JUDGMENT : 1. Appellants have filed this appeal challenging their conviction and sentence as ordered by the Trial Court vide judgment/order dated 22.03.2017. 2. Prosecution case was set in motion on the basis of report Exhibit-P-2 lodged by complainant-Bhanwar Lai. On the basis of the report lodged by the complainant, formal FIR No. 378 dated 04.10.2012 was registered at Police Station Sadar Bundi, District Bundi for offence punishable under Sections 506, 143, 148, 149, 364 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and Section 3 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred as the 'Act'). 3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 04.10.2012 at about 11/12 O'clock, complainant was taking a bath. Ranglal from their village came and told him that his brother Foru had been forcibly taken away by Bheru Lai, Mangi Lai, Kalyan and Kalu alongwith two other persons on Motorcycles and the said persons were giving beatings to Foru and had left from Gudha towards cremation ground. He further told him that he had been told the said fact by Raghuraj Singh on telephone. He further told him that Raghuraj Singh had been told the said fact on phone by Satyanarayan Khatik. He searched for his brother and reached the Police Station along with wife of his brother Foru. When he returned to Gudha after lodging the report, he met Ratiram Meena and enquired from him about the whereabouts of his brother. Ratiram Meena told him that at about 9.00 a.m., he had heard Manoj Sharma telling Bheru Lai, Mangi Lai, Kalyan, Kalu and two other persons that Foru be picked up and be murdered. While he was returning home, he came to know from Lada Bai that Foru had been murdered. 4. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against the appellants. 5. Trial court framed charges against the appellants under Sections 364, 147, 148, 302 read with sections 149 and 120-B IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Act. 6. Appellants did not plead guilty to the charges framed against them and claimed trial. 7. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined twenty two witnesses, during trial. 5. Trial court framed charges against the appellants under Sections 364, 147, 148, 302 read with sections 149 and 120-B IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Act. 6. Appellants did not plead guilty to the charges framed against them and claimed trial. 7. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined twenty two witnesses, during trial. Appellants when examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, after the close of prosecution evidence, prayed that they were innocent and had been falsely involved in this case due to rivalry on account of Sarpanch and Pradhan election. They had not committed any offence. 8. Trial court vide impugned judgment/order dated 22.03.2017 ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Sections 148, 302/149 IPC. Appellants Mangi Lal and Kalu were convicted and sentenced under Section 364 IPC, whereas, appellants Bheru Lal, Mohan Lal and Kishan were also convicted and sentenced under Section 364 read with Section 149 IPC. Hence, the present appeal by the appellants. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that as per the FIR, complainant had been informed by Ranglal that his brother had been forcibly abducted by Bheru Lai, Mangi Lai, Kalyan and Kalu along with two other persons. Ranglal had been informed by Raghuraj Singh on phone about the said fact and Raghuraj Singh in turn had been informed by Satyanarayan Khatik about the said fact. Satyanarayan Khatik had died and could not be examined, during trial. As per the statement of Satyanarayan Khatik recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Exhibit-D-6, he was accompanied by his son Monu, brother Raju, Satyanarayan S/o. Bhanwar Lal and Kajod when he had witnessed the abduction of Foru. However, Raju, Monu and Kajod had not supported the prosecution case, during trial. Satyanarayan S/o. Bhanwar Lal had not been examined during trial. Hence, the prosecution version that appellants had abducted the deceased, was not established during trial. Prosecution had later introduced PW-7 Kamla Bai, who had allegedly seen the appellants inflicting injuries to the deceased. Statement of the said witness was recorded by the police after five days, i.e. on 09.10.2012 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The said statement was Exhibit-D-3. Hence, the prosecution version that appellants had abducted the deceased, was not established during trial. Prosecution had later introduced PW-7 Kamla Bai, who had allegedly seen the appellants inflicting injuries to the deceased. Statement of the said witness was recorded by the police after five days, i.e. on 09.10.2012 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The said statement was Exhibit-D-3. As per PW-7, she had witnessed the incident at about 8.00 a.m., whereas, as per PW-2 Ratiram Meena, Manoj Sharma told the appellants that they should abduct and murder Foru at about 9.30 a.m. As per Exhibit-D-6, appellants had abducted the deceased at about 10/10.30 a.m. Hence, no reliance could be placed on the testimony of PW-7 as the deceased could not have been murdered before he was abducted. Recovery had been falsely planted on the appellants. As per PW-13 Prakash, the sticks had been brought by the police officials and they had stated that they had brought the same from the accused. 10. Learned State counsel who is assisted by counsel for the complainant has opposed the appeal. 11. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the prosecution had been successful in proving its case. From the statement of PW-2, it was evident that there was planning to commit the murder of Foru. PW-7 Kamla Bai had seen the appellants inflicting injuries to the deceased. From the examination-in-chief of PW-1, it is evident that deceased had been abducted by the appellants. 12. Present case relates to murder of Foru. Case rests on circumstantial evidence. 13. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Brajendrasingh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 2012 Supreme Court 1552, as under:- "There is no doubt that it is not a case of direct evidence but the conviction of the accused is founded on circumstantial evidence. It is a settled principle of law that the prosecution has to satisfy certain conditions before a conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be sustained. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established and should also be consistent with only one hypothesis, i.e. the guilt of the accused. The circumstances should be conclusive and proved by the prosecution. There must be a chain of events so complete so as not to leave any substantial doubt in the mind of the Court. The circumstances should be conclusive and proved by the prosecution. There must be a chain of events so complete so as not to leave any substantial doubt in the mind of the Court. Irresistibly, the evidence should lead to the conclusion inconsistent with the innocence of the accused and the only possibility that the accused has committed the crime. To put it simply, the circumstances forming the chain of events should be proved and they should cumulatively point towards the guilt of the accused alone. In such circumstances, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person. Furthermore, the rule which needs to be observed by the Court while dealing with the cases of circumstantial evidence is that the best evidence must be adduced which the nature of the case admits. The circumstances have to be examined cumulatively. The Court has to examine the complete chain of events and then see whether all the material facts sought to be established by the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused, have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. It has to be kept in mind that all these principles are based upon one basic cannon of our criminal jurisprudence that the accused is innocent till proven guilty and that the accused is entitled to a just and fair trial." 14. PW-14 Doctor Prabhaker Vijay deposed that on 05.10.2012, he had conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of deceased Foru and proved the post-mortem examination report Exhibit-P-6. A perusal of Exhibit-P-6 reveals that the deceased had suffered twelve injuries and as per the opinion of the Board of Doctors, cause of death of the deceased was due to hemorrhagic shock brought about as a result of cumulative effect of injuries Nos. 1 to 6. The said injuries were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and had caused by blunt weapon. Thus, from Exhibit-P-6, it is evident that Foru had died on account of injuries suffered by him. 15. Let us examine the circumstances brought on record by the prosecution to establish the involvement of the appellants in the crime. 16. The said injuries were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and had caused by blunt weapon. Thus, from Exhibit-P-6, it is evident that Foru had died on account of injuries suffered by him. 15. Let us examine the circumstances brought on record by the prosecution to establish the involvement of the appellants in the crime. 16. The first circumstance brought on record by the prosecution is that PW-2 Ratiram Meena had heard Manoj Sharma telling Bheru Lai, Mangi Lai, Kishan and Kalu that Foru be murdered. In his cross-examination, the said witness deposed that he had heard the said conversation at about 9.30 a.m. while he was smoking Bidi. 17. The second circumstance brought on record by the prosecution is that PW-7 Kamla Bai has deposed that she had come to village Gudha to purchase tea and sugar from her village Neemtalai. At about 8.00 a.m., she met Bhairia, Mohan, Kalu and Kishan in the street. The said persons were inflicting injuries to Foru. 18. The third circumstance brought on record by the prosecution is that PW-22 Raghuraj Singh has deposed that on 04.10.2012 at about 10.00/10.30 a.m., he had received a phone call from Satyanarayan Khatik telling him that Mangi Lal and Kalu had abducted Foru on their Motorcycle. Mohan Lal and Bheru Lal were travelling on another motorcycle and they had gone towards Mangal. 19. Statement of Satyanarayan S/o. Mangi Lal was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 08.10.2012. The same is available on record as Exhibit-D-6. A perusal of the same reveals that he had stated that on 04.10.2012 at about 10.00/10.30 a.m., he along with his brother Raju, son Monu, Satyanarayan S/o. Bhanwar Lal and Kajod were present at cremation ground Gudha in connection with last rites of his mother. They saw that Mangi Lal was driving one Hero Honda motorcycle and Foru was sitting in between Mangi Lal and Kalu. Foru had been caught tightly by Kalu. Foru was raising alarm. On an another motorcycle, driven by Kishan, was also following them with Mohan Gurjar and Bheru Lal sitting on the pillion seat. 20. Satyanarayan Khatik died before he could be examined during trial. As per Exhibit-D-6, it is evident that Satyanarayan Khatik was accompanied by his brother Raju, son Monu and Kajod at the time of witnessing the incident narrated by him. 21. 20. Satyanarayan Khatik died before he could be examined during trial. As per Exhibit-D-6, it is evident that Satyanarayan Khatik was accompanied by his brother Raju, son Monu and Kajod at the time of witnessing the incident narrated by him. 21. PW-1 Monu in his cross-examination deposed that he had not seen any motorcycle while he was present in the cremation ground in connection with last rites of his grandmother. He further stated that he had not seen Foru being taken away by the accused present in the court on a motorcycle. Thus, the statement of PW-1 fails to advance the prosecution case. PW-6 Kajod and PW-8 Raj were declared hostile as they did not support the prosecution case. 22. Complainant-Bhanwar Lal while appearing in the witness box as PW-5 has deposed as per the contents of the FIR. Statement of the complainant with regard to the information received by him regarding abduction of his brother Foru is duly corroborated by PW-3 Ranglal and PW-22 Raghuraj Singh. 23. Thus, in the present case, complainant-Bhanwar Lal received an information from Ranglal that he had been told by Raghuraj Singh, who in turn was told by Satyanarayan Khatik that appellants had abducted deceased Foru. Statement of Raghuraj Singh and Ranglal can be said to be hearsay as they were based on the information given to them by Satyanarayan Khatik. Satyanarayan Khatik died before he could be examined as a witness during trial, but the persons PW-1 Monu, PW-6 Kajod and PW-8 Raju, who were present with Satyanarayan Khatik when he had allegedly witnessed the appellants abducting the deceased have not supported the prosecution story, during trial. Hence, the circumstance that the appellants had been seen while abducting the deceased, is not established on record. 24. Statement of PW-7 Kamla Bai is also rendered doubtful because her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 09.10.2012. The said statement has been placed on record as 25. Exhibit-D-3. PW-7 has deposed that at about 8.00 a.m. on the day of incident, she had seen appellants inflicting injuries to Foru. However, the said witness did not immediately inform the family members of the deceased with regard to the occurrence witnessed by her. Rather, her statement was recorded by the police after five days of the incident. PW-7 in her cross-examination has deposed that her husband and her son had attended the funeral of the deceased. However, the said witness did not immediately inform the family members of the deceased with regard to the occurrence witnessed by her. Rather, her statement was recorded by the police after five days of the incident. PW-7 in her cross-examination has deposed that her husband and her son had attended the funeral of the deceased. Moreover, as per the said witness, Foru was being inflicted injuries at about 8.00 a.m., whereas, as per the other witnesses, it was the case of the prosecution that the deceased had been abducted by the appellants at about 10.00/10.30 a.m. Hence, the statement of PW-7 is rendered doubtful as the deceased could not have been murdered before his abduction. Thus, the prosecution evidence is self contradictory. 26. So far as PW-2 is concerned, he has deposed that he had heard Manoj Sharma telling the appellants that Foru be murdered. The said witness has stated that the fact, that Foru had been abducted, was disclosed to him by Raghuraj Singh. In the absence of any further connecting evidence, with regard to the involvement of the appellants in the crime, statement of PW-2 fails to advance the prosecution story. 27. PW-11 Lada Bai has also not supported the prosecution case, during trial. 28. However, Manoj Sharma was not arrayed as an accused. 29. Thus, in the present case, circumstances brought on record by the prosecution are self contradictory and prosecution has failed to complete the chain of circumstances leading towards the guilt of the appellants and negate the possibility of their innocence. Rather the possibility that somebody else might have committed the crime, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, cannot be ruled out. 30. We are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish its case against the appellants beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. Learned trial court has erred in ordering the conviction and sentence of the appellants. 31. Accordingly, appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment/order passed by the trial court dated 22.03.2017 are set aside. Appellants are acquitted of the charges framed against them. Appellants who are in custody, be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other criminal case. 32. Learned trial court has erred in ordering the conviction and sentence of the appellants. 31. Accordingly, appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment/order passed by the trial court dated 22.03.2017 are set aside. Appellants are acquitted of the charges framed against them. Appellants who are in custody, be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other criminal case. 32. In view of the provisions of Section 437-A Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, appellants namely Bheru Lal S/o. Shri Ganesh Ram Gurjar, Mangi Lal S/o. Kajod Gurjar, Kalu S/o. Rodu Gurjar, Mohan Lal S/o. Shankar Lal Gurjar and Kishan S/o. Shri Rodu Lal Gurjar are directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each and a surety in the like amount, before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, which shall be effective for a period of six months, with stipulation that in the event of Special Leave Petition being filed against this judgment or on grant of leave, the appellants aforesaid, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court.