JUDGMENT Sandeep Mehta, J. - The accused appellant Baljinder Singh @ Kulvinder Singh stands convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 04.09.2018 passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, No. 1, Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No. 59/2018 (CIS No. 85/2018): Offences Sentences Fine Fine Default sentences Under Section 302 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs. 50,000/- Six months Simple Imprisonment Under Section 201 IPC 5 Years Rigorous Imprisonment Rs. 5,000/- 2 months Simple Imprisonment All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Being aggrieved of his conviction and sentences, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. 3. The facts relevant and essential for disposal of the appeal are noted hereinbelow: The complainant Jagdish Meghwal lodged a written report (Ex.P/4) with Shri Ummed Singh, ASI of the Police Station Ghamudwali at the place of incident (the canal head) alleging inter alia that his daughter Mst. P (the deceased victim) was engaged for household chores at the house of Balram Mahiya. On the previous day i.e. 22.08.2014, his younger daughter Priyanka had also gone to Balram Mahiyas house with the victim deceased. In the morning, at about 07.30 am., Balram Mahiya approached the complainant and inquired about the whereabouts of the deceased on which, the informant told him that she had gone to his house. Since the victim was not traceable, a search was made in the nearby areas and with the relatives but, she could not be traced out. In the morning, Shri Jagdish came to know that Mohanlal Kumhar and Daljeet Singh had seen a girl coming towards the canal and jumping into it on which, he accompanied Balram and other villagers and, reached the P.S. Head of the canal and saw a deadbody floating therein. A red coloured Kurti was visible on the body. The police was informed. The deadbody, which was bare from down the waist, was taken out from the water. The complainant identified the same to be of his daughter Ms. P. The face and the private parts of the deceased were damaged. On the basis of this report, initially inquest proceedings No. 9/2014 were registered at the Police Station Ghamudwali. After postmortem had been carried out, an FIR No. 131/2014 was registered at the Police Station Ghamudwali against unknown accused with the allegation of killing the deceased Ms. P and throwing her deadbody into the canal. On the basis of this report, initially inquest proceedings No. 9/2014 were registered at the Police Station Ghamudwali. After postmortem had been carried out, an FIR No. 131/2014 was registered at the Police Station Ghamudwali against unknown accused with the allegation of killing the deceased Ms. P and throwing her deadbody into the canal. During the course of investigation, the finger of suspicion pointed towards the accused appellant who was arrested and after thorough investigation, the I.O. came to a conclusion that the accused and the deceased were indulged in some kind of affair with each other. The deceased was a minor girl. The accused took her away with him (kidnapped her); subjected her to forcible sexual assault; murdered her and threw her deadbody in the canal with the intention of destroying evidence of the offences. With these findings, a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused in the competent court for the offences under Sections 363, 366, 364, 302, 376(2)(i), 376(a), 201 IPC; Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Sections 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act respectively. 4. The trial court framed charges against the accused appellant for these offences. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 39 witnesses and exhibited 110 documents and 12 Articles in support of its case. The accused upon being questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and upon being confronted with the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence, denied the same and claimed to be innocent. However, no evidence was led in defence. 5. The prosecution examined as many as 39 witnesses and exhibited 110 documents and 12 Articles in support of its case. The accused upon being questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and upon being confronted with the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence, denied the same and claimed to be innocent. However, no evidence was led in defence. 5. After appreciating the evidence available on record and the arguments advanced by the defence and the prosecution, the trial court formulated the following points for determination:- (i) Whether the deceased was below 16 years on the date of the incident; (ii) Whether the accused lured away and kidnapped the minor victim aged 14 years from the lawful guardianship of her parents; (iii) Whether the act of kidnapping was aimed at subjecting the victim to sexual assault; (iv) Whether the accused kidnapped the girl with an intention to murder her; (v) Whether the accused murdered the victim after kidnapping her; (vi) Whether the accused subjected the victim to sexual assault near the canal after kidnapping her; (vii) Whether the accused, after kidnapping the victim and subjecting her to rape, caused such injuries to the victim which proved fatal; (viii) Whether the accused, tried to destroy the facial features of the victim by pouring acid after subjecting her to rape and after committing her murder; (ix) Whether the accused committed the offence with the minor child with an intention that he was committing such offence which was punishable with imprisonment of 10 years or above; and (x) Whether the accused subjected the victim to forcible sexual penetration. 6. Upon conclusion of the case, the trial court held that the case was purely based on circumstantial evidence. None of the prosecution witnesses claimed to have seen the accused kidnapping or taking away the deceased from the lawful guardianship of her parents or subjecting her to rape. At para No. 139 of its judgment, learned trial Court proceeded to hold that as per the PMR, private parts of the deceased had been chopped off from the deadbody recovered from the canal and thus, no medical examination could be conducted thereof and hence, the prosecution could not lead any substantive evidence to prove the offences under Sections 376(2(i), 376(a), 363, 366, 364 of the IPC and Section 5/6 of the POCSO Act against the accused. However, at para No. 140 of the Judgment, the trial court proceeded to hold that as per the documentary and oral evidence available on record, it was established beyond all shadow of doubt that the body recovered from the canal was that of the deceased victim Kumari P. As per the postmortem report and other evidence led at the trial, it was proved that her death was not suicidal but was homicidal. The cause of death of the deceased was the blow from a sharp weapon which resulted into shearing off of her private parts. The victim and the accused were indulged in a love affair with each other. On the day of the occurrence i.e. 22.08.2014, the victim left for Balram Mahiyas house but did not reach there and instead, went all alone towards the canal. On the same day and around the same time, the accused left the house of Surendra Mor where, he was engaged in construction activities and went missing from work from 8.00 am. He returned at about 9.45 am. whereafter, he was summoned by Raja Mor and was quizzed in this regard. The accused worked at the construction site for one hour thereafter. At about 12 o clock, he suddenly left the house of Surendra Mor and went away taking an excuse of some necessary work. 7. The I.O. prepared the site plan of the place of occurrence where the victim was murdered, upon the information supplied by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and blood stained soil was recovered from that place. The accused gave an information to the I.O. under Section 27 of the Evidence Act in furtherance whereof, the I.O. recovered a Darati, cloths and a rexine bag bearing blood stain suspected to be of human origin. The accused failed to offer any explanation for the presence of human blood on these articles which were recovered from his exclusive and conscious possession. Accordingly, the trial court held that these links formed a complete chain of incriminating circumstances establishing positively and beyond all shadow of doubt that the accused had killed the deceased. The trial court also, drew an inference that the accused chopped off the private parts of the deceased and then threw her deadbody in the canal. The recovered body was one day old and had been mutilated by aquatic animals. The trial court also, drew an inference that the accused chopped off the private parts of the deceased and then threw her deadbody in the canal. The recovered body was one day old and had been mutilated by aquatic animals. It was possible that if the deadbody had remained in the same state for some more time then it could not have been identified. With these conclusions, the accused was held guilty for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. The accused was acquitted of the charge under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act on the premise that there was no evidence on the record to show that the accused committed murder of the deceased for the reason that she belonged to the Schedule Caste. In this manner, the trial court proceeded to pass the impugned judgment convicting and sentencing the accused appellant for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. Hence this appeal. 8. Shri M.L. Bishnoi, learned counsel representing the appellant vehemently and fervently urged that there is hardly any evidence worth the name on the record of the case so as to connect the appellant with the alleged murder of Kumari P. He pointed out that the incident took place on 22.08.2014 whereas the accused was arrested on 16.09.2014 and thus, the recoveries made at the instance of the accused are totally unbelievable and deserve to be discarded. He contended that the witnesses Jagdish (PW-3) being father of the deceased girl, Shanti Devi (PW-7) being her mother, Arjun Ram (PW-8), Panadevi (PW-9), Kalati @ Khusbhu (PW-10) being the sister of the deceased and Surendra Pal Singh (PW-24), did not support the prosecution case at the trial and were declared hostile. He took us through the statements of PW-4 Balram Mahiya, PW-11 Darshna Devi, PW-14 Jagdish, PW-15, Surendra Mor and PW-16 Kalawati Devi who were examined by the prosecution in an endeavour to establish that the deceased was in some kind of relationship with the accused. Shri Bishnoi urged that even if the evidence of these witnesses is accepted to be true on the face of the record, manifestly there is no such material so as to satisfy the court that the accused murdered the deceased and no inference in this regard can be drawn from such vague assertions. Shri Bishnoi urged that even if the evidence of these witnesses is accepted to be true on the face of the record, manifestly there is no such material so as to satisfy the court that the accused murdered the deceased and no inference in this regard can be drawn from such vague assertions. He urged that an admitted position emerging from the statements of these witnesses is that Kumari P was infatuated with the accused and used to call him on his mobile. Shri Bishnoi submitted that evidence of these witnesses that the accused used to make inappropriate gestures towards the deceased is totally conjectural because Surendra Mor PW-15 and Kalawati PW-16 who were examined giving evidence in this regard did not depose before the court that they had ever seen the accused or the deceased making any gestures towards each other. He also drew the Courts attention to the statement of PW-14 Jagdish who stated that Ms. P told him that she was in love with Kuldeep Mistri. Shri Bishnoi submits that as per the prosecutions own case, the relationship between the deceased and the accused appellant was as a matter of fact being pursued by the girl and there were no fetters on the accused which could have prevented him from continuing this relationship and thus, it does not stand to reason or rationale that the accused would murder the deceased and thereby, deprive himself from the love and affection showered upon him by the girl. Thus, as per him, the accused had absolutely no motive to murder the girl. He urged that a mere allegation that the deceased and the accused were involved in an affair could not have been used as a ground to infer that the accused kidnapped and then subjected the victim to rape and thereafter murdered her. He drew the Courts attention towards the statements of Rakesh Kumar (PW-12) and Ramesh (PW-13) who stated that they were told by Mohanlal and Daljeet Singh that they had seen a girl proceeding alone towards the canal on the date of the incident. He submitted that PW-13 Ramesh affirmed and testified that he saw the deceased going all alone from Binjhbayla to Laduwali. He submitted that PW-13 Ramesh affirmed and testified that he saw the deceased going all alone from Binjhbayla to Laduwali. He submits that the prosecution is guilty of concealing and withholding from the Court material evidence of the two witnesses Mohanlal and Daljeet Singh who were named in the Mrig Report as being the persons who had seen the deceased jumping into the canal and thus, as per Shri Bishnoi, adverse inference needs to be drawn against the prosecution for withholding material evidence. Shri Bishnoi further drew the Courts attention to the statement of PW-27 Maniram and pointed out that DNA samples of the parents of the deceased (Ex.P-80) were collected by the I.O. but the same were not found matching with the DNA profile of the samples collected from the deadbody and thus, as per him, the trial court committed grave error in concluding that the deadbody was that of Sushri P. Shri Bishnoi also drew the Courts attention towards the information memos (Ex.P/37 & 38) and recovery memo (Ex.P/42) in furtherance whereof, the investigating officer PW-28 Rajendra Singh allegedly recovered the weapon of offence and certain blood stained clothes at the instance of the accused. He contended that the FSL Reports (Ex.P/84, P/85 and P/86) only indicate that Darati recovered at the instance of the accused tested positive for human blood. The blood stains on the rexine bag of motorcycle and two Kurtas of the accused tested positive for O Positive blood group. However, Shri Bishnoi submitted that in absence of evidence about the blood group of the deceased, no conclusion of corresponding match of the blood group can be drawn so as to make the circumstances incriminating and hence, mere recovery of these articles which as per him, were otherwise planted, cannot form the basis for convicting the accused for the murder of deceased. He thus implored the Court to accept the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and acquit the accused from the charges. 9. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently and fervently, opposed the submissions advanced by Shri Bishnoi and urged that the prosecution has given clinching, cogent and convincing evidence to the effect that the accused was indulged in an affair with the deceased who was a minor girl. The victim was seduced by the accused and was lured to go towards the canal. The victim was seduced by the accused and was lured to go towards the canal. At the same time, the accused went missing from his work place which was the house of Surendra Mor. He did not return for about one and half hours. In this period, the accused subjected the victim to sexual assault, murdered her by chopping off her private parts, and threw the dead body in the canal for destroying the evidence. He thus urged that the findings recorded by the trial court in the impugned judgment are based on an apropos appreciation of evidence and do not warrant any interference whatsoever. On these grounds, he craved dismissal of the appeal. 10. We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor and have threadbare examined the impugned judgment as well as the record. 11. The prosecution case hinges totally on circumstantial evidence. The circumstances sought to be utilised for convicting the accused have been enumerated above. While concluding the case by the impugned judgment, the trial court itself held that the prosecution could not lead any substantive or incriminating evidence to prove that the accused seduced, lured away or kidnapped the deceased from the lawful guardianship of her parents or that he subjected her to sexual assault. The evidence available on record which has been discussed in detail herein before, indicates that the affair between the accused and the deceased was being pursued by the latter. Thus, there was no reason as to why the accused would murder the deceased to whom, he had free and unfettered access. Hence, we are of the firm opinion that the prosecution has failed to attribute and prove any motive for murdering the girl to the accused. 12. Having appreciated and having evaluated the entire material and evidence available on record, we are of the firm opinion that the conclusions drawn by the trial court for convicting the accused appellant seem to be found on sheer conjectures and surmises and there are strong reasons for holding so. Manifestly, as per the initial report submitted by the father of the deceased to Shri Ummed Singh, ASI of the Police Station Ghamudwali on 22.08.2014, two witnesses namely Mohanlal and Daljeet Singh had seen the deceased jumping into the canal. Manifestly, as per the initial report submitted by the father of the deceased to Shri Ummed Singh, ASI of the Police Station Ghamudwali on 22.08.2014, two witnesses namely Mohanlal and Daljeet Singh had seen the deceased jumping into the canal. Neither of these two witnesses were examined at the trial and thus evidently, the prosecution is guilty of concealing material evidence from the court which is sufficient to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution. The trial court side-tracked this important circumstance while conjecturally observing that the dead body of the deceased upon being recovered from the canal, was found having ante-mortem chopping wounds on the private parts and thus, the case was one of murder and the theory that the deceased jumped into the canal on her own could not be accepted. We are of the opinion that the version set out in the initial report regarding two persons having seen the victim jumping into the canal was spontaneous and untainted and hence, the same should not have been so casually discarded. True it is that Dr. Mohanlal (PW-19) and Dr. Mahaveer Jat (PW-20), who being members of the Medical Board which conducted postmortem upon the deadbody, opined that the injury No. 2 noticed on the private parts of the deceased was an incised wound caused by sharp weapon but at the same time, we cannot be oblivious of the fact that there is ample material on the record of the case indicating that the deceased jumped into the canal within the view of Mohanlal and Daljeet whom the prosecution did not examine. The canal system comprises of gates, motors and all kinds of metallic objects and thus, possibility of the deceased having received the sharp shearing injuries on her private parts by the metallic objects in the canal cannot be ruled out. Be that as it may. Manifestly, the trial court has itself, discarded the prosecution case that the accused lured the deceased and subjected her to sexual intercourse. 13. Be that as it may. Manifestly, the trial court has itself, discarded the prosecution case that the accused lured the deceased and subjected her to sexual intercourse. 13. As an upshot, we are of the firm view that, in absence of any substantive evidence to establish that the accused was actually seen in the company of the deceased anytime soon before her death and for the lack of conclusive and convincing links of circumstantial evidence to draw an unexceptional inference regarding the accused having murdered the deceased, it would be totally unsafe to affirm the conviction of the accused on the flimsy slender and unconvincing bits and pieces of circumstances relied upon by the prosecution. For reaching this conclusion, we are also benefited by the fact that the DNA profile of the sample collected from the deadbody did not match with that of her parents Jagdish and Smt. Shanti Devi, and that the blood group of the deceased was also not detected and could not be matched with the blood stains on the articles allegedly recovered from the house of the accused in furtherance of the information provided by him to the I.O. under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Otherwise also, we are of the firm view that as the accused was a free bird from 22.08.2016 till 16.09.2014 on which date he was arrested, there was no reason for him to preserve and save the worthless blood stained articles in his house so that the same could be recovered and used as evidence against him at a later stage. 14. In view of the discussion made herein above, we feel that the conviction of the accused appellant as recorded by the trial court is based on no evidence whatsoever what to talk of complete chain of circumstantial evidence establishing his guilt beyond all shadow of doubt. The law is well settled by a catena of Supreme Court Judgments that in cases of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution is under a burden to prove the complete chain of circumstances with unequivocal evidence pointing invariably towards the guilt of the accused. Even if a single link in the chain of circumstances is missing, the Court would be loath to act upon such evidence for convicting an accused for the grave offence of murder. 15. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Even if a single link in the chain of circumstances is missing, the Court would be loath to act upon such evidence for convicting an accused for the grave offence of murder. 15. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment dated judgment dated 04.09.2018 passed by the learned Additional Special Judge, POCSO Act, No. 1, Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No. 59/2018 (CIS No. 85/2018) is hereby quashed and set aside. The appellant Baljinder Singh @ Kulvinder Singh is acquitted of all the charges. The appellant is in custody. He shall be released from prison forthwith if not wanted in any other case. 16. However, keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C., the accused appellant 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 appellant shall appear before the Supreme Court.