JUDGMENT : SANDEEP MEHTA, J. 1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the accused-Moti Singh for assailing the judgment dated 04.02.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Pali in Sessions Case No. 21/2008 whereby, he has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 6 months simple imprisonment, while holding him guilty of the charge for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. 2. Brief facts relevant and essential for the disposal of the appeal are that Constable Bheem Singh S/o Vijay Singh (PW-20) submitted a written report (Ex.P45) to the S.H.O. Police Station Industrial Area, Pali on 21.03.2008 at 5:30 p.m. alleging inter alia that one Leela Kansara, Resident of House No. 132, Shivaji Nagar, Pali was reported to be trapped inside her house and the main door was locked from outside. She was not responding to the calls. He alleged that information to this effect was given to him by a man named Deva Ram Kumawat on telephone. For verifying the information, the constable Bheem Singh accompanied by constable Om Prakash, reached the house of Leela where, Deva Ram and Dilip Singh met them. Deva Ram told the constable that he had long standing monetary dealings with Smt. Leela. Leela was feeling unwell on which, Deva Ram took her to a private hospital at Mandiya Road, Pali for a check up at about 11-11:30 a.m. and dropped her back to her house. He went back to the house of Leela At about 3:30 p.m. for explaining the medicines to her. The main door was closed. He pushed the door open and saw Motiya Mehrat hiding behind a drum. Deva Ram alleged that he somehow managed to confine Motiya in a side room and went to the nearby Paan Cabin to inquire about Leela. The owner of the Paan Cabin told him that Leela was seen going home some time earlier. On coming to know of this, Deva Ram went back to Leelas house and saw that someone had unlocked the room in which, Motiya had been confined and he had made good his escape. Bhim Singh was informed about the place where the keys of the other room were lying and upon unlocking the door, he saw that Leela was lying prone on the cot. Bhim Singh was informed about the place where the keys of the other room were lying and upon unlocking the door, he saw that Leela was lying prone on the cot. Her face was covered with clothes and she looked to be devoid of life. A bleeding injury was visible on her temple. A trail of blood was visible in the chowk outside. A drum lying in the chowk was checked and it was realised that a small childs dead body was submerged in water stored in the drum and the water had gone red in colour. The body of the child was taken out and was identified to be that of Leelas daughter Santosh. The childs dead body was also bearing an injury on the temporal region. The constable expressed an apprehension that somebody had murdered the woman and the child. On the basis of this report, an FIR No. 76/2008 (Ex.P47) was registered at the Police Station Industrial Area, Pali and investigation was undertaken by the SHO Shri Kailash Chandra. The site inspection plan of the place of incident were prepared. The blood stained articles and other suspected articles seen at the place of incident, were lifted and seized. Photography of the place of incident was got done. The dead bodies were subjected to postmortem. A finger of suspicion was initially pointed towards Deva Ram. However, the accused appellant Moti Singh was apprehended vide arrest memo (Ex.P13) dated 25.3.2008. The accused allegedly gave an information (Ex.P48) under Section 27 of the Evidence Act to the Investigating Officer regarding the iron rod (Lagiya) used to kill the two deceased, which was concealed underneath the scrap lying in Leelas house. In this very information, the accused also divulged to the Investigating Officer that a pair of ear tops removed from the body of the deceased Leela had been concealed by him near the banks of Bandi river and the clothes and the Chappals worn by him at the time of incident were concealed at his sisters house at Beawar. The accused gave further information to the Investigating Officer under Section 27 of the Evidence Act that he could get the trousers, shirt and underwear worn by him at the time of incident and the key of Leelas room which were lying in the said trousers pocket, recovered. This information was recorded in the memo Ex.P49. The accused gave further information to the Investigating Officer under Section 27 of the Evidence Act that he could get the trousers, shirt and underwear worn by him at the time of incident and the key of Leelas room which were lying in the said trousers pocket, recovered. This information was recorded in the memo Ex.P49. In furtherance of these informations, an iron rod (lagiya) was seized vide Seizure Memo Ex.P7. The key alleged to be of Leelas house, the underwear, the black trousers and the shirt of the accused were recovered from the house of his sister and were seized vide Seizure Memo (Ex.P10). A pair of tops were recovered vide seizure memo (Ex.P23) from the banks of river Bandi. It may be mentioned here that the tops were identified to be of Pushpa by none other than Deva Ram. The FSL team was summoned to lift the foot prints available at the scene of the incident. 3. The articles suspected to be stained with blood (those recovered from the spot and at the instance of the accused) and the visceras of the deceased were forwarded to the FSL for serological and chemical examination from where, two reports Ex.P50 and Ex.P51 respectively were received. 4. The Investigating Officer concluded the investigation while recording a finding that murders were committed with the motive of looting the valuables from the house of Leela and proceeded to file a charge sheet against the accused appellant Moti Singh for the offence under Section 302 IPC. 5. Since the offence was Sessions triable, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Pali, from where the same was transferred for trial to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Pali, who framed charge for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. against the accused vide order dated 23.06.2008. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 24 witnesses and exhibited 55 documents in support of its case. When questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and upon being confronted with the prosecution allegations, the accused-appellant refuted the same and claimed that he was on inimical terms with Deva Ram since long. The murders had been committed by Deva Ram who connived with the police officers and falsely implicated him in the case. Three documents were exhibited in defence. 6. When questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and upon being confronted with the prosecution allegations, the accused-appellant refuted the same and claimed that he was on inimical terms with Deva Ram since long. The murders had been committed by Deva Ram who connived with the police officers and falsely implicated him in the case. Three documents were exhibited in defence. 6. Upon hearing the arguments of the prosecution and the defence and after sifting and appreciating the evidence available on record, the learned trial Judge, proceeded to convict and sentence the appellant as above vide the judgment dated 04.02.2011 which is assailed in this appeal. 7. Shri Vikram Singh, learned counsel representing the appellant vehemently and fervently contended that the entire prosecution case is false and fabricated. The murders as a matter of fact were committed by Deva Ram who was indulged in illicit relations with Leela. He contended that the telephonic information forwarded by Deva Ram to the Police Station and the corresponding Roznamcha entry (Ex.P46A) made at the Police Station Industrial Area in furtherance of such information should have been treated to be the FIR because Deva Ram admittedly took the stock of the entire situation before calling the Police. He further contended that the fact that Deva Ram did not lodge the report or that the report lodged by him was not accepted, brings the entire prosecution case under a grave shadow of doubt because if Deva Ram had seen the accused inside the house and if he had locked him up therein as stated in the FIR, then obviously, the first informant should have been Deva Ram and not Bheem Singh. He allegedly urged that in his statement on oath, Deva Ram has categorically alleged that he saw Motiya hiding inside the house of Leela. He allegedly gave a false information to Deva Ram regarding the whereabouts of Leela. Motiya was locked inside the house as claimed by Deva Ram who peeped into the room and saw Leela lying in an unresponsive condition on the cot. Thereafter, he called the Police Station and gave the information to the police authorities. He urged that all these details are not mentioned in the Roznamcha Entry Ex.P46A. He further submitted that the conduct of Deva Ram in not going to the Police Station and in failing to report the matter immediately, makes his evidence doubtful. Thereafter, he called the Police Station and gave the information to the police authorities. He urged that all these details are not mentioned in the Roznamcha Entry Ex.P46A. He further submitted that the conduct of Deva Ram in not going to the Police Station and in failing to report the matter immediately, makes his evidence doubtful. He pointed out that Deva Ram admitted in his statement that he had previously lodged a criminal case against Moti Singh at the Police Station Industrial Area, Pali for having committed theft inside the house of Leela. Thus, as per Shri Vikram Singh, the fact of animosity between Deva Ram and Moti Singh is writ large on the face of the record. He further urged that Deva Ram admitted in his cross examination that the police detained him in this case for about 3-4 days and he was released thereafter. He also drew the Courts attention to the part of his statement where he admitted that he had helped Leela in transferring a fixed deposit which was made by her husband in her name and that the Police Officers took a part of the FDR amount and also took over her property documents after her death. He also drew the Courts attention to the part of his statement where he admitted that he had helped Leela in transferring a fixed deposit which was made by her husband in her name and that the Police Officers took a part of the FDR amount and also took over her property documents after her death. He stressed upon the following admissions elicited in cross examination of Deva Ram:- ^^;g lgh gS fd yhyk ds ?kj dk cktkj dk dke eSa gh djrk FkkA yhyk D;k dke djrh Fkh vkSj mldh D;k vkenuh Fkh eq>s ugha irk] vt[kqn dgk fd yhyk ds ,QŒMhŒ ij C;kt vkrk FkkA yhyk ds ,d gh cSad ^^LVsV cSad** esa ,QŒMhŒ Fkh] tks ,QŒMhŒ nks yk[k :i;s dh FkhA tc yhyk dk ifr thfor Fkk rc ;g ,QŒMhŒ mlds ifr ds uke Fkh fQj mldh e`R;q gksus ij ;g ,QŒMhŒ yhyk ds uke gks xbZ Fkh fQj dgk fd yhyk ds ifr tc thfor Fks rHkh mUgksaus vius gLrk{kj djds ;g ,QŒMhŒ yhyk ds uke VkalQj dj nh FkhA yhyk ds ifr dh e`R;q ds 4&5&10 fnu igys og ,QŒMhŒ ,d yk[k :i;s dh mBk yh FkhA tc og ,QŒMhŒ yhyk ds uke VkalQj djkbZ vkSj ,d yk[k :i;s mBk;s rc&rc eSa lkFk gh FkkA iSls cSad ls eSa yhyk ds lkFk gh tkdj yk;k FkkA ,d ckj ,d yk[k :i;s mBkus ds ckn esa cSad esa yhyk ds uke nks yk[k :i;s tek Fks] ftuesa ls iqfyl okyksa us ,d ckj 10 gtkj :i;s mBk fy;s FksA yhyk ds lkFk cSad esa vkseth nos lkFk x;s FksA bu ,QŒMhŒ esa uksfeuh fdlh dks ugha fd;k gqvk FkkA yhyk dk ifr esjs lkFk gh Fkk rc eSaus gh ,QŒMhŒ dk QkeZ Hkjk FkkA ;g dguk xyr gS fd jaxjkt vui<+ gks] tcfd og rks i<+k fy[kk Fkk vkSj baxfy'k Hkh fy[k nsrk FkkA jaxjkt e`R;q ds 2&3 eghus igys ls chekj iM+k Fkk] chekjh ds dkj.k pyus fQjus esa og vleFkZ FkkA ;g dguk dguk xyr gS fd yhyk ds uke ,QŒMhŒ VkalQj ds fy;s yhyk gh eq>s lkFk ysdj cSad esa xbZ gksA tcfd yhyk ds ifr dks eSa eksVj lkbZfdy ij fcBkdj cSad ys x;k Fkk vkSj mUgha us VkalQj fd;k FkkA ;g dguk xyr gS fd og VkalQj QkeZ eSaus gh Hkjk gksA og VkalQj dk QkeZ dSyk'k ls Hkjok;k FkkA ;g eq>s /;ku ugha gS fd yhyk 'kjkc dk lsou Hkh djrh gksA ;g dguk xyr gS fd ,QŒMhŒ ds QkeZ esa uksfeuh ds :i esa eSaus esjk uke Hkjk gksA ,QŒMhŒ dh rkjh[k vkSj ,QŒMhŒ ds uEcj eSa ugha crk ldrkA ;g dguk xyr gS fd yhyk dh e`R;q ds ckn cSad ls eSaus og ,QŒMhŒ mBk yh gksA ,QŒMhŒ vkSj edku ds dkxt lc Fkkus esa gh gSA ,QŒMhŒ vkSj edku ds dkxt Fkkus esa esjs lkeus ugha ys x;s Fks] vt[kqn dgk fd Fkkus esa ckr py jgh Fkh fd ,QŒMhŒ vkSj edku ds dkxt Fkkus esa ys vk;s gSa tks iqfyl deZpkjh dg jgs FksA** (Emphasis supplied) 8. Referring to these material admissions made by Deva Ram, he contended that Police authorities and Deva Ram connived together and fraudulently managed the encashment of the fixed deposits standing in the name of Leela and also usurped her immovable property. As per Shri Vikram Singh, since Deva Ram was well aware of the fixed deposit receipts standing in the name of Leela and the fact that her husband had died and there was no other closely related person to stake a claim on her properties, he connived with the Police authorities; murdered the woman and her minor daughter and thereafter, he and the Police officials plundered the FDRs and the immovable assets of Leela. The blame was falsely thrown on to the appellant with whom Deva Ram was on inimical terms. He also referred to the fact elicited in cross examination of Deva Ram that the sniffer dog caught hold of his hand after moving around in the premises. He further submitted that the recoveries made at the instance of the accused are totally false and fabricated. As a matter of fact, the police officers who were in cahoots with Deva Ram hatched a grisly design of encashing the FDRs of Leela and for usurping her immovable properties and with this objective, they killed the mother and daughter and planted the recoveries on to the accused with the intention of throwing the blame elsewhere. He thus urged that the impugned judgment is bad in the eyes of law and is based on a totally farcical and laconic appreciation of evidence available on record and hence the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and the accused is entitled to be acquitted of the charges. 9. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor Shri N.S. Bhati vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced at Bar by Shri Vikram Singh and urged that the witness Deva Ram had no bone to grind against the accused. The criminal case which is referred to in his statement, was over a trivial dispute and thus, it cannot be believed that Deva Ram would endeavor to falsely frame the accused for the murder of Leela and her minor daughter because of this trivial incident. The evidence of Deva Ram, Bheem Singh and the Investigating Officer Shri Kailash Chandra is absolutely natural, truthful and worthy of belief. The evidence of Deva Ram, Bheem Singh and the Investigating Officer Shri Kailash Chandra is absolutely natural, truthful and worthy of belief. The incriminating articles recovered at the instance of the accused tested positive for presence of human blood matching with the blood group of the two deceased when the same were subjected to serological examination at the FSL. 10. As per learned Public Prosecutor, the chain of circumstances is complete on all aspects and hence, the learned trial Judge was perfectly justified in convicting and sentencing the appellant as above and no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. On these grounds, he sought affirmation of the impugned judgment. 11. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at the Bar and have gone through the impugned judgment and have threadbare sifted the evidence available on record. 12. Since the appellant Moti Singh has been named as the offender in the F.I.R. as well as in the sworn testimony of Deva Ram alone, his evidence needs to be discussed first in detail so as to ascertain the truthfulness of his deposition. 13. Deva Ram alleged in his evidence that in the morning at about 11.30 AM, he got Leela checked at a private hospital. At about 4 O’clock, he again went to the house of Leela and noticed that the door was bolted from inside. He knocked the door but got no response whereupon, he applied force and pushed the door open. The internal door (of the room where Leela used to sleep) was locked. The witness claimed that a drum of water was lying besides the main gate of the house behind which the accused Moti Singh was trying to hide himself. On asking for the whereabouts of Leela, Moti Singh replied that she had gone to the station. Deva Ram claimed that he caught hold of Moti Singh and asked him as to where, the chain and money which he had stolen earlier were kept. He locked Moti Singh in the side room. Thereafter, he went out and made inquiry for the whereabouts of Leela and received information from a boy that Leela was seen going towards her house. He came back and saw a beggar standing outside who allegedly had opened the door of the room where, Moti Singh was confined. He locked Moti Singh in the side room. Thereafter, he went out and made inquiry for the whereabouts of Leela and received information from a boy that Leela was seen going towards her house. He came back and saw a beggar standing outside who allegedly had opened the door of the room where, Moti Singh was confined. The witness went inside the house and peeped into the inner room through a grill and claims to have seen Leela lying on the cot. (However, a perusal of the site inspection plan (Ex.P14) does not disclose that the door of that room had any grill or opening in it.) The witness stated that he went to the Police Station and came back with Omji and Bhimji (Constables). The panel of the gate was broken which the Policemen removed on which they saw a bunch of keys. The door of the room where, Leela was locked in, was opened. Leela was lying dead inside. He did not see the dead body of the child. The witness stated in his examination-in-chief that he was intimate with Leelas family and that he and Leelas husband were involved in many transactions. Leelas husband had passed away about a year and half before Leelas death. In cross-examination, the witness admitted that he had gone to Leelas house on the fateful day only once. He was operating a tape-recorder repair shop. He had taken Leela to the hospital on a number of occasions. The witness also admitted that he had taken money from Leela as well as her husband and also that Moti Singh and numerous other persons used to frequent the house of Leela. He had lodged a criminal case against the accused at the Police Station Industrial Area, Pali. He had taken Leela and her daughter to Talanpur Ramdwara. The case which he had lodged against Moti Singh was in relation to the theft committed by him after breaking into the house of Leela. The main door of Leelas house would not open simply by a push if it was bolted from inside. Leelas source of livelihood was interest received from FDRs which were opened in the SBI while her husband was alive, which stood in his name and after his death, the same were transferred to the name of Leela, who encashed one FDR worth Rs. 1 lac after the death of her husband. Leelas source of livelihood was interest received from FDRs which were opened in the SBI while her husband was alive, which stood in his name and after his death, the same were transferred to the name of Leela, who encashed one FDR worth Rs. 1 lac after the death of her husband. Even after withdrawal of the amount of Rs. 1 lac, a sum of Rs. 2 lacs was still invested in Leelas name. The Police took a sum of Rs. 10,000/- from Leelas FDRs. The witness denied the suggestion that he introduced himself to be the nominee in the FDRs. He admitted that the FDRs and the property papers of Leela taken away by the Police and were lying at the Police Station after her death. He did not inform of the incident to the nephew of Rangraj, who resided at Jodhpur. He was detained in this case by the Police and was released on bail which was offered by Shankar Lal Kumawat. The sniffer dog caught hold of his hand when the place of incident was being inspected. He went to the Police Station for reporting the matter but since the Police was suspecting him to be the murderer, his report was not accepted. He affirmatively stated that he provided the bunch of keys of the room where Leela was lying, to the Police. The witness was confronted with numerous contradictions and improvements and omissions appearing in reference to his Police Statement (Ex.D3). A pertinent confrontation through an important question put to the witness vis-a-vis his Police Statement (Ex.D3) was regarding the fact that it was mentioned in his statement that he lodged a report at the Police Station against Motiya, on the basis of a grave suspicion. 14. A few important facts are elicited from the evidence of Deva Ram and the attending circumstances may be summarised as below: That Smt. Leela and her daughter Mst. Santosh were living all alone in the house as Leelas husband had expired sometime earlier. That Deva Ram was on intimate terms with Smt. Leela and was well aware of her financial status as he had admittedly assisted Leela in making the requisite changes in her bank documents viz. FDRs etc. That Deva Ram was admittedly having good knowledge about the soldering of wires etc. because he was operating a tape recorder repairing shop. That Deva Ram was on intimate terms with Smt. Leela and was well aware of her financial status as he had admittedly assisted Leela in making the requisite changes in her bank documents viz. FDRs etc. That Deva Ram was admittedly having good knowledge about the soldering of wires etc. because he was operating a tape recorder repairing shop. A soldering iron and numerous signs of wires having been soldered to tie the dead bodies were noticed when the site inspection was conducted by the Investigating Officer. This fact is implicitly recorded in the site inspection memo (Ex.P14). That the keys of the room where Leelas body was lying were pointed out by Deva Ram while they were lying in another room in the house of Leela. 15. Thus, a grave suspicion is cast that the assailant tried to electrocute the two occupants of the house so as to give the incident the appearance of an accident. It seems that while he was trying to do so, somebody appears to have knocked the door of the house and the accused throttled the two deceased and left the place of the incident in a hurry being alarmed that he might be caught. The signs which were visible at the place of the incident and as recorded in the site inspection proceedings, are also indicative of the fact that the assailant must have spent a long time inside the house of the deceased. Manifestly, the witness Deva Ram was having free access to the house of the deceased and his presence was not objected to by any of the neighbours and therefore, he was one such person, who could have remained in the house of the deceased for a long time without any objection and without raising any suspicion. 16. The statement of the Investigating Officer assumes great importance in view of the fact that the defence has suggested that the entire incident was perpetrated by the Police officials in connivance with Deva Ram. Thus, now we propose to discuss the evidence of Kailash Chandra PW-22. In his examination, in chief, the witness gave detailed evidence regarding the steps taken during investigation conducted by him some of which have already been elaborated above. Thus, now we propose to discuss the evidence of Kailash Chandra PW-22. In his examination, in chief, the witness gave detailed evidence regarding the steps taken during investigation conducted by him some of which have already been elaborated above. Significant facts elicited in the cross examination of the witness are summarized below: That the information of the incident was received at the Police Station through wireless from the control room and in addition thereto, the Constable Bhim Singh also informed him of the incident on telephone. That Deva Ram had already opened the main door of the house before the Police Officials reached there. That there is no mention in the site inspection plan regarding the door of the house having been broken into. That the door of the room where the dead body of Smt. Leela was lying was locked and that Bhim Singh opened the lock of the door. The witness feigned ignorance about the fact as to who provided the key of the room to Bhim Singh. He denied the fact that Deva Ram provided the key to Bhim Singh. The witness could not furnish any explanation as to why the report of the incident was not taken from Deva Ram who was the first person to reach the scene of occurrence. That during the course of investigation, the fact regarding regular visits of Deva Ram to Leelas house was established. That the lock and key of the door of the room where Leelas dead body was lying were not seized on the same day. That the dead bodies were cremated with the aid of Hindu Sewa Mandal. 17. When we evaluate the statement of the witness Deva Ram vis-a-vis the statement of the S.H.O. Kailash Chandra, it is manifest that many suspicious circumstances come to fore in the prosecution case. The most significant amongst these is that Deva Ram claims to have lodged a report at the Police Station but the said report apparently never saw the light of the day and the Investigating Officer appears to have concealed that report as Deva Ram himself was being considered to be a prime suspect. Even if it was so, there was no difficulty in accepting his report. Even if it was so, there was no difficulty in accepting his report. The disclosures made in the statement of Deva Ram regarding the financial transactions (FDRs etc.) of the deceased and the important fact which Deva Ram categorically mentioned that the Police usurped a sum of Rs. 10,000/- after taking possession of Leelas FDRs as well as the property documents goes a long way in raising a grave doubt in the mind of the Court that there are seriously suspicious features in the entire sequence of events alleged by the prosecution. The Investigating Officers stance that the key of the room where, the dead body of Smt. Leela was lying was recovered at the instance of the accused is falsified in light of the categoric deposition of Deva Ram, who stated that he handed over the bunch of keys including that of the subject room to Bhim Singh whereas, the Investigating Officer claims to have recovered the same in furtherance of the information provided to him by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. In all likelihood, the Police Officers of the Police Station Industrial Area were well aware of the fact that there were no close relatives of Leela who could lay a claim on her money/movable/immovable properties. The Investigating Officer carried out a thorough search of the premises in question and presumably, the FDRs and the property documents must have been found lying there. However, nothing in this regard was mentioned in the site plan nor they were seized. In this background, the hot haste shown by the Investigating Officer in disposing of the dead bodies as unclaimed through the Hindu Sewa Mandal without making any efforts to call the successors of either Smt.Leela or her husband creates a grave doubt on the bonafides of his actions. The prime suspect Shri Deva Ram appears to be having some kind of hold on the Police Officers and clearly he, in their connivance took the name of the appellant to be the assailant for the obvious reason of the prevailing enmity. The S.H.O. initially arrested Deva Ram who seems to have been released after some underhand monetary transaction because Deva Ram categorically mentioned that Shankar Lal Kumawat paid a bail of Rs. 1 lac to get him out of the clutches of the Police. The S.H.O. initially arrested Deva Ram who seems to have been released after some underhand monetary transaction because Deva Ram categorically mentioned that Shankar Lal Kumawat paid a bail of Rs. 1 lac to get him out of the clutches of the Police. Rather than it being a bail, apparently, it was a bargain to procure a clean chit for Deva Ram in the case. In all probability, the FDRs and immovable and movable property of Leela were plundered by Deva Ram and the police officials. It is indeed a matter of surprise as to why the S.H.O. did not try to find any surviving heir of Leela and both the dead bodies were handed over to Hindu Seva Mandal for cremation despite the fact that Deva Ram was aware of the fact that the relatives of Rangraj were available to take care of these things. Admittedly, the nephew of Rangraj who could have laid a claim on the properties in question as a surviving successor, was not even informed. The claim of Deva Ram that these people were informed and did not turn up is far fetched and unbelievable. The name of Moti Singh as the assailant was introduced in the F.I.R. presented by Bhim Singh purely on the basis of information provided by Deva Ram and as such, this is purely a hearsay piece of evidence. When the S.H.O. Kailash Chandra himself claims that Deva Ram was the first person to reach the place of incident who allegedly saw the accused inside the house of the deceased, then there was no reason for him not to have taken the F.I.R. from Deva Ram. Once the aspect regarding the naming of the accused in the F.I.R. comes under a shadow of doubt, apparently, the entire prosecution evidence in this regard would also become tainted. 18. The S.H.O. claims to have made various incriminating recoveries during investigation, which can be enumerated herein-below:- Recovery at the instance of accused Moti Singh: Ex.P7 27.3.2008 Recovery of iron rod (Lagiya) Ex.P10 30.3.2008 Key of Leelas room found in rear pocket of pants of accused; blood stained clothes of the accused. 18. The S.H.O. claims to have made various incriminating recoveries during investigation, which can be enumerated herein-below:- Recovery at the instance of accused Moti Singh: Ex.P7 27.3.2008 Recovery of iron rod (Lagiya) Ex.P10 30.3.2008 Key of Leelas room found in rear pocket of pants of accused; blood stained clothes of the accused. Ex.P23 28.3.2008 Pair of ear tops of Leela Recovery from the place of incident: Ex.P12 25.3.2008 Blood stained article of bed (Niwar) of Leela, blood stained piece of wall, soil Ex.P15 21.3.2008 Blood stained bed-covering and blood stained clothes of Leela Ex.P16 21.3.2008 Pavva from the drum where dead body of Mst. Santosh was found Ex.P17 21.3.2008 Blood stained clothes of Mst. Santosh Ex.P18 21.3.2008 Medical prescriptions and medicines and a Ration card Ex.P19 21.3.2008 Blood stained clothes of Leela Ex.P21 21.3.2008 Iron rod, soldering rod, electric wire tied to the leg to Leela 19. From these recoveries, the recovery of the key of the room where Leelas body was found lying is one of the most significant one. 20. The Investigating Officer claims that the key was recovered in furtherance of an information provided by the accused to him under Section 27 of the Evidence Act vide recovery memo (Ex.P10). However, as is clear from the statement of the first informant Constable Bhim Singh and the star prosecution witness Deva Ram, the key of the said room was available inside the premises and the door of the room where Leela Rams dead body was locked in was opened with the said key much before the accused was arrested. Thus, the entire procedure of recovery of the key at the instance of the accused is a fabrication pure and simple. The fact that the accused took great care to conceal the worthless keys and his pant pocket at his sisters house in Beawar but at the same time, he concealed the pair of ear tops just on the banks of the river also makes the whole exercise doubtful. It is not conceivable that the accused would take great pains to conceal the worthless articles in a house and casually conceal the valuable ornaments just by the river side. Thus, we are of the firm opinion that the entire set of recoveries which the Investigating Officer claims to have made at the instance of the accused is nothing short of sheer fabrication. 21. Thus, we are of the firm opinion that the entire set of recoveries which the Investigating Officer claims to have made at the instance of the accused is nothing short of sheer fabrication. 21. Another important aspect of the matter is that the prosecution has come out with the theory of murder for gain. However, surprisingly enough, no charge for the offence under Section 380 or Section 452 was framed against the appellant and thus, the said allegation is nullified ipso-facto. Apparently thus, as there is no charge against the appellant that he stole the valuables from the house of Smt. Leela, the crime becomes motiveless. 22. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, we feel that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused by leading plausible and tangible evidence, which establishes his guilt beyond all manner of doubt. Law is well settled that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances must be so complete that it rules out every possibility except for the inculpability of the accused. Even if, one of the links in the chain is snapped, the case would have to fail. In the present case, we have concluded that the prosecution case is totally poised on the direct evidence of Deva Ram and the circumstantial evidence of recoveries allegedly made from Moti Singh. Since, we have found both suffering from grave shortcomings, fabrications and embellishments, apparently the same cannot be relied upon. Hence, we are inclined to acquit the accused while giving him the benefit of doubt. 23. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The judgment dated 04.02.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, in Sessions Case No. 21/2008 is quashed and set aside. The accused appellant is acquitted of the charges. He is in custody. He shall be released forthwith from custody if not wanted in any other case. 24. However, keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. the accused appellant is directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount before the learned trial court, which shall be effective for a period of six months to the effect that in the event of filing of a Special Leave Petition against the present judgment on receipt of notice thereof, the appellant shall appear before the Supreme Court. 25. 15,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount before the learned trial court, which shall be effective for a period of six months to the effect that in the event of filing of a Special Leave Petition against the present judgment on receipt of notice thereof, the appellant shall appear before the Supreme Court. 25. Record be sent to the trial court forthwith. 26. Before parting, we feel that it is a fit case wherein, a discrete inquiry should be directed regarding the fate of the FDRs of Smt. Leela and her immovable property as well. We, therefore, direct the S.P. Pali to depute a competent officer in the rank of Addl. S.P. to conduct such inquiry and furnish the report thereof to this Court. A copy of this judgment and the photostat copies of the entire record shall be forthwith provided to learned Public Prosecutor who in turn, shall transmit the same to the S.P. Pali for effective compliance of the above direction. 27. List on 27.5.2019 for receiving the compliance report.