JUDGMENT Hon’ble Bala Krishna Narayana, J.—These two connected appeals were heard by us on 19.2.2018 on which date we had passed the following orders : Government Appeal No. 8566 of 2007 Connected with Criminal Appeal No. 5812 of 2007 “Learned AGA prays for and is permitted to delete the name of Raja Bhaiya @ Raja Singh, Ganga Singh and Maan Singh from the cause title. Heard Sri O.P. Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri R.K. Singh and Sri S.D. Singh Jadaun, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Surendra Singh, learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA for the State. We will give reasons later. But we are making the operative order here and now. The Government appeal No. 8566 of 2007 stands dismissed while criminal appeal No. 5812 of 2007 is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 14.8.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 8, Kanpur Dehat in S.T. No. 89 of 1999 (State v. Ganga Singh and others) by which the appellants has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. together with fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine one year additional imprisonment, 7 year imprisonment under Section 201 I.P.C. together with fine of Rs. 5000/- each and in default of payment of fine three months additional imprisonment are hereby set aside. The appellants are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds are cancelled and the sureties are discharged. The appellants shall comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 437 A of Cr.P.C. There shall be however no order as to costs. Order Date : 19.2.2018 S.S. We are now giving reasons : First we take criminal appeal No. 5812 of 2007. Briefly stated the facts of this case are that P.W. 1 (informant) Ramkishan Singh gave a written report Ext. Ka1 at P. S. Sajeti, District Kanpur Nagar on 7.8.1998 at about 10:10 a.m. on the basis of which chek FIR Ext. Ka4 was recorded in G.D. vide rapat No. 26 dated 7.8.1998 at 10:10 a.m., carbon copy whereof was brought on record and proved as Ext. Ka1 at P. S. Sajeti, District Kanpur Nagar on 7.8.1998 at about 10:10 a.m. on the basis of which chek FIR Ext. Ka4 was recorded in G.D. vide rapat No. 26 dated 7.8.1998 at 10:10 a.m., carbon copy whereof was brought on record and proved as Ext. Ka-5, stating therein that his nephew Pushkar Singh son of Maniram Singh resident of village Kohra, aged about 45 years had left his house on 6.8.1998 at about 4 p.m. to inspect his field and to fetch his clothes from a tailor’s shop in village Kirar and when he did not return home till the next morning, he started inquiring about him and came to know that his brother had left the house of Babuwa Singh for his home at about 7 p.m. Further search of his brother led to the recovery of spectacles, hair of his brother, blood soaked pieces of flesh and teeth on the railway bridge over Non river, within the territorial limits of village Kirar on the Banda-Kanpur railway route. Further search led the recovery of a waxed plastic bag on which khadi bhandar was printed stuck in a bush in the flowing water of river in which he had kept the clothes given to him by the tailor. Some unknown persons had committed the murder of his brother on the railway track and thrown his dead body in the river Non. 2. After registration of the case, the Investigating Officer alongwith his police force reached the place of occurrence and collected the pieces of dead body and held the proceedings of inquest and prepared inquest report Ext. Ka10 and other documents, namely letter addressed to C.M.O., police form No. 13 and photo lash. He seized the deceased’s spectacles, bloodstained and simple pieces of stones and a waxed plastic bag from the place of occurrence and prepared recovery memo of the aforesaid articles Ext. Ka-9. The pieces of dead body were collected and sealed and dispatched to the mortuary for conducting post-mortem. The Investigating Officer also inspected the place from where the remains of the dead body of Pushkar Singh and his spectacles were recovered and prepared the site plan Ext. Ka-9. 3. Ka-9. The pieces of dead body were collected and sealed and dispatched to the mortuary for conducting post-mortem. The Investigating Officer also inspected the place from where the remains of the dead body of Pushkar Singh and his spectacles were recovered and prepared the site plan Ext. Ka-9. 3. On 11.8.1998, one Awadhesh Singh Parmar, the real brother of the deceased gave an application at P. S. Sajeti which was recorded in the G.D. vide rapat No. 11 dated 11.8.1998 time 6:50 p.m., carbon copy whereof was brought on record and proved as Ext. Ka11 alleging therein that his brother Pushkar Singh had been murdered on 6.8.1998 and his dead body was thrown by the assailants in river Non, nformation whereof was given by his uncle, P.W. 1 Ramkishan Singh to the police station. His brother Pushkar Singh was a social Worker and District Convener of B.J.P. He used to visit village Kohra in connection with development works which were being carried on there. On the request of Pushkar Singh, the State Government had sanctioned a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- for establishing a Junior High School in the village where Narendra Singh son of Neelkanth was already running a private Junior High School and apprehending financial loss in case a Government Junior High School was established in the village, the deceased Neelkanth was opposing his move in this regard. Village Pradhan Nanhkau Singh had collected donation from the villagers for getting the Government tubewell repaired but Pushkar Singh had got the Government tubewell repaired and he was putting pressure on Nanhkau Singh to refund the amount of donation which he had collected from the villagers. On 6.8.1998, Pushkar Singh had gone to village Kirar where he had met his political associate Babu Singh, heard the news broadcast and then he went to the tailor’s shop and after collecting his clothes from him, he left for his village and when he reached the railway bridge in village Kohra, he was murdered. When he did not return back to his home till late in the night, his younger brother Brijesh Singh started searching him in village Kirar and when he reached near the railway bridge on river Non, he noticed a pool of blood, Pushkar Singh’s spectacles, teeth and pieces of bones lying there. When he did not return back to his home till late in the night, his younger brother Brijesh Singh started searching him in village Kirar and when he reached near the railway bridge on river Non, he noticed a pool of blood, Pushkar Singh’s spectacles, teeth and pieces of bones lying there. From reliable sources, he had learnt that Ganga Singh, Maan Singh, Raja Bhaiya, Narendra Singh, Lalloo Singh @ Dharmendra Singh had concealed the dead body of his brother, Pushkar Singh after committing his murder. 4. On 18.8.1998, the aforesaid Awadhesh Singh Parmar filed an another application before S.H.O. Sajeti, Kanpur Nagar which was recorded in the G.D. vide rapat No. 37 dated 18.8.1998 in which he had stated that while his younger brother Brijesh Singh and Kripa Narayan alongwith other villagers were searching the dead body of Pushkar Singh on the banks of river Non in the evening of 18.8.1998 at about 5 p.m., they found a skeleton with white khadi underwear and stitched khadi vest soaked in mud lying on the eastern bank of Non river in Changuwa Wali Baag Mauja Kirar. He and his companions identified the underwear and vest as those of Pushkar Singh and they were convinced that the skeleton was of Pushkar Singh. 5. On receiving the aforesaid information, the Investigating Officer reached the place where skeleton of Pushkar Singh was lying on the bank of river Non took the skeleton in possession, nominated panch witness and held the inquest proceedings and prepared inquest report Ext. Ka-17, photo nash Ext. Ka-16, specimen seal Ext. Ka-18 and letter addressed to C.M.O. Ext. Ka20 and thereafter, he got the skeleton sealed and dispatched to the mortuary for conducting the post-mortem through constable Sushil Chandra. The post-mortem on the pieces of flesh and teeth was conducted by P.W. 9 K. Mathur on 9.8.1998 and on the alleged skeleton of Pushkar Singh by Dr. Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi on 19.8.1998 respectively who also prepared the post-mortem reports Ext. Ka8 and Ext. Ka9. 6. On 5.9.1998, the Investigating Officer arrested accused Ram Nihore and Raja Bhaiya. Pharsa and axe allegedly used by them in committing the murder of Pushkar Singh were recovered from the place disclosed by them to the Investigating Officer and recovery memos of the aforesaid weapons Ext. 1 and Ext. 2 were prepared. Ka8 and Ext. Ka9. 6. On 5.9.1998, the Investigating Officer arrested accused Ram Nihore and Raja Bhaiya. Pharsa and axe allegedly used by them in committing the murder of Pushkar Singh were recovered from the place disclosed by them to the Investigating Officer and recovery memos of the aforesaid weapons Ext. 1 and Ext. 2 were prepared. He also inspected the place from where the skeleton was recovered and prepared its site plan Ext. Ka-23 and after completing the investigation submitted two charge-sheets Ext. Ka-24 against the appellants and other accused and Ext. Ka-26 against accused Lalloo @ Dharmendra Singh before the C.J.M. Kanpur Dehat. Since the offences mentioned in the charge-sheet were triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions. Learned CJM, Kanpur committed the case for the trial of the accused to the Court of Sessions Judge, Kanpur where the two cases were registered as S.T. No. 89 of 1999 (State v. Ganga Singh and others) and S.T. No. 13 of 2000 (State v. Lalloo @ Dharmendra Singh) from where both the sessions trials were made over to the Court of Additional Sessions Court, Court No. 8, Kanpur Dehat. Initially, the two session trials proceeded separately in the same Court. 7. Learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge on the basis of the material on record and after hearing the prosecution and the accused on the point of charge, framed charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and 201 I.P.C. against appellants Ganga Singh, Man Singh and Raja Singh @ Raja Bhaiya and other accused in S.T. No. 89 of 1999 (State v. Ganga Singh and others) and under Section 302 read with Section 120-B I.P.C. against accused Lalloo @ Dharmendra in S.T. No. 13 of 2000. The accused abjured the charge and claimed trial. 8. Learned Additional Sessions Judge by his order dated 18.12.2000 connected S.T. No. 13 of 2000 (State v. Lalloo @ Dharmendra Singh) and S.T. No. 89 of 1999 (State v. Ganga Singh and others) and ordered S.T. No. 89 of 1999 to be the leading case. Before the two sessions trial were connected, the evidence of P.W. 1 Ramkishan Singh was recorded in both the the sessions trials separately. 9. Before the two sessions trial were connected, the evidence of P.W. 1 Ramkishan Singh was recorded in both the the sessions trials separately. 9. The prosecution in order to bring home the charges framed against the accused examined as many as 11 witnesses of whom P.W. 1 (informant) Ramkishan Singh, uncle of the deceased, P.W. 2 Brijesh Singh, P.W. 3 Raghurai, P.W. 4 Ram Baran Singh and P.W. 5 Kripanarayan Singh were examined as witnesses of fact while P.W. 6 Constable Sushil Chandra who had taken the skeleton of the deceased Pushkar Singh to the District Hospital in a sealed state on 7.8.1998, P.W. 7 Devideen Vishwakarma who was posted as head constable and proved the chek FIR Ext. Ka4 and carbon copy of the corresponding G.D. entry as Ext. Ka5, P.W. 8 Vinod Kumar Verma who had produced the record of bank, P.W. 9 Dr. K. Mathur who had conducted the post-mortem on the parts of the dead body of Pushkar Singh and prepared and proved post-mortem report as Ext. Ka6, P.W. 10 Ram Prakash Shukla, Pharmacist Preeti Hospital, Kanpur who had proved the post-mortem report of the alleged skeleton of deceased Pushkar Singh which was prepared and signed by late Dr. Chaturvedi and P.W. 11 S.S.I. Uma Shankar Tripathi, the Investigating Officer of the case who had prepared and proved the site plan of the place from where the pieces of deceased’s skull, teeth, hair, spectacles, bloodstained and plain pieces of stones were seized by him and sealed, the recovery memo of the aforesaid articles Ext. Ka9, inquest report Ext. Ka10 and forms pertaining to post-mortem Ext. Ka11 to Ext. Ka13, carbon copy of the G.D. Ext. Ka14 and filed charge-sheets against the accused after completing the investigation and proved the same as Ext. Ka8 and Ext. Ka9. 10. The accused in their examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution case and alleged false implication. In addition accused-Nanhkau Singh who was real brother-in-law (Bahnoi) of the deceased stated that on the date of incident, he was on official duty in Mahoba. Similarly, appellant Lalloo @ Dharmendra Singh stated that since at the time of the incident he was village Pradhan, he had been falsely implicated due to political rivalry. The defence also examined Sripal and Vrandavan Singh as D. W. 1 and D. W. 1. 11. Similarly, appellant Lalloo @ Dharmendra Singh stated that since at the time of the incident he was village Pradhan, he had been falsely implicated due to political rivalry. The defence also examined Sripal and Vrandavan Singh as D. W. 1 and D. W. 1. 11. The learned Trial Judge after considering the submissions advanced before him by the learned counsel for the parties and scrutinizing the entire evidence on record, both oral as well as documentary convicted and sentenced appellants Ganga Singh, Man Singh and Raja Bhaiya to imprisonment for life alongwith fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine one year additional imprisonment under Sections 302/34 I.P.C. and 7 years rigorous imprisonment together with fine of Rs. 5000/- each and in default of payment of fine three months additional imprisonment under Section 201 I.P.C. The accused Lotan Singh, Nankau Singh and Neelkanth in S.T. No. 89 of 1999 and accused Lalloo @ Dharmendra Singh in S.T. No. 13 of 2000 were acquitted of all the charges framed against them. 12. Hence this appeal by accused-appellants, Ganga Singh, Man Singh and Raja Singh @ Raja Bhaiya. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the conviction of the appellants recorded by the trial Court merely on the basis of last seen evidence of P.W. 3 Raghurai and P.W. 4 Ram Baran Singh which does not inspire any confidence is per se illegal and cannot be sustained in the eye of law. He next submitted that in order to prove the charge of the murder of Pushkar Singh against the appellants, the prosecution had produced as many as five witnesses of whom P.W. 5 Kripanarayan Singh was examined as eye-witness of the incident. However, the trial Court itself disbelieved the testimony of P.W. 5 and rejected his claim of being the eye-witness of the occurrence by giving relevant and cogent reasons and since none of the other witnesses of fact examined during the trial had stated that they had seen the appellants committing the murder of the deceased, the trial Judge erred in convicting the appellants on the basis of last seen evidence of P.W. 3 Raghurai and P.W. 4 Ram Baran Singh. He next submitted that the prosecution had further failed to establish the motive for the appellants to commit the murder of the deceased by leading any reliable evidence, which assumes considerable relevance in a case based upon circumstantial evidence, hence the recorded conviction of the appellants stands vitiated. He lastly submitted that since in the instant case, conviction of the appellants is based upon surmises and conjectures rather than any tangible evidence hence, this appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment and order liable to be set aside. 14. Per contra Sri Saghir Ahmad, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State submitted that the charge framed against the appellants stands fully proved from the evidence on record. The evidence of last seen given by P.W. 3 Raghurai and P.W. 4 Ram Baran Singh assumes considerable significance in view of the short gap of time between the death of the deceased and the time when they had seen the deceased with the accused-appellants and which is sufficient to connect the appellants with the murder of Pushkar Singh. The recorded conviction of the appellants and the sentences awarded to them which are based upon cogent evidence and relevant considerations require no interference by this Court. This appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 15. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire lower Court record. The only issue which arises for our consideration in this appeal is that whether the prosecution has been able to prove it’s case against the accused-appellants beyond all reasonable doubts or not. 16. Undisputedly, the conviction of the appellants in this case has been recorded by the trial Court on the basis of the circumstantial evidence as the testimony of P.W. 5 Kripanarayan Singh who had come forward claiming himself to be an eye-witness of the occurrence was disbelieved by the trial Court itself. 17. In Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622 , it was held by the Apex Court that the onus is on the prosecution to prove that the chain is complete and that falsity or untenability of the defence set up by the accused, cannot be made the basis for ignoring any serious infirmity or lacuna in the case of the prosecution. The Apex Court then proceeded to indicate the conditions which must be fully established before a conviction can be made on the basis of circumstantial evidence. These are : (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned ‘must’ or ‘should’ and not ‘may be’ established; (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”. Thus, in a case of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish each instance of incriminating circumstance, by way of reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances so proved must form a complete chain of events, on the basis of which, no conclusion other than one of guilt of the accused can be reached. Undoubtedly, suspicion, however grave, it may be, can never be treated as a substitute for proof. While dealing with a case of circumstantial evidence, the Court must take utmost precaution whilst finding an accused guilty, solely on the basis of the circumstances proved before it. 18. We now proceed to evaluate the oral evidence on the record of this case on the touch stone of the principles propounded by the Apex Court in the case of Sharad Birdhi Chand (supra). 19. P.W. 1 (informant) Ramkishan Singh in his examination-in-chief stated that the incident had taken place at about 7:30 p.m. on the railway bridge over Non river within the territorial limits of village Kirar. His brother on the date of the incident after having inspected his field had gone to village Kirar to fetch the clothes given by him to a tailor there for stitching. After collecting his clothes from the tailor, he left for his home on the same day but when he reached the railway bridge at about 7:30 p.m., the incident took place. After collecting his clothes from the tailor, he left for his home on the same day but when he reached the railway bridge at about 7:30 p.m., the incident took place. When he did not return till the next day, informant and the other relatives started searching him and when they reached village Kirar, they learnt that Pushkar Singh had left for his home in the evening after collecting his clothes from the tailor and when they reached near railway bridge on river Non in village Kirar, they noticed hair, spectacles and pieces of flesh lying there and a bag which was stuck in the bushes in the running water of the river Non which was the same bag in which he had kept his clothes collected from the tailor’s shop. He also deposed that the skeleton of his nephew was recovered after 12 days from a place on the bank of river Non in Changuwa Wali Baag Mauja Kirar and out of the clothes which the deceased had worn before leaving his house, only his vest and underwear were found on his skeleton. The underwear and the vest of the deceased were produced before the Court and marked as material Ext. Ka1 and Ext. Ka2. 20. P.W. 2 Brijesh Singh, the younger brother of the deceased stated in his examination-in-chief that his elder brother Pushkar Singh who was a convener of R.S.S. and worker of B.J.P. was murdered on 6.8.1998 near Railway Bridge on river Non in village Kirar. Accused Nanhkau had become jealous of his popularity and social activities and had started harboring animosity towards him. Nanhkau Singh had collected donation from the villagers for the repairing of the Government tubewell installed in the village which he had kept with himself. Accused-Narendra Singh was running a private school in village and when his brother Pushkar Singh had succeeded in getting a Government junior high school established in the village and number of students in the Government schools started increasing and that in the private school diminishing, he became inimical towards him. His brother had also asked Nanhkau Singh to refund the money collected by him from the villagers as donation on the pretext of getting the Government tubewell in the village repaired. His brother had also asked Nanhkau Singh to refund the money collected by him from the villagers as donation on the pretext of getting the Government tubewell in the village repaired. He had also filed a case against the son of Lohan Singh for his eviction from gaon sabha land which he had unauthorizedly occupied on account of which he had also become inimical towards the deceased. At 4-5 p.m., on the date of incident, Pushkar Singh had gone to inspect his field and from there he had gone to a tailor shop in village Kirar for collecting his stitched clothes. At that time he was wearing an underwear, vest and a khadi tahmat. One Ram Baran Singh resident of village Nidhaura from whom he had enquired about his brother on the same day in the evening had told him that he had gone to village Kirar. When Pushkar Singh did not return to his home till the evening, his search on the next day led to the recovery of his spectacles, pieces of his skull and a pool of blood lying on railway bridge. 21. P.W. 3 Raghurai stated that on the date of incident he was on duty in Gumti No. 53 as gateman from 8 a.m. To 8 p.m. In the evening at about 7 p.m. he had seen a boy belonging to village Kohra and immediately thereafter, he saw Pushkar Neta carrying a white bag in his hand and going towards river Non followed by Ganga Singh, Raja Bhaiya, Man Singh. Ganga Singh was carrying an axe in his hand while Raja Bhaiya was armed with lathi and Man Singh with Pharsa. 22. P.W. 4 Ram Baran Singh, brother-in-law (Saala) of the deceased had deposed before the trial Court that he had come to meet Pushkar Singh on 6.8.1998 in village Kohra at about 5 p.m. On reaching his house he was informed that Pushkar Singh had gone to inspect his field towards village Kirar. He then met Pushkar Singh in his field thereafter, both of them went to the tailor’s shop of Shreepal in village Kirar. Since the tailor was not available, they decided to wait for him in the house of Kunni Singh and went there where accused Man Singh, Babu Singh and Nanhkau were already present. They told them that the tailor will come soon. Since the tailor was not available, they decided to wait for him in the house of Kunni Singh and went there where accused Man Singh, Babu Singh and Nanhkau were already present. They told them that the tailor will come soon. At about 7 p.m. tailor came and on the request of Pushkar Singh he brought his clothes kept in bag to the place where they were waiting for him and after paying him the stitching charges, they alongwith Man Singh, Babu Singh and Nanhkau got up and started walking. For sometime, deceased talked with Babu Singh in his Colocasia filed. Babu Singh was insisting that they should stay back in his house for the night on which Pushkar Singh stated that he had to go to Lucknow and started walking towards his village while he stayed back. Thereafter, Ganga Singh armed with axe, Man Singh armed with pharsa and Raja Bhaiya armed with lathi went after Pushkar Singh. He had come to know next day that Pushkar Singh had been done to death. 23. P.W. 5 Kripanarayan Singh was produced by the prosecution as the sole eye-witness of the occurrence. He in his evidence tendered before the trial Court deposed that on 6.8.1998 at about 7:30 p.m. he had gone to his field to answer the call of nature and while he was easing himself, he saw Dharmendra and Man Singh armed with guns and Ganga Singh, Ram Nihor Singh, Narendra Singh, Raja Bhaiya and Pushkar coming from the side of village Kirar. As soon as Pushkar Singh reached the railway bridge, Ram Nihor Singh dealt a blow on the head of Pushkar Singh with pharsa while the remaining persons caught hold of him and started beating and cutting him with their weapons. Due to fear and being alone, he did not make any attempt to rescue Pushkar Singh and he somehow managed to escape from the place of occurrence and reached his village. He had seen Neelkanth and Nanhkau also near the place of occurrence before the incident. He had often over heard them talking to Nanhkau and others before the incident that they would finish Pushkar Singh and Nanhkau used to encourage them to finish Pushkar Singh. 24. He had seen Neelkanth and Nanhkau also near the place of occurrence before the incident. He had often over heard them talking to Nanhkau and others before the incident that they would finish Pushkar Singh and Nanhkau used to encourage them to finish Pushkar Singh. 24. P.W. 1 Ramkishan Singh and P.W. 2 Brijesh Singh who are the witnesses of recovery of the remains of dead body of the deceased Pushkar Singh, his skeleton, his spectacles, his hair, pieces of blood soak, human flesh, teeth, underwear and vest of the deceased. They are also witness of fact that the deceased had left his village on 6.9.1998 at about 4 p.m. to inspect his field and then go to village Kirar to collect the clothes which he had given for stitching to a tailor shop. 25. P.W. 4 Ram Baran Singh is one of the witnesses of fact who had seen the deceased Pushkar Singh being followed by accused Ganga Singh, Raja Bhaiya and Man Singh armed with axe, lathi and pharsa at about 7 p.m. on 6.8.1998 in village Kirari. 26. Thus, upon a careful evaluation of the testimony of the five witnesses of fact produced by the prosecution to prove the charge framed against the accused-appellants, nothing turns on the testimony of P.W. 1 Ramkishan Singh and P.W. 2 Brijesh as they are witnesses merely of the fact that the deceased had left his house to inspect his field on 6.8.1998 at about 4 p.m. from there he had gone to village Kirar to get the clothes given by him for stitching to a tailor in village Kirar and thereafter, he had not returned. They are also witnesses of recovery of remains of the dead body of the deceased Pushkar Singh, skeleton, spectacles, hair, pieces of blood soak, human flesh, teeth, underwear and vest of the deceased wrapped on the deceased’s skeleton. They are also witnesses of recovery of remains of the dead body of the deceased Pushkar Singh, skeleton, spectacles, hair, pieces of blood soak, human flesh, teeth, underwear and vest of the deceased wrapped on the deceased’s skeleton. As far as the testimony of P.W. 5 Kripanarayan Singh who claims himself to be an eye-witness of the occurrence is concerned, his presence at the place of incident at the time of the occurrence was disbelieved by the trial Court on the ground that if P.W. 5 Kripanarayan Singh who is the son of P.W. 1 Ramkishan Singh and lives with him had actually seen the occurrence on 6.8.1998 then he would have narrated the entire incident to his father, P.W. 1 Ramkishan Singh and would not have kept quiet till 15.8.1998. The Trial Judge took notice of the facts stated by P.W. 1 Ramkishan Singh in his statement that P.W. 5 Kripanarayan Singh lives with him and he had remained in the village after the occurrence and had spoken to him several times. On the basis of the aforesaid testimony of P.W. 1 Ramkishan Singh, learned Trial Judge concluded that in case P.W. 5 Kripanarayan Singh had talked to his father, P.W. 1 Ramkishan Singh after 6.8.1998, there is no reason why he would not have disclosed the names of the accused to his father and in case he had disclosed the names of the accused to his father, then P.W. 1 Ramkishan Singh would certainly have nominated the accused in the FIR which he had lodged on 7.8.1998. 27. P.W. 5 Kripanarayan Singh further admitted in his cross-examination that he had not informed either the police personnel or anyone else about the fact that he was an eye-witness of the occurrence or he had not disclosed the names of the accused to anyone after the incident which is sufficient to doubt his presence at the time and the place of occurrence and his claim that he had seen the occurrence. 28. Now we are left with the testimonies of of P.W. 3 Raghurai and P.W. 4 Ram Baran Singh who as already noted by us have given last seen evidence against the accused. 29. 28. Now we are left with the testimonies of of P.W. 3 Raghurai and P.W. 4 Ram Baran Singh who as already noted by us have given last seen evidence against the accused. 29. As far as P.W. 3 Raghurai is concerned, we find his presence at gumti No. 133 on the date of occurrence at about 7 p.m. from where he claims to have seen the deceased Pushkar Singh followed by appellants, Ganga Singh, Raja Bhaiya and Man Singh armed with axe, lathi and pharsa wholly unreliable, for the simple reason that apart from his oral statement, there is no documentary evidence on record proving that he was officially posted at gumti No. 133 on 6.8.1998. He in his cross-examination on page 31 of the paper book has categorically stated that he had not brought the duty register of 6.8.1998. He did not remember the number of persons who had walked past the gumti on the date of incident, he also did not remember the number of trains which had crossed the gumti, he did not even remember how many trains had passed from gumti No. 133 between 7-8 p.m. on the date of incident. Another reason that casts a strong shadow of doubt on his claim of being present at gumti No. 133 on the date of incident is the fact stated by him on page 32 of his cross-examination that after 6.8.1998 he was neither posted at gumti No. 133 nor he had ever gone to that gumti. Although, he had denied the suggestion given to him by the defence counsel that he was a friend of deceased and on account of pressure of his family members, he had given false evidence against the appellants but in view of the facts stated by him in his cross-examination to which we have already adverted hereinabove, we are of the view that the evidence of last seen evidence given by P.W. 4 Ram Baran Singh against the appellants does not inspire any confidence and the same is not worthy of credence. 30. As far as P.W. 4 Ram Baran Singh is concerned, admittedly he is the brother-in-law (bahnoi) of the deceased. 30. As far as P.W. 4 Ram Baran Singh is concerned, admittedly he is the brother-in-law (bahnoi) of the deceased. Although he in his examination-in-chief has deposed that he was a resident of village Ludhari, District Hamirpur and on 6.8.1998 he had come to meet his brother-in-law (bahnoi) in village Kirari in connection with a personnel matter but when on reaching his house he was told that the deceased had gone towards his field to village Kirar, he went to his field and met him there and then both of them after sometime went to the shop of Shreepal tailor. Since the tailor was not present, they decided to wait for him in the house of Kunni Singh where Kunni Singh, Babu Singh and Nanhkau Singh were already sitting. On their insistence, they sat there with them and they told them that the tailor would arrive soon. The tailor came at about 7 p.m. and Pushkar Singh asked the tailor to bring his clothes to the place where he was sitting and after paying the stitching charges they left alongwith aforesaid three persons and when they reached the Colocasia field of Babu Singh, Babu Singh asked them to stay during the night in his house on which Pushkar Singh told him that he had go to Lucknow. On the insistence of Babu Singh he stayed back but Pushkar Singh went towards his village. At that very moment, Ganga Singh, Man Singh and Raja Bhaiya also came out of their house carrying axe, pharsa and lathi respectively in their hands and started following Pushkar Singh. He and Babu Singh had seen them following Pushkar Singh. He stayed in the house of Babu Singh and on the next day he learnt about the murder of Pushkar Singh. Although, this witness in his examination-in-chief did not disclose the time at which he had received the information about the death of Pushkar Singh on returning to his village from village Kirar but he in his cross-examination on page 40 of the paper book categorically stated that he had learnt about the death of Pushkar Singh on the very next day from Ram Kishan Singh P.W. 1 on reaching his village Ludhari. He denied the defence counsel’s suggestion that he had not gone to village Kohar and village Kirar and that his entire statement was false. 31. He denied the defence counsel’s suggestion that he had not gone to village Kohar and village Kirar and that his entire statement was false. 31. If we pause here and examine the conduct of P.W. 4 Ram Baran Singh who is admittedly the real brother-in-law (bahnoi) of the deceased Pushkar Singh on receiving the news about the murder of his brother-in-law (bahnoi), that he, instead of rushing back to village Kirar and informing Ram Kishan Singh that he had seen the deceased followed by the appellants, had gone back to his village Ludhari, the same is not at all in consonance with the normal human reaction in such a contingency. If he had actually seen the accused-appellants armed and following his brother-in-law Pushkar Singh on the date of incident, upon coming to know about his murder, his natural reaction should have been to immediately contact or meet Ramkishan Singh and disclose to him the identity of the suspected killers and their names should have found mention in the FIR which he never did and no explanation whatsoever is coming forth in his entire testimony for his keeping mum even after coming to know about the crime. 32. There is another aspect of his evidence which dents a serious blow to his trustworthiness. During his cross-examination, a suggestion was given to him that on the date of incident he was on duty in the S.B.I. Branch Mahoba and as such it was humanly impossible for him to have remained present in village Kirar on 7.8.1998 at 7 p.m. He denied the suggestion given by the defence counsel that he was on duty on the date of incident and deposed that in case Branch Manager of the S.B.I. Mahoba had deposed about his presence in the bank on 6.8.1998 and 7.8.1998, he had not spoken the truth and although there is no documentary proof of the fact that he was on leave on the aforesaid two dates but the said fact can be verified from the record of the bank. He further deposed that after taking leave on 5.8.1998 he had returned to village Lodha and had obtained leave for three days from 5.8.1998 to 7.8.1998 and thereafter he got his leave extended on 7.8.1998 for a further period of one week and for that purpose he had again gone to the bank on 8.8.1998 and given another application for extension of his leave. He was not on duty on 8.8.1998 and it was incorrect to state that on 6.8.1998 and 7.8.1998 he was on duty. 33. However from the evidence of P.W. 8 Vinod Kumar Verma, Branch Manager S.B.I. Mahoba who had deposed in his examination-in-chief that although he was ordered by the learned Trial Judge to produce the attendance register of the bank for the period commencing from 1.8.1998 and ending 31.8.1998 he could not produce the same, as the pages of the attendance register of the aforesaid two dates had been torned off and in this regard an inquiry was instituted and he was filing photo stat copy of the inquiry report signed by him and that the attendance register of the aforesaid two dates was torn by P.W. 4 Ram Baran Singh as is evident from the various documents of the branch, it is fully established that P.W. 4 Ram Baran Singh was neither present in village Kirar on the date of occurrence nor he had seen the appellants following the deceased. 34. Thus, from the unnatural conduct of P.W. 4 Ram Baran Singh in not reporting to P.W. 1 Ramkishan Singh the identity of the suspected murderers of the deceased promptly despite deceased being his real brother-in-law (bahnoi) and in spite of being informed about the murder of Pushkar Singh by P.W. 1 Ramkishan Singh on the very next day, no reliance can be placed on the last seen evidence given by P.W. 4 Ram Baran Singh against the accused-appellants for the purpose of connecting the appellants with the crime. 35. The post-mortem on the skeleton of the deceased was conducted by Dr. Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi on 19.8.198 who had also prepared his post-mortem report Ext. Ka-7. Since Dr. Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi had expired, P.W. 10 Ram Prakash Shukla who was posted as Pharmacist at p.m. Hospital Kanpur on 19.8.1998 alongwith late Dr. Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi at the relevant time was examined by the prosecution to prove Ext. Ka7. Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi on 19.8.198 who had also prepared his post-mortem report Ext. Ka-7. Since Dr. Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi had expired, P.W. 10 Ram Prakash Shukla who was posted as Pharmacist at p.m. Hospital Kanpur on 19.8.1998 alongwith late Dr. Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi at the relevant time was examined by the prosecution to prove Ext. Ka7. However, from the facts deposed by him in his cross-examination on page 62 of the paper book, it transpires that he was neither on duty with Dr. Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi on the day and at the time when the post-mortem on the body of Pushkar Singh was conducted nor at the time of the preparation of the post-mortem report in the mortuary. He further deposed that he did not posses any document at the time of recording of his evidence signed by Dr. Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi and he was neither in a position to disclose what was written on Ext. Ka7 nor the signature on the post-mortem Ext. Ka7 was made before him. 36. Thus, in view of the above, we find that the prosecution has failed to prove the post-mortem report of the deceased Ext. Ka7 in accordance with law. 37. Even the most superficial reading of the post-mortem report of the deceased Ext. Ka7, it is discernible that the cause of death could not be ascertained, viscera of the deceased was preserved but there is no viscera report on record. The prosecution has further failed to lead any cogent evidence to prove that the pharsa and axe allegedly recovered on the pointing out of the appellants were used in the commission of the occurrence. There is nothing on record indicating that the crime weapons were sent to the forensic expert for chemical examination. Strangely, Awadhesh Singh Parmar, the real brother of the deceased-Pushkar Singh on the basis of whose application the appellants were made accused in this case, did not appear as witness before the trial Court. 38. Thus, upon a holistic view of the facts of the case and a careful appraisal and scrutiny of the evidence on record both oral as well as documentary, we do not find that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused-appellants beyond all reasonable doubts. 38. Thus, upon a holistic view of the facts of the case and a careful appraisal and scrutiny of the evidence on record both oral as well as documentary, we do not find that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused-appellants beyond all reasonable doubts. The prosecution has not only failed to establish the circumstances on which conclusion regarding guilt of the appellants could be drawn nor there is any chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. The circumstances in this case laid upon by the prosecution are not such so as to exclude every possible hypothesis except the one of the guilt of the accused-appellants. 39. These are the reasons on account of which we had allowed this criminal appeal. Now we take Government appeal No. 8566 of 2007. 40. This Government appeal has been preferred by the State against the part of the impugned judgement and order dated 14.8.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 8, Kanpur Dehat in S.T. No. 89 of 1999 (State v. Ganga Singh and others) by which accused-respondents, Lotan Singh, Nanhkau Singh and Neelkanth in S.T. No. 89 of 1999 and accused-respondents, Lalloo @ Dharmendra Singh in S.T. No. 13 of 2000 have been acquitted of all the charges framed against them. 41. Learned A.G.A. has submitted that the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court is against the evidence on record. 42. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the accused-respondents has submitted that the trial Court has not committed any error or illegality in acquitting the accused-respondents of all the charges framed against them. 43. 41. Learned A.G.A. has submitted that the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court is against the evidence on record. 42. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the accused-respondents has submitted that the trial Court has not committed any error or illegality in acquitting the accused-respondents of all the charges framed against them. 43. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties present and perused the record of this Government appeal, we find that the learned trial Court took note of the fact that none of the five witnesses of fact produced by the prosecution during the trial for bringing home the charge framed against the accused-respondents except P.W. 5 Kripanarayan Singh had given neither last seen nor direct evidence against him and found that the presence of P.W. 5 Kripanarayan Singh who was the only witness who had nominated the accused-respondents also as perpetrators of the crime alongwith convicted accused in his evidence and who was examined by the prosecution during the trial as an eye-witness of the occurrence, at the time and place of occurrence was doubtful by giving cogent reasons. 44. The learned Trial Judge after a meticulous marshalling of the facts of the case and a threadbare scrutiny of the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused-respondents beyond all reasonable doubts. 45. We do not find any compelling reason to take a view different from that taken by the learned Trial Judge. 46. Learned A.G.A. has failed to demonstrate that the learned Trial Judge while acquitting the accused-respondents either misread or ignored any material piece of evidence. 47. These are the reasons for which we had dismissed this Government appeal.