JUDGMENT : Crl.A.No.57/2013 has been preferred by accused Nos.3 and 5 and Crl.A.No.225/2013 has been preferred by accused Nos.1 and 2 against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 27/29.12.2012 passed by the Fast Track Court, Bengaluru City in S.C.No.532/2009. 2. The brief facts of the case are that : On 11.01.2009, PWs.9 and 8 were on night rounds and as per the instructions of Station House Officer, they were taking the rounds for the purpose of tracing the accused and the property in some criminal cases and when they were on surveillance duty at about 10.00 p.m., they came near K.B. Sandra and at that time they received a credible information that some persons are there in KMC Bar near Sarayi Palya and they are consuming alcohol and speaking in Urdu language that they have committed a murder and moving in a Qualis Vehicle along with dead body. At about 10.20 p.m., PWs.9 and 8 came to the said KMC bar in a mufthy and they went and sat like customers in the bar and there they found two persons, who have consumed alcohol and talking in Urdu language by saying that they have murdered a person and by saying so they went out of the bar and went towards Qualis Vehicle bearing registration No.K.A.02-B-2221 and immediately these two constables surrounded and when they asked their names and addresses, one among them told his name and address as Jabeer @ Jabeeulla S/o Jeefulla, residing at 15th cross, Govindapura, K.G.Halli, Bengaluru and another person told his name and address as Jafar S/o Sarvar Ahamad, residing at 9th Cross, Gandhinagar, K.G.Halli, Bengaluru City. When they searched the Qualis Vehicle, in the back seat they found a person was sleeping on the back seat and they also found blood stains on the said person and the said person was not breathing and when they checked the pocket, they found Election Identity Card and it was pertaining to Nusruth Ulla Khan, S/o Kareem Khan, aged:28 years, residing at No. 26/1, X-Service men colony, R.T.Nagar, Bengaluru and when they asked the persons whom they have apprehended, they told that along with five others they have murdered the deceased. Immediately along with vehicle and the dead body, they went to the Police Station and gave report as per Ex.P5. 3. Immediately along with vehicle and the dead body, they went to the Police Station and gave report as per Ex.P5. 3. On the basis of the said report, a case was registered in Crime No.10/2009 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of IPC. Thereafter, they secured the presence of PW.1 and took him to the hospital and showed the dead body of the deceased and he identified the same as that of his brother and a case was registered and charge sheet was filed against the accused persons by showing that accused No.4 is absconding. 4. Thereafter, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City committed the case to Sessions Court, Bengaluru. The Sessions Court, after securing the presence of the accused persons and after hearing both sides, framed the charge. Accused pleaded not guilty and they claimed to be tried and as such, the trial was commenced. 5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 21 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.23 and also got marked M.Os.1 to 16. Thereafter, the statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. came to be recorded. The accused denied the same as false and they have not led any evidence on their behalf. 6. After hearing both the sides, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence was came to be passed. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the appellants/accused are before this Court. 7. We have heard Sri. Anees Ali Khan - learned counsel for accused Nos.3 and 5 and Sri. Naushad Pasha - learned counsel for accused Nos.1 and 2 and also Sri. Vijaya kumar Majage - learned Additional SPP. 8. Learned counsel appearing for accused/appellants submitted that the entire case rests on circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has not proved the chain of events as against the accused persons. They further submitted that as per the case of the prosecution, the motive for alleged offence was the deceased having liking towards PW.6 and he was frequently visiting her house and even inspite of advice, he again visited the house of PW.6 and hence, in order to finish him, the accused persons by forming unlawful assembly, kidnapped the deceased and thereafter, by assaulting him caused his death. But, the said motive for causing death has not been proved by the prosecution. But, the said motive for causing death has not been proved by the prosecution. PWs.6 and 7, who are considered to be the material witnesses, have not supported the case of the prosecution and there is no iota of evidence to substantiate the said fact. 9. It is further submitted that PWs.8 and 9, who were on patrolling duty, went to the bar and there they heard the conversation between accused Nos.1 and 2 and when they proceeded towards Qualis Vehicle, they surrounded them and at that time, accused No.1 showed the dead body in the Qualis Vehicle. But for the reasons best known to the Investigating Agency, neither the owner of the bar nor the owner of the Qualis Vehicle have been examined before the Court to show that the dead body was found in the said vehicle near said bar. He has also submitted that even the Investigating Officer has not examined any of such witnesses which will also go to the root of the case of the prosecution. They further submitted that as per the charge sheet, CW.21 is a witness, who has saw lastly the accused and the deceased quarrelling and the said witness has not been examined before the court for the reasons best known to the prosecution. 10. It is also submitted that there is no material to show that who has driven the Qualis Vehicle and left it in front of the bar. Then under such circumstances, it cannot be conferred that the accused persons brought the dead body in the said vehicle. They further submitted that there is no material to connect the accused/appellants and the said fact has also not been proved even though the Court below without considering the evidence in this light, has wrongly convicted the accused. Hence, the appeals may be allowed and the accused/appellants may be acquitted by setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 11. Hence, the appeals may be allowed and the accused/appellants may be acquitted by setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 11. Per contra, the learned Additional SPP vehemently argued that PWs.8 and 9 are the important persons who over heard the conversation between accused Nos.1 and 2 in KMC bar that they have committed a murder and immediately when PWs.8 and 9 have surrounded the accused and searched the Qualis Vehicle, they found dead body and thereafter, they have taken the vehicle and dead body to the Police Station and even the accused persons have given their voluntary statement for having committing the alleged offence. He has also submitted that the FSL report also clearly goes to show that the stains of the blood were found on the clothes of the accused belongs to a human body and pertaining to ‘A’ group. He further submitted that PWs.8 and 9 have over heard that the accused have specifically stated that they have committed the murder of the deceased. Under such circumstances, by appreciating the said fact, the Court below has rightly convicted the accused persons and there are no grounds to interfere with the judgment and order of the trial Court and the same may be confirmed by dismissing the appeals. 12. We have gone through the evidence and the original records. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of 21 witnesses. It is well established principle of law that if the case rests on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has to establish that the circumstances lead to one and only conclusion towards the guilt of the accused. Evidence must be complete and should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused i.e., they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. It is well settled principle of law that the entire circumstances point out guilt of all the accused and if any of the link has not been established, then under such circumstances, the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused. It is well established principle of law that the prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 13. It is well established principle of law that the prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 13. The main reason for the alleged offence is that the deceased was having liking towards PW.6 Smt.Suraiah who is the wife of PW.7 and even inspite of advice of elders and other persons, he used to visit the house of PW.6 and in that light the accused persons kidnapped the deceased and committed murder. 14. In order to prove the motive aspect, the prosecution got examined PW.6-Smt.Suraiah and her husband PW.7 Wasim and owner of the house Smt.Chandra as PW.15. PW.6 in her evidence has deposed that she does not know the deceased-Nusruth Ulla Khan and the deceased did not come to her house and she has not seen him at any time. This witness has been treated as hostile and though the learned Public Prosecutor cross-examined her at length, nothing has been elicited to substantiate the case of the prosecution in this behalf. 15. PW.7 is the husband of PW.6. He has also reiterated the evidence of PW.6 and he has also been treated as hostile and though cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor, nothing has been elicited to prove the case of the prosecution. 16. PW.15, who is the owner of the house, has deposed in her evidence that she has given her house on rental to PW.7 Wasim – the husband of PW.6. She has deposed that she has not seen the accused persons in the month of January 2009 and she denied that accused persons came in a Qualis Vehicle to the house of PW.7 and thereafter, they took the husband of PW.6 in the said Qualis Vehicle. This witness also has been treated as hostile and then during the course of cross-examination nothing has been elicited so as to substantiate the case of the prosecution and the motive of the alleged offence. Under these circumstances, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the motive aspect for the alleged offence is concerned. 17. The second important point on which the prosecution relied upon is that the evidence of PWs.8 and 9 who have over heard the conversation of accused persons that they have committed the murder of the deceased. PW.8 is the police constable who was on patrolling duty on 11.01.2009. 17. The second important point on which the prosecution relied upon is that the evidence of PWs.8 and 9 who have over heard the conversation of accused persons that they have committed the murder of the deceased. PW.8 is the police constable who was on patrolling duty on 11.01.2009. He has further deposed that they were on rounds at about 10.00 pm., along with PW.9 and when they came near K.B. Sandra, they received credible information that at Sarayi playa two persons in KMC bar by consuming alcohol speaking that they have committed murder of somebody and they are moving in a Qualis Vehicle. Immediately they went there at 10.20 p.m., and when they entered the KMC bar, they saw two persons speaking in Urdu language about the murder committed by them and when accused went near the Qualis Vehicle, immediately they surrounded and apprehended the two persons and enquired them and when they searched the Qualis Vehicle, they found a dead body of the deceased and thereafter, they took accused Nos.1 and 2 along with Qualis Vehicle and dead body to the police station and PW.9 filed the report as per Ex.P.9. 18. During the course of cross-examination, P.Ws.8 & 9 have admitted that immediately after receiving the credible information they have not informed to K.G.Halli Police Station or to the Central Control Room about the said aspect. It is further admitted during the course of cross-examination that KMC bar comes within the jurisdiction of K.G.Halli police station and that witnesses are belonging to D.J.Halli police station. They have further deposed that they have not received any written instructions for the purpose of tracing the accused and material objects in any other criminal cases. They have further admitted in their evidence that if the said crime does not come within the jurisdictional police station, immediately they have to inform to the Central Control Room, but in this case they have not informed the same. They have further admitted that they have over heard the conversation of accused Nos.1 and 2 at a distance of one meter. Except that, nothing has been elicited from the mouth of these witnesses. 19. PW.9 also reiterated the evidence of PW.8 20. They have further admitted that they have over heard the conversation of accused Nos.1 and 2 at a distance of one meter. Except that, nothing has been elicited from the mouth of these witnesses. 19. PW.9 also reiterated the evidence of PW.8 20. By carefully going through the evidence of PWs.8 and 9, it clearly goes to show that on credible information they went to KMC bar and there they over heard the conversation between accused Nos.1 and 2. Even as could be seen from Ex.P.5 and the evidence of PWs.8 and 9, they have deposed in examination-in-chief itself that some persons told that two persons were talking that they have committed murder and on the basis of the said credible information they went to said KMC bar. If they have received the said information, then under such circumstances immediately they ought to have informed the said fact to the jurisdictional police station. Admittedly, the said KMC bar is coming within the jurisdiction of K.G.Halli police station and these two persons are belonging to D.J.Halli police station. Under such circumstances, either they could have secured the presence of jurisdictional police and then proceeded for apprehending the accused persons or seizing the Qualis Vehicle containing the dead body. In that light also, the evidence lead by the prosecution is not inspiring the confidence of this Court that PWs.8 and 9 were on patrolling duty and after receiving the credible information, they went to KMC bar and there they over heard the conversation of accused Nos.1 and 2 in Urdu language that they have committed murder. 21. Be that as it may, it can be seen from the prosecution records that though P.Ws.8 & 9 have found accused persons in KMC bar and were speaking in Urdu language that they have committed the murder, but the best witness is the owner of the bar or supplier who is working in the said bar who have not been examined by the prosecution. That itself is going to create a doubt in the case of the prosecution that accused Nos.1 and 2 were there in KMC bar and were speaking about the murder by consuming alcohol. 22. That itself is going to create a doubt in the case of the prosecution that accused Nos.1 and 2 were there in KMC bar and were speaking about the murder by consuming alcohol. 22. It is the case of the prosecution that when accused Nos.1 and 2 went near the Qualis Vehicle, immediately P.Ws.8 & 9 surrounded them and apprehended accused Nos.1 and 2 and searched the Qualis Vehicle and found the dead body of the deceased. If really the said vehicle was there, then under such circumstances the driver of the said vehicle ought to have been examined in this behalf. But for the reasons best known to Investigating Agency, the said witness has not been examined. Even as could be seen from the records, the owner of the Qualis Vehicle has not been examined to show that who has taken the vehicle and who was the driver of the vehicle at the relevant point of time and who took the vehicle and parked the said Qualis Vehicle near the KMC bar. In that behalf, there is no link established by the prosecution to hold that the accused persons committed the murder of the deceased and took the dead body in the Qualis Vehicle and they came to KMC bar and were consuming alcohol. In this behalf, there is lack of material to connect the evidence to show that the accused have committed the alleged crime. 23. It is the further case of the prosecution that after apprehension of accused Nos.1 and 2, they have given their voluntary statement by stating that along with accused Nos.3 to 5 they have committed the alleged offence. Though they have given the voluntary statement, there is no worth believable evidence to connect accused Nos.3 to 5 to the alleged offence except the voluntary statement of accused Nos.1 and 2 is concerned. Even though as could be seen from the records, MO.1 - knife was recovered from the Qualis Vehicle, the prosecution has not produced any material to show that who has kept the said MO.1 in the vehicle and in whose possession the said vehicle was there. In that light also, there is lack of evidence to connect the accused to the said crime. Even as could be seen from the charge sheet material, CW.21 is a witness who has seen the accused persons quarrelling with the deceased. In that light also, there is lack of evidence to connect the accused to the said crime. Even as could be seen from the charge sheet material, CW.21 is a witness who has seen the accused persons quarrelling with the deceased. Though he has been cited as an eye witness in the charge sheet, he has not been examined before the Court. In the absence of worth believable evidence before the Court, it cannot be inferred that the accused persons took the deceased and subsequently have committed the murder of the deceased by kidnapping him. 24. At this juncture, the learned Additional SPP submitted that the FSL report clearly goes to show that the clothes which were recovered at the instance of accused Nos.1 and 2 were stained with human blood and pertaining to ‘A’ group and in that light, there is evidence to show that the accused persons involved in the alleged crime. But as could be seen from the FSL report-Ex.P.22, it shows that MO.1 - knife and clothes which have been seized are containing the stains of human blood and pertaining to ‘A’ group. But only on the basis of FSL report and serology report, it cannot be inferred that the accused persons have committed the alleged offence. 25. The learned Additional SPP by recording the evidence of PW.13 - the recovery mahazar pancha to Exs.P.8 and P.9 submitted that there is an evidence to show that the accused persons produced MO.1 - knife and blood stained clothes and the same have been seized from the possession of accused persons as per Ex.P8 and the Qualis Vehicle seized as per Ex.P9. In the evidence of PW.13, who is said to be a pancha witness to Exs.P8 and P.9, has deposed that he does not know the articles which have been seized from the possession of the accused persons. Further he has deposed that police took him and showed the dead body in the Qualis Vehicle, but he does not know the articles which have been taken. He has further deposed that on 11.01.2009, when Ex.P.9 was drawn, they have not seized any other articles and he does not know about the same. This witness has been treated as hostile by the Public Prosecutor and he has been cross-examined in length. He has further deposed that on 11.01.2009, when Ex.P.9 was drawn, they have not seized any other articles and he does not know about the same. This witness has been treated as hostile by the Public Prosecutor and he has been cross-examined in length. During the course of cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor, he has deposed that at the time of drawing the mahazar Ex.P.8 on 11.01.2009 by the police, he does not know that the other articles have been seized along with MO.1 and he has also shown his ignorance about seizure of Titan Watch under Ex.P.8-mahazar. By going through the evidence of this witness, at the first instance he has stated that no other articles were seized except MO.1, subsequently when he has been treated as hostile by the learned Public Prosecutor, he went on admitting the case of the prosecution. The entire evidence is assailing and is not prompt in the stand about the articles actually seized under Exs.P.8 and P.9. Under such circumstances, the evidence of PW.13 also not going to inspire the mind of this Court so also that said articles have been seized at the instance of accused persons. When the other evidence is lacking, then under such circumstance, the evidence of PW13 also is not going to help the prosecution to prove its case. In that light also, there is no material in this behalf to connect the accused persons to the alleged crime. 26. When we read the evidence which have been produced before the Court, we are of the considered opinion that all the chain of events which the prosecution intending to rely upon have not been clearly established so as to point out towards the guilt of the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt. When the case which is based upon circumstantial evidence and there arises doubt, then the benefit of doubt goes to the accused and accused alone. This proposition of law has not been properly and correctly appreciated by the trial Court and the trial Court has wrongly convicted the accused/appellants. 27. It is well established principle of law that when the entire case rests on circumstantial evidence and if all the links have not been properly established by the prosecution, then under such circumstances, the benefit of doubt should go to the accused. 27. It is well established principle of law that when the entire case rests on circumstantial evidence and if all the links have not been properly established by the prosecution, then under such circumstances, the benefit of doubt should go to the accused. In this regard, it is useful to extract paragraphs of 5, 10, 13, 15 and 18 from the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sangili @ Sanganathan V/s State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2014) 10 Supreme Court Cases 264, which reads as follows: “5. In all prosecution examined 16 witnesses apart from marking 18 documents and producing 8 material objects to establish the guilt of the appellant herein. The prosecution case rests on the circumstantial evidence. The circumstances are: 5.1 That the deceased was trying to woo PW5 which was objected to by the appellant herein and in that context there was an earlier incident of beating up of the deceased by the appellant. 5.2 That the deceased left the house on the fateful day on receiving call from the appellant and never returned thereafter. 5.3 That the appellant knew as to where the dead body of the deceased was lying and also the place where the bicycle of the deceased was available. 5.4 The appellant also knew where MOs.7 and 8 (two knives) which are said to have been used for killing the deceased were hidden. 5.5 The trial Court on the basis of the abovementioned circumstances recorded a conclusion that the appellant was guilty of murdering Muthuramaligam which finding is confirmed by the High Court. 10. Coming to the circumstance that the deceased left his residence on the fateful day after receiving the call allegedly made by the appellant herein, the prosecution sought to establish the said fact on the basis of the evidence of PW.1 and PW8, of whom PW8 turned hostile. PW.1, the father of the deceased stated in his evidence that on the fateful day the deceased received a phone call from the appellant herein at about 5.15 p.m. which call was initially picked up by him and on his enquiry the caller identified himself by his name “Sangli”. In his cross-examination he clearly admitted that he neither saw nor knew the appellant before his arrest by the police. He did not know anything about the appellant’s place of residence, father’s name, etc. In his cross-examination he clearly admitted that he neither saw nor knew the appellant before his arrest by the police. He did not know anything about the appellant’s place of residence, father’s name, etc. The only other witness who was examined in this context was PW8 who alleged stated before PW.15 Inspector of Police that on the fateful day the appellant accompanied by another person went to the telephone both where PW8 was said to be working and made a phone call to the deceased. As noticed, PW8 did not support the prosecution case. That being the case, there is no legally admissible evidence on record to come to the conclusion that the deceased left the house only after being called up by the appellant herein. 13. We have carefully scrutinized the evidence of PWs.7 and 9. We find one aspect, which is material, and is quite intriguing. As per the prosecution, the appellant had made confessional statement; there is recovery of blood; recovery of knives; and recovery of bicycle. In the panchanama drawn for these recoveries, there is only one person who has allegedly witnessed these recoveries, namely, PW.7 Mathivanan, son of Thangamani. Though this by itself may not be very suspicious, when we examine this aspect in conjunction with other evidence emerging on record, such recoveries become little doubtful. The investigating officer himself, who appeared as PW.15, has stated in his deposition that the witness who signed the confessional statement of the appellant is not Mathivanam, son of Thangamani, thereby doubting the identity of PW.7. The manner in which PW.7 reached the spot and was allegedly requested by the investigating officer to accompany him to witness the recoveries is also shrouded in mystery. Further, in his chief-examination he stated that on that day from 8.00 p.m. to the next morning 3.30 a.m. he was with the police on the request of PW.15. In his cross-examination he stated that he was taken to the police station at about 6.00 p.m. for a short while and let off by the police thereafter. All these facts taken together, which are not considered by the Courts below, make the recoveries little doubtful. 15. To sum up what is discussed above, it is a case of blind murder. There are no eyewitnesses. Conviction is based on the circumstantial evidence. All these facts taken together, which are not considered by the Courts below, make the recoveries little doubtful. 15. To sum up what is discussed above, it is a case of blind murder. There are no eyewitnesses. Conviction is based on the circumstantial evidence. In such a case, complete chain of events has to be established pointing out the culpability of the accused person. The chain should be such that no other conclusion, except the guilt of the accused person, is discernible without any doubt. In the present case, we find, in the first instance, that the appellant was roped in with suspicion that it was a case of triangular love and since he also loved PW.5, he eliminated the deceased when he found that the deceased and PW.5 are in love with each other. However, we are of the view that this mnotive has not been proved. The evidence of last seen is also not established. The father of the deceased only said that the deceased had received a call and after receiving that call he left the house. In his deposition, he admitted that he had not seen the appellant before and he did not recognize his voice either. Therefore, he was unable to say as to whether the phone call received was that of the appellant. Proceeding further, we find that the deceased was not seen by anybody after he left the house. When we look into all these facts in entirety in the aforesaid context, we find that not only the chain of events is incomplete; it becomes somewhat difficult to convict the appellant only on the basis of the aforesaid recoveries. 18. It is settled position of law that suspicion however strong cannot be a substitute for proof. In a case resting completely on the circumstantial evidence the chain of circumstances must be so complete that they lead only to one conclusion, that is, the guilt of the accused. In our opinion, it is not safe to record a finding of guilt of the appellant and the appellant is entitled to get the benefit of doubt. We therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant. In our opinion, it is not safe to record a finding of guilt of the appellant and the appellant is entitled to get the benefit of doubt. We therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant. The appellant be set at liberty unless required in any other case.” Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances, we allow both the appeals and set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27/29.12.2012 passed by the Fast Track Court, Bengaluru City in S.C.No.532/2009. We acquit appellants/accused Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 from the charges levelled against them. The jail authorities are directed to release accused Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 forthwith, if they are not required in any other case.