JUDGMENT : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. Two persons, namely, Firoz Ansari and Nakul Mahto have faced the trial in Sessions Trial No.592 of 1993 on the charges framed under section 302 IPC for committing murder of Mustafa Sah and under section 201 IPC for causing disappearance of his dead body. They have been convicted and sentenced to R.I for life and fine of Rs. 10,000/- each under section 302 IPC and R.I for five years and fine of Rs. 5,000/- each under section 201 IPC. In default of payment of fine, on both counts they have been directed to serve further sentences. 2. The informant of this case, namely, Kutubuddin is the father of the deceased. In his fardbeyan which was recorded on 18.09.1991, at about 18:20 hours, the informant has stated that in the evening of 17.09.1991 the accused, namely, Firoz Ansari had visited his house and asked his son to visit Vishwakarma Puja. His son who had accompanied Firoz Ansari did not returned in the night, but about 12:00 p.m in the mid-night Firoj Ansari came to his house and asked about Mustafa. He again came to his house at about 1:30 a.m in the same night and inquired whether Mustafa had came back or not. On the informant asking him about his son, Firoz Ansari told him not to worry about Mustafa. Next day, one Hafiz Shahab informed the informant that he has seen the dead body of Mustafa near the rivlet. The informant goes there and finds the dead body of his son with several injuries on him. On the basis of his farbeyan, Govindpur P.S. Case No. 235 of 1991 was registered under section 302 IPC and section 201 IPC against unknown. 3. The informant in his examination-in-chief has, however, narrated a little different story about the incident. He has stated about the visit of Firoz Ansari to his house in the night of 17.09.1991 and the accused taking away his son on the pretext of visiting Vishwakarma Puja and Firoz Ansari visiting him twice in the dead of the night, but he has also said that he has seen both of them lastly on 17.09.1991 at about 6:00 p.m in the evening in the Govindpur Bazar. At that time they were going towards Borio More. At that time they were going towards Borio More. The informant has further stated that Firoz Ansari and his son both were going towards Borio More with Nakul Mahto and two other persons whom he did not recognise. In the cross-examination, he denies that his son had an altercation with the driver of the vehicle in which they were going towards Borio More. The prosecution witness, namely, Md. Sarif who has been examined as P.W.1 has affirmed that both the appellants were with Mustafa and they had gone to the shop of one Mishra Ji who was running a betel shop where they had an altercation with a tribal boy. P.W.1 further says that there was a hot exchange between Nakul Mahto and Mustafa also and Nakul Mahto had threatened him with revenge. The wife of the deceased, namely, Hazra Bibi-P.W.2 has also spoken about some quarrel about one month prior to Vishwakarma Puja between her husband and few others. She has further stated that a month prior to the present occurrence Firoz Ansari wanted to take out Mustafa forcibly, however, he was not allowed to go whereupon Firoz had declared to take revenge. P.W. 3 and P.W.4 are the inquest witnesses. Dr. Dhurv Kumar Dhiraj, who has conducted the postmortem examination, has found the following injuries on Mustafa Sah: (A) Incised wounds: (i) ¾ x ¼ x scalp deep one inch above left eye-brow; (ii) 1”x 1/5” x bone deep on the outer part of left eye in the lower part with partial cut of the underlying bone; (iii) 1/2” x 1/5” x muscle deep over left cheek in the middle area, (iv) 1”x1/4” x bone deep on the left side of the cheek cutting the underlying bone partially, (v) 1/4”x1/5”x bone deep on the left side of nasal bridge, (vi) 2 ½”x 1/3” x scalp deep placed two inches above inner end of left eyebrow, (vii) 3/4”x1/5” x scalp deep 2 ½” above right mastoid. (B) Abrasions: (i) 2 ½” x 1/4” on the back of right elbow and (ii) 1” x ½” x on back left wrist. (C) Bruise 2” x 2” on the right upper deltoid area. 4. According to the doctor, who has conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Mustafa Sah on 19.09.1991, the death had occurred between 36+12 hours from the time of the postmortem examination. 5. (C) Bruise 2” x 2” on the right upper deltoid area. 4. According to the doctor, who has conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Mustafa Sah on 19.09.1991, the death had occurred between 36+12 hours from the time of the postmortem examination. 5. The learned Sessions Judge has taken note of the judgment of the Supreme Court in “Deonandan Mishra Vs. State of Bihar” reported in (1955) 2 S.C.R. 570 , wherein it has been held that before an accused is convicted on the basis of the circumstantial evidence the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution must be fully established and the chain of circumstances should be so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. 6. The learned Sessions Judge has taken the following circumstances against the appellants: (i) Taking away of Mustafa by Firoz from his house, (ii) Mustafa found in the company of the appellants in the car of Nakul Mahto going towards Borio More, and (iii) their taking meal together at Suraj hotel. 7. The defence has produced the judgment in S.T. No. 552 of 1993 to discredit Md. Sarif on the ground of acquittal of Firoz Ansari in the said case; a case was instituted by Md. Sarif for the murderous assault on him by Firoz Ansari. 8. From the evidences laid by the prosecution during the trial, we find that the prosecution has failed to satisfy the test as laid by the Supreme Court in (1955) 2 S.C.R. 570 . 9. The circumstances that the appellants were lastly seen in the company of Mustafa and the next day his dead body was found could have attracted an inference that the appellants have committed murder of Mustafa, but then, the intervening circumstances which have come on record, especially in the prosecution's evidence, would break the chain of circumstances. The evidence that there was an altercation with a tribal boy, a quarrel between the deceased and few others a month prior to Vishwakarma Puja as spoken by the wife of the deceased and a suggestion of the defence that Mustafa has quarreled with the driver of the car on which they were going to Borio More, Govindpur, are the circumstances which would sufficiently relieve the appellants of the onus on them on account of the last-seen-together evidence. It is also relevant to record that the incident has happened on 17.09.1991 and the doctor has conducted the postmortem examination on 19.09.1991, but according to the doctor the time elapsed since death is 36+12 hours. The medical evidence thus creates further doubt on the veracity of the prosecution's case. It may be of some relevance to indicate that the name of Nakul Mahto does not figure in the fardbeyan of the informant which was recorded on 18.09.1991. There the informant has not spoken about his finding the appellants with his son at about 6:00 p.m on 17.09.1991 at Govindpur Bazar. Both the accused persons are known to the informant from before, still he has failed to disclose the aforesaid facts at the first instance. 10. In the aforesaid state of evidences, we find that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against both the appellants, namely, Nakul Mahto in Cr. A. (DB) No. 79 of 2002 and Firoz Ansari in Cr. A. (DB) No. 86 of 2002 under section 302 IPC and section 201 IPC. Accordingly, judgment of conviction under section 302 IPC and section 201 IPC dated 15.02.2002 and the order of sentence dated 19.02.2002 passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No. 592 of 1993 are set-aside. 11. Both the appellants, namely, Nakul Mahto in Cr. A. (DB) No. 79 of 2002 and Firoz Ansari in Cr. A. (DB) No. 86 of 2002 are acquitted of the charges framed against them. The appellants, who are on bail, are discharged of liability of the bail-bonds furnished by them. 12. In the result, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 79 of 2002 and Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 86 of 2002 are allowed. 13. Let lower-court records be transmitted to the court concerned, forthwith.