JUDGMENT : MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, J. 1. These appeals seek to challenge the common judgement dated 24.01.2013 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge No.3, Beawar, District Ajmer, whereby accused-appellant Sita Devi in appeal no.321/2013 has been convicted for offence under Sections 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000 and in default whereof, she was to further undergo simple imprisonment of one year. The accused-appellants Kishan and Smt. Bibi in appeal no.79/2013 have been convicted for offence u/s.201 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment of three years and a fine of Rs.5,000 each and in default whereof to further undergo one year additional imprisonment. 2. Facts of the case are that on 30.08.2008, one Habib son of Shri Karim R/o Kesarpura submitted a written report to SHO Police Station Beawar Sadar at 1.30 pm alleging that when he went to the well of his agriculture field and was about to start the motor pump, he noticed a naked dead body of a woman lying in the well. He immediately rushed to the house of Devaji, the Sarpanch of village and narrated the entire incident to him. The Sarpanch along with several other villagers came to the well of the informant. Sarpanch then informed the Police Station Beawar by his mobile phone. Police reached there and took out the dead body from the well. By appearance, deceased seemed to be aged about 20-21 years. Somebody had murdered her, thereafter removed her clothes and then threw her into the well. On receipt of the report, the police chalked out FIR No.377/2008 for offence u/s.302 and 201 IPC and commenced investigation. The visra, teeth, hair and nails of the deceased were taken and sent to FSL. The police discovered on source information that this dead body was of Geeta wife of Mohammad Ali resident of Guwadiya. Her mother Chhoti Devi identified the deceased to be her daughter. On interrogation, Mohammad Ali informed about the extra judicial confession made by her mother to him that she with the help of Kishan and Bibi murdered Geeta and then threw her into the well. The accused-appellants were thereupon arrested. The weapon of offence i.e. iron rod and stone and also clothes of the deceased were recovered. The charge sheet was filed against the accused-appellants for the aforesaid offences. The prosecution has produced 18 witnesses and exhibited 73 documents. Defence produced only one document. The accused-appellants were thereupon arrested. The weapon of offence i.e. iron rod and stone and also clothes of the deceased were recovered. The charge sheet was filed against the accused-appellants for the aforesaid offences. The prosecution has produced 18 witnesses and exhibited 73 documents. Defence produced only one document. The accused-appellants in their examination under section 313 Cr.P.C. alleged false implication and claimed to be tried. The learned trial court on completion of the trial, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants in the manner as stated above. 3. We have heard Shri Biri Singh, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Rajesh Choudhary for accused-appellant Sita Devi and Shri J.P. Gupta, learned counsel for accused-appellants Kishan and Smt. Bibi as well as Shri R.S. Raghav and Shri Sudesh Saini, learned Public Prosecutors for the State. 4. Shri Biri Singh, learned senior counsel for the accused-appellant Sita Devi has argued that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove that it was a case of homicidal death. The whole case hinges on circumstantial evidence. Neither the individual circumstances are proved against the appellant, nor when joined together they form a chain of circumstances so complete as to point towards the guilt of the accused-appellant and none else. There was no evidence of last seen of the accused-appellant with the deceased. In fact, the evidence proves that deceased went to her former husband Pappu and at that time, she was residing with Pappu and was lastly seen with him. The alleged recovery of clothes and articles at the instance of accused-appellant had not been put to identification inasmuch as they had not been identified by any witness to assert that they belonged to deceased. In the absence of that, it cannot be conclusively proved that the dead body of which postmortem was conducted was that of deceased Geeta. In absence of the identity of deceased being not established, the accused-appellant cannot be convicted for her murder. Learned counsel argued that no blood was found on the iron rod recovered by the police as is evident from the recovery memo Ex.P19 at the instance of accused-appellant Sita Devi, which does not indicate that it contain blood stains. How possibly it would later found to have contain the blood stains in the FSL report, is not understandable. Such factum cannot be used against the accused-appellant. How possibly it would later found to have contain the blood stains in the FSL report, is not understandable. Such factum cannot be used against the accused-appellant. The case of the prosecution is that Geeta was initially put to death in a ‘kothari’ (a small isolated room for dwelling) and thereafter her body was taken to the well for being thrown into it. Such a story is highly doubtful. No dragging signs, or any trail of blood was found from the well, nor any blood was found on the place of incident and also on the way leading to well. Learned trial court has wrongly relied on the statement of Mohammad Ali (PW16), who has not supported the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile. The conviction of the accused-appellant cannot be recorded on the basis of his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as recording of such statement does not afford the opportunity to the defence to cross examine the witness. Besides, the learned trial court was wholly unjustified in relying on the testimony of hostile witness. Above all, Mohammad Ali has not given any explanation why he kept mum for as long as three months, which casts a serious doubt over his credibility. 5. Shri Biri Singh, learned senior counsel has argued that recovery of blood stained clothes alone would not be sufficient to connect the accused-appellant-Sita Devi with the crime. It is contended that the findings recorded by the learned trial court are based on conjectures and surmises. Learned counsel referred to the statement of Mohammad Ali (PW16) and has argued that he in his statement has not denied having given any such statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate, but he has alleged that this statement was given under pressure of the police. In cross examination, he further stated that he told the police that his wife had gone to her erstwhile husband Pappu and that he used to frequently go to him. This witness has alleged that police has pressurised him to give such statement on threat of false implication in other criminal case. The police illegally detained him in the police station for as long as 6-7 days. Even the sister of deceased i.e. Sunita (PW10), who also happens to be sister of the deceased, has stated that Geeta had come to her ex-husband Pappu on 29th August, 2008 and then returned back. The police illegally detained him in the police station for as long as 6-7 days. Even the sister of deceased i.e. Sunita (PW10), who also happens to be sister of the deceased, has stated that Geeta had come to her ex-husband Pappu on 29th August, 2008 and then returned back. She stated that new mother-in-law of Geeta did not want to keep her in the family. She learnt about the death of her sister Geeta from the newspaper shown by her (Sunita’s) husband, but she did not remember on what date it was shown to her. She also stated that she learnt about the death of Geeta after so many days. Chotti Devi (PW15), the wife of Subrati and mother of deceased Geeta and Sunita (PW10) has stated in examination in chief that Geeta had contracted the second marriage, but she came to know about her death four months later, but in cross examination she also admitted that Geeta was residing with Pappu. 6. Shri Biri Singh, learned senior counsel has argued that impugned judgement passed by the learned trial court is vitiated as it is based on consideration of the interrogation note prepared by the Investigating Officer Ram Chandra (PW17). Reference in particular is made to para 27 of the judgement, wherein the Investigating Officer has stated that on his interrogation, the accused Sita informed that her son Mohammad Ali was married to a girl, who is resident of Roop Nagar, but since she was too young, therefore, her parents did not send her to in-laws place. His son was a ‘khalasi’ on the truck. Mohammad Ali met Geeta at Ajmer, who had deserted her husband. Geeta thus came to stay with her son Mohammad Ali. But thereafter, when they wanted to bring the earlier wife of Mohammad Ali, the disputes cropped up between them. Geeta started threatening Mohammad Ali. Accused-appellant Sita then further stated that she took Geeta to the ‘kothari’ of her brother Kishan Fauji. When they reached there, some altercation took place between them. During altercation that pursued, she had inflicted iron rod on Geeta, whereby she died. The said story is wholly inadmissible in evidence. It is argued that the clothes and other articles of the deceased were recovered from the well itself and the dead body was also there at the place of incident. During altercation that pursued, she had inflicted iron rod on Geeta, whereby she died. The said story is wholly inadmissible in evidence. It is argued that the clothes and other articles of the deceased were recovered from the well itself and the dead body was also there at the place of incident. The identification of dead body at the instance of accused-appellant and recovery of all these articles is wholly illegal and nothing but a planted recovery. Shri Biri Singh, learned senior counsel for the accused-appellants has argued that the only piece of evidence against the appellants is that they identified the place of occurrence, which cannot be said to be discovery of any new fact as the place of incident was already known to the police. 7. Learned senior counsel has argued that there is no medical corroboration of the use of iron road even from the postmortem report (Ex.P7), according to which the accused sustained five injuries, all of which were incised wound. There is thus no corroboration of the fact that iron rod was ever used by the accused and therefore, the recovery would be inconsequential. Learned senior counsel in support of his argument has relied on the judgements of the Supreme Court in Sahadevan & Anr. vs. State of Tamilnadu- (2012) 6 SCC 403 , Podyami Sukada vs. State of Madhya Pradesh- (2010) 12 SCC 142 , Vijender vs. State of Delhi- (1997) 6 SCC 171 and Sukhvinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab- (1994) 5 SCC 152 . 8. Shri J.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the accused-appellants Kishan and Bibi in addition to adopting the arguments of Shri Biri Singh, learned senior counsel for accused-appellant Sita Devi has submitted that no DNA report has been placed on record and, therefore, it has not been proved that the dead body was that of Geeta and not of somebody else. It is contended that the Magistrate, who recorded the statement of Mohammad Ali under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has not been produced as witness and, therefore, the said statement cannot be relied. Learned counsel in support of his arguments has relied on the judgement in Mohd. Khalid vs. State of W.B.- (2002) 7 SCC 334 . It is contended that the Magistrate, who recorded the statement of Mohammad Ali under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has not been produced as witness and, therefore, the said statement cannot be relied. Learned counsel in support of his arguments has relied on the judgement in Mohd. Khalid vs. State of W.B.- (2002) 7 SCC 334 . It is argued that the extra judicial confession of the accused, cannot be read against another co-accused and, therefore, that being the only evidence on which the conviction of the accused-appellant has been founded, conviction of the accused-appellants under Section 201 IPC cannot be sustained. 9. Shri R.S. Raghav, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the appeals and supported the judgement passed by the learned trial court. He has argued that the evidence on record shows that accused-appellant Sita Devi was annoyed with Geeta, who frequently used to visit her ex-husband Pappu and when accused-appellant protested thereabout, Geeta did not pay any heed to her objections, so much that her own sister Sunita (PW 10) had stated that even a day before the incident, she had gone to Pappu. If at all such a case was to be set up by appellant, why no missing report was lodged about the missing of Geeta by them till her dead boy was discovered, has not been explained. This is an additional circumstance of the case. 10. It is submitted that the confessional statement of Mohammad Ali Ex.P29 recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. can be read in evidence even if the Magistrate, who recorded the statement has not been produced. Only because accused did not have opportunity to cross examine him at that time, would not be a reason to discard such statement as the statement of Mohammad Ali was later again recorded in Court and at that time, accused have had full opportunity to cross examine him. Mohammad Ali has not denied having given statement before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. His allegation however that he was pressurized by the police into given that statement on the threat of implicating him in criminal case, cannot be believed because he did not make any complaint to the Magistrate thereabout. Mohammad Ali has not denied having given statement before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. His allegation however that he was pressurized by the police into given that statement on the threat of implicating him in criminal case, cannot be believed because he did not make any complaint to the Magistrate thereabout. It is argued that apart from the iron rod, recovery of other articles of the deceased namely; one cotton ‘looghari’ (a piece of cloth to cover the head), one green colour blouse, which was half burnt, one bra, one broken necklace of white pearl, one half burnt ‘odhani’, one plastic polythene bag with print “IN STYLE” and one piece of black cloth of small child and one plastic rope of green colour and one stone weighing about 2-3 kg have been made at the instance of accused-appellant Sita. The accused-appellant Kishan Fauzi and Bibi were also part of the conspiracy along with Sita to put an end to the life of Geeta because when their persuasion failed to stop her from going to her ex-husband Pappu, this appeared to be the only way out to resolve the problem. This is also so because accused-appellant Sita also wanted to get rid of Geeta. She wanted to bring the first wife of her son Mohammad Ali to her home, which was protested by Geeta. All the circumstances, including motive, form a complete chain of circumstances against the appellant, which is compatible with their guilt and none else. Learned Public Prosecutor in support of his arguments has cited the judgements of Supreme Court in Paulmeli & Anr. vs. State of Tamil Nadu through Inspector of Police- (2014) 13 SCC 90 , Attar Singh vs. State of Maharashtra- (2013) 11 SCC 719 and Rameshbhai Mohanbhai Koli & Ors. vs. State of Gujarat- (2011) 11 SCC 111 to argue that the statement of hostile witnesses can be relied upon. 11. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 12. The prosecution has heavily relied on the extra judicial confession of Mohammad Ali (Ex.P29), wherein Mohammad Ali has stated that when he called his friend Chand at Jodhpur from Puna, he informed that his mother Sita was there in Jodhpur. 11. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 12. The prosecution has heavily relied on the extra judicial confession of Mohammad Ali (Ex.P29), wherein Mohammad Ali has stated that when he called his friend Chand at Jodhpur from Puna, he informed that his mother Sita was there in Jodhpur. He went to Jodhpur on next day where his mother told him that she had taken Geeta to the ‘kothari' of Kishan Fauzi and tried to persuade her to resist from vising Pappu. When she did not agree, she locked her inside the ‘kothari' and thereafter she brought an iron rod and inflicted a blow on her temporal bone, as a result of which she instantaneously died. Thereafter, her mother removed all the clothes of Geeta and then she called her elder sister Bibi and narrated the entire story to Bibi. The dead body was tied in a ‘looghari' (cloth) of her mother and then for the time being concealed it in a pit and covered the same by sand and garbage. Then, in the evening, his aunt Bibi (sister of her mother) narrated the entire incident to his maternal uncle Kishan Fauzi. All of them thereafter took out the dead body from the pit at 11.00 pm, rode on the motorcycle of Kishan and dropped the dead body into a well of Habib. Kishan was driving the motorcycle and Sita was sitting as pillion rider with the dead body being held in her hands. On the way they put the clothes of the deceased in a polythene bag and burnt her skirt (‘ghagra’). The polythene bag containing the clothes of the deceased was also thrown into the well. Thereafter his mother went to Jodhpur. This statement was recorded on 11.12.2008 i.e. more than three months after the discovery of the dead body on 30.8.2008. Mohammad Ali was produced in the Court as PW16. He has stated that the police had threatened to falsely implicate him in a criminal case and was made to give such statement under coercion and pressure of the police. He has stated that Geeta used to go to her ex-husband Pappu frequently and sometimes she would stay with him. On certain other occasions, she would come to this witness and sometimes she would go to her parents’ house also. This witness was declared hostile. He has stated that Geeta used to go to her ex-husband Pappu frequently and sometimes she would stay with him. On certain other occasions, she would come to this witness and sometimes she would go to her parents’ house also. This witness was declared hostile. Whether his statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. can be relied upon to convict the accused-appellant Sita for graver offence of murder, is the core question, which this Court is called upon to decide. The best test would be to find corroboration of what he has alleged in that statement that when his mother inflicted a blow of iron rod on the temporal region of Geeta, as a result of which she instantaneously died on spot. When we examine the postmortem report of the deceased Ex.P7, it is found that eight injuries found on her body were all opined to have been caused by sharp edged weapon and, therefore, recorded as incised wound and all injuries were ante mortem in nature. This would be evident from following description of the injuries:- “All injury ante mortem. 1. Incised wound 9 cm x 4 cm x BD on forehead. 2. Incised wound 8 cm x 2 cm x BD on left temporal 3. Incised wound 9 cm x 1 cm on chin. 4. Incised wound 12 cm x 1 cm x BD on neck. 5. Incised wound 11 cm x 1 cm x BD on left parietal 6. Teeth missing of 2, 3, 4 (upper side) and 1, 3, 5 (lower side) Blackish Disc coloured: 7. Ecchymosis 21 cm x 8 cm on chest 8. Ecchymosis 8 cm x 6 cm on thigh.” 13. There is indeed an incised would on the left temporal region of the deceased in the size of 8cm x 2cm BD, which led to fracture of left temporal parietal bone, but this injury cannot certainly be said to have been caused by an iron rod. Dr. K.K. Chouhan (PW9/1) has apart from proving the aforementioned injuries also stated that there were contusions on thighs, especially on private parts. The deceased was bearing pregnancy of about seven months. Dr. K.K. Chouhan (PW9/1) has apart from proving the aforementioned injuries also stated that there were contusions on thighs, especially on private parts. The deceased was bearing pregnancy of about seven months. In the opinion of the medical board the time of death was approximately one week ago because of ante mortem multiple injuries and hemorrhage shock and injury to vital organs, but visra was preserved to rule out the presence of death being caused by metallic poison, ethyl, mythyl alcohol, cyanide, alcolides, barbiturates and sleeping medicine, which were eventually found negative. In cross examination, this witness has stated that if the injury was caused by blunt weapon, the width of the injuries would be same, but if the injury was caused by sharp edged weapon, they would be straight. The head injury of the deceased was incised wound. 14. Apart from recovery of iron rod, the recovery of clothes of the deceased from the same well wherefrom her dead body was found at the instance of accused-appellant also becomes quite doubtful because if dead body was found, the clothes containing the polythene bag in the same well would also be easily found. The recovery appears to have been attributed to the accused-appellant only to make up for the lacunaes of the police investigation. The kind of story which the prosecution has developed that the deceased was taken by the accused-appellant Sita to her brother's Kishan Fauzi Kothari and then she tried to persuade her to refrain from visiting her ex-husband Pappu and when she did not agree, she locked her inside the ‘kothari' and thereafter brought an iron rod and inflicted a single blow on her head resulting into her immediate death and then she called her elder sister Bibi and narrated entire story to her and thereafter her elder sister disclosed this to their brother Kishan Fauzi and then they carried the dead body on his motor cycle. On the way, Sita had taken out all the clothes of the deceased and put them in a polythene bag. She tied the dead body of deceased in her ‘looghri' and put it in a pit and covered it with sand and garbage. Bibi, the elder sister of Sita disclosed the entire story to their brother Kishan Fauzi. On the way, Sita had taken out all the clothes of the deceased and put them in a polythene bag. She tied the dead body of deceased in her ‘looghri' and put it in a pit and covered it with sand and garbage. Bibi, the elder sister of Sita disclosed the entire story to their brother Kishan Fauzi. All of them thereafter took out the dead body from the pit and carried the same to the well on the motorcycle of Kishan. On the way, she put her skirt and all her clothes burnt in a polythene bag and then threw the dead body into the well as also the polythene bag. All this story hardly inspires confidence as it is full of loop holes and lacunaes. 15. Surprisingly, the learned trial Judge has been unduly influenced by the statement of Investigating Officer Ram Chandra (PW17). He has stated that on interrogation, the accused Sita informed that his son Mohammad Ali was married to a girl, who is resident of Roop Nagar, but since she was too young, her parents did not immediately send her to the in-laws place. His son was a ‘khalasi’ on the truck. Mohammad Ali met Geeta at Ajmer, who had deserted her husband. Geeta thus came to stay with her son Mohammad Ali. But thereafter, the disputes cropped up between them when they wanted to bring the earlier wife of Mohammad Ali. Geeta started threatening Mohammad Ali. Accused-appellant Sita then further stated that she took Geeta to the ‘kothari’ of her brother Kishan Fauji. When they reached there, some altercation took place between them and in the state of confrontation, she inflicted iron rod on Sita, as a result of which, she died. The learned trial court has accepted this to be gospel truth to convict the accused-appellant. Relying on the interrogation of accused, the learned trial Judge has recorded the finding that while throwing away the plastic bag containing the clothes of the deceased, accused-appellant Sita took care to also put a stone therein to drown them in water, this is why recovery of clothes was made vide Ex.P17 much belatedly on 6.12.2008. Relying on the interrogation of accused, the learned trial Judge has recorded the finding that while throwing away the plastic bag containing the clothes of the deceased, accused-appellant Sita took care to also put a stone therein to drown them in water, this is why recovery of clothes was made vide Ex.P17 much belatedly on 6.12.2008. The recovered clothes included one cotton ‘looghari’, one green colour blouse, which was half burnt, one bra, one broken necklace of white pearl, one half burnt ‘odhani’, one plastic polythene bag with print “IN STYLE” and one piece of black cloth of small child and one plastic rope of green colour and one stone weighing about 2-3 kg. The case set up by the prosecution is that with the help of stone, the plastic bag was drowned deep into the well so that it could be recovered only after the well was emptied by sucking out the entire water. Be that as it may, the learned trial court could not have read and relied the interrogation of the accused-appellant to convict her with the help of retracted statement of her son Mohammad Ali, whose statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. three and half months after the incident. And when he says that he was pressurised by the police into giving such statement, it would be highly unsafe to convict the accused-appellant on that basis. Even if statement of Sunita, the sister of deceased that Geeta had come to Pappu on 29th August, 2008 and then mother of both Geeta and Sunita has also stated in cross examination that Geeta used to stay with Pappu is considered. The prosecution has not come out with clean hands on this aspect. Nothing has been shown as to what investigation was carried out thereabout and whether Pappu was interrogated or not. And why Pappu was not produced as a witness, all these aspects have not been explained. 16. As far as other two accused-appellant Kishan Fauzi and Bibi are concerned, they have been convicted only for offence u/s.201 IPC. The Supreme Court in cited case of Mohd. Khalid, supra has held that the requirement of Section 30 of the Evidence Act is that before it is made to operate against the co-accused, the confession should be strictly established. As far as other two accused-appellant Kishan Fauzi and Bibi are concerned, they have been convicted only for offence u/s.201 IPC. The Supreme Court in cited case of Mohd. Khalid, supra has held that the requirement of Section 30 of the Evidence Act is that before it is made to operate against the co-accused, the confession should be strictly established. In other words, what must be before the court should be a confession proper and not a mere circumstance or an information which could be an incriminating one. It should be a statement containing an admission of guilt and not merely a statement raising the inference with regard to such a guilt. The evidence of the co-accused cannot be considered under Section 30 of the Evidence Act, where he was not tried jointly with the accused and where he did not make a statement incriminating himself along with the accused. It is only when a person admits guilt to the fullest extent and exposes himself to the pains and penalties provided for his guilt, there is a guarantee for his truth. The legislature provides that his statement may be considered against his fellow accused charged with the same crime. The test is intended to see whether it is sufficient by itself to justify the conviction of the person making it of the offence for which he is being jointly tried with the other person or persons against whom it is tendered. The Supreme Court further held that the Court is to apply a double test for deciding the acceptability of a confession i.e. (i) whether the confession was perfectly voluntary, and (ii) if so, whether it is true and trustworthy. Satisfaction of the first test is a sine quo non for its admissibility in evidence. Normally, if a statement made by an accused person is found to be voluntary and it amounts to a confession in the sense that it implicates the maker, it is not likely that the maker would implicate himself untruly. So Section 30 provides that such a confession may be taken into consideration even against the co-accused who is being tried along with the maker of the confession. If, however, the confession appears to the court to have been caused by any inducement, threat or promise, such as mentioned in Section 24 of the Evidence Act, it must be excluded and rejected as nonest. If, however, the confession appears to the court to have been caused by any inducement, threat or promise, such as mentioned in Section 24 of the Evidence Act, it must be excluded and rejected as nonest. If the first test is satisfied, the court must before acting upon the confession reach the findings that what is stated therein is true and reliable. 17. In the present case, even though statement has not been made by the accused-appellant Sita in the Court, but rather it is an extra judicial confession, which the prosecution claims she made to her son Mohammad Ali. It would not be safe to rely the statement of her son Mohammad Ali, which was recorded three months after the recovery of the dead body. Besides, this is not a statement recorded in regular trial. As has been rightly argued, same value cannot be attached to a statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. because neither did the defence has the opportunity to cross examine him, nor did he make similar statement during trial, where he alleged that he was coerced into making such statement on threat of false implication in criminal case. The manner in which the investigation has been carried out by the police in the present case, allegation of Mohammad Ali (PW-16) that he was forced to make into such confession on the threat of false implication in the criminal case, cannot be ignored. Not only, therefore, the individual circumstances sought to be proved against the accused-appellants, have not been proved by convincing or reliable evidence, but these circumstances cannot be said to form a chain of circumstances so complete so as to rule out the possibility of every single hypothesis, which may be compatible with the innocence of the accused-appellant. It would be therefore highly unsafe to sustain the conviction of the accused-appellant on the kind of evidence that has been adduced in the present case. 18. The Supreme Court in Hanumant Govind Nargundkar Vs. State of M.P., AIR 1952 SC 343 , wherein it was held that in cases where the evidence is 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 tendency 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. 19. Aforesaid judgement was recently followed by the Supreme Court in Dharam Deo Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 5 SCC 509 , wherein it was held that circumstantial evidence is evidence of relevant facts from which, one can, by process of reasoning, infer about the existence of facts in issue or factum probandum. Each and every incriminating circumstance must be clearly established by reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances so proved must form a chain of events from which the only irresistible conclusion about the guilt of the accused can be safely drawn and no other hypothesis against the guilt is possible. Even when there is no eyewitness to support the criminal charge, but prosecution has been able to establish the chain of circumstances, which is complete leading to inference of guilt of accused and circumstances taken collectively are incapable of explanation on any reasonable hypothesis save of guilt sought to be proved, the accused may be convicted on the basis of such circumstantial evidence. 20. In the result, the appeals filed by all these accused-appellants are allowed. Accused-Appellants Kishan and Bibi are on bail, therefore, their bail bonds are discharged. They need not surrender. The accused-appellant Sita Devi is in jail. She shall be released forthwith, if not required to be detained in relation to any other case. 21. Keeping, however, in view the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, appellants are 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, the appellants aforesaid, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court.