JUDGMENT : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. Both the criminal appeals; Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 08 of 2002 on behalf of Mahabir Mahto and Dayal Mahto and Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 14 of 2002 on behalf of Bahadur Oraon, arise out of a common judgment passed in Sessions Trial Case No.165 of 1994. 2. Three persons, namely, Mahabir Mahto, Dayal Mahto and Bahadur Oraon were named as accused by Tuleshwar Gope, the informant, in his fardbeyan which was recorded on 27.09.1993 and on the basis of which Sadar P.S Case No.394 of 1993 has been lodged against the accused persons. 3. After investigation, the above-named accused persons were sent-up for trial to face the charge under section 302/34, 201/34 IPC. 4. They have been convicted under section 302/34 IPC and sentenced to transportation for life and fine of Rs.4,000/-each. They have also been convicted under section 201/34 IPC for which they have been sentenced to R.I for 2 years and fine of Rs.1000/-each. 5. During pendency of these criminal appeals, the appellant, namely, Mahabir Mahto in Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 08 of 2002 has died and, accordingly, the criminal appeal qua the appellant no.1 in Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 08 of 2002 has abated. 6. In his fardbeyan, the informant has stated that on 25.09.1993 his son, namely, Raju Gope had gone to jungle for grazing the cattle, however, in the evening he did not come back home. The informant and other villagers started a search for Raju Gope, but he was not traced out. On 27.09.1993, the informant and his brother-Sewa Gope alongwith other co-villagers, namely, Gobardhan Sao and Sohan Sao found the dead body of Raju Gope in a ditch. Three persons were found standing near the dead body and on a chase by the villagers Mahabir Mahto was apprehended. One 12 years old boy was also found standing near the dead body. The boy, namely, Lakhan Mahto was caught and he has disclosed that Mahabir Mahto, Dayal Mahto, Bahadur Oraon, Mahendra Ram and Prabhu Ram of village Hatyari had an altercation with Raju Gope and they took him inside the forest. He has also informed that at that time Dayal Mahto, Bahadur Oraon and Mahendra Ram were holding Tangi and other two persons were carrying Lathi. 7. He has also informed that at that time Dayal Mahto, Bahadur Oraon and Mahendra Ram were holding Tangi and other two persons were carrying Lathi. 7. According to the prosecution, Lakhan Mahto is the only eye-witness to the occurrence, however, when he was examined in the court he has turned hostile. 8. The learned trial Judge has found two incriminating circumstances against the appellants viz. (i) the appellant, namely, Mahabir Mahto was covering the dead body with soil and Dayal Mahto and Bahadur Oraon were standing near the ditch where the dead body of Raju Gope was lying, (ii) the appellants tried to flee away, however, Mahabir Mahto was apprehended. 9. The learned Amicus, who appears for the appellants, contends that suspicion howsoever strong is not a substitute for proof. The appellants who were found standing near the dead body and their fleeing away from the place of occurrence on seeing the villagers are not such circumstances which would conclusively complete the chain of circumstances to prove the guilt of the appellants. 10. In “Jaharlal Das Vs. State of Orissa” reported in (1991) 3 SCC 27 , it has been held that in the cases based on circumstantial evidence there is always a danger that the conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof and, therefore, the court must be watchful and before conviction is recorded on the basis of the circumstantial evidence it must satisfy itself that the circumstances are clearly established and the chain is so complete that it must rule out every reasonable likelihood of innocence of the accused. 11. The learned trial Judge has held that the evidence of Lakhan Mahto, who has been declared hostile, cannot be completely discarded, particularly his statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. On this issue also, we find the approach of the learned Judge erroneous. In “State of Karnataka Vs. P. Ravikumar alias Ravi & Ors.” reported in (2018) 9 SCC 614 , it has been held that when a witness resiles from his earlier statement, his statement recorded by the Judicial Magistrate under section 164 Cr.P.C is of no relevance nor can it be considered substantial evidence to base conviction solely thereupon. 12. In “State of Karnataka Vs. P. Ravikumar alias Ravi & Ors.” reported in (2018) 9 SCC 614 , it has been held that when a witness resiles from his earlier statement, his statement recorded by the Judicial Magistrate under section 164 Cr.P.C is of no relevance nor can it be considered substantial evidence to base conviction solely thereupon. 12. In the above facts, having examined the evidences laid during the trial, we find that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge under section 302/34 IPC as well as under section 201/34 IPC against the surviving appellants, namely, Dayal Mahto and Bahadur Oraon and, accordingly, the judgment of their conviction for the aforesaid offences and the order of sentence, both dated 11.12.2001, passed against them in Sessions Trial Case No.165 of 1994 are set-aside. 13. The appellants are acquitted of the charges framed against them in Sessions Trial Case No.165 of 1994. 14. The appellants, who are on bail, are discharged of liability of the bail-bonds furnished by them. 15. In the result, Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 08 of 2002 qua Dayal Mahto and Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 14 of 2002 qua Bahadur Oraon are allowed. 16. The Secretary, Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee shall reimburse the learned Amicus on submission of bill(s). He shall be paid Rs.5500/-for each effective date of hearing, but subject to the cap as provided under the Notification dated 23.11.2017. 17. Let lower-court records be transmitted to the court concerned, forthwith.