JUDGMENT Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - The instant appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure mounts a challenge to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.08.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Merta in Sessions Case No.11/2012 (CIS No.63/2015), which determination and verdict, has culminated in conviction of the present accused/appellant for the offence under Section 302 of IPC, and thereby, was ordered to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment. 2. The factual matrix that is required to be exposited for the purpose of disposal of the present appeal is that complainant Girdhari Ram filed a written report on 30.01.2012 at Reserve Centre, Gotan alleging therein that on 30.01.2012 in the morning at about 10 o'clock, he returned back to Talanpur after attending some marriage at Chowkadi, and from there, he alongwith Rajesh went to his dhani, where they found the dead body of Bhanwarlal lying in front of the house. It was also stated that the stomach and chest of deceased Bhanwarlal were full of blood, and the injury caused by sharpedged weapon was reflected; blood was spilled all over the rooms and the chowk, and Bhanwarlal has thus been murdered by unknown persons with sharp edged weapons at night and his dead body was lying in front of the house. 3. Upon receiving such information, an FIR bearing No.19/2012 was registered at Reserve Centre, and after investigation, the offences were found to be made out - against present accused/appellant-Shesha Ram under Section 302 IPC, while under Section 302/34 IPC against Panchi Devi - and accordingly, the trial commenced. 4. On 18.12.2012, separate charges were framed, as the present accused/appellant was charged under Section 302 IPC, whereas Panchi Devi was charged under Section 302/34 IPC, as aforementioned. 5. The prosecution produced 19 witnesses and 57 exhibits. 6. In course of his examination, under Section 313 Cr.P.C., present accused/appellant-Shesha Ram having denied the imputations and alleged his false implication, thereby pleaded 'not guilty', he was made to stand the trial. Panchi Devi also refuted the charges and submitted that she did not know accused-Shesha Ram. In her defence, Panchi Devi produced Ramkumar as DW-1 and Guddi Devi as DW-2, and also got the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C rendered by Ramdayal, exhibited as Exhibit D-1. 7. Panchi Devi also refuted the charges and submitted that she did not know accused-Shesha Ram. In her defence, Panchi Devi produced Ramkumar as DW-1 and Guddi Devi as DW-2, and also got the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C rendered by Ramdayal, exhibited as Exhibit D-1. 7. After hearing the arguments advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor and learned defence counsel and upon appreciating the material available on record, the learned trial court proceeded to convict and sentenced the present accused/appellant-Shesha Ram, vide the impugned judgment and order, as mentioned above; whereas Panchi Devi was acquitted, while giving her the benefit of doubt. Hence, accused/appellantShesha Ram has preferred this appeal. 8. Mr. Vikas Bijarnia, learned counsel for the accused/appellant submitted that the accused/appellant is in custody since 7 years 5 months and 24 days. Learned counsel further submitted that the best case of the prosecution was that the accused/appellant alongwith Panchi Devi murdered Bhanwarlal, who was Panchi Devi's husband. Learned counsel also submitted that the conviction of the present accused/appellant was on account of the same set of witnesses, who were operating on the same pedestal as that of the Panchi Devi, who was acquitted by the learned trial court vide the impugned judgment and order. Learned counsel further submitted that the last seen evidence, on the basis of which the whole trial has proceeded with, cannot be bifurcated for the purpose and result of the present accused/appellant and Panchi Devi, particularly in light of the fact that there was no distinction drawn by witness Ram Dayal. Learned counsel also submitted that the total case is based upon the circumstantial evidence, which is not trustworthy and the chain of circumstances is absolutely incomplete. Learned counsel further submitted that once the learned court below found that the chain of circumstances did not finally indicate culpability of Panchi Devi, then the same set of conclusion ought to have been taken for the accused/appellant as well. Learned counsel also submitted that the prosecution story in relation to Panchi Devi and present accused/appellant Shesha Ram, jointly executing killing of Panchi Devi's husband i.e. Bhanwarlal, cannot be believed in part. Learned counsel also submitted that the prosecution story in relation to Panchi Devi and present accused/appellant Shesha Ram, jointly executing killing of Panchi Devi's husband i.e. Bhanwarlal, cannot be believed in part. Learned counsel further submitted that there are no criminal antecedents of the accused/appellant and the conviction of the present accused/appellant, on the basis of the injuries and the call details, is unacceptable as the call details, on one side have led to believe the learned court below to the culpability against the present accused/appellant, whereas, the same has been disbelieved in the case of Panchi Devi. 9. On the other hand, Mr. Anil Joshi, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently denied the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the accused/appellant and submitted that the Section 106 of the Evidence Act draws a presumption against the wife of deceased Bhanwarlal i.e. Panchi Devi. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that phone of Shesha Ram and call details were the scientific evidence, which clearly indicated the motive behind the murder, and thus, the scientific evidence read with the last scene evidence of Ram Dayal, clearly indicated that Shesha Ram had committed the murder of Bhanwarlal. 10. We have carefully gone through the record of the case alongwith the evidence rendered and the impugned judgment. The rival assertions made on behalf of the parties have also been duly analyzed. 11. We notice that PW-1 Girdhari Ram, in his statement, has deposed that he does not know Shesha Ram, but knows Panchi Devi, and while he returned to his home, he noticed that his neighbour Bhanwarlal was murdered and his dead body was lying in front of his house; the wounds indicated usage of sharp edged weapons. This witness further deposed that the blood was spilled all over the house and the clothes of Bhanwarlal were soaked in blood. He also deposed that the police arrested Panchi Devi and Shesha Ram on suspicion subsequently during the investigation. The samples of the blood stained clothes, soil etc., were taken in front of this witness. This witness further deposed that as per him, Shesha Ram and Panchi Devi had murdered Bhanwarlal. In cross-examination, he stated that Bhanwarlal was his cousin and Ram Dayal is his real brother. He also stated that while lodging the report, Ram Dayal had gone with him. 12. This witness further deposed that as per him, Shesha Ram and Panchi Devi had murdered Bhanwarlal. In cross-examination, he stated that Bhanwarlal was his cousin and Ram Dayal is his real brother. He also stated that while lodging the report, Ram Dayal had gone with him. 12. Pw-2 Ram Dayal, in his statement, deposed that he knew Shesha Ram and Panchi Devi. He deposed that on 29.01.2012 at around 10:30 in the night, he was not feeling well. He further deposed that he saw Shesha Ram and Panchi Devi speaking to each other and coming out of the house of Bhanwarlal. This witness also deposed that he slept in the night and in the morning, he woke and saw that Bhanwarlal was murdered. He stated that he had not seen Shesha Ram and Panchi Devi killing Bhanwarlal, but he was sure that Shesha Ram and Panchi Devi killed Bhanwarlal. In cross examination, Ram Dayal had admitted that Bhanwarlal had gone out in some marriage, and he came back on 28th. He had also stated that he had seen Bhanwarlal at about 7:00 p.m. in the evening, and in the morning when he got up, he came to know that Bhanwarlal had been murdered. He further deposed that he was with Girdhari when the police came, and was also witness to lodging of report by Girdhari. He also stated that he did not tell at the initial stage either to Girdhari or to the police that he had seen Panchi Devi and Shesha Ram at night. He said that his statement had been recorded after one month before the police, but before that he did not tell about panchi devi and sheshram to anyone. He said that he lived in dhani with his family members, but he had not told the police about seeing panchi devi and sheshram coming out of the house of bhanwarlal. 13. Pw-3 Bhakar Ram was witness to the panchnama as well as the site plan. The collection of clothes was also done in front of him. 14. Pw-4 Om Prakash, in his cross-examination, stated that he did not know about illegitimate relationship between Shesha Ram and Panchi Devi. 15. Pw-5 Jagdish and PW-6 Bhagwat Ram, who, at the relevant time, were posted as Constable in Police Station, Gotan, have substantiated the investigation in their statement. 16. Pw-7 Dr. 14. Pw-4 Om Prakash, in his cross-examination, stated that he did not know about illegitimate relationship between Shesha Ram and Panchi Devi. 15. Pw-5 Jagdish and PW-6 Bhagwat Ram, who, at the relevant time, were posted as Constable in Police Station, Gotan, have substantiated the investigation in their statement. 16. Pw-7 Dr. Sukhram, who, at the relevant time, was posted as Medical Officer, Community Health Centre, Gotan and who conducted the postmortem of Bhanwarlal, had deposed that there were three injuries on chest and stomach, which were deep and serious in nature. He further deposed that the injuries were caused by sharp-edged weapon. 17. Pw-8 Sohan had turned hostile. 18. Pw-9 Heeralal was witness to the panchnama of the dead body of Bhanwarlal. 19. Pw-10 Bhanwarlal s/o Shri Rooparam turned hostile to the fact that the foot prints were collected from the dhani of Bhanwarlal in front of him. 20. Pw-11 Rajesh also turned hostile. 21. Pw-12 Jhumar Ram, at the relevant time, posted as Constable, Police Station, Gota, substantiated the investigation in his statement, but stated, in his cross-examination, that sample of foot marks were not collected in front of the magistrate. He however substantiated collection of foot marks and motorcycle tyre marks. 22. Pw-13 Madan Ram, in his statement, deposed that he knew Panchi Devi, but did not know Shesha Ram. 23. Pw-14 Ghewar Ram, PW-15 Hari Ram, PW-16 Ram Ratan and PW-17 Sahiram, who, at the relevant time, were posted as Police Constable as well as PW-18 Jaswant Dev, the then Head Constable and PW-19 Rameshwar Bhati, the then SHO, Police Station, Sanwar, District Ajmer, have substantiated the investigation in their deposition. 24. Dw-1 Ram Kumar and DW-2 Gutti Devi, both have negated the prosecution story in their statement. 25. The best evidence collected by the prosecution is that of FSL Report, which is Exhibit P.48, wherein the blood smeared soil from the place of incident, which was mark 'A'; the Jutiyan of Bhanwarlal, mark 'C'; the blood stained pieces of cement from the place of incident, mark 'E'; the blood stained levara, mark 'G'; the clothes being worn by Bhanwarlal, mark 'K'; the hand grip of the motorcycle used by Shesha Ram, mark 'M'; the recovered knife with cover, mark 'N'; the clothes worn by Shesha Ram, mark 'O', were all found to be having human blood on them. The blood group on the knife and the clothes was of 'B' Group, which matched with the blood group of the blood found on the clothes of Bhanwarlal and the soil of the place of incident as well as the jutiyan being worn by Bhanwarlal. However, the aforementioned best evidence also suffers from an infirmity, which is that the prosecution could not prove that the samples were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory in a perfectly sealed condition. The samples and the results are partly vitiated for want of such confirmatory proof of the samples being sealed before being furnished to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The foot marks and the motorcycle tyre marks also resemble, as reflected from Exhibits P.7 to P.12 and from 24, 25 to 35 and 36. 26. The biggest predicament before us, after seeing the evidence, is that the only and primary witness to the theory of last seen is Ram Dayal, and Ram Dayal, while agreeing that he was there at the time of filing of the report by Girdhari Ram and subsequently too, has admitted, in his evidence that he did not inform to the police or Girdhari Ram or anyone else about the last seen evidence, whereby he states to have seen Shesha Ram and Panchi Devi together on the night of 29.01.2012 for one long month after the incident. Though the learned court below has proceeded on the factum of the recovery of blood stained knife of Shesha Ram as well as recovery of clothes at his instance, hand grip of motorcycle used by him stained with human blood, which also matches with blood on the floor layers, soil and cement pieces collected from the place of incident and the clothes of the deceased, but the learned court below has not been able to hold that there was a definite evidence of the FSL report being foolproof. Morevoer, the FSL report could have been a corroborative evidence, had there been a fundamental evidence. Morevoer, the FSL report could have been a corroborative evidence, had there been a fundamental evidence. However, in this case, there is no eye witness and the only evidence which has been brought on record is that of Ram Dayal, and Ram Dayal too, while deposing, has admitted that he had the knowledge of last scene, and even while being the cousin brother of the deceased, he did not tell the same at the time of lodging of the police report or even subsequent thereto, until he rendered his police statement after one month of the incident. All the witnesses have deposed similarly for Shesha Ram and Panchi, but no evidence was collected which could implicate Panchi Devi too, as neither her foot marks nor her clothes or any other thing were gathered, which could connect Panchi Devi with the place of murder. Independent of Panchi Devi, Shesha Ram cannot be said to have any relationship with deceased Bhanwarlal. Thus, independent of Panchi Devi, there was no reason why Shesha Ram would murder Bhanwarlal. In case Panchi Devi was to be convicted for being involved in such murder, then the prosecution should have proceeded against her as well, as strictly as it proceeded against present accused/appellant-Shesha Ram. The present case is resting on circumstantial evidence, which the prosecution was required to drive home. But the chain of circumstances leading towards the guilt of the accused are disconnecting at a very vital point of deposition of sole witness of last seen evidence i.e. Ram Dayal. The prosecution has not been able to negate the possibility of his innocence. The chain of circumstantial evidence, therefore, is wholly incomplete, which renders the prosecution story itself as doubtful. The conviction of the present accused/appellant-Shesha Ram, in such circumstances, cannot be sustained. In the present case, the circumstances brought on record failed to lead to the conclusion towards the guilt of the accused/appellant, and thus, the possibility that he is innocent cannot be ruled out, more particularly when Panchi Devi has not been found guilty. 27. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed, and while quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment and order dated 18.08.2018 passed by the trial court, the present appellant is acquitted of the charge framed against him by giving him benefit of doubt. Appellant, who is in custody, be set at liberty, if not required in any other case. 27. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed, and while quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment and order dated 18.08.2018 passed by the trial court, the present appellant is acquitted of the charge framed against him by giving him benefit of doubt. Appellant, who is in custody, be set at liberty, if not required in any other case. In view of the provisions of Section 437-A Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, appellant is directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-, 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 appellant aforesaid, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. Record of the trial court be returned forthwith.