JUDGMENT : B.K. NARAYANA, RAJIV GUPTA, JJ. 1. The argument of this case was concluded on 5.4.2019. We then made the following order:- "Heard Sri Satyaveer Singh, learned Counsel for the appellants, Sri Rajeev Sharma, learned Counsel for the informant and Sri Indra Pal Singh Rajput, learned A.G.A. for the State. We are pronouncing the operative portion of the judgment, but will give reasons later on. The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 30.7.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Firozabad, in S.T. No. 415 of 2006 - (State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ramdin and 2 others) are set aside. All the three appellants are acquitted of all the charges framed against them Appellant Ramdin-A1 and Jaiveer-A2 are in jail. They shall be released forthwith unless they are wanted in some other case. As far as Tehsildar-A3 is concerned, he is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are cancelled and his sureties discharged. The appellants shall however, comply with the mandatory requirements of section 437-A Cr.P.C. within a period of three weeks from today." Here are the reasons:-- 2. This criminal appeal has been filed by Ramdin (A1), Jaiveer (A2) and Tehsildar (A3) against the judgment and order dated 30.7.2011 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Firozabad in Sessions Trial No. 415/2006, State v. Ram Din and others, by which all the three appellants were convicted and sentenced to' imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and in case of default in payment of fine, one year additional imprisonment under section 302/34 I.P.C. and five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and in case of default in payment of fine, three months additional simple imprisonment under section 201 I.P.C. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that P.W. 2 informant Kayam Singh gave a written report (Ext. 5,000/- each and in case of default in payment of fine, three months additional simple imprisonment under section 201 I.P.C. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that P.W. 2 informant Kayam Singh gave a written report (Ext. Ka.3) at P.S.-Eka, District-Firozabad on 28.10.2005 at about 15.10 hours stating therein that while his sister-in-law, Bal Kumari wife of Nem Singh and his brother, Nem Singh hereinafter referred to as the deceased were harvesting their maize crop in their field on 26.10.2005 at about 5 p.m., his cousin brothers Ramdin (Al), Jaiveer (A2) and Tehsildar (A3), sons of Jaagan Singh, residents of Nagla Veeri, P.S.- Eka, came to the deceased's field and took him with them on the pretext for doing some important work. His brother did not return to his home thereafter. His sister-in-law and other members of the family searched for him and informed P.W. 2 Kayam Singh about the deceased going missing who went to search for his brother and found a headless dead body which had been cut into several pieces which were lying on the northern bank of Katana Khaarja Nahar Nagla Moti which was identified by him and his other family members as that of the deceased. He was certain that his brother's murder had been committed by Ramdin (A1), Jaiveer (A2) and Tehsildar (A3). 4. On the basis of the written report (Ext. Ka.3), Case Crime No. 175 of 2005, under section 302/201 I.P.C. was registered/at P.S.-Eka, District-Firozabad. Check F.I.R. (Ext. Ka.5) was prepared by P.W. 5 Roop Singh who also recorded the gist of the prosecution case in the G.D. at serial No. 24 at 15.10 hours on the same day (Ext. Ka.6). 5. The investigation of the case was entrusted to P.W. 7 Tikam Singh. He reached the place of incident on the same day and got the headless dead body cut into several pieces lying at the place of, incident unidentified. He then held inquest and after completing the inquest proceedings, prepared the inquest report (Ext. Ka.1) and other related documents namely letter addressed to R.I., challan lash, letter addressed to C.M.O. and photo lash. He thereafter recorded the statement of P.W. 2 informant Kayam Singh and then collected plain and blood-stained earth from the place where the deceased's body was found lying prepared its recovery memo (Ext. Ka.1) and other related documents namely letter addressed to R.I., challan lash, letter addressed to C.M.O. and photo lash. He thereafter recorded the statement of P.W. 2 informant Kayam Singh and then collected plain and blood-stained earth from the place where the deceased's body was found lying prepared its recovery memo (Ext. Ka.2) He also inspected the place where the dead body was found lying and prepared its site plan (Ext. Ka.8). After getting the pieces of the body of the deceased sealed, he dispatched the same through Constable 87 Maya Ram and Constable 56 Ranbeer Singh to the Sadar Hospital for postmortem examination. 6. The post-mortem on the body of deceased Nem Singh was conducted by P.W. 6 Dr. B.P. Singh on 29.10.2005 at 1 p.m. who also prepared the postmortem report of the deceased (Ext. Ka.7). He noted following ante-mortem injuries on the body of the deceased:-- (1) Head missing from neck level. (2) Foot (rt. & lt.) missing from ankle level. (3) Incised wound 6 cm. x 1 cm, muscle deep front & middle of chest. (4) Incised wound 5 cm. x 1 cm, muscle deep just below injury No. 3. (5) Incised wound 5.5 cm. x 1 cm, muscle deep lt. side facing chest. (6) Lower extremity both cut from abdominal level (incised wound). (7) Both lower extremity cut from knee level (incised wound). (8) Upper both extremity cut from shoulder level (incised wound). (9) Both rt. and lt. extremity cut from wrist and elbow level (incised wound). (10) Penis cut and missing. 7. According to P.W. 6 Dr. B.P. Singh, the cause of death of Nem Singh was shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries. He next opined that the deceased had died about 2½-3 days before the date on which postmortem was conducted on his body. 8. During the course of the investigation, it was alleged that Jaiveer (A2) was arrested by the Investigating Officer on 7.11.2005 and on his pointing out, the crime weapon 'banka' (material Ext. 4) was recovered and its recovery memo (Ext. Ka.9) was prepared on the spot. The crime weapon was recovered allegedly on the pointing out of Jaiveer (A2) in the presence of Munna Lal. The site plan of the place of recovery of 'banka' (Ext. Ka.10) was also prepared. On 17.11.2005, Ramdin (A1) and Tehsildar (A3) surrendered before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad. Ka.9) was prepared on the spot. The crime weapon was recovered allegedly on the pointing out of Jaiveer (A2) in the presence of Munna Lal. The site plan of the place of recovery of 'banka' (Ext. Ka.10) was also prepared. On 17.11.2005, Ramdin (A1) and Tehsildar (A3) surrendered before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad. After obtaining permission from Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad, the statements of Ramdin (Al) and Tehsildar (A3) were recorded in which they confessed having committed the murder of the deceased. On 22.11.2005, the Investigating Officer obtained the remand of Ramdin (A1) and brought him to police station for interrogation on 23.11.2005. It is alleged that during the investigation, Ramdin (A1) confessed that the deceased's head, legs and penis had been thrown by him in the canal after severing the aforesaid body parts from his body. Ramdin (A1) was taken in jeep to the canal. He got recovered the clothes of the deceased from the bushes on the bank of canal, recovery memo whereof (Ext. Ka.4) was prepared. The site plan of the place of recovery of deceased's clothes (Ext. Ka.11) was prepared. After completing the investigation, P.W. 7 S.I. Tikam Singh submitted charge-sheet against all the three accused (Ext. Ka.12) before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad. 9. Since the offences mentioned in the charge-sheet were triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad committed the accused for trial to the Court of Sessions Judge, Firozabad where Case Crime No. 175 of 2005 was registered as S.T. No. 415/2006, State v. Ram Din and others, and made over for trial from there to the Court of Additional District, & Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Firozabad who on the basis of material collected during the investigation and after hearing the prosecution as well as the accused on the point of charge, framed charge under sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. against all the three appellants who abjured the charges framed against them and claimed trial. 10. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as eight witnesses out of whom P.W. 1 Jag-dish Chandra, P.W. 2 informant Kayam Singh, P.W. 3 Bal Kumari and P.W. 4 Farman were examined as witnesses of different facts while P.W. 5 Roop Singh, P.W. 6 Dr. 10. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as eight witnesses out of whom P.W. 1 Jag-dish Chandra, P.W. 2 informant Kayam Singh, P.W. 3 Bal Kumari and P.W. 4 Farman were examined as witnesses of different facts while P.W. 5 Roop Singh, P.W. 6 Dr. B.P. Singh P.W. 7 S.I. Tikam Singh, P.W. 8 Hempal Singh and P.W. 9 Constable Kartar Singh were produced as formal witnesses. 11. The accused-appellants in their statements recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution case as totally false and stated that the witnesses had given false evidence against them due to previous enmity arising out of pendency of civil litigation between the parties. The appellants examined Kailash Chandra and Munna Lal as D.W. 1 and D.W. 2. They also filed documentary evidence vide list 136A to 137A summary report Kartar Transport, 138A/1 to 138A/5, receipt toll tax Mathura, 139A summary report Kartar Transport, 140A/1 to 140A/5 bill Kartar Transport, 141 Driving License Jaiveer (A2) and 142A Traffic Challan. 12. Learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Firozabad, by the impugned judgment and order, convicted all the three appellants under sections 302/34 and 201 I.P.C. and awarded aforesaid sentences to them. 13. Hence, this appeal. 14. Sri Satyaveer Singh, learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the instant case is based upon circumstantial evidence. The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution to establish the guilt of the appellants are neither of exclusive nature nor consistent but only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the appellants. No one had actually seen the appellants committing the murder of the deceased and after the dead body of the deceased Nem Singh was recovered, the highly belated F.I.R. which was prepared after due deliberations and consultations with the police, was lodged falsely implicating the appellants due to previous enmity between the parties arising out of pendency of civil litigation between them. The prosecution story that despite bitter enmity between the deceased and the appellants, he went with them all alone when they had allegedly came to his field on the pretext of taking him with them for doing some work, is highly improbable. The prosecution story that despite bitter enmity between the deceased and the appellants, he went with them all alone when they had allegedly came to his field on the pretext of taking him with them for doing some work, is highly improbable. Moreover, no satisfactory explanation is coming forth from the side of the prosecution for the failure of P.W. 3 Bal Kumari to lodge any F.I.R. after the deceased had gone with the appellants and had not returned back although admittedly the deceased and the appellants were highly inimical towards each other which clearly indicates that the identity of the accused or the persons with whom the deceased had gone was not known to P.W. 3 Bal Kumari as it was only after P.W. 2 informant Kayam Singh, the brother of the deceased had arrived from Agra, the written report of the incident containing absolutely false and concocted story was prepared with the advice of the police after the deceased's body had been discovered, falsely implicating the appellants. He next submitted that the prosecution having failed to establish by exhibiting the so-called confessional statements of the appellants and prove the same in accordance with law, the alleged recovery of the crime weapon 'banka' on the alleged pointing out of Jaiveer (A2) and the clothes of the deceased on the alleged pointing out of Ramdin (A1) and Tehsildar (A3), is not admissible against the appellants under section 27 of the Evidence Act. Moreover, the prosecution having failed to send the 'banka' as well as the alleged clothes of the deceased to the Forensic Lab for establishing that the blood found on the 'banka' and the clothes allegedly recovered on the pointing out of Jaiveer (A2) and Tehsildar (A3) was either human blood or that of the deceased. The same could not have been relied upon by the Trial Court as a link in the chain of evidence to establish the guilt of the appellants. He further submitted that it is clearly proved from the evidence of P.W. 1 Jagdish Chandra that the dead body of the deceased was neither recovered by P.W. 2 informant Kayam Singh nor at the time deposed by P.W. 2 informant Kayam Singh in his evidence and also the F.I.R. in this case was not registered at the time mentioned in the chick F.I.R. (Ext. Ka.5). Ka.5). The F.I.R. of the case being ante-timed, credibility whereof itself is under a very dark shadow of doubt, the conviction of the appellants recorded by the Trial Court by placing reliance on the prosecution story spelt therein, cannot be sustained. Such being the state of evidence, neither the recorded conviction of the appellants nor the sentences awarded to them can be sustained and are liable to be set-aside. 15. Per contra Sri Rajeev Sharma, learned Counsel for the informant made his submissions in support of the impugned judgment and order. He argued that neither the recorded conviction of the appellants nor the sentences awarded to them suffer from any illegality or legal infirmity requiring any interference by this Court. The circumstances in this case are of conclusive nature and the chain of evidence in this case does not leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the appellants. This appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 16. Sri Indrapal Singh Rajput, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State adopted the submissions of the learned Counsel for the informant. 17. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire Lower Court record. 18. The instant case is based entirely on circumstantial evidence and there is no eye witness to the incident. 19. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1984 SC 1622 , it was held by this Court that, the onus is on the prosecution to prove, that the chain is complete and that falsity or untenability of the defence set up by the accused, cannot be made the basis for ignoring any serious infirmity or lacuna in the case of the prosecution. The Court then proceeded to indicate the conditions which must be fully established before a conviction can be made on the basis of circumstantial evidence. These are: (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The Court then proceeded to indicate the conditions which must be fully established before a conviction can be made on the basis of circumstantial evidence. These are: (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned 'must' or 'should' and not 'may be' established; (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused". 20. Thus, in a case of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish each instance of incriminating circumstance, by way of reliable and clinching evidence, and the circumstances so proved must form a complete chain of events, on the basis of which, no conclusion other than one of guilt of the accused can be reached. Undoubtedly, suspicion, however grave it may be, can never be treated as a substitute for proof. While dealing with a case of circumstantial evidence, the Court must take utmost precaution whilst finding an accused guilty, solely on the basis of the circumstances proved before it. 21. We now proceed to examine the' evidence on record on the touchstone of the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (supra) which a Court must follow while deciding a case based upon circumstantial evidence. Before evaluating the evidence of the four witnesses of fact produced by the prosecution during the trial, we propose to have a glance at the evidence of the formal witnesses examined during the trial. 22. P.W. 5 Constable Roop Singh stated before the Trial Court that on the basis of the written report (Ext. Ka.3) given at P.S.-Eka, District-Firozabad on 28.10.2005 at about 15.10 hours, he had registered Case Crime No. 175 of 2005 under section 302/201 I.P.C. and prepared the chick F.I.R. on the basis of the written report (Ext. 22. P.W. 5 Constable Roop Singh stated before the Trial Court that on the basis of the written report (Ext. Ka.3) given at P.S.-Eka, District-Firozabad on 28.10.2005 at about 15.10 hours, he had registered Case Crime No. 175 of 2005 under section 302/201 I.P.C. and prepared the chick F.I.R. on the basis of the written report (Ext. Ka.5) and recorded the gist of the prosecution case in a G.D. at serial No. 19 time 15.10 hours. He had proved the check F.I.R. (Ext. Ka.5) and the carbon copy of the G.D. Entry (Ext. Ka.6). 23. P.W. 6 Dr. B.P. Singh who had conducted the post-mortem on the body of the deceased Nem Singh on 29.10.2005 at 1 p.m., in his statement recorded before the Trial Court proved the post-mortem report of the deceased as (Ext. Ka.7). According to him, the deceased had died due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries inflicted on him by sharp-edged weapon about 2 ½-3 days before the date on which post-mortem was conducted on his body. Since, the post-mortem was conducted by P.W. 6 Dr. B.P. Singh on 29.10.2005 at about 1 p.m. and in his opinion, the deceased had died about 2 ½-3 days before the occurrence, the time of death of the deceased could be on 27.10.2005 at 1 a.m. 24. P.W. 7 S.I. Tikam Singh, the Investigating Officer of the case in his evidence tendered before the Trial Court narrated the different steps taken by him during the course of the investigation apart from proving the inquest report and the other related documents namely letter addressed to R.I., letter addressed to C.M.O., challan lash and photo lash prepared by him as (Exts. Ka.12 to Ka.15). Recovery memo of the crime weapon (Ext. Ka.9), site plan of the place of recovery of crime weapon (Ext. Ka.10), recovery memo of the clothes of the deceased (Ext. Ka.4), site plan of the place of recovery of deceased's clothes (Ext. Ka.11) and the charge-sheet (Ext. Ka.12). It is relevant to note that although P.W. 5 Roop Singh had deposed that P.W. 2 Kayam Singh had come to lodge the F.I.R. of the incident all alone but the statement of P.W. 2 Kayam Singh was recorded by P.W. 7 S.I. Tikam Singh at the place of incident. Ka.11) and the charge-sheet (Ext. Ka.12). It is relevant to note that although P.W. 5 Roop Singh had deposed that P.W. 2 Kayam Singh had come to lodge the F.I.R. of the incident all alone but the statement of P.W. 2 Kayam Singh was recorded by P.W. 7 S.I. Tikam Singh at the place of incident. He also deposed that the body of the deceased was identified by P.W. 2 Kayam Singh, wife of the deceased and several other persons who had gathered at the place of occurrence but he did not record the statements of P.W. 3 Bal Kumari. In his cross-examination on page 36 of the paper book, he further denied that he had any knowledge about the fact that the deceased's clothes were recovered on the pointing out of Ram-din (A1). He denied the suggestion given to him that at the time of the holding of the inquest, the F.I.R. of the incident was not in existence. 25. P.W. 8 S.I. Hempal Singh, the second Investigating Officer of the case stated that after he had arrested Jaiveer (A2) on 7.11.2005, he had confessed having committed the murder of Nem Singh and got the crime weapon 'banka' recovered on his pointing out from a place about 150 paces in the east of Kharja Nahar Pur. The recovery of crime weapon on the pointing out of Jaiveer (A2) was witnessed by Madhav and Munna Lal, residents of Nagla Moti. P.W. 8 S.I. Hempal Singh proved the recovery memo of the crime weapon as (Ext. Ka.9). He also stated that he had obtained police remand for Ramdin (A1) and Tehsildar (A3) on 22.11.2005 after they had surrendered before the concerned Magistrate on 17.11.2005 and on 23.11.2005 on the information divulged by Ramveer (A1) that he had thrown the deceased's body parts and his clothes in the canal, he was taken in police custody to Kharja Nahar Pur from the bushes in the canal. The clothes of the deceased were recovered by him in the presence of Farman and Bachchan Khan. However, deceased's body parts could not be recovered. He proved the recovery memo of the deceased's clothes (Ext. Ka.4) as well as the site plan of place of recovery of the deceased's clothes as (Ext. Ka.11) and the charge-sheet (Ext. Ka.12). The clothes of the deceased were recovered by him in the presence of Farman and Bachchan Khan. However, deceased's body parts could not be recovered. He proved the recovery memo of the deceased's clothes (Ext. Ka.4) as well as the site plan of place of recovery of the deceased's clothes as (Ext. Ka.11) and the charge-sheet (Ext. Ka.12). He however admitted in his cross-examination on page 39 of the paper book that he had not got the clothes of the deceased identified by his family members. 26. P.W. 8 Constable Kartar Singh deposed before the Trial Court that the deceased's clothes were recovered from bushes on the pointing out of Ramdin (A1) pursuant to confession made by him after he was taken on police remand. 27. Thus, from the perusal of the evidence of formal witnesses, it transpires that after the headless dead body of the deceased was recovered on 15.10.2005, the F.I.R. of the incident was lodged by P.W. 2 informant Kayam Singh at P.S.- Eka, District-Firozabad on 28.10.2005 at 15.10 hours. The inquest on the body of deceased was conducted by P.W. 7 S.I. Tikam Singh. The inquest proceedings commenced at 16 hours and continued till 16.55 hours on 28.10.2005. The dead body of Nem Singh was sealed at 16.35 hours and dispatched for post-mortem examination. The post-mortem on the headless body of deceased was conducted on 29.10.2005 at about 1 p.m. by P.W. 6 Dr. B.P. Singh. According to his opinion, the deceased had died due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries noted on his dead body which were caused by some sharp-edged weapon. The probable time of the death of the deceased was about 2 ½-3 days preceding the time of post-mortem examination which comes to 1 a.m. on 27.10.2005. The prosecution tried to establish the guilt of the accused-appellants by relying upon the evidence of P.W. 3 Bal Kumari, wife of the deceased who had stated that she and her husband were harvesting their maize crops on 26.10.2005 and at about 5 p.m., all the three appellants came to their field and took away the deceased with them on the pretext of setting the terms of compromise with regard to cases pertaining to land which were pending between them in the Civil Court. Nem Singh went with the appellants towards the Nahar and thereafter her husband did not return. Nem Singh went with the appellants towards the Nahar and thereafter her husband did not return. She, her mother-in-law and her sister-in-law made every possible effort to search the deceased but could not find him. They also searched him on the next day but without any success. Her brother-in-law P.W. 2 Kayam Singh who was in police service, was posted in Agra. She had sent message to him through some other constable but he did not convey the aforesaid information to her brother-in-law. Her brother-in-law P.W. 2 informant Kayam Singh arrived at his village on the third day. She then narrated the whole incident to him on which her brother-in-law also started searching the deceased but he could not be found. His dead body was found on the bank of the canal cut into 3-4 parts. After the dead body had been recovered, P.W. 2 informant Kayam Singh had informed her on which she, her mother-in-law and sister-in-law went along with a large number of villagers to the bank of canal and identified the dead body as that of Nem Singh. She was certain that the accused-appellants who were present in the Court, had committed the murder of her husband. In her cross-examination, she stated that she had tried to stop her husband from going that the accused-appellants but still they had taken him away with them. In her cross-examination, she denied that her husband was sent to jail or that any case was pending against him. She also denied the suggestion that the appellants had not taken her husband and that her brother-in-law P.W. 2 informant Kayam Singh had falsely implicated the appellants due to enmity between them arising out of pendency of civil litigation. 28. Nothing much turns upon the evidence of P.W. 2 informant Kayam Singh. He had deposed that he was working in the police department and at the relevant time, he was on duty in Kharja Nahar Pur where he had received information about his brother going missing on 28.10.2005 at 8 p.m. and upon receiving the aforesaid information, he had rushed to his village where her sister-in-law had told her everything. He had searched for his brother but he could not be found. He had discovered a dead body of his brother from the northern bank of Nagla Moti Nahar Kharja. He had searched for his brother but he could not be found. He had discovered a dead body of his brother from the northern bank of Nagla Moti Nahar Kharja. He had identified it as that of his brother and thereafter, he had gone to his house and informed his sister-in-law. He however, in his cross-examination on page 15 of the paper book deposed that the dead body of his brother was recovered at about 1.30 p.m. from a place which was at a distance of about 400 kms from his village. The head and legs of the deceased's body had been severed. After the recovery of the dead body, he had gone to inform his sister-in-law and other relatives about the recovery of the deceased's headless dead body. Then he stated that he had gone from the place from where the body was lying, to his village to inform his sister-in-law and other relatives and had returned to the place of incident after about ½ hours. The police station was at a distance of 8 kms. from the place of incident. He had left for the police station at about 2.30 p.m. with Vinod, the son of his brother-in-law, on a motorcycle. By that time, the police had not arrived at the place of incident. He had reached the police station to lodge the F.I.R. at 15.10 hours. He also admitted that a case under section 307 I.P.C. was pending against his brother apart from two other cases. 29. However, facts stated by P.W. 2 informant Kayam Singh in his evidence recorded before the Trial Court stands totally falsified from the evidence of P.W.1 Jagdish Chandra, Pradhan of the village. P.W. 1 stated before the Trial Court that at about 3 p.m. on 28.10.2005, the headless dead body which had been cut into several pieces was found lying on the bank of Nagla Moti. Since the place where the dead body was found was within the limits of his Gram Panchayat, as soon as he heard about the dead body lying on the banks of the canal, he reached there but the identity of the body could not be ascertained. The police had also arrived at the place of incident. The inquest report and recovery memo of plain and blood-stained earth were prepared in his presence and read over to him. The police had also arrived at the place of incident. The inquest report and recovery memo of plain and blood-stained earth were prepared in his presence and read over to him. It is noteworthy that P.W. 1 Jagdish Chandra, in his statement, has neither stated about presence of P.W. 2 informant Kayam Singh and P.W. 3 Bal Kumari at the place where the dead body was found. It is also relevant to note that this witness was neither declared hostile nor he was recalled by the D.G.C. (Criminal) for clarification of the facts deposed by him in the examination-in-chief in the light of evidence given by P.W. 2 informant Kayam Singh. Thus, if what P.W. 1 Jagdish Chandra who is an independent witness has deposed before the Trial Court, is believed to be true, then the whole prosecution story as spelt out in the written report of the incident (Ext. Ka.3) which was scribed by P.W. 2 informant Kayam Singh and later testified by P.W. 2 informant Kayam Singh and P.W. 3 Bal Kumari that the body of the deceased was recovered at about 1.30 p.m. on 28.10.2005 by P.W. 2 informant Kayam Singh and after the recovery of the dead body, he had gone to his house in the village to inform his sister-in-law and other relatives and thereafter, he with his sister-in-law and other villagers, had returned to the place where the dead body of the deceased was lying and had then gone to the police station on a motorcycle with the son of the deceased to lodge the written report of the incident (Ext. Ka.3) which was registered on 03.10 p.m., stands totally falsified. If the dead body of the deceased was recovered on 28.5.2005 at 3 p.m. then the F.I.R. of the incident could not have been registered at P.S.-Eka which is at a distance of about 8 km from the place of occurrence as deposed by P.W. 2 Kayam Singh in his cross-examination and if the F.I.R. could not be registered at 3.10 hours in view of the evidence of P.W. 1 Jagdish Chandra then the possibility of the inquest and the other papers being prepared much after the time mentioned thereon on which case crime was mentioned, cannot be ruled out. 30. 30. Another circumstance of the case which indicates that the F.I.R. in this case is ante-timed is that the dead body of the deceased was delivered to P.W. 6 Dr. B.P. Singh on 29.10.2005 at about 1 p.m. although from the evidence of P.W. 7 S.I. Tikam Singh, it is proved that the inquest proceedings had completed at 16.45 hours. No explanation is coming forth from the side of the prosecution for the inordinate delay in delivering the body of deceased at the District Hospital for post-mortem examination. The prosecution has also failed to lead any evidence to prove that the special report of the case was forward to the Superior Officer promptly. Thus, the contradiction between the statements of P.W. 1 Jagdish Chandra and P.W. 2 informant Kayam Singh with regard to the time at which the body of the deceased was recovered, evinces that P.W. 2 informant Kayam Singh had not spoken the truth before the Trial Court that the dead body of his brother was recovered on 28.5.2007 at 1.30 a.m. by him. 31. Thus, we have no hesitation in holding that the F.I.R. in this case is ante-timed. 32. It is also being contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the inordinate and unexplained delay of almost 48 hours on the part of P.W. 3 Bal Kumari to lodge the F.I.R. after her husband Nem Singh had gone with the appellants who were inimical towards him at 5 p.m. on 26.5.2005 and had not returned, is in itself indicative of the fact that the identity of the accused was not known to either P.W. 2 informant Kayam Singh or P.W. 3 Bal Kumari. It is proved from the evidence of P.W. 1 Jagdish Chandra that when the body of deceased was recovered, the police had also arrived there and in case the police had arrived at the place of incident before the lodging of the F.I.R., in that case, the possibility of the F.I.R. of the incident being prepared after due deliberations and consultations with the police, cannot be ruled out. In the normal course when the husband of P.W. 3 Bal Kumari who according to her, had left with the appellants who harboured animosity towards him, did not return in the evening and she after searching him on the next day, had not found him, she should have with the help of other villagers or with the help of Pradhan could have lodged the F.I.R. at the police station within a reasonable time but she did not do so. She rather deposed that she had sent information to P.W. 2 informant Kayam Singh who was posted in police in Agra on 27.5.2007 through some other constable but the said information could be communicated to P.W. 2 informant Kayam Singh till 10 p.m. on 28.10.2005 and he reached his village on the next day early in the morning. Even then P.W. 2 informant Kayam Singh did not lodge the F.I.R. of the incident. The explanation given by P.W. 2 informant Kayam Singh and P.W. 3 Bal Kumari for the inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R., does not appear to be plausible and acceptable. Even the name of the police constable to whom information of her husband going with the appellants and not returning was given by her, has not been disclosed either by P.W. 2 informant Kayam Singh and P.W. 3 Bal Kumari. The mode of giving information has also been suppressed. The delay in lodging the F.I.R. deprives it of the advantage of spontaneity. In this case we have found the explanation furnished for the delay of almost 48 hours in lodging of the F.I.R. to be unsatisfactory. Hence, the delay in this case is fatal to the prosecution and the recorded conviction of the appellants on the basis of the prosecution story spelt out in the F.I.R., credibility whereof itself stands shattered, cannot be sustained. 33. In the instant case, apart from the last seen evidence of P.W. 3 Bal Kumari, there is no other circumstance to link the appellants with the murder of the deceased. 33. In the instant case, apart from the last seen evidence of P.W. 3 Bal Kumari, there is no other circumstance to link the appellants with the murder of the deceased. Sri Indrapal Singh Rajput, learned A.G.A. for the State has submitted that the recovery of crime weapon on the pointing out of Jaiveer (A2) pursuant to the disclosure statement made by him to the police after his arrest and the recovery of the deceased's clothes from the bushes and the canal by Ramdin (A1) are circumstances which provide material links in the chain of evidence, proving the complicity of the appellants in the murder of the deceased. As far as the circumstance of recovery of crime weapon 'banka' on the pointing out of Jaiveer (A2) and deceased's clothes by Ramdin (A1) are concerned, we do not find that the prosecution has been able to prove by leading any cogent evidence that the aforesaid recoveries were made pursuant to the disclosure statements made before the police after their arrest. In order to bring the recoveries within the ambit of section 27 of the Evidence Act, it was imperative for the prosecution to establish that the recovery was made pursuant to the confession made by the accused after his arrest. In the instant case, P.W. 8 S.I. Hempal Singh, the second Investigating Officer of the case has deposed that the confessional statement of Ramdin (A1) after his police remand was obtained by him was recorded in writing but the confessional statement was not proved by him by exhibiting the same. Similarly, the confessional statement of Jaiveer (A2) was also not proved. Moreover, neither the crime weapon 'banka' nor the alleged clothes of the deceased were sent for forensic examination. The alleged crime weapon 'banka' was not even exhibited as deposed by P.W. 8 S.I. Hempal Singh in his cross-examination on page 41 of the paper book. The two independent witnesses of recovery of crime weapon on the alleged pointing out of Jaiveer (A2) were not produced during the trial. The clothes of the deceased were not got identified by the Investigating Officer by his relatives for ascertaining whether the clothes actually belonged to the deceased or not. The two independent witnesses of recovery of crime weapon on the alleged pointing out of Jaiveer (A2) were not produced during the trial. The clothes of the deceased were not got identified by the Investigating Officer by his relatives for ascertaining whether the clothes actually belonged to the deceased or not. Hence, in our opinion, the prosecution failed to lead any evidence to link the crime weapon with the murder and to prove that the clothes recovered on the alleged pointing out of Ramdin (A1) belonged to the deceased. 34. Thus, under the facts and circumstances, we do not consider it fit to confirm the recorded conviction of the appellants only on the basis of last seen evidence of P.W. 3 Bal Kumari, wife of the deceased. Her evidence also does not appear to be fully reliable for the reasons, we have already discussed hereinabove. The conduct of P.W. 3 Bal Kumari in allowing her husband to go with the appellants who were his bitter enemies and not lodging any F.I.R. even when he failed to return home till the next morning defies all logic and is not at all in consonance with normal human behavior under such circumstances. If the identity of the persons with whom her husband had gone, was known to her then she would have lodged the F.I.R. against the appellants promptly and she would not have waited for her brother-in-law to come from Agra on the third day after her husband had gone with the appellants and had not returned. The instant case is of the year 2005. The means of communication had fully developed by then. There were P.C.Os. in every nook and corner of the country and most of the people carried cellphones. P.W. 3 Bal Kumari was not residing all alone. It has come in her evidence that when her husband had not returned, she had searched for him with her sister-in-law and mother-in-law. Moreover, if she had contacted Pradhan of the village, he would have definitely come for her assistance and helped her in lodging of the F.I.R. promptly. 35. Thus, in view of the foregoing discussions, we find that the circumstances from which the prosecution endeavoured to establish the guilt of the appellants are neither fully established nor the same are of a conclusive nature excluding every possible hypothesis except that of the guilt of the appellants. 35. Thus, in view of the foregoing discussions, we find that the circumstances from which the prosecution endeavoured to establish the guilt of the appellants are neither fully established nor the same are of a conclusive nature excluding every possible hypothesis except that of the guilt of the appellants. There is no chain of evidence so complete in this case so as not to leave any reasonable ground for conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and showing that in all human perspectives the crime had been committed by the appellants. 36. In our opinion, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused-appellants beyond all reasonable doubts and hence, they are entitled to benefit of doubt. These are the reasons upon which we had allowed this appeal.