JUDGMENT : BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the conviction order/judgment dated 12.05.2004 by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu in File No.59/Sessions whereby all the three appellants have been convicted under Sections 302/34 RPC for the murder of Jaspal Singh. The appeal is also directed against the order of sentence dated 18.05.2004 whereby all the appellants have been awarded sentence of life imprisonment plus fine of Rs.1000/-each, in default of which, they were directed to undergo three months simple imprisonment. Since the sentence of life imprisonment had been awarded to the appellants, the record of the case has been submitted to this Court in terms of Section 374 Cr.P.C for confirmation of the said sentence. Both the Criminal Appeal No.3/2004 and Confirmation No.3/2004 are being disposed of by this judgment. 2. The case for the prosecution is that on 20.08.1999 one Jasbir Singh (complainant) lodged a missing report in respect of his brother Jaspal Singh (deceased), who had reportedly left his house at Chatha Mill, Jammu for Government Medical College, Jammu in the evening of 17.08.1999, but had not returned home thereafter. The missing report No.3 in the daily diary of 20.08.1999 was recorded at Police Post Chatha. Thereafter, the search for the missing person (Jaspal Singh) lead to the recovery of his dead body stuffed in a gunny bag from the Canal on 22.08.1999. This lead to the registration of a case for an offence under Sections 302 RPC at Police Station Satwari on the basis of a docket dispatched by the Sub Inspector Davinder Parkash, who was posted as Officer Incharge of Police Post Chatha Farm at that time. 3. From the prosecution story it further emerges that while police officers and the relatives of the deceased were trying to trace out the deceased Jaspal Singh, a bicycle was recovered from the Canal at Jeevan Nagar which was identified as that of the deceased. The prosecution version further reveals that, this lead to an intensified search for the deceased which culminated in the recovery of the dead body of the deceased from the canal at Babliana near Engineering College. The body was found tied and stuffed in a gunny bag and the wearing apparel of the deceased were found tied to the body of the deceased in the form of 'Gathri'. The body was found tied and stuffed in a gunny bag and the wearing apparel of the deceased were found tied to the body of the deceased in the form of 'Gathri'. Consequently, as indicated above, the offence under section 302 RPC was registered under FIR No.89/1999 dated 22.08.1999 at Police Station, Satwari. Thereafter, investigation ensued and it culminated in the filing of the challan in Court. In the meanwhile, as per the prosecution version, material collected during investigation had established the complicity of the appellants in the commission of the murder of the deceased. They were arrested and subjected to interrogation. It was the case of the prosecution that the motive for the crime was that the deceased had illicit relations with appellant Jagdish Kaur, but of late the deceased was attempting to establish illicit relations with the young daughter of Jagdish Kaur which was resented to by the appellants prompting them to engage in a conspiracy to commit the murder of the deceased. Apparently, as per the prosecution, disclosure statements were made by two of the accused/appellants in respect of their alleged blood stained clothes which allegedly were recovered at the instance of the said appellants (Ajeet Singh and Prem Singh). As per the prosecution, the clothes were sealed and sent for chemical examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Jammu. The prosecution version indicates that after meticulous planning, the appellants called the deceased (Jaspal Singh) to the house of the appellant Jagdish Kaur in the evening of 17.08.1999 and that Jaspal Singh went to her house on the pretext that he was going to see an ailing friend admitted in the Hospital at Bakshi Nagar. It is the prosecution version that the deceased Jaspal Singh was confined by the appellants at Jagdish Kaur’s house and was strangulated to death. 4. After the challan was filed in Court, the charge for the offence under Sections 302/34 RPC was framed against the appellants, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution produced as many as 24 witnesses. Thereafter, the accused were examined under Section 342 Cr.P.C. The accused also led defence evidence in the form of five witnesses. 5. 4. After the challan was filed in Court, the charge for the offence under Sections 302/34 RPC was framed against the appellants, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution produced as many as 24 witnesses. Thereafter, the accused were examined under Section 342 Cr.P.C. The accused also led defence evidence in the form of five witnesses. 5. The learned Sessions Court after examining the evidence on record and hearing the learned counsel for the parties came to the conclusion that the prosecution had successfully established that the accused had caused the death of Jaspal Singh in the late evening of 17.08.1999 in the house of Jagdish Kaur by strangulating him with a ‘patka’ and, thereafter, had stuffed his body and clothes in a gunny bag and removed the same together with the bicycle of the deceased and dumped them in the Jeevan Nagar Canal. Consequently, the trial court convicted the appellants under Sections 302/34 RPC and sentenced them to imprisonment for life by virtue of a subsequent sentencing order dated 18.05.2004, as already mentioned above. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that this was a case which rested purely on circumstantial evidence. She submitted that in a case of circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances linking the accused with the crime has to be complete and each link in the chain has to be established by cogent evidence. It is only then that the accused can be convicted for the crime for which they are charged. She submitted that in the present case, there is no clear evidence connecting the appellants with the alleged commission of the crime. The chain is incomplete and there is serious doubt with regard to the prosecution version. She submitted that as indicated in the impugned judgment, eight circumstances have been set out as establishing the case against the appellants. She submits that almost all of those circumstances are not supported by cogent evidence and are based merely on surmise and conjuncture on the part of the trial Court. The learned counsel for the appellants took us through the entire evidence and more particularly the evidence of the important witnesses, namely, PW2-Chet Singh and PW3-Inder Singh, to whom the appellant Jagdish Kaur is said to have made an extra judicial confession. The learned counsel for the appellants took us through the entire evidence and more particularly the evidence of the important witnesses, namely, PW2-Chet Singh and PW3-Inder Singh, to whom the appellant Jagdish Kaur is said to have made an extra judicial confession. Apart from this, the other important witnesses, included PW4-Tarvinder Kaur (wife of the deceased Jaspal Singh), PW6-Ramneet Kaur (daughter of the deceased Jaspal Singh), PW24-Davinder Parkash (the Investigating Officer) and included Dr. C.S.Gupta-PW21. 7. Mr Nanda, appearing on behalf of the State entirely supported the decision of the trial court and submitted that this was a clear case where the motive had been established and that the same was shared by all the accused. He further submitted that in pursuance of this motive, the deceased Jaspal Singh had been killed in a pre-planned manner. He submitted that there is evidence of the extra judicial confession having been made by Jagdish Kaur to PW2-Chet Singh and PW3-Inder Singh, which clearly establishes the complicity of the appellants. Apart from this, he submitted that there is clear evidence of the daughter of the deceased Jaspal Singh to the effect that a phone call for Jaspal Singh had been received by her from Jagdish Kaur and pursuant to that phone call, Jaspal Singh had gone to Jagdish Kaur’s house. He further submits that the recovery of the bicycle and the dead body clearly points to the commission of the crime by the appellants. Mr Nanda also submits that the appellants Ajeet Singh and Prem Singh had made separate disclosure statements before the police and pursuant to those disclosure statements, their blood stained clothes (T-shirt and under garments) had been recovered. Thus, according to Mr Nanda, there was no infirmity in the impugned judgment and the order on sentence and the same ought not to be interfered with by this Court in this appeal and confirmation. He further submitted that the case for the prosecution had been established beyond reasonable doubt and that although this was a case of circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances was complete. 8. In this backdrop, we find from the impugned judgment that according to the learned Sessions Court, the following circumstantial evidence had been established by the prosecution: “I. That the accused had developed illicit relations with his cousin-accused Jagdish Kaur and he was not inclined to severe such extra marital relationship. 8. In this backdrop, we find from the impugned judgment that according to the learned Sessions Court, the following circumstantial evidence had been established by the prosecution: “I. That the accused had developed illicit relations with his cousin-accused Jagdish Kaur and he was not inclined to severe such extra marital relationship. The accused had a motive to commit the murder of deceased. II. That accused Jagdish Kaur rang up the deceased on 17.08.99 inviting him to her house for the night. III. That the deceased left his house at around 9 pm. He rode a bicycle, that was the last time he was seen alive by his family members. PW Gurmeet Singh noticed the deceased proceeding towards the house of accused Jagdish Kaur and entering her house at around 10 pm of 17.8.99. The deceased was last seen alive at that time. IV. Accused Jagdish Kaur made extra judicial confession before PWs Inder Singh and Chet Singh admitting commission of murder of deceased in her house by the accused by strangulating the deceased by pulling at the ends of ‘patka’ thrown around his neck and dumping of his body, bicycle along with clothes in Jeewan Nagar, Canal. Such extra judicial confession was made in immediately presence of the other accused and the place where body of deceased and bicycle had been dumped was pointed out to the prosecution witnesses by the accused. V. Body of deceased along with his clothes stuffed in a gunny bag with ligature marks present on the neck of deceased was recovered from Jeewan Nagar Canal Babliana on 22.8.99. The recovered articles included ‘thatha’ used in tying the body and the bicycle of deceased. VI. Accused Ajeet Singh and accused Prem Singh made disclosure statements before police on 25.8.99 which lead to recovery of blood stained underwear and blood stained T-shirt of these accused respectively from the house of accused Jagdish Kaur at the instance of accused Ajeet Singh and Prem Singh. The expert evidence tendered by the PW Dr. C.S. Gupta and the FSL report corroborates the prosecution version that the death of deceased was caused due to Asphyxia as a result of strangulation. Human blood stains were found on the seized underwear and T-shirt of accused Ajeet Singh and Prem Singh. The expert evidence tendered by the PW Dr. C.S. Gupta and the FSL report corroborates the prosecution version that the death of deceased was caused due to Asphyxia as a result of strangulation. Human blood stains were found on the seized underwear and T-shirt of accused Ajeet Singh and Prem Singh. Presence of blood stains on their wearing apparel and its recovery from the house of accused Jagdish Kaur has not been explained by the accused. VII. Accused Prem Singh posted as police constable at Police Station Nowabad at the relevant time was found absent from duty and missing from the Police Station between 8 pm (time of Roll Call) of 17.8.99 to 7.30 am of 18.8.99. this is clearly established by testimony of PW Head constable Nek Ram. VIII. Accused Prem Singh had developed illicit relations with co-accused Harbans Kaur-his aunt and he had been frequently staying in her house which leads to divorce of his ex-wife PW Harbans Kaur.” 9. We shall examine each of these circumstances in the backdrop of the evidence, that is before us: Circumstance No (i):, According to the trial court, the prosecution has established that the deceased had developed illicit relations with his cousin Jagdish Kaur and that he was not inclined to severe such extra-marital relationship. Therefore, the appellants had a motive to commit the murder of the deceased. There are several difficulties with this finding. First of all, as pointed earlier, the prosecution version with regard to the motive was a different one in that the deceased Jaspal Singh had developed illicit relations with Jagdish Kaur, but, of late, he wanted to establish illicit relations with her daughter. That story has also not been proved at all. Secondly, the issue of illicit relations between Jagdish Kaur and Jaspal Singh has not been directly adverted to by any of the witnesses. In fact, PW2 Chet Singh, to whom the alleged extra judicial confession statement was allegedly made by Jagdish Kaur, only stated that the murder of Jaspal Singh had been committed for some reason and that Jaspal Singh was a frequent visitor, therefore, he was killed. The exact expressions used were-“kisi waja se mara” and “Jasbir Singh (sic) Jaspal Singh ata jata tha is liye mar diya”. The exact expressions used were-“kisi waja se mara” and “Jasbir Singh (sic) Jaspal Singh ata jata tha is liye mar diya”. Insofar as PW3 is concerned, his testimony reveals that according to the alleged extra judicial confession made by Jagdish Kaur, Jaspal Singh was killed because he did not mend his ways. The exact words used in his testimony were --- “kuch aisi harketon se baaz na aya”. Such evidence cannot be construed as evidence of illicit relations between Jaspal Singh and Jagdish Kaur. Muchless, amounting to a motive to commit the murder of Jaspal Singh. Therefore, in our view the first circumstance referred to by the trial court does not stand. Circumstance No (ii): According to the trial court, the prosecution has been able to establish that Jagdish Kaur rang up the deceased on 17.08.1999 inviting him to her house for the night. The testimony of PW6-Ramneet Kaur who is the daughter of deceased Jaspal Singh has been relied upon by the prosecution. There is no doubt that both in her examination-in-chief as well as in the course of her cross examination, she has categorically stated that a phone call had been received by her and the caller had identified herself as Jagdish Kaur and had asked for Jaspal Singh and the phone was handed over to Jaspal Singh. However, the allegation that through that phone call, Jagdish Kaur had invited Jaspal Singh to her house for the night is not established. Although in the cross examination of PW6-Ramneet Kaur, there is an indication that there was such conversation, the same has to be read together with the testimony of PW4-Tarvinder Kaur (widow of Jaspal Singh), who was also present in the room when the phone call was received. PW4-Tavinder Kaur does not say that Jagdish Kaur had invited Jaspal Singh to her house for a night. On the contrary, she states that Jaspal Singh told her that he was going to hospital to see a friend. It may be recalled that even the prosecution version as initially putforth was that Jaspal Singh had left his house to see a friend at Government Medical College, Jammu and that he had gone missing since then. On the contrary, she states that Jaspal Singh told her that he was going to hospital to see a friend. It may be recalled that even the prosecution version as initially putforth was that Jaspal Singh had left his house to see a friend at Government Medical College, Jammu and that he had gone missing since then. Therefore, while the first part of the circumstance, to the extent that Jagdish Kaur made a phone call to the deceased Jaspal Singh on 17.08.1999, stands established, the evidence on record does not support the second conclusion that through the phone call, Jagdish Kaur had invited Jaspal Singh to her house for a night. Circumstance No (iii): As per this circumstance, Jaspal Singh is said to have left his house around 9 pm on a bicycle and that was the last time he was seen alive by his family members. To this extent, there is no evidence to controvert the same. The second part of this circumstance is that PW5-Gurmeet Singh noticed Jaspal Singh proceeding towards the house of Jagdish Kaur and entering her house at around 10 pm on 17.08.1999. Thus, according to trial court, the deceased Jaspal Singh was last seen alive at that time by PW5-Gurmeet Singh. The testimony insofar as PW5-Gurmeet Singh is concerned, cannot be relied upon at all and has to be discarded. The reason being that PW5-Gurmeet Singh was only examined-in-chief and was not presented for cross examination. This is clear from the trial court order dated 31.05.2001 which is part of the trial court record. Since PW5-Gurmeet Singh was not presented for cross examination, his statement in examination in chief cannot be looked into. Therefore, insofar as Circumstance No (iii) is concerned, only this much is established by the prosecution that Jaspal Singh left his house around 9 pm on a bicycle and this was the last time he was seen alive by his family members. The vital connection between Jaspal Singh proceeding towards the house of Jagdish Kaur and entering her house has not been established. The vital connection between Jaspal Singh proceeding towards the house of Jagdish Kaur and entering her house has not been established. Circumstance No (iv): According to this circumstance, Jagdish Kaur made an extra judicial confession before PW2-Chet Singh and PW3-Inder Singh and admitted commission of murder of Jaspal Singh by all the accused in her house in her presence by strangulating Jaspal Singh by pulling at the ends of ‘patka’ thrown around his neck and of thereafter dumping his body, bicycle and clothes in Jeewan Nagar Canal. The trial court concluded that such extra judicial confession was made in the immediate presence of the other accused and the place where the body of deceased Jaspal Singh and bicycle had been dumped was pointed out to the prosecution witnesses by the appellants. Insofar as PW2-Chet Singh is concerned, the said extra judicial confession is said to have been made by Jagdish Kaur in presence of her sister and two sisters-in-law. His testimony clearly indicates that at the time when the extra judicial confession was allegedly made by her, PW3-Inder Singh was not present. In cross examination he has admitted that the said extra judicial confession was allegedly made after Inder Singh had left to lodge the missing report with the police post. Two facts need to be noted. The first being that as per the prosecution witness Chet Singh, the extra judicial confession was made on 20.08.1999, that is the date of which the missing report was lodged. The second fact is that when the alleged extra judicial confession was made by Jagdish Kaur, the presence of the other appellants is not recorded instead the presence of Jagdish Kaur’s sister and two sisters-in-law is alleged. Another fact which is of great importance is that, as per the testimony of PW2-Chet Singh, when Jagdish Kour allegedly made the extra judicial confession to him, even PW3-Inder Singh was not present. Let us now see as to what Inder Singh has stated. According to PW3-Inder Singh, the extra judicial confession was made by Jagdish Kaur at 6.30 am on 22.08.1999 and not on 20.08.1999 as stated by PW2-Chet Singh. There is, therefore, clear contradiction between the testimony of PW2-Chet Singh and PW3-Inder Singh with regard to when the extra judicial confession was allegedly made by Jagdish Kaur. First of all, there is complete difference with regard to the dates. There is, therefore, clear contradiction between the testimony of PW2-Chet Singh and PW3-Inder Singh with regard to when the extra judicial confession was allegedly made by Jagdish Kaur. First of all, there is complete difference with regard to the dates. It is not a case of simply giving a wrong date because the date has reference to the events of a particular day i.e., the day on which the missing report was lodged and the day when the body was found, which were events of two different dates, that is, 20.08.1999 and 22.08.1999, respectively. According to PW2-Chet Singh, the extra judicial confession made on the day on which the missing report was lodged, whereas, according to PW3-Inder Singh, the extra judicial confession was made on the day on which the body and bicycle were recovered. These two days happen to be 20.08.1999 and 22.08.1999 (respectively) and are entirely different days. Secondly, there is a clear difference between accounts given by these two witnesses with regard to the presence of the other accused and the other persons. While PW2-Chet Singh says that along with Jagdish Kaur, her sister and two sisters-in-law were present. PW3-Inder Singh, however, says that along with Jagdish Kaur, the other appellants were also present. Therefore, it is clear that the extra judicial confession which was allegedly made by Jagdish Kaur is not established as a fact beyond the realm of doubt. The circumstance that the body and the bicycle were recovered as consequence of the extra judicial confession is also not established. This is clear from the testimony of PW24-Davinder Parkash (the I.O). In examination-in-chief, PW24-Davinder Parkash, inter alia, deposed that upon the lodging of the missing report on 20.08.1999, he started searching for Jaspal Singh. The bicycle belonging to Jaspal Singh was recovered by the said I.O from the Canal at Babliana on 22.08.1999 and this lead to the suspicion that the body of Jaspal Singh might also be found in the canal and consequently the subsequent search in canal yielded the body of the deceased. In cross examination also he has confirmed that the body of the deceased was discovered only after the people searched the canal when the flow of water was stopped. In cross examination also he has confirmed that the body of the deceased was discovered only after the people searched the canal when the flow of water was stopped. These statements clearly indicate that the recovery of the bicycle and the dead body of Jaspal Singh was as a consequence of the efforts made by the police and the people in searching the same and not as a consequence of the extra judicial confession allegedly made by Jagdish Kaur. Therefore, on the basis of the aforesaid discussion, Circumstance No (vi) cannot be said to have been established by the prosecution. Circumstance No.(v): Insofar as Circumstance No.(v) is concerned, there is no dispute with the same and there is ample evidence of the fact that the body of the deceased along with his clothes was stuffed in a gunny bag. The body also had ligature marks present on the neck of the deceased and the same was recovered from Jeewan Nagar Canal at Babliana on 22.8.99. The recovered articles also included a ‘patka’ tied to the body of the deceased which was used as a ‘weapon of offence’. The recovered article and the bicycle belonged to the deceased. There is no doubt that the death of Jaspal Singh, as indicated by the doctor who conducted the post mortem examination (Dr. C.S. Gupta)-PW21, was the result of Asphyxia caused by strangulation. Obviously, the death was homicidal. The question is whether the appellants are in any way connected with the homicide? Circumstance No (vi): As per this circumstance, Ajeet Singh and Prem Singh allegedly made disclosure statements before the police on 25.08.1999 which allegedly lead to the recovery of blood stained underwear and a blood stained T-shirt belonging to them, respectively, from the house of the appellant Jagdish Kaur and the recoveries were made at the instance of Ajeet Singh and Prem Singh. The trial court observed that the expert evidence tendered by PW21-Dr C.S. Gupta and the FSL report corroborated the prosecution version that the death of the deceased was caused due to Asphyxia as a result of strangulation, and that the human blood stains were found on the seized underwear and T-shirt of the appellants Ajeet Singh and Prem Singh. According to the trial court, the presence of blood stains on their working apparels and the recovery from the house of Jagdish Kaur has not been explained by the accused. According to the trial court, the presence of blood stains on their working apparels and the recovery from the house of Jagdish Kaur has not been explained by the accused. We are afraid that the trial court has gone completely wrong insofar as this aspect of the matter is concerned. First of all there is no FSL Report, therefore, corroboration of the prosecution version by the so called FSL report does not arise at all. Since there is no FSL report, it cannot be ascertained as to whether the alleged blood stains found on the apparel were of human origin and secondly, whether those blood stains were in any way connected with the deceased Jaspal Singh. There is no evidence to this effect at all. Therefore, the question of the appellants not been able to explain the same does not at all arise. The only thing that is established is that Jaspal Singh died due to Asphyxia as a result of strangulation. There is nothing to connect the appellants with this event. Circumstance No (vii): As per the trial court, this circumstance shows that Prem Singh who was posted as police constable at Police Station Nowabad was absent from duty between 8 pm of 17.08.1999 to 7.30 am of 18.08.1999. This does not in any way amount to a circumstance establishing the prosecution version in the absence of any other cogent evidence. Perhaps, if Prem Singh had raised the issue of alibi then, this circumstance may have been important. But that is not the case. Circumstance No (viii): As per the trial court, the prosecution was able to establish that Prem Singh had developed illicit relations with co-accused Harbans Kaur [(sic) Jagdish Kaur] and that he had been frequently staying in her house which lead to the divorce of his ex-wife PW7-Harbans Kaur. Even if these allegations were to be true that the cause for divorce of PW7-Harbans Kaur was some illicit relationship between Prem Singh and Jagdish Kaur. We do not find that this is in any way connected with the murder of Jaspal Singh. 10. It is evident from the above discussion, that there are many missing links and the chain of circumstances which could have connected the appellants with the commission of murder of the deceased Jaspal Singh is far from complete. There is serious doubt with regard to the prosecution case. 10. It is evident from the above discussion, that there are many missing links and the chain of circumstances which could have connected the appellants with the commission of murder of the deceased Jaspal Singh is far from complete. There is serious doubt with regard to the prosecution case. The benefit of such doubt must, therefore, go to the appellants. 11. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment as well as the order on sentence are set aside. The appellants stand acquitted of the charges against them in this case. The appellants are on bail. Consequently, their bail bonds stand cancelled and they are set at liberty. The appeal as well as the confirmation stand disposed of accordingly.