JUDGMENT Ashok Kumar Gaur, J. - The present appeal has been filed by the accused-appellants, namely, Devendra @ Devo and Smt. Devendri, who have been convicted for the offence committed under Sections 302, 365 and 201 IPC. The accused-appellants have been convicted by the Court of Additional Session Judge No.3, Bharatpur in Sessions Case No.135/2012 vide judgment dated 22nd August, 2015. The sentence imposed against the appellants is as under:- Offence Sentence Fine Sentence in default of payment of fine Under Section 302 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.5000/- One month rigorous imprisonment Under Section 365 IPC Four years simple imprisonment Rs.5000/- One month simple imprisonment Under Section 201 IPC One year simple imprisonment Rs.5000/- One month simple imprisonment 2. The appellants feeling aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, preferred the appeal before this Court. The relevant and essential facts for disposal of the present appeal are as under:- 3. The complainant - Kartar Singh filed an FIR on 15/ 3/2012 for alleged incident of 5/3/2012 at Police Station, Udyog Nagar Bharatpur. 4. The complainant alleged in his complaint that on 5/3/2012, his brother-in-law - Charan Singh @ Chhutti had gone to village Kataliya by informing that his wife had called him and his brotherin-law - Charan Singh and his wife were to collect the money on account of selling a piece of land and his wife had agreed to withdraw the case. The complainant alleged that on 5/3/2012 in the night around 9:00 to 10:00 p.m., his brother-in-law Charan Singh had a conversation with one person namely Lalaram, belonging to village Katelia, whose brother had purchased a piece of land from Charan Singh. It was alleged that his brother-in-law had informed Lalaram to make arrangement of the required money and his brother-in-law was to go on the next day to collect the money. It was further alleged that Charan Singh had also arranged conversation of his wife and both had talked to Lalaram on mobile number 7500753394. The complainant alleged that his brother-in-law's wife Smt.Devendri had illicit relation with one Devo and she had started living with Devo. The complainant further alleged in his complaint that on 5/3/2012, at night, his brother-in-law Charan Singh and his wife Devendri had also talked to Lala's sister-in-law (Bhabhi), wife of Puran, on her mobile number 8008038553. 5. The complainant alleged that his brother-in-law's wife Smt.Devendri had illicit relation with one Devo and she had started living with Devo. The complainant further alleged in his complaint that on 5/3/2012, at night, his brother-in-law Charan Singh and his wife Devendri had also talked to Lala's sister-in-law (Bhabhi), wife of Puran, on her mobile number 8008038553. 5. The complainant alleged that his brother-in-law was staying with him at village Dhormui from last 25 years and on asking of his wife, he had gone from Dhormui to take the money. The complainant alleged that he made several efforts to locate his brother- in-law and he had gone in different relations also but he could not locate his brother-in-law Charan Singh and he had a doubt that Charan Singh's wife Devendri and Devendra resident of village Katelia Police Station Naujheel, District Mathura (UP) had abducted his brother-in-law and as such action was to be taken by police. 6. After registering the case under Section 365 IPC, the police conducted investigation and during investigation, they arrested two accused, namely, Devendra @ Devo and Smt. Devendri. On the basis of information received from the accused-appellants under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short "the Act of 1872"), the police recovered the dead body of the deceased Charan Singh and further, the articles relating to commission of the offence, were also collected during investigation. 7. After completing the investigation, the police filed charge-sheet for the offence under Sections 365, 302 and 201 IPC against the present appellants. 8. The criminal case was committed to the Court of District & Session Judge, Bharatpur and the trial Court framed charges against the accused-appellants for the offence under Sections 365, 302 and 201 IPC. The accused-appellants refused to accept the charges and claimed trial to be conducted, while pleading themselves innocent about the entire incident. 9. The Prosecution, in support of its case, produced twenty three witnesses marked as PW 1 to PW 23. The Prosecution also exhibited documents before the trial Court, which were marked as Exhibit P -1 to P 48. The statements of the accused-appellants were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and they did not produce any witness in their support. 10. 9. The Prosecution, in support of its case, produced twenty three witnesses marked as PW 1 to PW 23. The Prosecution also exhibited documents before the trial Court, which were marked as Exhibit P -1 to P 48. The statements of the accused-appellants were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and they did not produce any witness in their support. 10. After considering the evidence led by the Prosecution, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the accused-appellants have committed the offences punishable under Sections 365, 302 and 201 IPC and accordingly, sentence has also been imposed. 11. The trial Court has come to the conclusion that the accusedappellants had induced the deceased Charan Singh to come to them and after abducting him, both the accused had caused death of the deceased Charan Singh by causing injuries on his body by using knife and further, with intention to destroy the evidence, the dead body was also buried by digging a pit and as such, they also destroyed the evidence after murdering the deceased. 12. The trial Court has come to the conclusion that though the eye-witness Ramkishan (PW 2), the sole witness of last seen, had turned hostile, who had seen the accused-appellants and deceased together, however, it found that there was other evidence, which connected the present accused-appellants directly with the crime. 13. The trial Court has further come to the conclusion that recovery of dead body and blood smeared knife in two pieces as well as recovery of one old blood smeared red colour petticoat and one old trouser (Pant) of grey colour at the instance of the accused Devendra further, proved the direct evidence and link of the deceased, with the accused-appellants. 14. On the question of motive, the trial Court has recorded a finding that since the accused-appellants were said to be staying together and their relations were illicit and as such, after collecting money from the transaction of a land, the accused-appellants had ill-motive to kill the deceased. 15. 14. On the question of motive, the trial Court has recorded a finding that since the accused-appellants were said to be staying together and their relations were illicit and as such, after collecting money from the transaction of a land, the accused-appellants had ill-motive to kill the deceased. 15. The trial Court has also dealt with the objection with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of Rajasthan Police by coming to the conclusion that the complainant had lodged the FIR at Police Station Udhyog Nagar, Bharatpur and since the deceased had gone from the village Ghourmui, the offence under Section 365 IPC was committed in Rajasthan and if subsequently, the deceased went to Katelia, which falls under the Police Station Nauhjhil, Mathura (UP), jurisdiction of police to investigate and to hold trial in Rajasthan, is not taken away. 16. Learned counsel, appearing for the accused-appellants Mr.GS Fauzdar, has made following submissions before this Court while assailing the judgment passed by the trial Court :- (a) The entire case of the Prosecution is based on the circumstantial evidence and there was no direct evidence to connect the present accused-appellants with the crime. The 'last seen evidence' does not establish any role of the present accusedappellants with the commission of crime. Learned counsel argued that the only evidence of last seen, as collected by the police during investigation, was of Ramkishan (PW -2) and he turned hostile and he did not support the case of the Prosecution and as such, in absence of the witness relating the last seen, conviction of the accused-appellants, cannot be sustained. (b) Learned counsel argued that alleged conversation of the deceased with two persons, namely, Lala and Lala's sister-in-law (Bhabhi) Mahendri (PW -3), did not prove the allegation of last seen, as the call details of two mobile numbers were not produced by police during investigation. Learned counsel submitted that police Investigating Officer has cooked up the story of connecting the present accused-appellants with the crime by referring the conversation, which is said to be informed by the deceased himself without verifying the same fact by tracing down or producing the call details, connecting the accused-appellants. Learned counsel argued that conviction of the appellants on recovery of dead body and certain other articles, cannot be a basis to connect them with the crime. Learned counsel argued that conviction of the appellants on recovery of dead body and certain other articles, cannot be a basis to connect them with the crime. Learned counsel argued that recovery made by the police during investigation is highly doubtful and it does not inspire any confidence. Learned counsel submitted that dead body of the deceased has been recovered from an open place. The alleged recovery of petticoat and pant is also highly doubtful, as the place, from which said articles have been recovered, are different place of both of accused and not from their residence where they were alleged to be residing on rent and committed the crime. (c) Learned counsel argued that the report of Forensic Science Laboratory, Rajasthan (Exhibit P-47) also does not disclose that blood grouping was found and there was no matching with the blood group of deceased and present accused-appellants. Learned counsel submitted that only presence of human blood, in absence of blood grouping, is of no significance and as such, the trial Court has committed illegality in convicting the accused-appellants. (d) Learned counsel argued that the motive for commission of the offence, as found to be proved by the trial Court, is palpably wrong. Learned counsel argued that the prosecution witnesses have deposed that wife of the deceased was not staying with him since long and further, the deceased himself was staying on his own with his brother-in-law in village Dhormui and as such, it could not have been presumed that the accused-appellants had any illmotive to commit the crime. (e) Learned counsel argued that the issue of territorial jurisdiction has not been decided by the trial Court in proper and legal manner. Learned counsel argued that as per the version of the complainant, the deceased had gone from village Dhormui to Katelia on his own and there was no allegation of inducement on the part of accused-appellants, as the deceased, informing the complainant, had gone to sort out the issue of selling his land by collecting money. Learned counsel argued that no offence under Section 365 IPC was committed in territory of Rajasthan and the alleged incident, which is said to be committed is from the alleged talk by deceased from village Katelia and further, the dead body was also said to be recovered from village Jewar situated in Uttar Pradesh. Learned counsel argued that no offence under Section 365 IPC was committed in territory of Rajasthan and the alleged incident, which is said to be committed is from the alleged talk by deceased from village Katelia and further, the dead body was also said to be recovered from village Jewar situated in Uttar Pradesh. Learned counsel argued that police did not have even jurisdiction to entertain the complaint lodged by the complainant and further, in order to implicate the accused-appellants, the entire story has been cooked up. 17. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the reasoning given by the trial Court while convicting the accused-appellants. 18. Learned Public Prosecutor argued that the accused-appellants were having illicit relation and they wanted to do away the deceased and get rid of him. Learned Public Prosecutor argued that both the accused-appellants had called the deceased at their place by inducing him to give money of alleged sale of land and further, in order to grab the money, they committed crime by killing the deceased. 19. Learned Public Prosecutor argued that the Prosecution has clearly established the evidence of "last seen" of the deceased with accused-appellants. 20. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that motive to kill the deceased has been established and further, recovery of dead body and other articles directly, connect the present accused-appellants with commission of crime. 21. Learned Public Prosecutor argued that the issue of jurisdiction has also rightly been decided. Learned counsel submitted that the accused-appellant - Devendra @ Devo was having illicit relation and further, he had taken a house on rent where the other accused-appellant-Devendri was staying with him for considerable time and after hatching a conspiracy, they thought that deceased needs to be removed, as he was as an obstacle in their relation and further, his money was also to be taken away by them and as such, the trial Court has not committed any illegality in coming to the conclusion in establishing the guilt of the present accusedappellants. 22. Learned Public Prosecutor has placed reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Rupali Devi Vs. State of UP & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No.71/2012) decided on 9th April, 2019 and Malleshi Vs. State of Karnataka, 2004 8 SCC 95 . 23. 22. Learned Public Prosecutor has placed reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Rupali Devi Vs. State of UP & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No.71/2012) decided on 9th April, 2019 and Malleshi Vs. State of Karnataka, 2004 8 SCC 95 . 23. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submission advanced at Bar and have gone through the impugned judgment and threadbare sifted through the evidence available on record. We now proceed to appreciate the evidence produced by the prosecution witnesses. 24. Pw - 1 Kartar Singh has claimed in his testimony that his brother-in-law Charan Singh was staying in village Dhormui and on 5/3/2012, the deceased had received a telephonic call from the accused Devendra and Devendri. He has stated that deceased had informed him that he was to go to collect the money after he had received call from the accused-appellants. The said witness further stated that the deceased Charan Singh had reached on 5/3/2012 itself and he met the accused-appellants Devendra and Devendri. He further stated that in the night of 5/3/2012, the deceased had a conversation with Ravindra @ Lala and it was informed to Ravindra @ Lala that he was to keep the money ready. 25. The said witness has stated that the accused Devendri had filed a case in Mathura in respect of transaction of sale of land between deceased and buyer and further, information regarding pendency of said case was not known to him before death of Charan Singh and he retracted the statement that such information was known to him prior to his death. 26. The said witness also denied the fact of filing of the case by the accused Devendri against him in respect of a commission of crime of rape. The said witness has admitted that he had received an information from the Police Station Mant in respect of missing report of deceased Charan Singh lodged by the accused Devendri. 27. Pw 1 - Kartar Singh has also denied that he was not aware about mobile number, from which, call was made to deceased Charan Singh. The witness has also denied the fact of conversation of deceased Charan Singh with a person known as Lalaram. 27. Pw 1 - Kartar Singh has also denied that he was not aware about mobile number, from which, call was made to deceased Charan Singh. The witness has also denied the fact of conversation of deceased Charan Singh with a person known as Lalaram. The witnesses has further admitted that deceased Charan Singh and his wife along with children had gone from village Dhormui two years back and a separate house was constructed by them in village Dhormui itself. The said witness has admitted that deceased Charan Singh had not informed him about phone call, which was received from his wife and further, he was also not aware that deceased had gone to village Jewar and not to village Katelia. Relevant portion of the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of PW 1 Kartar Singh is quoted hereunder for ready reference : 28. The scrutiny of the statement of informant-Kartar Singh (PW -1) clearly reveals that deceased Charan Singh had gone from Village Dhormui on 5/3/2012 and FIR was lodged on 15/3/2012. The said statement also reveals an important fact that deceased along with his wife had talked to two persons, namely, Smt. Mahendri (PW -3) and Ravindra @ Lala (PW 4). The crossexamination of PW -1 Kartar Singh further reveals that he came to know about alleged conversation on 6/3/2012 from Lala, when he had visited the village Katelia. 29. This Court finds that "last seen together" is a strong piece of circumstantial evidence against an accused, however, the time-lag between the occurrence of death when the accused was last seen in the company of deceased, has to be reasonably close to permit an inference of guilt to be drawn. When the time-lag is considerably large, the Court has to look for the corroboration and other circumstances, which can connect the accused with the crime alleged. 30. The facts of the present case reveal that deceased had left the village Dhormui on 5/3/2012 and FIR was lodged on 15/3/2012 and the evidence of "last seen together" is not established in the present case, as the police has not collected any corroborative evidence to prove the company of deceased with the accusedappellants. 31. 30. The facts of the present case reveal that deceased had left the village Dhormui on 5/3/2012 and FIR was lodged on 15/3/2012 and the evidence of "last seen together" is not established in the present case, as the police has not collected any corroborative evidence to prove the company of deceased with the accusedappellants. 31. This Court further finds that reference of two mobile numbers of Smt. Mahendri (PW 3), wife of Puran Singh and Ravindra @ Lala (PW-4) has been given, as their mobile being available with the police, no efforts were made to bring the call record in evidence to connect the accused-appellants with the crime. The police was required to collect the corroborative evidence by producing the said evidence of call details on record in order to bring the evidence of "last seen together". 32. This Court finds that the police initially had recorded statement of one Ram Kishan (PW 2), who was said to be in the company of deceased along with the accused-appellants. The said witness, while appearing in the Court, denied the entire incident and was declared hostile. The Prosecution, in face of evidence of alleged eye-witness turning hostile, was required to collect the corroborative evidence of "last seen together". 33. While considering the statement of PW 1 Kartar Singh (the complainant), this Court finds that the Prosecution has failed to bring the strong piece of circumstantial evidence against the accused-appellants where they can be said to be together or last seen together with the deceased. 34. This Court further deems it appropriate to refer the statement of PW 3 Smt. Mahendri w/o Puran Singh, with whom, the conversation of deceased was alleged to have taken place before his death. Relevant portion of the examination-in-chief and cross examination of the said witness is quoted hereunder for ready reference : "Examination in chief :- 35. The examination-in-chief and cross-examination of PW 4 Ravindra are reproduced hereunder for ready reference : 36. This Court finds that both witnesses, in their crossexamination, have admitted that deceased Charan Singh and the accused Devendra had a conversation with them, however, they have declined to give the name of the place, from where, the conversation was made by deceased with them. 37. This Court finds that both witnesses, in their crossexamination, have admitted that deceased Charan Singh and the accused Devendra had a conversation with them, however, they have declined to give the name of the place, from where, the conversation was made by deceased with them. 37. The statement of PW 4 Ravindra @ Lala further reveals that on 5/3/2012, around 10.00 p.m., the deceased Charan Singh and his wife talked to him but he declined to give the phone number and the place, from where, the conversation was made by the deceased with his wife. The close scrutiny of these witnesses, in absence of call details regarding mobile phone, creates serious doubt in theory of the Prosecution to prove that deceased was "seen last together" in the company of accused-appellants. 38. This Court finds that in the case of circumstantial evidence, each and every incriminating circumstance must be clearly established by reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances so proved must form a chain of events from which the only irresistible conclusion about the guilt of the accused can be safely drawn and no other hypothesis against the guilt is possible. The court has to satisfy itself that various circumstances in the chain of events must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused. 39. The Apex Court in the case of Navaneethkrishnan Vs. State by Inspector of Police, 2018 16 SCC 161 has reiterated the principle of considering the circumstantial evidence of "last seen together". The relevant para No.27 of the judgment in the case of Navaneethkrishna (supra) is quoted hereunder for ready reference : "27. The law is well settled that each and every incriminating circumstance must be clearly established by reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances so proved must form a chain of events from which the only irresistible conclusion about the guilt of the accused can be safely drawn and no other hypothesis against the guilt is possible. In a case depending largely upon circumstantial evidence, there is always a danger that conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof. The court must satisfy itself that various circumstances in the chain of events must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused. In a case depending largely upon circumstantial evidence, there is always a danger that conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof. The court must satisfy itself that various circumstances in the chain of events must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused. When the important link goes, the chain of circumstances gets snapped and the other circumstances cannot, in any manner, establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The court has to be watchful and avoid the danger of allowing the suspicion to take the place of legal proof for sometimes, unconsciously it may happen to be a short step between moral certainty and legal proof. There is a long mental distance between "may be true" and "must be true" and the same divides conjectures from sure conclusions. The Court in mindful of caution by the settled principles of law and the decisions rendered by this Court that in a given case like this, where the prosecution rests on the circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must place and prove all the necessary circumstances, which would constitute a complete chain without a snap and pointing to the hypothesis that except the accused, no one had committed the offence, which in the present case, the prosecution has failed to prove." 40. This Court finds that the Prosecution has failed to bring out a charge of establishing the role of the present accused-appellants while committing the alleged crime. 41. The trial Court, while considering the motive behind the commission of crime, has reached to the conclusion that since the accused-appellant Smt.Devendri was having illicit relation with accused Devendra @ Devo and further, they wanted to grab the money after selling of a piece of land by deceased Charan Singh, this Court finds that the witnesses produced by the Prosecution have admitted that accused-appellants Devendra @ Devo and Smt. Devendri were living together from last 2-3 years and they were not staying at home in village Dhormui. The witnesses have further deposed that relation of the deceased with his wife Smt.Devendri was known to several people in the village. The alleged motive of grabbing money, after incident, also does not support theory of the Prosecution, as money is said to have not been retained by Kartar Singh after sale of the land. 42. The witnesses have further deposed that relation of the deceased with his wife Smt.Devendri was known to several people in the village. The alleged motive of grabbing money, after incident, also does not support theory of the Prosecution, as money is said to have not been retained by Kartar Singh after sale of the land. 42. The statement of PW 3 Smt. Mahendri and PW 4 Ravindra @ Lala reveals that the sale consideration amount was taken to village Dhormui to be offered to Kartar Singh and since Kartar Singh was not available, the said money was taken back by PW 3 Mahendri. PW 3 Smt. Mahendri further stated that after death of Charan Singh, the said amount was given to Kartar Singh. 43. The statement of PW 4 Ravindra @ Lala further corroborates the same fact about offering money to Kartar Singh. The facts, which have come on record from evidence of PW 3 Smt.Mahendri and PW 4 Ravindra @ Lala clearly reveal that accused-appellants did not have the motive to take money, as the money was offered to PW 1 Kartar Singh and after death of deceased Charan Singh, the money was ultimately handed over to Kartar Singh. 44. This Court further finds on close scrutiny of evidence that after disappearance of deceased Charan Singh, information was also given to the Police Station Mant by wife of the deceased and PW 1 Kartar Singh has admitted in his cross-examination that he had received a telephone call from the Police Station Mant with regard to whereabouts of deceased Charan Singh. The said fact further establishes that accused-appellant Smt. Devendri herself had made request to the Police Station Mant of his missing husband. 45. This Court finds that motive, which has been alleged against the accused-appellants for committing the crime, is not established by the Prosecution. The Court below had found the offence to be committed and proved on the basis of evidence on account of recovery of dead body at the instance of the accusedappellants. 46. This Court finds that "Fard Naksha" (Exhibit P 8) prepared by police relating to the alleged site, where the dead body was buried, is a house belonging to Ayodhya Devi (PW 5) marked as "E" shows that dead body was buried in a vacant and open land outside the constructed room and one "Veranda" marked as "X1". 46. This Court finds that "Fard Naksha" (Exhibit P 8) prepared by police relating to the alleged site, where the dead body was buried, is a house belonging to Ayodhya Devi (PW 5) marked as "E" shows that dead body was buried in a vacant and open land outside the constructed room and one "Veranda" marked as "X1". The Investigating Officer has made two persons witnesses, namely, Ranjeet Singh (PW -11) and Govind Singh (PW 18), in whose presence, the site plan was prepared. The Prosecution also showed recovery of one petticoat smeared with blood and exhibited as P 13. The said petticoat was recovered from the house of mother of accused Smt.Devendri Smt. Champa Devi belonging to village Singhna. The police further prepared "Fard Baramdagi" regarding recovery of one trouser (pant) and the said document is exhibited as P 33. The accused Devendra is said to be wearing the said trouser while committing the crime of killing the deceased. The said trouser was also recovered from village Katelia, belonging to the accused Devendra @ Devo. 47. This Court further finds that two articles, i.e., Shirt and Petticoat were sent for FSL report and result of examination only showed that blood was detected on knife, shirt, jarsi, "Baniyan", underwear and petticoat and the blood group was found inconclusive on all the articles sent for such examination. The Prosecution has failed to establish the blood group of the articles, which were sent for the examination and only on account of human blood, found on certain articles, presumption could not have been drawn that recovery of articles from the accusedappellants would result into their involvement with commission of crime. 48. This Court further finds that recovery of dead body or certain other articles relating to commission of crime itself cannot be a ground for connecting a person or drawing conclusion that the accused-appellants, in absence of any cogent and corroborative evidence linking them with the commission of crime, can be punished. 49. This Court further finds that the issue of territorial jurisdiction has not been decided by the trial Court in proper and legal manner. The complainant in his statement has categorically stated that deceased had left the village Dhormui on 5/3/2012 on his own. 49. This Court further finds that the issue of territorial jurisdiction has not been decided by the trial Court in proper and legal manner. The complainant in his statement has categorically stated that deceased had left the village Dhormui on 5/3/2012 on his own. The said complainant has further stated that deceased had gone to village Katelia to collect the money and he was said to have received a telephonic call from his wife. The leaving of village Dhormui by deceased Charan Singh, on his own, nowhere shows that there was any inducement by the accused-appellants for abducting the deceased. 50. This Court finds that definition of "abduction" as provided under Section 362 IPC requires that if someone compels by force or by deceitful means induces, any person to go from any place, is said to abduct that person. The evidence, which has come on record in the present case, has nowhere established the fact of inducing the deceased Charan Singh to leave village Dhormui and he has gone on his own to sort out the issue with regard to payment of land, which is alleged to have been sold to one Puran Singh. The Prosecution has failed to prove that deceased was abducted from village Dhormui. The Prosecution has tried to establish that initially the deceased had gone to village Katelia and later on, he was taken to village Jewar where he was done to death by the accused-appellants. The commission of the offence of abduction in the territory of Rajasthan in the present case is not proved and accordingly, the Court below has wrongly come to the conclusion that the issue of territorial jurisdiction was not to be entertained and the entire investigation and trial of the criminal case has rightly taken place in Rajasthan. 51. In view of the discussion made above, we are of the opinion that the Prosecution has failed to bring the legal, cogent, convincing and reliable evidence so as to bring home any of the circumstance relied upon by it to prove the charges against the accused-appellants. 52. In view of the above, the present appeal is allowed and the accused-appellants are acquitted of the charges under Sections 365, 302 and 201 IPC. The judgment passed by the trial Court dated 22nd August, 2015 is quashed and set aside. 53. 52. In view of the above, the present appeal is allowed and the accused-appellants are acquitted of the charges under Sections 365, 302 and 201 IPC. The judgment passed by the trial Court dated 22nd August, 2015 is quashed and set aside. 53. The conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court to the appellants for offence under Sections 365, 302 and 201 IPC are quashed and set aside. The accused-appellants, who are already in custody since their arrest, are ordered to be released from custody forthwith, if not warranted in any other case. 54. However, keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellants are directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- each and a surety bond in the like amount, before the trial court. The bonds so furnished shall be effective for a period of six months and they shall contain an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the judgment or on grant of leave, the appellants on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Apex Court.