JUDGMENT Per: Hon'ble Rajiv Sharma, A.C.J. This appeal is instituted against the judgment and order dated 09.02.2018, rendered by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar, in Sessions Trial No.148 of 2006 and Sessions Trial No.147 of 2006, whereby the appellants were charged with and tried for the offences under Section 302/34, 201/34, 120-B/302 of IPC. The appellants were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous life imprisonment under Section 302/34 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- (each) and in default of payment of fine to undergo two years' additional imprisonment. The appellants were further convicted and sentenced to undergo five years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 201/34 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (each) and in default of payment of fine to undergo six months' additional simple imprisonment. The appellants were acquitted for the offence under Section 120-B/34 IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that Yashpal Singh lodged an FIR on 09.07.2005 to the effect that on 08.07.2005, the appellants who were the residents of Mangolpuri, Delhi have forcibly taken his brother namely Naresh Pal to Haridwar in a Maruti Car bearing No.DL-3C K-7090. They were staying in the house of Reshma, W/o Trilok Singh, R/o 101-Vivek Vihar. They have poisoned his brother. He was taken to the hospital at 11:30 AM. He was admitted. Thereafter, the appellants ran away from the spot. His brother had some property dispute with Gupta Property Dealer. His brother has purchased one flat from Gupta Property Dealer paying a sum of Rs.7.00 lakh. The Gupta Property Dealer returned Rs.3.50 lakh and remaining amount has not been given back to his brother. There was some dispute between his brother Naresh Pal and Gupta Property Dealer. Appellant-Maan Singh is the friend of Gupta Property Dealer. PW1 Yashpal Singh was of a firm view that the owner of the Gupta Property Dealer got his brother killed through Maan Singh, Rashmi and Roshni. The dead body was sent for postmortem examination. The postmortem examination was conducted by PW2 K.K. Tamta. The FIR was registered. The matter was investigated and the challan was put up against the appellants after completing all the codal formalities. The accused have been convicted and sentenced, as noticed hereinabove. Hence, this appeal. 3. Learned Advocate for the appellants has vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to proveits case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants. The FIR was registered. The matter was investigated and the challan was put up against the appellants after completing all the codal formalities. The accused have been convicted and sentenced, as noticed hereinabove. Hence, this appeal. 3. Learned Advocate for the appellants has vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to proveits case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has supported the judgment and order dated 09.02.2018. 4. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the judgment and record carefully. 5. PW1 Yashpal Singh is the brother of the deceased Naresh Pal. He has testified that on 07.08.2005, appellants have taken away his brother Naresh Pal from his residence to Haridwar in a car. They stayed in the house of Roshni. Reshma, Roshni and Maan Singh have poisoned his brother by pouring poison in the liquor. His brother was taken to City Hospital, Haridwar. Thereafter, the appellants ran away from the spot. His brother had dispute with Gupta Property Dealer. His brother has paid Rs.7.00 lakh to Gupta Property Dealer. Gupta Property Dealer has further sold the flat at Rs.11.00 lakh. He did not know the name of the owner of the Gupta Property Dealer. Gupta Property Dealer has only returned Rs.3.50 lakh to his brother. The police has recovered the bed-sheet on 09.07.2005 from the house of Reshma. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that he was at his home on 08.07.2005. He has not taken any leave. He has also admitted that Maan Singh and Roshni have not taken away his brother in his presence. He met them on the way. No quarrel has taken place in his presence between his brother and Gupta Property Dealer. He was confronted with the statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. He has stated that he forgot to mention in the statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. that the appellants have taken away his brother in his presence. He has further deposed that Daroga has not written his statement correctly. Sanjeev was his cousin. He did not know Ramesh. Sanjeev has also visited the hospital on 08.07.2005. Sanjeev met him in the hospital. 6. PW2 Dr. K.K. Tamta has conducted the postmortem examination. According to him, the death of the deceased was not ascertainable. Viscera was preserved. He has seen the Forensic Science Laboratory report. Sanjeev was his cousin. He did not know Ramesh. Sanjeev has also visited the hospital on 08.07.2005. Sanjeev met him in the hospital. 6. PW2 Dr. K.K. Tamta has conducted the postmortem examination. According to him, the death of the deceased was not ascertainable. Viscera was preserved. He has seen the Forensic Science Laboratory report. According to the report, aluminium phosphide was administered to the deceased. 7. PW3 Vikas Kumar is the son of deceased Naresh Pal. He has deposed that on 08.07.2005 appellants Maan Singh and Roshni have taken away his father in a Maruti Car to Haridwar. His father was unwell. His father was reluctant to go. His father was administered poison in liquor in the house of Reshma. He knew Sanjeev and Ramesh. According to him, Sanjeev and Ramesh have seen his father at liquor vend at Ranipur Jhal. They were talking about the financial transaction. They ran away from the spot. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that when the appellants have come to take away his father, he dissuaded his father. He and his uncle were in the house. His statement was recorded by the police under Section161 of Cr.P.C. According to him, Sanjeev and Ramesh hadvisited their house after 2-3 months of the incident and told him that they have seen his father in the company of Rashmi, Reshma and Maan Singh. 8. PW4 Dr. Harendra Tomar has deposed that the patient was brought to the hospital. The persons who have bought the patients to the hospital were perplexed. 9. PW5 Indrabala has deposed that the appellants have taken away her husband. He was reluctant to go. Some unknown person informed her on 09.07.2005 that her husband was unwell. He was admitted in the City Hospital, Haridwar. They have informed one Vijay Chauhan. He went to the hospital. Vijay Chauhan informed that her husband Naresh Pal has died. In her cross-examination, he has categorically admitted that on 08.07.2005 her brother-in-law Yashpal had gone to the office. He had not come to their house. No conversation has taken place between her and her brother-in-law. She has not tried to stop her husband when he is going to Haridwar. Her son was going to school at the time. 10. PW6 Vijay Singh was the landlord of Reshma. According to him, few guests have come to visit ReshmaDevi. One guest was unwell. No conversation has taken place between her and her brother-in-law. She has not tried to stop her husband when he is going to Haridwar. Her son was going to school at the time. 10. PW6 Vijay Singh was the landlord of Reshma. According to him, few guests have come to visit ReshmaDevi. One guest was unwell. He was taken to the hospital. In his cross-examination, he has categorically refused to identify the appellants in the Court. 11. PW7 D.M. Baluni has visited the spot and sent the dead body for postmortem examination after taking pictures. 12. PW8 Abbal Singh Rawat was the Investigating Officer. 13. PW9 S.I. Vinod Kumar is the formal witness. 14. The motive attributed to the appellants is that Naresh Pal has dispute with one Gupta Property Dealer. Naresh Pal has purchased a flat. He has paid Rs.7.00 lakh. However, Gupta Property Dealer has further sold the flat by taking Rs.11.00 lakh. Gupta Property Dealer has returned Rs.3.50 lakh and has not returned the remaining amount, which led to some dispute. The case of the prosecution is that Maan Singh was friend of Gupta Property Dealer. The appellants took Naresh Pal to Haridwar where he was administered poison. 15. The prosecution has not named the owner of the Gupta Property Dealer except mentioning Gupta Property Dealer. If Naresh Pal was killed at the behest of the owner of the Gupta Property Dealer by administering poison, that too, at Haridwar, his role should have been investigated. PW1 Yashpal has categorically admitted that he did not know the full name of the owner of Gupta Property Dealer. 16. The case of the prosecution also is that the appellants have forcibly taken away Naresh Pal to Haridwar. They stayed in the house of Reshma. Reshma has not been cited as witness by the prosecution. She was the tenant of PW6 Vijay Singh. PW6 Vijay Singh has refused to identify the appellants in the Court. 17. PW1 Yashpal, in his statement, has deposed that he was at his house when the appellants have taken away his brother Naresh Pal to Haridwar. However, his sister-in6 law PW5 Indrabala has deposed that PW1 Yashpal had gone to office. He has also deposed that he has seen the appellants taking away his brother. 17. PW1 Yashpal, in his statement, has deposed that he was at his house when the appellants have taken away his brother Naresh Pal to Haridwar. However, his sister-in6 law PW5 Indrabala has deposed that PW1 Yashpal had gone to office. He has also deposed that he has seen the appellants taking away his brother. However, this fact has neither been mentioned in the FIR nor in his statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. PW3 Vikas Kumar has deposed that he had not gone to school and the appellants have visited their house in his presence. The appellants have forcibly taken away his father. However, PW5 Indrabala has specifically deposed that her son was not at home. 18. According to PW1 Yashpal, Sanjeev was his cousin. PW3 Vikas Kumar has deposed that Sanjeev has also visited the hospital. He has not been cited as witness by the prosecution. The persons who have visited the hospital have not been examined. Though, PW3 Vikas Kumar has only stated that he knew Sanjeev and Ramesh. 19. It is not believable that a grown up person could be forcibly taken from Delhi to Haridwar. Nobody has seen the appellants putting poison in the liquor of the deceased. In the case based on circumstantial evidence, motive plays very important role. The genesis of the dispute is that Gupta Property Dealer has not returned the remaining amount to the deceased. The owner of the Gupta Property Dealer was never arrayed as accused. Appellant-MaanSingh has not been linked with him. Reshma was neither added as accused nor cited as witness. 20. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1984 (4) SCC 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. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned “must or should" and not “may be" established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned “must or should" and not “may be" established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between “may be proved" and “must be or should be proved" as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of 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." 21. 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 canbe 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." 22. 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 PW2 and PW13. He pointed out that PW2 had stated in his evidence that PW13 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. PW13, 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 PW1 and PW13. He submitted that while PW1 has stated that PW13 had accompanied him to search for the deceased, PW13 had stated that he never accompanied PW1 to search for the dead body of the deceased. He also pointed out some discrepancies in the evidence of PW2 and PW19, 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 PW13 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 PW1, PW2, PW13 and PW19. 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." 23. 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 amajor 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 tosay 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." 24. 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." 25. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussion made hereinabove, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 09.02.2018 is set aside. Appellants are acquitted of the charges framed against them. The appellants are in jail. They be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 26. Let a copy of this judgment along with LCR be sent back to the trial court for forthwith compliance.