JUDGMENT S. Panda, J. - This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16.08.19996 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Cuttack in S.T. Case No. 122 of 1993 (arising out of G.R. No. 237 of 1991) in convicting the present appellant along with another person, namely Sarabjit Singh for commission of offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to undergo R.L for life. 2. The brief facts of the case as delineated in the judgment tend to reveal that on 10. 07.1991, the S. I. of Chandeli P.S. (P.W. 10) getting information regarding death of an unknown person, went to the spot, which was by the side of Sitagada Nala. He found the dead body of a Sikh person was lying in a bushy aread closed to the southern parapet of the bridge. He also found blood stains on the southern side of the pitch portion of the road and a trail of blood from the pitch portion to the spot, where the dead body was lying. One empty cartridge was lying on the eastern earthen plank of the road and another was lying near the dead body. He also noticed gun-shot injury on the person of the deceased. Accordingly, he drew up the plain paper FIR, registered a case and took up investigation. During investigation, he found that the deceased was Sadhu Singh, father of R W. 9 who was having truck business. According to P.W. 9, his father had informed him that Laximdhar Singh had demanded Rs. 50,000/- cash from him at Rayagada, failing which he would be kidnapped. On 7.7.1991 his father's Truck bearing No.ORJ-7067 proceeded to Rayagada. Following day, his father went to J.K. Pur with another Truck. On 11.7.91, accused Rupinder Singh informed P.W. 9 that his father was already kidnapped by Laxmidharand his associates on 9.7:91 and they had sent him (appellant) to collect Rs. 50,000/- from P.W. 9 or else his father would be liked and in case P.W. 9 goes to the police station, then he will be killed. On 14.7.91, he got information regarding murder of his father from police. During the course of investigation, M.O.I and II, i.e. two A.K.47 Rifles were seized from the possession of one Laxmidhar Singh and Sarabjeet Singh at Bhandaripokhari under Bhadrak District. On 14.7.91, he got information regarding murder of his father from police. During the course of investigation, M.O.I and II, i.e. two A.K.47 Rifles were seized from the possession of one Laxmidhar Singh and Sarabjeet Singh at Bhandaripokhari under Bhadrak District. Then, the I.O. sent the empty cartridges recovered front he spot to the Chemical Examiner to test the empty cartridges vis-a-vis the two Rifles and as to whether those cartridges were fired from the two Rifles. Thereafter the accused persons were arrested and charge sheet was filed against the accused persons, namely ; Sarabjit Singh, Laxmidhar Singh and Rupinder Singh (present appellant) for commission of offence under Sections 302/341 PC and 27 (3) of the Arms Act. On the prayer of the prosecution and also submission of the accused persons, this Court in Cri. Misc. Case No. 343/92 (State of Orissa vs. Laxmidhar Singh & Others) transferred the case from Rayagada and Bhadrak to the file of S.D.J.M., Sadar, Cuttack. Out of three accused persons, since Laxmidhar Singh remained absconder after being released on bail, the trial was spilt up and the impugned judgment was pronounced as against the other two accused persons, namely; Rupinder Singh (present appellant) and Sarabjit Singh. Since Sarabjit die during the pendency of the appeal, the appeal preferred by him (CRA No.236 of 1996) was abated vide order dated 27.08.2018. 3. The plea of the accused persons was one of complete denial. 4. The prosecution in order to establish the charges examined as may as eleven witnesses which includes P.W.4, who is the circumstantial witness regarding the demand of ransom with A. K 47 Rifles, P.W.6 is the Medical Officer, who conducted Post-Mortem examination over the dead body, P.W.9 is the son of the deceased and another circumstantial witness and P.Ws. 10 and 11 are the I.Os. of the case. Prosecution also exhibited certain documents as exhibits, which includes Ext.5- Post Mortem Report, P.W.9 the Written F.I.R., P.W. 12, the Chemical Examination report and Ext.4, the inland letter in original written in Gurumukhi Script. On the other hand the accused Sabarbjeet Singh examined the priest of Jagdalpur Gurudwar as D. W. 1, but did not exhibit any document. M.Os. I and II are two A.K. 47 Rifles. 5. On the other hand the accused Sabarbjeet Singh examined the priest of Jagdalpur Gurudwar as D. W. 1, but did not exhibit any document. M.Os. I and II are two A.K. 47 Rifles. 5. The learned Sessions Judge on analyzing the evidence on record held that the prosecution has successfully brought home the charges against the appellant and another accused under Sections 302/34 I. P.C. However the Court below acquitted them for the offences charged under section 27(3) of the Arms Act, 1959. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment is contrary to law and against the weight of the evidence on record. The Court below had relied on the evidence of P.W.4, but the said witness had only named other two accused person and he had not named the appellant regarding threatening and demand of money, but he faced the trial along with others. So far as the letter under Ext.4 is concerned, the content and author of such letter has not been proved. The evidence of P.W.4 was demolished by D.W.1, the priest of Jagdalpur Gurudwara, who categorically stated that he did not know any person namely Jeevan Singh, Laxmidhar Singh and Sarabjeet Singh. That apart the said D.W.1, despite being a material witness, had not been examined by the prosecution. There being no evidence led by the prosecution to show that the appellant has participated in the murder of the deceased, the learned Sessions Judge has erred in convicting the appellant under Section 302/34 I.P.C. The impugned judgment has therefore, resulted in flagrant miscarriage of justice. As such the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is not sustainable in law and liable to be set aside. 7. Learned Addl. Government Advocate while supporting the impugned judgment submitted that the Trial Court after taking into consideration the evidence of the circumstantial witnesses convicted the appellant under Sections 302/34 of I.P.C, and therefore, impugned judgment does not warrant any interference in this appeal. 8. Perused the L.C.R. and went through the evidence on record carefully. The prosecution in order to bring home the charge, relied mostly on the evidence of the circumstantial witnesses, i.e. P.W.4 and P.W.9. P.W.4 in his examination-in-chief had stated that he did not know the appellant, whereas he knew the two other accused persons. In the night of 29.26.1991 while he was in his house, someone knocked the door. The prosecution in order to bring home the charge, relied mostly on the evidence of the circumstantial witnesses, i.e. P.W.4 and P.W.9. P.W.4 in his examination-in-chief had stated that he did not know the appellant, whereas he knew the two other accused persons. In the night of 29.26.1991 while he was in his house, someone knocked the door. When he opened the door he found Sarabjit and Laxmidhar entered his house and pointed guns towards him. Each of them were holding guns. He also identified the said two guns to be M.O.I. and II. They told him to pay an amount of Rs. 50,000/- and when P.W. 4 told them that he had no money they told him to pay the said amount at Jagadalpur Gurudwar. The accused persons had also told him to pay the amount to the priest of that Gurudwar and before paying the said amount he should show a two rupee note to the priest, so that the priest will recognize P.W.4. After two to three days he went to the priest and showed him two rupees note, but the priest did not recognize him and he told that the accused persons had not come to him nor told to receive the money. Therefore, he went back with the money. On 19.07.1991, he received a letter Ext.4 which was written in Gurumukhi Script. In the said letter it had been indicated that since P.W.4 did not pay the amount as per the earlier agreement, he had to pay the same within eight days, failing which he shall face the consequence as done to the deceased. He also told that he had submitted the Xerox copy of the letter to the police. However the content of such letter and the author of the said letter have not been proved. When P.W.4 had specifically stated that the contents were written in Gurumukhi Script, the same was neither. 9. The plea of the accused persons was one of complete denial. 10. The prosecution in order to establish the charges examined as may as eleven witnesses which includes P.W.4, who is the circumstantial witness regarding the demand of ransom with A. K. 47 Rifles, P.W. 6 is the Medical Officer, who conducted Post-Mortem examination over the dead body, P.W.9 is the son of the deceased and another circumstantial witness and P.Ws. 10 and 11 are the I.Os. of the case. 10 and 11 are the I.Os. of the case. Prosecution also exhibited certain documents as exhibits, which includes Ext.5- Post Mortem Report, P.W.9 the Written F.I.R., P.W. 12, the Chemical Examination report and Ext.4, the inland letter in original written in Gurumukhi Script. On the other hand the accused Sabarbjeet Singh examined the priest of Jagdalpur Gurudwar as D. W. 1, but did not exhibit any document. M.Os. I and II are two A.K. 47 Rifles 11. The learned Sessions Judge on analyzing the evidence on record held that the prosecution has successfully brought home the charges against the appellant and another accused under Sections 302/34 I.P.C. However the Court below acquitted them for the offences charged under section 27(3) of the Arms Act, 1959. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment is contrary to law and against the weight of the evidence on record. The Court below had relied on the evidence of P.W.4, but the said witness had only named other two accused person and he had not named the appellant regarding threatening and demand of money, but he faced the trial along with others. So far as the letter under Ext.4 is concerned, the content and author of such letter has not been proved. The evidence of P.W.4 was demolished by D. W. 1, the priest of Jagdalpur Gurudwara, who categorically stated that he did not know any person namely Jeevan Singh, Laxmidhar Singh and Sarabjeet Singh. That apart the said D.W.1, despite being a material witness, had not been examined by the prosecution. There being no evidence led by the prosecution to show that the appellant has participated in the murder of the deceased, the learned Sessions Judge has erred in convicting the appellant under Section 302/34 I.P.C. The impugned judgment has therefore, resulted in flagrant miscarriage of justice. As such the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is not sustainable in law and liable to be set aside. 13. Learned Addl. Government Advocate while supporting the impugned judgment submitted that the rial Court after taking into consideration the evidence of the circumstantial witnesses convicted the appellant under Sections 302/34 of I.P.C, and therefore, impugned judgment does not warrant any interference in this appeal. 14. Perused the L.C.R. and went through the evidence on record carefully. 13. Learned Addl. Government Advocate while supporting the impugned judgment submitted that the rial Court after taking into consideration the evidence of the circumstantial witnesses convicted the appellant under Sections 302/34 of I.P.C, and therefore, impugned judgment does not warrant any interference in this appeal. 14. Perused the L.C.R. and went through the evidence on record carefully. The prosecution in order to bring home the charge, relied mostly on the evidence of the circumstantial witnesses, i.e. P.W.4 and P.W.9. P.W.4 in his examination-in-chief had stated that he did not know the appellant, whereas he knew the two other accused persons. In the night of 29.26.1991 while he was in his house, someone knocked the door. When he opened the door he found Sarabjit and Laxmidhar entered his house and pointed guns towards him. Each of them were holding guns. He also identified the said two guns to be M.O.I. and II. They told him to pay an amount of Rs. 50,000/- and when P.W. 4 told them that he had no money they told him to pay the said amount at Jagadalpur Gurudwar. The accused persons had also told him to pay the amount to the priest of that Gurudwar and before paying the said amount he should show a two rupee note to the priest, so that the priest will recognize P.W.4. After two to three days he went to the priest and showed him two rupees note, but the priest did not recognize him and he told that the accused persons had not come to him nor told to receive the money. Therefore, he went back with the money. On 19.07.1991, he received a letter Ext.4 which was written in Gurumukhi Script. In the said letter it had been indicated that since P.W.4 did not pay the amount as per the earlier agreement, he had to pay the same within eight days, failing which he shall face the consequence as done to the deceased. He also told that he had submitted the Xerox copy of the letter to the police. However the content of such letter and the author of the said letter have not been proved. When P.W.4 had specifically stated that the contents were written in Gurumukhi Script, the same was neither examined nor translated into other language, or the same was not examined by the hand-writing expert to know the author of the same. However the content of such letter and the author of the said letter have not been proved. When P.W.4 had specifically stated that the contents were written in Gurumukhi Script, the same was neither examined nor translated into other language, or the same was not examined by the hand-writing expert to know the author of the same. Similarly, the P.W.4 has not named the present appellant anywhere in his deposition rather he had named other two accused to have holding two rifles. 15. The prosecution also relied on the evidence of another circumstantial witness, P.W.9, who happens to be the son of the deceased. He had deposed that his father returning from Rayagada told him that one Laxmidhar Singh had demanded ransom of Rs. 50,000/- at Rayagada, failing which he shall be kidnapped. On 08.07.1991, his father had gone to J.K. Pur with his Truck. P.W. 9 had gone to his maternal uncle's house at Bhubaneswar. At Bhubaneswar, the present appellant told him that his father had already been kidnapped by accused Laxmidhar Singh and his associates on 09.07.1991 and the accused persons had sent the present appellant to collect the ransom of Rs. 50,000/-. The present appellant also told him that his father would be killed, in case he went to the police. On 14.07.1991 he was informed by his maternal uncle that his father was murdered. Accordingly to him, the present appellant is the son of his maternal uncle's brother-in-law (sadu). P.W.9 has not pointed out any finger towards the overt act performed by the present appellant with regard to the murder. 16. The Prosecution also relied on the Chemical Examination report, which reveals that the cartridges were fired the AK 47 Rifels marked as M.O.I and M.O.II, which were seized from the accused persons namely Laxmidhar had Sarabjit. Here also the role of the present appellant with regard to chain of circumstances is not complete. Similarly there are number of missing links at different points. When the presence of the present appellant was basing on the statement of one Narayan Sukla during the investigation by the I.O., the statement of such person has not been recorded. There is also discrepancies so far as the cause of death opined by the Doctor and cause advanced by the prosecution is concerned. 17. Admittedly there is no eye witness to the occurrence. There is also discrepancies so far as the cause of death opined by the Doctor and cause advanced by the prosecution is concerned. 17. Admittedly there is no eye witness to the occurrence. The case of the prosecution solely rests on circumstantial evidences. As the case is based solely on the circumstantial evidence, the Court has to be satisfied that the legal parameters decided in the case of Tarseem Kumar vs. Delhi Administration reported in 1995 ACR 370 that the circumstances from which conclusion of guilt is to be drawn has been fully established, all the facts so established are consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt of the appellant and they do not excluded any other hypothesis except the one sought to be proved, the circumstances on which reliance has been placed are conclusive in nature and the chain of the evidence in the case is such that there is no scope for any reasonable ground for conclusion with the innocence of the accused. 18. In the said case Tarseem Kumar (supra) at paragraph-8 it has been observed as follows:- "Normally, there is a motive behind every criminal act and that is why investigating agency as well as the Court while examining the complicity of an accused try to ascertain as to what was the inctive on the part of the accused to commit the crime in question. It has been repeatedly pointed out by this Court that where the case of the prosecution has been proved beyond all reasonable doubts on basis of the materials produced before the Court the motive loses its importance. But in a case which is based on circumstantial evidence, motive for committing the crime on the part of the accused assumes greater importance. Of course, it each of the circumstances proved on behalf of the prosecution is accepted by the Court for purpose of recording a finding that it was the accused who committed the crime in question, even in absence of proof of a motive for commission of such a crime, the accused can be convicted. Of course, it each of the circumstances proved on behalf of the prosecution is accepted by the Court for purpose of recording a finding that it was the accused who committed the crime in question, even in absence of proof of a motive for commission of such a crime, the accused can be convicted. But the investigating agencies as well as the Court should ascertain as far as possible as to what was the immediate impelling motive on the part of the accused which led him to commit the crime in question." Here the prosecution tried to prove the motive through RW.4, RW.9 and Ext.4, when evidences of such witnesses were silent about the overt act performed by the present appellant. That apart the authenticity of the document under Ext.4, the author of the letter and the contents of such letter were not proved. Therefore, the proseuction has failed to prove the motive of the appellant for such crime. 19. It is the settled law that the circumstances from which conclusion is drawn should be fully proved; circumstances should be conclusive; all established facts should be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt and inconsistent with the innocence of the accused ; and circumstances should exclude possibility of guilt of any person other than the accused. The Chain of evidence must be so complete that the circumstances must show that in all human probability, the act must have been by the accused. The Apex Court in the case of Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 1984 AIR 1662 observed that:- Evidence-Circumstantial evidence-Onus of proof Prosecution must prove every link of the chain and complete chain-Infirmity or lacuna in the prosecution cannot be cured by false defence or plea-A person cannot be convicted on pure moral conviction-Flase explanation can be used as additional link to fortify the prosecution case, subject to satisfaction of certain conditions. 20. 20. The law has also been settled in the case of Gambhir vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1982 SC 1157 wherein it has been held that when the case depends upon circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established, secondly, the circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerrigly pointing towards guilt of the accused and thirdly, circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so completely that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human of probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else, 21. The evidence as analyzed hereinabove paragraphs and taking into consideration the same, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt as against the present appellant. Hence, this Court sets aside the impugned order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Cuttack in S.T. Case No. 122 of 1993 (arising out of G.R. No.237 of 1991) vide judgment dated 16.08.1996 and acquits the appellant from the charges made under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. accordingly. 22. The bail bond of the appellant, who is on bail, be cancelled and he be set at liberty, in case he is not required to be in custody in connection with any other case. The Lower Court Records along with copy of judgment be sent forthwith to the Trial Court for necessary action. 23. The Criminal Appeal is accordingly allowed.