Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 438 (RAJ)

Chandra Shekhar v. State of Rajasthan

2020-02-28

ABHAY CHATURVEDI, SANDEEP MEHTA

body2020
JUDGMENT Sandeep Mehta, J. - The appellant herein has been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 30.04.2016 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.3, Bhilwara in Sessions Case No.05/2012: Under Section 302 IPC Life Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months' additional SI. Under Section 457 IPC Three years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's additional SI. Under Section 380 IPC Five years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's additional SI. (All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.) 2. Being aggrieved of his conviction and the sentences awarded to him, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. 3. Brief facts relevant and essential for the decision of the appeal are noted hereinbelow:- Dr. Alok Mittal (PW.6) resident of 12-A-2, Old Housing Board, Shastri Nagar, Bhilwara lodged a written report (Ex.P/41) with the SHO PS City Kotwali, Bhilwara on 03.03.2011 at 11:55 pm alleging inter alia that his mother-in-law Smt. Vimla Devi and father-in-law Shri Bhagwati Prasad Aggarwal used to reside in H.No.1-A-4 just a little distance from the house of the complainant. The complainant's wife Smt. Seema (PW.7) went to meet her parents between 8:45 pm to 9:00 pm in the evening on which, she found that the main gate was lying open but the channel gate of the house was locked. She rang the door bell and called out but received no response. She tried to call her parents on their respective mobile numbers but, her father's phone did not respond whereas her mother's phone rang once and then was not approachable. Smt. Seema returned home and told this to the complainant. They again tried to connect both the phone numbers but could not succeed. The relatives of the complainant namely, Pramod Modi and Bhupendra Sanghi were staying at the complainant's house because his in-laws were preparing for the welcoming programme of some Seer, which was scheduled to be held at the house of Shri B.P. Aggarwal. Thus, the complainant thought that his in-laws might be in a meeting and thus, they continued to look out for them but did not succeed. Thus, the complainant thought that his in-laws might be in a meeting and thus, they continued to look out for them but did not succeed. He again went back to the house of Shri Aggarwal and tried to peek through the window on which, he noticed that Smt. Vimla Devi was lying down on the floor in an ensanguined condition. The police was immediately informed and came to the spot. Lock of the channel gate was broken open. The inner door was loosely shut and was pushed open. On going inside, Shri Bhagwati Prasad was seen lying in a blood-soaked condition near the refrigerator. The complainant expressed a suspicion that both his in-laws had been murdered. No one used to reside in the house apart from them and no one was present at that time in the house. Shri Aggarwal had gone to the bank for taking out money a couple of days earlier. A driver named Gopal Gujar had been engaged fifteen days back and he used to stay at their house from 9 O' clock in the morning till 8 O' clock in the evening. He had extensive knowledge as to where the money and the ornaments were kept and as to when and at what instances, the deceased had taken out money from the bank. When they went to the house, the car was lying at the house but the driver was missing. A maid named Chanda Sen used to come to the house of his in-laws for the purpose of sweeping and mopping in the morning and for washing utensils in the afternoon. It was thus stated by the complainant that some unknown person had committed the crime and it was prayed that proper action be taken. It was further mentioned that Smt. Seema could identify the ornaments of her mother Smt. Vimla Devi and the details of the same would be given later on. 4. On the basis of the report aforesaid, an FIR No.142/2011 (Ex.P/49) was registered at the Police Station Sadar Kotwali, Bhilwara for the offence under Section 460 IPC and the investigation was commenced. Requisite steps of investigation viz. preparation of panchnama lash of both the dead bodies etc. were carried out. The dead bodies were subjected to postmortem and were then handed over to Dr. Alok Mittal (PW.6) for cremation. Requisite steps of investigation viz. preparation of panchnama lash of both the dead bodies etc. were carried out. The dead bodies were subjected to postmortem and were then handed over to Dr. Alok Mittal (PW.6) for cremation. Photographs of both the dead bodies as well as the place of incident were snapped. The Mobile Forensic Science Unit was summoned to inspect the premises. Blood samples were collected in swabs from the place of incident. A finger of suspicion turned towards the accused-appellant who was arrested on 16.06.2011 at 10:30 am vide arrest memo (Ex.P/92). Upon acting in furtherance of the informations provided by the accused under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, certain incriminating recoveries were effected. The blood stained articles seized from the place of incident and at the instance of the accused-appellant were forwarded to the FSL for analysis. 5. Upon concluding investigation, a charge sheet came to be filed against the accused-appellant for the offences under Sections 460, 302 and 379 IPC in the court of the Magistrate concerned. Since the offences under Sections 460 & 302 IPC were exclusively triable by the sessions court, the case was committed and transferred to the court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Bhilwara for trial where the charges were framed against the accused-appellant for the offences under Sections 457, 380 & 302 IPC. With the abolition of the said Fast Track Court, the case was transferred to the court of Additional Sessions Judge, No.3 Bhilwara for trial. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 30 witnesses and exhibited 126 documents and 6 articles to prove its case. Upon being questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and when confronted with the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence, the accused denied the same and claimed to be innocent. He was provided an opportunity of leading evidence in defence but, he chose not to do so. While the trial was underway, the FSL report was received which was exhibited as Ex.P/126. After hearing and appreciating the arguments advanced by the prosecution and the defence counsel and after evaluating the entire evidence available on record, the learned trial court proceeded to convict and sentence the accused-appellant as above by the impugned judgment, which is assailed in this appeal. 6. After hearing and appreciating the arguments advanced by the prosecution and the defence counsel and after evaluating the entire evidence available on record, the learned trial court proceeded to convict and sentence the accused-appellant as above by the impugned judgment, which is assailed in this appeal. 6. Shri R.S. Chundawat, learned counsel representing the accused-appellant vehemently and fervently urged that the entire prosecution case is false and fabricated. The prosecution failed to prove the complete chain of circumstances required to establish the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond all manner of doubt. The evidence of various witnesses, who were examined at the trial to prove the circumstances alleged against the appellant, is far from convincing. He further urged that the Investigating Officer did not investigate the matter in a fair manner and the accused was arrested without there being any plausible evidence on record so as to connect him with the crime. It was a case of blind murder and the accused was made a soft target so that the investigating agency could somehow portray that they had solved the case. He further urged that the entire case is based solely on the recoveries which were stage-managed by the IO by fabricated actions. He further urged that the IO did not prove the informations of the accused and the factum of the recoveries in a manner required by law while deposing in the Court. He further submitted that thumb impressions/finger prints were visible at the place of incident but the IO made no attempt whatsoever to secure this important piece of evidence and hence, there is no conclusive proof so as to link the accused with the crime. Shri Chundawat further urged that in the FIR, a suspicion was cast on the driver namely Gopal Gujar but, no investigation was made in pursuance of the same. He was the last person employed as a driver by Shri Bhagwati Prasad Aggarwal before the incident took place and thus, the possibility of he being involved in the crime was the highest. On these grounds, he implored the Court to accept the appeal; set aside the impugned judgment and acquit the accused-appellant of the charges. 7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by appellant's counsel. He urged that the appellant had been engaged as a driver by Shri Aggarwal just a few days prior to the incident. 7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by appellant's counsel. He urged that the appellant had been engaged as a driver by Shri Aggarwal just a few days prior to the incident. Shri Aggarwal was a very meticulous man and used to keep a record of all the employees in a register in which, the fact that the accusedappellant Chandra Shekhar had been previously employed as a driver, is entered as having worked in the months of January and February, 2011. The application for employment, the ID proof submitted by the appellant at the time of applying for job and salary vouchers of the accused-appellant were found by Smt. Seema (PW.7) D/o Shri Bhagwati Prasad Aggarwal when she was searching the house. Thus, the fact that the appellant worked as a driver in the house of Shri Aggarwal is well and truly established. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that Nokia Mobile Phone used by the deceased was sold by the accused-appellant to one Kamlesh Dhakad (PW.26), who presented the sale deed (Ex.P/97) to the IO. The fact that the appellant was in possession of the mobile phone of the deceased give rise to a strong presumption that he alone was the murderer. He further submitted that as per the postmortem reports of Smt. Vimla Devi (Ex.P/39) and that of Bhagwati Prasad Aggarwal (Ex.P/40), manifestly, both were brutally assaulted and then stabbed to death. Thus, as per learned Public Prosecutor, the fact that the deaths were homicidal is conclusively established. He thus, submitted that the prosecution has proved the entire chain of circumstances which is primarily based on incriminating recoveries and other strong links of circumstantial evidence pointing invariably towards the guilt of the accused-appellant. On these grounds, he sought dismissal of the appeal. 8. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the impugned judgment and have minutely re-appreciated the evidence available on record. 9. As is manifest from the material available on record, the entire prosecution case is based totally on circumstantial evidence. No witness examined at the trial by the prosecution, claimed to have seen the accused in or around the house of Shri Aggarwal when the crime was committed. 9. As is manifest from the material available on record, the entire prosecution case is based totally on circumstantial evidence. No witness examined at the trial by the prosecution, claimed to have seen the accused in or around the house of Shri Aggarwal when the crime was committed. Manifestly, thus the case is totally based on recoveries and the inference sought to be drawn from the fact that the accused appellant was employed as a driver by the deceased Shri Aggarwal. The fact regarding the deaths of Shri Bhagwati Prasad Aggarwal and Smt. Vimla Devi being homicidal in nature was not disputed by Shri Chundawat, Advocate representing the accused-appellant and thus, the evidence regarding the preparation of the panchnama lash etc. which is otherwise also formal in nature, need not be discussed. 10. Dr. Gyan Prakash Maheshwari (PW.4), being a member of the Medical Board constituted at the M.G. Hospital, Bhilwara carried out the postmortem upon the two dead bodies and issued the postmortem reports (Ex.P/39 of Smt.Vimla Devi and Ex.P/40 of Shri Bhagwati Prasad Aggarwal). Both had been caused numerous incised wounds which resulted in severe blood loss leading to their death. As such, it can safely be concluded that the two deceased were murdered by the use of a sharp weapon. 11. Dr. Alok Mittal (PW.6) is the first informant of the case. He gave evidence consistent with the allegations set out in the FIR and proved the report (Ex.P/41) and the other formal documents prepared during the investigation i.e. the site inspection plan, seizure memo of the articles lying at the spot, panchnama lash of the two dead bodies, seizure memo of clothes, etc. The witness stated that after conducting the postmortem, the ornaments found on the two dead bodies were handed over to him. He further stated that the mobile phones of both the deceased were not found in the house when search was carried out. He identified the appellant Chandra Shekhar stating that he had been engaged as a driver by the two deceased persons. He proved the mobile bill (Ex.P/45). In cross-examination, the witness admitted that he knew Gopal Gujar and Chanda. The last driver engaged by his father-in-law was Gopal Gujar. He did not see Gopal Gujar and Chanda together on 03.03.2011. They also did not come to the place of incident on 04.03.2011. He proved the mobile bill (Ex.P/45). In cross-examination, the witness admitted that he knew Gopal Gujar and Chanda. The last driver engaged by his father-in-law was Gopal Gujar. He did not see Gopal Gujar and Chanda together on 03.03.2011. They also did not come to the place of incident on 04.03.2011. The last five digits of his wife's mobile number were 78181. The incident took place between 8:45 pm to 9:00 pm. The mobile number of Bhagwati Prasad was 9983306054. He denied that his wife talked to Shri Bhagwati Prasad on this number at 09:08:22 for five seconds on the date of the incident. The lock of the main gate of the house was broken open before arrival of the police. While they were entering the house, the police arrived at the spot. He mentioned the names of Gopal Gujar and Chanda out of suspicion. He did not know where Gopal Gujar resided. Chanda Sen used to work as a maid in the house of his father-in-law since years together. The police interrogated her as well. The Police did not bring Chandra Shekhar before him prior to 18.06.2011 or whether any investigation was made prior to that. He denied that the police had brought five to seven boys before him 8-10 days before the incident and that accused Chandra Shekhar was one of them. He did not give mobile bill (Ex.P/45) to the police before 18.06.2011. He did not disclose the IMEI Number of the mobile phone to the police on 15.06.2011. Apart from the mobile bill (Ex.P/45), he did not give any other document to the police. He handed over the mobile bill (Ex.P/45) to the police on their demand. The gold and silver ornaments worn by Smt. Vimla Devi were found on her body. In cross-examination, the witness admitted that he did not lodge any report to the police that the mobile pertaining to the bill (Ex.P/45) had been stolen. 12. Smt. Seema Mittal, daughter of the two deceased persons was examined as PW.7. The only significant fact stated by her in her statement was that the police had caught the accused appellant on 18.06.2011 and thereafter, she had given the driver attendance register and the Nokia mobile bill to the IO. She identified the handwriting of Shri Bhagwati Prasad on the Register (Ex.P/47). The only significant fact stated by her in her statement was that the police had caught the accused appellant on 18.06.2011 and thereafter, she had given the driver attendance register and the Nokia mobile bill to the IO. She identified the handwriting of Shri Bhagwati Prasad on the Register (Ex.P/47). Neither any voucher pertaining to the payment made to the accused Chandra Shekhar nor any ID proof or copy of license was found when she searched the house. She identified Chandra Shekhar as being the driver engaged by her father. She also identified the mobile instrument (Article-1). In cross-examination, she denied the suggestion given to her by the defence that on 18.06.2011, police had got recovered a mobile phone from them and had after taking out its call details asked for any mobile bill, if available. She also denied the suggestion put to her that she herself gave the mobile phone to Kamlesh Dhakad (PW.26). A pertinent suggestion was given to her that her sim was operative in this mobile instrument between 03.03.2011 to 17.05.2011. She admitted that the register (Ex.P/47) and the mobile bill (Ex.P/45) were submitted to the police on 18.06.2011. She denied that she gave the voucher, application, etc. of Chandra Shekhar to the police on 20.06.2011 clarifying that she could not even find these documents. She searched for the mobile bill after the accused had been arrested and then, provided it to the police. 13. As the case is solely based on the circumstances of recoveries, the most significant witness of the prosecution would be none other than the Investigating Officer Shri Rajaram (PW.20) who arrested the accused and Rahul Joshi (PW.25) who conducted further investigation and thus, their evidence needs to be discussed in detail. The significant fact, which is elicited from the statement of Rahul (PW.25), is that during the initial investigation which he undertook just after the incident, the impression of a right palm was collected and seized by the forensic team vide memorandum (Ex.P/114). In cross-examination, the witness admitted that he conducted investigation from all the drivers and servants employed by the deceased but, none of them was found involved in the offence and hence, he did not arrest any of them. In cross-examination, the witness admitted that he conducted investigation from all the drivers and servants employed by the deceased but, none of them was found involved in the offence and hence, he did not arrest any of them. He further stated that the finger print impression (Ex.P/114) which was collected by the MO Team did not match with any of the drivers and thus, no further steps were taken in this regard. The finger prints were smudged. Thus, it is clear that the finger prints available at the spot do not provide any evidence whatsoever which can be considered sufficient to implicate the accused in this case. 14. Now coming to the evidence of Rajaram (PW.20) who was posted as SHO PS City Kotwali on 09.04.2011. Investigation of the case was handed over to him by Shri Rahul Joshi (PW.25). He stated that he focused his attention to the search of the mobile phones of Smt. Vimla Devi and Shri Bhagwati Prasad which were found missing from the place of incident. The IMEI number of Smt. Vimla Devi's mobile phone was circulated and it came to light that sim number 9829969282 issued in the name of Jagdish S/o Shri Jaggannath Dhakad, resident of Bhagwanpura was being operated in this instrument. He followed the leads. Jagdish and his son Kamlesh Dhakad (PW.26) approached the witness on 15.06.2011. They were asked for the mobile phone upon which Kamlesh Dhakad presented a sale deed dated 18.05.2011 bearing a recital that Chandra Shekhar Sharma S/o Babulal Sharma, R/o Siyakhedi Police Station Dhola Pani, District Pratapgarh had sold the mobile instrument bearing IMEI No.351542047173303 to Shri Kamlesh Dhakad S/o Shri Jagdish Dhakad, R/o Bhagwanpura, District Chittorgarh for a consideration of Rs.1400/-. Shri Kamlesh presented the mobile to the IO. Upon checking, the IMEI number of the said mobile instrument was found to be the same as IMEI number of mobile instrument of the deceased Smt. Vimla Devi. Shri Rajaram wrote a letter to Dy. SP Bhilwara for procuring call details of the mobile phones in use of Shri Bhagwati Prasad and Smt. Vimla Devi which was received and marked as Ex.P/117 in the evidence of the IO. The accused was found using the mobile No.8107154329. Shri Rajaram wrote a letter to Dy. SP Bhilwara for procuring call details of the mobile phones in use of Shri Bhagwati Prasad and Smt. Vimla Devi which was received and marked as Ex.P/117 in the evidence of the IO. The accused was found using the mobile No.8107154329. Call details and tower locations of the SIM No. 8107154329 were collected as per which, the phone was found operating in the location of Karunda, Tehsil Chhoti Sadri, District Chittorgarh on 03.03.2011 at 12.32.37 pm. Thereafter, the tower location of this mobile number was found at Bhilwara By-pass, Police Line Chittorgarh. In between, the mobile phone was switched off. The IO concluded that the accused intentionally switched off his mobile so as to hide the trail. He recorded the statement of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The mobile phone presented by Kamlesh Dhakad (PW.26) was seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P/98). Offences under Sections 302 and 407 were found proved against the accused who was arrested on 16.06.2011 vide arrest memo (Ex.P/92). The statement of Kamlesh Dhakad was got recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. On 18.06.2011, the bill of the mobile bearing IMEI No.351542047173303 was submitted by Smt. Seema and was seized vide seizure memo Ex.P/44. The driver attendance register submitted by Smt. Seema was seized vide seizure memo Ex.P/47 in which the attendance of accused-appellant Chandra Shekhar was marked in January and February, 2011. On 25.06.2011, Smt. Seema submitted an application for presenting the salary vouchers (Ex.P/48 collectively) of the drivers which were taken on file. The IO claimed that the accused Chandra Shekhar gave him an information for identifying the place of incident and in furtherance thereof, the place of incident was got verified by the accused vide memorandum (Ex.P/43). In this regard, it may be mentioned that as the place of occurrence was already known to the IO right from the date of incident, no fresh discovery thereof could have been made and this identification of the place of incident at the instance of the accused is worthless. In this regard, it may be mentioned that as the place of occurrence was already known to the IO right from the date of incident, no fresh discovery thereof could have been made and this identification of the place of incident at the instance of the accused is worthless. The IO further claimed that after he was arrested on 16.06.2011, the accused gave him an information under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act (Ex.P/120) in which, he disclosed that he threw the mobile phone of Bhagwati Prasad with sim, sim from the mobile phone of Vimla Devi and the key and key-chain of the lock of the channel gate lock near Hamirgarh besides the four lane road and that he could point out the said place. The IO prepared the map of this place but, neither any sim nor any key chain etc. were recovered and thus, the information given by the accused in this regard proved futile. The IO further claimed that the accused gave him yet another information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act which was taken down in memorandum (Ex.P/121) dated 19.06.2011 whereby the accused allegedly apprised the IO that he had concealed the knife used in the incident in a small box lying in inner room of his residential house in the village Siyakhedi, Pratapgarh Road. Acting in furtherance of this information, the IO claims to have proceeded to the house of the accused at village Siyakhedi with the accused who allegedly went inside and took out the blood stained knife from a small box lying in the attic of the inner room of his house. The knife was seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P/100). Likewise, in furtherance of another information (Ex.P/122) given by the accused to the IO, his blood stained clothes were seized from a box lying in the house of the accused concealed in an iron suitcase. The information was recorded in memorandum (Ex.P/122) and the blood stained clothes were seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P/102). The accused gave yet another information to the IO on 25.06.2011 stating that after committing the offence, he retained the application given by him to Shri Bhagwati Prasad for getting the job, copy of his license and the salary vouchers etc. from the file maintained by Shri Aggarwal and these documents were concealed at his residential house at Village Siyakhedi. The accused gave yet another information to the IO on 25.06.2011 stating that after committing the offence, he retained the application given by him to Shri Bhagwati Prasad for getting the job, copy of his license and the salary vouchers etc. from the file maintained by Shri Aggarwal and these documents were concealed at his residential house at Village Siyakhedi. Acting in furtherance of this information, the IO claims to have recovered these documents vide memorandum (Ex.P/105). An information (Ex.P/125) was also provided by the accused to the IO regarding concealment of his mobile instrument in which sim number 8107154329 was operative. However, in furtherance of this information, no mobile or sim was recovered but only the place of concealment was got verified by the accused. 15. After perusing the entire evidence which we have elaborated above, manifestly the case of the prosecution as against the accused is founded on the following circumstances:- (I). Motive based on the allegation that the deceased Bhagwati Prasad Aggarwal removed the accused from the job of driver and thus, he was bearing a grudge in his mind and that the murders were perpetrated for taking revenge. (II). The circumstances of incriminating recoveries which can be enumerated in the following sequence;- (i) that the mobile sim of the deceased Smt. Vimla was found being operated by one Kamlesh Dhakad (PW.26) who presented the sale deed (Ex.P/97) on the strength whereof, the accused allegedly sold the mobile instrument of Smt. Vimla Devi which he had stolen at the time of committing the murders; (ii) recovery of the weapon of offence i.e. the knife used for commission of the offence from the house of the accused in furtherance of the information provided by him to the IO under Section 27 of the Evidence Act; (iii) recovery of the blood stained clothes of the accused in furtherance of the information provided by him to the IO under Section 27 of the Evidence Act; and (iv) recovery of the employment documents and the salary vouchers of the accused made in furtherance of the information provided by him to the IO under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. (III) The FSL report (Ex.P/126) indicating that the clothes of the accused were found stained with 'A+' & 'O+' human blood group. (III) The FSL report (Ex.P/126) indicating that the clothes of the accused were found stained with 'A+' & 'O+' human blood group. The knife recovered at his instance was found stained with 'A+' human blood group and that the blood group of deceased Shri Bhagwati Prasad Aggarwal was 'O+' as found on his blood stained clothes and that the blood group of Smt. Vimla Devi was 'A+' as found on her clothes. 16. The prosecution claims that these strong links in the chain of incriminating circumstances form a complete chain pointing invariably towards the guilt of the accused. The circumstances proved by the prosecution are invariably consistent with the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence or the guilt of any other person. On the contrary, the contention of the defence counsel was that neither the allegation of motive has been proved by any positive evidence nor the recoveries were proved by leading proper evidence and thus, the accused is entitled to be acquitted on the ground that the complete chain of circumstances has not been established/proved beyond all manner of doubt. 17. The first circumstance which is required to be dealt with is the allegation of motive attributed to the accused. In this regard, we have perused the evidence of the first informant Dr. Alok Mittal (PW.6) and Smt. Seema (PW.7) being the son-in-law and daughter respectively of the deceased persons. They are the only two witnesses who could have proved the motive attributed to the accused. Neither of them alleged that the accused was turned out of the job by Shri Bhagwati Prasad Aggarwal or that he bore grudge on this account. A perusal of the attendant register (Ex.P/47) indicates that the accused-appellant Chandra Shekhar was employed by the deceased for a short duration of one month only. This register further indicates that the deceased was in habit of changing drivers frequently. Thus, in absence of any positive evidence to satisfy the Court that the accused, at any point of time, was found expressing a grudge because he had been turned out of the job by Shri Bhagwati Prasad Aggarwal, no such inference can be drawn that the accused might have committed the double murder in order to wreak vengeance. Manifestly, no valuables i.e., ornaments etc. were looted by accused and thus, the murders were definitely not for gain. Manifestly, no valuables i.e., ornaments etc. were looted by accused and thus, the murders were definitely not for gain. Thus, the evidence of motive is totally unacceptable and unworthy of credence. 18. As per the sequence of events which we have narrated above, the IO claimed that on procuring the call details of the mobile phones of the deceased, he found that one mobile instrument of the victims was in use of Kamlesh Dhakad (PW.26), who was approached by the police and he claimed to have provided the sale deed (Ex.P/97) to the IO on the strength whereof, the accused had allegedly sold the mobile instrument to the witness Kamlesh Dhakad. This entire sequence of events is absolutely unnatural and unconvincing and does not stand to reason. As has been mentioned above, when the dead bodies were examined, the ornaments worn by Smt. Vimla Devi were found present thereupon. Neither the first informant Dr. Alok Mittal (PW.6) nor Smt. Seema (PW.7) claimed in the FIR or in their evidence that any valuables were found looted during the incident. In the detailed written report (Ex.P/41), neither were the mobile numbers of the two deceased persons mentioned nor was it alleged that any mobile instrument was missing. Smt. Seema submitted an application (Ex.P/48) to the SHO on 25.06.2011 in which, she alleged that Chandra Shekhar had taken out his application for appointment as driver, copy of his licence, ID Proof and the salary vouchers from the register of her father. Smt. Seema also submitted the mobile instrument bill of Nokia 2720, allegedly in use of the deceased Smt. Vimla, to the IO on 18.06.2011. This bill was seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P/44). However, even upto this point of time, no such allegation was forthcoming that the mobile instrument of Smt. Vimla was missing. It is true that the first informant alleged in his statement that the mobile instruments of both the deceased were not found in the house when search was made. But, ex facie, we are of the view that this omission would be so prominent and that the first informant would not have omitted mentioning this fact in the FIR. A pertinent question was put to the first informant Dr. But, ex facie, we are of the view that this omission would be so prominent and that the first informant would not have omitted mentioning this fact in the FIR. A pertinent question was put to the first informant Dr. Alok Mittal (PW.6) in his cross-examination to which, he admitted that he did not mention the fact regarding the mobile phones of the deceased persons having gone missing in the detailed written report (Ex.P/41). The circumstance pertaining to the recovery of the mobile instrument of the deceased which was proved by the IO and Kamlesh (PW.26) is far too flimsy and unconvincing so as to be relied upon. The incident took place on 03.03.2011. The mobile instrument was allegedly sold by the accused to Kamlesh Dhakad (PW.26) and a sale deed (Ex.P/97) was executed in lieu of the sale. Two witnesses namely Vinod Dhakad (PW.23) and Kamlesh Dhakad (PW.26) were examined by the prosecution to prove the factum of sale of the mobile instrument. Vinod Dhakad (PW.23) stated in his evidence that the sale took place on 18.04.2012 whereas Kamlesh Dhakad (PW.26) stated that the mobile was purchased by him from Chandra Shekhar on 18.05.2011. Learned Public Prosecutor made no effort whatsoever to sort out this discrepancy. 19. As we have already discussed above, the accused made no effort whatsoever to take away the ornaments of the deceased after committing the murders. The ornaments were definitely much more valuable than the mobile instrument. Thus, it is absolutely unbelievable that the accused would take away a mobile instrument belonging to the deceased and stand at the risk of being discovered on the basis thereof. The sale deed (Ex.P/97) is clearly a fabrication done at the instance of the IO to somehow or the other crack the case. The claim of the complainant that the mobile instruments were found missing when the search was made and despite this, no intimation was given to the police immediately thereafter; and the bill of the mobile was collected by the IO from Smt. Seema on 18.06.2011 two days after the accused was arrested; creates a strong doubt that this entire story is a creation of the IO. The IO made no effort whatsoever to get the signatures of the accused as appearing on these documents be compared and gather opinion of a handwriting expert. The IO made no effort whatsoever to get the signatures of the accused as appearing on these documents be compared and gather opinion of a handwriting expert. The allegation that the accused took out the salary vouchers, his ID proof and the application for employment from the records of the deceased Bhatgwati Prasad Aggarwal shows that he acted in a very smart calculated manner while committing the offence. 20. In this background, it does not stand to reason as to why the accused would take away the mobile phone of the deceased with himself. The so-called sale deed (Ex.P/97) is also a document which does not inspire confidence. There is no reason as to why a sale deed would be executed for a mobile worth a paltry Rs.1400/-. A bare perusal of the sale deed indicates that the document was prepared in a meticulous painstaking manner which creates a strong doubt in the mind of the Court that the same must have been created by the IO for concocting evidence to somehow portray that he had solved the case. In this background, we are not at all convinced with the claim of the prosecution that the mobile phone was allegedly stolen by the accused from the house of the deceased after committing the murders and the same was sold by him to Kamlesh Dhakad (PW.26) or that any sale deed was prepared for evidencing such sale. The prosecution has also utilized the call details and the tower details so as to set up a case that the location of the accused was found at Bhilwara at or around the time of the incident. Suffice it to say that no certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act of the call details provider was procured by the IO so as to properly prove these call details. In addition thereto, there is nothing on record which can satisfy the Court that the mobile number of which the call details were procured, belongs to the accused. 21. The most significant circumstance which the prosecution has projected against the accused is that of the incriminating recoveries of the blood stained clothes and the blood stained knife made from the house of the accused in furtherance of the information provided by him to the IO under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. 21. The most significant circumstance which the prosecution has projected against the accused is that of the incriminating recoveries of the blood stained clothes and the blood stained knife made from the house of the accused in furtherance of the information provided by him to the IO under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. In this regard, suffice it to note that the incident took place in March, 2011. The accused was arrested as late as on 16.06.2011 and thus, he had plenty of time and opportunity to destroy the blood-stained clothes and the blood stained knife and it cannot be accepted that he would retain the same for such a long duration so that the police could recover the same later. Considering the prosecution theory that the accused meticulously searched for the incriminating documents from the house of the deceased in which his name was recorded and took them away, gives a strong indication about his cunning modus operandi. Thus, it is absolutely unbelievable that despite being of such a sharp mind, the accused would retain the worthless and incriminating blood stained articles at his house so that the IO could recover the same at a later stage. Therefore, we are least satisfied with the veracity of evidence of recoveries of blood stained articles allegedly made by the IO from the accused so as to link him with the crime. The IO had made a bald statement in the charge sheet and in his evidence that the finger prints/palm impressions, which were found at the place of the incident, were smudged and therefore, the same were not lifted for comparison. Firstly, we are of the opinion that the fact as to whether the finger prints were smudged could only have been decided by the Finger Print Bureau. Furthermore, on a perusal of the photographs of the finger prints/palm impressions available on a chit of paper (Ex.P/73) and on a comb cover (Ex.P/80 & Ex.P/81) and wall (Ex.P/83) even with the naked eye, we are of the view that clear impressions of the palm and the fingers are visible thereupon. Thus, omission of the IO to make any effort for collecting these print impressions and get the same compared with the finger prints of the accused shows that he has not acted fairly while conducting investigation. Thus, omission of the IO to make any effort for collecting these print impressions and get the same compared with the finger prints of the accused shows that he has not acted fairly while conducting investigation. Thus, we are of the firm opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove even a single of the so-called incriminating circumstances so as to bring home the guilt of the accused-appellant. 22. Law is well settled by a catena of decisions that in a case based purely on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution is required to prove every link in the chain of circumstances by leading clinching evidence so as to complete the chain pointing infallibly towards the guilt of the accused and being incompatible with his innocence. In the case at hand, we have found that the evidence about the chain of circumstances relied upon by the prosecution to bring home the charges against the accusedappellant is totally flimsy, unconvincing and based purely on conjectures and surmises and the same cannot be considered to be trustworthy even for a moment so as to affirm the guilt of the accused-appellant. The impugned judgment, in our firm opinion, is thus based sheerly on conjectures and surmises and cannot be sustained. The trial court committed grave error while appreciating the evidence and holding the accused appellant to be guilty of the charges. 23. In wake of the discussion made hereinabove, the appeal deserves acceptance and is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment dated 30.04.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Bhilwara in Sessions Case No.05/2012 is hereby quashed and set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges. He is in jail and shall be released forthwith, if not warranted in any other case. 24. However, keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. the accused appellant is directed to furnish 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. Record be returned to the trial court forthwith.