JUDGMENT : VINIT KUMAR MATHUR, J. 1. The present appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the appellant Prakash Chandra against the judgment dated 29/04/2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Udaipur in Sessions Case No. 39/2013, whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Offence Sentence Fine In default 302 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs. 5,000/- 6 months simple imprisonment. 201 IPC Three Years S.I. Rs. 2,000/- 3 months simple imprisonment. 397 IPC Seven years S.I. 398 IPC Seven years S.I. 2. The prosecution story, in short, emanates from a written report (Ex. P.4) filed by PW. 3 Pappu Lal to the SHO, Police Station Fatehnagar on 22.01.2008 alleging inter alia that Smt. Nani Bai W/o Late Shri Moti Ji Mali who was his distant relative, was missing from the house since evening of 19/01/2008. She was searched by family members in the vicinity and at the houses of relatives but she could not be traced till 21/01/2008. Therefore, a Missing Person Report was lodged at Police Station Fatehnagar on 22/01/2008. Thereafter, entire family went to search Nani Bai. While searching in the fields located on the rear side of her house, certain trampled plants of mustard were seen. They became suspicious and went further into the field amidst standing crops where certain plants were trampled and fallen flat. Upon looking 50 feet away from that place, they saw the dead body of Nani Bai lying on the ground. Both the legs above ankle were amputated and there was a cut injury on the left side of her cheek. She had been murdered by some unknown person. Police Station Faten Nagar was immediately informed. Police came on the spot. Narayan Singh, Narlal Mali, Ratanlal etc. also reached at the place of incident. The ornaments usually worn by Nani Bai were missing from the body. 3. On the aforesaid written report, a formal FIR No. 13/2008 was registered against the accused for the offence under Sections 302/201 IPC at the Police Station Faten Nagar, District Udaipur. 4. After completion of the investigation, police filed a charge-sheet against the accused-appellant for the offence under Sections 302, 201, 397 & 398 IPC. 5. Learned Trial Court framed, read over and explained the charges for the offence under Sections 302, 201, 397 & 398 I.P.C to the accused-appellant who denied the charges and sought trial. 6. 4. After completion of the investigation, police filed a charge-sheet against the accused-appellant for the offence under Sections 302, 201, 397 & 398 IPC. 5. Learned Trial Court framed, read over and explained the charges for the offence under Sections 302, 201, 397 & 398 I.P.C to the accused-appellant who denied the charges and sought trial. 6. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 27 witnesses and 40 documents were exhibited. 7. The accused-appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and he was confronted with the evidence adduced against him during the course of trial which he denied and stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case. 8. Learned trial Court, after hearing the arguments from both the sides, taking into consideration and appreciating the documentary evidence and the statement of witnesses, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as above vide judgment dated 29/04/2016. Hence this appeal. 9. We have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently and fervently argued that in the present case, there is no evidence worth credence to sustain the conviction of the appellant. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the offences alleged against the appellant. Even the chain of circumstances is not so complete which points towards the guilt of the accused-appellant. The prosecution has only on the basis of recoveries allegedly effected on the information supplied by the appellant under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act falsely enroped him in the case. There is no evidence of last seen against the appellant. 11. He further contends that the recoveries have been effected after a delay of 14 months. The recovery of the ornaments is also doubtful as PW. 18 Manish Kumar stated that PW. 17 Champak Lal procured the ornaments from the market which were seized by the police. Those ornaments were not seized from his shop. PW. 11 Roshan also stated that the ornaments which were identified by him were not placed with similar other ornaments during the identification parade conducted by the Tehsildar. PW. 16 Ganesh is the witness of recovery of sliver bangles (Kadiya) but he admitted that the place from where the bangles were recovered was an open place. He further urges that PW. 11 Roshan also stated that the ornaments which were identified by him were not placed with similar other ornaments during the identification parade conducted by the Tehsildar. PW. 16 Ganesh is the witness of recovery of sliver bangles (Kadiya) but he admitted that the place from where the bangles were recovered was an open place. He further urges that PW. 23 Yogendra Kumar who was working as Sub Tehsildar, Mavli stated that when the recovered material i.e. two silver bangles, one Ramnavmi, earrings and one pair of Oganiya were being identified, no other similar articles were placed along with them. 12. He further contends that the appellant was arrested on 25/10/2009 vide arrest memo (Ex. P.33) after a period of one year and ten months without any evidence connecting him with the offence. In these circumstances, learned counsel submits that the recovery of the articles which is otherwise manipulated does not establish the involvement of the present appellant. 13. On the other hand, learned public prosecutor has supported impugned judgment dated 29/04/2016 and contends that the prosecution had been able to prove the allegations against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. The prosecution on the strength of recoveries effected on the information supplied by the accused-appellant under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that it was none other than the appellant who committed the murder of Nani Bai. The weapon of offence i.e. Kulhari was recovered vide Recovery Memo (Ex. P.36) on the information supplied by the accused-appellant under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act which shows that it was used for amputating the legs of Nani Bai and, thereafter her Kadiyas were looted and sold at the shop of PW. 17 Champak Lal. He, therefore, contends that the conviction is required to be sustained and no interference is called for. 14. We have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have carefully and threadbare perused the entire evidence available on record. 15. There is no eye witness in the case and, therefore, it is a case of circumstantial evidence. PW. 11 Roshan being grand son of deceased Nani Bai stated that when his grand mother was not found in the house, a search was made and police was informed. 15. There is no eye witness in the case and, therefore, it is a case of circumstantial evidence. PW. 11 Roshan being grand son of deceased Nani Bai stated that when his grand mother was not found in the house, a search was made and police was informed. When they found the dead body of Nani Bai, her legs were amputated and the ornaments from her body were missing. When he went to the Mavli Court, he was shown the ornaments. In the cross-examination, this witness has identified the ornaments but stated that no other ornaments besides the ornaments belonged to his grand mother were present and shown. 16. PW. 16 Ganesh is the witness of recovery of silver bangles and he stated that the bangles were recovered after digging the field of Madhu Kumar. 17. PW. 17 Champak Lal stated that he is the owner of the shop Trupati Balaji Jewellers. He further stated that Prakash brought three things at his shop i.e. Oganiya, Ramnavmi and Gotiya. When he bought these ornaments, Manish Soni was also present at his shop. In his cross-examination, he stated that on the pretext of the wife being ill, Prakash was in need of some money and, therefore, after taking the ornaments, he paid him Rs. 6000-6500. 18. PW. 18 Manish Kumar stated that he was present at the shop of Champak Bhai (PW. 17) when police brought Prakash. Police took Oganiya, Ramnavmi and Totiya from the shop. In the cross-examination, this witness stated that police took away Champak Bhai. Champak Bhai bought Oganiya, Totiya & Ramnavmi from the market and gave the same to the police. The police prepared the memos in the shop on which he affixed his signatures. 19. PW. 20 Dr. Anupam Johari who conducted the autopsy upon the dead body of the deceased has described the injuries and the dimensions of the injuries sustained by the deceased. 20. PW. 23 Yogendra Kumar who was working as Sub Tehsildar at Mavli was present at the time of identification of the ornaments i.e. two silver bangles, one Ramnavmi and pair of Totiya and Oganiya each. He stated that no other ornaments were kept along with these ornaments during the identification parade. 21. PW. 24 Krishan Gopal who was working as Tehsildar, Mavli stated that sealed cover was opened in front of him which contained the ornaments. At that time, PW. He stated that no other ornaments were kept along with these ornaments during the identification parade. 21. PW. 24 Krishan Gopal who was working as Tehsildar, Mavli stated that sealed cover was opened in front of him which contained the ornaments. At that time, PW. 23 Yogendra, Sub Tehsildar, Malvi and PW. 21 Panna Lal Regar, Office Assistant were present. Thereafter, PW. 21 Roshan Lal identified the articles belonging to his grand mother. 22. PW. 25 Tara Chand is the Police Officer who investigated the matter. During the course of investigation, he recorded statements of witnesses, collected samples, prepared memos in accordance with the provisions of law and has submitted the charge sheet before the Court of competent jurisdiction. 23. Ex. P.33 is the arrest memo of the appellant. Ex. P.34 is the information given by the accused-appellant under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act with respect to the silver ornaments and Kulhari. Ex. P.20 is the postmortem report wherein the cause of death was shown as smothering causing asphyxia. 24. The entire case of the prosecution is based on the recoveries effected on the information of accused-appellant supplied under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. 25. We note that PW. 16 Ganesh is the attesting witness of the recovery of silver bangles. He stated that the same were recovered from the field of Madhu Kumar which was an open place and situated in the deserted and isolated location. 26. PW. 17 Champak Lal who is the owner of the shop stated that he paid Rs. 6000-6500 for the ornaments which were received by the appellant. He did not mention as to when the same were received and he also stated that Manish Kumar was present at the time when the ornaments were handed over by the accused-appellant. But PW. 18 Manish Kumar in his testimony stated that PW. 17 Champak Lal was taken away by the Police and he returned after one and half hour and the ornaments were purchased from the market and handed over to the police by him. Therefore, the statement of PW. 17 Champak Lal that the ornaments were taken by him from the appellant in lieu of Rs. 6000-6500 becomes highly doubtful and unreliable. 27. The identification of the recovered articles is also seriously under doubt as PW. Therefore, the statement of PW. 17 Champak Lal that the ornaments were taken by him from the appellant in lieu of Rs. 6000-6500 becomes highly doubtful and unreliable. 27. The identification of the recovered articles is also seriously under doubt as PW. 24 Krishan Gopal in his testimony stated that the recovered articles were mixed with other silver ornaments and the same were identified by Roshan. But PW. 23 Yogendra Kumar stated that the recovered articles were not mixed with any other article which were identified by Roshan. 28. Similarly, PW. 21 Panna Lal Regar, Office Assistant of Tehsildar PW. 24 Krishan Gopal who was present at the time of identification of articles has stated that he signed the papers as submitted by Tehsildar Saheb since he was working as a Reader in his office. 29. PW. 11 Roshan has stated that while identifying the articles/ornaments in the Court, there were no other ornaments other than the recovered articles placed before him for identification, therefore, nothing was left to be identified by this witness as only those ornaments/articles were placed before him which was identified by this witness. 30. Since the recovered articles were not identified at any point of time and the fact which has come in the testimony of PW. 18 Manish Kumar that those articles were purchased by PW. 17 Champak Lal and handed over to the police, we are of the view that the recovery itself is highly doubtful. 31. The recovery has been effected after a period of more than one year and ten months as the appellant was arrested on 25/10/2009 and on his information only, the same has been effected. The delay in recovery of the articles itself weakens the case of prosecution as there is no satisfactory explanation put forth by the prosecution for not arresting the accused-appellant for all this period. 32. In view of the discussion made in the preceding paragraph, the identification and the recovery of the ornaments is seriously questionable and doubtful in the present case. 33. The recovery of Kulhari at the instance of the accused-appellant is of no consequences as the same was not sent for FSL logically for the reason that sending the same after more than one and half years will not bear any fruitful result. 34. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sonu @ Amar Vs. 33. The recovery of Kulhari at the instance of the accused-appellant is of no consequences as the same was not sent for FSL logically for the reason that sending the same after more than one and half years will not bear any fruitful result. 34. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sonu @ Amar Vs. State of Haryana reported in AIR 2017 SC 3441 has held that in the case of circumstantial evidence, certain principles are to be followed which are as under: “1. The circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be proved must be cogently or firmly established. 2. The circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused. 3. The circumstances taken cumulatively must form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused and none else. 4. The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.” 35. Keeping in mind the above principles we are of the view that the evidence available on record is not sufficient to hold the appellant guilty of the offences alleged in the case. 36. In wake of the discussion made above, we are of the firm opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt as the distance between “may be true” and “must be true” has not been travelled successfully by the prosecution in the present case Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the impart of such situation in the case of Sarwan Singh Vs. The State of Punjab reported in AIR 1957 SC 637 which is as under: “In his cross-examination Dr. Singh admitted that injury No. I could have been caused by razor blade as suggested by the counsel for Sarwan Singh and injuries Nos. 2 to 4 could have been caused by rubbing against some hard substance. In other words, on medical evidence it is difficult to reject the explanation of the accused as unreasonable or palpably untrue. Then we have the evidence of bloodstains on the shirt and chadar worn by Sarwan Singh. 2 to 4 could have been caused by rubbing against some hard substance. In other words, on medical evidence it is difficult to reject the explanation of the accused as unreasonable or palpably untrue. Then we have the evidence of bloodstains on the shirt and chadar worn by Sarwan Singh. If the explanation given by Sarwan Singh about his injuries is not unreasonable then the presence of blood-stains on his dress cannot be seriously pressed against him. The evidence of Rakha about the negotiations and purchase of a pistol from him and about the part of Sarwan Singh in that transaction no doubt may suggest that Sarwan Singh was associated with the criminals but that is very far from proving the charge of murder against him. Incidentally, as we have already observed, if the pistol was purchased it is difficult to understand why it was not used. Then we have the evidence of the shoes which were found on the spot. The evidence of the shoe-maker Santa Singh suggests that he had identified the pair of shoes as belonging to Sarwan Singh that very night. According to him, he has been manufacturing shoes like this pair though not on a large scale’ Unfortunately, in his examination under S. 342 of the Code, no question had been put to Sarwan Singh about these shoes. It is not unlikely that Sarwan Singh may have offered to demonstrate that the shoes did not fit in with his feet. In any event, failure to give him an opportunity to explain the circumstances by putting an appropriate question to him under S. 342 justifies his argument that this circumstance should not be used against him. Besides, like the evidence given by Rakha, the identity of the shoes would also be a very minor circumstance in relation to the charge of murder for which Sarwan Singh is being tried. The result is that, if the approver’s evidence is discarded as unworthy of credit and his own retracted confession is excluded from consideration as not being voluntary or true, whatever circumstantial evidence remains is obviously insufficient to bring home to Sarwan Singh the charge framed against him. If that be the true position, we must hold that the learned Judges of the High Court were in error in convicting Sarwan Singh of the offence of murder. If that be the true position, we must hold that the learned Judges of the High Court were in error in convicting Sarwan Singh of the offence of murder. It is no doubt a matter of regret that a foul cold-blooded and cruel murder like the present should go unpunished. It may be as Mr. Gopal Singh strenuously urged before us that there is an element of truth in the prosecution story against both the appellants. Mr. Gopal Singh contended that considered as a whole, the prosecution story may be true; but between ‘may be true’ and ‘must be true’ there is inevitably a long distance to travel and the whole of this distance must be covered by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence. We have carefully considered all the arguments which Mr. Gopal Singh urged before us; but we do not think it would be possible to regard the approver as a reliable witness or to hold that the confession of Sarwan Singh is voluntary or true. In the result, the appeal preferred by Sarwan Singh must be allowed, the order of conviction and sentence passed against him must be set aside and he must be acquitted and discharged. Appeals allowed.” 37. Therefore, we are of the view that there is no evidence and circumstances which connect the accused-appellant with the commission of the offences alleged in the case and in our view, the charges levelled against the appellant have not been proved beyond all reasonable doubt against him and, therefore, the judgment dated 29/04/2016 convicting the accused-appellant for the offences alleged is required to be quashed and set aside. 38. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 29/04/2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Udaipur in Sessions Case No. 39/2013 is hereby quashed and set aside. The appellant Prakash Chandra S/o. Shri Narayan Lal Mali is acquitted of all the charges. He is in custody. He shall be released from prison forthwith if not wanted in any other case. 39. 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. The appellant Prakash Chandra S/o. Shri Narayan Lal Mali is acquitted of all the charges. He is in custody. He shall be released from prison forthwith if not wanted in any other case. 39. 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.