JUDGMENT : NELSON SAILO, J. 1. Heard Mr. G. Baishya, the learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. B. Bhuyan, the learned Addl. P.P. Assam. 2. This is an appeal against the Judgment dated 09.05.2013, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kokrajhar in Sessions Case No. 05/2009 convicting the accused/appellant U/s 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence U/s 302 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for three years with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence under Section 201 IPC. Both sentences are with a default clause and are to run concurrently. For convenience, the convicted accused will be referred as the appellant hereafter. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that one Shri Sambhu Barman, father of the deceased (PW-1) lodged an FIR before the Officer in Charge of Garufela Police Outpost on 18.09.2007 stating that on 16.09.2007 (Sunday) at about 4 p.m. his third son Shri Gautam Barman (the deceased) aged about 16 years went to the residence of the appellant to collect money for PACL company. Thereafter his son called up one of his neighbour’s son Shri Kirshna Sutradhar (PW-3) at around 5 p.m. informing him that he was in danger and asked him to inform his mother that he will be late by half an hour. When Shri Krishna Sutradhar called him back after half an hour, his phone was switched off. Thereafter, he with his elder son and two other persons went to the house of the appellant only to be informed that his son had returned home at around 6 p.m. Alleging that his son was brutally killed near No. 2 Hatigarh river, he lodged the FIR naming as many as 13 persons including the appellant. He also mentioned that his son had opened his Paan shop on the day when bandh was called by AKRASU unaware about the bandh and therefore, his son was killed due to some conspiracy made by the persons named in the FIR. 4. The FIR was received by the Garufela Police Outpost and GD entry No. 275 dated 18.09.2007 was made whereafter, it was forwarded to the Officer-in-Charge of Kachugaon Police Station for registering a case. 4. The FIR was received by the Garufela Police Outpost and GD entry No. 275 dated 18.09.2007 was made whereafter, it was forwarded to the Officer-in-Charge of Kachugaon Police Station for registering a case. Consequently, Kachugaon P.S. Case No. 37/2007 U/s 147, 148, 149, 302, 201 and 120 (B) of the IPC was registered and the case investigated into. 5. Upon completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant only. The case being triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kokrajhar committed the case to the learned Sessions Judge, Kokrajhar whereafter, charge was framed U/s 302 and 201 IPC against the appellant. Against the charge, the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. The prosecution during the trial examined as many as 11 (eleven) prosecution witnesses including the Medical Officer and the two Investigation Officers (I.O.). The appellant was examined U/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) and confronted with the evidence led by the prosecution. However, the response of the appellant to the questions put up to him was only that of denial and lack of knowledge. The appellant also refused to lead any evidence in his defence. 7. To conclude the trial, the learned trial Court heard the arguments of the rival parties and thereafter, passed its Judgment on 09.05.2013 convicting and sentencing the appellant U/s 302 and 201 IPC as aforementioned. 8. Mr. G. Baishya, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that there were no eye witnesses to the alleged crime and the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant only on the basis of circumstantial evidence. He submits that in order to convict an accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence, there has to be a chain of events clearly revealing the role of the accused to the commission of the alleged crime so that an inevitable conclusion can be arrived at and the guilt of the accused established. However, in the instant case, from the evidence led by the prosecution, he submits that a complete chain to implicate the appellant is missing and for which reason, conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained. However, in the instant case, from the evidence led by the prosecution, he submits that a complete chain to implicate the appellant is missing and for which reason, conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained. He also submits that the PW-1 to PW-6 considerably improved their versions by implicating the appellant during their depositions before the trial Court which on a comparison with their statements recorded under section 161 of the Cr.P.C. can be clearly noticed. Therefore, there being inconsistencies, material contradictions and improvements in their version, no reliance can be placed on such evidence to convict the appellant. In support of his submission, Mr. G. Baishya relies upon the following decisions of the Apex Court:- (i) State of Rajasthan vs. Rajendra Singh, (2009) 11 SCC 106 (ii) Subhash vs. State of Haryana, (2011) 2 SCC 715 9. Mr. G. Baishya, the learned counsel goes on to submit that the prosecution failed to examine any concrete witnesses to prove the charge U/s 302 and 201 of the IPC and all the evidences were only hearsay and cannot be relied upon to convict the appellant. He submits that besides the official witnesses, the other witnesses were in fact interested witnesses and therefore, unreliable without adequate corroboration. He also submits that in the absence of any eye witness or a confessional statement recorded and proved, the last seen together theory cannot be applied to implicate the appellant and to convict him. 10. Mr. G. Baishya, the learned counsel also submits that the learned trial Court failed to consider the fact that the FIR was filed against 13 (thirteen) persons with the allegation that they were the cadres of AKRASU and that since the deceased opened his shop on the day when bandh was called by AKRASU, they had threatened the deceased with his life. However, charge sheet was filed only against the appellant. Mr. G. Baishya submits that from the inquest report as well as from the post-mortem report, it can be noticed that the hands of the deceased were tied on his back side with a rope and multiple ligature marks with chain and rope appeared on his neck. Therefore, with the state in which the deceased was recovered and the kind of injury found on him, it was not at all possible for the appellant alone to have committed the alleged crime. Therefore, with the state in which the deceased was recovered and the kind of injury found on him, it was not at all possible for the appellant alone to have committed the alleged crime. However the same was neither discussed nor considered by the learned trial Court and therefore, the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court convicting and sentencing the appellant cannot be sustained and should be set aside. 11. Mr. G. Baishya, finally submits that the learned trial Court failed to consider the fact that the PW-5 and PW-11 categorically admitted that the informant i.e. PW-1 filed a missing report prior to filing of the FIR which establishes the fact that the evidence adduced by PW-1 is unreliable. He therefore submits that considering the facts and circumstances, the prosecution has miserably failed to establish their case and therefore, the conviction and sentence vide judgment dated 09.05.2013 is not sustainable in law and should be set aside and quashed. 12. Ms. B. Bhuyan, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam appearing for the State supports the judgment dated 09.05.2013. Opening her argument, she has drawn our attention to the FIR and the deposition of PW-1, PW-3 and PW-5. By referring to the deposition of PW-1, she submits that the deceased used to give money to the appellant for making an insurance deposit in a private company for about two years. However, as the appellant hardly gave him the receipts for deposits made by him even after being reminded, a quarrel broke out between them and amidst the quarrel, the appellant threatened to kill the deceased and throw him into the water (river). On the fateful day, the appellant over phone asked the deceased to come to his house to collect his money. The deceased after informing PW-1 went to the house of the appellant around 3 to 4 p.m. but did not return. PW-3 then came over and informed the inmates of the house that the deceased called him up over phone and informed him that he was at the appellant’s house and was in trouble. On getting the news, PW-1 alongwith PW-6 went to the house of the appellant to enquire about the deceased. However, on reaching the house of the appellant, the appellant did not allow them to enter the house and told them that the deceased came but had already left for home. On getting the news, PW-1 alongwith PW-6 went to the house of the appellant to enquire about the deceased. However, on reaching the house of the appellant, the appellant did not allow them to enter the house and told them that the deceased came but had already left for home. The next day, the dead body of the deceased was found behind the appellant’s house at the edge of Kathalguri river with multiple injuries on his person following which, FIR was lodged by PW-1. 13. Ms. B. Bhuyan submits that the deposition of PW-1 is corroborated by the depositions of PW-3 and PW-5 and therefore, considering the evidence led by them, the last person to be with the deceased was the appellant and therefore, in absence of any evidence or even an explanation to the contrary, it is clear that the deceased was murdered by the appellant. She therefore submits that the appellant was rightly convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court and the Judgment dated 09.05.2013 requires no interference and should be upheld. 14. We have heard the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the materials available on record including the lower Court records. As may be noticed, as many as 11(eleven) prosecution witnesses have been examined by the prosecution during the trial. There are no eye-witnesses to the crime nor has confessional statements been recorded. The appellant was convicted and sentenced on the strength of the evidence led by the prosecution witnesses and therefore, it would be apposite to examine the evidence led by the prosecution through their witnesses. 15. PW-1 Shri. Sambhu Barman (father of the deceased) in his examination-in-chief stated that his son used to deposit money in a private company through the appellant for the last 2 (two) years. Although the appellant gave his son some receipts for the money deposited but however, the appellant failed to give him most of the receipts despite being reminded. As a result, a quarrel broke out between them a few days before the incident wherein the appellant threatened to kill him and throw him into the water (river). His son having not received the receipts demanded his money back. On the date of the incident i.e. 16.09.2007, the appellant called his son over phone and asked him to come to his house so as to return him his money. His son having not received the receipts demanded his money back. On the date of the incident i.e. 16.09.2007, the appellant called his son over phone and asked him to come to his house so as to return him his money. His son after informing him left from the appellant’s house around 3 to 4 p.m. in the afternoon. However, he did not return back till late evening and while they were waiting for his return, PW-3 came to his house and informed him that the deceased had called him up saying that he was at appellant’s house and was in trouble. On getting such news, PW-1 alongwith his other son i.e. PW-6 went to the appellant’s house but the appellant did not allow them to enter into his house and told them that the deceased came and left to return back home. The deceased however did not return home and instead his dead body was found with multiple injuries on his person. Consequently, FIR was lodged and police investigation conducted. PW-1 in his cross-examination reiterated what he stated in his examination-in-chief. He also added that he did not mention in the FIR about his son calling up PW-3 and informing him that he was in trouble at the appellant’s house. 16. PW-2 Shri Monoranjan Sarkar deposed in his examination-in-chief that he saw the deceased with the appellant alongwith two other persons on the day of the incident around dusk. Upon being asked why he was there, the deceased informed that he had come to collect money from the appellant. The next day upon hearing some commotion in the house of the appellant, he went to the appellant’s house. He also saw the dead body of the deceased floating in the Kathalguri river with his hands tied behind his back with multiple injuries on his person. The police came and took the dead body out of the river. The appellant was not to be found at the relevant time but was later caught by the police. On being interrogated by the police, the appellant confessed that he killed the deceased. In his cross-examination, he reiterated what he stated in his examination-in-chief. 17. The police came and took the dead body out of the river. The appellant was not to be found at the relevant time but was later caught by the police. On being interrogated by the police, the appellant confessed that he killed the deceased. In his cross-examination, he reiterated what he stated in his examination-in-chief. 17. PW-3 Shri Krishna Sutradhar in his examination-in-chief deposed that on the day of the incident i.e. 16.09.2007, at 5.45 p.m. the deceased rang him up from his mobile phone from the residence of the appellant and told him that the appellant had detained him and that he was in extreme danger. PW-3 then rushed to the house of PW-1 and informed the mother of the deceased about the phone call he just received. When he tried to call up the deceased again, he found his phone to be switched off. Later in the night, when he tried to contact the deceased again on the request of the mother of the deceased, the phone was still found to be switched off. The dead body of the deceased was recovered from Kathalguri river behind the house of the appellant in the morning of 18.09.2007 but PW-3 stated that he did not visit the place from where the dead body was recovered. PW-3 in his cross-examination stated that when the police recorded his statement the night before the recovery of the dead body of the deceased, he did not inform the police that the deceased had called him up from the residence of the appellant telling him that he was in extreme danger. All that he stated before the police was that the deceased told him that he was in a big “Bhejal” (trouble) and that he would be half an hour late in returning home and requested him to inform his mother. 18. PW-4 Shri Nitu Chandra Barman in his examination-in-chief deposed that he knew the deceased and that the appellant used to collect money from him daily for some kind of insurance policy. However, one day the deceased told the appellant that he would not make any further payment to him since he failed to give him receipts of earlier payments and the appellant hearing this became furious. While accusing the deceased of having opened his shop on a holiday, he threatened to kill him. However, one day the deceased told the appellant that he would not make any further payment to him since he failed to give him receipts of earlier payments and the appellant hearing this became furious. While accusing the deceased of having opened his shop on a holiday, he threatened to kill him. One Shri Prasanta Ray who was also present there said that killing the deceased was not enough but his two eyes should be removed. PW-4 heard these exchanges from his shop which was situated near the shop of the deceased. The incident happened about 4 (four) years back and the deceased died after about 8 to 10 days thereafter. He saw the dead body of the deceased floating on the river with multiple injuries on his person. The police recovered the dead body and thereafter, upon preparation of the inquest report, PW-4 put his thumb impression in the said report. In his cross-examination, he reiterated what he stated in his examination-in-chief. 19. PW-5 Shri Moni Barman in his examination-in-chief deposed that the deceased was his younger brother and he died on 16.09.2007. On that day, his brother had gone to the residence of the appellant which was situated at village No. 2 Hatigarh alone at about 3.00 p.m. to collect money against the insurance policy subscribed by him through the appellant. Before leaving, the deceased informed him that he will return back in 15 minutes and he saw the deceased talking to the appellant on his mobile phone. In the night he had gone for a social visit and when he returned home at 7.00 p.m. his mother told him that PW-3 came and informed her that his brother had called him up saying that he was in the house of the appellant and was in danger. He therefore alongwith his father (PW-1) and two other boys went to the house of the appellant. On reaching the house of the appellant, he inquired about the deceased and the appellant told him that the deceased came but left to return home at 6.00 p.m. after taking money from him. PW-5 again went to the residence of the appellant on 17.09.2007 at 10.00 a.m. alongwith his father. Upon meeting the appellant over a bridge, he told him that the deceased did not return home and requested him to search for him. PW-5 again went to the residence of the appellant on 17.09.2007 at 10.00 a.m. alongwith his father. Upon meeting the appellant over a bridge, he told him that the deceased did not return home and requested him to search for him. However the appellant said the deceased would return home and that he had no time to search for him. Thereafter, he alongwith his father and some villagers went to Garufela Outpost where one Shri B. Talukdar wrote a missing note on the request of his father. On 18.09.2007 at 8.00 p.m. he got the information that the dead body of the deceased was floating in Kathalguri river just behind the house of the appellant. On hearing this, he rushed to the spot on a bicycle and upon reaching the place, he saw the dead body of his brother floating in the river and he fainted. After inquest was conducted over the dead body, PW-5 put his signature on the report. In his cross-examination, he reiterated what he stated in his examination-in-chief. 20. PW-6 Shri Ratan Barman in his examination-in-chief deposed that the deceased was his younger brother and he died in the year 2007. His version was only similar to that of PW-5 except that he denied having informed the I.O. about the quarrel between the deceased and the appellant regarding payment of money against insurance policy subscribed by his brother through the appellant. 21. PW-7 Dr. Rajendra Kumar who conducted post-mortem over the dead body of the deceased on 18.09.2007 in his examination-in-chief deposed that during the relevant time, he was working as the Medical and Health Officer-I at RNB Civil Hospital, Kokrajhar. Upon examining the dead body, he found it to be in an early decomposition state and the scrotum and penis were swollen. His tongue was also swollen and protruded and his hands were tied up behind his back with a rope. Multiple ligature wounds with chain and rope were found on his neck. One cut injury was seen over the right ear and eyes were protruded. In his opinion, cause of death appeared to be asphyxia caused by strangulation and was ante mortem in nature. On being cross-examined, he stated that the time of death would be not less than 48 hours from time of the examination and it might be 72 hours also. 22. In his opinion, cause of death appeared to be asphyxia caused by strangulation and was ante mortem in nature. On being cross-examined, he stated that the time of death would be not less than 48 hours from time of the examination and it might be 72 hours also. 22. PW-8 Shri Prativa Mohan Ray in his examination-in-chief deposed that he joined Garufela Police Outpost as Officer-in-Charge on 20.09.2007. An FIR was lodged by PW-1 which was received by PW-11. After a GD entry was made, it was forwarded to Kochugaon Police Station whereafter Kochugaon Police Case No. 37/07 U/s 147/148/149/ 302/201/120B IPC was registered and PW-11 was entrusted with the investigation of the case. PW-11 did the entire investigation and also arrested the appellant as well as Shri Prasanta Ray. They were produced before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kokrajhar and were remanded to police custody for 5 (five) days. On 29.09.2007 he received the case diary of the Officer-in-charge of the Kochugaon Police Station for doing the remaining investigation and found both the accused persons in the Outpost. During interrogation, the appellant confessed that he committed the murder. As the appellant wanted to lead discovery, he made a requisition for an Executive Magistrate from Gosaigaon Sub-Division. On 29.09.2007, the appellant led Executive Magistrate Shri Naren Das, CI Giren Ray, Officer-in-Charge Khan Kamaluddin Ahmed to village Hatigarh No. 2 and showed them the place where he threw the bicycle of the deceased and also the place he dug up for burying the deceased. He also produced a spade he used for digging. The spade was seized and seizure list prepared. He then produced the appellant as well as Shri Prasanta Ray before the Chief Judicial Magistrate with a prayer for sending them to Judicial Custody and to record their confessional statement. However, no confessional statement was recorded. 23. PW-9 Shri Bridaban Ray in his examination-in-chief stated that he knew the appellant and he was present when the police visited the residence of the appellant on 22.09.2007 where a lot of people had gathered. The police recovered a kudal (spade) from the residence of the appellant. The I.O. seized the said kudal (spade) by preparing a seizure list where he put his signature. 24. PW-10 Shri Ashwini Saha in his examination-in-chief deposed that he is a resident of Hatigarh No. 1 and knew the appellant who was from Hatigarh No. 2. The police recovered a kudal (spade) from the residence of the appellant. The I.O. seized the said kudal (spade) by preparing a seizure list where he put his signature. 24. PW-10 Shri Ashwini Saha in his examination-in-chief deposed that he is a resident of Hatigarh No. 1 and knew the appellant who was from Hatigarh No. 2. During the relevant time, on coming to learn that a murder had been committed at village Hatigarh No. 2 and a dead body was lying at Pagla Kathalguri river, he visited the river bank at around 7 to 7.30 a.m. and saw the dead body floating in the river. The I.O. visited the residence of the appellant between 10 to 12 a.m. but the appellant was not with the police. The police recovered one kudal (spade) from the residence of the appellant and seized the same by preparing a seizure list. He also put his signature in the seizure list. In his cross-examination, PW-10 deposed that the I.O. prepared the seizure list near the residence of the appellant but he did not see from where the police took out the said kudal (spade). 25. The appellant was examined U/s 313 of the Cr.P.C to explain the evidence led by the prosecution witnesses against him. However he offered no explanation to the questions put to him except mentioning that he told the father of the deceased that the deceased had already left his house when they came to enquire about him. 26. PW-1 in his cross-examination admitted that he did not mention about the appellant having called the deceased over phone in the FIR. He also admitted that the deceased having called Krishna Sutradhar over phone and telling him that he was in trouble at the appellant’s house was not mentioned in the FIR. Shri Krishna Sutradhar i.e. PW-3 also in his cross-examination stated that he did not inform the police that the deceased had called him over phone from the residence of the appellant and informed him that he was in great danger and the appellant had detained him in his residence. Shri Krishna Sutradhar i.e. PW-3 also in his cross-examination stated that he did not inform the police that the deceased had called him over phone from the residence of the appellant and informed him that he was in great danger and the appellant had detained him in his residence. Likewise, the Investigating Officer i.e. PW- 11 in his cross-examination stated that PW-1 in his statement U/s 161 of the Cr.P.C. did not state that there was a quarrel between the deceased and the appellant 8 to 11 days before the incident and that the appellant had threatened to kill the deceased and throw his body into the water. He also stated that PW-1 did not state that the appellant had called the deceased over phone. He further stated that the PW-1 did not state that the deceased had informed PW-3 over phone that he was in trouble in the house of the appellant. It therefore appears that what PW-1 and PW-3 stated, whose statements have been relied upon resulting in the conviction of the appellant, appear to be improvements made during the trial. From the evidence led by the prosecution, it can be seen that there were no eye-witnesses and therefore, it would be crucial for the version of the prosecution witnesses to be reliable and consistent. However a perusal of the cross-examination of PW-1, PW-3 and PW-11 clearly reveals that there are material inconsistencies and contradictions. PW-9 and PW-10 are the seizure witnesses and even their statements are contradictory. While PW-9 deposed that the appellant was present when the spade was recovered from his residence, PW-10 on the other hand said the appellant was not present. The Apex Court in the case of Rajendra Singh (supra) has held that when there are contradictions and improvements in the evidence led by the prosecution, placing reliance upon such evidence in convicting an accused would not be justified. Relevant portion of the decision of the Apex Court aforesaid may be reproduced below:- “7. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the State that as many as six witnesses were found injured and that would establish their presence at the place of the incident. In our opinion, this contention is of no help to the appellant because their evidence has not been discarded on the ground that they were not present. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the State that as many as six witnesses were found injured and that would establish their presence at the place of the incident. In our opinion, this contention is of no help to the appellant because their evidence has not been discarded on the ground that they were not present. Their evidence was discarded because they were found not telling the truth before the Court. It was also submitted by the learned counsel that the evidence of PWs. 1 to 4 stood corroborated by two independent witnesses, namely, Ramjilal and Jeevan Singh. PW-8 Ramjilal had stated that he had gone to the spot on hearing the sound of a gunshot and tried to snatch away the gun from the respondent. But he was contradicted by his police statement wherein he had not stated anything regarding snatching of the gun. This omission on such a vital point has to be regarded as a contradiction and it creates a serious doubt about the truthfulness of his version. PW-9 Jeevan Singh had stated that he had also rushed to the spot on hearing the sound of a gunshot. He further stated that he had made an attempt to save Harveer and in doing so, he had received an injury. He had not so stated before the police. This also shows that this witness had made a material improvement before the Court in order to make his evidence acceptable.” 27. In the case of Subhash (supra), the Apex Court also held that contradictions, inconsistencies, exaggerations or embellishments in the version of the prosecution witnesses cannot inspire the confidence of the Court to convict an accused on the basis of such evidence. Relevant portion of the decision may also be reproduced as below:- “15. We have also very carefully gone through the statements of the two primary witnesses PW-2 Kishori Lal, the father of the victim and PW-10 Rajinder Gaur, Her brother. A bare reading of their statements shows that the entire story with regard to the factum of the cruelty, the manner in which the deceased was dealt with, and the behavior of the accused towards her had been built up during the evidence recorded in Court. A bare reading of their statements shows that the entire story with regard to the factum of the cruelty, the manner in which the deceased was dealt with, and the behavior of the accused towards her had been built up during the evidence recorded in Court. We may refer to one significant fact which has been omitted in the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. This is with regard to the oral dying declarations made to them by the deceased and when confronted could give no explanation for the omission. In addition, it is clear that the dying declaration recorded, Ext. PCC had been manoeuvred at the instance of Rajinder Gaur, PW. As already indicated above, the trial Court as well as the High Court have not placed much reliance on the statements of these two witnesses. We are of the opinion that their statements, in fact, inspire no confidence. 16. We may also refer to the Explanation to Section 162 Cr.P.C. The same is reproduced herein-below: “Explanation - An omission to state a fact or circumstance in the statement referred to in sub-section (1) may amount to contradiction if the same appears to be significant and otherwise relevant having regard to the context in which such omission occurs and whether any omission amounts to a contradiction in the particular context shall be a question of fact.” A bare reading of this Explanation would reveal that if a significant omission is made in the statement of a witness recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC the same may amount to a contradiction and that whether it so amounts is a question of fact in each case.” 28. Thus from a perusal of the materials available on record, it can be seen that PW-1 and PW-3 admittedly had improved their versions by deposing in their evidence-in-chief that the deceased made a phone call to the PW-3 from the house of the appellant informing him that he was detained by the appellant and was in great danger. Thus from a perusal of the materials available on record, it can be seen that PW-1 and PW-3 admittedly had improved their versions by deposing in their evidence-in-chief that the deceased made a phone call to the PW-3 from the house of the appellant informing him that he was detained by the appellant and was in great danger. The same were however not disclosed in their statements recorded U/s 161 of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, these were material contradictions within the meaning of the Explanation to Section 162 Cr.P.C. Since there are no eye witnesses to the crime, in order to convict the appellant on the basis of circumstantial evidence, there has to be a chain of events in order to implicate the appellant to the crime and to rule out all other possibilities. It is well settled proposition in law that in a criminal trial, the standard of proof as required in order to implicate and convict the accused is proof beyond reasonable doubt. In the instant case there are material inconsistencies in the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses and contradictions as well. Only by establishing the fact that the deceased visited the appellant on the fateful day, no inference can be drawn on the principle of last seen together in order to arrive at a conclusion that the appellant and the appellant alone was responsible for the death of the deceased. 29. In that view of the matter, we find that the prosecution has failed to prove their case against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt and under such circumstances, appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the impugned judgment dated 09.05.2013 passed by the learned Trial Court convicting and sentencing the appellant is set aside and the appellant is acquitted from the charge. The appellant be released forthwith. 30. The criminal appeal stands allowed.