JUDGMENT : 1. Appellant has filed this appeal challenging the judgment/order dated 17.06.2013 passed by the Trial Court, whereby, he was convicted and sentenced qua offence punishable under Section 302 & 201 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’). 2. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 20.03.2010 at about 6.30 a.m., complainant Ranjeet Singh was going towards bus stand from his house. He came to know that a dead body of a person was lying on Patan road and blood stained clothes were lying in the bushes on Harmada Road. Then, he went to the spot and saw that near the fields of Madan Lal, dead body of a person was lying, by the side of the road. Head of the dead body appeared to have been crushed under the tyre of a vehicle. A Black thread (for neck) was lying broken near the dead body. The dead body was of a person aged about 25 to 30 years. 3. On the basis of the statement of the complainant, formal FIR No.25 dated 20.03.2010 was registered at police station Bandar Sindri, District Ajmer under Section 302 & 201 IPC. Thereafter, investigation of the case started. Site plan of the place of recovery of the dead body was prepared. Articles lying at the spot were taken in possession. Tanker No. RJ.19.GA. 8830 was taken in possession by the police of Police Station Shivdaspura, Jaipur Rural under Section 102 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) on 22.03.2010 at 6.30 p.m. The said tanker was then brought to Police Station Bandar Sindri on 25.03.2010. The blood stained articles from the tanker were taken in possession by the police. From bushes on the road leading from Harmada to Tiloniya, one blood stained mattress and clothes were recovered on information received by the police and the same were taken in possession. Dead body was sent for postmortem examination. 4. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against the appellant. 5. Charges were framed against the appellant under Section 302, 201 I.P.C. Appellant did not plead guilty to the charges framed against him and claimed trial. 6. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined twenty six witnesses, during trial. Appellant when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., after the close of prosecution evidence prayed that he was innocent and had been falsely involved in this case. 6. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined twenty six witnesses, during trial. Appellant when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., after the close of prosecution evidence prayed that he was innocent and had been falsely involved in this case. 7. Appellant did not examine any witness in his defence. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that it was a case of no evidence. Prosecution had failed to complete the chain of circumstances leading towards the guilt of the appellant. 9. Learned state counsel has opposed the appeal and has placed reliance on the testimony of PW-16 Shivratan. 10. Present case relates to murder of Hanumandan. Case rests on circumstantial evidence. 11. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Padala Veera Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. ( AIR 1990 SC 79 ), as under :- “10. …….. This Court in a series of decisions has consistently held that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence such evidence must satisfy the following tests : (1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; (2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; (3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should 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; and (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. (See Gambhir v. State of Maharashtra).” 12. It has also been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Brajendrasingh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 2012 Supreme Court 1552, as under:- “There is no doubt that it is not a case of direct evidence but the conviction of the accused is founded on circumstantial evidence. It is a settled principle of law that the prosecution has to satisfy certain conditions before a conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be sustained. It is a settled principle of law that the prosecution has to satisfy certain conditions before a conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be sustained. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established and should also be consistent with only one hypothesis, i.e. the guilt of the accused. The circumstances should be conclusive and proved by the prosecution. There must be a chain of events so complete so as not to leave any substantial doubt in the mind of the Court. Irresistibly, the evidence should lead to the conclusion inconsistent with the innocence of the accused and the only possibility that the accused has committed the crime. To put it simply, the circumstances forming the chain of events should be proved and they should cumulatively point towards the guilt of the accused alone. In such circumstances, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person. Furthermore, the rule which needs to be observed by the Court while dealing with the cases of circumstantial evidence is that the best evidence must be adduced which the nature of the case admits. The circumstances have to be examined cumulatively. The Court has to examine the complete chain of events and then see whether all the material facts sought to be established by the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused, have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. It has to be kept in mind that all these principles are based upon one basic cannon of our criminal jurisprudence that the accused is innocent till proven guilty and that the accused is entitled to a just and fair trial.” 13. Let us examine the evidence led by the prosecution to come to a conclusion as to whether the prosecution had been successful in completing the chain of circumstances leading towards guilt of the appellant. 14. PW-1 Kanaram deposed that site plan Exhibit-P.1 was prepared in his presence. 15. PW-2 Ranjeet-complainant has deposed as per the contents of the FIR and has deposed that the dead body as well as other articles from the spot were taken in possession by the police. 16. 14. PW-1 Kanaram deposed that site plan Exhibit-P.1 was prepared in his presence. 15. PW-2 Ranjeet-complainant has deposed as per the contents of the FIR and has deposed that the dead body as well as other articles from the spot were taken in possession by the police. 16. PW-3 Madan Lal has deposed with regard to the preparation of site plan Exhibit-P.11 and articles recovered from the bushes at Tiloniya-Harmada Road. 17. PW-4 Hanuman Singh deposed with regard to the panchnama Exhibit-P.12 prepared with regard to the recovery of dead body. He also deposed that the dead body after postmortem examination was handed over vide Exhibit-P.30. 18. PW-5 has corroborated the statement of W-4. 19. PW-6 Mahaveer Singh deposed that he knew the deceased. On 19/20.03.2010 his wife had received a phone-call from the police station with regard to recovery of a tanker lying abandoned. After reading the newspaper, he went to the spot where the dead body was lying and had identified the dead body of Hanumandan. He later came to know that the tanker had come from Sirohi but name of the Khalasi could not be found out. 20. PW-7 Dr. P.C. Agarwal proved the postmortem report of the deceased Exhibit-P.16. 21. PW-8 Dr. P.C. Patni and PW-9 Dr. Ashok Jain corroborated the statement of PW-7. 22. PW-10 Punnilal deposed that on 22.03.2010 at about 6.30 p.m., a tanker bearing No. RJ.19.GA.8830 was taken in possession vide Exhibit-P.17 under Section 102 Cr.P.C. Two mobile-phones were recovered from the tanker and were taken in possession vide Exhibit-P.18. The documents of the tanker were taken in possession vide Exhibit-P.19. On 10.02.2012, appellant was arrested vide memo Exhibit-P.20. On the basis of the disclosure statement suffered by the appellant, the site plan Exhibit-P.21 with regard to the place of incident was prepared. On 11.02.2012, one quilt/blanket etc. were taken in possession on the basis of the disclosure statement suffered by the appellant. On 12.02.2012 one blood stained dari was taken in possession vide Exhibit-P.26. Vide Exhibit-P.27 one blood stained sweater was taken in possession. One old leather purse and photo identity card and licence of deceased were recovered at the instance of the appellant vide Exhibit-P.28. 23. PW-11 Karan Singh has corroborated the statement of PW-10 with regard to recovery of the tanker and two mobile-phones from the said tanker. 24. Vide Exhibit-P.27 one blood stained sweater was taken in possession. One old leather purse and photo identity card and licence of deceased were recovered at the instance of the appellant vide Exhibit-P.28. 23. PW-11 Karan Singh has corroborated the statement of PW-10 with regard to recovery of the tanker and two mobile-phones from the said tanker. 24. PW-12 Omprakash deposed that the tanker was taken in possession in his presence and two mobile-phones were recovered from the same. 25. PW-13 Rakesh did not support the prosecution case and stated that he did not know the deceased and the appellant. 26. PW-14 Aaidan deposed that deceased was his grandson and was staying with him. Deceased was working as a driver. Before his death, deceased had driven the tanker belonging to Bhanwar Lal Choudhary. Earlier deceased used to drive the vehicle alone, but thereafter appellant was also employed on the tanker but he did not know the appellant. His relatives had informed him that Hanuman Singh had died. 27. PW-15 Agen, grandmother of the deceased deposed as per the statement of PW-14. 28. PW-16 Shivratan deposed that he knew Hanuman Singh who used to drive the tanker. He (witness) was also a tanker driver. Hanuman Singh used to drive the vehicle of some person from Jodhpur and appellant was working as a Khalasi with him. He knew the appellant. He had gone to fill up his tanker at Sirohi and at that time Hanuman Singh was also getting his vehicle filled up. At that time, Hanuman Singh was accompanied by Surendra Singh-appellant. He had met Hanuman Singh and Surendra Singh at Sirohi about five-six days prior to the incident. 29. PW-17 Kuldeep Singh, PW-18 Rajendra Prasad, PW-20 Bhanwar Ram and PW-25 Ganesh are the police officials who were the part of the investigation. 30. PW-19 Prem Kanwar deposed that he was married to Hanuman Singh in the year 2006. Her husband used to drive an oil tanker belonging to Bhanwarlal Choudhary. On 19.03.2010 her husband had told her that he was going to Niwai, Tonk with the tanker. She came to know about death of her husband after two days. 31. PW-20 Bhanwar Ram deposed that on 25.03.2010 recoveries from the tanker-in-question bearing no. RJ.19.GA.8830 were effected in his presence. The said tanker was being driven by Hanuman Singh. On 19.03.2010 her husband had told her that he was going to Niwai, Tonk with the tanker. She came to know about death of her husband after two days. 31. PW-20 Bhanwar Ram deposed that on 25.03.2010 recoveries from the tanker-in-question bearing no. RJ.19.GA.8830 were effected in his presence. The said tanker was being driven by Hanuman Singh. On 25.03.2010 he had received a phone-call that the tanker had been found in an abandoned condition. He was the owner of the tanker-in-question. 32. PW-21 Smriti Ranjan deposed that on 19.03.2010 tanker bearing No. RJ.19.GA.8830 had left for Tonk from Sirohi after filling up diesel and petrol. The tanker was being driven by Hanuman Singh. 33. PW-22 Madanlal deposed that appellant was arrested vide Exhibit-P.20 on 10.02.2012. 34. PW-23 Ganesh and PW-24 Bhanwar Singh did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile. 35. PW-26 Arpan Choudhary was the Investigating Officer of the case and has deposed with regard to investigation conducted by him. 36. A perusal of the evidence led by the prosecution reveals that the prosecution had failed to bring forth any motive available with the appellant to have committed the murder of the deceased. Prosecution had not examined any witness to the effect that on the day of incident, appellant had also left with the deceased in the tanker-in-question. 37. Much reliance has been placed on the testimony of PW-16 by the learned state counsel but the said witness has deposed that he had seen the appellant and the deceased at Sirohi about five-six days prior to the incident. Thus, statement of PW-16 also fails to advance the prosecution story as the said witness had not seen the appellant leaving with the deceased in the tanker-in-question on the day of incident. 38. In the present case, the best prosecution witness could have been PW-20 Bhanwar Ram owner of the tanker-in-question. The said witness has not deposed that on the day of incident, appellant had left with the vehicle as a Khalasi alongwith the deceased. 39. Thus, from a perusal of the entire evidence led by the prosecution discussed above it can be said that the present case is a case of no evidence. The prosecution has failed to bring on record chain of circumstances leading towards the guilt of the accused/appellant and negating his innocence. 40. 39. Thus, from a perusal of the entire evidence led by the prosecution discussed above it can be said that the present case is a case of no evidence. The prosecution has failed to bring on record chain of circumstances leading towards the guilt of the accused/appellant and negating his innocence. 40. Thus, prosecution has failed to establish its case against the appellant by leading cogent and convincing evidence. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant is liable to be acquitted of the charges framed against him. 41. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. Impugned Judgment/order dated 17.06.2013 passed by the Trial Court are set aside. Appellant is acquitted of the charges framed against him. Appellant who is in custody, be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. 42. In view of the provisions of Section 437-A Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, appellant-Surendra Singh S/o Late Shri Sampat Singh 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.