecutor has relied upon the judgment of Uttarakhand High Court at Nainital in Darvan Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand (Criminal Jail Appeal No. 09 of 2011 decided on 10.07.2017). 8. We have given our anxious consideration to rival submissions and carefully perused the material on record. 9. We are inclined to agree with what has been argued by learned counsel for the appellant that the fact the accused and the deceased were known to each other cannot be considered as a factor against him particularly when they were both engaged in the work of construction as mason. So far as the motive in the present case is concerned, the prosecution has sought to prove that accused was annoyed with the deceased when he along with Mohan Lal Yadav (P.W.16) tried to mediate a dispute over the price money of mobile handset between one Mukesh and the accused. Mohan Lal Yadav (P.W.16), who along with the deceased also allegedly tried to mediate the aforesaid dispute. He has stated that he saw that Mukesh Kumawat and Kamal Kumar (accused( appellant) quarreling with each other on the sale proceeds of mobile handset. Mukesh was asking Kamal Kumar Saini to return money of his mobile handset. Kamal Kumar Saini, who was highly drunk, thereupon started abusing Mukesh. He and deceased Madan Lal tried to intervene and separated them. He has stated that he saw that Mukesh Kumawat and Kamal Kumar (accused( appellant) quarreling with each other on the sale proceeds of mobile handset. Mukesh was asking Kamal Kumar Saini to return money of his mobile handset. Kamal Kumar Saini, who was highly drunk, thereupon started abusing Mukesh. He and deceased Madan Lal tried to intervene and separated them. In cross-examination, he stated that he could not say how much amount was involved in the dispute. He also admitted that prior to the incident, Kamal Kumawat and Madan Lal used to visit each others house. Though the distance between his shop where the quarrel took place and the police station was hardly half kilometer, but neither of parties reported the matter to the police. There was no dispute between the brothers of the deceased and the accused. Both used to have meals together on several occasions. Evidence of this witness, even if considered, would prove that a sudden dispute took place between Mukesh and Kamal Kumar over the price of mobile handset, which could have been possible because as per his further statement, Kamal at that time was highly drunk. In any case, if Madan Lal and Mohan Lal both had tried to intervene in the dispute, it does not appeal to reason as to why the accused-appellant would only be annoyed with Madan Lal and not with Mohan Lal. Besides, as per statement of this witness, relations between the deceased and the accused-appellant were quite cordial and they used to visit each others’ house and at times they used to party together along with their brothers. Thus, the motive of the accused in the present case for committing murder of the deceased cannot be held to have been proved because Mukesh with whom alleged quarrel took place and who could have been star witness of the prosecution, has not been produced. 10. Third circumstance which the trial court has relied to hold the accused-appellant guilty is that the accused and the deceased were seen together at the egg stall (lorry) of Girdhari Lal (P.W.4). Girdhari Lal (P.W.4) used to sell boiled eggs and omelets at his stall (lorry). All that he has stated is that Madan came to purchase eggs from him and then left after some time in the evening. Girdhari Lal (P.W.4) used to sell boiled eggs and omelets at his stall (lorry). All that he has stated is that Madan came to purchase eggs from him and then left after some time in the evening. He though stated that accused-appellant Kamal @ Kamlesh came to him but denied that he took the deceased with him at that time. In cross-examination, this witness has admitted that Madan used to regularly consume at least two quarters of liquor and he had consumed two quarters at that time also. Lastly, in the cross-examination, what he has stated is that accused Kamal came to his stall after half an hour when Madan had left his stall. This evidence also does not prove anything against the appellant and at least cannot be relied to hold that accused-appellant and the deceased were seen together. Fourth circumstance that the deceased consumed liquor near stall (lorry) of Girdhari Lal is also a neutral circumstance because this does not prove anything against the accused-appellant. 11. Fifth incriminating circumstance relied by the trial court against the accused-appellant is that the deceased Madan Lal was seen going towards power house from stall (lorry) of egg and the accused was also going behind him. The prosecution as per its own showing has come out with a case that after Madan Lal left stall of Girdhari Lal and went towards power house, accused Kamal also came there and then followed him and he was then seen going in the same direction while following the deceased Madan. This clearly shows that own case of the prosecution is not that the deceased and the accused-appellant were seen together. When we look at the statement of Surendra Kumar Bunkar (P.W.2) in this behalf, this witness has stated that he went to buy a quarter from the liquor shop situated near bye pass at about 8.30 P.M. on 16.07.2010. There he saw Madan was standing near the egg stall and thereafter Madan was seen going towards the power house. Accused-appellant Kamal was also seen going behind him. In cross-examination, this witness stated that he learnt early in the morning on the following day that someone has murdered Madan by use of ‘dupatta’. He told his cousin Jitendra that he saw accused Kamal going behind the deceased Madan. Accused-appellant Kamal was also seen going behind him. In cross-examination, this witness stated that he learnt early in the morning on the following day that someone has murdered Madan by use of ‘dupatta’. He told his cousin Jitendra that he saw accused Kamal going behind the deceased Madan. In cross-examination, he further stated that he disclosed this fact to Jitendra and certain other people at 10.00 A.M. in the morning of following day. This witness admitted that road leading to power house was completely dark and he could not see Madan beyond 10-15 steps beyond the egg stall (lorry). He did not remember as to what was the colour of pant and shirt Madan was wearing at that time. Although, he admitted that Madan always carried ‘dupatta’ around his neck. In cross-examination, this witness admitted that he was not on talking terms with accused-appellant Kamal, but denied suggestion that he was making statement against him only because of that reason. He also admitted that accused-appellant Kamal and deceased Madan were residing in the same colony. Even if the statement of this witness is believed it does not prove anything except that he had seen Madan standing near the egg stall (lorry) of Girdhari and then going towards power house road from his stall (lorry) but at the same time, this witness has also admitted that it was a dark night and visibility was hardly 10-15 feet. It is in this context, he stated that he saw accused-appellant going behind Madan after some time. This statement does not, therefore, prove that accused-appellant and the deceased were seen together going towards power house. Even fifth circumstance read with sixth circumstance that the accused-appellant and the deceased were present at the stall (trolly) or ‘theka’ of liquor near about 8.30 P.M. do not prove anything exclusively against the accused-appellant. 12. Seventh circumstance was that the accused-appellant had purchased ‘gutkha’ from the shop of Rakesh Verma and wrapper of ‘gutkha’ was found near dead body, which connects him with the crime is also too weak to held the accused-appellant guilty for the serious offence of murder. 12. Seventh circumstance was that the accused-appellant had purchased ‘gutkha’ from the shop of Rakesh Verma and wrapper of ‘gutkha’ was found near dead body, which connects him with the crime is also too weak to held the accused-appellant guilty for the serious offence of murder. Testimony of Rakesh Verma only proves purchase of ‘gutkha’ by the accused-appellant from his shop but this does not prove the fact that said ‘gutkha’ was only being sold by this witness to several customers and therefore the mere fact that wrapper was found near the dead body cannot be taken as a significant evidence against the accused-appellant. This witness in cross-examination admitted that number of egg stalls were situated in front of his shop but egg stall of Girdhari was engulfed in the darkness and therefore, he could not see those who visited his stall around 7-8 P.M. on that day. Even then, he has stated that he saw deceased Madan at 7.00 P.M. on that day and thereafter he left. 13. Only evidence that now remains is that of recovery of pant, T-shirt, shoe and ‘dupatta’ at the instance of accused-appellant. While blood of B group was found on ‘dupatta’ recovered at the instance of accused-appellant, grouping of blood on pair of shoe, pant remained inconclusive. ‘Dupatta’ is shown to have been recovered at the instance of accused-appellant, which as per FSL Report (Exhibit P-48) was found to contain human blood of B group, but the prosecution has failed to establish that blood of the deceased was also of B group and further that blood group of the accused-appellant was not of B group. As per the prosecution, it seized the clothes of the deceased vide Exhibit P-9 which consisted one shirt of slaty colour, one pant of grey colour and one vest, one underwear and a piece of ‘dupatta’ and another piece of cloth and a pair of chappal which were also sent to FSL. But there is no explanation why the blood group could not be determined on piece of ‘dupatta’ which was seized from dead body of the deceased, though it was found to contain blood of human origin. But there is no explanation why the blood group could not be determined on piece of ‘dupatta’ which was seized from dead body of the deceased, though it was found to contain blood of human origin. The fact about non-determination of blood group of the deceased, as also the fact of blood of B group being found on ‘dupatta’ recovered at the instance of accused-appellant and further fact that blood group of the piece of ‘dupatta’ that was allegedly recovered from the dead body of the deceased, which was claimed to be part of same ‘dupatta’ recovered at the instance of accused-appellant could not be determined, these all create a doubt on genuineness of this recovery, as if the recovery of ‘dupatta’ which was shown to be recovered at the instance of accused-appellant was not a planted recovery and it was genuinely recovered at the instance of the accused-appellant and then why blood grouping of blood on a piece of the same ‘dupatta’ seized from dead body of deceased could not be determined, these are those facts which remain unexplained on the part of the prosecution in the present case. T-shirt of the accused was found negative for the presence of blood. Only circumstance of presence of human blood on pair of shoe and pant of the accused-appellants in the facts and circumstances of the present case and the evidence on record cannot be sufficient reason to hold the accused-appellant guilty as this circumstance alone cannot form a chain of circumstances. It is settled law that in a case of circumstantial evidence, where there is total absence of direct evidence to safeguard against conviction of an innocent, guilt of the accused has to be proved by chain of multiple circumstances. A single circumstance by itself cannot form a chain. Besides, whatever incriminating circumstances have been relied by the trial court, even if joined together, they still do not form a chain so complete as to bring home guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt, as such chain would have several missing links and would not rule out each and every hypothesis that may be compatible with innocence of the accused-appellant. Evidence in the present case cannot therefore be said to be such which may conclusively point towards the guilt of the accused that it was he alone and none else, who could have committed murder of the deceased. 14. Evidence in the present case cannot therefore be said to be such which may conclusively point towards the guilt of the accused that it was he alone and none else, who could have committed murder of the deceased. 14. In view of above discussion, present appeal deserves to succeed and is accordingly allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 13.02.2013 is set aside. Accused-appellant Kamal Kumar alias Kamlesh is acquitted of the charges for offence under Section 302 IPC. Accused-appellant Kamal Kumar alias Kamlesh is in jail and be set at liberty forthwith if not required to be detained in connection with any other case. 15. Keeping, however, in view the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, appellant 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, the appellant aforesaid, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court.