JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J This appeal is instituted against the judgment dated 31.07.2012 rendered by learned Sessions Judge, U.S. Nagar in Sessions Trial No.330 of 2007, whereby the appellant-accused, were charged with and tried for the offences under Section 147, 148, 149, 302 and 201 of IPC. Appellants-Amrik Singh and Gurmeet Singh @ Karan Singh have been convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302 of IPC. They were further sentenced to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment under Section 201 of IPC. All the offences were directed to run concurrently. Appellants-Amrik Singh and Gurmeet Singh@ Karan Singh were however acquitted for the offences under Section 147, 148, 149 of IPC. Appellants-Mahendra Singh, Jogendra Singh, Santosh Singh and Gurnaam Singh were acquitted for the offences under Section 147, 148, 302 read with 149 and Section 201 of IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that PW1 Gurudev Lal has lodged the oral complaint on 12.09.2007 to the effect that on 12.09.2007, he along with constable Om Shankar were on night patrol duty. They were standing on Mahatosh curve. At about 09:15 PM, Om Shankar received a telephone call. Om Shankar left the spot and told him that he would come back soon. Om Shankar went towards Prem Nagar puliya on his motorcycle with rifle. He rang him up at 09:24 PM and told him that he was coming after some time. Thereafter, two persons come on a motorcycle and told him that at Puliya No.1 they have seen lot of blood at the spot and a cap of policeman. He went to the spot. He saw the rifle of Om Shankar. He discovered the dead body of Om Shankar. It was about 09:30 PM. There were serious injuries on the head of Om Shankar. According to him, on 09.09.2007, Constable Ajay Kumar was told by Gurmeet Singh that Om Shankar used to harass him and used to seize their local liquor. They threatened him of dire consequences. On 09.09.2007, Om Shankar and Gurmeet Singh along with his friend Amrik Singh had some heated arguments. He left the dead body in the custody of local people and came to register the FIR along with the rifle and cartridges. The FIR was registered against unknown persons. The investigation was carried out. The body was sent for postmortem examination. The accused were arrested. He left the dead body in the custody of local people and came to register the FIR along with the rifle and cartridges. The FIR was registered against unknown persons. The investigation was carried out. The body was sent for postmortem examination. The accused were arrested. The prosecution has examined as many as 20 witnesses in its support. The statements of the accused were also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and they have denied the case of the prosecution. The accused were convicted and sentenced, as noticed hereinabove. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case. Learned counsel on behalf of the State has supported the judgment dated 31.07.2012. 4. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the judgment carefully. 5. PW1 Gurudev Lal is the material witness. He lodged the FIR. According to him, he along with Om Shankar were on patrol duty at Mahatosh curve. At 09:15 PM, Om Shankar received a telephone call. At the same time, 23 motorcycles went towards Gadarpur. On one motorcycle accused Amrik Singh and Gurmeet Singh were sitting. He has identified them in the light. Om Shankar told him after receiving the telephone call that he would come back. Thereafter, he alongwith his rifle went towards Prem Nagar puliya on his motorcycle. He rang up the deceased at 09:24 PM, Om Shankar told that he would come soon. Thereafter, one motorcycle came and two persons told him that they have seen blood on the spot and a cap. He reached the spot and noticed the cap and also discovered the dead body of the deceased. According to him, murder took place at 09:30 PM. He further deposed that on 09.09.2007, Constable Ajay Kumar was posted in police station. Ajay Kumar was told by Gurmeet Singh that Om Shankar was threatened him of dire consequences. He also admitted in his cross-examination that Om Shankar never seized any liquor of Gurmeet Singh. He did not know the persons, who have informed about the incident. He was not the eye-witness of the incident dated 09.09.32007 between Gurmeet Singh and Ajay Kumar. 6. PW2 Sehraj-ud-din has deposed that on 12.09.2007, he was going with Moheb Ali on a motorcycle towards Gadarpur. He was riding the motorcycle. They reached near SIMT Institute. They were going near Seed Plant. He was not the eye-witness of the incident dated 09.09.32007 between Gurmeet Singh and Ajay Kumar. 6. PW2 Sehraj-ud-din has deposed that on 12.09.2007, he was going with Moheb Ali on a motorcycle towards Gadarpur. He was riding the motorcycle. They reached near SIMT Institute. They were going near Seed Plant. They heard cries. He applied brakes. The motorcycle was on. They say that the accused were riding the motorcycle. He knew Gurmeet Singh and Amrik Singh before the incident. The accused were indulged in selling illicit liquor. They did not go towards the site. After the people assembled, they went towards the spot. Constable Gurudev Lal was present. They noticed the dead body of Om Shankar. In his cross-examination, he deposed that it was dark towards the spot from where they heard the cries. He has never purchased any liquor from the accused. He never saw the accused manufacturing local liquor. 7. PW3 Dr. Deepak Garbyal has conducted the postmortem examination. The deceased died at about 09:35 PM on 12.09.2007. He prepared the postmortem report at 10:05 AM. The deceased has received injuries with sharp edged weapons. 8. PW4 Tushar Kumar has categorically deposed that he has never seen Constable Om Shankar fighting with Gurmeet and Amrik. He was declared hostile and was cross-examined by learned District Government Counsel. 9. PW5 Jaswant Singh was also declared hostile. He refused to identify Gurmeet Singh and Amrik Singh in the Court. He has never noticed any quarrel took place between Gurmeet Singh, Amrik Singh and Constable Om Shankar. 10. PW6 Mohd. Yaseen has deposed that he did not know the accused. He has not seen the place where the accused were indulged in selling the illicit liquor. He has not seen any motorcycle on Prem Nagar chowk. He was also declared hostile and cross-examined by learned District Government Counsel. 11. PW7 Afsar Ali has deposed that he has seen three motorcycles coming from Mahtosh curve. They went towards North side. Two persons were sitting on each motorcycle. On one motorcycle Gurmeet Singh and Amrik Singh were sitting. They were indulged in illicit sale of liquor. He has not heard that some quarrel has taken place between Gurmeet Singh, Amrik Singh with constable Om Shankar. He was also declared hostile and cross-examined by learned District Government Counsel. Two persons were sitting on each motorcycle. On one motorcycle Gurmeet Singh and Amrik Singh were sitting. They were indulged in illicit sale of liquor. He has not heard that some quarrel has taken place between Gurmeet Singh, Amrik Singh with constable Om Shankar. He was also declared hostile and cross-examined by learned District Government Counsel. He was told by Yaseen that Gurmeet Singh and Amrik Singh were sitting in the motorcycle. He never met Amrik and Gurmeet before the incident. 12. PW8 Ramesh @ Montu has deposed that he has noticed that a quarrel has taken place between Om Shankar and accused Gurmeet and Amrik. The deceased used to tell him not to sell liquor but the accused used to tell them that it was their profession. In the meantime, Tushar and Jassa also came on the spot and they separated the three. Om Shankar was threatened by the accused. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that many cases were registered against the accused for selling illicit liquor. Though, according to PW8 Ramesh, Tushar and Jassa had come on the spot, but Tushar and Jassa have failed to recognize the accused in the Court. They have never seen any quarrel taking place between Gurmeet, Amrik and , Constable Om Shankar. Thus, the statement of PW8 Ramesh has not been supported by PW4 Tushar and PW5 Jassa. 13. PW9 Mohabe Ali is also the material witness. According to him, when they reached near Saraswati Institute, they heard the noise of cries near seed plant. They noticed three motorcycles in the light. On first motorcycle, Gurmeet and Amrik were sitting. After half an hour, when lot of people reached on the spot, one constable was also standing there. He heard that a quarrel has taken place between Gurmeet, Amrik and constable Om Shankar. 14. PW10 Naushe Ali, PW11 Abdul Hassan, PW12 Nanihal Singh, PW13 Noor Alam are the formal witnesses. The recoveries were effected including recovery of a Cap. 15. PW14 Arun Kumar has deposed that three accused were arrested by him. One has disclosed his name as Amrik Singh, from whom, a 315 bore tamancha along with cartridges were recovered. Another has disclosed his name as Gurmeet Singh. One tamancha along with cartridges were also recovered from him. Third one has disclosed his name as Mahendra from whom a 12 bore tamancha and cartridges were also recovered. 16. One has disclosed his name as Amrik Singh, from whom, a 315 bore tamancha along with cartridges were recovered. Another has disclosed his name as Gurmeet Singh. One tamancha along with cartridges were also recovered from him. Third one has disclosed his name as Mahendra from whom a 12 bore tamancha and cartridges were also recovered. 16. PW15 S.I. Gopal Singh was posted in Police Station Gadarpur. He went to the spot and inquest report was prepared. The dead body was sent for postmortem examination. 17. PW16 Uttam Singh has deposed that on 09.09.2007, Ajay Kumar had received a threatened call from Gurmeet Singh. A quarrel has also taken place between the accused and Om Shankar on 09.09.2007. He has recorded the statement of witnesses. He has arrested the accused. 18. PW17 P.C. Bhatt was the Investigating Officer. 19. PW18 S.I. Umed Singh has also partially investigated the matter. He has interrogated the accused on the basis of which recoveries were effected. 20. The case of the prosecution, precisely, is that PW1 Gurudev Lal along with the deceased Om Shankar were on night patrol duty. Om Shankar received a call. Thereafter, he left the spot on his motorcycle with a rifle. PW1 Gurudev Lal rang up Om Shankar at 09:24 PM. Deceased Om Shankar told him that he was coming back. Thereafter, two persons came on a motorcycle and informed PW1 Gurudev Lal that they had seen blood at the spot and one cap on Prem Nagar puliya. Thereafter, PW1 Gurudev Lal went on the spot and discovered the dead body and came to the police station to register the FIR. 21. PW1 Gurudev Lal in his statement has categorically deposed that he has seen Amrik Singh and Gurmeet Singh going towards Gadarpur on a motorcycle. However, in the FIR, it is not so stated. What is stated in the FIR is that on 09.09.2007 in the evening, constable posted in Gudarpur was threatened by Gurmeet Singh. A quarrel has taken place between Om Shankar, Gurmeet Singh and Amrik Singh. PW1 Gurudev Lal has made improvements in his statement while appearing before the Court. According to PW1 Gurudev Lal, he was told by two persons riding the motorcycle about the incident. He could not ascertain the names of those two persons. He also deposed that on 09.09.2007, Ajay Kumar was threatened on telephone by Gurmeet Singh. PW1 Gurudev Lal has made improvements in his statement while appearing before the Court. According to PW1 Gurudev Lal, he was told by two persons riding the motorcycle about the incident. He could not ascertain the names of those two persons. He also deposed that on 09.09.2007, Ajay Kumar was threatened on telephone by Gurmeet Singh. According to him, Om Shankar used to seize the liquor sold by Gurmeet Singh. Surprisingly, the prosecution has not examined the most material witness i.e. Ajay Kumar. It is settled law that the chain must be complete. All the circumstances must point out towards the guilt of the accused. In case, Ajay Kumar was threatened by Gurmeet on telephone, Ajay Kumar was the most material witness to complete the chain. 22. The case of the prosecution is also that few days ago a quarrel has taken place between Gurmeet, Amrik and Om Shankar. However, PW4 Tushar Kumar and PW5 Jaswant Singh have not supported the case of the prosecution and they were declared hostile. PW7 Afsar Ali has deposed that a quarrel has taken place between Amrik, Gurmeet and the deceased Om Shankar. PW4 Tushar Kumar and PW5 Jaswant Singh have deposed that they were not the eye-witnesses to the incident. Conduct of PW2 Sheraj-ud-din and PW9 Mohabe Ali is also unnatural. According to them, they have heard the screams coming from the Seed Plant but they did not go to the spot. In case, they had heard the cries, they were required to reach the spot and inquire why somebody was crying. They reached the spot after half an hour when lots of people have assembled on the spot. 23. PW9 Mohabe Ali has admitted in his cross-examination that he has only heard the quarrel taking place between Gurmeet, Amrik and deceased Om Shankar. 24. It has come on record that PW7 Afsar Ali has admitted that a number of cases are pending against the accused for selling illicit liquor. A quarrel has taken place between Gurmeet, Amrik and the deceased Om Shankar. PW4 Tushar Kumar and PW5 Jaswant Singh have come at the spot. 25. The motive attributed by the prosecution was that the accused were indulged in manufacturing and selling the illicit liquor. Om Shankar used to warn them. Ajay Kumar has received a telephonic call from Gurmeet Singh that Om Shankar was harassing them. PW4 Tushar Kumar and PW5 Jaswant Singh have come at the spot. 25. The motive attributed by the prosecution was that the accused were indulged in manufacturing and selling the illicit liquor. Om Shankar used to warn them. Ajay Kumar has received a telephonic call from Gurmeet Singh that Om Shankar was harassing them. As noticed hereinabove, Ajay Kumar was not examined. He was the major link in the case, set out by the prosecution. 26. PW1 Gurudev Lal has made fatal improvements in this statement. According to him, FIR was lodged at his behest. He has not seen Gurmeet and Amrik riding the motorcycle and going towards Gadarpur. However, in the statement made before the Court, he has seen Gurmeet and Amrik going towards Gadarpur. The present case is completely based upon circumstantial evidence. In the present case, the prosecution has miserably failed to complete the chain of circumstances. The material witnesses PW4 Tushar Kumar and PW5 Jaswant Singh were declared hostile and they have not supported the case of the prosecution at all. Even, PW1 Gurudev Lal has also admitted that no incident has taken place between Gurmeet Singh and Ajay Kumar on 09.09.2007. 27. The conduct of PW1 Gurudev Lal is also stranged. He should have accompanied Om Shankar-deceased instead of standing at Mehtosh curve. PW1 Gurudev Lal and the deceased-Om Shankar were on patrol duty and they were supposed to go together, in case, some telephonic message is received about some incident. 28. PW1 Gurudev Lal has deposed that two persons were told him about the incident. These two persons, as per the record, were none other but PW2 Sheraj-ud-din and PW9 Mohabe Ali. However, PW2 Sheraj-ud-din and PW9 Mohabe Ali have categorically deposed in their statements that they went to the spot and they noticed one police personnel standing there. 29. 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, 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. “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. 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 Maharashtra 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.” 30. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2012) 10 SCC 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.” 31. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2013) 4 SCC 122 , in the case of Subodh Nath and another Vs. State of Tripura have held that motive becomes relevant as an additional circumstance in a case where prosecution seeks to prove the guilt by circumstantial evidence only. Their Lordships have held as under:- “6. Mr Chauhan next pointed out some discrepancies in the evidence of PW 2 and PW 13. He pointed out that PW 2 had stated in his evidence that PW 13 had told him that Appellant 1 (Subodh) had restrained him and had threatened him if he disclosed it to anyone that he had dealt an axe-blow on the deceased. PW 13, on the other hand, has not said that Appellant 1 (Subodh) had restrained him and threatened him, but has only said that Appellant 2 (Paritosh) ran after him. He also pointed out the discrepancies in the evidence of PW 1 and PW 13. He submitted that while PW 1 has stated that PW 13 had accompanied him to search for the deceased, PW 13 had stated that he never accompanied PW 1 to search for the dead body of the deceased. He also pointed out some discrepancies in the evidence of PW 2 and PW 19, the investigating officer. He finally submitted that in this case the weapons with which the deceased was alleged to have been killed by the appellants have not been recovered nor any motive of the appellants to kill the deceased proved. He argued that this is a clear case in which the appellants should have been acquitted of the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. 16. He argued that this is a clear case in which the appellants should have been acquitted of the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. 16. Once we find that the eyewitness account of PW 13 is corroborated by material particulars and is reliable, we cannot discard his evidence only on the ground that there are some discrepancies in the evidence of PW 1, PW 2, PW 13 and PW 19. As has been held by this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Kalki, in the deposition of witnesses there are always normal discrepancies due to normal errors of observation, loss of memory, mental disposition of the witnesses and the like. Unless, therefore, the discrepancies are “material discrepancies” so as to create a reasonable doubt about the credibility of the witnesses, the Court will not discard the evidence of the witnesses. The learned counsel for the appellants is right that the prosecution has not been able to establish the motive of Appellant 1 to kill the deceased but as there is direct evidence of the accused having committed the offence, motive becomes irrelevant. Motive becomes relevant as an additional circumstance in a case where the prosecution seeks to prove the guilt by circumstantial evidence only.” 32. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2013) 12 SCC 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. 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. 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.” 31. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2015) 12 SCC 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. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2015) 12 SCC 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.” 33. In the instant case, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. There are material contradictions in the statements of the witnesses. The most material witness Ajay Kumar has not been examined by the prosecution to prove its case against the accused. 34. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The judgment dated 31.07.2012 is set-aside. The accused are acquitted by giving them the benefit of doubt. Appellants are already on bail. They need not to surrender. Their bail bonds and sureties are discharged. 35. A copy of this judgment along with the LCR be sent to the court below for compliance forthwith.