JUDGMENT : Sandeep Mehta, J. The appellants herein have been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 11.06.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No. 3, Bikaner in Sessions Case No. 130/2012 (N.C.V. No. 588/2012): Offences Sentences Fine Fine Default sentences Section 302/34 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs. 10,000/- 6 Months R.I. Section 201/34 IPC 7 Years R.I. Rs. 2,000/- 3 Months R.I. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Being aggrieved of their conviction and sentences, the appellants have preferred the instant appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. 3. Facts in brief are that Shri Idrish Shah son of Moinudeen (PW-1) lodged a written report (Ex.P/1) to the SHO, Police Station Jamsar, District Bikaner on 03.03.2012 at 07.00 am. alleging inter alia that on the previous day i.e. on 02.03.2012 in the evening, he alongwith his brother Aziz Shah went to the Jugnu Gypsum Factory for claiming the due wages of their labour jobs from the factory owner Saddam Hussain. There, they came across Saddam Hussain, Pintu and 3-4 other unknown persons. He asked for his remaining wages from Saddam Hussain. Saddam and his associates became annoyed and hurled an insinuation towards the complainant that he had demanded money on a number of occasions whereas, they were in a habit of usurping the wages of labourers. Saddam threatened that if any demand was made, the complainant would be killed. A hue and cry was raised on which, the villagers Sawai Shah and Akbar Shah intervened and advised Saddam not to withhold the remuneration of the labourers. On this, Saddam relented and stated that one of the brothers should stay back and that in the meanwhile, he would get the due money from Bikaner and settle the accounts. Thereupon, the complainant left his brother Aziz in the factory of Saddam and himself went away to his village. As Aziz Shah did not return home till 9 o clock in the night, the complainant and his maternal uncle Vazir Shah went to the Jugnu Gypsum Factory but did not find anyone there. The complainant apprised his family members of this development that Aziz and the factory owners were missing and that the motorcycle of Aziz was also nowhere to be seen. The complainant, his family members and the villagers Vazir Shah, Hanif Shah, Shahabuddin, father Moinuddin and other 7-8 persons, launched a search for Aziz. The complainant apprised his family members of this development that Aziz and the factory owners were missing and that the motorcycle of Aziz was also nowhere to be seen. The complainant, his family members and the villagers Vazir Shah, Hanif Shah, Shahabuddin, father Moinuddin and other 7-8 persons, launched a search for Aziz. While they were conducting the search, his relative Bhanwar Shah received a call on his mobile from Saddam who insinuated that the final account of Aziz had been settled and that he would not return now and that the dues of the complainant too would be settled in the same manner. The complainant alleged that Saddam, Pintu and their companions had murdered his brother Aziz owing to the monetary dispute. On the basis of this report, FIR No. 30/2012 (Ex.P/2) was registered at the Police Station Jamsar, District Bikaner for the offence under Section 302/34 of the IPC and investigation was commenced. The investigation was undertaken by Vikram Singh (PW-15), the SHO, Police Station Jamsar. The accused Saddam was arrested on 03.03.2012 at 10.25 am. vide arrest memo (Ex.P/11). The accused Pintu was arrested on 03.03.2012 at 10.30 am. vide arrest memo (Ex.P/12). The I.O. claims to have recorded the informations of the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act in the following order: Ex.P/15- Information recorded at the instance of the accused Saddam on 03.03.2012 at 10.45 pm. regarding concealment of deadbody of Aziz Shah, Ex.P/16- Information recorded at the instance of the accused Pintu on 03.03.2012 at 11.00 am. regarding concealment of deadbody of Aziz, Ex.P/18- Information recorded at the instance of the accused Pintu on 04.03.2012 at 03.45 pm. regarding concealment of motorcycle, Ex.P/19- Information recorded at the instance of the accused Saddam on 05.03.2012 at 12.45 pm. regarding pointing out of the place of the incident where Aziz had been murdered, Ex.P/20- Information recorded at the instance of the accused Pintu on 05.03.2012 at 01.00 pm. regarding pointing out of the place of incident where Aziz had been murdered, and Ex.P/21- Information recorded at the instance of the accused Saddam on 06.03.2012 at 03.00 pm. regarding concealment of the wire used to strangulate the deceased, 4. In furtherance of these informations, the I.O. claims to have effected recoveries in the following order: Ex.P/3 Recovery memo of Deadbody of Aziz, on 03.03.2012 at 11.30 am. regarding concealment of the wire used to strangulate the deceased, 4. In furtherance of these informations, the I.O. claims to have effected recoveries in the following order: Ex.P/3 Recovery memo of Deadbody of Aziz, on 03.03.2012 at 11.30 am. Ex.P/9A Seizure memo of motorcycle recovered at the instance of the accused Pintu, on 04.03.2012 at 04.00 pm. Ex.P/11A Seizure memo of wire recovered at the instance of the accused Saddam, on 06.03.2012 at 03.45 pm. Ex.P/9 Inspection of the place of occurrence at the instance of accused Saddam and Pintu, on 05.03.2012 at 01.30 pm. 5. In this manner, it is claimed that during the course of investigation, Saddam gave an information to the I.O. under Section 27 of the Evidence Act (Ex.P/15) divulging that he could point out the place where the deadbody of Aziz Shah had been concealed after he had murdered him. The said place was alleged to be near the canal under the Bikaner-Jaisalmer By-pass. This information was recorded on 03.03.2012 at 10.45 am. It is alleged that the accused Pintu also gave a similar information (Ex.P/16) dated 03.03.2012 at 11.00 am. In furtherance of these informations, the accused and the SHO proceeded to the place near the canal on the Bikaner-Jaisalmer by-pass where the accused allegedly pointed out and got the deadbody of Aziz Shah recovered vide recovery memo (Ex.P/3) dated 03.03.2012 at 11.30 am. The dead body of Aziz Shah was subjected to postmortem by a Medical Board constituted at the PBM Hospital, Bikaner which issued the postmortem report (Ex.P/14) opining that the cause of death of Aziz Shah was asphyxia from strangulation by a ligature. 6. The other formalities of investigation were completed and thereafter, a charge-sheet came to be filed against the appellants herein for the offences under Sections 302, 302/34, 201 and 404/34 of the IPC in the Court of concerned Magistrate. Since the offences were Sessions triable, the case was committed and transferred for trial to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Bikaner. The learned trial court, framed and read over the charges for the offences under Sections 302, 302/34, 201, 201/34, 404 and 404/34 of the IPC to the accused who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The accused Saddam claimed to be a juvenile. The learned trial court, framed and read over the charges for the offences under Sections 302, 302/34, 201, 201/34, 404 and 404/34 of the IPC to the accused who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The accused Saddam claimed to be a juvenile. Thus, an enquiry was held and the said claim was turned down and the revision filed against the order of the trial court was dismissed by the learned Single Bench of this Court. 7. The prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses and exhibited 31 documents in support of its case. The accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and were confronted with the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence which they denied and claimed that Idrish Shah, Aziz Shah, Akbar Shah and Sawai Shah had never worked in their factory and that no labour charges of these people were due. These people did not come to their factory on 02.03.2012 and thus, there was no occasion for Aziz to stay back therein. Saddam specifically denied that he had called Bhanwar Shah and confessed of the murder. A pertinent denial was made regarding the informations allegedly recorded by the police under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The proceedings pertaining to the recovery of the deadbody were also refuted. The accused exhibited 9 documents in their defence but did not choose to lead any oral evidence. Upon conclusion of the trial, after hearing the arguments advanced by the prosecution and the defence and upon appreciating the evidence available on record, the learned Trial Judge proceeded to convict and sentence the appellants as above. Hence, this appeal. 8. Shri H.S.S. Kharlia, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Shri Harveer Sidhu, learned counsel representing the appellants vehemently and fervently contended that the case is of blind murder and the appellants have been roped in for no reason or justification whatsoever. He contended that the FIR is a post investigation document. The I.O. claims to have registered the information on 03.03.2012 at 07.00 am. whereas, the same reached the Court of the concerned Magistrate on 03.03.2012 as late as 05.00 pm. In the interregnum, numerous important documents viz. Supurdagi Lash and the postmortem were prepared in which, the number of the FIR is conspicuously missing. The I.O. claims to have registered the information on 03.03.2012 at 07.00 am. whereas, the same reached the Court of the concerned Magistrate on 03.03.2012 as late as 05.00 pm. In the interregnum, numerous important documents viz. Supurdagi Lash and the postmortem were prepared in which, the number of the FIR is conspicuously missing. Thus, as per him, the FIR is a post investigation document registered well after the postmortem had been carried out on the dead body of Aziz Shah which was undertaken at 03.00 pm. He further urged that the story put-forth by the prosecution witnesses that they went to the factory of the accused for demanding their due wages is absolutely false and fabricated. No corresponding document to show that the deceased or Idrish had ever worked in the factory of the accused, was collected by the I.O. during investigation and nor was any such document exhibited during the trial. He further urged that all the material prosecution witnesses, who have deposed against the accused, are related to each other in one manner or the other and not even a single independent witness was associated by the I.O. so as to prove the chain of circumstances against the accused. Shri Kharlia further urged that the theory regarding the accused Saddam having made a call to Bhanwar Shah (PW-6) and confessing that he had murdered Aziz Shah, is false and fabricated because no corresponding call details were collected by the I.O. during investigation. If at all, the accused had made any such extrajudicial confession then, rather than continuing the futile search for Aziz, the natural reaction of his brother, the complainant Idrish Shah would have been to lodge the FIR immediately thereafter. He further urged that as per the statement of Idrish Shah (PW-1) and Vazir Shah (PW-7), when they returned to the factory at 9 o clock, no one was present there. He urged that for proving the circumstance of last seen together, the prosecution has projected two witnesses namely Iqbal Shah (PW-8) and Akram Shah (PW- 11) who claimed that they saw the accused taking away the deceased on their motorcycle at about 11.30 in the night. He urged that no witness of the prosecution has stated that Aziz Shah came or was brought back to the Jugnu Gypsum Factory after 9 o clock. He urged that no witness of the prosecution has stated that Aziz Shah came or was brought back to the Jugnu Gypsum Factory after 9 o clock. He further urged that Idrish Shah and Akbar Shah are closely related to the deceased and the first informant but did not timely disclose this important fact noticed by them in the night time either to the complainant or any other family member and for the first time, projected this theory of witnessing the accused taking away the deceased as late as on 17.03.2012 when their statements were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He further urged that the evidence of the witnesses PW-5 Shabuddin, PW-7 Vazir Shah and PW-14 Hanif Shah in whose presence, the accused allegedly made an extra-judicial confession, is totally fabricated because these witnesses are also closely related to the complainant party and thus, the accused had no occasion or reason to make the extra-judicial confession before these witnesses. He further urged that if at all, the accused had made any extra-judicial confession to these three then this fact would definitely have been mentioned in the FIR. This omission, as per Shri Kharlia, goes to the root of the matter. He further contended that the informations allegedly recorded by the I.O. at the instance of the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and the recoveries purportedly made in furtherance thereof including that of the deadbody, etc., are false and cooked up because the timings of the corresponding documents including the arrest memos of the accused and the recovery memos make it absolutely improbable that the I.O. could have undertaken all these actions within a short time frame of about one hour. 9. He urged that the accused were shown arrested vide arrest memos which were prepared at the Police Station Jamsar. The place of the occurrence is located at a distance of 6 Kms. and that it would have been practically impossible for the I.O. to have completed the relevant steps of arrest of the accused followed by the recording of the informations under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and the recovery of the dead body of Aziz Shah within such a short span of time and therefore, as per him, all these documents are fabricated. He further contended that all the witnesses pertaining to the evidence of last seen, extra-judicial confession and the motbirs of the recoveries viz. PW-7 Vajir Shah, PW-8 Iqbal Shah, PW-11 Akram Shah, PW-5 Shahabuddin and PW-14 Hanif Shah are closely related to the deceased and the complainant and thus, manifestly, it is a case wherein, the I.O. has collaborated with the complainant party for creating evidence so as to falsely implicate the accused in the case for oblique motives. Shri Kharlia further submitted that no corresponding evidence was collected by the I.O. to corroborate the complainants claim that he or the deceased had worked in the factory of the accused appellant Saddam or that any amount of theirs was actually due in furtherance whereof, the questioned sequence of events unfurled. He thus urged that as the entire investigation is shady and tainted and since the whole case of the prosecution is based on the cooked up testimony of interested and partisan witnesses, the same deserves to be discarded and the conviction of the accused recorded by the trial court on the basis of such fabricated and flimsy evidence deserves to be set aside. In support of his contentions, Shri Kharlia relied upon the following judgments: (i) Moti Lal & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, reported in AIR 2009 SC 2790 ; (ii) L/NK. Mehraj Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in 1994 Cr.L.R. (SC) 455; (iii) Babu Lal v. State of Rajasthan, reported in AIR 2019 SC 688 ; and (iv) Malaichamy & Anr. v. State of Tamilnadu, 2019 R.Cr.D. SC 202. and urged that the appeal deserves to be accepted; the impugned judgment should be set aside and the appellants be acquitted of the charges. 10. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellants counsel. He contended that the complainant party is not so affluent or well-placed so that they could have influenced the investigating officer in the manner alleged by the defence counsel. He further submitted that the FIR was lodged without any undue delay. Merely because, the accused had called and told Bhanwar Shah that they had eliminated Shri Aziz Shah, the complainant was justified in not loosing hope and in continuing the search for his brother. He further submitted that the FIR was lodged without any undue delay. Merely because, the accused had called and told Bhanwar Shah that they had eliminated Shri Aziz Shah, the complainant was justified in not loosing hope and in continuing the search for his brother. Finally when no clue was forthcoming till the morning, the complainant felt dejected and proceeded to lodge the FIR at the Police Station as early as 7 am. and hence, by no stretch of imagination, can the FIR said to be delayed. He further urged that the contention of the defence counsel regarding the FIR being a post investigation document, has no foundation whatsoever. The omission of the FIR number in the postmortem report and the Panchnama Lash can be attributed purely to the oversight of the I.O. and no adverse inference can be drawn on the basis thereof. He further urged that the unrelated persons generally show hesitation in associating as witnesses in criminal cases because of fear of retribution etc., and hence, the non-involvement of any independent witness in the proceedings of extra-judicial confession, recovery, etc. cannot be of much significance. He further pointed out that the factum of the deadbody being concealed at the place from where it was recovered, was within the exclusive knowledge of the accused Saddam and Pintu Kumar. They provided voluntary informations to the I.O. under Section 27 of the Evidence Act in furtherance whereof, the incriminating recoveries including that of the dead body of Aziz Shah were effected. The I.O. was in not holding any prejudice against the accused so that he would go to the length of creating false documents to falsely implicate them in the case. The aspect regarding the labour charges due from the accused towards the complainant and his deceased brother has been crystalized in the evidence of the first informant Idrish Shah and his testimony in this regard was not shaken by any significant cross-examination. He thus implored the Court to affirm the impugned judgment and dismiss the appeal. 11. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have minutely re-appreciated the evidence available on record. 12. Manifestly, the entire case of prosecution hinges on circumstantial evidence. Admittedly, all the material witnesses relied upon by the prosecution to prove the trail of circumstances are related to the complainant party one way or the other. 11. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have minutely re-appreciated the evidence available on record. 12. Manifestly, the entire case of prosecution hinges on circumstantial evidence. Admittedly, all the material witnesses relied upon by the prosecution to prove the trail of circumstances are related to the complainant party one way or the other. The chain of circumstances sought to be established by the prosecution to bring home the charges can be summarized as below: (i) Motive:- based on an allegation that the deceased Aziz Shah and the first informant Idrish Shah used to do labour jobs in the factory of the accused and that significant money by way of labour charges became due to both of them. The accused wanted to wriggle out the payment and the murder was fueled by this motive of usurping the money due to the complainant party. (ii) Last Seen Together- The prosecution has led two sets of evidence to prove this circumstance. The first being the evidence of the complainant Idrish Shah (PW-1) who alleged that he and his brother Aziz Shah (the deceased) went to the Jugnu Gypsum Factory allegedly owned by Saddam. After some deliberations and heated exchange of words, Saddam agreed to pay the due amount and asked one of the brothers to stay back so that the money could be arranged for and paid. Idrish left Aziz Shah in the factory and went home. In this manner, the prosecution alleged that Aziz was left alone at the Jugnu Gypsum Factory in the company of the accused Saddam and Pintu Kumar in the late hours of 02.03.2012 and that he was not seen alive thereafter. This sequence is portrayed to constitute the first circumstance of last seen. In addition thereto, the witnesses Iqbal Shah (PW-8) and Akram Shah (PW-11) stated that they saw the accused Saddam and Pintu coming out of the factory at about 11.00 to 11.30 pm. and that Aziz was sitting in between them; the prosecution has made a conjecture that by this time, the accused had murdered Aziz and were carrying the deadbody on the motorcycle so that the same could be disposed of. (iii) Extra Judicial Confession:- The prosecution has put up two sets of evidence to claim that the accused made extra-judicial confessions of having murdered the deceased Aziz Shah. (iii) Extra Judicial Confession:- The prosecution has put up two sets of evidence to claim that the accused made extra-judicial confessions of having murdered the deceased Aziz Shah. The first witness to unfold this allegation was Bhanwar Shah (PW-6) who claimed that while Idrish and others were making a search for Aziz, Saddam made a call to him and blurted out that Aziz Shah had been eliminated. The second part of extra-judicial confession was deposed by PW-5 Shahabuddin, PW-7 Vazir Shah and PW-14 Hanif Shah who alleged that in the morning of 03.03.2012 at about 09.30 10.00 am, both the accused met them at the Jugnu Gypsum Factory and made the extra-judicial confession of having killed Aziz Shah in their presence. (iv) Recoveries: (a) Recovery of deadbody of Aziz Shah in furtherance of the information provided by both the accused to the I.O. under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. (b) Recovery of a piece of wire from the factory premises in furtherance of the information provided by the accused Saddam to the I.O. under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. (c) Recovery of the motorcycle allegedly used to dispose of the deadbody of Aziz Shah. 13. Now we proceed to discuss and evaluate the entirety of evidence available on record so as to assess and evaluate whether the prosecution has been able to prove the above circumstances beyond all manner of doubt and whether the links forming the chain of circumstances is complete in all aspects so as to convince the Court regarding the complicity of the accused in the crime. 14. The testimony regarding first circumstance of motive was given by none other than the first informant PW-1 Idrish Shah. In this regard, we firstly elaborate upon the allegations levelled in the FIR (Ex.P/1) wherein, Idrish simply stated that he and Aziz Shah had gone to Jugnu Gypsum Factory to collect their due labour charges from its owner Saddam. When the complainant and Aziz Shah demanded their due money, the accused became infuriated and started threatening that this demand had been made previously also and that he was in a habit of usurping the labour charges of the workers. Similar statement was given by Idrish in his sworn testimony. When the complainant and Aziz Shah demanded their due money, the accused became infuriated and started threatening that this demand had been made previously also and that he was in a habit of usurping the labour charges of the workers. Similar statement was given by Idrish in his sworn testimony. Though in the FIR, Idrish did not quantify the amount due, but in his examination-in-chief, he made an improvement and alleged that a sum of rupees 70,000/- to 80,000/- was due to be paid by Saddam to him and his brother Aziz (the deceased). Pertinent cross-examination was made from the witness on this aspect of his testimony and he admitted that there was no allegation in the FIR or in his investigational statement (Ex.D/1) that a sum of rupees 70,000/- to 80,000/- was due to him and his brother Aziz by way of labour charges. He elaborated in cross-examination that this amount was due for grinding, loading and unloading charges. He and his brother worked in the factory in the month of December and that the labour charges were settled at Rs. 2,500/- per day. They had engaged 6-7 labourers for the job of grinding, loading and unloading. Previously also, they had worked in the factory but, he could not state the date, month or the year of this previous assignment. He admitted that the details of the work done by them were entered in a register maintained by the factory owner and that he and his brother also used to maintain these details in a diary. However, in the very next line, the witness admitted that he did not have the diary in which the amount of rupees 70,000/- to 80,000/- accumulated by grinding, loading and unloading jobs due to be paid by the owner of Jugnu Gypsum Factory was jotted down and claimed that this diary was in possession of Aziz Shah. He admitted that this diary was not shown to the factory owners saying that they were aware of the due amount. He further admitted that no such diary was seized by the police. He disclosed the numbers of the mobile phones being used by him and Aziz Shah and stated that the police did not recover the mobile phone of Aziz Shah. The witness also admitted that he tried to contact Aziz Shah on phone 10-15 times but could not succeed in getting through. He disclosed the numbers of the mobile phones being used by him and Aziz Shah and stated that the police did not recover the mobile phone of Aziz Shah. The witness also admitted that he tried to contact Aziz Shah on phone 10-15 times but could not succeed in getting through. He stated that he made made the first call to Aziz Shah on the fateful night between 08.30 to 08.45 pm. and that the last call was attempted at 9 o clock. He was at his house when he was made these calls. He admitted that before that, he already initiated the search for his brother Aziz Shah and continued to search him. Bhanwar Shah called from his mobile in the late hours of 02.03.2012 and told him that the accused had confessed to having eliminated Aziz Shah. He admitted that despite this disclosure made by Bhanwar Shah that the accused had declared that they had killed Aziz Shah, he did not go to lodge a report at the police station. This conduct of the witness brings his evidence under a grave shadow of doubt. The witness categorically alleged that initially, when they demanded the labour charges, Saddam and his companions had threatened them of dire consequences. Later on, after some heated exchanges, Saddam stated that he would be arranging for the money and would pay the same to Aziz who was left alone in the factory with the accused. These incidents took place between 06.00 to 07.00 pm. The informant tried to contact his brother between 08.30 to 09.00 pm. but could not succeed. If these allegations bore a semblance of truth, the complainant would definitely have started carrying doubt in his mind that something was amiss with Aziz Shah. An extensive search was made but Aziz could not be found either in the factory or in the nearby locations. Bhanwar Shah called and apprised the witness that Saddam had called him and had declared that he had eliminated Aziz Shah. Having received this information, there was no reason whatsoever as to why, Idrish would not have been convinced to approach the police for reporting the matter and rather continue to make a futile search for Aziz. Bhanwar Shah called and apprised the witness that Saddam had called him and had declared that he had eliminated Aziz Shah. Having received this information, there was no reason whatsoever as to why, Idrish would not have been convinced to approach the police for reporting the matter and rather continue to make a futile search for Aziz. The inability of Idrish to present any written proof regarding the amount allegedly owed by the accused to them, the non-recovery of the diary in which the amount was allegedly entered and the failure of Idrish in taking immediate steps to approach the police even after coming to know that his brother was missing and might have been killed; despite his mobile being switched off, brings his entire evidence under a grave shadow of doubt and we feel that the allegations set out in the FIR and in the sworn testimony of the witness are nothing but a bundle of lies. The conduct of Idrish is highly unnatural and makes his evidence unworthy of credence. 15. The investigating officer PW-15 Vikram Singh Charan being the C.I. of the Police Station Jamsar, was put pertinent questions regarding the investigation made for verifying the factum of the dues of the complainant party at the end of the accused. He admitted that no documentary evidence was available on record to corroborate this allegation. Since the complainant claims to have generated the labour charges by working in an industrial unit, it can be presumed that the record thereof would definitely be available in the accounts of the unit. However, the I.O. made no attempt whatsoever to search the factorys records nor did he try to collect any documentary proof pertaining to Idrish Shah from the accused in this regard. The complainant categorically stated that he and Aziz Shah used to jot down the details of the work done by them and the amount generated in a diary. However, it seems that either the I.O. made no effort whatsoever to recover any such diary or that such diary never existed. The complainant Idrish admitted in his evidence that for doing the job of grinding, loading and unloading in the factory of the accused, 6-7 other labourers were engaged by them. However, it seems that either the I.O. made no effort whatsoever to recover any such diary or that such diary never existed. The complainant Idrish admitted in his evidence that for doing the job of grinding, loading and unloading in the factory of the accused, 6-7 other labourers were engaged by them. Not a single of these labourers was examined either during investigation or at the trial so as to substantiate the hollow claim of the complainant that the accused owed them any amount in form of labour charges. Thus, we are duly satisfied that the prosecution has failed to lead appropriate evidence to establish the circumstance of motive attributed to the accused for committing the offence. 16. The next circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is that of last seen together. The three witnesses who were examined to prove this circumstance were the complainant Idrish (PW-1), Iqbal Shah (PW-8) and Akram Shah (PW-11). We have already held that the evidence of Idrish is not reliable. The witnesses Iqbal and Akram claimed that they were present at Khara Industrial Area for unloading gypsum trucks when they saw a motorcycle coming out from Jugnu Gypsum Factory at 11.00 to 11.30 pm. in illumination of the lights fixed at the Daiya Dharmkanta. Saddam was driving the motorcycle, Ajiz Shah was made to sit in the middle and Pintu Kumar was sitting in the last. The motorcycle went towards the highway and did not return. The witnesses waited there for about 20-25 minutes and after completing their task of unloading gypsum, they went to sleep. On the next evening, they heard that Aziz Shah had been murdered by Saddam the owner of the Jugnu Gypsum Factory and the labour Pintu Kumar. The witness Akram (PW-11) stated that he and Iqbal Shah told of these events to Moinudeen (father of the deceased) 4 to 5 days before 17.03.2012. In cross-examination, both the witnesses admitted that they participated in the funeral (Janaja) of Aziz Shah. Thereafter, both of them went for doing their own jobs and met again on 10th or 11th March, 2012 and participated in the condolence meeting held on 12.03.2012 where Moinudeen met them and there, they told him of what they had seen on the fateful night. The witnesses admitted that they did not go and apprise the police of these important incidents seen by them. The witnesses admitted that they did not go and apprise the police of these important incidents seen by them. The witness Akram Shah resides in the vicinity of the house of Moinudeen. The statements of these witnesses were recorded by the I.O. under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as late as on 17.03.2012. The conduct of these witnesses in maintaining absolute silence for a period of almost 14-15 days and not disclosing to the police or the complainant that they had seen the deadbody of Aziz being carried by the two accused on their motorcycle on the fateful night, makes their conduct unnatural and testimony totally unworthy of credence. 17. Moinudeen (PW-9) also claimed that both these witnesses met him about 10 days after the incident and told him that they had seen the two accused carrying away the deadbody of Aziz on their motorcycle. However, if at all, the witnesses Iqbal and Akram had actually seen any such incident and had shared this fact with Moinudeen on 12.03.2012 as claimed, then the natural reaction of Moinudeen would have been to approach the police immediately with this vital information implicating the accused. 18. There is yet another significant flaw in the theory of last seen propounded by both these witnesses. It is an admitted case of the prosecution, as set out in the deposition of Idrish (PW-1) and Vazir Shah (PW-7), that as they could not contact Aziz Shah on his mobile, both of them, went to the Jugnu Gypsum Factory at about 9 o clock in search of Aziz and found the premises vacant. If, neither the accused nor the deceased were to be seen in the factory at 9 o clock, manifestly, the three must have left the premises. No witness examined by the prosecution claimed that the accused and the deceased were seen returning to the factory any time after 9 o clock. Otherwise also, if the accused had the deceased under their control and they had taken him out of the factory which is located in a thickly populated area thronged by people night and day, then there was no reason as to why, they would take the risk of bringing him back to the factory rather than eliminating him at a suitable secluded place where there would be no chance of discovery. Thus, we are of the firm opinion that the theory projected by the two related and chance witnesses Iqbal Shah (PW-8) and Akram (PW-11) that they saw the two accused carrying away the deceased from the factory at about 11.30 in the night is nothing but a blatant lie. The conduct of these witnesses in not disclosing promptly about this important happening which they claimed to have seen on the fateful night to the family members of the deceased; while participating in the Janaja of Aziz and in not approaching the police immediately with this invaluable information, makes their evidence suspicious and unworthy of credence. 19. The deceased Aziz Shah was admittedly carrying a mobile phone with him which could not be recovered. Had there been a semblance of sincerity and fairness in the action of the investigating officer, nothing could have prevented him from collecting the call detail records and the tower details of the mobiles held by the deceased, the accused and the concerned witnesses which would have made the things clear as day light and significant corroboration could have been received of the evidence of these witnesses who stated about the deceased being seen lastly in the exclusive company of the accused before his dead body was recovered. The intentional omission of the investigating officer in collecting the call details brings the entire prosecution case under a cloud of suspicion. Thus, we conclude that the prosecution failed to lead any plausible evidence so as to establish the circumstance that the deceased was lastly seen in the company of the accused before he was done to death. 20. The next circumstance which the prosecution endeavoured to prove in support of the charges was that of the extra-judicial confession allegedly made by the accused. Three witnesses were examined to prove this fact i.e. PW-6 Bhanwar Shah, PW-7 Vazir Shah and PW-14 Hanif Shah. Apart from the fact that all these three witnesses are closely related to the first informant and the deceased, there are inherent shortcomings and infirmities in their evidence which make their version doubtful. Bhanwar Shah claimed that he received a call from Saddam on 02.03.2012 who alleged that he had settled the entire accounts of Aziz Shah and that he would not return in future. Saddam allegedly also threatened Bhanwar that his turn was the next. Bhanwar Shah claimed that he received a call from Saddam on 02.03.2012 who alleged that he had settled the entire accounts of Aziz Shah and that he would not return in future. Saddam allegedly also threatened Bhanwar that his turn was the next. Bhanwar Shah claims that he immediately told Idrish of this incident. On the next day at about 12 to 1 o clock, he came to know that Saddam and Pintu Kumar had murdered Aziz Shah by throttling him. In cross-examination, the witness admitted that he was illiterate and thus expressed his inability to disclose the number from which, Saddam had called him. He also could not disclose his own phone number. He admitted that Saddam had no enmity with him. 21. Firstly we are of the opinion that since Saddam had no relationship of any kind either fiduciary or otherwise with Bhanwar Shah, there was no occasion for him to have randomly called the witness so as to make the extra-judicial confession and the sequence of events is totally unnatural. Furthermore, since admittedly there was no enmity whatsoever between Bhanwar Shah and Saddam, it does not stand to reason that the accused would go to the extent of threatening Bhanwar Shah with the same fate as Aziz without there being any cause to do so. As stated above, the I.O. did not collect any call details whatsoever of the corresponding mobile phones held by the witnesses and the accused so as to provide corroboration needed to satisfy the Court that the witnesses are speaking the truth. Thus, Bhanwar Shah appears to be a totally cooked up witness and his evidence on the aspect of extra-judicial confession is totally unworthy of credence. 22. The other set of witnesses examined by the prosecution to prove the circumstance of extra-judicial confession are Shahabuddin (PW-5), Vazir Shah (PW-7) and Hanif Shah (PW-14). Vazir Shah is the maternal uncle of the deceased whereas Hanif Shah is his brother-in-law. The FIR (Ex.P/2) was allegedly lodged on 03.03.2012 at 07.00 am. Manifestly with the lodging of the FIR, the investigation would have commenced. The factory of the accused would be the prime location to collect clues about the offence and it would be the last place where the accused would return if they wanted to avoid detection. The FIR (Ex.P/2) was allegedly lodged on 03.03.2012 at 07.00 am. Manifestly with the lodging of the FIR, the investigation would have commenced. The factory of the accused would be the prime location to collect clues about the offence and it would be the last place where the accused would return if they wanted to avoid detection. However, both these witnesses claimed that both of them went to the Jugnu Gypsum Factory on 03.03.2012 at about 09.30 to 09.45 am. No police officer was accompanying them. Both the accused were present in the factory. Saddam called out Shahabuddin (PW-5) and asked him to come closer. On this, Shahabuddin, Vazir Shah and Hanif Shah approached Saddam who confessed that he and Pintu Kumar had throttled Saddam and had concealed his body and that they should be saved. Vazir Shah and Hanif Shah started crying on hearing these utterings of the accused. They returned to the factory at about 10.00 to 10.45 pm. but did not see the accused persons present there. Upon this, they went to the police station where they were told that the accused were about to point out the deadbody of Aziz Shah. The witnesses followed the police jeep and reached Jaisalmer By-pass on the Highway No. 15 where the accused Saddam pointed out the deadbody of Aziz Shah. Thereafter, the accused Saddam got recovered the electric wire which was used to throttle the deceased from the factory. In cross-examination, the witnesses admitted that Aziz Shah never told him that any labour amount was due to them from the owners of Jugnu Gypsum Factory. The statements of all the three witnesses i.e. Shahabuddin, Vazir Shah and Hanif Shah are of the same tenor. 23. The I.O. Vikram Singh (PW-15) admitted in his cross examination that the Rojnamcha entry pertaining to the departure of the police team for recovering the deadbody was not available on record. He also admitted in his cross-examination that he went to the place of occurrence i.e. Jugnu Gypsum Factory for the first time on 04.03.2012. However, this fact as stated by the I.O. is totally unworthy of belief. He also admitted in his cross-examination that he went to the place of occurrence i.e. Jugnu Gypsum Factory for the first time on 04.03.2012. However, this fact as stated by the I.O. is totally unworthy of belief. It is impossible to think that after receiving the information (Ex.P/1) and after perusing its contents, the SHO would not take immediate steps to secure the place of incident and casually continue to be at the police station, in the expectation that the accused would come and turn themselves in voluntarily. If the SHO acted so casually, then he is definitely guilty of dereliction of duty because, the non-securing of the crime scene would give the accused a chance to destroy the evidence. For verifying this aspect of the matter, we went through the case diary provided to us by the learned Public Prosecutor and find that the entry No. 1 which was made by the I.O. on 03.03.2012, is a detailed record of proceedings conducted by the him on that day. This entry does not bear any time. However, what is prominently reflected from the case diary is that the Head Constable Shivratan and Ravindra Singh were sent on 03.03.2012 to search for Aziz Shah and they went to Khara Industrial Area as well as the factory in question but the suspects being the owners of the factory could not be located. The factory was locked. A further note is recovered in the case diary of 03.03.2012 that the SHO accompanied by the staff members of the Police Station, went to the Jugnu Gypsum Factory where, he met Vazir Shah and Shahabuddin who allegedly divulged that Saddam and Pintu met them in the factory and made the extra-judicial confession. Apparently thus, the extrajudicial confession is nothing but a piece of concoction. The SHO and the police team were unquestionably present at the factory and the evidence of extra-judicial confession seems to have been conceived in an endeavour to strengthen the prosecution case by any means. In view of the stark contradiction appearing in the evidence of the witnesses of extra-judicial confession as is revealed the entry No. 1/ 03.03.2012 made in the case diary, we are convinced that the extra-judicial confession, if any, must have been made by the accused when questioned by the investigating officer who surprisingly tried to hide his presence at the factory premises on 03.03.2012. As the extra-judicial confession appears to have been recorded in presence of the police officers, the same would be hit by Sections 24 and 25 of the Evidence Act. Thus, we are of the firm opinion that the theory put-forth in the statements of Shahabuddin (PW-5), Vazir Shah (PW-7) and Hanif Shah (PW- 14) that the accused made the extra-judicial confession in their exclusive presence without involvement of any police officer at the Jugnu Gypsum Factory on 03.03.2012 after the FIR had been lodged, is totally false and fabricated. Admittedly, as per the prosecution case, the accused had already made the extra-judicial confession to Bhanwar Shah in the night time. Therefore, there was no reason as to why they would go on repeating and bragging about their crime only to the close relatives of the deceased. Furthermore, it does not stand to reason that the accused would continue to remain at the factory on the morning after the incident. Therefore, the evidence of extra-judicial confession as deposed by these three witnesses is fit to be discarded. 24. The next circumstance which the prosecution relied upon is that of recovery of the deadbody of Aziz Shah at the instance of the accused. In this regard, we have closely scrutinized the statement of the investigating officer Vikram Singh (PW-15). He categorically stated that the accused came down the police station and turned themselves in voluntarily whereafter, they were formally arrested. Saddam was arrested at 10.25 am vide arrest memo (Ex.P/11) on 03.03.2012. whereas Pintu Kumar was arrested at 10.30 am vide arrest memo (Ex.P/12) on 03.03.2012. Soon thereafter, the I.O. started interrogating the accused. Saddam allegedly provided an information to the I.O. under Section 27 of the Evidence Act which was taken down in the memorandum (Ex.P./15) prepared on 03.03.2012 at 10.45 am. in which, he disclosed the place where the deadbody was concealed. Soon thereafter, at 11.00 am., Pintu Kumar gave similar information which was recorded in memorandum Ex.P/16. In furtherance of these informations, the accused were allegedly taken to the spot at the Jaisalmer Bypass National Highway No. 15 where the deadbody was allegedly concealed. The accused pointed out the deadbody of Aziz Shah which was recovered vide seizure memo Ex.P/3 prepared at 11.30 am. In cross-examination, the I.O. claimed in his evidence that he did not know the accused from before. The accused pointed out the deadbody of Aziz Shah which was recovered vide seizure memo Ex.P/3 prepared at 11.30 am. In cross-examination, the I.O. claimed in his evidence that he did not know the accused from before. He could not say as to from where the accused were arrested. On being confronted with the arrest memos, he stated that the place of arrest was shown as Jamsar. As stated above, the I.O. admitted that he went to the Jugnu Gypsum Factory for the first time on 04.03.2012 [on which date, the motorcycle was recovered at the instance of the accused Pintu]. These circumstances, as a matter of fact, portray that the I.O. was virtually assured that nothing at all had happened at the Jugnu Gypsum Factory or that nothing incriminating would be found there. If at all, the accused had made an extra-judicial confession before Vazir Shah, Shahbuddin and Hanif Shah while sitting at the factory, apparently these witnesses would, in the expectation of natural human behaviour, inform the police of the whereabouts of the accused. However, these witnesses made no attempt to do so. The I.O. acted as if nothing unnatural had happened in the factory and made no efforts to secure the crime scene. He casually kept waiting for the accused to turn up on their own and finally, orchestrated the sequence of arrest and recoveries in the manner stated above. The entire set of circumstances is so unnatural and hard to believe that, there is no hesitation for us to hold that the investigating officer was perceptibly aware of the location of the deadbody. He seems to have recovered the body and then created the trail of documents so as to ensure that the case could be firmly proved against the accused. Furthermore, the facts noticed by us from the case diary (referred supra), clearly indicate that the SHO himself reached the factory on 03.03.2012 itself. The accused and the witnesses Vazir Shah and Shahabuddin were present there. In this very noting of the case diary, it is mentioned that the accused confessed about their crime and the concealment of the deadbody. The accused were taken by the SHO himself to the Police Station. These facts clearly indicate that the SHO has given totally false and cooked up version about the steps of arrest and recovery undertaken by him during investigation. The accused were taken by the SHO himself to the Police Station. These facts clearly indicate that the SHO has given totally false and cooked up version about the steps of arrest and recovery undertaken by him during investigation. As a result, we have no hesitation in holding that the entire process of recovery of dead body of Aziz Shah claimed to have been made in furtherance of the disclosure statement of the accuse, is nothing but a sheer piece of concoction managed by the investigating officer Vikram Singh to ensure the success of the case. 25. There is another strong circumstance which convinces us that not only was the investigation carried out unfairly but even the FIR is a post investigation document. The cross-examination of the I.O. was deferred on the request of the defence counsel as it was proposed to confront him with the documents/ requisitions which had been submitted to the hospital for getting the deadbody subjected to postmortem. The cross-examination of the I.O. was deferred on the request of the defence counsel as it was proposed to confront him with the documents/ requisitions which had been submitted to the hospital for getting the deadbody subjected to postmortem. The relevant part of the cross examination conducted from the I.O. in this regard needs a special mention in vernacular: ^^;g lgh gS fd iksLVekVZe fjiksVZ izn'kZ&ih 14 esa 03-05 ih-,e- dk le; eqvk;uk gksus dk le; fy[kk gSA ;g lgh gS fd e`rd dh yk'k ihoh,e vLirky eSa ysdj vk;k FkkA ;g lgh gS fd bnjh'k 'kkg e`rd dk HkkbZ gS] ftlus e`rd dks f'kuk[r fd;k Fkk og ml le; vLirky esa ekStwn FkkA iksLVekVZe djkus ls iwoZ e`rd dh yk'k dk ipak;rukek fd;k tkrk gSA e`rd dk iksLVekVZe djkus ds fy, MkWDVj dks rgjhj nh tkrh gSA lkekU;r% nks izfr;ksa esa rgjhj tkjh dh tkrh gSA rgjhj dh ,d izfr vLirky esa nh tkrh gSA ;g lgh gS fd iksLVekVZe fjiksVZ izn'kZ&ih 14 esa e`rd dk uke] ykus okys dk uke] Fkkus dk uke] f'kuk[r djus okys dk uke vkSj iksLVekVZe djus dh fnukad o le; fy[kk gqvk gSA ;g lgh gS fd izn'kZ&ih 14 ij iz-lw-fj- dk uEcj ugha fy[kk gqvk gSA izn'kZ&ih 14 vkbZ- ls ts- LFkku ij ,Q-vkbZ-vkj- fy[kk gqvk gS ysfdu mlds vkxs ,Q-vkbZ-vkj- uEcj ugha fy[ks gq, gSA ;g lgh gS fd eSaus bl ckcr~ dksbZ vuqla/kku ugha fd;k fd iksLVekVZe fjiksVZ ij ,Q-vkbZ-vkj uEcj D;ksa ugha Mkys gq, gSA eSa ;g ugha crk ldrk fd rgjhj esa ,Q-vkbZ-vkj- uEcj dk vadu ugha gksus dh otg ls gh iksLVekVZe fjiksVZ esa ,QvkbZ- vkj- uEcj ugha fy[kk gqvk gSA vkt fnukad dks eSa fuf'pr rkSj ij ugha crk ldrk fd eSaus tks rgjhj nh mlesa esjs }kjk ,Q-vkbZ-vkj ds uEcj fy[ks gq, Fks ;k ughaA ;g lgh gS fd izn'kZ&ih 7 QnZ lqiwnZxh yk'k esa ,Q-vkbZ-vkj- uEcj dh txg [kkyh NksM+h xbZ gSA ;g dguk xyr gS fd iksLVekVZe fjiksVZ ds le; rFkk QnZ lqiwnZxh yk'k ds le; ,QvkbZ- vkj- ntZ ugha gqbZ gksA iksLVekVZe ds le; rgjhj ds lkFk iapukek Hkh fn;k tkrk gSA vLirky esa nh xbZ rgjhj vkSj iapk;rukek ij ,Q-vkbZ-vkj- uEcj ntZ gS ;k ugha ;s eSa ns[kdj crk ldrk gawA ;g lgh gS fd ,Q-vkbZ-vkj- lqcg lkr cts ntZ gqbZ FkhA izn'kZ&ih 2 dk fgLlk bZ ls ,Q esa iz-lw-fj- U;k;ky; esa tks O;fDr ysdj vk;k mlds uke o le; dk vadu gSA izn’kZ&ih 2 esa le; 05-00 ih-,e- gks ;s LiV ugha gksus ls eSa ugha crk ldrkA ;g dguk xyr gS fd iz-lw-fj- 30@2012 iksLVekVZe fjiksVZ izn'kZ&ih 14 ds ckn ntZ gqbZ gksA ;fn iz-lw-fj- esa U;k;ky; esa fjiksVZ Hkstus dk le; 05-00 ih-,e- gks rks mldh nsjh dk dkj.k fjiksVZ ysdj vkus okyk dSfj;j gh crk ldrk gSA^^ ^^ge tc iksLVekVZe djokrs gS rc MkDVj dks QnZ lwjr gky yk'k o iapukek fn;k tkrk gS ,Q vkbZ vkj dk fn;k tkuk Hkh fof/kd izko/kku gks esjs dks irk ugha vt [kqn dgk fd dbZ ekeyksa esa ,Q vkbZ vkj ntZ ugha gksrh gSa fQj Hkh iksLVekVZe djok;k tkrk gS vksj ,Q vkbZ vkj ntZ gksus ds fy;s Hkst nh tkrh gSA MkWDVj dks ge iksLVekVZe ds le; iapukek o QnZ lwjr gky yk'k dh dkcZu izfr nsrs gSA ewy izfr vuqla/kku i=koyh esa j[kh tkrh gSA ;g lgh gS fd izn'kZ ih&5 o 6 dh izfr gh MkDVj dks nh xbZ FkhA eq>s irk ugha fd ih ch ,e ds yksd lwpuk vf/kdkjh }kjk nh xbZ lwpuk esa bl eqdn esa e`rd dh iksLVekVZe fjiksVZ ij ,Q vkbZ vkj ua dk vadu blfy;s ugha fd;k x;k gS fd iapukek o QnZ lwjr gky yk'k ij esjs }kjk ,Q vkbZ vkj ua- vafdr ugha fd;k x;k FkkA ;g dguk xyr gS fd izn'kZ ih 5 o 6 ij budks eqfrZc djrs oDr ,Q vkbZ vkj ua- fy[kus ls jg x;s gks rFkk izn'kZ ih&7 ij lgou ls ,Q vkj ua- vafdr djus ls jg x;s gSA ;g xyr gS fd izn’kZ ih&5 o 6 ij ,Q vkbZ vkj ua- MkDVj dks nsus ds le; blfy;s vafdr ugaha gks fd ml oDr rd ,Q vkbZ vkj gh ntZ u gksA^^ 26. From a careful appraisal of these significant facts elicited in the cross-examination of the I.O., it is clear that the corresponding documents viz. the requisition for conducting the postmortem; the carbon copy of Panchnama and Fard Surat Haal Lash which were forwarded by the I.O. to the PBM Hospital, do not bear the FIR number whereas this number is noted in the originals Ex.P/5 and Ex.P/6 filed alongwith the challan. The I.O. also admitted in his cross-examination that the only site plan of the factory which was prepared by him was Ex.P/9. This document was prepared on 05.03.2012. This conduct of the I.O. who stated that he did not go to the factory where the offence allegedly took place on the date of lodging of the FIR, even though the premises are located at a short distance of 6 Kms. from the police station, again brings his conduct under grave doubt. The police station Jamsar is located at a short distance of 6 Kms. From the place of incident. The investigating officer alleged to have arrested the first accused Saddam Hussain at 10.25 am. followed by the arrest of Pintu Kumar at 10.30 am. Thereafter, he recorded their informations at 10.45 am. and 11.00 am. respectively. The deadbody of Aziz Shah was recovered and seizure memo thereof was prepared at 11.30 am. and thus, by no stretch of imagination, this orchestrated sequence of events could have been completed within a short span of 65 minutes. Furthermore, the patently false deposition of the I.O. that he did not go to the place of the incident on 03.03.2012 [which fact is totally falsified from the entry made in the case diary], also brings the credibility of his actions under doubt. This unnatural conduct of the I.O. as discussed above, casts a serious question mark on the fairness of investigation. Rank failure of the investigating officer in procuring the call details and the tower locations of the mobile phones of the accused and the witnesses gives rise to the two inferences (i) either the call details were intentionally not collected, (ii) That the same were collected, but they did not suit the prosecution case and hence, they were intentionally withheld. In either of the circumstances, the infirmity is such which goes to the root of the matter and affects the credibility of the entire prosecution case. 27. In either of the circumstances, the infirmity is such which goes to the root of the matter and affects the credibility of the entire prosecution case. 27. It is pertinent to note here that the witnesses Idrish Shah, Moinuddin Shah, Sawai Shah, Bhanwar Shah, Hanif Shah and Akram Shah are related to each other. The entire trail of documents pertaining to the recoveries viz. recovery memo of deadbody of Aziz Shah (Ex.P/3), recovery memo of motorcycle (Ex.P/9A) and recovery memo of wire (Ex.P/11) bears the attestation by the motbirs who are none other than these relatives of the deceased. Only one Chandan Purohit was associated as the witness in the recovery of the motorcycle but since, no incriminating fact is reflected from the said recovery, his evidence is redundant. Manifestly thus, the I.O. did not care to involve even a single independent witness in the recoveries allegedly made at the instance of the accused. In this backdrop, we do not think it safe to rely upon the evidence of the I.O. who claims that the deadbody of Aziz was recovered in furtherance of the information provided by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. 28. While lodging the FIR, the complainant categorically alleged that 4-5 unknown persons were present in the factory when Aziz was left behind in the premise so that the due amount would be paid to him. Manifestly, if the number of accused was more than five, the I.O. should have registered the FIR for the offences under Sections 143, 148 and 302/149 IPC. However, he tried to by-pass this suggestion of the defence saying that as the other four persons were unnamed, he registered the FIR for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Apparently, this endeavour of the investigating officer substantiates the defence theory that the FIR is a post investigation document. 29. So far as the recovery of the piece of wire and the motorcycle effected at the instance of the accused persons is concerned, suffice it to say that these recoveries become doubtful when we consider the conduct of the I.O. who stated that he did not make any effort whatsoever to search the premises in question on the day of lodging of the FIR. Thus, these recoveries which were allegedly made at the instance of the accused lose significance and have to be discarded. 30. Thus, these recoveries which were allegedly made at the instance of the accused lose significance and have to be discarded. 30. Upon a threadbare discussion, evaluation and assumption of the evidence available on record, we are duly satisfied that the prosecution case is shrouded in a cloud of doubt and since, the material links of circumstances which the prosecution relies upon in its tryst to prove the case against the accused are based on flimsy and concocted investigation and the shady evidence of interested partisan witnesses, we are convinced that the prosecution failed to prove any of these circumstances by leading plausible, cogent or convincing evidence. 31. We are of the firm opinion that the trial court committed fundamental errors while appreciating the evidence available on record; holding the circumstances to be proved and recording conviction of the accused appellants by the impugned judgment which stand to scrutiny even for a moment. 32. Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment dated 11.06.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No. 3, Bikaner in Sessions Case No. 130/2012 (N.C.V. No. 588/2012) is hereby quashed and set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges. The appellants Saddam Hussain Khan and Pintu Kumar are in custody and shall be released from prison forthwith if not wanted in any other case. 33. 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.