JUDGMENT : Mohammad Rafiq, J. 1. This appeal is filed by accused-appellant Rakesh Jain challenging the judgement dated 9.9.2016 whereby he has been convicted for offence u/s.302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000, in default of which, he was to further undergo simple imprisonment of one year. In addition, he was also convicted for offence u/s.201 IPC and sentenced to simple imprisonment of three years with fine of Rs.5,000, in default of which he was to further undergo simple imprisonment of six months. He was also required to pay Rs.1,00,000 as compensation to Prem Bihari Gautam, father of the deceased. 2. Facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that on 4thFebruary, 2011, Prem Bihari Gautam (PW7) submitted a written report (Ex.P12) to SHO Police Station Kotwali, Baran inter alia alleging therein that on 3rd February, 2011 at about 7.00 pm, his son Pankaj Gautam left the house for attending the marriage procession of his friend. His son was murdered and his dead body was found in burnt condition at Nareda Road on 4.2.2011. The keys and the shoes that Pankaj was wearing, were also found there. It appears that somebody murdered his son and thereafter burnt his body. Police on the basis of aforesaid report, lodged FIR No.84/2011 for offences u/ss. 302 and 201 IPC and started investigation. On conclusion of the investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the accused-appellant for aforesaid offences before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baran. The case being triable by the Court of Sessions, was committed to the Court of Additional District Judge, Baran. The charge for the aforesaid cases was read over to the accused-appellant, who denied the same and claimed trial. The prosecution produced 25 witnesses and exhibited 54 documents. In his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., accused-appellant denied the allegations and pleaded innocence. The defence did not produce any witness, but exhibited 10 documents. The learned trial court after conclusion of the trial, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant in the manner as indicated above. Hence this appeal. 3. The prosecution produced 25 witnesses and exhibited 54 documents. In his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., accused-appellant denied the allegations and pleaded innocence. The defence did not produce any witness, but exhibited 10 documents. The learned trial court after conclusion of the trial, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant in the manner as indicated above. Hence this appeal. 3. Shri Ashvin Garg, learned counsel for the accused-appellant has argued that the learned trial court has heavily relied on the evidence of various prosecution witnesses namely; Purshottam (PW2), Chetan (PW6), Prem Bihari (PW7), Monika (PW8), Smt. Premlata (PW12), Umesh Gautam (PW17) and Deepak Sharma (PW18) to conclude that the deceased was lastly seen in the company of accused-appellant without having regard to the fact that initial version given by all these witnesses in their statement to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was entirely different inasmuch as the informant Prem Bihari Gautam (PW7) i.e. father of the accused-appellant himself did not in the written report set up the case that deceased left his house in the company of the accused, a story which he along with other prosecution witnesses sought to develop later. Later story was that the accused had come to the house of the deceased and borrowed a sum of Rs.1,50,000 from him and then accused with his ‘muneem’ Sonu left the house on one motorcycle and the deceased left on another motorcycle at the same time. It is contended that the written report (Ex.P12) was submitted by Prem Bihari Gautam on 4.2.2011. In his police statement (Ex.D1) recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in the evening of that very day i.e. 4.2.2011, complainant Prem Bihari sought to improve upon his version given in written report by stating that he has learnt that his son had gone with his friend Rakesh on his motorcycle. He had loaned certain money to Rakesh and had several times asked Rakesh to return the money. His son has been murdered by Rakesh, who also tried to burn his dead body to destroy the evidence. In the Court statement as PW7, Prem Bihari has made tremendous improvements upon his earlier version by stating that appellant came with his ‘muneem’ to his house around 7.30-8.00 pm. He took a sum of Rs.1,50,000 on loan from the deceased. His son has been murdered by Rakesh, who also tried to burn his dead body to destroy the evidence. In the Court statement as PW7, Prem Bihari has made tremendous improvements upon his earlier version by stating that appellant came with his ‘muneem’ to his house around 7.30-8.00 pm. He took a sum of Rs.1,50,000 on loan from the deceased. He even went on to say that deceased himself had a sum of Rs.50,000 and that he received Rs.1,00,000 from his mother and then gave it to the appellant and that deceased told his mother that he was going to attend the marriage procession of his friend and left on his own motorcycle while accused left on another motorcycle with his ‘muneem’ Sonu. This witness has concocted a false story of making telephonic call twice to Veer Pratap Singh (PW10) after giving money to the appellant. No such thing has been uttered by him in the written report (Ex.P2) or even in his police statement (Ex.D1). 4. It is argued that statement of informant (PW7) is not corroborated even from the statement of his own wife Prem Lata (PW12), who was also present in the house and allegedly gave a sum of Rs.1,00,000 to deceased to be further given to the accused and also talked to the deceased. She has stated nothing about making telephonic call by deceased to Veer Pratap Singh (PW10). Umesh Gautam (PW17) son of Prem Bihari Gautam has also not corroborated this story. Even Veer Pratap Singh (PW10) has stated that in the evening around 6 o’ clock, he received the telephonic call from Pankaj, who told that Rakesh was hosting a party and asked him whether he would be coming there. When Veer Pratap Singh refused to come, the deceased still insisted whereupon he agreed, but then he again received a phone call from the deceased at 7.45 PM asking him (PW10) not to come as the party has been cancelled. When Veer Pratap Singh refused to come, the deceased still insisted whereupon he agreed, but then he again received a phone call from the deceased at 7.45 PM asking him (PW10) not to come as the party has been cancelled. But the story of the prosecution that the phone calls were made by the deceased to Veer Pratap Singh at 7.45 PM has not been corroborated by this witness, who has stated that he received the first phone call around 6.00 pm and second one around 7.45 pm, the time gap being one hour and 45 minutes, whereas Prem Bihari (PW7) and Monica (PW8) have stated that first phone call was made after 8.00 pm and that second phone call was made just after first phone call. It is argued that Monica (PW8), the real sister of the deceased, in fact, was not present in Kota and was at her in-laws house at Mumbai. She only came to Baran after learning about death of her brother. Her police statement (Ex.D2) was therefore recorded on 6.2.2011 or else, there was no reason that her police statement was not recorded on 3.2.2011 itself. She is also a cooked up witness. Prem Bihari Gautam (PW7), Prem Lata (PW12) and Umesh Gautam (PW17) have not stated in their earlier statement given to the police about the presence of Monica in the house when the money was allegedly given by the deceased to the appellant. Even Monica in her statement admitted that money was not given in her presence. In cross examination, she has stated that her brother told that Rakesh was demanding a sum of Rs.1.50 lacs and Pankaj has told him that he would give the money on the following day, but this is not corroborated by statement of Premlata (PW12), her mother and Prem Bihari Gautam (PW7), her father. In further examination, Monica has stated that she did not get down from the first floor of the house and only her mother and father went downstairs, but in later part of her statement, she contradicts herself when she stated that Rakesh told deceased Pankaj to inform Veer Pratap about the cancellation of the party. She was downstairs on the ground floor and talking to the tenanted girls. There are thus very many contradictions in the statement of these witnesses. 5. She was downstairs on the ground floor and talking to the tenanted girls. There are thus very many contradictions in the statement of these witnesses. 5. Shri Ashvin Garg, learned counsel submitted that Umesh Gautam (PW17) younger brother of the deceased is highly interested witness and has made false statement. His police statement was recorded belatedly on 11.2.2011. Had he been present in the house, there was no reason why police did not record his statement on 3.2.2011 itself. His presence in the house has not been corroborated by any other witness, therefore, his statement that his father gave a sum of Rs.1.5 lacs to the accused-appellant, though other witnesses stated that deceased gave this money to him, exposed his falsity. He has wrongly stated that deceased told him that he was going with the appellant to attend the marriage procession of his friend because no other witness has stated so. He himself in examination in chief has asserted that while he was standing outside his shop, the deceased Pankaj came to him after shutting down his shop, but in cross examination, he has stated that deceased came 5-7 minutes after he reached home. In cross examination, he further stated that Rakesh had come to the house even before arrival of Pankaj. The learned trial court has wrongly relied on the statement of Purshottam (PW2), Chetan (PW6) and Deepak Sharma (PW18) for the circumstance that the deceased was lastly seen with the accused-appellant. Purshottam, the real uncle of the deceased and real brother of Prem Bihari stated that while he was going to Shivaji Nagar, he saw them together at Ambedkar Circle, Shahbad Road. In his cross examination, he stated that when he reached the Police Station with his brother Prem Bihari, he told the police that he saw deceased in the company of appellant, whereas in later part, he stated that he first went to the Police Station then to the hospital along with the police personnel, but at that time he also did not inform the police that he had seen them together in the previous night. He was an attesting witness to the inquest report (Ex.P1). Even at that stage apparently he did not inform the police because in cross examination he has told that he did not inform about this fact on 4.2.2011 that he saw deceased and the accused together at 9.00 on 3.2.2011. He was an attesting witness to the inquest report (Ex.P1). Even at that stage apparently he did not inform the police because in cross examination he has told that he did not inform about this fact on 4.2.2011 that he saw deceased and the accused together at 9.00 on 3.2.2011. In fact, the reason, which this witness Purshottam has given that he while going with his relative to Shivaji Colony, saw them near Ambedkar Circle together, has not been corroborated because Vimal Kumar has not been produced by the prosecution. It is submitted that Chetan (PW6) also happened to be close relative of the deceased. Even he has stated that after taking dinner around 9.00 pm, he had gone for walk towards Shivaji colony and at that time, he had seen deceased and accused together, but he too had admitted in cross examination that he did not see Rakesh from the front side and that he did not inform this fact to the police when they prepared the inquest report, but then later, he stated that he told this fact to father of the deceased on the following day. This statement is not corroborated by Prem Bihari (PW7) and he has stated that Chetan told him so. Learned counsel argued that Deepak Sharma (PW18) also is closely related to Prem Bihari being nephew of Prem Bihari. Even his statement has been recorded by the police much after the arrest of the accused and is apparently a planted witness. 6. Shri Ashvin Garg, learned counsel for the appellant, has argued that all the recoveries allegedly made at the instance of accused-appellant are tainted and cannot be relied. The seizure memo (Ex.P7) dated 10.02.2011 of two mobile phones from the shop of appellant has not been relied by the learned trial court itself. The seizure memo (Ex.P8) dated 11.2.2011 of polythene bag with two cigarette packets, burnt plastic bottle and broken glass bottle and seizure memo dated 11.2.2011 (Ex.P9) of black powder, allegedly poison, from the shop of appellant, has also not been relied by learned trial court as no poisonous substance was found in the visra of the deceased. The seizure memo (Ex.P8) dated 11.2.2011 of polythene bag with two cigarette packets, burnt plastic bottle and broken glass bottle and seizure memo dated 11.2.2011 (Ex.P9) of black powder, allegedly poison, from the shop of appellant, has also not been relied by learned trial court as no poisonous substance was found in the visra of the deceased. The recovery of the blood stained stone vide seizure memo (Ex.P18) dated 6.2.2011 and the recovery of jeans pant, chappal and sweater of the accused appellant vide Ex.P19 dated 7.2.2011 and recovery of own motorcycle of the accused on 7.2.2011 vide seizure memo (Ex.P20) are all planted and fake recoveries and nothing can be proved against the accused-appellant on the basis thereof. For the same reason, the seizure memo (Ex.P5) of blood smeared soil from the place of occurrence could not be proved against the accused-appellant as it has not been mentioned as to what time, the blood stains were noticed and from which place the soil was lifted. In fact, the police reached the place of occurrence after registration of the FIR and removed the dead body to the mortuary. Police then left place of occurrence and thereafter seizure of the blood stained soil and controlled soil was made. Even from the statement of Rameshwar Prasad (PW1), whose house was near the place of incident, it cannot be conclusively said that blood smeared soil contained the blood of deceased. There are no independent attesting witnesses to all these recoveries. Vijendra Singh (PW3) and Yogendra Singh (PW13), both police constables and subordinate to the Investigating Officer Chauth Mal (PW15) are attesting witnesses of seizure memo of the two mobile phones (Ex.P7). Yogendra Singh in cross examination has stated that (Ex.P7) was prepared by Vijendra Singh. Even Investigating Officer Chauth Mal (PW15) has admitted that Ex.P9, the recovery memo of the black powder, was also ascribed by Vijendra Singh. If that be so, Vijendra Singh could not be associated with the recoveries and attesting witnesses. The alleged burnt substance of plastic recovered vide memo Ex.P10 was not sent to FSL for chemical examination to ascertain whether it was substance of the purse or mobile of the deceased. Vinod Garg (PW16) has stated that this black substance was already present on the iron bench. The alleged burnt substance of plastic recovered vide memo Ex.P10 was not sent to FSL for chemical examination to ascertain whether it was substance of the purse or mobile of the deceased. Vinod Garg (PW16) has stated that this black substance was already present on the iron bench. As regards the recovery of blood stained stone vide memo Ex.P18, it has been mentioned that the same was recovered from the bushes in the nala, but Hawa Singh (PW9) and Samandra Singh (PW14), the attesting witnesses have not supported it. Hawa Singh stated that stone was not lying in the nala and that there were no bushes in that nala. Samandra Singh (PW14) has also stated that stone was not recovered from nala. The recovery of stone from the alleged place thus become doubtful. As regards the recovery of clothes of the accused vide memo (Ex.P19), it is argued that such recovery was not made from exclusive possession of the appellant. The FSL report (Ex.P36) does not state that the chappal was having human blood. No blood was found on the sweater of the accused. Allegedly, the blood group of the blood allegedly found on the pant of the accused could not be determined. Moreover, the Investigating Officer admitted that there were cuts and overwriting in date and time of the recovery memo (Ex.P19). This makes the memo of recovery doubtful. The recovery of memo of motorcycle (Ex.P20) does not prove anything against the accused because it was own motorcycle of the accused. All these recoveries were made much after the arrest of the accused to suit the story subsequently set up by the prosecution by way of improvement. No effort whatsoever made by the first and second Investigating Officer to associate the independent attesting witnesses to such recoveries. 7. Shri Ashvin Garg, learned counsel for the accused-appellant has submitted that the Investigating Officer Surendra Singh (PW14) has categorically stated that accused and his father both came to the Police Station on 4th December in the morning and made a complaint against Veer Pratap that he threatened to kill them on mobile phone and that it was at that stage that Rakesh was arrested by the police. This clearly show innocence of Rakesh, who has been falsely implicated in this case. The dead body that was found in burnt condition was not capable of being identified as it was completely burnt. This clearly show innocence of Rakesh, who has been falsely implicated in this case. The dead body that was found in burnt condition was not capable of being identified as it was completely burnt. The prosecution witnesses have claimed to have identified the dead body to be of deceased Pankaj on two grounds i.e. on the basis of what rings, he was wearing and on seeing his face, whereas at the relevant time when the dead body was found, there was no rings on the fingers of the deceased. Rameshwar Prasad Sharma (PW1), the brother of the deceased has clearly stated in cross examination that when he along with father of deceased Prem Bihari and other persons went to hospital, the police had already taken out the rings from his fingers. Dr. Jagdish Prasad (PW22) has also in cross examination submitted that after postmortem when they handed over the dead body, at that time there was no rings in his fingers. The inquest report (Ex.P1) corroborated what they have stated because therein also there was no mention of the fact that the deceased had put all three rings and that his dead body was identified by the complainant and other prosecution witnesses on the basis of such rings. No seizure memo of the rings was prepared. The tenor of the statement of Prem Bihari (PW7) in this behalf shows that rings were shown to him by the police and he identified them to be that of deceased. Yashwant Singh (PW24), the Investigating Officer in cross examination clearly admitted that the rings were not indicated in the inquest and no mention of the fact was made that as to on which finger, the rings were put by the deceased. No such mention was made in written report (Ex.P12) either. It is argued that even the dead body could not be identified from the face. The description of the dead body given in Ex.P1, the inquest report clearly show that the dead body was found burnt from head to feet and all the organs of the body were in burnt condition, which included the face of the deceased as well. In fact, Dr. The description of the dead body given in Ex.P1, the inquest report clearly show that the dead body was found burnt from head to feet and all the organs of the body were in burnt condition, which included the face of the deceased as well. In fact, Dr. Jagdish Prasad (PW22), who conducted the postmortem has stated that the dead body was identified to be that of Pankaj by Yashwant Singh, ASI and Prem Bihari Gautam, father of deceased and on that basis was described to be that of deceased in postmortem report (Ex.P14). As regards the identification of the dead body by Veer Pratap Singh (PW10) is concerned, his signature did not appear on inquest report (Ex.P1) and postmortem report (Ex.P14). This witness has made material improvements upon his earlier version given to the police in Ex.D3 where no mention was made about the dad body of the deceased or going to the hospital along with father of the deceased. Even Prem Bihari Gautam, father of the deceased has not stated that Veer Pratap remained in hospital at the time of identification of dead body. The findings recorded by the learned trial court to the contrary in this regard is therefore perverse. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the alleged motive given by the prosecution for the accused appellant taking extreme step of committing murder of deceased is hardly reliable. Financial status of the complainant was not such as he could give a huge loan of more than Rs.15 lacs to the accused. The prosecution has planted a new story regarding money being borrowed by the appellant in lieu of alleged cheque (Ex.P15 to Ex.P17). In cross examination Prem Bihari has admitted that he used to earn only Rs.500-600 per day. Rameshwar Prasad (PW1) and Purshottam (PW2), brother of Prem Bihari have also not stated whether any money was loaned by them to Prem Bihari or his son Pankaj. In fact, Prem Bihari (PW7) has admitted in cross examination that his deceased son Pankaj had taken loan for his shop of matching centre under the Prime Minister Employment Scheme and that he (this witness) repaid that money after his murder. He even admitted that so far all two and four wheeler vehicles were purchased by him on loan. In fact, Prem Bihari (PW7) has admitted in cross examination that his deceased son Pankaj had taken loan for his shop of matching centre under the Prime Minister Employment Scheme and that he (this witness) repaid that money after his murder. He even admitted that so far all two and four wheeler vehicles were purchased by him on loan. None of the cheques were either crossed or made account payee and therefore there was no reason why such cheques would be found in possession of the family members of the deceased. In fact, police by exercising its authority, forcibly obtained the cheques from the cheque book of the accused after his arrest and created defence against him. Even the call details sought to be proved by prosecution against the accused have not been held proved by the learned trial court vide memo Ex.P47 and Ex.P48 as it did not found the same to be the admissible evidence. In the absence of certificate requisite under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, learned counsel argued that police did not recover the motorcycle of the deceased on which he allegedly left his house on the previous night and no reason whatsoever has been given by the prosecution for not recovering the said motorcycle of the deceased. The possibility cannot be ruled out that the motorcycle had caught fire and the deceased who was riding on it, was burnt on account of that fire. Lastly, it is argued that the direction of the trial court to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000 under Section 357 Cr.P.C. to the father of the deceased Prem Bihari is illegal. Such compensation cannot be ordered to be paid in lieu of fine imposed as a part of sentence. The total fine that has been imposed is only Rs.15,000 on two counts i.e. u/s.302 IPC and 201 IPC and therefore, the amount of compensation could not exceed that amount. Even otherwise, remedy of the father and mother of the deceased to recover the damages is by way of civil suit under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855. The total fine that has been imposed is only Rs.15,000 on two counts i.e. u/s.302 IPC and 201 IPC and therefore, the amount of compensation could not exceed that amount. Even otherwise, remedy of the father and mother of the deceased to recover the damages is by way of civil suit under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855. Learned counsel in support of his arguments has relied on the judgements of this Court in Hanuman vs. State of Rajasthan, D.B. Criminal Appeal No.171/2015 dated 25.01.2017, Ram Murti vs. State of Rajasthan, D.B. Criminal Appeal No.1501/2003 dated 01.09.2011, Sanjay vs. State of Rajasthan, D.B. Criminal Appeal No.1216/2011 dated 13.01.2017, Ayub Khan vs. State of Rajathan, D.B. Criminal Appeal No.660/2006 dated 11.02.2015 and Rakesh & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan-2003 (3) RCC 1555. 9. Smt. Sonia Shandilya, learned Public Prosecutor for State and Shri M. Iqbal Khan, learned counsel for complainant have opposed the appeal and argued that evidence of last seen has been rightly held proved against the accused-appellant. In that, he was lastly seen in the company of the deceased the previous night and dead body of deceased was found early in the morning on the following day. Prem Bihari Gautam (PW7), the father of the deceased, Monica (PW8) sister, Prem Lata (PW12), mother and Umesh Gautam (PW17), brother are the close relatives of the deceased, therefore, their presence in the house was quite natural when the accused came there to borrow the money of Rs.1.5 lacs. They cannot be described as a planted witness. The second set of witnesses are Purshottam (PW2), Chetan (PW6) and Deepak Sharma (PW18), even these witnesses have corroborated the statement of the first set of witness about the accused being lastly seen in the company of the deceased. Prem Bihari Gautam when he was confronted with this in his cross examination as to why in written report (Ex.P12) and the police statement (Ex.D1), he did not mention this fact, he has candidly stated that at that time, he was in the state of shock and due to his mental condition, he omitted this fact that deceased left with the accused and his ‘muneem’ Sonu. The learned trial court in its judgement has rightly taken the judicial cognizance of the fact as to the mental condition of Prem Bihari Gautam, whose younger son had been murdered in mysterious circumstances and rightly held that it is quite natural for a father in this state of mind to omit few facts from the written report. Learned counsel for complainant has cited the judgement of Supreme Court in Ramesh vs. State- AIR 2014 SC 2852 , wherein it was held that mere non-mentioning of names of some of the accused in the FIR would not be fatal for the prosecution case if by evidence i.e. discovered subsequently it was proved that the accused was lastly seen in the company of the deceased. Reliance is also placed on the judgement of Supreme Court in Surjit Singh @ Gurmit Singh vs. State of Punjab-1992 (1) SCC 208 wherein it was held that if the FIR was recorded most promptly, the omission or mis-description of details therein would not be of much significance particularly when maker of FIR was a young woman, who lost her husband. First Information Report is not an encyclopedia of the entire case and is even not substantive piece of evidence. Reliance in this connection is also placed on the judgement of State of U.P. vs. Naresh and Ors.- (2011) 4 SCC 324 in which case also it was held that undue importance ought not to be given to minor contradictions in the statement of complainant and the injured has to create doubt that FIR was ante-timed or antedated and that the witnesses were interested and inconsistent. 10. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have then referred to the statement of Monica (PW8), who stated that her deceased brother came home on 8.00 pm on 3.2.2011 and was preparing to go back after changing the clothes. At that time, he demanded a sum of Rs.1,00,000 from her mother on the pretext that he was to give this money to Rakesh. Around the same time, she heard the sound of Rakesh and his ‘muneem’ Sonu, who were waiting for the deceased on the ground floor. She and her mother had seen these two persons from balcony of their house and that the accused had taken the deceased with him. The same conversion was repeated by this witness while appearing in the Court. She and her mother had seen these two persons from balcony of their house and that the accused had taken the deceased with him. The same conversion was repeated by this witness while appearing in the Court. Prem Lata (PW12), the mother of deceased has also corroborated the version given by her husband and daughter that the accused was calling the deceased from the road where he was standing with his ‘muneem’ and that deceased took a sum of Rs.1,00,000 from her to be given to Rakesh. When she saw from the balcony of her house, Rakesh and his ‘muneem’ Sonu was seen standing on the ground. Thereafter, they left on their motorcycle and Pankaj left on his motorcycle. Exactly, the same version was given by this witness in the Court statement and he rather additionally stated that earlier also a sum of Rs.15 lacs had been given on loan by the deceased to the accused-appellant Rakesh in lieu of his cheques. 11. Umesh Gautam (PW17) has stated that Pankaj was meeting with the accused and his ‘muneem’ Sonu outside the house and his brother called them inside house and gave Rs.1.5 lacks in the presence of his father and then they separately left their house on different motorcycles. Pankaj told that they were going to attend the marriage procession of a friend of Rakesh. The same version was given by him in his statement before the Court. Relying on the judgement of Supreme Court in Appa Bhai vs. State of Gujarat-AIR 1988 SSC 696 and Baba Shaheed Appa Rao Patil vs. State of Maharashtra-2008 Vol. 15 Scale 205, learned counsel argued that Supreme Court therein has held that minor discrepancies and contradictions in the statements of prosecution should not be blown out of proportion. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant thus argued that Purshottam (PW2), Chetan (PW6) and Deepak Sharma (PW18) have also corroborated the testimony of the above mentioned witnesses and Veer Pratap Singh (PW10) and Vinod Kumar (PW19) have also supported them. If minor discrepancies are ignored, there is substantial consistency in the statement of these witnesses as regards the evidence of last seen. The learned trial court has rightly discussed the same in the impugned judgement. If minor discrepancies are ignored, there is substantial consistency in the statement of these witnesses as regards the evidence of last seen. The learned trial court has rightly discussed the same in the impugned judgement. It is argued that the recoveries of blood stain clothes of the deceased and the recovery of blood stained stone has been made at the instance of accused-appellant on his information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. FSL report (Ex.P36, 37 and 38) have proved that there was human blood on the jeans pant of the accused and that there was also blood on the pair of chappal. Even if therefore it is not determined whether the blood found on the pair of chappal was of human or what was the blood group of the human blood found on the pant, the accused owed an explanation when this circumstance was put to him under Section 312 Cr.P.C. and he having failed to give an explanation, this should be taken as an additional link in the chain of circumstances against him even if there be any missing link, to complete the chain for justifying his conviction. There was no explanation whatsoever as regards the blood smeared stone, which was shown at his instance and was found to contain human blood. 12. Learned Public Prosecutor argued that testimony of prosecution witnesses could not be discarded only because they happened to be related to the deceased as the interest of related witness would always be to see that the real culprit is not spared and is punished. Their testimony therefore cannot be viewed with doubt and cannot be disbelieved only because they happened to be related to the deceased. The motive for murder of the deceased is clearly proved by the statement of prosecution witnesses especially those of Prem Bihari (PW7), Monica (PW8), Prem Lata (PW12) and Umesh Gautam (PW17) that they were monetary transactions between the deceased and the accused due to which the occurrence had taken place. The medical evidence especially the postmortem report (Ex.P14) proved by Dr. Jagdish Prasad (PW22) clearly proves that there was swelling on right fronto parietal temporal region. The size of the injury was 10x10 cm resulting into fracture, which apparently could have been caused by stone recovered at the instance of accused. It is therefore prayed that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 13. Jagdish Prasad (PW22) clearly proves that there was swelling on right fronto parietal temporal region. The size of the injury was 10x10 cm resulting into fracture, which apparently could have been caused by stone recovered at the instance of accused. It is therefore prayed that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 13. We have bestowed our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 14. The earliest version that is reflected from the written report (Ex.P12) submitted by Prem Bihari, father of the deceased is that his son Pankaj Gautam aged 24 years left their house at around 7.00 pm on the previous night i.e. 3.2.2011 to attend the marriage procession of a friend and that certain unknown person had murdered him and then burnt his body near Nareda Road on 4.2.2011. He was wearing rings and the shoes found on the dead body were also of the deceased. His cell-phone numbers were also indicated in the written report. This written report as per the endorsement made thereupon by the SHO Police Station Kotwali, Baran was submitted to him at 12.15 AM on 4.2.2011. As per the Investigating Officer Surendra Singh (PW23), police recorded his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in the evening of the same day. He has appeared before the Court as PW7. In the Court statement, he has stated that the accused Rakesh came to their house at around 8.00 pm on 3.2.2010. At that time, his ‘muneem' Sonu was also with him. He called his son Pankaj who took him with himself. In fact, Pankaj had come to the house in the evening after shutting down his shop. His wife was upstairs. Pankaj took a sum of Rs.1 lac from his mother and said that he already had Rs.50,000 and has to give Rs.1.5 lacs to Rakesh. She gave Rs.1 lacs to his son. Then Pankaj gave this money in his presence in the gallery by calling Rakesh inside. His wife had also by that time came down stairs on the ground floor. Earlier also, they had given a sum of Rs.15 lacs to deceased Rakesh as loan in lieu of that Rakesh had given them cheques in security. Then Pankaj gave this money in his presence in the gallery by calling Rakesh inside. His wife had also by that time came down stairs on the ground floor. Earlier also, they had given a sum of Rs.15 lacs to deceased Rakesh as loan in lieu of that Rakesh had given them cheques in security. After Pankaj had given money to Rakesh, he telephonically called Veer Pratap twice around 8 pm firstly informing him that Rakesh was throwing a party and that Sonu was with him and secondly when Rakesh told him that he would not throw a party, Pankaj informed Veer Pratap that the party has been cancelled. Rakesh and his ‘muneem’ Sonu told that they wanted to go to attend the marriage procession of a friend. Pankaj also accompanied them to attend the said marriage procession on his motorcycle, whereas Rakesh and Sonu went on another motorcycle towards Subji Mandi. In the night around 11.00 pm, when Pankaj did not return back till late night, they called him on cellphone around 11.00 pm, which was found switched off. When Pankaj did not return back home till morning on the following day, they searched for him and called all his friends. On the following day, when Rakesh opened his shop around 8.30-9.00 am, he (Prem Bihari) enquired from him as to whereabouts of Pankaj, who told him that he had left Pankaj in the night itself. Prem Bihari then further stated that he received a phone call at 11.00 pm from the police chowky informing that dead body of a boy has been found which was lying in the mortuary of the hospital. Thereafter, policemen took him to the mortuary room and showed him burnt dead body, which was covered with a blanket. On removing the blanket, he saw three rings in the finger of the deceased; one of gold, another of silver and third was of iron and from which, it could be identified that this dead body was of Pankaj. He also identified the dead body of Pankaj from his face. It is thereafter that he submitted written report at 12.15 am (Ex.P12). The rings were handed over to him by the police when the inquest (Ex.P1) prepared in lieu of which, his signatures were obtained by the police on memo (Ex.P3). The memo Ex.P2 was of the handing over of the dead body. It is thereafter that he submitted written report at 12.15 am (Ex.P12). The rings were handed over to him by the police when the inquest (Ex.P1) prepared in lieu of which, his signatures were obtained by the police on memo (Ex.P3). The memo Ex.P2 was of the handing over of the dead body. His son Pankaj was murdered by Rakesh because a sum of Rs.15 lacs was given to him on loan previously and on the day of incident and again a sum of Rs.1.5 lacs was given on loan. Pankaj was murdered because the accused wanted to avoid returning of the said amount. The accused Rakesh then given a cheque of Rs.98,000 of his current account no.100979 with Baran Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., which was exhibited as Ex.P15. Another cheque of the same amount of Rs.98,000 of the same bank was Ex.P16A. The third cheque dated 15.1.2011 of Rs.58,000 was Ex.P17A. All of which were signed by the accused Rakesh Jain. Later, he learnt that when went to the bank that Rakesh had given these signed cheques from the cheque book that was issued in the name of his father Om Prakash. In this manner, total 12 cheques were given by Rakesh to the deceased. 15. When Prem Bihari Gautam (PW7) was confronted in the cross examination to the written complaint (Ex.P12), he admitted that he mentioned therein that unknown persons have murdered/burnt his son and that therein he did not mention that Pankaj had left his house on the previous night along with Rakesh and Sonu. But he tried to wriggle out to this situation by saying that since his mental condition at that time was not fit and that he was under immense tension, he could not mention all these facts, but at the same time, he also stated that he did not have any doubt on Rakesh for committing murder of his son till 12.15 pm on 4.12.2011 when he submitted the written report. When it was put to him that while in the Court statement he has mentioned that deceased went to attend the marriage procession of the friend of the accused, but in the written report (Ex.P12), he has mentioned that it was the wedding reception of the own friend of the deceased, this witness admitted that he did not mention in the written report that deceased went to attend the marriage procession of the friend of the accused-appellant Rakesh. He was also confronted with written report (Ex.P12) on the question as to why therein, it was mentioned that deceased gave Rs.1,00,000 to the accused, which he took from her mother and also a sum of Rs.50,000 from his own possession after he came back to him, he could not give any explanation. In cross examination, he stated that police has recorded his statement after cremation of his son around 7-8 pm and that he also did not mention the fact that his son initially telephonically informed Veer Pratap about the party being thrown by Rakesh and thereafter again informed that the party has been cancelled. This fact was not even mentioned by him in his police statement (Ex.D1) because at that time, he was quite tense. He could not mention the fact that his son gave a sum of Rs.1.5 lacs to the accused and that accused Rakesh, Sonu and his son Pankaj went from their house on different motorcycles. He denied the suggestion that till 4th February, 2011, he was completely unaware of the fact that Pankaj had gone with Rakesh and Sonu. He also stated that he only mentioned about the rings in the written report (Ex.P12) and did not specifically mention that there were three rings which the accused was wearing separately of gold, silver and iron. In further cross examination, he stated that he was earning his livelihood by doing the work of embroidery and was earning a sum of Rs.500-600 per day and sometimes more than that. The amount of Rs.15 lacs that was loaned to the accused was not only his amount, but also the amount of his brothers and the amount received from the sale proceeds of the land and also amount borrowed by him from his brothers. The amount of Rs.15 lacs that was loaned to the accused was not only his amount, but also the amount of his brothers and the amount received from the sale proceeds of the land and also amount borrowed by him from his brothers. In fact, after the first statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the informant was recorded same day i.e. 4.2.2011 but thereafter a supplementary statement (Ex.D8) was recorded on 11.2.2011. It is in this statement that informant Prem Bihari Gautam (PW7) has given the detailed improved version, which he has maintained in the Court statement and which he did not give in the written report and in his earlier statement. 16. Monica (PW8), the sister of the deceased has also given the version similar to the one given by her father Prem Bihari Gautam (PW7), but in cross examination when she was asked to explain as to why she did not in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Ex.D.2) recorded on 6.2.2011 elaborate that the deceased demanded a sum of Rs.1 lac from her mother and gave Rs.50,000 from his own possession and that mention was made only of Rs.1 lac. Although, she tried to explain this that she gave this statement, but could not explain as to why police has not mentioned so therein. It was also put to her as to why in police statement, she did not mention that the money was given by the deceased to the appellant in the gallery of the ground floor of the house in the presence of her mother and father, she stated that although she mentioned this fact in the police statement, but why police did not record therein, she could not explain. Monica (PW8) in cross examination has stated that two-three days after the incident, she became suspicious of the role of Rakesh. Her father had also doubted Rakesh for the murder of their son. 17. Prem Lata, the mother of the deceased has been produced as PW12. She has also in his examination in chief stated that Pankaj came on the first floor of the house from his shop around 8.00 pm of 3rd February and changed the clothes. He demanded a sum of Rs.1 lac from her saying that he already had Rs.50,000 and that Rakesh was demanding a sum of Rs.1.5 lacs. She has also in his examination in chief stated that Pankaj came on the first floor of the house from his shop around 8.00 pm of 3rd February and changed the clothes. He demanded a sum of Rs.1 lac from her saying that he already had Rs.50,000 and that Rakesh was demanding a sum of Rs.1.5 lacs. Thereafter, she along with her husband and Pankaj came downstairs and called Rakesh and gave the said amount of Rs.1.5 lacs in their presence. Pankaj had earlier also given a sum of Rs.15 lacs as loan to the accused Rakesh. Then, she told that he had to go to attend the marriage procession of a friend of Rakesh. While Rakesh and his Muneem Sonu went on motorcycle, Pankaj separately went on his own motorcycle. When in the night Pankaj did not return back home, his father asked Rakesh on the following day as to whereabouts of Pankaj whereupon he told that Rakesh was not with him. In cross examination, she mentioned that Pankaj came to third floor of the house where she was being called. Pankaj and his father had separate shops which were situated on the ground floor of the house. Two shops of Rakesh were situated opposite to their shop. She used to maintain the account of money, but that day she did not make any entry of giving Rs.1.5 lacs to the accused. The statement of Prem Lata under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Ex.D4) was recorded by the police on 6.2.2011 and when it was put to her in cross examination why she has not mentioned that already Rs.15 lacs was given on loan to the accused, she did not deny this fact. She stated that at that time when she was confronted with that part of the police statement from C to D that Pankaj demanded from him a sum of Rs.1 lac saying that Rakesh was asking for money and that from E and F where she stated that when she enquired from the deceased as to where was he going, Pankaj did not say anything, she could not give any explanation as to the disparity. In response to a pointed question in cross examination, she stated that her husband enquired about Pankaj from Rakesh on 4.2.2011 and this fact she stated because her husband told her about the same. In response to a pointed question in cross examination, she stated that her husband enquired about Pankaj from Rakesh on 4.2.2011 and this fact she stated because her husband told her about the same. The scrutiny of the statement of sister Monica and mother Prem Lata of deceased clearly show that their police statement was recorded two days after the incident on 6.2.2011, on which date not only they did not mention about the huge amount of Rs.15 lacs said to have been earlier given as loan to the accused, but also did not mention that on 3.2.2011, the amount that was loaned to the deceased by the accused was Rs.1.5 lac, but merely mentioned about the amount of Rs.1 lac. 18. Umesh Gautam (PW17), brother of the deceased has tried to synchronize with the version was given by his father, mother and sister that his police statement was recorded belatedly on 11.02.2011. Rameshwar Prasad (PW1) happened to be the real uncle of the deceased. He is attesting witness to the inquest (Ex.P1) and certain other memos, site plan (Ex.P4), blood stained soil and controlled soil (Ex.P5). His police statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded ten days after the incident on 13.2.2011. Purshottam (PW2) has also been produced as witness of last seen. He has stated that he along with his relative Vimal Kumar was going towards Shivaji Colony on 3.2.2011 on the way near Ambedkar Circle of Shahbad Road, he found Rakesh and Pankaj sitting on a motorcycle around 9.00 pm. While Rakesh was rider, Pankaj was pillion rider. When he enquired from Pankaj as to where they were going, he stated that they were going to Shivaji Nagar. This witness was an attesting witness to the inquest (Ex.P1) and also the receipt of the three rings given to the father of the deceased. When it was put to him in cross examination in response to a pointed query, he clearly stated that he did not tell the police on 4th February that at that time he saw Rakesh and Pankaj going together on a motorcycle. This is not the story initially developed by the prosecution where they have stated that Rakesh and Pankaj left home on different motorcycle. While own motorcycle of the accused was recovered, but motorcycle of the deceased has not at all been recovered by the police. This is not the story initially developed by the prosecution where they have stated that Rakesh and Pankaj left home on different motorcycle. While own motorcycle of the accused was recovered, but motorcycle of the deceased has not at all been recovered by the police. This witness did not give statement to the police for as many as ten days till 13th. Curiously, he has stated that he kept on visiting Police Station continuously for 3-4 days, but the police did not record his statement and eventually he went to the Superintendent of Police and, therefore, his statement was recorded. Vimal Kumar, relative of this witness (PW2), with whom he was allegedly going towards Shivaji Colony, has not been produced by the prosecution and, therefore, an inference had to be drawn against the prosecution that had he been produced, he would not support the version of Purshottam Sharma. 19. Chetan (PW6) is yet another witness produced by the prosecution to prove the factum of last seen. Even this witness has stated that he saw Pankaj and Rakesh together near Manohar Ghat Tiraha around 10 p.m. and on the next date, he learnt that Pankaj has been murdered, but in cross examination even this witness has stated that he did not disclose this fact to police for as many as 14 days although he mentioned this fact to father of the deceased on the very next day. 20. In fact, a suggestion was given to Veer Pratap Singh in the cross examination about the threat, he gave to Rakesh on telephone around 4th December, 2011 on which he closed the shop and went to Police Station, Kotwali. This witness denied the said suggestion. 21. Deepak Sharma (PW18) has also been produced as witness of last seen. He has stated that he was going back from Baran to his native Bhanwargarh around 9.30 pm. Pankaj and Rakesh, who were on one motorcycle met him near Shivaji Nagar, Tiraha. He talked to Pankaj and on his query, Pankaj told him that they were going to Bardiya Balaji. In cross examination, he admitted that Pankaj happens to be his first cousin, but even then he stated that he along with Ashish, Ghanshyam, Yogesh and Sonu left to Vaishno Devi in the mid night of 3rd February, 2011 by car via Agra and he returned back on 10.02.2011. He stayed in Baran for 4-5 days. In cross examination, he admitted that Pankaj happens to be his first cousin, but even then he stated that he along with Ashish, Ghanshyam, Yogesh and Sonu left to Vaishno Devi in the mid night of 3rd February, 2011 by car via Agra and he returned back on 10.02.2011. He stayed in Baran for 4-5 days. His police statement was recorded on 13.2.2011. Though this witness has sought to explain the delay in recording the police statement by the said story, but none of the four persons, who allegedly accompanied him to Vaishno Devi, has been produced. Apparently this witness has been planted to only probablise the case of the prosecution. 22. Veer Pratap Singh (PW10) has stated that on 3.2.2011, he received phone call from Pankaj around 6.00 pm that Rakesh was throwing a party and invited him, when he refused Pankaj insisted and thereupon he agreed. Thereafter, at about 7.45 PM, Pankaj again telephoned him informing that party has been cancelled. On his query, Pankaj told him that he was with Rakesh. On the following day, he learnt that Rakesh had been murdered. He received a phone call from an unknown person from hospital around 10.00 am that a dead body was found, face of which was resembling with that of Pankaj. He telephoned father of Pankaj and both went to hospital and identified the dead body as that of Pankaj. When he was confronted with his police statement (Ex.D3), he could not give any explanation as to why therein, he has not mentioned that on his query, Pankaj told him on telephone that he was with Rakesh around 8.00 pm, this witness failed to give any explanation. In his police statement, there was also no mention of the fact that he informed father of the deceased Pankaj about his dead body being found in the hospital, face of which was resembling with Pankaj and his going to hospital with father of Pankaj. This witness has failed to give any explanation for all these discrepancies. 23. In his police statement, there was also no mention of the fact that he informed father of the deceased Pankaj about his dead body being found in the hospital, face of which was resembling with Pankaj and his going to hospital with father of Pankaj. This witness has failed to give any explanation for all these discrepancies. 23. The first Investigating Officer of the case was Surendra Singh (PW23), who has proved the various stages of investigation and different exhibits and in cross examination has made significant statement that accused-appellant Rakesh and his father came to the Police Station on 4.2.2012 and made complaint that Veer Pratap Singh has threatened them of dire consequences on mobile and that it was at that time that Rakesh was arrested on 4.2.2012. Obviously, Rakesh had gone to the SHO Police Station to make a complaint against Veer Pratap, who was threatening him on cellphone and he was arrested then and there by the SHO. When he was required to explain as to what was the time when Rakesh along with his father came to the police, this witness (I.O.) has feigned knowledge, but his arrest as per Ex.P6 was shown at 7.25 pm on 4.2.2011 itself. The recovery of stone has been shown at the instance of accused-appellant vide memo Ex.P18 at 12.50 pm on 6.2.2011. Curiously, the attesting witnesses thereto were Hawa Singh (PW9) and Samandra Singh (PW14). In the recovery memo, it is mentioned that the accused led the police to the ‘nala’ beneath the railway line and got piece of blood stained stone recovered from the bushes in the nala. This witness has also proved (Ex.P19), the recovery memo of a jeans pant of the accused having blood stains, a blood stained sweater and a blood stained pair of chappal. Curiously, the police Constable Hawa Singh (PW9) and Samandar Singh (PW14) were made attesting witnesses. When the Investigating Officer was required to explain why he did not associate independent witnesses with said recovery, he stated that at the time of preparation of memo, no independent witness became available, nor anybody was prepared to become attesting witnesses, but in answer to another query, he denied having issued in “huknama” to any private citizen to become an attesting witnesses. The place from where the recovery was made, was situated near Indra market. The place from where the recovery was made, was situated near Indra market. He denied that he sent any of his subordinate to call an independent witness. He did not put any note in the case diary that people were avoiding to become attesting witness, otherwise they would be involved in the legal process. No such note was put even Ex.P7 to Ex.P10, the attesting witnesses of which were Vijendra, Yogendra and Chauth Mal, police Constables subordinate to him. The Investigating Officer did not deny the fact that these police constables were subordinate to him. In further cross examination, this witness has stated that during investigation, no witness told him that Rakesh was seen going with Pankaj towards Shivaji Nagar. Some stones were lying, out of which some were having blood stains at the place where the dead body of Pankaj was lying. But he stated that none of the blood stains stones were lifted by the police at that time, but at the same time, he also denied the suggestion that the police has brought the blood stained stone from other place. When this part of the statement of the Investigating Officer is read along with statement of Hawa Singh (PW9), it creates a doubt about the veracity of the recoveries made by him because Hawa Singh in his cross examination has stated that blood stained stones were not lying in the ‘nala’. He has also denied existence of bushes in the ‘nala’. In fact, he even went to the extent of saying there were no bushes in the ‘nala’. He also stated mention of the fact from I to J in the memo of recovery of blood stained stone (Ex.P18) that there was bushes in the ‘nala’ was wrongly made. The size and width of stone was not mentioned in the memo. He admitted that when the railway crossing is closed, lot many people on motorcycle, on foot and auto rickshaw would pass through that ‘nala’. There was a ‘hanuman’ temple above the ‘nala’ and ‘pujari’ of the temple was regularly staying there. This witness in cross examination further stated that though he made efforts for tracing out independent witnesses, but no such note was made in the recovery memo (Ex.P18). The nala was surrendered by colonies. No direction was issued by the I.O. to any of the citizens for becoming an attesting witness. This witness in cross examination further stated that though he made efforts for tracing out independent witnesses, but no such note was made in the recovery memo (Ex.P18). The nala was surrendered by colonies. No direction was issued by the I.O. to any of the citizens for becoming an attesting witness. This witness has admitted that in the memo of recovery of jeans pant, sweater and chappal at the instance of accused from his residential house, there were many interpolations/ corrections. 24. Samandar Singh (PW14), is another attesting witness to the recoveries. He also in his statement has stated that the recovery of the blood stained stone was not made from the nala. Stone was rather lying near the dead body. SHO did not ask him to call any independent witness, nor did he summon any independent witness. No note was put on the memo of recovery of stone (Ex.P18) that people were not ready to become attesting witness. With regard to recovery of jeans pant, sweater and chappal (Ex.P19), this witness has stated that house of the accused from where the jeans pant was recovered was a densely populated colony. There were lots of shops and residential houses there. The accused took out the clothes from the almirah. The FSL report (Ex.P36) has of course indicated that there was human blood on the blood smeared stone, but in view of the statement of Investigating Officer that lots of stones were lying there and two attesting witnesses of the recovery of blood stained stone have not fully supported the recovery, it became highly doubtful inasmuch as there are very many circumstances to support the contention that this stone was lifted from near the dead body and recovery was planted at the instance of accused-appellant. There was although blood stains on the pair of chappal (sandle), but such blood was not sufficient to test whether it was human blood or otherwise. The sweater of the accused recovered at the instance of accused also according to the memo contained the blood, but FSL report has falsified this version as it was found negative for the presence of blood. The jeans pant of the deceased of course is found to contain human blood, but on test, the blood group could not be ascertained. But then, at this stage, we also want to refer the findings of the learned trial court. The jeans pant of the deceased of course is found to contain human blood, but on test, the blood group could not be ascertained. But then, at this stage, we also want to refer the findings of the learned trial court. The police in this case had even shown recovery of black substance powder and sought to prove it to be poisonous and therefore sent it to FSL to prove that a poisonous substance was administered to the deceased before he was put to death. The findings thereabout has been recorded in para 175 of the judgement that FSL report (Ex.P38) did not find that there was any poison in the visra of the deceased. The case of the prosecution on that aspect was thus disbelieved. Moreover, on the aspect of the call details (Ex.P47) and (Ex.P48) also, the learned trial court has in para 173 of the judgement has disbelieved the case of the prosecution. As regards the recovery of burnt plastic bottle, the roasted grams and the emitted cigarette packets also the finding was recorded by the learned trial court in para 174 that this does not prove anything. In the light of this, the solitary circumstance of the blood being human found on the pant of the accused-appellant and the blood on the pair of chappal shown recovered at the instance of the accused cannot be the sole factor to make the chain of circumstances against the accused complete as that would require multiple number of circumstances to hold an accused to be individually proved guilty by cogent and reliable evidence and joining of the said circumstance so as to rule out that it may be compatible with the innocence of the accused appellant. 25. Another significant fact had been admitted by none else than Prem Bihari Gautam, father of the deceased who in his statement has stated that in the night when his son Pankaj did not return back to him, they made enquiries from all their close relatives and his friends. On the following day when Rakesh opened his shop around 8.30-9.00 am, he went to him and enquired about Pankaj saying that he had accompanied him the previous day. Rakesh told that he left Pankaj in the night itself. On the following day when Rakesh opened his shop around 8.30-9.00 am, he went to him and enquired about Pankaj saying that he had accompanied him the previous day. Rakesh told that he left Pankaj in the night itself. It is highly improbable and contrary to the human conduct that a person who would commit murder of someone, the previous night would open shop at 8.30 on the following day and on receiving the threatening call from Veer Pratap Singh (PW10) would muster the courage to go to the Police Station with father of deceased. Here we have to also notice yet another important aspect with regard to the conduct of the accused-appellant Rakesh Jain. The Investigating Officer Surendra Singh (PW23) himself has stated that accused had come to him in the Police Station on 4.2.2012 to make a complaint against Veer Pratap Singh that he had threatened them of dire consequences in the presence of Pratap Rao Shinde (PW5), the Assistant Sub-Inspector. He in examination in chief has stated that accused was arrested by Jawan Singh in his presence. The memo of arrest is Ex.P6. Though the memo has been prepared on 7.25 pm on 4.2.2011, but Pratap Rao Shinde in cross examination admitted that he was attesting witness to the arrest memo of Rakesh. Even though, he happens to be a Sub-Inspector in the same Police Station, when arrest was made and the accused was present in the Police Station itself, the father of the accused was known to him. But when a suggestion was given to him that whether Rakesh and his father Om Prakash, had come to the Police Station at 10.00 am or stayed in the Police Station till 10.00 pm and were complaining about Veer Pratap that he had threatened him of firing at him and he was insisting that FIR should be registered, he denied the suggestion. Even a further suggestion was given to him that when Rakesh was present in the Police Station, he received a phone call on his cell-phone threatening him and that he (Pratap Ram Shinde) talked to the person on telephone, he denied so. Even a further suggestion was given to him that when Rakesh was present in the Police Station, he received a phone call on his cell-phone threatening him and that he (Pratap Ram Shinde) talked to the person on telephone, he denied so. This witness denied having knowledge of the fact that from where the Investigating Officer Jaswant Singh arrested the accused-appellant or as to where from the accused was brought by SHO to Police Station or whether he was already present in the Police Station, was not known to him. Even the Investigating Officer (PW23) has not directly denied the fact that Pratap Rao Shinde was present in the Police Station when accused-appellant came there with his father, but rather denied the suggestion for want of knowledge that accused-appellant made Pratap Rao Shinde to talk to the person on mobile phone, who was threatening him. 26. The Supreme Court in State (Delhi Administration) Vs. Gulzarilal Tandon – AIR 1979 SC 1382 , held that in a matter where the case of the prosecution rests purely on circumstantial evidence, motive undoubtedly plays an important part in order to tilt the scale against the accused. It is also well settled that the accused can be convicted on circumstances, which are wholly inconsistent with the innocence of the accused. It is trite that in a case of circumstantial evidence there must be complete chain of evidence which should lead to conclusion that the accused was the only person, who could have committed offence and none else. Each of circumstances that is proved against the accused should form a chain so complete so as to rule out every other hypothesis, which may be compatible with innocence of the accused. 27. In Mohd. Arif v. State (NCT of Delhi) – (2011) 13 SCC 621 , the Supreme Court held that each of the circumstances has to be assessed on its own merits. Quality rather than quantity of evidence is crucial factor in a case of circumstantial evidence. The court has to be cautious against imaginary inferences or its prejudices, which may unwittingly creep in. Its verdict must be based on clear and irrefutable logic. Responsibility of the prosecution in a case of circumstantial evidence is more as compared to the cases where ocular testimony or the direct evidence is available. 28. The court has to be cautious against imaginary inferences or its prejudices, which may unwittingly creep in. Its verdict must be based on clear and irrefutable logic. Responsibility of the prosecution in a case of circumstantial evidence is more as compared to the cases where ocular testimony or the direct evidence is available. 28. In Kulvinder Singh v. State of Haryana – (2011) 5 SCC 258 , also it was held by the Supreme Court that in exceptional cases, conviction of accused can be based solely on circumstantial evidence but in that case the prosecution has to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt and cannot derive any strength from weakness of defence put up by accused. Circumstances from which guilt is to be drawn should be fully established and should be of conclusive nature and exclude all possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. Facts so established must be consistent with hypothesis of guilt of accused and chain of evidence must be so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for conclusion consistent with innocence of accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by accused and none else. 29. In Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu Vs. John David – (2011) 5 SCC 509 , also the Supreme Court sounded a word of caution that the court must be cautious against conjectures and surmises taking place of proof. Circumstances so proved must form a chain of events pointing to guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt without there being possibility of any other hypothesis. Each and every incriminating circumstance must be clearly established by reliable and clinching evidence, and the circumstances so proved must form chain of proof from which natural and irresistible conclusion could be drawn as to the guilt of accused and no other hypothesis against guilt is possible. It was further observed by their Lordships that in a case depending largely upon circumstantial evidence, there is always a danger that conjectures and surmises may take place a legal proof. The court must satisfy itself that various circumstances in the chain of events have been established clearly and such complete chain of events must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of innocence of the accused. The court has to be watchful and avoid the danger of allowing the suspicion to take the place of legal proof. The court must satisfy itself that various circumstances in the chain of events have been established clearly and such complete chain of events must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of innocence of the accused. The court has to be watchful and avoid the danger of allowing the suspicion to take the place of legal proof. There is a long mental distance between 'may be true' and 'must be true' and the same divides conjectures from sure conclusions. It was further observed that when important link goes, the chain of circumstances gets snapped. This is what has happened in the present case because of failure of the prosecution to connect the recovered handle of the sword from the place of incident with the sword recovered at the instance of the accused, and also the evidence of last seen and recovery against the accused stands on shaky grounds. In our considered opinion, therefore, it would be highly unsafe to sustain conviction of the accused-appellant on the kind of evidence that has been adduced in this case. 30. There are many missing links, which make the accused entitled to benefit of doubt. The charges against the accused cannot be held to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. 31. In view of above discussion, the present appeal deserves to succeed and is accordingly allowed. The impugned judgement of conviction and sentence for offence u/ss. 302 and 201 IPC dated 09/09/2016 is quashed and set aside. Direction to the appellant to pay the amount of Rs.1,00,000 as compensation payable to the father of the deceased under Section 357 Cr.P.C. is also set aside. However, that amount is ordered to be paid to him from out of the funds available at the disposal of District Legal Services Authority, Baran. Accused-appellant is set at liberty forthwith if not required to be detained in connection with any other case. 32. However, that amount is ordered to be paid to him from out of the funds available at the disposal of District Legal Services Authority, Baran. Accused-appellant is set at liberty forthwith if not required to be detained in connection with any other case. 32. Keeping, however, in view the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, appellant is directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- each, and a surety bond in the like amount, before the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, which shall be effective for a period of six months, undertaking that in the event of Special Leave Petition being filed against this judgment or on grant of leave, the appellant aforesaid, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court.