JUDGMENT : Mohammad Rafiq, J. These two appeals are directed against the judgment dated 12.07.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (for short 'the trial court') in Sessions Case No. 40/2009(39/2009) whereby the accused appellants were convicted for offence under Section 302 IPC simpliciter and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, they were to further undergo one month's imprisonment. 2. Facts of the case as emerging from the record are that on 12.12.2008, one Roshan Chaudhary (P.W.1) submitted a written report (Exhibit P-1) to S.H.O., Police Station Karni Vihar, Jaipur stating therein that on that day at about 8.00 A.M. while he was coming from Kana Vihar Road towards highway, he saw a dead body soaked in blood lying near the railing of express highway. When he went closer, he saw that the body was still bleeding from his neck. It appeared that someone, after murdering that person, had thrown his body at that place. Dead body was still lying at that place. Therefore, action be taken. On the basis of aforesaid written report (Exhibit P-1), police registered FIR No.157/2008 (Exhibit P-2) for offences under Sections 302, 201 IPC. Accused-appellants were arrested. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused-appellants for the aforementioned offences before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur and the case was thereafter committed to District and Sessions Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan and was subsequently made over to the court of the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1 for trial. The trial court framed charge under Section 302 IPC against the accused appellants, which they denied and claimed to be tried. accused appellants were discharged from the charge under Section 201 IPC. In order to prove its case, the prosecution produced 16 witnesses and exhibited 46 documents. Thereafter accused appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they pleaded innocence. Defence did not produce any witness but exhibited two documents. The trial court vide judgment dated 12.07.2011 convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants in the manner as indicated above. Hence, these appeals. 3. Mr. Dinesh Kala, learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused-appellant Raja Ram and Mr. Thereafter accused appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they pleaded innocence. Defence did not produce any witness but exhibited two documents. The trial court vide judgment dated 12.07.2011 convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants in the manner as indicated above. Hence, these appeals. 3. Mr. Dinesh Kala, learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused-appellant Raja Ram and Mr. Vijay Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused-appellant Kathhin Singh @ Kathan Singh argued that both the accused-appellants have been falsely implicated in the present case only because the police was not able to nab the real culprit. Trial court has failed to appreciate statements of prosecution witnesses in their true perspective and has committed error in convicting the accused-appellants for offence under Section 302 IPC simpliciter. Entire case of the prosecution hinges on circumstantial evidence. Chain of circumstances taken to have been proved against the appellants by the trial court has several missing links. Most significant circumstance against the accused-appellants relied by the trial court is that of evidence of last seen given by Sheela Bai (P.W.11) wife of the deceased. She has stated that on 11.12.2008 accused-appellants came to her residence along with her husband. Raja Ram and Kathhin Singh @ Kathan Singh came to her room with liquor. They consumed liquor with her husband in the evening and thereafter Raja Ram told that they would take both of them (this witness and her husband) to bus stand as they both wanted to go to their native place. This witness later stated that they asked only her husband and not her to go with them to the bus stand. Only her husband then accompanied them for bus stand. Both of them returned back to her room after 2½ hours and informed that they left her husband in a bus at the bus stand and he had gone to his native. While Raja Ram went to his room, Kathhin Singh @ Kathan Singh stayed with her in her room. In the morning, Raja Ram and Kathhin Singh went for work. Kathhin Singh took away her mobile phone, therefore, she could not talk to anybody at her in-laws place. After six days, photograph of his deceased husband was published in the newspaper. Residents and children of the colony informed her about photograph of deceased-husband in the newspaper. She went for search of Kathhin Singh, but he could not find her. Kathhin Singh took away her mobile phone, therefore, she could not talk to anybody at her in-laws place. After six days, photograph of his deceased husband was published in the newspaper. Residents and children of the colony informed her about photograph of deceased-husband in the newspaper. She went for search of Kathhin Singh, but he could not find her. Thereafter, she returned back and started crying. Even as she was contemplating to go to police station for lodging FIR, the police people came to her room. Police took her to police station where they showed photograph of her husband whom she identified to be her husband. Thereafter, the police took her to S.M.S. Hospital and made her to identify dead body of her husband. This witness also stated that about one month ago, his husband picked up quarrel with Kathhin Singh as he (her husband) used to doubt her chastity assuming that she was having relations with Kathhin Singh. 4. Learned counsel argued that when statement of Sheela Bai (P.W.11) is read in entirety, the same cannot be considered as that of last seen because she has stated that deceased went with accused appellants at about 6.00 P.M. in the evening and then the accused appellants returned at about 8.30 P.M., i.e. 2½ hours thereafter, whereas dead body of the deceased, as per Roshan Chaudhary (P.W.1) was found in the morning at about 8.00 A.M., who has categorically stated that dead body was still bleeding from neck. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants in this connection referred to statement of Prabhat Kumar (P.W.5), photographer, who has stated that the deceased was still bleeding. Learned counsel also referred to statement of Dr. Jitendra Joshi (P.W.10), who in cross-examination stated that deceased Pahalwan Singh died due to shock as a result of excessive bleeding. If steps are not taken to stop the bleeding, whole blood of the body would drain out within 5-10 minutes and patient will go into shock and die at the maximum within half-an-hour. Learned counsel argued that as per the testimony of Prabhat Kumar (P.W.5) and Roshan Chaudhary (P.W.1) if the dead body was still bleeding, the incident must have taken place within half-an-hour of the time when his dead body was noticed by Roshan Chaudhary (P.W.1). Evidence of last seen as per Roshan Chaudhary (P.W.1) therefore cannot be used against the accused-appellants. Learned counsel argued that as per the testimony of Prabhat Kumar (P.W.5) and Roshan Chaudhary (P.W.1) if the dead body was still bleeding, the incident must have taken place within half-an-hour of the time when his dead body was noticed by Roshan Chaudhary (P.W.1). Evidence of last seen as per Roshan Chaudhary (P.W.1) therefore cannot be used against the accused-appellants. According to Sheela Bai (P.W.11) both the accused-appellants returned back 2½ hours after they left room of deceased for dropping him at bus stand. It is contended that there are several other residents in the building where the deceased and his wife were residing in a room and no one has been produced to prove that the accused-appellants were lastly seen with the deceased. Besides, if the deceased was going to his native in Madhya Pradesh by bus, he must have carried certain luggage, but no such luggage or shoes of the deceased have been recovered. It is argued that as per Panchnama (Exhibit P-4), there were marks of semen on right thigh of the deceased and on his dhoti which shows that after he left his room, he must have gone to some woman and had sex and possibly because of some dispute that might have arisen there, the deceased was put to death by someone. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that recoveries of blood stained clothes of the accused-appellants Raja Ram and Kathhin Singh (Exhibit P-15 and Exhibit P-16 respectively) and knife ('churri') at the instance of accused Kathhin @ Khatan Singh (Exhibit P-17) are nothing, but a case of police padding. These recoveries are fake and fabricated. The incident took place in the night of 11.12.2008 whereas accused-appellants were arrested on 17.12.2008. Both the accused-appellants are residents of Madhya Pradesh and natives of same place to which the deceased and his wife belong. The evidence clearly shows that their post incident conduct was absolutely normal, which has been proved by Bhav Singh (P.W.15) who has stated that on 16.12.2008, he and Kathhin Singh were sitting at 'chokhti', a place where labourers of unorganized sector assemble for being hired by contractors/builders/those carrying out any construction activity. The evidence clearly shows that their post incident conduct was absolutely normal, which has been proved by Bhav Singh (P.W.15) who has stated that on 16.12.2008, he and Kathhin Singh were sitting at 'chokhti', a place where labourers of unorganized sector assemble for being hired by contractors/builders/those carrying out any construction activity. Had the appellants Raja Ram and Kathhin Singh @ Khatan Singh committed murder of deceased, their natural conduct would have been to flee away from Jaipur and to go back to their native or elsewhere, rather than being available at Jaipur and regularly go to 'Chokhti'. This shows that they have been falsely implicated. Blood stained clothes of accused Raja Ram (Exhibit P-15) have been recovered at his instance (Exhibit P-41) on 19.12.2008 from the same room from which knife ('churri') was recovered (Exhibit P-17) at the instance of Kathhin Singh (Exhibit P-42). Site plans of the room (Exhibit P-16 and P-18) in respect of these two recoveries would show that it is the same room where both the accused appellants were residing together. Site plan also shows that there are 13 rooms in the building which are mostly rented out to labourers and large number of labourers stay in one single room as they cannot afford to hire independent room. Despite that, no witness has come forward to say that accused-appellants were ever seen with blood stained clothes or carrying any blood stained knife ('churri'). Falsity of the police investigation stands exposed from the fact that the blood stained clothes of Kathhin Singh were recovered on 24.12.2008 from the same room wherefrom blood stained clothes of accused Raja Ram and knife ('churri') were recovered on 19.12.2008. This was a small room in the size of 10x10 and as per site plan, it is same room where from both sets of recoveries were made. Therefore, whole process of recoveries is shrouded by doubt. It is unnatural that a person who has committed murder would conceal beneath the mattress blood stain clothes in an open room in which several labourers are residing. At this stage, learned counsel also referred to testimony of Shriram (P.W.9) and Bhav Singh (P.W.15), attesting witnesses of the recoveries. Shriram (P.W.9) in his cross-examination stated that large number of police personnel accompanied the accused when they were taken to the room. Ramdhan (P.W.16), investigating officer has also stated so. At this stage, learned counsel also referred to testimony of Shriram (P.W.9) and Bhav Singh (P.W.15), attesting witnesses of the recoveries. Shriram (P.W.9) in his cross-examination stated that large number of police personnel accompanied the accused when they were taken to the room. Ramdhan (P.W.16), investigating officer has also stated so. There was therefore no reason for not searching entire room rather than making such recoveries in piecemeal, which shows that entire recoveries are fabricated. 6. It is further argued that neither Post Mortem Report (Exhibit P-31) nor FSL Report (Exhibit P-32) indicated presence of alcohol in the stomach of the deceased. Even in the inquest report (Exhibit P-4) it is not mentioned that the deceased was smelling of alcohol. Ramdhan (P.W.16), investigating officer has also categorically stated that had the dead body of the deceased smelled of alcohol, he would have certainly mentioned this fact in the report. Therefore, testimony of Sheela Bai (P.W.11) is not reliable because when Bhav Singh (P.W.15) was confronted with the articles recovered by the police, he did not identify them and only stated that he could not say as to which articles were seized by the police and from whose possession and at whose instance. He even denied knowledge of the fact that any identification of these articles took place in his presence. Learned counsel argued that place of occurrence where the dead body of the deceased was found is public place facing two tea stalls. If the dead body was found around 8.00 A.M. with the deceased still bleeding from the neck, the incident possibly must have taken place within half an hour prior thereto but no witness has come forward who might have seen the incident, especially when highway was the place of occurrence. Testimony of Sheela Bai (P.W.11) wife of the deceased is not reliable because Neki Bai (P.W.7), her mother-in-law and Bhav Singh (P.W.15) raised doubt about her character. There is no explanation why did she not try to contact any one at his native about her missing husband from 12.12.2008 to 17.12.2008. She has also not stated that when the accused-appellants returned back, they had changed their clothes or whether their clothes were having any blood stains. There is no explanation why did she not try to contact any one at his native about her missing husband from 12.12.2008 to 17.12.2008. She has also not stated that when the accused-appellants returned back, they had changed their clothes or whether their clothes were having any blood stains. Moreover, it has not been established by any evidence whatsoever that as to what was the blood group of the deceased and therefore, FSL Report of the clothes and recovery at the instance of the accused-appellants cannot be conclusively connected with the crime. Blood group of most of the articles, except one i.e. pant exhibited as Article 10, were found to contain human blood, but the result was inconclusive with regard to blood grouping. Pant (Article 10) was found to contain blood of O Group, but it is of no significance because neither it has been established that blood group of the deceased was O Group, nor it has been ruled out that blood group of either of accused was not of O Group. It is argued that accused appellants were sent to judicial custody on 24.12.2008 and therefore, recovery of blood stained clothes at the instance of accused-appellant Kathhin Singh vide Exhibit P-19 is fabricated. Police station is situated at hardly five minutes run from the place of occurrence and this being highway, regular patrolling of national highway is also there, therefore, it is quite unnatural that no one would have witnessed the incident which took place around 7.30 in the morning. In support of their arguments, learned counsel for the appellants have relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Nizam & Another v. State of Rajasthan, (2016) 1 SCC 550 . It is, therefore, prayed that present appeals be allowed and impugned judgment be set aside. 7. Mr. R.S. Raghav, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State opposed the appeals and supported the judgment passed by the trial court. He argued that Sheela Bai (P.W.11) is the witness of last seen, who has stated that the accused-appellants had come to their room with liquor and they along with her husband consumed liquor. Then they took her husband to bus stand. They returned back after 2½ hours thereafter to her room. He argued that Sheela Bai (P.W.11) is the witness of last seen, who has stated that the accused-appellants had come to their room with liquor and they along with her husband consumed liquor. Then they took her husband to bus stand. They returned back after 2½ hours thereafter to her room. It is argued that accused-appellants despite being confronted with such incriminating circumstances, failed to give explanation as to when they parted company with the deceased and where they left him. In the morning, he was found dead and therefore, learned trial court was wholly justified in relying on testimony of this witness as the evidence of last seen against the accused-appellants. It is submitted that from the statements of Sheela Bai (P.W.11), Neki Bai (P.W.7), Bhav Singh (P.W.15), motive of the crime is also proved. Neki Bai (P.W.7) mother of the deceased has stated that accused Kathhin Singh had physical relations with Sheela, wife of deceased and the deceased used to object to this. At times, she also forbade Kathhin Singh from coming to Sheela and Kathhin Singh thereupon threatened that he would put her to death, if she objected to their relationship. This witness also stated that Sheela did not have good character. Bhav Singh (P.W.15) uncle of the deceased has also stated that Kathhin Singh had taken deceased Phalawan Singh on his bike to the bus stand as he had to go to his native and Sheela told him that all of them consumed liquor in her room before leaving. Thereafter, Kathhin Singh returned back to their room. After some time, Raja Ram went to his own room but Kathhin Singh stayed with Sheela. When he enquired from Sheela as to how Pahalwan Singh was murdered, she informed that the deceased saw her with Kathhin Singh in objectionable position in the room about a month ago. When Pahalwan Singh objected to this, Kathhin Singh threatened that he would murder him. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that recovery of blood stained clothes of the accused appellants at the instance of both the accused and recovery of knife ('churri') at the instance of Kathhin Singh has been proved by evidence of attesting witnesses, i.e. Shriram (P.W.9) and Bhav Singh (P.W.15) as also by Ramdhan (P.W.16), Investigating Officer. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that recovery of blood stained clothes of the accused appellants at the instance of both the accused and recovery of knife ('churri') at the instance of Kathhin Singh has been proved by evidence of attesting witnesses, i.e. Shriram (P.W.9) and Bhav Singh (P.W.15) as also by Ramdhan (P.W.16), Investigating Officer. It is contended that only because recovery of blood stained clothes of Kathhin Singh was made on 24.12.2008 from the same room where from blood stained clothes of Raja Ram and knife ('churri') at the instance of Kathhin Singh were recovered on 19.12.2008, later recovery cannot be suspected being fabricated, particularly when two independent witnesses have proved the same. It is contended that FSL Report (Exhibit P-33) proves that clothes of both the accused appellants and knife ('churri') contained human blood. Since, there was time gap between the incident and the recovery, accused got the opportunity to wash out blood stains. Even then, few blood stains were found. Mere fact that blood group could not be ascertained due to insufficiency, cannot be a reason to discard said recovery. It is, therefore, prayed that both the appeals may be dismissed. 8. We have given our anxious consideration to rival submissions and perused the material on record. 9. Most significant circumstance, which the prosecution has sought to prove against the appellants is that of last seen. Only witness, who has been produced to prove this circumstance against the accused-appellants is none other than the wife of deceased Pahalwan Singh, Sheela Bai (P.W.11). She has stated that on 11.12.2008, her husband had planned to go to his native place, but in the evening on that day, accused-appellants came to their room with liquor and all three of them consumed the same. Thereafter, the accused-appellants took her husband with them to bus stand for making him to catch the bus for his native. She further stated that after 2½ hours thereafter both the accused appellants returned back to her room and informed that her husband had gone to his native in the bus. While Raja Ram went to his room, Kathhin Singh stayed with her in her room. In the next day morning, Raja Ram and Kathhin Singh went to work for earning their livelihood. While Raja Ram went to his room, Kathhin Singh stayed with her in her room. In the next day morning, Raja Ram and Kathhin Singh went to work for earning their livelihood. As has rightly been argued by learned counsel for the accused-appellants that this witness has not stated that when both the accused-appellants returned back to her room, whether they had changed their clothes or had any blood stains on their clothes. If they had indeed indulged in committing murder of the deceased and returned back to the room of the deceased, they would have blood stains on their clothes. Illicit relationship between Kathhin Singh and Sheela Bai has been cited as motive for murder of the deceased and therefore, conclusion of the investigating officer in not joining her as accused along with Kathhin Singh weakens the case of the prosecution because otherwise she would also be a party to conspiracy of having her husband liquidated. Sheela Bai (P.W.11) has not been joined as accused on the conspiracy of having her husband murdered by instigating Kathhin Singh, with whom she allegedly had illicit relationship. This witness (Sheela Bai) stated that about one month ago, her husband picked up quarrel with Kathhin Singh since he used to doubt her chastity and used to object her mingling with Kathhin Singh. Moreover, her statement to the effect that both the accused-appellants and her husband had consumed liquor before the accused took him to bus stand is not substantiated by evidence. The panchnama (Exhibit P-4) does not mention that dead body of the deceased was smelling of alcohol. Even though Post Mortem Report proves presence of semi digested food in the stomach, but it is not mentioned therein that viscera of the deceased was containing alcohol. In fact, Visecra of the deceased was sent to FSL, report of which is Exhibit P-32 and it also does not prove presence of alcohol in his stomach. Blood sample of the deceased in three packets gave negative test for metallic poisons, ethyl and methyl alcohol, cyanide, alkaloids, barbiturates, tranquilizers and insecticides. It is, therefore, highly unsafe to rely on testimony of Sheela Bai (P.W.11) because story of presence of alcohol in the stomach or the blood of the deceased has not been substantiated. 10. Blood sample of the deceased in three packets gave negative test for metallic poisons, ethyl and methyl alcohol, cyanide, alkaloids, barbiturates, tranquilizers and insecticides. It is, therefore, highly unsafe to rely on testimony of Sheela Bai (P.W.11) because story of presence of alcohol in the stomach or the blood of the deceased has not been substantiated. 10. Moreover, if the accused-appellants were guilty of committing murder of deceased, their normal conduct would have been to immediately flee away from Jaipur and go back to their native place or elsewhere. On the contrary, uncle of the deceased, Bhav Singh (P.W.15), who is also a labourer, has stated that accused-appellant Kathhin Singh continued to work and he also used to go to 'chokhti' in search of work where Pahalwan Singh and others went. On 16.12.2008, this witness and Kathhin Singh were sitting at 'chokhti' at Karni Palace, which is close to the place of incident. One person came there with photograph of the deceased and showed the same to both of them. He identified the photograph as that of Pahalwan Singh. Kathhin Singh also identified him. In the photograph, there was a mark of cut on the neck of Pahalwan Singh. This shows that the accused Kathhin Singh continued to be available in Jaipur and also continued to go to 'chokhti' in search of work and used to work as labourer on different construction sites. As per Investigating Officer, both the accused-appellants Kathhin Singh and Raja Ram were arrested on the same day, i.e. 17.12.2008 at 4.30 P.M. and 4.40 P.M. respectively vide Exhibit P-7 and Exhibit P-8. Information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act with regard to blood stained clothes was obtained from accused Raja Ram vide Exhibit P-41 on 19.12.2008 at about 2.20 P.M. and information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act regarding blood stained knife ('churri') was obtained from accused Kathhin Singh vide Exhibit P-42 on 19.12.2008 at about 2.30 P.M., respectively. Police then went to the room where the accused-appellants were residing. Recovery of blood stained clothes of Raja Ram was made from that room on 19.12.2008 at 4.30 P.M. vide Exhibit P-15 and recovery of blood stained knife ('churri') has been shown to be made at the instance of accused Kathhin Singh from that very room on 19.12.2008 at 5.05 P.M. vide Exhibit P-17. Recovery of blood stained clothes of Raja Ram was made from that room on 19.12.2008 at 4.30 P.M. vide Exhibit P-15 and recovery of blood stained knife ('churri') has been shown to be made at the instance of accused Kathhin Singh from that very room on 19.12.2008 at 5.05 P.M. vide Exhibit P-17. There recoveries were made from the same room situated in a building which had 13 similar rooms. It is surprising that till that day neither any information was procured by the investigating officer from the accused-appellant Kathhin Singh with regard to recovery of his blood stained clothes, nor any such recovery was made on that day. Memo of information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was prepared on 24.12.2008 at 8.05 A.M. showing that the accused-appellant Kathhin Singh allegedly gave information to Investigating Officer that he would get his blood stained clothes recovered from that room and eventually that recovery is shown to have been made from that very room vide Exhibit P-19 at 8.45 A.M. on 24.12.2008. There is similarity in the pattern and language of the recovery memo of blood stained clothes of Raja Ram (Exhibit P- 15) and recovery memo of blood stained clothes of Kathhin Singh (Exhibit P-19). When we compare these two memos they are not only exactly and similarly worded, but the pattern of recovery is also similar. While in Exhibit P-15, it is shown that Raja Ram got his clothes (one pant and shirt) recovered from beneath his mattress, Exhibit P-19 indicates that Kathhin Singh also got his pant and shirt recovered from beneath his mattress. One wonders that when large number of police personnel visited that small room on 19.12.2008, why did they not search the entire room on 19.12.2008 itself and why blood stained clothes would be left in that room to be recovered after five days. It is highly improbable that both the accused-appellants after committing murder of the deceased would continue to keep with them their clothes containing blood stains concealed beneath their respective mattresses in the room, which they share with several other labourers and that too in a building where 13 such rooms are shared on rent by large number of labourers. It is highly improbable that both the accused-appellants after committing murder of the deceased would continue to keep with them their clothes containing blood stains concealed beneath their respective mattresses in the room, which they share with several other labourers and that too in a building where 13 such rooms are shared on rent by large number of labourers. The manner, in which the recovery of blood stained clothes of Kathhin Singh @ Kathan Singh is shown is to have been made, does not inspire confidence and indeed appears to be result of police padding. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants are justified in arguing that if the deceased had left his room and wife to go to his native by bus, why no efforts were made by the police in recovering luggage and shoes of the deceased. This coupled with the fact that the deceased was not found to have consumed liquor/alcohol, raise serious doubt about the version given by Sheela Bai (P.W.11) wife of the deceased. Therefore, the incident cannot be held to have taken place in the manner in which it is alleged to have taken place. Stand of the defence further gets emboldened from the statements of Roshan Chaudhary (P.W.1) and Prabhat Kumar (P.W.5). Roshan Chaudhary (P.W.1) stated that when he reached 15 minutes thereafter, and he noticed that the deceased was still bleeding from his neck. These statements assume significance when read with the statement of Dr. Jitendra Joshi (P.W.10), who has stated that it takes about 10-15 minutes for any human body to completely drain out the blood and sending the person into shock resulting into his death within maximum 30 minutes. Defence has thus been able to show that the deceased must have died within half an hour prior to the time when his dead body was discovered by informant Roshan Chaudhary (P.W.1), This would mean that when it is shown by Sheela Bai (P.W.11) that accused appellants Kathhin Singh and Raja Ram returned to her room 2½ hours after they left with her husband, her testimony of last seen with regard to accused appellants being lastly seen in the company of the deceased loses significance. 12. Analysis of the evidence made herein above thus clearly shows that the prosecution has failed to prove three circumstances individually or cumulatively, namely; last seen theory, recoveries and motive. 12. Analysis of the evidence made herein above thus clearly shows that the prosecution has failed to prove three circumstances individually or cumulatively, namely; last seen theory, recoveries and motive. It is well settled principle that circumstances from which conclusion of guilt is drawn, should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. All circumstances should be complete, forming a chain and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence and the circumstances must be consistent only with hypothesis of guilt of accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence. In the present case, chain of circumstances sought to be proved against the accused-appellants is found to contain several missing links and gaps. We are, therefore, unable to agree with the view taken by the learned trial court, which arrived at the conclusion of guilt of accused-appellants for convicting them for offence of murder. 13. In the result, present appeals deserve to succeed and are accordingly allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 12.07.2011 passed by the trial court is set aside. The accused appellants Raja Ram and Kathhin Singh @ Kathan Singh is acquitted of the charge for offences under Section 302 IPC. They be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. 14. Keeping, however, in view the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellants, namely, Raja Ram and Kathhin Singh @ Kathan Singh are directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount, before the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, which shall be effective for a period of six months, undertaking that in the event of Special Leave Petition being filed against this judgment or on grant of leave, each of them, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court.