JUDGMENT 1. The appellants herein have been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 14.08.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bali, District Pali in Sessions Case No.48/2009: Offences Sentences Fine Fine Default sentences Section 302/34 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.3,000/ 6 Months Additional S.I. 2. Being aggrieved of their conviction and sentences, the appellants have preferred the instant appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. 3. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the appeal are noted herein below: 4. The deadbody of Gulab Singh was seen lying in the premises of the Ayurved Hospital, Village Falna in the morning of 18.08.2009. The FIR (Ex.P/42) came to be lodged by Shankar Singh (PW-3) at the Police Station Falna on 18.08.2009 at 9 am. in which, suspicion was cast that some unknown persons had murdered his brother Gulab Singh. The house of the appellants is located adjacent to the Hospital and thus, the finger of suspicion was pointed towards them. The prosecution claims that a sniffer dog was summoned from Pali with its trainer Raghunath Singh (PW-22). The dog was taken around the place of incident and during this process, the dog went inside the house of Hema Ram and caught hold of the dress of the accused. The deadbody of Gulab Singh was subjected to postmortem through a Medical Board constituted at the Government Hospital Bali. The Medical Board issued the report (Ex.P/18) opining that the cause of death of Gulab Singh was asphyxia due to strangulation. A cut wound and a bruise were seen on his neck in form of external injuries. The accused appellant Hema Ram was arrested at 05.00 pm vide arrest memo (Ex.15) dated 18.08.2009. The accused appellant Jagdish was arrested at 04.00 pm vide arrest memo (Ex.16) dated 18.08.2009. The I.O. (PW-21) Prem Singh (SHO of the Police Station Bali) claims that the clothes worn by accused Hema Ram at the time of his arrest were blood stained which were seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P/17). The accused Jagdish allegedly gave an information (Ex.P/44) to the I.O. regarding having concealed his blood stained clothes in his almirah and in furtherance of such information, the blood stained pant and shirt of Jagdish were seized from his house vide seizure memo (Ex.P/9). The accused Jagdish allegedly gave an information (Ex.P/44) to the I.O. regarding having concealed his blood stained clothes in his almirah and in furtherance of such information, the blood stained pant and shirt of Jagdish were seized from his house vide seizure memo (Ex.P/9). The I.O. further claims that on the very same day i.e. 18.08.2009, the accused Jagdish gave information (Ex.P/46) regarding he having concealed a Kunt (sharp weapon) used to assault Shri Gulab Singh. In furtherance of such information, the Kunt was recovered vide recovery memo (Ex.P/12). The statements of various witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and thereafter, the I.O. proceeded to file a charge-sheet against two appellants for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC. 5. Since the offence was sessions triable, the case was committed to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Bali, District Pali. The learned Trial Judge framed charge against the accused for the offence mentioned above. The appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 23 witnesses and exhibited 47 documents in support of its case. The accused were subjected to questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and were confronted with the allegations appearing against them in the prosecution evidence. They denied the same and claimed to have been falsely implicated. Upon hearing the arguments advanced by the prosecution and the defence and after appreciating the evidence available on record, the learned Trial Judge proceeded to convict and sentence the accused appellants as above. Hence this appeal. 6. Shri Suresh Kumbhat, learned counsel representing the appellants has vehemently and fervently urged that the entire prosecution case as against the appellants is false and fabricated. He has urged that the appellants had no motive whatsoever to kill the deceased. He referred to the FIR (Ex.P/42) and the evidence of Shankar Singh (PW-3) the first informant and contended that only a conjectural theory was advanced by the witness that Gulab Singh might have been murdered owing to illicit relations with the sister of Hema Ram. However, he urges that no concrete evidence was led by the prosecution to establish the existence of any such relationship which could have provided motive to the appellants for murdering Gulab Singh. However, he urges that no concrete evidence was led by the prosecution to establish the existence of any such relationship which could have provided motive to the appellants for murdering Gulab Singh. He submits that the only foundation of the impugned judgment while recording the conviction of the appellants is the fact that the tracker dog pointed out the accused and that the blood stained recoveries aforestated were made at their instance which were allegedly stained with the same blood group as that of the deceased i.e. 'O' Positive. He further submits that the pointing out of the accused by the tracker dog is an absolutely inconsequential and flimsy piece of evidence because the dog handler Raghunath Singh (PW-22) has given absolutely vague evidence in this regard. He has also urged that no memorandum was prepared of the proceedings during which, the tracker dog allegedly sniffed out the accused. Furthermore, Shri Kumbhat urges that the dog handler did not state that which of the two accused, the dog pointed out. He urges that the evidence of recoveries of the blood-stained clothes is absolutely flimsy and farcical because it cannot be believed that the accused would conceal the incriminating blood stained clothes in their own house so that the police could recover the same later. He further urged that even if the factum of recovery of the blood stained clothes and the kunt at the instance of the accused is believed for a moment, that by itself, would not be a clinching circumstance so as to justify the conviction of the appellants because the circumstance of blood stained recoveries can only be utilized for lending corroboration to substantive or cogent evidence pointing towards the guilt of the accused. Mere recoveries of blood stained articles cannot be the foundation of conviction of a person for the charge of murder. He thus implored the Court to accept the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and acquit the accused of the charges. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced at bar. He urged that the deceased Gulab Singh was suspected of having an illicit affair with the sister of Hemraj and thus, both the accused were having strong motive to murder him. As per him, the sniffer dog went inside the house of the accused and caught hold of their clothes. He urged that the deceased Gulab Singh was suspected of having an illicit affair with the sister of Hemraj and thus, both the accused were having strong motive to murder him. As per him, the sniffer dog went inside the house of the accused and caught hold of their clothes. This significant discovery was followed by the recovery of the blood stained clothes and the blood stained weapon (kunt) used for committing the offence. Thus, he urges that the trial court was perfectly justified while appreciating the evidence and finding the chain of circumstances to be complete for recording the conviction of the accused. On these grounds, he implored the Court to dismiss the appeal. 8. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the impugned judgment as well as the entire record. 9. It is undisputed that the entire case of the prosecution as against the accused appellants is based primarily on three circumstances: (i) Motive (ii) the pointing out of the accused by the sniffer dog, and (iii) the recovery of blood stained apparels and blood stained weapons as above. 10. So far as the circumstance of motive is concerned, since no such allegation is levelled in the FIR and as even Shankar Singh (PW-3) while depositing in the Court, did not give any positive evidence on this aspect and rather stated that he had heard rumors that Gulab Singh was murdered because of illicit relations with Hema Ram's sister, we do not feel that the prosecution has proved anything which can satisfy the Court that the accused were fueled by the motive to kill Gulab Singh. The I.O. did not identify the lady with whom Gulab Singh was allegedly having illicit affairs. That apart, Hema Ram was above 60 years of the age at the time of the incident and evidently his sister could not have been much younger and thus, in absence of positive evidence, it cannot be conceived that any illicit affair was thriving between Gulab Singh and Hema Ram's sister. 11. Regarding the evidence of dog tracking, Raghunath Singh (PW-22) stated that he was posted as the Dog Squad Incharge at the Police Line, Pali on 02.09.2009. He went to the place of incident which was the Government Hospital in Falna. 11. Regarding the evidence of dog tracking, Raghunath Singh (PW-22) stated that he was posted as the Dog Squad Incharge at the Police Line, Pali on 02.09.2009. He went to the place of incident which was the Government Hospital in Falna. The dog sniffed the premises, then went inside a house nearby which was owned by Hema Ram. The dog caught hold of the clothes of the accused. 12. Manifestly, evidence of Raghunath Singh is per-functory and laconic to say the least. Firstly, the witness stated 02.09.2009 as the date on which he visited the premises. As is evident, the incident took place on 18.08.2009 and therefore, any exercise of dog tracking conducted more than 14 days thereafter would be nothing short of an exercise in futility. That apart, Raghunath Singh did not state that which of the two accused, the dog sniffed out. Furthermore, no corresponding memorandum of the dog tracking procedure was prepared when this exercise was allegedly conducted. We may add here that I.O. Prem Singh (PW-21) did not state anything to this effect when he was examined in evidence. Thus, we feel that the entire exercise of dog tracking on which, the prosecution and the trial court relied upon, is absolutely inadmissible in evidence. Once this evidence is eschewed from consideration, the only circumstance which remains in force against the accused, is that of the recovery of blood stained apparels and the blood stained kunt. Suffice it to say that the conviction of the accused for the charge of murder cannot be founded solely on the recoveries of the blood-stained clothes and/or the blood stained weapon. It is a settled law that where the prosecution case rests solely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of the guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of another person. Hon'ble the Supreme Court considered an identical set of circumstances in the case of Mustkeem vs. State of Rajasthan , (2011) AIR SC 2769 and held as below: "13.It is fully established that the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. In this view of the matter, we have to see if the chain of circumstances was so complete so as to unerringly point the finger only at the Appellants as perpetrators of crime. In this view of the matter, we have to see if the chain of circumstances was so complete so as to unerringly point the finger only at the Appellants as perpetrators of crime. Before delving into the legal analysis, however, we would like to examine the statements of P.W.8 and P.W.10 in brief . 14.As per the prosecution story, Appellants Mustkeem and Arun had met P.W.10 - Chittar a day before the occurrence, in whose house deceased Ram Pal Yadav, was residing as a tenant, for last 5 to 6 years and he deposed that Appellants Mustkeem and Arun had told him that, that day it would be the last visit of Ram Pal and he will not come to his house again. Similar is the evidence of P.W.9 - Lali Devi, wife of P.W.10. She has repeated the same version as had been deposed by P.W.10- Chittar. 15. P.W.8 - Smt. Supyar deposed that Mustkeem, Arun and Nandu used to visit Ram Pal Yadav regularly as all of them were dealing in illicit liquor trade. On coming to know from Lali Devi that Arun, Mustkeem and Nandu were keen to eliminate Ram Pal Yadav, she had telephonically asked him to meet her at the earliest. When deceased Ram Pal Yadav met Smt. Supyar, she informed him about the intentions of the accused. She also told him that Arun and Mustkeem both had said that it would be the last visit of Ram Pal Yadav to her house as they were planning to eliminate him. 16.Thus, from an appraisal of the evidence of P.W.8, P.W.9 and P.W.10, the Trial Court and the Division Bench of the High Court ruled that prosecution has been able to establish that deceased Ram Pal Yadav and Appellants were all involved in illegal trade of liquor and a day prior to the date of incident, Arun and Mustkeem had expressed their intentions to eliminate Ram Pal to P.W.9 and P.W.10. 17.High Court while considering the Appellants' appeal found this factor as one of the incriminating circumstances to eventually hold the Appellants guilty for the aforesaid offence. 18. The other circumstance found against the Appellants by High Court was that, on the basis of the disclosure statements of the Appellants, weapons alleged to be used in the commission of offence and clothes stained with human blood were recovered. 18. The other circumstance found against the Appellants by High Court was that, on the basis of the disclosure statements of the Appellants, weapons alleged to be used in the commission of offence and clothes stained with human blood were recovered. In its Judgment, the High Court has discussed in extenso the effect of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'Act') and subsequent discovery of the material objects thereafter. 19. On the basis of the report of the serologist, it has come on record that traces of AB blood group were found on the pants and baniyan of the deceased. The prosecution has also averred that Sword and clothes stained with human blood group AB were also recovered at the instance of Appellants, from the places shown by them and known only to them and none others. On account of aforesaid circumstances, the High Court was of the opinion that the chain of circumstances was complete and the completed chain of circumstances pointed the finger for commission of the said offence only by the Appellants. 23. The AB blood group which was found on the clothes of the deceased does not by itself establish the guilt of the Appellant unless the same was connected with the murder of deceased by the Appellants. None of the witnesses examined by the prosecution could establish that fact. The blood found on the sword recovered at the instance of the Mustkeem was not sufficient for test as the same had already disintegrated. At any rate, due to the reasons elaborated in the following paragraphs, the fact that the traces of blood found on the deceased matched those found on the recovered weapons cannot ipso facto enable us to arrive at the conclusion that the latter were used for the murder. " 13. Viewed in light of the ratio of the above judgment, we are of the firm opinion that the conviction of the accused appellant as recorded by the trial court is not founded on a strong and unbroken chain of circumstances which unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused for the murder of Gulab Singh. " 13. Viewed in light of the ratio of the above judgment, we are of the firm opinion that the conviction of the accused appellant as recorded by the trial court is not founded on a strong and unbroken chain of circumstances which unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused for the murder of Gulab Singh. As the sole circumstance of recovery of blood stained apparels and the blood stained weapon cannot be considered to be clinching proof for the charge framed and establishing the guilt of the accused beyond all manner of doubt, we feel that their conviction as recorded by the trial court by the impugned Judgment dated 14.08.2015 is not justified. The Judgment rendered by the trial court does not stand to scrutiny in light of the discussion made infra. 14. As an upshot of the above discussion, the appeal deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment dated 14.08.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bali, District Pali in Sessions Case No.48/2009 is hereby quashed and set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges. The appellants are in custody and shall be released from prison forthwith if not wanted in any other case. 15. However, keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C., each of the accused appellants 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 appellants shall appear before the Supreme Court.