JUDGMENT SUJOY PAUL, J. – This appeal filed under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure takes exception to the judgment dated 30-4-1998 passed in Sessions Trial No. 134/1990 whereby appellant No. 1 was convicted for committing offences under sections 302, 364 and 201 of Indian Penal Code whereas appellant No. 2 was convicted under sections 302, 120-B, 364, 120-B and section 201 of Indian Penal Code. Both were sentenced to undergo R.I. for life with fine of Rs. 1000/- in the first count, R.I. for five years with fine of Rs. 500/-in the second count while R.I. for three years with fine of Rs. 500/- in the third count with default stipulation. 2. Indisputably, the appellant No. 1, Dinesh Patel died during the pendency of this case and accordingly this appeal stood abated for appellant No. 1. The interesting conundrum in this case is whether the appellant No. 2 was rightly convicted and directed to undergo sentence on the basis of circumstantial evidence ? 3. Briefly stated, relevant facts are that the present appellant is father-in-law of deceased Vikki Bai. Dinesh was husband of Vikki Bai and son of appellant No. 2. In the year 1984, Dinesh solemnized marriage with Vikki Bai. After marriage, their matrimonial relations were not very cordial and on more than one occasion, Vikki Bai compelled to go to her parents’ house and stay there for considerably long time. She even remained there for about two years. Dinesh’s uncle Ramlakhan took her with an undertaking that proper care of Vikki Bai will be taken. On the intervening night between 27-8-1989 and 28-8-1989, Vikki Bai became untraceable from her matrimonial house. The appellant No. 2 Ramcharan lodged “Gum Insaan” Report in Police Station-Rampur Baghelan. The father of Vikki Bai, namely Madhav Singh also lodged a report on 29-8-1989 in the same police station stating that his daughter Vikki Bai has been murdered by the appellants. Since no action was taken on his report, Madhav Singh lodged the complaint before the Collector, Satna, DIG and IG, Rewa. Since his complaints aforesaid could not fetch any result, he filed a complaint before the Court below. In turn, the investigation was conducted and Crime No. 100/1990 was registered. After investigation, Challan was filed and in due course the matter was committed before the Sessions Court. The charges were framed. Since his complaints aforesaid could not fetch any result, he filed a complaint before the Court below. In turn, the investigation was conducted and Crime No. 100/1990 was registered. After investigation, Challan was filed and in due course the matter was committed before the Sessions Court. The charges were framed. The appellants abjured their guilt and hence evidence was recorded and parties were heard by the Court below. 4. Total 14 witnesses entered into the witness box on behalf of prosecution and deposed their statements. This includes two chance witnesses, namely, Gopika Prasad (PW/3) and Amritlal (PW/12). Indisputably, in the instant case, the body of Vikki Bai could not be found. As per prosecution story, Vikki Bai was burnt alive in a brick furnace. However, no remains of Vikki Bai were found from the said furnace. On the basis of statements of aforesaid chance witnesses, namely, Gopika Prasad (PW/3) and Amritlal (PW/12), the prosecution intended to establish that Vikki Bai was last seen with appellants and appellants ultimately murdered her. 5. Shri Shobhitaditya, learned counsel for appellants urged that the said story of prosecution and evidence led in support thereof were found to be not trustworthy by the Court below. 6. By taking this Court to para 30 and 31 of the impugned judgment, learned counsel for appellants urged that the Court below clearly opined that statements of chance witnesses aforesaid are unbelievable. In para-36 of the judgment, the Court below opined that the story and evidence led by prosecution is untrustworthy, but charges are proved on the basis of circumstantial evidence. Thus, it is to be seen whether circumstantial evidence are sufficient to hold the present appellant as guilty. By criticizing the findings given from paras 37 to 43 of the judgment, Shri Shobhitaditya argued that the Apex Court in Sunita vs. State of Haryana, AIR 2019 SC 3571 and Mohd. Yunus Ali Tarafdar vs. State of W. B., AIR 2020 SC 1057 , laid down the principles on the strength of which the degree and quality of circumstantial evidence needs to be tested. If the circumstantial evidence of present case is tested on the anvil of said principles, it will be clear that the necessary test laid down by Supreme Court could not be satisfied and Court below has committed an error in holding the appellant as guilty. 7. If the circumstantial evidence of present case is tested on the anvil of said principles, it will be clear that the necessary test laid down by Supreme Court could not be satisfied and Court below has committed an error in holding the appellant as guilty. 7. The counsel for appellants urged that appellant No. 1-Dinesh was an employee of Armed Force. Merely because, he was on leave during the period when Vikki Bai became untraceable, does not mean that he took leave for the purpose of murdering Vikki Bai. The appellant No. 1-Dinesh took a defence that between 20-8-1989 to 25-8-1989, he was taking treatment from Dr. J. P. Tiwari of Community Health Centre, Nowgong, District Chhatarpur. Merely because said doctor has not entered into the witness box along with his brother Ramlal Singh, no inference can be drawn that appellant No. 1-Dinesh or appellant No. 2-Ramcharan Patel were guilty of committing murder. The burden was on the prosecution to establish their case with accuracy and precision. Only when said burden is discharged by the prosecution, onus can be shifted on the present appellants. The Court below has committed an error in drawing adverse inference and holding that the circumstantial evidence are sufficient. 8. The findings regarding motive are also perverse, is the next contention of Shri Shobhitaditya. He submits that the findings given in para 37 are also based on surmises and conjunctures. Reliance is placed on Kedarnath and others vs. State of M. P., AIR 1991 SC 1224 . 9. Lastly, it is argued that Court below has wrongly placed reliance on Bhagwan Singh and anr. vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1992 SC 1689 . Although the said case was also pregnant with a similar fact that body of deceased was not found, the other evidences adduced in the said case were totally different. The concerned person was tortured in police custody and other persons in the custody were eye-witnesses who deposed their statements in favour of the prosecution story whereas in the instant case neither body of Vikky Bai was recovered nor any remains of her could be traced. The statement of chance witnesses were disbelieved. Thus, there is no iota of legal evidence on the strength of which appellants could have been held guilty. 10. The statement of chance witnesses were disbelieved. Thus, there is no iota of legal evidence on the strength of which appellants could have been held guilty. 10. Countering the aforesaid arguments, Shri Hora submits that although chance witnesses were disbelieved and their statements are full of contradictions, this Court may reappriciate those statements to examine the correctness of the judgment of the Court below. “Motive is the foundational material on the strength of which prosecution case needs to be examined” is the next contention of Shri Hora which is based on Prem Kumar and anr. vs. State of Bihar, (1995) 3 SCC 228 . He supported the impugned judgment and the findings given in para 37 thereof. 11. No other point is pressed by counsel for the parties. 12. We have bestowed our anxious consideration on rival contentions and perused the record. 13. By a bare perusal of paras 32 and 36 to the judgment, it is clear that the Court below has considered the statements of chance witnesses (PW-3 and PW-12). After considering the statement of other witnesses, the Court below also came to hold in para 36 of the judgment that the evidence led in support of complaint is not untrustworthy. But circumstantial evidence is sufficient to establish the guilt. The following circumstances were found against the appellant : – 1. Appellant No. 1 took the defence that he was unwell and getting treatment from Dr. Tiwari while staying with his brother Ram Lal Singh was artificial and this defence could not be established because neither Ram Lal Singh nor Dr. J. P. Tiwari were examined by him. 2. The aforesaid conduct and artificial defence of Dinesh shows that he took Vikki Bai to some place and murdered her. He destroyed the dead body in such a manner that no evidence could be traced. 3. In support of finding regarding motive, the Court below opined that as per the evidence led by prosecution and admission of Dinesh and Ram Charan that they had doubt about the character of Vikky Bai, motive of murder is conclusively established on the basis of these circumstantial evidence. The appellants were accordingly held guilty. 14. The relevant factors needs to be taken into account while adjudicating the circumstantial evidence are mentioned by the Supreme Court in the case of Yunus Ali Tarafdar (supra). The appellants were accordingly held guilty. 14. The relevant factors needs to be taken into account while adjudicating the circumstantial evidence are mentioned by the Supreme Court in the case of Yunus Ali Tarafdar (supra). The parameters are as under : – “(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 of the guilt of the accused, that is 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. [See Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra [Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 = 1984 SCC (Cri) 487], SCC p. 185, para 153; M. G. Agarwal vs. State of Maharashtra [M. G. Agarwal vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1963 SC 200 = (1963) 1 Cri.L.J. 235] , AIR p. 206, para 18.)” 15. The parameter No. 1 leaves no room for any doubt that conclusion of guilt must be fully based on reliable evidence. The circumstances concerned should be in the category of “must” and cannot be based on surmises and conjectures. This is trite law that suspicion however strong cannot take the place of proof. [See : Raj Kumar Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, (2013) 5 SCC 722 ]. The relevant para (Para-21) of this judgment reads as under : – 21. Suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot take the place of proof, and there is a large difference between something that “may be” proved and “will be proved”. In a criminal trial, suspicion no matter how strong, cannot and must not be permitted to take place of proof. This is for the reason that the mental distance between “may be” and “must be” is quite large and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. In a criminal trial, suspicion no matter how strong, cannot and must not be permitted to take place of proof. This is for the reason that the mental distance between “may be” and “must be” is quite large and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. In a criminal case, the Court has a duty to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take the place of legal proof. The large distance between “may be” true and “must be” true, must be covered by way of clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence produced by the prosecution, before an accused is condemned as a convict, and the basic and golden rule must be applied. In such cases, while keeping in mind the distance between “may be” true and “must be” true, the Court must maintain the vital distance between conjectures and sure conclusions to be arrived at, on the touchstone of dispassionate judicial scrutiny based upon a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all features of the case, as well as the quality and credibility of the evidence brought on record. The Court must ensure that miscarriage of justice is avoided and if the facts and circumstances of a case so demand, then the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused, keeping in mind that a reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely probable doubt, but a fair doubt that is based upon reason and common sense. [Vide Hanumant Govind Nargundkar vs. State of M. P., AIR 1952 SC 343 = 1953 Cri.L.J. 129, Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade vs. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793 = 1973 SCC (Cri.) 1033 = AIR 1973 SC 2622 , Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 = 1984 SCC (Cri.) 487 = AIR 1984 SC 1622 , Subhash Chand vs. State of Rajasthan, (2002) 1 SCC 702 = 2002 SCC (Cri.) 256, Ashish Batham vs. State of M. P., (2002) 7 SCC 317 = 2002 SCC (Cri.) 1718 = AIR 2002 SC 3206 , Narendra Singh vs. State of M. P., (2004) 10 SCC 699 = 2004 SCC (Cri.) 1893 = AIR 2004 SC 3249 , State vs. Mahender Singh Dahiya, (2011) 3 SCC 109 = (2011) 1 SCC (Cri.) 821 = AIR 2011 SC 1017 and Ramesh Harijan vs. State of U. P.] Same view is followed by Supreme Court in Sujit Biswas vs. State of Assam, (2013) 12 SCC 406 and recently in Digamber Vaishnav and another vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2019) 4 SCC 522 . In the case of Digamber Vaishnav (supra), it was further held that fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence is that burden of proof squarely rests on prosecution and that general burden never shifts. No conviction can be recorded on the basis of conjectures and surmises. 16. The matter may be viewed from another angle. This is trite that if two views are possible on the evidence produced in a case, one indicating guilt of accused and other to his innocence, the view which favours the accused must be adopted. [See: Kali Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, (1973) 2 SCC 808 ] which was followed with profit in the case of Raj Kumar Singh (supra). 17. As noticed, in the present case, the prosecution evidence was not found to be trustworthy and, therefore, the Court below gave a specific finding in para-36 of the judgment and disbelieved it. Thus the principal burden which was on the shoulders of the prosecution, could not be discharged by the prosecution. In this backdrop, onus was not shifted on the appellants to disprove the case of the other side. Thus the principal burden which was on the shoulders of the prosecution, could not be discharged by the prosecution. In this backdrop, onus was not shifted on the appellants to disprove the case of the other side. In other words, adverse inference can be drawn against the appellants only when the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt and, in turn, the appellants/defence has failed to discharge the onus shifted on them. Hence appellants could not have been held guilty for the reason they have not examined Dr. J. P. Tiwari and Ramlal Singh. 18. As per second parameter laid down by the Supreme Court, the prosecution was required to establish the guilt in such a manner that no other conclusion can be drawn. One cannot be held guilty on the basis of surmises and conjectures. No doubt, motive can be an important link in the chain of circumstantial evidence, that link needs to be established with accuracy and precision. Pertinently, in para-36 of the impugned judgment, the Court below has disbelieved the entire evidence of the complainant/ prosecution whereas in para-37 gave contradictory finding that motive is established based on the evidence led by prosecution and as per admission of both the appellants. In our opinion, merely because appellants expressed their doubt about character of Vikki Bai, that alone does not conclusively establish that they were having any “motive” to murder her. The Court below has not given any other circumstances on the strength of which the appellant could have been held guilty. 19. In view of foregoing analysis, we are unable to hold that circumstantial evidence mentioned by the Court below were sufficient to establish the guilt. The Court below, in our opinion, has passed the judgment on surmises and conjectures. There was no legal evidence on the strength of which appellants could have been held guilty. 20. Resultantly, the impugned judgment dated 30-4-1998 passed in Sessions Trial No. 134/1990 is set aside. Appeal is allowed.