JUDGMENT : 1. By way of this appeal, judgment dated 31/08/1988 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Rai Singh Nagar, District Sriganganagar in Sessions Case No.66/1986 has been challenged and according to said judgment, both the appellants-accused have been sentenced under Section 302/34 of IPC to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. 2. By way of this appeal, judgment dated 31/08/1988 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Rai Singh Nagar, District Sriganganagar in Sessions Case No.66/1986 has been challenged and according to said judgment, both the appellants-accused have been sentenced under Section 302/34 of IPC to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. 2. In brief, the story of the prosecution, which has been narrated in the F.I.R, reads as under :- ^^Jheku ,l-,p-vks- lkgc Fkkuk eqdykokA Jheku] fuosnu gS fd esjh cgu eqlEekr jkuks mej 20 lky dh 'kknh vkt ls vj'kk djhc 2 lky igys fnoku flag iq= tkxj flag tkfr jk; fl[k fuoklh fc'kuiqjk flxnkuk ds lkFk dh FkhA 'kknh gksus ds ckn esjh cgu jkuks jle fjokt ds vuqlkj vius llqjky vkrh tkrh jgrh FkhA esjh cgu ds fnokuflag ls ,d yM+dh ftldh mez djhc Ms< lky gS esjh cgu dks vjlk djhc ,d lky ls viuh lkl eqLekr ftUnks ckbZ o cguksbZ fnoku flag gj ckr ij mls rax o ijs'kku djrs jgrs FksA vkSj le; ij [kkuk Hkh ugha fn;k mlh vjlk esa esjh cgu dks vyx dj fn;k fQj Hkh ftUnks ckbZ mlds pqYgk esa ikuh mYVk vkVk pqjk ys tkuk vkfn gjdrsa djrh jgrh FkhA vkt ls djhc ,d ekg igys esjh ekrk tkxks ckbZ esjh cgu ls feyus vkbZ vkSj esjh ekWa us esjs cguksbZ o esjh cgu dh lkl ftUnks ckbZ dks le>k cq>k dj ,d lkFk feydj jgus dks dgk ok vc ,d ekg ls esjh cgu lkFk esa jgrh Fkh jk[kh dk R;ksgkj utnhd vkus ds dkj.k eSa vius cgu jkuks ckbZ dks ysus fc'kuiqjk dy 'kke djhc N% cts esjh cgu ds ?kj igq¡pk vkSj ns[kk rks esjh cgu o Hkkath nksuksa dh yk'ksa ,d ekps ij iM+h FkhA eSaus esjh cgu dh lkl ftUnksckbZ o esjs cguksbZ fnoku flag ls jkuks ckbZ o mldh yM+dh dh ekSr ds lEcU/k esa iwNk rks mUgksaus crk;k fd vkt fnu ds djhc 11 cts dksBk ds vUnj lgafrj ds jLlh cka/kdj jkuks ckbZ us [kqn o viuh yM+dh dks Qk¡lh yxkdj vkRegR;k dj nh gS fQj eSaus xkao esa ekywekr fd;k rks eq>s ekywe gqvk fd jkuksckbZ dks mldh lkl ftUnksckbZ o fnoku flag us 7&8 fnu ls dkQh rax o ijs'kku fd;k djrs Fks o Hkw[kh j[kh] blls rax vkdj jkuks ckbZ us vius vkidks o viuh yM+dh dks Qkalh yxkdj vkRegR;k dj yh gSA eqLekr ftUnksckbZ o fnoku flag us eq>s ,d rjQ ys tkdj ekQh ekaxrs gq, dgk fd tks dqN gksuk Fkk oks gks x;k gSA yk'k dks tykus nksA eSaus dgk eSa esjs cki dks cqyk ykrk gw¡ mlds ckn yk'k dks tyk nsukA ;g dgdj eSa fc'kuiqjk ls thi ysdj gekjs xkao eksnh [ksM+k x;k o esjs cki dks cqykdj yk;k ftls fc'kuiqjk NksM+ dj vk;k gw¡A bl dkj.k ls bryk fnu esa nsus esa ysV gks x;k esjh cgu o Hkkath dh yk'ksa fc'kuiqjk esa iM+h gS fjiksVZ is'k dj vtZ gS fd dkjokbZ fd tkosaA 16-08-86 izkFkhZ eD[ku flag S/o djrkj flag tkfr jk;fl[k fuoklh eksnh [ksM+k Ps lnj vcksgj** Besides both the appellants, their mother Smt. Jindo Bai was also included in the list of the accused persons, who died on 18/11/1986, while under judicial custody, so the proceedings were abated against her, both the appellants-accused were charge-sheeted under Sections 302, 498A read with Section 34 of IPC. Learned trial Court charged both the accused persons under Sections 302, 498A read with Section 34 of IPC and trial was conducted. Prosecution produced eleven witnesses and the trial was culminated in conviction through the impugned judgment. 3. Heard arguments of both the sides, learned counsel for the appellants has empathetically argued that after the demise of main accused Smt. Jindo Bai, charge under Section 34 of IPC becomes redundant and does not survive. Relying on judgment of State of Maharashtra vs. Eknath Yeshwant Pagar & Anr, AIR 1981 SC 1571 , it has been contended that charge under Section 34 pertaining to common intention since does not survive, so the judgment passed by learned trial Court is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel has further argued that prosecution has failed to adduce reliable evidence and so far as the question of extra judicial confession is concerned, it is also not worthy to be relied because the same is invented and nothing of that kind ever been existed and evidence to this effect is concocted because the police statements of PW.4 Shankar Singh have been recorded on 21/08/1986, whereas said incident belongs to 15/08/1986. All the prosecution witnesses are close relatives and their testimony is not worthy to be relied, kind of allegations, which have been levelled, do not comprise with any offence of alleged cruelty. Medical evidence also does not prove the alleged offence and prosecution has failed to establish case and no iota of positive evidence is there, so the appeal be allowed and the impugned judgment be set aside. On the contrary, learned public prosecutor has submitted that the prosecution has produced reliable evidence supported with medical evidence, taking support of Jamnadas vs. State of M.P., 2016 3 Crimes (SC) 168, learned public prosecutor has contended that all the prosecution witnesses have narrated woe of cruelty meted out against the deceased and deceased was eliminated by all the three accused persons, one amongst them unfortunately died during the course of investigation and there is no error in the findings of learned trial Court, so the appeal be dismissed. 4. 4. Perused the record and examined the evidence, evidence available on the record reveals that PW.1 Makhan Singh complainant has narrated that Ex.P.1 FIR and Ex.P.2 chalked F.I.R were lodged by him, which contains his signatures, but he has contradicted several vitals of his police statements and earlier lodged version relating to “suicide” as disclosed in the F.I.R that his sister committed suicide, which is distinctly averred in the F.I.R and has said that :- ^^izn'kZ ih 1 dk fgLlk lh ls Mh ^^blls rax vkdj jkuksckbZ us vius vkidks o viuh yM+dh dks Qkalh yxkdj vkRegR;k dj yh gSA ;g ckr eSaus ugha fy[kkbZA eSaus llqjky okyksa }kjk ekjuk fy[kk;k FkkA ;g ckr dSls fy[kh xbZ] eq>s irk ughaA Hkxokuflag ds yM+us okyh ckr izn'kZ ih 1 esa D;ks ugha fy[kh eq>s irk ughaA eq>s ;kn ugha fd ;g ckr eSaus iqfyl dks fy[kk nh Fkh ;k ughaA** but he has also further said that ^^ftl dejsa esa esjh cgu dh llqjky us vkRegR;k djuk crkrs Fks] oks dejk eSaus vUnj ls ns[kk FkkA** PW.1 Makhan Singh has stated a crucial fact in his statements as well that the room in which the dead bodies were found was broken upon and uprooted door was there since he has said :- ^^mldk fdokM+ rksM+k gqvk Fkk o baVs fc[kjh gqbZ FkhA fdokM+ ds vUnj dh rjQ rkyk yxk gqvk iM+k FkkA eq>s irk ugh fd mldh pkch iqfyl us dCtk esa yh gksA** 5. Statements of investigating officer PW.10 Rajpal Singh are also important as this witness has said that :- ^^eSaus tks pkch tj;s QnZ izn'kZ ih 12 cjken dh Fkh og mlh dksBs esa j[kh gqbZ isVh esa ls cjken dh Fkh] ftlesa fd jk.kksa o mldh cPph dh gR;k gqbZ FkhA ml pkch ls lacaf/kr rkyk mlh dksBs ds m[kkMs gq, fdokM+ ds vanj dh rjQ yxk gqvk FkkA ml dksBs eas vkSj dksbZ fdokM+ ugha gSA** Regarding suicidal version, which is mentioned in the F.I.R this witness has said that :- ^^,Q vkbZ vkj izn'kZ ih 2 ntZ djus ds ckn i<+dj eqLrxhl e[kuflag dks lquk nh Fkh vkSj mlus mls lgh ekudj vaxwBk dj fn;k FkkA eq>s /;ku ugha fd e[kuflag us eq>s ;g lwpuk nh gks fd jk.kks o mldh cPph us vkRegR;k dj yh gSA** 6. Spot map and site map Ex.P14 and Ex.14A also confirms and verifies this version that the door of that room was opened uprootedly and it was found locked from inside and this aspect is mentioned in Ex.P.14A:- ^^bl dksBk dk ckjuk nf{k.k dh rjQ gS] ftlds ckjuk ds fdokM+ pksxkj lfgr m[kkM+s gq, gS tks ikl gh vkxu esa iM+s gq, gSA bl dksBk dh fnokjs dPph baVksa dh gS ok dksBk ds ckjuk esa pksxkj ds lkFk & lkFk nksuksa rjQ ,d & ,d iDdh baVs yxkbZ gqbZ gSA bl ckjuk dh iwoZ dh rjQ dh fnokj dh mij dh rjQ ls m[kkM+h gqbZ baVks dh yEckbZ 2 QqV 2 bUp gS ok if'pe dh rjQ dh fnokj dh mij dh rjQ ls m[kkM+h gqbZ baVks dh yEckbZ 11 bUp gS ok ckjuk ds mij if'pe dh rjQ ckjuk ls ,d QqV mij baV 3 [kkM+us dk ,d [k<k gS tks 4 1@2 bUp yEck ok 3 1@2 bUp pkSM+k gSA** and while referring spot map Ex.P.14, it has been further observed in the description that:- ^^ u- 3 ls fdokM+ ydM+h e; pksxkj ds iM+s gq, gS fn[kk;s x;s gS tks dksBk u- 2 ls fn[kk;k x;k gS ds ckjuk ds m[kkMs gq, gS bu fdokM+ks ds vUnj dh rjQ fcp esa lkady yxkdj rkyk yxk;k gqvk gS fdokM+ks dh yEckbZ 5 QqV 11 bUp gS ok pkSxkj dh yEckbZ 5 QqV 9 1@2 bap gS ok pkSxkj ds fups dh rjQ dk cktw yxk gqvk ugha gSA pkSxkj ds vUnj ds fgLls dh pkSM+kbZ 2 QqV 7 bUp gS ok uD'kk esa u- 2 ls fn[kk;s x;s dksBk ds ckjuk ls fdokM+ks ds fcp dh nwjh 5 1@2 QqV gSA** 7. Entire evidence of the prosecution reveals that no injury of any kind except the mark of strangulation was found on the body of the deceased persons. 8. PW.9 Dr. Man Mohan Singh Bhatia, who has conducted postmortem on the body of the deceased persons has specifically said that he conducted the postmortem of the deceased persons and Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.7 are postmortem reports, he has further said that apart from ligature mark, no other injury was found on the body of the Raano and Guddi. PW.11 Ranjeet Singh Dy.S.P. has also said that no apparent injury was found on the body of Raanobai except ligature mark and no injury was found on the body of Guddi. PW.11 Ranjeet Singh Dy.S.P. has also said that no apparent injury was found on the body of Raanobai except ligature mark and no injury was found on the body of Guddi. Ex.P.D6 Panchayatnama and Ex.P.17 Panchayatnama of deceased Guddi shows that no apparent injury were found on the bodies. 9. The prosecution witnesses PW.7 Pratap Singh and PW.8 Jail Singh have become “hostile”, notwithstanding these witnesses have uttered several important factual aspects, since PW.7 Pratap Singh has said that “it is a matter of one year back the dispute was between Jindo Bai and Raano Bai Saas- Bahu” - mother of Raano Bai had come and quelled the cause of dispute. He has further said that he went there several person were gathered, neck was having signs of string brother of Raano Bai visited later after their departure to police station. He has further said that Diwan Singh and others used to not to harass Raano, he has further contradicted several versions of his police statements, while cross-examined, he has said that they all decided to inform the mishap to the police, so Jail Singh, Avtar Singh and Diwan Singh and he went to thana Muklawa and gave a report to thanedar, who got Diwan Singh sat there (detained) and sent some policemen with us, he has further said that it was discussed and decided there for visiting to Modikhera, which was in Punjab, so they requested to give a memo script to facilitate their visit to Punjab, which is Ex.D.5. Perusal of Ex.D.5, which is bearing signature of some HC of PS Muklawa with a thana seal reads as under :- ^^Jh xqykc flag S/o t;flag tkfr jk;fl[k mez 22 lky o izrkiflag S/o iBkuk flag tkfr jk;fl[k mez 50 lky fuoklhx.k fc'kuiqjk flxM+ku ;g nksuksa ds'k <k<h j[ks gq, gSa o buds exZ gks xbZ gSA ftlesa ;g nksuksa e`rdk jkuh ds ek¡ cki dks cqykus ds fy, xk¡o eksM+h Fkkuk lnj vcksgj tk jgs gSaA yM+dh ds cki dk uke txrkj flag jk;fl[k fu eksM+h gSA rkjh[k 5&8&86 ;g :dk fnukad 16&8&86 rd ekU; gSA mlds ckn ekU; ugha gksxkA** which shows that prior to Ex.P1 and Ex.P.2, which have been registered on 16/08/1986, the matter was already been brought into the notice of concerned Police Station “Muklawa”, which gave a written memo with noting of ‘Morgue’ to facilitate the complainant-bearers of the memo to visit to the parental house of deceased Raano Bai to Village Moti thana Sadar Abohar Punjab and this aspect falsify the entire story of the prosecution that it was Makhan Singh brother of deceased Raano Bai, who first went to police station to lodge the F.I.R resultantly it suggest that whatever happened, was truthfully brought into the notice of concerned police station, Muklawa by husband of the deceased accused Diwan Singh alongwith this testimony where the police authorities got Diwan Singh sat there in custodial way. This version has also been highlighted and asserted empathetically by the accused party in their evidence as well as under the statements made under Section 313 of CrPC. It has also come in the evidence of this witness Pratap Singh that both “Saas and Bahu” used to strife and both were of hot temperament, he has also said that Ujagar Singh, Bhagwan and Diwan Singh used to pacify them, he has further said that six months prior to the incident, Ujagar Singh had separated Diwan and Raanu and one month back Jago Bai came and united them, he has further said that Raano Bai was disinclined to live unitedly and was inclined to live separate, which could be a reason for her suicide by hanging. 10. PW.8 Jail Singh has become hostile, who in cross-examination, has reiterated same version that “Saas and Bahu” used to strife each other. Ujagar, Bhagwan and others used to pacify them. 10. PW.8 Jail Singh has become hostile, who in cross-examination, has reiterated same version that “Saas and Bahu” used to strife each other. Ujagar, Bhagwan and others used to pacify them. Six months back, Ujagar separated Diwan and Raano getting annoyed, one month back Jago Bai came and united them. He has narrated very important aspect by saying :- ^^ml fnu 15 vxLr Fkh vkSj bls eukus ds ckn eSa vius ?kj vk;k FkkA fQj esjs ikl carks vkbZA mlus dgk fd jkuks ckbZ rks jLls ls yVd jgh gSA rc eSa iM+kslh vorkjflag] thrflag o vkSj dbZ vkneh ogka x,A fQj [ksr ls nhoku flag Hkh ogka vk x;kA fQj xkao ds yksxksa us bZaVs rksM+dj ckgj fudkyk fdokM+ ds vanj dh rjQ rkyk yxk gqvk FkkA jLlh dkVdj yk'k dks ckgj fudkydj ekps ij fyVk fn;kA ns[kk rks og ej xbZ FkhA fQj xkao ds dkQh yksx bdV~Bs gks x,A fQj eSa] xqytkj] izrki] nhoku pkjksa VªsDVj ysdj Fkkus esa x,A bfryk nhA eksMh[ksMk tkus dh ckr gqbZA fQj geus dgk Fkk fd iatkc tkuk gS blfy, dksbZ rax uk djs blfy, dqN fy[kdj ns nksA Fkkusnkj us goynkj ls dgk fd budks rgjhj cuk nks fQj goynkj us gedks rgjhj cuk nhA gekjs lkFk NksVk Fkkusnkj o nks flikgh HkstsA fQj ge fc'kuiqjk vk x,A izrki flag xqytkj flag thi ysdj eksMh[ksM+k x,A lqcg jkuksa ds ekrk firk vk x,A lHkh blh urhts ij igqaps fd Qkalh ls ej xbZ gSA fQj nksigj dks Mh-,l-ih- vk x,A ukte lkgc Hkh lkFk FksA fQj ogka iqfyl us fy[kk i<+h dhA** He has further said that Panchayatnama of Raanobai is Ex.D.6 and has also said that DSP Saheb, Najam and all came to the conclusion that death was suicidal by hanging. 11. PW.2 Jago Bai mother of the deceased has also said that one month back, she had been to her daughter’s home, Jindo Bai and his daughter used to strife with each other. She has further said that :- ^^mldh lkl cksyrh Fkh] vkxs ls esjh yM+dh cksyrh FkhA eSaus le>k;k yM+kbZ er djksA** In her cross-examination, she has further said that at the time of her death, statements were taken, Diwan Singh was there at police Station. 12. She has further said that :- ^^mldh lkl cksyrh Fkh] vkxs ls esjh yM+dh cksyrh FkhA eSaus le>k;k yM+kbZ er djksA** In her cross-examination, she has further said that at the time of her death, statements were taken, Diwan Singh was there at police Station. 12. PW.11 Ranjeet Singh Dy.SP who investigated the matter has said that “prior to delivery of postmortem report, cause of death was not told to him and the postmortem report was received on 22/08/1986”, he has further said that from 16/08/1986 to 22/08/1986, he did not send any request for delivery of postmortem to doctor. 13. Perusal of Ex.D.2 police statement of Smt. Jago Bai shows that these statements have been taken on 16/08/1986 by Ranjeet Singh, which shows that the matter was registered under Section 306 of IPC. 14. Ex.8 Arrest memo of Diwan Singh shows that he was arrested on 01/09/1986 and it has been said by PW.11 Ranjeet Singh that addition of 302 IPC was made after receipt of doctor’s report on 22/08/1986, but narration of several witnesses of the prosecution reveals that Diwan Singh, who had been to Police Station Muklawa to inform about the unnatural death of his wife with some other witnesses as discussed above, was already put under custody and was detained by asking to sit there and this fact is very much clear from perusal of statement of Jago Bai, since she too has asserted this aspect in her cross-examination by saying that “when her police statements were recorded, Diwan Singh was there at police station and she has also said that after registering of report, police got her statement, which makes the entire story of the prosecution candidly false”. PW.2 Smt. Jago Bai has also said that narration of murder of her daughter is being said by her, on conjectures, she did not see anything nor have got any knowledge. 15. PW.2 Smt. Jago Bai has also said that narration of murder of her daughter is being said by her, on conjectures, she did not see anything nor have got any knowledge. 15. PW.3 Kartar Singh father of the deceased has said that after arriving at in-law’s home of Raano Bai, they inquired from the villagers, a girl aging ten years, informed him that Diwan Singh, Bhagwan Singh and Jindo Bai killed his daughter Raano Bai, then they went to police station and lodged the F.I.R. There are several contradictions in Ex.D.3 police statements of this witness, he has also said that said girl had informed him all this before the police and the girl informed about killers between eleven to twelve, but prosecution has not produced this alleged “girl child” witness, who could have been of significant value in narrating the truth and non-recording of evidence of such witness and non-inclusion of this witness in prosecution calendar, makes the story of the prosecution fragile and unreliable. 16. PW.4 Shankar Singh is a witness through, whom story of extra judicial confession is introduced, but this witness has vitally improved his testimony than to his police statements. He has said that **fiNys lky vkBosa eghus dh ckr gSA 'kke ds lkr cts dk oDr FkkA eSa vius [ksr esa e'khu vkBsokyh ij cSBk FkkA Hkxokuflag o fnokuflag esjs ikl vk;sA tks gkftj vnkyr eqyfteku gSA mUgksaus dgk fd jkuksckbZ o ftanks vkil esa yM+ jgh Fkh] ge ckgj ls vk;sA ge ;g >xM+k lgu ugha dj ldsA jkuksckbZ dks idM+ fy;kA Hkxokuflag o fnokuflag us jkuksckbZ dks idM+dj xyk ?kksaVdj ekj fn;k o yM+dh jkuksckbZ dks Hkh ekj fn;kA gels ;g xyrh gks xbZ] blfy, vkids ikl vk;s gSaA vkids fj'rsnkj gSa] blfy, tkdj jkthukek djok nksA eksM+h xkao tkdj vkids fj'rsnkj gSa] muls gekjk jkthukek djok nksA eSaus dgk vkius tqYe fd;k gSA vPNk lkspsaxs] tk;saxsA gekjs ikl ls ;s fujk'k gksdj okfil vk x;sA** but in his cross-examination, he has said that on which date accused person came to him, date is not remembered to him and he did not convey any date to the police, he has further said that it was day of “Friday” and this version is contradictory to the statements made under Section 161 of CrPC, since it contains that the alleged confessional say was made on 17/08/1986 on “Sunday”, when he was lying down. He has further said that ^^vfHk;qDrx.k ftl fnu esjs ikl vk;s Fks] mlh fnu dh ?kVuk crk jgs FksA** if we weigh this version of his statement, then it appears to be totally false because on 16/08/1986, postmortem was conducted, which reveals that death occurred 24 to 34 hours before the time of postmortem. Police Statements of this witness have been recorded on 21/08/1986 and he says that his statements were recorded 12 to 13 days ahead of visit of accused persons, which too does not match and apparently mismatches, so it weakens the story of the prosecution and version of extra judicial confession becomes dubious, there are enormous contradictions between the police statements and testimony of this witness, he has also said that Raano Bai was his sister-in-law, why he withhold revelation of this extra judicial confession, for so many days after unnatural death of Smt. Raano Bai, also feebles the prosecution story. 17. PW.5 Mangal Singh has also said that Gurudayal Singh, Pratap Singh and four others were gone to police station, they came back but Diwan Singh was detained by police. PW.6 Jeet Singh is Mama of deceased Raano Bai, he has narrated hearsay only and has said that to resolve dispute a Panchayat was held of five to ten family members, which decided to send bride. PW.10 Raj Pal Singh is SHO of P.S. Muklawa, who registered F.I.R Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 and arrested the accused persons, he has concluded cross-examination by saying that he did not know with regard to such information that Raano and his baby committed suicide, which is obviously wrong, because in police statement of Jago Bai as DW.2 and police statement of Makhan Singh DW.1 and Police statements of Kartan Singh DW.3 recorded on 1/08/1986, and police statements of Shankar Singh DW.4 have been recorded on 21/08/1986, specifically been under Section 306 of IPC, this indicates that witnesses have not come with clean hands and have withheld veracity, which has marred the actual truth and story of the prosecution as well. PW.11 Ranjeet Singh has also said that at the time of drawing Panchayatnama Ex.D.6, he concluded that the incident was suicide per cord. 18. PW.11 Ranjeet Singh has also said that at the time of drawing Panchayatnama Ex.D.6, he concluded that the incident was suicide per cord. 18. Appreciation and appraisal of entire aforereferred evidence indicates that prosecution has miserably failed to establish its case against the accused persons and no-reliable evidence has been given by the prosecution to connect the accused persons with the crime. Door of the room was found bolted with lock from inside and the door was breakingly uprooted and got opened, which indicates that it was bolted and locked from inside and was opened through thorough uprootingly, which weakens alleged theory of homicide. Diwan Singh with some other neighbours went to police station to inform the incident, where he was detained, hostile witnesses PW.7 Pratap Singh and PW.8 Jail Singh have rather narrated the truth. Death of two feminine and loss of two lives is unfortunate but to fasten criminal culpability it is imperative to produce positive evidence, which could connect the accused persons with the crime invariably. 19. As such, there is no direct evidence and in matters relating to indirect evidence, in Padala Veera Reddy V. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1989 Supp. (2) SCC 706, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that in matters of circumstantial evidence, the evidence must satisfy the following texts:- (1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; (2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; (3) 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 none else; and (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. In Varun Choudhary Vs. In Varun Choudhary Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2011 Crl.L.J. 675, it has been held that where chain of events is doubtful, no conviction can be based and it is settled legal proposition that in a case of circumstantial evidence there must be complete chain of events which would lead to a conclusion that the accused was the only person, who could have committed the offence and none-else. In Musheer Khan alias Badsah Khan vs. State of Madya Pradesh, (2010) 2 SCC 748 it has been observed that in cases of circumstantial evidence complete chain of circumstances must be looked and snapped or scattered links is not allege to convict and in Sanatan Naskar Vs. State of West Bengal, 2010 (3) R.C.R. (Cr.) 629 page 632 (S.C.), it has been held that court below took a wrong view of the matter, while convicting the accused in a case, where chain of events of the case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Though the law State of Maharashtra vs. Eknath Yshwant Pagar & Anr., AIR 1981 SC 1571 on which reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the appellant has got no relevance in the matter under hand because that relates to two accused, out of which one remained no more but in case under hand, there were three accused, main two accused are surviving and one of the accused being their mother died. 20. In Jiten Besra v. State of West Bengal, (2010) 2 S.C.C. (Cr.) 438 and in Kamla Devi vs. State of Delhi, 2012 (2) J.C.C. 1457 (Delhi) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that once it is found that circumstance could not point out towards guilt of accused, without any other inference being probable, the accused must get the benefit of doubt. In Baijnath & Ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2017 1 SCC 101 , Hon’ble the Supreme Court has held that in the cases of deficiencies of proof, benefit would be available to the person charged and in Narendra Singh & Another v. State of M.P., (2004) 10 SCC 699 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has also held that in event of there being two possible views, one supporting the accused should be upheld and Hon’ble the Supreme Court has recognized presumption of innocence as a human right. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that finding of guilt against the accused appellants is not correct. Hence, the instant appeal is allowed and impugned judgment and sentence are hereby set aside and quashed, accordingly both the appellants Diwan Singh and Bhagwan Singh are acquitted from the charge/s of Section 302/34 of IPC, they are already on bail, so need not to surrender, their sureties are discharged. Keeping in view, however, the provisions of Section 437A Cr.P.C. the accused appellants are directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount respectively, before the learned trial court, which shall be effective for a period of six months to the effect that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the judgment or for grant of leave, the appellants, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before Hon'ble the Supreme Court.