JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. 1. This appeal is instituted against the judgment dated 20.03.2012 and order dated 26.03.2012 rendered by learned Sessions Judge, Nainital in S.T. No.180/2006, whereby the appellants/accused, who were charged with and tried for the offence punishable under Sections 302 I.P.C., were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 302 of I.P.C., and in default of payment of fine, they were directed to undergo additional imprisonment for a period of six months. 2. Case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that on 14.6.2006 at 13:00 hours, an F.I.R. was lodged by PW3 Head Constable Vinod Kumar at P.S. Kathgodam to the effect that while on 14.6.2006 at 10:30 hours, when he along with Constable Radha Krishna Joshi and Constable Pradeep Joshi was on watch and ward duty at Forest Barrier Hedakhan Chorgalia Road, they received information through an informant that three persons along with one lady were going on foot towards Hedakhan forest area. This information created a doubt in the mind of police officials. After some time, three persons were seen coming at a distance of about one and half kilometer near the forest barrier towards Hedakhan road. After seeing the police persons, they turned back and began to flee towards the forest. Police persons followed them and at a distance of about 100 steps towards the steep forest, two persons were apprehended and one managed to escape. On being enquired, those two persons confessed to have committed the murder of Km. Pooja, daughter of accused Mahendra Pal and sister of Ravi Pal. They further disclosed that the person who escaped was Indra Pal. The manner, in which the deceased was killed, was narrated by them to the police personnel. Thereafter, the body was recovered and the F.I.R. was registered. The third accused was also apprehended. 3. Body was sent for post-mortem. PW2 Dr. R.A. Kediya conducted post-mortem examination. Case property was taken into possession including the knife and bloodstained clothes. Investigation was completed and Challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities. 4. Prosecution has examined as many as five witnesses to support its case. 5. Accused/appellants were also examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. According to them, they were falsely implicated. Accused Mahendra Pal explained that he went to the police station to lodge the FIR since his daughter was missing. 4. Prosecution has examined as many as five witnesses to support its case. 5. Accused/appellants were also examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. According to them, they were falsely implicated. Accused Mahendra Pal explained that he went to the police station to lodge the FIR since his daughter was missing. But the police persons detained them and obtained signatures on blank papers. 6. At the end of trial, the accused were convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court, as noticed hereinabove. Hence this appeal. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 8. On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State, has supported the judgment dated 26.3.2012. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned judgment and lower court record very carefully. 10. PW1 Rakesh deposed that he knew the deceased Pooja Pal for 8-9 months. She was his neighbour. He never visited her house. He never met her in the market place. He was beaten up by Mahendra Pal (decease’s father) and Ravi Pal (brother) on the suspicion that he had relations with Pooja. Thereafter, Pooja was murdered by Mahendra Pal and Ravi Pal. In the cross-examination, he has admitted that he has not seen anyone killing Pooja. He has further stated that he has given the statement, about killing of Pooja by the accused on hearsay. 11. PW2 Dr. R.K. Kedia has conducted the post-mortem examination on the body of deceased Pooja. According to him, the cause of death of deceased was due to asphyxia and hemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries. According to him, deceased had died on 14.6.2006 before 1 PM. 12. PW3 H.C. Vinod Kumar is the star witness of the prosecution. According to him, on 14.6.2006, he was posted at P.S. Kathgodam. He along with Constables Pradeep Joshi and Radha Krishan Joshi left the police station towards Chorgaliya road. They left around 10:30 AM on patrol duty and for checking the vehicles. When they reached near forest barrier, one informant informed them that three persons with one lady had gone on Hedakhan road. They went towards that road. After covering a distance of about 1.5 kilometer, they saw three persons coming towards them. The persons turned back and tried to escape. When they reached near forest barrier, one informant informed them that three persons with one lady had gone on Hedakhan road. They went towards that road. After covering a distance of about 1.5 kilometer, they saw three persons coming towards them. The persons turned back and tried to escape. Two of them were apprehended while one managed to escape. Particulars of the persons, who were apprehended, were ascertained. Accused Mahendra Pal informed that his daughter, who is aged about 18 years, often runs away from the house and she was also having illicit relations with some boy. The accused in order to protect the honour of their family, requested Pooja to mend her ways. However, she did not improve her behaviour. Then he along with son Ravi Pal and nephew Inderpal, on some pretext, took Pooja to the forest. He pushed down Pooja and thereafter Inderpal gagged her mouth and his son Ravi Pal stabbed her. The accused also disclosed the spot where the girl was killed. These facts were also corroborated by Ravi Pal. Mahendra Pal further told that the person who ran away was his nephew Inderpal. Police persons tried to associate the independent witnesses but nobody came forward. Thereafter, they visited the spot, as disclosed to them by the accused, from where the dead body of Puja was recovered. Accused were taken into custody. Constable Pradeep Joshi was left at the spot to look after the dead body. He along with PW4 Radha Krishan Joshi went to the police station to lodge the first information report. In the cross-examination, he has admitted that in his report, he has neither mentioned the time when the information was supplied to him by the informant nor he did so in the statement made before the Patwari concerned. He was not aware whether, at the time of patrolling, he was carrying any arms or not. In the memo of recovery of dead body, the time of recovery has not been mentioned. 13. PW4 Constable Radha Krishan Joshi has corroborated the statement of PW3 Constable Vinod Kumar. He has also deposed that the efforts were made to associate the independent witness but nobody came forward. He has deposed that Mahendra Pal has narrated the manner in which Pooja was killed. In cross-examination, he has admitted that they had gone towards Hedakhan for patrolling duty and maintaining the law and order. He has also deposed that the efforts were made to associate the independent witness but nobody came forward. He has deposed that Mahendra Pal has narrated the manner in which Pooja was killed. In cross-examination, he has admitted that they had gone towards Hedakhan for patrolling duty and maintaining the law and order. He has also admitted that the informant has not given the appearance of accused. He also admitted that the relatives of accused were not informed at the time of their arrest. 14. PW5 Kushal Singh Matiyali, Kanungo is the investigation officer of the case. He has deposed that shirt worn by accused Mahendra Pal, which was stained with blood, was taken into possession. Body of deceased was sent for the post-mortem examination. Accused Inder Pal was arrested near Gola Bridge. He was holding a bag. A knife was recovered from him. The knife carried blood stains. Inder Pal told that Puja was killed by that knife. A memo of recovery was prepared. He also admitted that the case property was not produced in the Court. He has voluntarily stated before the Court that there a fire broke out in the Collectorate Office. He has also admitted that the T-shirt and recovered knife were not sent for the purpose of chemical examination. 15. From the statements of witnesses, discussed hereinabove, what emerges out is that the prosecution has projected the present case to be of ‘honour killing’ by the accused who are the father, son and nephew of Mahendra Pal. The precise case of the prosecution is that deceased Puja, daughter of Mahendra Pal, had gone astray. She was persuaded to mend her ways but she did not change her behaviour. Thus, she was killed. 16. The prosecution story further suggests that the deceased had developed illicit relations with a boy. The prosecution has examined PW1 Rakesh Kumar. But he has only admitted that he was a neigbhour of deceased. He has never gone to the house of deceased nor he ever met her in the market place. He further deposed that the family was suspicious about his relations with Puja. He was beaten up by Mahendra Pal and his brother. However, he is not an eyewitness of the occurrence. He has categorically admitted that he new Puja for last 8-9 months but he never visited her house nor did he meet her in the market. He further deposed that the family was suspicious about his relations with Puja. He was beaten up by Mahendra Pal and his brother. However, he is not an eyewitness of the occurrence. He has categorically admitted that he new Puja for last 8-9 months but he never visited her house nor did he meet her in the market. He was the star witness of the prosecution to prove that Puja has developed relations with PW1. 17. PW2 Dr. R.K. Kedia has deposed that the cause of death of deceased was due to asphyxia and hemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries. 18. According to PW3 Head Constable Vinod Kumar, he along with PW4 Radha Krishan Joshi was on patrolling duty to maintain law and order. They left the police station. Informant informed them that three persons were seen going with a lady on Hedakhan road. They apprehended two persons and one managed to escape. According to PW3 H.C. Vinod Kumar, an extra-judicial confession was made by accused Mahendra Pal before him that in order to save his honour, he has killed his daughter. Extra-judicial confession of accused Mahendra Pal, made before PW3 Vinod Kumar (a police personnel), was also corroborated by accused Ravi Pal. However, as per Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, an extra-judicial confession made before the police personnel is not admissible and cannot be read in evidence. PW3 Vinod Kumar has admitted that at the forest barrier, one person was present but he was not associated. It has come on record that the vehicles used to ply on the road but despite that, the police did not associate any independent witness. He has further stated that he did not know whether at the time of patrolling, he was carrying some arms with him or not. He has also admitted that the informant had not informed about the appearance of accused. PW4 Radha Krishan Joshi, another police witness, has also corroborated the statement of PW3 Vinod Kumar. 19. It is true that the police is not supposed to inform the name of informant but in the present case, it is intriguing why the police went towards the jungle when they were on patrolling duty for maintaining law and order. They have not even associated the forest official who was present at the forest barrier. Even his name was not ascertained. They have not even associated the forest official who was present at the forest barrier. Even his name was not ascertained. Accused Inder Pal was arrested after effecting the arrest of accused Mahendra Pal and Ravi Pal. A knife was also recovered from the possession of Inder Pal by preparing memo. Bloodstained clothes were also taken into possession. However, surprisingly, neither the knife nor the bloodstained clothes were produced in the Court. The explanation, given, is that a fire broke out in the Collectorate Office. The case property was supposed to be kept at the Police Station Kathgodam. 20. There is a detailed procedure about the manner in which the case property is deposited in the Maalkhana by the In-charge of Maalkhana. The entries are required to be made in the register and even if the fire has gutted the Collectorate Office, there should have been a corresponding entry in the Maalkhana Register to prove what recoveries were effected from the accused. 21. PW5 Kushal Singh Matiyali has admitted in his statement that the T-shirt and knife were not sent for the F.S.L. examination. The knife ought to have been sent for F.S.L. examination since according to PW5 K.S. Matiyali, it was carrying the bloodstained marks. Simultaneously, the clothes, stained with blood, were also required to be sent for F.S.L. examination to ascertain the blood group of accused with the deceased. The Trial Court has erred in law by placing excessive reliance on extra-judicial confessions made by the accused before PW3 Vinod Kumar and PW4 Radha Krishan Joshi, who are the police officials. The prosecution has not examined Pradeep Singh, who was present at the barrier with PW3 Vinod Kumar and PW4 Radha Krishan Joshi. It is well settled that a confession made before police officers is not admissible u/s 25 of the Evidence Act. The motive, according to the prosecution, was ‘honour killing’, but the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. PW1 Rakesh has not supported the case of prosecution. It is not one of those cases where the girl has eloped and married a person without her parents’ consent. PW1 Rakesh deposed that he was beaten up by accused Mahendra Pal and Ravi Pal but no complaint was filed by him. PW1 Rakesh has not supported the case of prosecution. It is not one of those cases where the girl has eloped and married a person without her parents’ consent. PW1 Rakesh deposed that he was beaten up by accused Mahendra Pal and Ravi Pal but no complaint was filed by him. He was the neighbour of deceased but he has never visited the house of his neighbour nor he met her in the market place. He has admitted in his cross-examination that he came to know from other people that Puja was killed by the accused. 22. This case is based upon the circumstantial evidence. There is no eye witness. In order to prove a case based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has to prove the entire link of circumstances exclusively pointing out towards the guilt of accused. There are several loopholes in the case of prosecution. 23. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 1984 Vol 4 S.C.C. 116 in the case of Sharad Birdichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra have laid down the following conditions, which the prosecution must satisfy, in a case based on circumstantial evidence. “153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established: (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned “must or should” and not “may be” established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned “must or should” and not “may be” established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between “may be proved” and “must be or should be proved” as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra19 where the observations were made: [SCC para 19, p. 807: SCC (Cri) p. 1047] “Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.” (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of 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. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 464, in the case of Munish Mubar Vs. State of Haryana, have held that in a case of circumstantial evidence, circumstances must be fully established and all facts so established, must be consistent with hypothesis regarding guilt of accused. It is further held that in the case of circumstantial evidence, motive assumes great significance and importance. Their Lordships have held as under:- “28. Undoubtedly, in a case of circumstantial evidence, all the circumstances must be fully established and all the facts so established, must be consistent with the hypothesis regarding the guilt of the accused. The circumstances so established should exclude every other possible hypothesis except the one sought to be proved. The circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Undoubtedly, in a case of circumstantial evidence, all the circumstances must be fully established and all the facts so established, must be consistent with the hypothesis regarding the guilt of the accused. The circumstances so established should exclude every other possible hypothesis except the one sought to be proved. The circumstances must be conclusive in nature. The circumstantial evidence is a close companion of factual matrix, creating a fine network through which there can be no escape for the accused, primarily because the said facts, when taken as a whole, do not permit us to arrive at any other inference but one indicating the guilt of the accused.” 25. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2013) 12 Supreme Court Cases 551 in the case of Rishipal Vs. State of Uttarakhand have held that while motive does not have a major role to play in cases based on eyewitness account of incident, it assumes importance in cases that rest entirely on circumstantial evidence. Their Lordships have held as under:- “15. The second aspect to which we must straightaway refer is the absence of any motive for the appellant to commit the alleged murder of Abdul Mabood. It is not the case of the prosecution that there existed any enmity between Abdul Mabood and the appellant nor is there any evidence to prove any such enmity. All that was suggested by the learned counsel appearing for the State was that the appellant got rid of Abdul Mabood by killing him because he intended to take away the car which the complainant Dr Mohd. Alam had given to him. That argument has not impressed us. If the motive behind the alleged murder was to somehow take away the car, it was not necessary for the appellant to kill the deceased for the car could be taken away even without physically harming Abdul Mabood. It was not as though Abdul Mabood was driving the car and was in control thereof so that without removing him from the scene it was difficult for the appellant to succeed in his design. The prosecution case on the contrary is that the appellant had induced the complainant to part with the car and a sum of Rs 15,000. The appellant has been rightly convicted for that fraudulent act which conviction we have affirmed. The prosecution case on the contrary is that the appellant had induced the complainant to part with the car and a sum of Rs 15,000. The appellant has been rightly convicted for that fraudulent act which conviction we have affirmed. Such being the position, the car was already in the possession and control of the appellant and all that he was required to do was to drop Abdul Mabood at any place en route to take away the car which he had ample opportunity to do during all the time the two were together while visiting different places. Suffice it to say that the motive for the alleged murder is as weak as it sounds illogical to us. It is fairly well settled that while motive does not have a major role to play in cases based on eyewitness account of the incident, it assumes importance in cases that rest entirely on circumstantial evidence. (See Sukhram v. State of Maharashtra, Sunil Clifford Daniel v. State of Punjab and Pannayar v. State of T.N.) Absence of strong motive in the present case, therefore, is something that cannot be lightly brushed aside.” 26. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2015) 12 Supreme Court Cases 644 in the case of Vijay Shankar Vs. State of Haryana have summarized the principles of circumstantial evidence as under:- “8. There is no eyewitness to the occurrence and the entire case is based upon circumstantial evidence. The normal principle is that in a case based on circumstantial evidence the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; that these circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; that the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and they should be incapable of explanation of any hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with their innocence vide Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra. The same view was reiterated in Bablu v. State of Rajasthan.” 27. In view of the definite law laid down by the Hon. Apex Court, we find that the chain of the circumstances linking the accused with the crime is incomplete. The same view was reiterated in Bablu v. State of Rajasthan.” 27. In view of the definite law laid down by the Hon. Apex Court, we find that the chain of the circumstances linking the accused with the crime is incomplete. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused/appellants beyond reasonable doubt. 28. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Judgment, under challenge, is set aside. Appellants are acquitted of the charges framed against them. They are already on bail. They need not to surrender. Their bail bonds and sureties are discharged. 29. Let a copy of this judgment along with the LCR be transmitted to the Court for information.