JUDGMENT : GOVERDHAN BARDHAR, J. 1. The instant criminal leave to appeal has been filed by the complainant appellant against the impugned judgment dated 07.11.2015 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Tonk (Raj.) ['the learned trial court' for short] in Sessions Case No. 48 of 2013, whereby the accused respondents have been acquitted of the charges framed against them under Sections 302, 302 read with sections 34 and 201 IPC. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 10.04.2013 complainant Mustak Ali (PW3) s/o Babudeen, by caste Musalman, r/o Raj Ki Haveli, Makbara Bajar, Kota submitted a written report (Ex.P4) to the SHO Police Station Duni, District Tonk (Raj.) to the effect that his son Abdul Kayyum works at the workshop of Ghanshyam as a mechanic of J.C.B Machine. On 04.04.2013 at about 4:00 P.M Abdul Kayyum went in a jeep of Karan Singh from Kota to Hindauli for installing the hydrolick pump and from there at about 1:00 A.M in the night he went in another jeep at Anwa to do the machine work at the Crusher of Gangwal Ji along-with one mechanic, his name is Avesh Khan, who was resident of Islam Nagar, Kota. Avesh and Muneem of the Crusher informed complainant on phone that in the night at about 8:00 P.M Abdul Kayyum after taking dinner, changed his clothes and told that he was going out to bring Vimal Guthka. This incident taken place at 8:00 P.M. on Friday (05.04.2013). Thereafter, Kayyum did not return. Upon this they came from Kota to Anwa and reached at Anwa at 1:00 P.M. They took the Muneem from Crusher along-with and reached at Anwa Chowki, then with the help of A.S.I. conducted search of Abdul Kayyum. They were searching Abdul Kayyum from 06.04.2013 (Saturday) but did not get any clue about Abdul Kayyum. Today on 10.04.2013 at 8:00 A.M somebody informed on phone that the dead body of Abdul Kayyum is lying in step-well (Bawdi) of Anwa. Upon this they made a call to the S.H.O., then they came to know that they were asked to come Anwa to identify the dead body. Then they went from Kota to Duni Police Station and found that the dead body was of Abdum Kayyum and on examination of dead body it seems that someone after committing murder of Abdul Kayyum thrown his dead body in the step-well (Bawdi). Then they went from Kota to Duni Police Station and found that the dead body was of Abdum Kayyum and on examination of dead body it seems that someone after committing murder of Abdul Kayyum thrown his dead body in the step-well (Bawdi). Thus, the matter may be enquired and accused persons be punished strictly. 3. On the basis of aforesaid written report, an FIR No. 75/2013 was registered for the offences under sections 302 and 201 IPC. Police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against the accused respondents for the offences under sections 302, 201 and 34 IPC before the learned Addl. Judicial Magistrate, Deoli. The case was committed to the Court of Session being triable under section 302 IPC from where the case was committed to the competent court for trial. 4. The learned trial court framed substantive charge against the accused respondents for the offences under sections 302, 302/34, 201/34 IPC, who denied the charges and claimed to be tried. In support of prosecution case, statements of twenty three witnesses were got recorded and fourty five documents were got exhibited. Thereafter, the statements of the accused respondents were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 In defence the accused respondents recorded the statements of Raeesa (DW1) and Kalu (DW2) and two documents were got exhibited. 5. Learned trial court after hearing the final arguments of both the parties, acquitted the accused respondents for the charges levelled against them vide impugned judgment dated 07.11.2015. 6. Learned counsel for the complainant appellant argued that the prosecution has proved the prosecution case beyond any doubt by way of testimony of prosecution witnesses. From the documents and the evidence it is clear that the accused respondents have committed the offence under sections 302, 302 read with 34 and 201 IPC but the learned trial court failed to consider the material on record. The prosecution proved it beyond reasonable doubt that accused respondents committed murder of deceased at about 8:00 P.M on 05.04.2003 and removed the evidence. Learned counsel argued that the accused respondents were liable to be convicted for the alleged offence on account of circumstantial evidence. The prosecution proved it beyond reasonable doubt that accused respondents committed murder of deceased at about 8:00 P.M on 05.04.2003 and removed the evidence. Learned counsel argued that the accused respondents were liable to be convicted for the alleged offence on account of circumstantial evidence. Learned counsel further argued that perusal of the statements of various witnesses confirms the presence of deceased in the area of accused respondents and looking to the circumstances of the case, it cannot be ruled out that the accused respondents have committed any offence as they charged with. Many of the prosecution witnesses have been turned hostile, which shows that the case has been tried to be managed on behalf of the accused appellants. The learned trial court taken adverse inference from the documents submitted by the accused respondents without there being any link with the present case. 7. Heard learned counsel appearing for the complainant appellant, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, perused the impugned Judgment and gone through the entire material made available to us including the record of the case. 8. As per the case of the prosecution, there is no eyewitness of the incident but as per the material available on record it is clear that prior to the alleged incident the deceased, Mohammad Avesh (PW2) and Nirmal Kumar (PW8) were seen last together and Mohammad Avesh (PW2) in examination-in-chief deposed that deceased Abdul Kayyum was his boss and he was his helper. 8-9 months ago on 4th he along-with Kayyum proceeded from Kota to Anwa Crusher and in night they reached Anwa. Mohammad Avesh (PW2) further deposed that Kayyum Bhai, Nirmal Ji Munshi and persons of crusher were with him. On that day Kayyum Bhai was talking about one girl Manju and telling to go to her. Manju was known of Kayyum Bhai and Nirmal Ji. Nirmal Ji talked with that girl then he came to know that that girl was free. Mohammad Avesh (PW2) further deposed that in the night Kayyum met with that girl. In the night he was with Kayyum. In the night when they went to that girl, she came down and told that she is free but she would manage on talk with her sister. Thereafter, that girl took them upstairs on the roof and asked to sit on the boundary wall. In the night he was with Kayyum. In the night when they went to that girl, she came down and told that she is free but she would manage on talk with her sister. Thereafter, that girl took them upstairs on the roof and asked to sit on the boundary wall. When they were sitting, a person was found to be sleeping but he could see his face. Mohammad Avesh (PW2) further deposed that Kayyum Bhai came outside the room just within 15-20 seconds and told him to first go. Thereafter, he went in the room with that girl. After 5-7 minutes when he returned from the room, he did find Kayyum there. Mohammad Avesh (PW2) further deposed that he waited Kayyum Bhai for some time. Thereafter he asked about Kayyum from one teen aged boy who was present there who stated that Kayyum Bhai has gone towards the road. In cross-examination Mohammad Avesh (PW2) deposed that when he went on the roof, there was dark and due to this reason he could see the face of any person. Mohammad Avesh (PW2) admitted that he does identify the accused Subhan who is present in Court and he in his lifetime has seen him first time and prior to that he did see him earlier. Mohammad Avesh (PW2) further deposed that on 6th April his conversation was made on phone with Mustak then he told that Abdul Kayyum (deceased) went to take pouch of Vimal Gutkha but did return. Mohammad Avesh (PW2) in cross-examination also deposed that the girl who was on the roof whispered but he could see her face due to darkness. From the testimony of this witness (PW2) it is clear that he never saw the accused respondents prior to the date of recording of the statement in Court. Nirmal Kumar (PW8) in examination-in-chief deposed that Kayyum had to come after 15-20 minutes later from the place of Manju but when he asked about Kayyum then he was told that Kayyum had already left the place of Manju, so they searched Kayyum in the nearby place. Nirmal Kumar (PW8) in cross-examination deposed that in front of him Avesh did give any information to his family members about the death of Kayyum. What was told by Avesh to the family members of Kayyum, he is unaware of that and he did submit the report. 9. Nirmal Kumar (PW8) in cross-examination deposed that in front of him Avesh did give any information to his family members about the death of Kayyum. What was told by Avesh to the family members of Kayyum, he is unaware of that and he did submit the report. 9. From the evidence of Mohammad Avesh (PW2), Nirmal Kumar (PW8) and Munna Khan (PW4) it is established that the last presence of the deceased was seen in the area of accused respondents (Natniyoen Ka Dera). In cross-examination Mohammad Avesh (PW2) admitted that there was no light in the Natniyoen Ka Dera (red light area). The other prosecution witnesses; Mamta (PW1), Ram Prasad (PW5), Laxmi (PW12), Dharam Chand (PW16) of the last seen circumstances turned hostile. 10. Narendra Pareek (PW21) I.O deposed that he investigated into the matter and during the course of investigation collected the evidence and afterwards submitted charge-sheet against the accused respondents. Narendra Pareek (PW21) I.O in cross-examination admitted that he got information about the incident from Avesh but in this regard no investigation was made from him. Narendra Pareek (PW21) I.O also admitted that Avesh did narrate about the face of Subhan (accused). As per his investigation, Avesh did see Subhan (accused) and he had only heard his name and on the basis of hearsay information of Avesh, he found charges proved against the accused respondents. 11. So far as call details available on record are concerned, the prosecution neither produced any call details with regard to Mobile Nos. 9784124431, 7742946942, 9928030207, 8239667837, 9672571131, 8740808609 nor got recorded the statements of any officers of the company. As per subscriber details, mobile No. 7742946942 is in the name of Anita Keer, Mobile No. 9784124431 is in the name of Raji Devi and Mobile No. 9928030207 is in the name of Mohammad Subrati. Anita has been examined by the prosecution as PW9. Anita (PW9) in examination-in-chief deposed that her husband got issued SIM in his name which was given to Subhan but in cross-examination she stated that she does know Subhan and at no point of time she met with him, neither she nor her husband came to know the fact that the SIM was used by Subhan. Raji Devi (PW11) did support the prosecution story and turned hostile. Raji Devi (PW11) did support the prosecution story and turned hostile. Narendra Pareek (PW21) in cross-examination admitted that as per call details Ex.P22 to Ex.P38 he did seize the concerned SIMs and mobile handsets. Narendra Pareek (PW21) in cross-examination also admitted that he did receive the relevant documents, numbers of which are mentioned in Ex.P33 to Ex.P38. Thus, from the testimony of these witness it cannot be said that the accused respondents used the aforesaid mobile numbers and the accused respondents cannot be connected with the crime on this count. 12. Mustak Ali (PW3) father of the deceased and complainant in the case in examination-in-chief reiterated the averments made in the written report and also deposed that due to quarrel and enmity in between the mechanics, the possibility of murder cannot be ruled out and he does know the accused who are present in Court. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove motive of the crime. 13. Mamta (PW1), Ram Prasad (PW5), Laxmi (PW12), Dharam Chand (PW16) did support the prosecution story and turned hostile. 14. Autopsy (Ex.P25) on the dead body of deceased Abdul Kayyum was conducted on 10.04.2013 at 10:30 A.M by the Board consisted of three doctors; Dr. R.K. Saini, Dr. Sanjeev Meena and Dr. Prashant Dadhich who were posted as Medical Officers, Community Health Center, Duni (Ton). The cause of death opined by the Board is ad-infra:- "In our opinion mode of death is Asphyxia which is resulting from compression of windpipe and adjacent structure but final opinion is given after receiving FSL report." FSL report is Ex.P26. The FSL report reads ad-infra:- "On chemical examination, portions of viscera (1-4) from three packets marked C,B and A respectively gave positive tests for the presence of Ethyl Alcohol and gave negative test for metallic poisons, methyl alcohol, cyanide, alkaloids, barbiturates, tranquillizers and insecticides." 15. Dr. Prashant Dadhich was examined as PW20. This witness admitted about conducting autopsy on the dead body of the deceased, giving opinion and also sending viscera of accused to FSL. 16. We have no eye-witness version in the instant case and the entire case rests upon the circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence is evidence of relevant facts from which, one can, by process of reasoning, infer about the existence of facts in issue or factum probandum. 16. We have no eye-witness version in the instant case and the entire case rests upon the circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence is evidence of relevant facts from which, one can, by process of reasoning, infer about the existence of facts in issue or factum probandum. In Hanumant, son of Govind Nargundkar v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1952 SC 343 , this Court held as follows: "It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance, be fully established and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypotheses of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances would be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused." Each and every incriminating circumstance must be clearly established by reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances so proved must form a chain of events from which the only irresistible conclusion about the guilt of the accused can be safely drawn and no other hypothesis against the guilt is possible. Even when there is no eye-witness to support the criminal charge, but prosecution has been able to establish the chain of circumstances which is complete leading to inference of guilt of accused and circumstances taken collectively are incapable of explanation on any reasonable hypothesis save of guilt sought to be proved, accused may be convicted on the basis of such circumstantial evidence. Last seen 17. In the case in hand, the prosecution on the basis of reliable evidence failed to establish that a missing person was seen in the company of the accused and was never seen thereafter. 18. Last seen 17. In the case in hand, the prosecution on the basis of reliable evidence failed to establish that a missing person was seen in the company of the accused and was never seen thereafter. 18. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Rambraksh @ Jalim v. State of Chhattisgarh, in Criminal Appeal No. 462 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1962 of 2015) decided on 12.05.2016 has held ad-infra:- "It is trite that a conviction cannot be recorded against the accused merely on the ground that the accused was last seen with the deceased. In other words, a conviction cannot be based on the only circumstance of last seen together. Normally, last seen theory comes into play where the time gap, between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were seen last alive and when the deceased is found dead, is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the perpetrator of the crime becomes impossible. To record a conviction, the last seen together itself would be sufficient and the prosecution has to complete the chain of circumstances to bring home the guilt of the accused." 19. It is mandatory on the part of the prosecution to establish and prove the criminal culpability beyond reasonable doubt to fasten guilt but the afore-discussed evidence reflects that prosecution has miserably failed to adduce material and reliable evidence against the respondent. Nothing is positive in the evidence of the prosecution to connect the accused with the alleged crime. 20. In the case of Sukliya v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2010) 15 SCC 745, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under :- "6. The settled position of law regarding the powers to be exercised by the High Court in an appeal against the order of acquittal is that though the High Court has full powers to review the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based, it will not interfere with an order of acquittal because with the passing of an order of acquittal the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is reinforced. The High Court should be slow in disturbing the finding of the fact arrived at by the trial court. The High Court should be slow in disturbing the finding of the fact arrived at by the trial court. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal case is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other therefore his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted". 21. In the aforesaid scenario, we are of the considered view that prosecution has not succeeded in establishing its case beyond contours of reasonable doubt, so we do not find any reason to disturb the findings of the trial court. Therefore, the criminal leave to appeal filed by the State against acquittal is devoid of any merit, hence the same is dismissed.