JUDGMENT : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. Three persons, namely, Ranjeet Singh, Jawahar Prasad Singh and Ashok Kumar Singh have faced the trial under sections 302/34, 201 and 387 IPC and under section 27 of the Arms Act. 2. The appellant, namely, Ranjeet Singh in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 179 of 2001 and the appellant, namely, Jawahar Prasad Singh in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 249 of 2001 were granted bail by this Court vide order dated 22.08.2002 and 19.09.2002 respectively. 3. The accused, namely, Ashok Kumar Singh has been acquitted of the charges framed against him, however, the accused-appellants, namely, Ranjeet Singh and Jawahar Prasad Singh have been convicted and sentenced to RI for life under section 302/34 IPC. No separate sentence under section 201 and under section 387 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under section 27 of the Arms Act has been passed against them. 4. These two criminal appeals; Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 179 of 2001 on behalf of Ranjeet Singh and Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 249 of 2001 by Jawahar Prasad Singh, arise out of the common judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed in Sessions Trial No. 258 of 2000. 5. The informant of this case, namely, Rupa Devi is the wife of Mahesh Prasad Sah, the deceased. In her fardbeyan, which was recorded on 11.04.1999 at about 7:00 a.m., she has stated that in the night of 10.04.1999 when her husband was returning from his grocery shop at about 9:15 p.m. before he reached home he disappeared. When he did not return till late in the night she became anxious and she informed her son and other shopkeepers about disappearance of her husband. A missing report was lodged at 2:30 a.m. in the intervening night of 10/11.04.1999 at Harla police station. In the morning, when she was searching for her husband, a lady informed her that a dead body is lying behind the garage. When she goes there, she found the dead body of her husband with blood-stains on the upper part of the shirt of her husband. She has noticed a bullet injury on her husband. She raised hulla whereupon several people gathered there and saw the dead body of her husband. When she goes there, she found the dead body of her husband with blood-stains on the upper part of the shirt of her husband. She has noticed a bullet injury on her husband. She raised hulla whereupon several people gathered there and saw the dead body of her husband. She has stated that in the last few days she has found her husband under great stress and on inquiry he has informed her that Ranjeet Singh and few other people of his group were demanding grocery and goods without payment. Last time on the occasion of Holi, Ranjeet Singh had demanded articles worth Rs.10,000/- and when her husband refused he was threatened by them. She has raised a suspicion that Ranjeet Singh with his associates have kidnapped her husband last evening and after murdering him thrown the dead body behind the garage. She has alleged that Ranjeet Singh is a Rangdar and an anti-social element and the people of the locality are afraid of him. She has further alleged that at about 10:30 p.m. in the night she had heard the sound of gun fire. She has made allegations against Jawahar Prasad Singh also of issuing threats to her husband. On the basis of her fardbeyan, Harla P.S. Case No. 41 of 1999 was registered on 11.04.1999 under sections 302/201/120-B/34 IPC and under section 27 of the Arms Act against Ranjeet Singh and Jawahar Prasad Singh. 6. During the trial, the prosecution has examined fourteen witnesses; the first Investigating Officer who has submitted charge-sheet against the appellants has not been examined during the trial. 7. Dr. Ratneshwar Prasad Verma-PW-13, who has conducted the post-mortem examination, has found the following injuries on Mahesh Prasad Sah: “1. ¼”x ¼” oval wound with ragged and inverted margin. Marginal contused abrasion showed a few fat particles. The margin showed aggregate of haemorrohage and soft tissue beneath the skin showed a blackened colour. This wound was found in the 2nd intercostal space on left side ½” away from sternum wound of entry. 2. ¾” x ¼” oval wound with puchered, torn everted margin with soft lirsus balguing out and bleeding signes through the hole. There was abrasion around the wound. The wound was present in the 3rd intercostal space on the side of back about ½” away medially to the medial boarder of scapula wound of exit.” 8. 2. ¾” x ¼” oval wound with puchered, torn everted margin with soft lirsus balguing out and bleeding signes through the hole. There was abrasion around the wound. The wound was present in the 3rd intercostal space on the side of back about ½” away medially to the medial boarder of scapula wound of exit.” 8. According to the Doctor, the injuries on Mahesh Prasad Sah were ante-mortem in nature and caused by firearms. Time elapsed since death, according to the Doctor, was within thirty-six hours; the post-mortem examination was conducted on 11.04.1999 at 15:15 hrs. 9. Admittedly, there is no eye-witness to the actual occurrence of killing of Mahesh Prasad Sah. The learned Sessions Judge has convicted the appellants on the basis of the circumstantial evidences laid by the prosecution during the trial. The following circumstances according to the learned Sessions Judge have proved the charges against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt; (i) the appellants were threatening the deceased and demanding grocery and other goods without payment, (ii) in the night of the occurrence they were found in suspicious condition, (iii) they tried to remove the dead body forcibly on a trekker, (iv) the sniffer dog has led the police party to the car of Ranjeet Singh, (v) when the son of the deceased was searching for him the appellants and others followed him to the telephone booth of Praveen and asked him to go back home saying that they will search for his father, (vi) in the night the accused persons did not respond to the call of the informant, and (vii) when the sniffer dog led the police to the house of Ranjeet Singh he was found absconding. 10. The law on the circumstantial evidence is by now well-settled. In the cases founded on circumstantial evidence the prosecution must lead cogent and reliable evidence to prove the circumstances appearing against the accused and the chain of circumstances must be so complete so as not to lead any doubt on the complicity of the accused in the crime and it must not be in consonance with any other hypothesis of innocence of the accused. 11. In “Padala Veera Reddy Vs. 11. In “Padala Veera Reddy Vs. State of A.P.” reported in 1989 Supp (2) SCC 706, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the following test must be satisfied before the conviction of an accused is recorded on the basis of the circumstantial evidence: (i) the circumstances from which an inference of guilty is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; (ii) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; (iii) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and non else; and (iv) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. 12. On careful examination of the evidences laid by the prosecution during the trial, we find that many of the circumstances sought to be proved against the appellants have not been proved and the chain of circumstances is so broken that guilt of the appellants cannot be inferred from the incriminating circumstances appearing against them. One of the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution and found proved by the learned Sessions Judge against the appellants is that the appellants forcibly tried to remove the dead body. For two reasons this circumstance cannot be said to be proved. This incident of forcibly trying to remove the dead body has happened after the dead body has been seen by the family members of Mahesh Prasad Sah and by that time several villagers had assembled at the place of occurrence. The police had arrived at the place of occurrence at around 7:00 a.m. in the morning. Had the appellants killed Mahesh Prasad Sah there is no reason why they would have left the dead body in the vicinity. In the evidence of PW-11, the informant, it has come that her brother, namely, Satyam and her brother-in-law, namely, Bhola Babu had gone with the dead body for the post-mortem examination. In such facts, the allegation against the appellants that they forcibly tried to remove the dead body cannot be found proved. 13. In the evidence of PW-11, the informant, it has come that her brother, namely, Satyam and her brother-in-law, namely, Bhola Babu had gone with the dead body for the post-mortem examination. In such facts, the allegation against the appellants that they forcibly tried to remove the dead body cannot be found proved. 13. The informant had admitted in her cross-examination that a complaint regarding threatening issued by Ranjeet Singh was never made to the police. We further find that prosecution has not led any evidence that the appellants, namely, Ranjeet Singh and Jawahar Prasad Singh were of bad character and anti-social element. 14. The circumstance that the appellants were found in suspicious condition has not been elaborated by the prosecution witnesses. It is a vague evidence. In our opinion, this cannot be an incriminating circumstance unless the other circumstances which would indicate complicity of the appellants in the crime are proved. The son of the deceased has spoken about the appellants and other two persons following him to the telephone booth and they allegedly told him that they would find his father. But, this also cannot be held to be a circumstance which would point out an accusing finger to the appellants. Moreover, we find that there are several missing links in the chain of circumstances on account of which it must be held that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge under sections 302/34, 201 and 387 IPC as well as under section 27 of the Arms Act. 15. In the result, the judgment of conviction dated 30.04.2001 and the order of sentence dated 01.05.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, IInd, Bokaro at Chas in Sessions Trial No. 258 of 2000 against the appellants, namely, Ranjeet Singh and Jawahar Prasad Singh under sections 302/34, 201 and 387 IPC as well as under section 27 of the Arms Act are set aside. 16. The appellants, namely, Ranjeet Singh and Jawahar Prasad Singh who are on bail shall be discharged of the liability of bail bonds furnished by them. 17. Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 179 of 2001 and Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 249 of 2001 are allowed. 18. Let lower court records be transmitted to the court concerned, forthwith. 19. Let a copy of the judgment be communicated to the trial court through FAX.