JUDGMENT : ANANT S. DAVE, J. 1. Both these appeals are filed by the appellants–original accused Nos.2 and 1 under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 [for short, ‘the Code, 1973’] challenging the judgment and order dated 15.07.2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge and Fast Track Court No.8, Gondal, camp at Jetpur in Sessions Case No.157 of 2007 convicting the appellants under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the IPC and under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act and sentencing them to undergo RI for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/and in default to further undergo one year SI. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under: 2.1 A complaint came to be filed by one Pravinbhai Haribhai Paraliya PW11 on 17.07.2007 inter alia alleging that his father viz. Haribhai Paraliya was cultivating the land admeasuring 5 Bighas which is described as a Keraleshwar Mahadev temple’s agricultural land since 15 years and he had cultivated flowers there and his father was residing there only. That complainant’s father was cultivating the land admeasuring 13 Bighas called ‘Thorala Village sim land’ since 30 years and pertaining to this Thorala Village sim land, complainant’s father had some dispute with Gobarbhai Bhagvanbhai Savalia, father of PW21 and he had also filed a civil suit in this regard. 2.2 On 17.07.2007 at about 8.00 am when the complainant was working at his agricultural land along with his wife, and elder brother at the outskirt of Thorala Village, he was informed by his cousin that his father was not well and the complainant with his brother rushed to the farm nearby Keraleshwar Temple and there they had seen his father’s dead body nearby the charpoy and someone had killed father of the complainant by giving blows with some weapons on the head. 2.3 It is further alleged that Gobarbhai Bhagvanbhai Savalia owned his farm adjacent to his father’s farm at the outskirts of Thorala Village and pertaining that land they have raised some dispute with each other and father of the complainant also filed civil suit for the disputed land in the Civil Court at Jetpur. The complainant also had doubt in his mind that due to the dispute of the land of Thorala Village sim, previous night someone killed his father and therefore, he has filed complaint before Jetpur Police Station being CR No.I115 of 2007. The complainant also had doubt in his mind that due to the dispute of the land of Thorala Village sim, previous night someone killed his father and therefore, he has filed complaint before Jetpur Police Station being CR No.I115 of 2007. Thereafter, statements of certain persons were recorded and the charge sheet came to be filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class on 28.09.2007. 2.4 That the case was committed to the learned Fast Track Court at Gondal by virtue of Section 209 of the Code, 1973 on 08.10.2007 and it came to be numbered as Sessions Case No.157 of 2007 on 09.10.2007. Pursuant to the same charge came to be framed for the aforesaid offence. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. That during the trial in order to prove its case, the prosecution has inter alia examined the following main prosecution witnesses and documentary evidence. Prosecution Witness No. Exhibit No. Particulars PW 1 15 Dr. Pursuant to the same charge came to be framed for the aforesaid offence. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. That during the trial in order to prove its case, the prosecution has inter alia examined the following main prosecution witnesses and documentary evidence. Prosecution Witness No. Exhibit No. Particulars PW 1 15 Dr. Mansukhlal Gajera (Post-Mortem) 16 Post Mortem report of the deceased (Hirabhai Koli) 18 Inquest panchnama of deceased (Hirabhai Koli) PW 2 26 Dinesh Dhiru (Panch witness of inquest Panchnama) PW 3 27 Vadhubhai Champaraj (Panch witness of clothes of deceased) 28 Panchnama of recovery of clothes of deceased PW 4 (Hostile) 29 Sukhabhai Veerabhai (Panch witness of place of offence) 30 Panchnama of place of offence PW 5 (Hostile) 31 Bahadurbhai Lalu (Panch witness of place of offence) PW 6 (Hostile) 32 Iqbal Dabgar (Panch witness of arrest of accused and discovery of weapon) 33 (Panch witness of arrest of accused and discovery of weapon) PW 7 (Hostile) 34 Badhubhai Sipai (Panch witness of arrest of accused and discovery of weapon) PW 8 37 Kasambhai Shaikh (Panch witness of arrest of accused and discovery of weapon) 38 (Panchnama of arrest of accused Rajesh, and discovery of weapon) PW 9 (Hostile) 40 Meghjibhai Bharwad (Panch witness of arrest Panchnama of both the accused) 41 Arrest Panchnama of both the accused PW 10 (Hostile) 43 Masukh Bhesaniya (Panch witness of arrest Panchnama of both the accused) PW 11 44 Pravinbhai Haribhai (Son of deceased) PW 12 45 Jagdishbhai Gurubhagirathi (Poojari of Madir) PW 13 46 Gordhanbhai Sakriya (Labourer) PW 14 48 Madhuben Gopalbhai Sarvaiya “____________” PW 15 49 Hansaben Koli (Daughter in law of deceased) PW 16 (Hostile) 52 Jitubhai Tejabhai Relative of original land owner PW 17 (Hostile) 53 Dhirubhai Kalabhai Given POA PW 18 54 Tansukhbhai Nathalal (FSL officer) PW 19 56 Ramagauri Rajyagur (Police SubInspector) PW 20 61 Sukhabhai Fogabhai Vadher (Police Inspector) 65 Village form 8(A) 66 Revenue record – 712 extract 70 77 Ravangi Nondh FSL of Sand PW 21 (Hostile) 86 Parvatbhai Savaliya Reveals the land dispute PW 22 (Hostile) 87 Badwantbhai Jeenabhai PW 23 88 Parshottambhai Padariya (Sub-Registrar) 97 Serology Report 2.5 The learned trial court, after considering all the evidences produced on record and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, found the appellants guilty for the offences and accordingly convicted and sentenced them, as stated herein above. 3. Shri Y.S. Lakhani, learned Senior Advocate appearing with Mr. Pravin Gondaliya, learned advocate for the appellants–convicts submits that the trial court relying on 24 prosecution witnesses and 40 documentary evidence, rendered the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence and the entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence and there is no eye witness to the incident. It is further submitted that in spite of the absence of any motive or any clear evidence emerging on record about civil dispute pertaining to land in question, the trial court believed the motive behind crime for the land in dispute and that none of the appellants was either owner, occupier or had any interest in such disputed land and simply based on some documents exhibited with regard to purchase of land in dispute where it was alleged that wife of one of the accused No.1 was co-purchaser, the trial court believed that motive was established based on testimonies of PW11, complainant, who happens to be son of the deceased; PW13, a labourer working in the agricultural field cultivated by the deceased; PW15 daughter-in-law of the deceased; PW20 Investigating Officer; PW21 and PW22 about land in dispute and transaction and again testimonies of investigating officer who was recalled in exercise of powers under Section 311 of the Code, 1973 and all the above witnesses except PW11, the complainant and son of the deceased deposed to the extent that accused had visited residential house and agricultural field of the deceased and insisted for compromise to be arrived for the disputed land failing which threatened with dire consequences. It is further submitted that the important witness PW11, the complainant and son of the deceased do not say anything about any threat either administered by any of the accused or even any apprehension of threat except that accused had visited residence of the deceased and expressed intention for settlement and compromise. That other witnesses in their cross-examination are hearsay witnesses and failed to support the case of the prosecution. That other witnesses in their cross-examination are hearsay witnesses and failed to support the case of the prosecution. 3.1 Learned Senior Advocate submits that in absence of any direct evidence and case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence and the motive part is not established, the foundation of the very case of the prosecution do not exist and even none of the eye witnesses is able to say that whether accused were last seen together with the deceased while he was alive. The incident is dated 17.07.2017 around 10:45 am in the agricultural field, near Keraleshwar Temple at Jet-put and PW11 admits in his further statement after 4 days on 20.07.2007 that the land in question was cultivated by his father and other brothers. That none of the accused was owner or occupier of the land and original owner of the land – Gobarbhai Bhagvanbhai died in 1997 and the land in question was inherited by his two sons, Vallabh and Parbat for which civil dispute in the court was pending and the land in question was purchased by father [deceased] of the complainant from one Dr. Ahuja. Even as per the complainant, initial information was given by one Pravin Chandubhai, cousin of complainant about father of the complainant being unwell, but this person was not examined at all. It is further submitted that PW13 was admittedly a labourer employed in the agricultural field of the deceased and talks about incident which took place before 8 days that when he was present in the field, two persons arrived on a motor bike and had a talk with the deceased, who was threatened by them. PW15 is also daughter-in-law and a relative witness in her cross-examination admits that both accused had come to the agricultural field and had threatened her father-in-law, but no complaint was lodged for execution of documents with regard to transaction of the land. PW23 Sub-Registrar was examined, who confirms about registration, but failed to state anything about the identification of signatories on the documents. 3.2 It is next contended that Discovery panchnama was drawn during night hours and no mention is made about the land. PW23 Sub-Registrar was examined, who confirms about registration, but failed to state anything about the identification of signatories on the documents. 3.2 It is next contended that Discovery panchnama was drawn during night hours and no mention is made about the land. That serological reports do not conclusively reveal any incriminating evidence connecting the appellants with guilt and simply because blood group of the deceased was found on the clothes of one of the accused is no ground to believe the case of the prosecution since samples H1 and H2 viz. shirt and pant containing blood group-B belonging to accused No.2 and pant and shirt of accused No.1 in which blood was found insufficient for the sample I1 while on shirt blood group-B was found which was of the deceased. However, the blood group of accused No.1 was also B-group which was also the blood group of the deceased. That samples P1 and PII contain blood group-A of the accused No.2 and since no question was asked about incriminating circumstances, the accused was not obliged to explain in his statement under Section 313 of the Code, 1973 and even otherwise also when witnesses drawing arrest panchnama viz. PW9 and PW10 both have turned hostile and arrest of the accused from village Mavjijava was doubtful since no panchnama was drawn at the place of the arrest and the discovery panchnama though supported by PW2 one of the panchas of discovery of weapon is not a circumstance connecting the accused with crime as the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. That investigating officer PW20 admits to have produced documents with regard to land in dispute, but at the same time denies to have any dispute with the deceased and accused No.1 and from the further evidence it has become clear that accused were arrested from village Mavjijava. No panchnama was drawn of the motor cycle of accused and no investigation was made about ownership of the above vehicle and discovery of the alleged weapon used in commission of crime is also doubtful. Even investigation had commenced before complaint was registered and inquest panchnama was also drawn. No evidence appears on record about movement of muddamal viz. clothes of deceased and bottle of blood in which samples were taken by the doctor, who carried out Post-Mortem PW1 and question thereof by any of the police personnel. Even investigation had commenced before complaint was registered and inquest panchnama was also drawn. No evidence appears on record about movement of muddamal viz. clothes of deceased and bottle of blood in which samples were taken by the doctor, who carried out Post-Mortem PW1 and question thereof by any of the police personnel. 3.3 Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants submit that finding blood of the group of deceased on the clothes of accused No.1, discovery of weapon at the instance of accused No.1 was open place in night hours on which no blood stain marks were found in FSL examination and finding of dust particles on the tyre of motorcycle having similarity with that of soil of agricultural land where the dead body was found, etc amount no evidence linking the accused with the crime much less establish circumstances together, form chain of events so as to rule out innocence of the accused and guilt of any other person beyond reasonable doubt required to be either set aside the judgment and order of conviction under challenge and the appellants – convicts deserve to be acquitted accordingly. 4. Ms. Maithili Mehta, learned APP appearing for the respondent – State of Gujarat submits that if the Court may consider the deposition of Pravinbhai Haribhai PW11, who is the son of the deceased it is very evident that both the accused had threatened the deceased time and again and hence their role can be established from the deposition of PW 11. It is further submitted that PW 12 who is the Poojari of the Mandir in his deposition categorically narrated that the labourer working in the field came and told that the deceased is not well and has expired hence he informed the Police about the death of the deceased. It is further submitted that from conjoint reading perusal of depositions of both PW11 and PW12, it clearly establishes that the accused were involved in commission of the said offence. 4.1 Learned APP further submits that the most relevant deposition of PW13 who is the labourer working in the field of the deceased and he specifically narrates that he had seen the deceased bleeding and had also seen prior to the incident both the accused threatening the deceased and identifies both the accused accordingly. He also identifies the accused in the Court. He also identifies the accused in the Court. Even in the cross examination he does not deviate from the above mentioned deposition hence there is no contradiction in the deposition of PW 13. 4.2 Learned APP next contended that the deposition of PW14 who is said to have heard bike going towards the land of the deceased late in the night. The road on which the bike had travelled only led to the field of the deceased. The most relevant aspect which gets corroboration to the deposition of PW13 is the FSL report Exh.77 which opines that the sand which was found on the tyres of the bike of the accused was of the land where the deceased was found dead. It is further submitted that the deposition of PW15 who is the daughter in law of the deceased and she also narrates the fact that both the accused had threatened the deceased with respect to land dispute. It is further submitted that the Serology report as well as the finding of the trial court from page 352 onwards as well as the findings of the Court at page 420 it is very clear that from the clothes of the accused blood group of the deceased is traceable. It is further submitted that PW8 has supported the discovery panchnama Exh. 38 and hence the role of the accused stands established. It is further submitted that the dispute is with respect to land bearing survey No.171 paiki 1 the land which was sold to the wife of accused No.1 which is quite evident from the hostile witness PW21. It is also very evident from the deposition of hostile witness No.22 that accused No.1 had purchased the land in question in name of his wife as well as wife of PW22. The deceased had a dispute with Vallabh Gobar and Prabhat Gobar qua the Thora land which accused no. 1 had purchased in the name of his wife and his uncle’s wife and hence had threatened the deceased to leave the said land. 4.3. The deceased had a dispute with Vallabh Gobar and Prabhat Gobar qua the Thora land which accused no. 1 had purchased in the name of his wife and his uncle’s wife and hence had threatened the deceased to leave the said land. 4.3. Learned APP next contended that from the complaint as well as deposition of the complainant son of the deceased PW11 the deceased had purchased Thora land survey No.171 paiki 1 from one Shri Ahuja with respect to the land dispute between the original owners and deceased appropriate civil suits were filed before the appropriate court but with respect to the said dispute and the deposition of the prosecution witnesses it is very evident that the accused had threatened the deceased and further committed the said offence. 4.4. Learned APP would contend that testimonies of PW11, PW13 and PW15 and arrest panchnama Exh.41 not only establish the motive of the crime, but connected circumstances viz. blood stained shirt of accused blood group of the deceased was found and discovery of the weapon is fully supported by PW8, an independent witness who supported the discovery of panchnama of all muddamal articles viz. Kharapia, a weapon used in inflicting injuries, ashes of burnt quilt altogether were sent for FSL examination and serological report together with clear reference of wife of accused No.1 as one of the purchasers of the land in the documentary evidence for which PW23 Sub-Registrar deposes to and believed by learned trial Judge convicting the accused for the offence under Section 302, 201 and 34 of the IPC and sentencing accordingly deserve no interference in exercise of appellate power by this court and both these appeals deserve to be rejected. 5. Mr. Trivedi, learned counsel for complainant is also permitted to address the court, who supported the submissions of learned APP and in addition to the above, it is emphasized that investigating officer has arrested the accused for which panchnama was drawn and all articles which were found collected were sent for FSL for which proper stamping and sealing was made and plenty of evidence emerge about motive for crime viz. The dispute of the land in question which was purchased by wife of accused No.1 and therefore he was interested to see that land is vacated by deceased Haribhai. The dispute of the land in question which was purchased by wife of accused No.1 and therefore he was interested to see that land is vacated by deceased Haribhai. Even evidence of hostile witnesses, to the extent it supports case of the prosecution since corroboration is available deserves to be believed. Further, PW3 labourer working in the field is not hearsay witness, but an eye witness, who had seen accused on motor cycle talking to the deceased and had given threats with dire consequences if land is not vacated by the deceased. That absence on the part of the accused to explain the blood marks of group-B of the deceased on the clothes of accused No.1 and that none of the accused received injuries will be sufficient and circumstances as above is one of the chain in the events completing the circle which begins with motive, accused threatening deceased as deposed by PW11, PW12 and PW13, PW1 collecting the blood and clothes of the deceased and forwarding the same to the concerned PSI, who in turn forwarded the same to FSL. Likewise, discovery of weapon used by accused duly supported by PW8 and PW20 investigating officer and documentary evidence of registered sale deed Exh.81 reveal wife of accused No.1 as co-purchaser and the address shown therein is the same of the address of accused No.1 Therefore, conviction so recorded by learned Judge deserves to be confirmed. 5.1 In support of his submissions, learned advocate for the complainant has placed reliance on the decision in the case of Rohtash Kumar v. State of Haryana [AIR 2013 SC (Supp) 244] on the point of motive and submitted that the evidence regarding the existence of a motive which operates in the mind of the accused is very limited and may not be within the reach of others. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Nana Keshav Lagad v. State of Maharashtra [ (2013)12 SCC 721 ] in support of submission that recovery of incriminating article containing blood stains recovered at the instance of accused and the same is proved by FSL report, testimonies of Investigating Officer, which remain unexplained by the accused upon questioning under Section 313 of the Code, 1973. 6. 6. In the context of challenge in this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code, 1973 against order of conviction and sentence, we have perused the entire evidence on record, submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants – convicts, learned APP for the State of Gujarat and also learned advocate for the complainant vis-a-vis findings, reasonings and conclusions drawn by the learned trial Judge about guilt of the accused and convicting the appellants under Sections 302, 34 and 201 of the IPC and other offences. 6.1 So far as the motive for the crime is concerned, we find land dispute was between the deceased and two sons Vallabh and Parbat of village Gobarbhai. The land in question situated at the outskirts of village Thorala admeasuring approximately 13 vighas was purchased by Gobar Bhagwan Savaliya from Dr. Ahuja and Parbat Gobarbhai Savaliya, PW21 has turned hostile. Dr.Ahuja was not examined and the dispute was pending in the Civil Court at Jetpur. For the purpose of settlement, accused No.1 was no doubt visiting the residence and agricultural field of the deceased, but as the case was pending in the civil court, father of the complainant was not willing to settle the dispute. That PW11 complainant, son of the deceased, in his examination-in-chief nowhere deposed about any kind of threat either administrated by accused No.1 or perception of threat to life by accused No.1 to his deceased father. That other witnesses viz. PW13, a labourer working in the farm and PW15 daughter-in-law of the deceased had seen accused No.1 one week before the incident that he had threatened deceased Haribhai and was insisting for compromise, but the incident took place on 17.07.2007 and it is highly improbable that none of them disclosed such incident to PW11 and other son viz. Dahyabhai, who happens to be husband of PW15. That husband of PW15 is not a witness in the case. PW13 is a farm labourer and his testimony is doubtful as the above witness has also not disclosed such incident to PW11 and Dahyabhai another son of the deceased. 6.2 Again, admitted fact is that further statement of PW11 was recorded by the investigating officer on 20.07.2007 and his cousin also named Pravin Chhanabhai, who informed about ill-health of father of complainant, was not examined. 6.2 Again, admitted fact is that further statement of PW11 was recorded by the investigating officer on 20.07.2007 and his cousin also named Pravin Chhanabhai, who informed about ill-health of father of complainant, was not examined. Therefore, the foundation of the case of the prosecution on the motive of accused No.1 threatening deceased based on the testimonies of PW11, PW13 and PW15 do not inspire any confidence as they are not trustworthy and in absence of any witness in support of deceased while alive was seen together with accused nowhere comes on record, the case of the prosecution based on circumstantial evidence is on a very week foundation. 6.3 That submissions are made by learned APP and learned counsel for the complainant about disputed land was purchased by wife of accused No.1, who was one of the co-purchaser and, therefore, accused No.1 had interest in getting the vacant land by entering into compromise, is too remote circumstance can be said to have been established by the prosecution. That transaction about the land vide Exh.81 and testimonies of PW23, Sub-Registrar do not reveal any identity of co-purchaser viz. wife of accused No.1. At the most such document confirms that the transaction had taken place for the land in question. 6.4 There is force in the argument of learned counsel for the appellants so far as manner in which accused came to be arrested and the panchnama of arrest of accused was drawn and PW9 and PW10, who are panchas of the said arrest panchnama have turned hostile and the above aspect is to be seen that accused were brought from village Mavjijava in a government vehicle. In the statement recorded by PW20, investigating officer, no fact about dispute pertaining to land between deceased and accused had come on record. On the contrary, in the statement PW11 it is deposed that the dispute was going on between deceased and Gobar and Parbat. That no panchnama was drawn of the vehicle and its ownership allegedly used by accused and the weapon of Kherpiyu', ordinarily used as an article of the agriculture on which no blood stain was found. Simply because PW8 pancha of discovery had supported the case of the prosecution itself is no ground, more particularly, in absence of any link with other material. Simply because PW8 pancha of discovery had supported the case of the prosecution itself is no ground, more particularly, in absence of any link with other material. In cross-examination PW20, Investigating Officer admits that he had drawn inquest panchnama before registration of FIR and further important link is missing about movement of Muddamal of blood samples of deceased collected by PW1, doctor Mansukh Gajera, who performed Post-Mortem and simply a Yadi is available on record, however, it is not established that who carried such samples from the hospital. Even samples, which were sent for FSL examination, what appears on record is blood stain marks of B-group of the deceased on the clothes of accused No.1. The above evidence again has no significance since blood group of accused No.1 was also B-group and no specific question was put to the accused whether he received any injury and absence of any explanation in this regard therefore would not be a circumstance to establish guilt of the accused. Even no explanation is made about detailed call records though available so as to establish presence of the accused at or nearby the scene of offence, and therefore, even presumption can be drawn about a circumstance in favour of the accused that they were not present at the scene of offence is suppressed. Testimonies of PW1, doctor, who carried out Post-Mortem establish only injuries on the body of the deceased. The above medical witness admits that CLW injury is possible due to an accident. No conclusive opinion is given about possibility of such injuries by usage of weapon like ‘kharapiyu’. However, such injuries were found to be fatal and sufficient, in ordinary course of nature, to cause death of injured. 6.5 In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [ (1984)4 SCC 116 ], the Apex Court in paras 152 to 157 held as under: “152 Before discussing the cases relied upon by the High Court we would like to cite a few decisions on the nature, character and essential proof required in a criminal case which rests on circumstantial evidence alone. The most fundamental and basic decision of this Court is Hanumant v. The State of Madhya Pradesh [ AIR 1952 SC 343 ]. The most fundamental and basic decision of this Court is Hanumant v. The State of Madhya Pradesh [ AIR 1952 SC 343 ]. This case has been uniformly followed and applied by this Court in a large number of later decisions upto date, for instance, the cases of Tufail (Alias) Simmi v. State of Uttar Pradesh [ (1969)3 SCC 198 ] and Ramgopal v. State of Maharashtra [AIR 1972 SC 666]. It may be useful to extract what Mahajan, J. has laid down in Hanumant's case. ( AIR 1952 SC 343 ). "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 163 first instance be fully established and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground far 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." 153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established: (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between 'may be proved' and 'must be or should be proved' as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between 'may be proved' and 'must be or should be proved' as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra [(1973)2 CC 793] where the following observations were made [SCC PARA 19, P.807 : "Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions." (2) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say. They should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. 154 These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence. 155. It may be interesting to note that as regards the mode of proof in a criminal case depending on circumstantial evidence, in the absence of a corpus deliciti, the statement of law as to proof of the same was laid down by Gresson, J. (and concurred by 3 more Judges) in The King v. Horry [1952 NZLR 111], thus: "Before he can be convicted, the fact of death should be proved by such circumstances as render the commission of the crime morally certain and leave no ground for reasonable doubt: the circumstantial evidence should be so cogent and compelling as to convince a jury that up on no rational hypothesis other than murder can the facts be accounted for." 156. Lord Goddard slightly modified the expression, morally certain by 'such circumstances as render the commission of the crime certain'. 157. Lord Goddard slightly modified the expression, morally certain by 'such circumstances as render the commission of the crime certain'. 157. This indicates the cardinal principle' of criminal jurisprudence that a case can be said to be proved only when there is certain and explicit evidence and no person can be convicted on pure moral conviction. Horry's case (supra) was approved by this Court in Anant Chintaman Lagu v. The State of Bombay [ AIR 1960 SC 500 ]. Lagu's case as also the principles enunciated by this Court in Hanumant's case (supra) have been uniformly and consistently followed in all later decisions of this Court without any single exception. To quote a few cases Tufail's case (supra), Ramgopals case (supra), Chandrakant Nyalchand Seth v. The State of Bombay (Criminal Appeal No. 120 of 1957 decided on 19.2.58), Dharmbir Singh v. The State of Punjab (Criminal Appeal No. 98 of 1958 decided on 4.11.1958). There are a number of other cases where although Hanumant's case has not 165 been expressly noticed but the same principles have been expounded and reiterated, as in Naseem Ahmed v. Delhi Administration [ (1974) 3 SCC 668 ], Mohan Lal Pangasa v. State of U.P. [ AIR 1974 SC 1144 ], Shankarlal Gyarasilal Dixit v. State of Maharashtra [(1981) SCC 35] and M.G. Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra [ AIR 1963 SC 200 ] a five-Judge Bench decision”. 6.6 In the case of Nana Keshav Lagad [supra], son of the deceased himself was injured and incriminating articles recovered had blood stains and medical evidence has supported ocular testimony and under the circumstances it was held that in case if no explanation is rendered by the appellant – accused under Section 313 of incriminating circumstance viz. human blood on clothes worn by accused, it would be circumstance against the accused. Another decision Rohtash Kumar [supra] is about motive, which operates in the mind of the accused is very often very limited and may not be within the reach of others, but at the same time in the very judgment it is observed that in a case of circumstantial evidence motive may be a very relevant factor. Another decision Rohtash Kumar [supra] is about motive, which operates in the mind of the accused is very often very limited and may not be within the reach of others, but at the same time in the very judgment it is observed that in a case of circumstantial evidence motive may be a very relevant factor. Since evidence in this regard is already discussed and we have found that motive was not only absent, but no evidence about last seen together, which is vital link snapped in view of contradiction in the testimonies of PW11, the complainant, son of the deceased, PW13 a farm labourer, PW15 daughter-in-law of the deceased and PW20 investigating officer, both the above cases relied on by the complainant have no application to the facts of the present case. 6.7 Taking into consideration overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that prosecution has failed to establish circumstances, having link with each other and forming a chain of events ruling out innocence of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and conviction and sentence rendered by the trial court believing such circumstances deserves to be quashed and set aside. 7. Accordingly, both the appeals are allowed and judgment dated 15.07.2009 passed by learned Additional District Judge and Fast Track Court No.8, Gondal, camp at Jetpur in Sessions Case No.157 of 2007 convicting and sentencing the appellants under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the IPC and under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, is hereby quashed and set aside and the appellants are ordered to be set free forthwith. Bail bond, if any, of accused stands cancelled. Record and Proceedings be sent back to the concerned trial Court forthwith.