JUDGMENT : MEHTA, J. 1. The instant appeal under Section 374 (2) CrPC has been preferred by the appellants Gurdas Singh @ Janta Singh @ Gurjant Singh and Nattha Singh being aggrieved of the judgment dated 23.05.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No.21/2015, whereby they were convicted for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo simple imprisonment two years. 2. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the appeal are noted hereinbelow. 3. Sahab Ram (P.W.3) lodged a written report (Ex.P/1) at the Police Station Goluwala on 11.07.2012 at 07.30 a.m. He stated inter alia that he and his brother Mahaveer owned a vehicle, which used to be plied for hire. On the previous day, i.e. 10.07.2012, he had taken one Raj Baba to Pakka Bhadwa for attending a Jagran. He received a call from his brother, Mahaveer, the same night at about 12 o’clock, who told him that he was driving a passenger, whom he (the informant) should drop at Raisinghnagar and he would pick and drop Raj Baba. However, the informant did not receive any call from Mahaveer. The informant reached home at about 3 o’clock in the morning and asked his wife about Mahaveer, on which he came to know that Mahaveer had taken his own vehicle and headed somewhere in the night. The informant thereafter went to sleep. In the morning at about 6 o’clock, one Babu Kumhar informed him that his vehicle was abandoned on Hansaliya dirt road and that dead body of Mahaveer was lying face down with numerous marks of injuries just near the vehicle. He suspected that some unknown miscreants called Mahaveer from his home, assaulted him and killed him by causing injuries on his head. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid report, FIR No.180/2012 was registered at the Police Station Goluwala on 11.07.2012 for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC against unknown accused persons. During the course of investigation, finger of suspicion was pointed towards the appellants and one Seepa @ Sukhdeep Singh. The appellants were apprehended and recoveries were effected on the basis of informations provided by them to the Investigating Officer. During the course of investigation, finger of suspicion was pointed towards the appellants and one Seepa @ Sukhdeep Singh. The appellants were apprehended and recoveries were effected on the basis of informations provided by them to the Investigating Officer. The third accused Seepa was also apprehended, but as he was below 18 years of age on the date of the incident, he was presented before the concerned Juvenile Justice Board. The Investigating Officer claims to have recovered the weapons of offence and the clothes of the accused, all of which were found to be stained with blood of group ‘A’, which as per the FSL Report Ex.P/70, matched with the group of blood found in the soil samples recovered from the place of occurrence and the clothes of the deceased. It is also alleged that supsected foot moulds collected from nearby the place of incident tallied with the slippers of the accused persons, as per the FSL Report Ex.P/69. It was also alleged that a call was made from the mobile number 9828290115, supposedly in use of the appellant Gurdas Singh, to the mobile of the deceased at 12 o’clock in the night of occurrence and he was called to the place of incident under the garb of engaging his taxi. The prosecution further claimed that appellant Nattha Singh got the above mobile number (9828290115) recharged through Praveen Kumar (P.W.2) on 10.07.2012. The prosecution claims on the basis of these significant links in the chain of circumstantial evidence that the accused appellants were exclusively and conclusively responsible for the murder of Mahaveer. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused appellants in the court concerned for the offence under Section 302/34, which was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions and hence, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh, from where, it was transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Hanumangarh for trial. Seepa Singh being a juvenile was charge-sheeted before the Juvenile Justice Board, Hanumangarh. 5. The trial court framed charges against the accused for the above offence. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 19 witnesses and exhibited 88 documents and 13 articles to prove its case. The accused were questioned under Section 313 CrPC and were confronted with the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence. 5. The trial court framed charges against the accused for the above offence. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 19 witnesses and exhibited 88 documents and 13 articles to prove its case. The accused were questioned under Section 313 CrPC and were confronted with the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence. They denied the same and claimed to be innocent. 3 witnesses were examined in defence and 2 documents were exhibited. After hearing the arguments advanced by the Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel and appreciating the evidence available on record, the learned trial court proceeded to convict and sentence the appellants as above. Hence, this appeal. 6. Mr. H.S.S. Kharlia, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Deepender Rajpurohit, representing the appellants, vehemently and fervently contended that the entire prosecution story is false and fabricated. The prosecution tried to portray through the evidence of Smt. Saroj (P.W.7), wife of deceased Mahaveer, that she over-heard the call received by the deceased at about 11.45 p.m. and that the call was made by Gurdas. Learned counsel Mr. Kharlia urged that no such allegation was set out in the FIR that the appellant Gurdas made a call to Mahaveer for engaging his vehicle and that this significant omission goes to the root of the matter and completely discredits the testimony of Smt. Saroj. He further submitted that the assertion made by the witness Saroj that her husband Mahaveer told her that Gurdas Singh, Nattha Singh and Seepa had requested him to drop them off at Raisinghnagar and thus, the identity of all 3 accused is established, is totally false because admittedly after the call had been received by Mahaveer, he called the first informant Sahab Ram and told him that he was taking the passengers to Raisinghnagar. If at all, there had been any truth in the version of Saroj, then Mahaveer would definitely have disclosed the names of the caller to Sahab Ram and this fact would definitely have been mentioned in the FIR. The omission of this important fact in the FIR goes to the root of the matter and completely demolishes the prosecution case on this aspect. 7. Mr. Kharlia further urged that the prosecution has not proved that mobile No.9828290115, which was allegedly used by Gurdas to call the deceased, was issued in his name or was in his possession. The omission of this important fact in the FIR goes to the root of the matter and completely demolishes the prosecution case on this aspect. 7. Mr. Kharlia further urged that the prosecution has not proved that mobile No.9828290115, which was allegedly used by Gurdas to call the deceased, was issued in his name or was in his possession. In this regard, Mr. Kharlia drew the court’s attention to the statement of Rajesh Tripathi (P.W.19), official of the mobile service provider company Vodafone, who did not state in his evidence that the mobile No.9828290115 was issued in the name of Gurdas Singh. Mr. Kharlia also drew the court’s attention to the call detail record (Ex.P/78), as per which, the sim number No.9828290115 was issued in the name of one Nayab Singh (P.W.10). He further urged that on an analysis of the call detail records, it is apparent that 2 calls were made from this mobile number to the mobile No.9829892039, which was allegedly in possession of the deceased. The first call was made on 11.07.2012 at 00:00:44 Hrs., which lasted for 41 seconds. The second call was made on 11.07.2012 at 00:07:27 Hrs., which lasted for 83 seconds. Mr. Kharlia urged that the prosecution has alleged that the dead body of Mahaveer was recovered at 6 o’clock in the morning and the FIR itself was submitted by the first informant at 07.30 a.m. As per him, calls continued to be exchanged between the two mobile numbers referred to supra till 07.27 a.m., which fact completely destroys the worth of the call detail records. 8. Mr. Kharlia further urged that as per the deposition of the Medical Jurist Dr. Girdhari Lal Meharda (P.W.8) and the postmortem report (Ex.P/19), the injuries noted on the body of the deceased were all caused by blunt weapons, whereas an axe was alleged to have been recovered at the instance of the accused Gurdas Singh and a Kandhala (which is also a sharp edged weapon) was shown to have been recovered at the instance of accused Nattha Singh. Mr. Kharlia further urged that the prosecution failed to prove that there existed a motive for the accused appellants to murder the deceased. Mr. Mr. Kharlia further urged that the prosecution failed to prove that there existed a motive for the accused appellants to murder the deceased. Mr. Kharlia submitted that it is impossible to believe that two persons armed with sharp edged weapons intending to commit murder would not inflict a single injury to the deceased from the sharp side of the weapons. 9. Regarding the FSL report of comparison of the foot moulds, the criticism offered by Mr. Kharlia was that firstly, the specimen samples, which were prepared by the Investigating Officer were from the slippers allegedly recovered at the instance of the accused, whereas there is no evidence on record to show that the accused were wearing those very slippers on the day of the incident. He referred to the statements of Malkhana Incharge Nathulal (P.W.13) and carrier Police Constable Shivram (P.W.12) and pointed out that after the articles had been forwarded to the FSL, they were returned back with certain objections. The prosecution did not elaborate upon or clarify the nature of objections, which were noted at the FSL. Mr. Kharlia submitted that as the objections noted by the FSL regarding the articles were not clarified by the prosecution, the consequence thereof would be that the link mandatorily required to prove the safekeeping of the FSL articles stood breached and hence, that FSL report cannot be read in evidence. 10. On these submissions, Mr. Kharlia urged that the conviction of the appellants as recorded by the trial court is based on totally inappropriate appreciation of evidence available on record and hence, the same cannot be sustained. He implored the court to accept the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and sought acquittal for the accused appellants. 11. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellants’ counsel and urged that the prosecution has proved its case on the strength of the evidence of Smt. Saroj (P.W.7) and by important links in the chain of incriminating circumstances, which have been proved against the accused, viz. the call detail record, recoveries of the weapons and recoveries of the matching foot moulds, which conclusively inculpate the accused appellants for the murder. 12. We have heard and considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and minutely reappreciated the evidence available on record. 13. the call detail record, recoveries of the weapons and recoveries of the matching foot moulds, which conclusively inculpate the accused appellants for the murder. 12. We have heard and considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and minutely reappreciated the evidence available on record. 13. It is evident from a bare perusal of the FIR (Ex.P/45) that Sahab Ram, the first informant (P.W.3) and Mahaveer, the deceased, used to live together and operated vehicles on hire as a means of earning livelihood. Mahaveer had called Sahab Ram in the night of 10.07.2012 and informed him telephonically that some passengers had engaged him to carry them to Raisinghnagar. However, Mahaveer did not mention the names of the so-called passengers to Sahab Ram. Contrary to this, Smt. Saroj (P.W.7), the wife of the deceased, stated that a call was received on the mobile phone of her husband and the caller tried to engage his taxi/vehicle. Her husband expressed reluctance in taking the passenger for hire and also added that he would send a driver instead. Smt. Saroj alleged that the call was made by Gurdas, who was insisting that he, Seepa Singh and Nattha Singh had to go to Raisinghnagar for some important work. She claims to have asked her husband about the name of the caller, on which, he replied that it was Gurdas. Saroj also stated that she was sleeping besides her husband and thus, she herself heard the voice of the caller. Her husband also told her that Gurdas, Nattha and Seepa had converged that they had to go to Raisinghnagar. Smt. Saroj pertinently stated that after receiving this call, her husband called Sahab Ram and talked to him. If at all, there was any truth in this sequence of events, then Mahaveer would definitely have told Sahab Ram (P.W.3) the names of the passengers, whom he would be carrying to Raisinghnagar. In cross-examination, Smt. Saroj admitted that she knew Nattha Singh S/o Angrej Singh and that her husband did not tell her that the person, who had called, was the same person. In view of the facts noted above, we feel that the story put forth in the evidence of Saroj (P.W.7) that she knew the names of the persons, who had called the deceased for engaging his vehicle on the fateful night is not reliable/believable. 14. In view of the facts noted above, we feel that the story put forth in the evidence of Saroj (P.W.7) that she knew the names of the persons, who had called the deceased for engaging his vehicle on the fateful night is not reliable/believable. 14. The first informant Sahab Ram was examined as P.W.3. He too stated that Mahaveer called him at about 12 o’clock in the night and stated that he had been engaged to ferry some passengers to Raisinghnagar and that he would be contacting him. Mahaveer allegedly suggested to Sahab Ram that he would bring Raj Baba (who had been taken to Pakka Bhadwa by Sahab Ram) back to Ayalki and that the new passengers should be taken to Raisinghnagar by Sahab Ram. However, Mahaveer did not contact Sahab Ram thereafter. Upon reaching home, the first informant talked to his wife, who told that Mahaveer had taken the vehicle on his own. At about 6 o'clock in the morning, the first informant received a call of Babu Kumhar that his vehicle was lying on the dirt road of Hansaliya and a man was lying nearby. On reaching the place of incident, he saw the vehicle lying unattended and Mahaveer’s dead body was lying nearby. The first informant stated that Mahaveer was using the mobile number 9829892039. Nothing was stated by Sahab Ram so as to implicate the appellants for the murder. He even did not attribute any motive to the accused appellants for committing the offence. From a perusal of the evidence of Sahab Ram, it is apparent that he reached the place of incident with 2-3 more persons and all of them checked the dead body of Mahaveer. In this background, the possibility of the foot prints of the assailants being preserved as such is higly unlikely. The witness admitted in crossexamination that neither he nor his brother had any animosity with either Gurdas Singh or Nattha Singh. We now proceed to analyze the evidence of the other prosecution witnesses. The witness Satpal (P.W.1), who was associated as a Panch witness in the recoveries made at the instance of the accused Gurdas (axe and mobile) (Ex.P/13) and accused Nattha Singh (Kandhala and motorcycle) (Ex.P/16), did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. We now proceed to analyze the evidence of the other prosecution witnesses. The witness Satpal (P.W.1), who was associated as a Panch witness in the recoveries made at the instance of the accused Gurdas (axe and mobile) (Ex.P/13) and accused Nattha Singh (Kandhala and motorcycle) (Ex.P/16), did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. Babu Singh (P.W.4), Bakhtawar Singh (P.W.5) and Narsi Ram (P.W.6) also being the Panch witnesses, did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile. 15. Dr. Girdhari Lal (P.W.8) conducted autopsy upon the dead body of Mahaveer and issued the postmortem report Ex.P/19, as per which, the cause of death of Mahaveer was opined to be head injury. He took note of 5 injuries on the upper body parts of the deceased, all of which were caused by blunt weapons. Pertinent cross-examination was made from the doctor, who upon being shown the two weapons recovered at the instance of the accused admitted that neither could cause the injuries noticed on the dead body of Mahaveer. 16. The evidence of Ram Pratap (P.W.9) is hearsay in nature and thus, need not be discussed as being inconsequential to the case. 17. Nayab Singh (P.W.10) is the person, in whose name the mobile sim No.9828290115 was issued. He did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. 18. Indrasen (P.W.11) was associated as a Panch witness in some of the recovery proceedings undertaken during investigation. He stated that the police recovered a blood-stained shirt and a pair of slippers at the instance of accused Gurdas Singh, which were seized vide memos Ex.P/21 and Ex.P/22 respectively. He further stated that the police recovered a bloodstained shirt and a pair of slippers at the instance of accused Nattha Singh, which were seized vide memos Ex.P/24 and Ex.P/25 respectively. In cross-examination, the witness admitted that he and the deceased hailed from the same community. The police told him that the slippers and shirt had been recovered from the accused. The site inspection memo was prepared by the police and then he was made to sign the same. The slippers recovered at the instance of Nattha Singh and Gurdas Singh shown to the witness during his evidence were worn out. 19. Shiv Ram (P.W.12) was posted as a Constable at the Police Station Goluwala. The site inspection memo was prepared by the police and then he was made to sign the same. The slippers recovered at the instance of Nattha Singh and Gurdas Singh shown to the witness during his evidence were worn out. 19. Shiv Ram (P.W.12) was posted as a Constable at the Police Station Goluwala. He stated that on 30.07.2012, Malkhana Incharge Nathu Lal gave him packets containing sealed articles of the present case for getting the forwarding letter prepared and for depositing the same at the FSL. He departed from the police station and went to the office of the Superintendent of Police, Hanumangarh. Entry of his departure from the police station was made in the Roznamcha register (Ex.P/27-A). He got the forwarding letter prepared at the SP office and reached the Forensic Science Laboratory, Bikaner on 31.07.2012, where he made an attempt to get the sealed packets marked E, H, N, P deposited, but he was told that the date of FIR mentioned in the forwarding letter was incorrect. Upon this objection being raised, he came back to the police station and re-deposited the sealed packets in the Malkhana of the police station. An entry to this effect was made in the Roznamcha register as Ex.P/28-A. On 06.08.2012, the Malkhana Incharge again gave him sealed packets of this case after rectifying the errors/objections and he was instructed to deposit the same in the FSL. He left for the SP office after recording his departure vide Roznamcha entry Ex.P/29-A and then proceeded to FSL, Bikaner, where he deposited the article packets marked E, H, N, P on 07.08.2012 and was given a receipt No.54/2012. He came back to the police station Goluwala on 08.08.2012 and deposited the receipt issued from the FSL. No cross-examination was made from this witness. 20. Nathu Lal (P.W.13) was posted as Malkhana Incharge at the Police Station Goluwala on 11.07.2012. He stated that on that day, Shri Vishnu Khatri, SHO, handed over the sealed packets of this case marked as A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, O, P, which he deposited in the self-same condition in the Malkhana of the police station and recorded the entry at S.No.231 of the Malkhana register, which was proved by the witness as Ex.P/34. He stated that he handed over the sealed article packets marked A, B, F, G, I, J, L, M, O with the documents to Baljeet Singh, FC on 30.07.2012 for getting the forwarding letter issued and to deposit the same in the FSL. An entry to this effect was recorded in the Malkhana register. Baljeet Singh came back from FSL Jodhpur on 02.08.2012 and submitted the receipt dated 31.07.2012, which fact was recorded in the Malkhana register. On 30.07.2012, the witness handed over the packets marked E, H, N, P (which were to be deposited in the FSL) to Constable Shiv Ram, who then headed to the SP office. On 31.07.2012, the Constable brought back the articles because some objection was marked at the FSL. Accordingly, the articles were re-deposited in the Malkhana in the self-same condition. The objections were cured and the abovementioned article packets were handed back to Shiv Ram on 06.08.2012 for onward transmission to the FSL. Shiv Ram came back on 08.08.2012 with a receipt dated 07.08.2012. The relevant entries to this effect were made in the Malkhana register. In cross-examination, the witness admitted that he started recording entries of deposit of articles of this case at S.No.231, which runs into 5 pages (Ex.P/34-A). The Mudda Maal articles were received on 11.07, 13.07, 14.07 and 15.07. He continued to hold charge of Malkhana on all these dates. A question was put to the witness that FIR number, offences and the name of the offenders were not mentioned in column Nos.8 and 9 of the pages 2, 3 and 4, to which he offered an explanation that these details were recorded in the inception entry made on 11.07.2012 and thus, he did not feel it essential to repeat these details when the remaining articles were deposited on later dates. The objection, which was marked by the FSL, was regarding the packets marked E, H, N, P but this fact was not mentioned in the Malkhana register. The packets were received by him in sealed condition and he deposited the same in the self-same condition. He could not say as to how the objection marked at the FSL was cured. He denied the suggestion that he had made false entries in the Malkhana register on the instructions of the SHO. 21. Baljeet Singh (P.W.14) was posted as Constable at the Police Station Goluwala on 30.07.2008. He could not say as to how the objection marked at the FSL was cured. He denied the suggestion that he had made false entries in the Malkhana register on the instructions of the SHO. 21. Baljeet Singh (P.W.14) was posted as Constable at the Police Station Goluwala on 30.07.2008. He stated that he carried the packets marked A, B, F, G, I, J, L, M, O from the police station to the FSL, deposited the same in the self-same sealed condition and submitted the receipt (Ex.P/35) thereof to the Malkhana Incharge. No significant cross-examination was made from this witness. 22. Pramod (P.W.15) stood as an attesting witness in the documents Fard Surat Haal Lash (Ex.P/3), Panchnama (Ex.P/4), Site Inspection Plan (Ex.P/5), seizure memo of mobile (Ex.P/6), seizure memo of torch (Ex.P/39) and the procedure of lifting of 3 foot moulds (Ex.P/40), seizure memo of blood-stained soil (Ex.P/41), memo of inspection of jeep (Ex.P/7) and seizure memo of clothes of deceased Mahaveer (Ex.P/9). In cross-examination, questions were put to him regarding he being motivated to give evidence against the accused as he was related to the complainant party, but he refuted these suggestions. 23. Vishnu Khatri (P.W.16) was posted as SHO, Police Station Goluwala on the date of the incident, i.e. 11.07.2012. He received the information regarding the abandoned dead body lying on the dirt road going from Ayalki to Hansaliya and a black Bolero vehicle parked nearby and proceeded to the spot immediately. There, the first informant Sahab Ram gave him the written report Ex.P/2, which he forwarded to the police station for registering the FIR. The formal FIR (Ex.P/45) was registered on the basis of this report. The SHO inspected the place of incident and got it extensively photographed. The photographs were exhibited as Ex.P/46 to Ex.P/56. He took the relevant steps and prepared the following documents as a measure of investigation :- 1. Fard Surat Haal Lash (Ex.P/3) 2. Panchnama Lash (Ex.P/4) 3. Site Inspection Plan (Ex.P/5) 4. Description of Site (Ex.P/5A) 5. Seizure memo of blood-stained and control soil (Ex.P/41) 6. Seizure memo of mobile of the deceased (Ex.P/6) 7. Seizure memo of torch (Ex.P/39) 8. Inspection memo of jeep (Ex.P/7) 9. Memo of lifting of foot moulds of 3 persons (Ex.P/40) 24. Panchnama Lash (Ex.P/4) 3. Site Inspection Plan (Ex.P/5) 4. Description of Site (Ex.P/5A) 5. Seizure memo of blood-stained and control soil (Ex.P/41) 6. Seizure memo of mobile of the deceased (Ex.P/6) 7. Seizure memo of torch (Ex.P/39) 8. Inspection memo of jeep (Ex.P/7) 9. Memo of lifting of foot moulds of 3 persons (Ex.P/40) 24. The dead body was forwarded to the Government Hospital Goluwala for autopsy, whereafter it was handed over to Sahab Ram, the brother of the deceased, for cremation. 25. During the procedure of autopsy, the Medical Officer collected blood-stained clothes, a bed-sheet and a pair of slippers from the dead body and handed the same over to the SHO, which were seized vide seizure memo Ex.P/9. 26. Shri Khatri also recorded the statements of various witnesses, namely, Sahab Ram, Saroj, Mahesh, Mohit, Nayab Singh, Praveen Kumar, Babu Singh, Bakhtawar Singh, Narsingh Ram, Rampratap, Nathulal and Baljeet under Section 161 CrPC 27. The mobile phone of deceased Mahaveer Prasad bearing number 9829892039 was inspected and it was found that numerous calls had been exchanged between the aforementioned number and another mobile No.9828290115. Call and subscriber details of both these numbers were procured from the concerned service providers through the Superintendent of Police. The Investigating Officer, proved the letter received from the SP office as Ex.P/57. The Investigating Officer claims that on the very day of the incident, he could get evidence showing that the suspect’s mobile number No. 9828290115 had been recharged in the night of the incident at about 10.00 p.m. He found that Praveen Kumar (P.W.2), who used to operate a shop named Bhakhar Kirana Store had recharged the suspected mobile number. Praveen Kumar was interrogated and he disclosed that request for recharging the suspected mobile number for a sum of Rs.50 was made by Nattha Singh Jaildar. The store operator Praveen Kumar recorded this fact in the register (Ex.P/1), which was seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P/44). After investigation, the offence was found proved against accused Nattha Singh and Gurdas Singh, who were arrested vide arrest memos Ex.P/58 and Ex.P/42 respectively. 28. The accused Gurdas Singh allegedly gave information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act to the Investigating Officer, recorded vide memo Ex.P/43, regarding concealment of an axe in his residential house. After investigation, the offence was found proved against accused Nattha Singh and Gurdas Singh, who were arrested vide arrest memos Ex.P/58 and Ex.P/42 respectively. 28. The accused Gurdas Singh allegedly gave information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act to the Investigating Officer, recorded vide memo Ex.P/43, regarding concealment of an axe in his residential house. Acting in furtherance of the said information, the accused, led the Investigating Officer to his house and an axe was recovered and seized vide seizure memo Ex.P/13. The accused Gurdas Singh allegedly gave further information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act to the Investigating Officer regarding concealment of two mobile phones in his residential house, which was recorded in memo Ex.P/59 and acting in furtherance thereof, the accused Gurdas Singh allegedly led the Investigating Officer to his house and got two mobile phones recovered, which were seized vide seizure memo Ex.P/14. The accused Gurdas Singh gave another information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act to the Investigating Officer, which was recorded in memo Ex.P/60, in furtherance whereof a blood-stained shirt was recovered from his residence and was seized vide seizure memo Ex.P/21. On another information given by the accused Gurdas Singh, recorded in memo Ex.P/61, the Investigating Officer proceeded to recover a pair of slippers from the house of the accused and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.P/22. The accused Nattha Singh allegedly gave information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act to the Investigating Officer regarding concealment of a Kandhala in his residential house. This information was recorded in memo Ex.P/62 and in furtherance thereof, the Investigating Officer recovered a Kandhala, which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.P/16. The accused Nattha Singh gave further information regarding a motorcycle bearing Registration No.RJ-13-SB-9916 parked in his residential house. This information was recorded in memo Ex.P/63 and in furtherance thereof, the motorcycle was recovered and seized vide seizure memo Ex.P/17. The accused Nattha Singh gave another information, recorded in memo Ex.P/64, regarding concealment of a blood-stained shirt, which was recovered and seized vide seizure memo Ex.P/24 from a room constructed in his field situated in Chak 12 MOD. The accused Nattha Singh gave another information, recorded in Ex.P/65, regarding concealment of pair of slippers in the afore-mentioned room, which were recovered and seized vide seizure memo Ex.P/25. 29. The accused Nattha Singh gave another information, recorded in Ex.P/65, regarding concealment of pair of slippers in the afore-mentioned room, which were recovered and seized vide seizure memo Ex.P/25. 29. The Investigating Officer, thereafter took steps for forwarding all the incriminating and control articles to the FSL. Some objections were received regarding one set of articles, which were cured/rectified and the articles were sent back to the FSL. The FSL reports were received from the laboratories at Bikaner and Jodhpur and were exhibited as Ex.P/69 and 70 respectively. 30. In the cross-examination conducted from the witness, the following material facts were elicited :- 1. That it was correct to say that no person was arrested in this case on 11.07.2012. 2. He admitted that when the mobile phone recovered from the body of the deceased on 11.07.2012 was checked, it displayed 5 more incoming calls in addition to the calls from the suspected mobile No.9828290115 on 10.07.2012, but he did not make any investigation regarding these calls explaining that his purpose was served by the last call, which was made from the suspected mobile number. He made enquiries regarding the sim subscriber from the S.P. office computer cell on 11.07.2012 itself. He obtained the records from the company, which had issued the sim and came to know that it was issued in the name of Nayab Singh S/o Lakha Singh, but he did not record the statement of that person. He tried to contact Nayab Singh on the very same day, but he could not recollect whether he succeeded or not. Nayab Singh later on told him that he had lost the sim one and half year ago, but he did not believe this statement. Later on he mobilized his resources for finding the truth of the information and it was verified. He recorded the statement of Praveen Kumar, the shopkeeper, who recharged the mobile on 11.07.2012 because he received information on the very same day that the mobile had been recharged from his shop named Bhakhar Kirana Store. He admitted that by 11.07.2012, no one told him that the mobile had been recharged before the incident. However, it struck to him that an enquiry should be made whether the mobile had been recharged or not and thus, he sought and obtained information from the mobile company. He admitted that by 11.07.2012, no one told him that the mobile had been recharged before the incident. However, it struck to him that an enquiry should be made whether the mobile had been recharged or not and thus, he sought and obtained information from the mobile company. He admitted that in the register Ex.P/1, name of Nattha Singh was mentioned in the entries made on 10.07.2012 also. He could not say as to how many persons named Nattha Singh lived in the Village Ayalki. 31. The foot-moulds which were lifted from the spot were of footwear of three different persons. The deceased was also wearing slippers, which were available on his dead body, but they were not sent to the FSL for comparison. He further admitted that Nattha Singh was implicated in this case mainly on the basis of the fact that he got the suspected mobile number recharged and that his slippers matched with the foot moulds recovered from the spot. 32. He admitted that all spot documents, which he prepared on 11.07.2012 did not bear the FIR number. This was precisely the objection marked by the FSL, which was cured. He denied the defence suggestion that he had fabricated evidence so as to falsely implicate the accused in this case or that all the recoveries were concocted. 33. The evidence of witness Rajesh Tripati (P.W.17) remained abortive because he had not been cited as a witness to give evidence on behalf of the mobile service provider Vodafone. 34. Vibhor Rastogi appeared in the witness box as P.W.18. He was working as Assistant Manager in the Vodafone mobile company on the relevant date. He stated that neither any call detail pertaining to the case at hand were sought for from him or the Vodafone company nor were any such call details provided to anyone. He did not bring any documents while coming to depose in the court. In cross-examination, he admitted that he was posted in the company from 10.07.2012 to June 2015. If any official request had been made to provide the documents, it definitely would have been honored. 35. Rajesh Tripathi (P.W.19) stated that he was posted as Nodal Officer of the Vodafone company in the year 2011. Upon being directed by the court, he brought and proved the call detail records of the mobile No.9828290115 for the period between 01.06.2012 and 12.07.2012. 35. Rajesh Tripathi (P.W.19) stated that he was posted as Nodal Officer of the Vodafone company in the year 2011. Upon being directed by the court, he brought and proved the call detail records of the mobile No.9828290115 for the period between 01.06.2012 and 12.07.2012. He proved the certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act as Ex.P/77. The subscriber details of the aforesaid mobile number were proved as Ex.P/79 and the tower location details were proved as Ex.P/80. In his cross-examination, the witness admitted that Shri Vibhor Rastogi was the Nodal Officer of the company at the relevant point of time. As per the DOT (Department of Telecommunication) laws, it was permissible to save the relevant data in the server only for a period of one year. He stated that the details of the mobile number had already been sent to the SP office through an e-mail within this duration. He was put questions regarding the handsets used to make the outgoing calls from the concerned mobile number. He admitted that he took out the print-outs (Ex.P/77 to Ex.P/81) on 06.02.2017. 36. Three witnesses were examined in defence. 37. Jagga Singh (D.W.1) stated that he was Sarpanch of Village Ayalki at the relevant time. He knew 2-3 persons named Nattha Singh, who lived in the village. One was Nattha Singh S/o Ram Singh, the other one is Nattha Singh S/o Bhola Singh and the third one was accused Nattha Singh Jaildar, who was present in the court. 38. Anil Kumar (D.W.2) stated that he was a Patwari and Chak 21 JRK was in his jurisdiction. Nattha Singh S/o Angrej Singh had no agricultural land in the said chak as per the Revenue records. In cross-examination, he admitted that Angrej Singh S/o Chaman Singh owned agricultural land in the chak. He proved the Jamabandi as Ex.P/82. He would not say whether the name of the accused Nattha Singh’s father was Angrej Singh. 39. Veerwanti (D.W.3), who was posted as Patwari at the relevant time, stated in her evidence that Chak 12 MOD fell within her circle. She stated on the basis of the record that Nattha Singh S/o Angrej Singh had no agricultural land in the said Chak. However, Nattha Singh S/o Gurdev Singh owned agricultural land in the said Chak. 39. Veerwanti (D.W.3), who was posted as Patwari at the relevant time, stated in her evidence that Chak 12 MOD fell within her circle. She stated on the basis of the record that Nattha Singh S/o Angrej Singh had no agricultural land in the said Chak. However, Nattha Singh S/o Gurdev Singh owned agricultural land in the said Chak. In cross-examination, the witness stated that as per the Revenue record, agricultural land existed in the said Chak in the name of Nattha Singh’s father Angrej Singh S/o Chaman Singh. We have carefully gone through the record and appreciated the testimony of the witnesses referred to supra. 40. It is an admitted position that there is no eye-witness to the incident and the case is based purely on circumstantial evidence. It cannot be gainsaid that no sane human being would normally indulge in a heinous offence of murder without there being a reason or motive behind committing such an offence. At the same time, it may be stated that in a case of blind murder, motive is not a sine qua non for proving the offence, but availability or otherwise of motive would definitely be a relevant factor in appreciating the prosecution evidence in a case based totally on circumstantial evidence. 41. In support of the theory of motive, learned Public Prosecutor had contended that Mahaveer was having relations with a girl of Valmiki caste living in the village and Nattha Singh also had relations with the same girl and thus, Nattha Singh was inimical to Mahaveer on this count. He conspired with Gurdas Singh and Seepa Singh to murder Mahaveer for eliminating him from the fray. He had further urged that when call details of suspected mobile number were procured from the service provider and were analyzed, it came to light that Nattha Singh had made the last call to the deceased Mahaveer, whereafter he was not seen alive. Thus, it was absolutely natural for the Investigating Officer to have drawn an inference regarding involvement of Nattha Singh in the crime. Accordingly, Nattha Singh was apprehended and acting on informations provided by him under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, incriminating recoveries were made, which conclusively establish complicity of the accused in the crime. When Nattha Singh was interrogated, he divulged that the accused Gurdas Singh was also a part to the murder conspiracy and accordingly, he too was arrested. Accordingly, Nattha Singh was apprehended and acting on informations provided by him under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, incriminating recoveries were made, which conclusively establish complicity of the accused in the crime. When Nattha Singh was interrogated, he divulged that the accused Gurdas Singh was also a part to the murder conspiracy and accordingly, he too was arrested. Acting on the informations (Ex.P/43, Ex.P/59, Ex.P/60 and Ex.P/61) provided by Gurdas Singh under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, incriminating recoveries were made. Both the accused failed to offer any explanation for the significant recoveries effected at their instance, which establish their guilt to the hilt. The foot moulds of the suspects were picked up from the place of incident and were subject to comparison with the footwear recovered at the instance of the accused through the FSL, from where a report Ex.P/69 was received establishing the fact that foot-moulds matched with the footwear, which fact further clinched the guilt of the accused persons. Thus, the learned Public Prosecutor urged that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused by a clinching chain of circumstantial evidence and as per him, the findings recorded by the trial court in the impugned judgment while convicting the accused for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC are unimpeachable and accordingly, he sought dismissal of the appeal. 42. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the material available on record. 43. At the outset, it may be noted that admittedly, no one saw the murder being committed and the case of prosecution is based purely on circumstantial evidence. The fact regarding Mahaveer having been murdered came to light when his body with injuries was found lying near the Bolero by Babu Kumhar and the incident was reported to the police. Law is well-settled that in a case based totally on circumstantial evidence, the incriminating links have to be proved by convincing, reliable and legal evidence so as to form a complete unbroken chain invariably pointing to the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his/her innocence and then only, the court would be justified in convicting the accused for the charges. Thus, the prosecution evidence has to be appreciated in light of this cardinal principle. Thus, the prosecution evidence has to be appreciated in light of this cardinal principle. The circumstances, which have been projected by the prosecution in the case at hand to bring home the guilt of the accused can be summarized as below :- 1. Motive; 2. Call details; 3. Recovery of foot-moulds from the place of incident matching with the foot-moulds prepared from the footwear recovered at the instance of the accused; 4. Recoveries made at the instance of the accused of bloodstained weapons and clothes, which tested for blood group A, being the same as the blood group of the deceased. 44. We now proceed to analyze the record to find out whether these circumstances have been proved by cogent and reliable evidence and if so, whether the same form an unimpeachable chain pointing invariably to the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with their innocence. 45. Firstly, we consider the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor that the accused had a motive to murder Mahaveer. In this regard, the solitary argument of the learned Public Prosecutor was that Mahaveer as well as the accused Nattha Singh were both involved in an affair with a girl of Valmiki caste and that Mahaveer was murdered so as to eliminate him from the fray. When we examine the evidence of all 19 prosecution witnesses, we find that none of them gave convincing evidence to conclusively establish that the accused and the deceased Mahaveer were indulged in some kind of affair with a girl of Valmiki caste and that is why Mahaveer was eliminated so as to end the competition. Thus, the theory of motive as portrayed against the accused by the prosecution is totally unsubstantiated. On the contrary, Sahab Ram (P.W.3), brother of the deceased, admitted in his crossexamination that relations of Nattha Singh and Gurdas Singh were cordial with Mahaveer and they had no enmity whatsoever. Sahab Ram of course made a vague suggestion that his brother and Nattha Singh were indulging in an affair with the same girl. However, neither such girl was examined during investigation nor did the Investigating Officer collect reliable independent evidence to show the existence of any such triangular love affair. Thus, it is clear that neither of the accused had any realistic or substantiated motive so as to murder Mahaveer. 46. However, neither such girl was examined during investigation nor did the Investigating Officer collect reliable independent evidence to show the existence of any such triangular love affair. Thus, it is clear that neither of the accused had any realistic or substantiated motive so as to murder Mahaveer. 46. Next in the link of incriminating circumstances was portrayed in the evidence of Saroj (P.W.7), wife of the deceased. In her sworn testimony, Saroj stated that on 10.07.2012, she, her husband and children were all at their home. Her brother-in-law’s (Devar’s) wife and children were also present at their home. Her Devar had gone to Village Pakka Bhadwa in the evening at about 5 o’clock. They had dinner and then went to sleep. At about 11.45 p.m., her husband received a call, which she over-heard. Her husband was telling the caller that he was not inclined to drive his tax that night and instead he could send his driver. The witness stated that it was Gurdas, who told her husband that he had some pressing work and had to go to Raisinghnagar urgently. She asked her husband as to who had called, on which, he told her that the call was of Gurdas. She had herself over-heard the conversation. Her husband informed her that Gurdas, Seepa Singh and Nattha Singh wanted to engage his vehicle for going to Raisinghnagar. Her husband then called her brother-in-law Sahab Ram and told him that he was accepting the engagement and would bring the passengers upto Pakka Bhadwa, from where he (Mahaveer) would bring back Raj Baba and that Sahab Ram could drop the passengers to their destination. Her husband tried to contact the driver, but as he did not respond, Mahaveer himself called back Gurdas and took his location. Gurdas allegedly told him that all three of them would be waiting on the dirt road towards Hansaliya. Her husband took the vehicle and went away. In the morning at about 6 o’clock, her brother-in-law was informed by Babu Kumhar regarding the vehicle lying abandoned near the Hansaliya road and he rushed to the spot on hearing this. At 12 o’clock, her husband’s dead body was brought home. She expressed a suspicion that the three accused, namely, Gurdas Singh, Nattha Singh and Seepa Singh, who had called her husband under the pretext of engaging his taxi, might have murdered him. At 12 o’clock, her husband’s dead body was brought home. She expressed a suspicion that the three accused, namely, Gurdas Singh, Nattha Singh and Seepa Singh, who had called her husband under the pretext of engaging his taxi, might have murdered him. When cross-examined, the witness stated that when her husband talked to her brother-in-law Sahab Ram, he did not mention that the vehicle had been engaged by Gurdas, whereas he only stated to her Devar that he was bringing some passengers from Raisinghnagar. When Babu Kumhar called her brother-in-law regarding the abandoned vehicle, she was not around and was working inside the Nohra. The witness was confronted with her previous police statement Ex.D/1, in which, she stated that after her husband had received the call regarding engagement of his vehicle for hire, she asked him as to the identity of the caller, upon which, her husband told her that it was Gurdas Majbi, who had requested that he (Gurdas Singh), Nattha Singh and Seepa Singh had to go to Raisinghnagar for some urgent work. 47. At this stage, it would be worthwhile to appreciate the corresponding version of Sahab Ram in context to evidence of Smt. Saroj. Sahab Ram (P.W.3) stated that he had taken Raj Baba to Pakka Bhadwa on 10.07.2012 for a Jagran. There, he received a call from Mahaveer at about 12 o’clock in the night. Mahaveer told him that some passengers had to be taken to Raisinghnagar and he was bringing them to him. Mahaveer expressed that he would bring Raj Baba back to Ayalki and that he (Sahab Ram) may carry the passengers to Raisinghnagar. Mahaveer did not tell him the name of the caller. Mahaveer did not reach Pakka Bhadwa, on which, the witness brought Raj Baba back to Ayalki in early hours of 11.07.2012 at about 03.00 a.m. He asked his wife as to who had taken the vehicle, on which, she replied that Mahaveer himself had taken it. He got a call from Babu Kumhar in the morning at about 6 o’clock, who told him that a vehicle was parked at Hansaliya dirt road and a man was lying nearby, on which, he alongwith Rampratap and two-three persons went to Hanslaiya dirt road, where he saw the vehicle and the dead body of Mahaveer. He submitted the written report (Ex.P/2) to the SHO, Police Station Goluwala, whereafter proceedings were initiated. He submitted the written report (Ex.P/2) to the SHO, Police Station Goluwala, whereafter proceedings were initiated. In cross-examination, the witness admitted that after his wife told him that Mahaveer had gone with the vehicle, he did not call him to find out his location. He and his brother did not converse with each other between 12.00 a.m. and 03.00 a.m. 48. The evidence of both these witnesses is basically to the effect that the deceased Mahaveer was contacted in the night of 10.07.2012 for engaging his taxi to carry the caller and his associates at Raisinghnagar. Thus, at this stage, it would be worthwhile to analyze the call detail records collected by the Investigating Officer. 49. The call detail record was exhibited as Ex.P/78. In this regard, it is relevant to state that neither the call detail record of mobile number 9829892039 in use of deceased nor the call details of the mobile phone in use of Sahab Ram were placed on record by the prosecution agency. The only call detail record, which has been proved by the prosecution is Ex.P/78, which pertains to mobile sim No.9828290115 allegedly in use of accused Nattha Singh. This mobile number (sim) was issued under the name of Nayab Singh. As per the call detail record (Ex.P/78), calls were put from this mobile number to the mobile No.9829892039 at 22:10:27, 23:54:01, 00:00:44 and 00:07:27 Hrs. The contention of Mr. Kharlia that the last call from the suspected mobile No.9828290115 was received on the mobile number of the deceased in the morning is misconceived because the call detail record Ex.P/78 reveals that the last call on the deceased’s mobile number was received at 00:07:27 Hrs., which would translate to 12:07:27 a.m., therefore, clearly, no call was received on the mobile phone of the deceased in the morning as alleged by the defence counsel. Thus, all that can be inferred from this call detail statement is that four calls from this number were made to the mobile of the deceased between 22:10:27 and 00:07:27 Hrs. Whether or not the deceased made the calls to Sahab Ram cannot be ascertained in absence of the call detail record of their respective mobile numbers. 50. The case of the prosecution regarding the accused Nattha Singh being in possession of the mobile sim number 9828290115 on the day of incident will now be discussed. 51. Whether or not the deceased made the calls to Sahab Ram cannot be ascertained in absence of the call detail record of their respective mobile numbers. 50. The case of the prosecution regarding the accused Nattha Singh being in possession of the mobile sim number 9828290115 on the day of incident will now be discussed. 51. It may be stated that the prosecution has come up with a categoric statement that this mobile sim was issued to one Nayab Singh, but was being used by Gurdas Singh. The fact that Nattha Singh got the mobile number 9828290115 recharged was stated by Praveen Kumar (P.W.2), who stated on oath that he was operating a grocery store by the name of Bhakhar Kirana Store in the Village Ayalki. He used to recharge the mobile sims of Vodafone company and was maintaining a register in which all the recharge entries were recorded. He got a call on 10.07.2012. The caller told him that he was Nattha Singh and requested him to recharge a mobile number, which the witness could not recall while deposing on oath. However, he stated that he entered the mobile number in the register Ex.P/1. The witness stated that at S.No.3 of the register, mobile No.9828290115 was mentioned, but only a part of the entry was in his handwriting. In crossexamination, the witness admitted that the register did not bear his signatures nor was it verified by him. No seal of his firm was appended on the register. He was subjected to questioning regarding various discrepancies in he entries made in the register, which he could not properly explain. 52. If the register (Ex.P/1) is perused, it is clear that the questioned entry I to J regarding the recharge of the mobile number 9828290115 is clearly a fabricated one because the name Nattha Singh Jaildar, which is entered in the column No.2 of the entry is visibly written in different handwriting as compared to the other entries made in the register on the very same day, i.e. 10.07.2012. In this view of the matter, the statement of Praveen Kumar that he did not make the questioned entry I to J is clearly fortified and this entry appears to be a pure fabrication made at the instance of the Investigating Officer. In this view of the matter, the statement of Praveen Kumar that he did not make the questioned entry I to J is clearly fortified and this entry appears to be a pure fabrication made at the instance of the Investigating Officer. Furthermore, on perusal of the register, it is clear that no endorsement was made thereupon that it had been seized in connection with the investigation of the present case. Moreover, if at all the investigating agency was desirous of proving its theory regarding the call having been made from the suspected mobile No. 9828290115 to Praveen Kumar for the purpose of getting a recharge, then the call details of Praveen Kumar’s mobile number could have been procured and would have provided corroboration to this theory. That apart, the prosecution has attributed this mobile phone to Gurdas Singh, whereas the entry I to J refers to the name Nattha Singh and consequently, the credibility of this theory becomes doubtful. The Investigating Officer’s claim that he could collect information regarding the suspected mobile number having been recharged from the shop of Praveen Kumar on the very same day because he collected the details from the SP Office is totally false because no document pertaining to collection of any such detail is available on the file. The call detail record (Ex.P/78) bears the date of report as 12.07.2012 at 10:14:22 a.m. In this background, the Investigating Officer’s claim that he was able to find out that the suspected mobile number had been recharged from the shop of Praveen Kumar on 11.07.2012 itself is totally negated. 53. At this stage, it would be fruitful to make a comparative analysis of the call logs, which were noted by the Investigating Officer in the seizure memo Ex.P/6, whereby the mobile phone of the deceased was seized vis-a-vis the call details of the mobile phone of the accused (Ex.P/78) CALLS MADE FROM MOBILE NUMBER OF NAYAB SINGH- P.W.10 (9828290115) TO THE MOBILE NUMBER OF THE DECEASED MAHAVEER SINGH (9829892039) Sr. No. DATE & TIME AS PER EX.P/78 (Company Provided Call Details Record) DATE AND TIME AS PER EX.P/6 (Recovery Memo from dead body of Mahaveer Singh) 1 On 10/07/2012 @ 10:10 PM Not mentioned 2 On 10/07/2012 @ 11:54 PM On 10/07/2012 @ 11:53 PM 3 On 11/07/2012 @ 12:01 AM Not mentioned 4 On 11/07/2012 @ 12:07 AM On 11/07/2012 @ 12:07 AM 54. A bare perusal of these details clearly establishes that there are significant discrepancies in the two details, which again make the prosecution case regarding the incriminating nature of the call detail record doubtful. 55. The Investigating Officer claims to have recovered two mobile phones from the possession of the accused Gurdas Singh vide seizure memo Ex.P/14. If at all the prosecution was desirous of proving its case against the accused on the basis of the mobile call details, then an attempt should definitely have been made to match the IMEI numbers of these two instruments with the CDR (Ex.P/78). However, perusal of the IMEI numbers of these mobile instruments as mentioned in the seizure memo would reveal that neither of the two IMEI numbers is reflected in the call detail record (Ex.P/78). Hence, it cannot be concluded by any degree of certainty that the sim No.9828290115 was used in the two mobile instruments recovered from Gurdas Singh or was being used by him in some other instrument. Thus, there is no plausible material on record of the case to satisfy the court that the disputed mobile number was in use of any of the accused persons or that they put the calls in question to the deceased for calling him to the place, where he was murdered. 56. Next in the sequence of circumstances are the footmould comparison and the incriminating articles allegedly recovered at the instance of the accused. For this purpose, the evidence of the Investigating Officer Shri Vishnu Khatri needs to be analyzed. 57. In this regard, we feel that the entire exercise of comparison itself is nothing but an exercise in futility because the foot-moulds were obviously created while the suspects were walking while wearing the footwear and thus, the pressure caused by the weight of the individual wearing it would definitely create a different imprint than the imprint created by the bare footwear. Thus, no implicit reliance can be placed on the FSL report (Ex.P/69) because the comparison itself was not made of prints/impressions in an identical scenario. 58. It may be stated here that the Investigating Officer Mr. Vishnu Khatri (P.W.16) admitted in his cross-examination that the call details and the subscriber details of the mobile no. 9829892039 in use of the deceased and the suspected mobile no. 9828290115 were collected from the concerned service provider and were received by him on 12.07.2012. 58. It may be stated here that the Investigating Officer Mr. Vishnu Khatri (P.W.16) admitted in his cross-examination that the call details and the subscriber details of the mobile no. 9829892039 in use of the deceased and the suspected mobile no. 9828290115 were collected from the concerned service provider and were received by him on 12.07.2012. However, as stated above, only the call detail of the suspected mobile No. 9828290115 were exhibited on record, whereas the call details of the mobile No. 9829892039 of the deceased were withheld. 59. After seizing the mobile phone of the deceased vide memo Ex.P/6, the Investigating Officer inspected it, noted all the incoming and outgoing calls and mentioned the details in the seizure document. However, while proving the call detail records, the Investigating Officer became selective and stated as below :- ^^;s ckr lgh gS fd eSaus fnukad 11-07-12 dks ?kVukLFky ls e`rd ds 'kjhj ls mldk eksckby fy;k FkkA eSaus b,Dlih 6 esa e`rd ds eksckby ij vkbZ gqbZ o mlds }kjk dh x;h tks 9828290115 ds vykok tks N vkSj dksy gS muls eSaus dksbZ rQrh'k ugha dh vt[kqn dgk fd esjk edln 9828290115 ls iwjk gks x;k Fkk D;ksafd ;s vafre dksy FkhA fnukad 11-07-12 dks eSus ,lih vkfQl esa lapkfyr dEI;wVj 'kk[kk ds ek/;e ls fle gksYMj ds ckjs esa irk dj fy;k FkkA eq>s le; ugha irk fd fdl le; eSaus ,lih dk;kZy; ls fle ekfyd ds ckjs esa irk fd;k gS eS bl laca/k esa rQrh'kh Mk;jh ns[kuk ugha pkgrkA eq>s ,l-ih dk;kZy; ds ftl vkneh us crk;k fd ;g fle 9828290115 ;g y[kklj ds uk;cflag ds uke gS mldk eSaus dksbZ Hkh c;ku bl izdj.k esa ntZ ugha fd;kA^^ 60. From these admissions, the claim of the Investigating Officer that he came to know the name of the sim holder and that a recharge had been done on the suspected mobile No. 9828290115 on 11.07.2012 is totally falsified. Manifestly, thus, the Investigating Officer did not act fairly in this case and the investigation is clearly tainted. 61. The Investing Officer claims to have made the following recoveries/discoveries during the course of investigation :- 62. He allegedly lifted the suspected foot print impressions vide memo Ex.P/40. Manifestly, thus, the Investigating Officer did not act fairly in this case and the investigation is clearly tainted. 61. The Investing Officer claims to have made the following recoveries/discoveries during the course of investigation :- 62. He allegedly lifted the suspected foot print impressions vide memo Ex.P/40. These foot print impressions were sent for comparison with the footwears/slippers recovered at the instance of the accused vide memos Ex.P/22 and Ex.P/25 in furtherance of the informations (Ex.P/61 and Ex.P/65) allegedly provided by them to the Investigating Officer under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The Investigating Officer seems to have undertaken a very strange procedure inasmuch as, rather than preparing the specimen foot-moulds from the footwear suspected to be worn by the accused at the time of the incident, the footwear as such were forwarded to the FSL for comparison with the foot-mould impressions allegedly lifted from the scene of occurrence. The Forensic Science Laboratory compared the mould impressions with the footwear and issued the report (Ex.P/69) regarding the moulds matching the footwear. However, we feel that this endeavour was nothing but an exercise in futility as by no means can it be accepted that the foot-mould impressions created by pressure of a person wearing the footwear could match with the unworn footwear. Thus, there is definitely something fishy in the manner of lifting the foot-moulds from the spot, which makes the FSL Report Ex.P/69 doubtful. That apart, we are of the view that as the murder was a blind one and the accused were free birds after the incident, it does not stand to reason that as to why they would take pains to meticulously preserve their own worthless incriminating articles, i.e. the slippers and blood-stained clothes, so that the same could be recovered later. It is an admitted case of the prosecution that the accused destroyed the mobile sim so as to escape detection. In this scenario, the natural human conduct for the accused would be to destroy the slippers and blood-stained clothes and they would not have undertaken the tedious exercise of concealing them at different places so as to create evidence against themselves. Thus, we are of the opinion that the evidence regarding matching foot-moulds is totally flimsy and unacceptable and the FSL Report (Ex.P/69) is inconsequential to the prosecution case. Thus, we are of the opinion that the evidence regarding matching foot-moulds is totally flimsy and unacceptable and the FSL Report (Ex.P/69) is inconsequential to the prosecution case. In addition to the above, it may be stated here that number of persons including the first informant Sahab Ram, etc. had reached the place of incident after the dead body was seen and thus, the possibility of three suspected foot-mould impressions being preserved immaculately without being trampled upon would virtually be impossible. Apparently, the Investigating Officer has fabricated this evidence to prove the case against the accused. 63. Likewise, we feel that the recoveries of the bloodstained clothes and the weapons made at the instance of the accused are also fabricated and unbelievable as is evident from the recovery memo Ex.P/13 and the recovery memo Ex.P/16, whereby an axe and a Kandhala were recovered at the instance of the accused Gurdas Singh and Nattha Singh respectively. Since both the weapons are sharp-edged weapons and as the murder was allegedly committed in the dead of the night, out of vengeance and because the deceased Mahaveer was at the mercy of the assailants, it is impossible to believe that they would selectively or purposely use the sharp weapons from blunt side and not inflict even a single blow by the sharp side of their respective weapon. In this background, we are of the view that the entire chain of circumstances put forth in the prosecution case comes under a cloud of doubt. Other than these circumstances, no other significant evidence was produced by the prosecution so as to bring home the guilt of the accused appellants. Law is well-settled by a catena of judgments, including the Supreme Court judgment in the cases of Sharad Bridhichand Sarda Vs. State [ (1984) 4 SCC 116 ] and Brijesh Mavi Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) [( 2012 7 SCC 45 ], that in a criminal case based purely on circumstantial evidence, the entire chain of circumstances must be proved by leading unimpeachable evidence pointing invariably to the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with their innocence and then only the conviction can be recorded. State (NCT of Delhi) [( 2012 7 SCC 45 ], that in a criminal case based purely on circumstantial evidence, the entire chain of circumstances must be proved by leading unimpeachable evidence pointing invariably to the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with their innocence and then only the conviction can be recorded. However, after threadbare discussion of the evidence available on record, we are of the firm view that the prosecution has failed to prove even one of the four incriminating circumstances attributed to the accused, i.e. motive, call detail record, blood-stained recoveries and comparison of footmould impressions against the accused. Thus, the conviction of the accused appellants as recorded by the trial court does not stand to scrutiny and cannot be sustained. 64. Accordingly, the instant appeal deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment dated 23.05.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No.21/2015 is hereby quashed and set aside. The accused appellants are acquitted of the charge under Section 302/34 IPC. They shall be released from prison forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. 65. However, keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A CrPC, each of the appellants is directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- 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.