Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 429 (JK)

Ram Preet Paswan v. State of Jammu and kashmir

2022-08-31

RAJESH SEKHRI, RAJNESH OSWAL

body2022
JUDGMENT : Rajnesh Oswal, J.- This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 01.05.2015 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu (hereinafter to be referred as the trial court) in file No.18/Sessions titled “State versus Ram Preet Paswan”, by virtue of which the appellant has been convicted for commission of offence under sections 302, 201 RPC and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.20,000/-. 2. The judgment has been impugned by the appellant mainly on the ground that the appellant has been convicted despite the fact that there was not even an iota of evidence on record to connect the appellant with the commission of crime and further that the learned trial court has passed the impugned judgment only on the basis of guess work. Contentions of Appellant: 3. Mr. Sunil Sethi, learned senior counsel vehemently argued that the whole of the prosecution case is based upon circumstantial evidence and there is no evidence on record that connects the appellant with the commission of offence. He further submitted that the chain of circumstances relied upon by the prosecution has not been proved by the prosecution and further that the motive too has remained unproved. Contentions of the respondent: 4. Per contra, Mr. Amit Gupta, learned AAG vehemently argued that the learned trial court has rightly convicted the appellant as the prosecution had successfully proved all the incriminating circumstances against the appellant. Case of Prosecution: 5. The prosecution story as it emerges from the charge-sheet is that at 7.15 PM, Head Constable, Kewal Krishan GRP, who was on patrol duty at Platform No. 2/3, Railway Station, Jammu informed the Police Post East GRP, Jammu that in coach meant for specially abled persons of Amritsar-Bathinda Express Train, a gunny bag was lying unattended. On receipt of said information, ASI Firdous Ahmed Giri along with Sgct. Sunil Kumar, Police Post, East GRP Railway was directed to proceed on spot. ASI Firdous Ahmed Giri opened the abovementioned gunny bag and found an unidentified body of woman of age 20/21 years. He prepared a docket narrating the abovementioned facts. He further stated that some unknown persons had murdered the girl at some other place and to destroy the evidence, they put the dead body in a sugar bag along with old clothes and left the same in the abovementioned train. He prepared a docket narrating the abovementioned facts. He further stated that some unknown persons had murdered the girl at some other place and to destroy the evidence, they put the dead body in a sugar bag along with old clothes and left the same in the abovementioned train. On receipt of this docket, FIR bearing No. 12/2013 was registered in Police Station GRP Jammu for commission of offence under sections 302 and 201 RPC. The dead body was kept in Mortuary Room for identification. After registration of the FIR, investigation was handed over to Jagjit Singh, Sub Inspector. He proceeded on spot and prepared the site plan, memo of recovery of the dead body, conducted personal search of the dead body and also prepared seizure memo of the gunny bag. He also recorded the statement of ASI Firdous Ahmed Giri and photographer, who conducted the photography on spot. On 23.06.2013, the dead body was identified by Satinder Paul Paswan in the Mortuary room at GMC Jammu in presence of Joginder Kumar Paswan and Lakhanpaul to be that of Rintu Kumari D/o Ram Preet Paswan, appellant herein and the identification memo was prepared. The statements of the witnesses were recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. and it transpired that the appellant was the neighbour of the abovementioned persons and belonged to Bihar. The appellant had been working in the Food Corporation of India (FCI) Godown as Labourer for the last 25 to 30 years and for the last 10 to 12 years had been residing as a tenant in the house of Joginder Kumar along with his wife and daughter. It also transpired that on 20.06.2013 at 10 to 11 PM in the night, the appellant, deceased and his wife were seen in the house at Channi-Rama Jammu. On 21.06.2013 in the morning, the abovementioned persons found the room of the appellant locked as the appellant along with family members had left the place for unknown destination and the appellant also did not inform the office of the FCI. It was also disclosed by them that they knew Rintu Kumari very well, who was unmarried and having love affair with one Raju who was working with Moby and used to perform the job of greasing. Their love affair was not liked by her parents. It was also disclosed by them that they knew Rintu Kumari very well, who was unmarried and having love affair with one Raju who was working with Moby and used to perform the job of greasing. Their love affair was not liked by her parents. On 20.06.2013, the deceased along with her mother went for attending the call of nature where Raju was also present. She (Rintu Kumari) caught Raju by hand and told her mother that she loved Raju and would marry him only. The mother of the deceased separated the deceased from Raju and slapped Raju 2/3 times and took the deceased along with her. She disclosed the incident to her husband i.e. appellant. The appellant got annoyed and started beating Rintu Kumari (deceased). As per the statement of abovementioned persons, the needle of suspicion pointed towards the involvement of her parents in the commission of crime. It may have been that in the night intervening 20/21.06.2013 to save their honour, they might have strangulated their daughter. No injury was found on the body of the deceased.The appellant and his wife in order to destroy the dead body pursuant to the well-knit plan, put the body in a sack and wrapped the same in a bed roll and attempted to carry the dead body to their native village in the train but could not succeed in their design and by mistake left the dead body in the Amritsar-Bhatinda Express and went to some unknown place. Search was made for the parents of the deceased but they could not be found. Subsequently, it was found that the parents of the deceased had come to Maksoodpur, Bihar on 24.06.2013 and spread rumour among their friends and relatives that Rintu Kumari had died after being run over by the train and as soon as they came to know about the arrival of the Police of J&K, they fled away to some unknown place. On 28.06.21013 pursuant to order of District Magistrate, Jammu, the post-mortem of the deceased was conducted at GMC, Jammu and as per the order of District Magistrate, Jammu in presence of the Executive Magistrate 1st Class, Jammu, the dead body was handed over to Subelal for performance of last rites and thereafter cremated at the Jogi gate Jammu. The room of the appellant was sealed after obtaining the requisite orders. The room of the appellant was sealed after obtaining the requisite orders. On 30.06.2013 the appellant was arrested on the basis of suspicion, however, his wife could not be arrested. During the interrogation, the appellant stated that he had been working as a labourer for the last 25 to 30 years in the FCI godown and for the last 12 to 14 years had been living in a rented accommodation at Channi Rama. Rintu Kumari was his youngest unmarried daughter and had been residing with him for the last 6 to 7 months. Prior to that, she was living with her Aunt at Maksoodpur in Bihar. She had disappeared from her house for 5 to 6 days and coincidently during this time, appellant and his wife had gone to their home and on search, she was found near Railway Station. Thereafter, the appellant brought Rintu Kumari along with him to Jammu and when he came to know that the deceased wanted to marry Raju, he decided to kill Rintu Kumari. He further stated that Rintu Kumari remained untraceable for 5 to 6 days in her village and there also she made a plan to marry someone. It was not tolerated by the appellant. On 20.06.2013 in the evening when deceased Rintu Kumari caught the hand of Raju in the presence of her mother, the appellant lost his temper and at 10-11P.M in the night after dinner while she was sleeping in the bed, he and his wife Binu Devi in order to save their honour made a plan to kill their daughter by smothering with the soft pillow. On 05.08.2013, the appellant made a disclosure statement that with the help of his wife in the night intervening 20/21.03.2013 at Channi Rama, while his daughter was sleeping, he along with his wife smothered her to death with the pillow. The pillow has been hidden inside the bed roll and could get the same recovered. The disclosure statement was recorded in presence of Executive Magistrate 1st Class, Naib Tehsildar, Bahu Fort, Jammu and after opening the sealed room, the maroon coloured pillow was also recovered pursuant to the disclosure made by the appellant. The statements of the witnesses who had seen the appellant keeping the gunny bag on the platform were also recorded. The disclosure statement was recorded in presence of Executive Magistrate 1st Class, Naib Tehsildar, Bahu Fort, Jammu and after opening the sealed room, the maroon coloured pillow was also recovered pursuant to the disclosure made by the appellant. The statements of the witnesses who had seen the appellant keeping the gunny bag on the platform were also recorded. During the course of investigation, Investigating Officer proved the offence under sections 302, 201 and 34 RPC against the appellant and his wife. However, as the wife of the appellant could not be traced/arrested, so proceedings under section 512 Cr.P.C were initiated against her. 6. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed on 23.09.2013. The charges were framed against the appellant for commission of offence under sections 302, 201 and 34 RPC on 26.10.2013 and the prosecution was directed to lead evidence as the appellant did not plead guilty. Out of total 28 witnesses, the prosecution has examined as many as 18 witnesses. The appellant admitted the statement of PW-1 Surjeet Singh, PW-2 Kamal Kumar, PW-14 Joginder Kumar, PW-16 Constable Rozy Bhan, PW-19 Rakesh Kumar and PW-21 Bashir Ahmed Patwari. No defence witness was produced by the appellant in his defence. Learned trial court after hearing the parties convicted the appellant by virtue of judgment impugned. Appreciation: 7. As rightly observed by the learned trial court, there is no-eye witness to the occurrence and the whole prosecution story is based upon the circumstantial evidence. The prosecution has projected the following incriminating circumstances against the appellant in the charge sheet:- (i) that in the night intervening 20th/21stMarch, 2013, the wife of the appellant along with deceased had gone for attending the call of nature and one boy Raju S/o Ram Avtar Paswan, R/o Sikhpura, Bihar was also there. The deceased caught the hand of said Raju and told her mother that she loved Raju and would marry him. The same was disclosed by the wife of the appellant to the appellant and the appellant administered beatings to the deceased and killed her by smothering with the pillow. The deceased caught the hand of said Raju and told her mother that she loved Raju and would marry him. The same was disclosed by the wife of the appellant to the appellant and the appellant administered beatings to the deceased and killed her by smothering with the pillow. (ii) that the appellant along with his wife and the deceased were lastly seen together on 20.06.2013 at 10 to 11 PM in their rented room in Channi Rama by Joginder Paswan, Lakhan Pal and Satinder Paswan and on next morning, the house was found locked as the appellant and his family at midnight left the house for unknown destination. (iii) that the appellant made a disclosure statement on 05.08.2013 that he had hidden the pillow inside the bedroll in his room and he can get the same recovered and subsequently the recovery was effected from the said room. (iv) that the deceased was killed by smothering. (v) that the accused/appellant was seen by the witnesses while the appellant was keeping the bag containing the dead body on the Railway Platform. PW-12 Basu Yadav, also did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. In cross examination, no incriminating material was extracted from him against the appellant. PW-11 Subelal Paswan was also declared hostile and he admitted his thumb impression on the seizure memo of the clothes and receipt of the dead body but the contents were denied. PW-3 Firdous Ahmed Giri has simply stated that he does not know the accused/appellant and he in fact has given the details with regard to the docket signed by him for registration of FIR and proceedings conducted on spot with regard to recovery of the dead body on 21.06.2013. PW-15 Shabir Ahmed is the witness to the proceedings those were conducted on 21.06.2013. PW-17 Arun Kumar stated that he had taken the photographs of a bag containing the dead body of one woman at Platform of the Railway Station, Jammu in the coach of Amritsar-Bhatinda Express and they are attached with the file. PW-18 Rajat Kumar Sharma is a photographer and he stated that photographs annexed with the challan had been taken by him. Circumstance No. (i): 8. To prove the first circumstance, the prosecution has examined PW-6 Satinder Paswan, PW-7 Joginder Paswan, PW-8 Lakhan Pal, PW-9 Shankar Paswan and PW-10 Bhola Paswan. PW-18 Rajat Kumar Sharma is a photographer and he stated that photographs annexed with the challan had been taken by him. Circumstance No. (i): 8. To prove the first circumstance, the prosecution has examined PW-6 Satinder Paswan, PW-7 Joginder Paswan, PW-8 Lakhan Pal, PW-9 Shankar Paswan and PW-10 Bhola Paswan. PW-7 Joginder Paswan stated that he has no knowledge of the case and also about the circumstances in which Rintu Kumari died. He was declared hostile by the learned Public Prosecutor. He admitted the contents and his signatures on the identification memo (ExPT-1). He admitted the signatures on the seizure memo of clothes but denied the contents of the same. Similarly, he admitted his signatures on the receipt of the dead body, personal search memo but denied the contents of the same. In cross examination by learned Public Prosecutor, he stated that on 21.06.2013, Ram Preet Paswan had come to him and other persons and informed about the disappearance of Rintu Kumari. He stated that all the documents were blank at the time when he had signed the same. He also stated that on 05.08.2013, the appellant had not made any disclosure statement in his presence and he has no knowledge about the disclosure statement though the disclosure statement bears his signatures but the contents are not true. He further stated that no weapon of offence was recovered and he denied the contents of recovery of the seizure memo though he admitted the signatures upon the same. 9. PW-6 Satinder Paswan was also declared hostile. In cross examination by learned Public Prosecutor, he admitted his signatures on the identification memo but denied contents thereof. Learned PP could not extract any incriminating material against the appellant during the course of cross examination. 10. Similarly, PW-10 Bhola Paswan, PW-8 Lakhan Pal also turned hostile and they were cross examined by the P.P but no incriminating material could be extracted by the learned P.P against the appellant. 11. PW-9 Shanker Paswan stated that on 20.06.2013, he came to know that the daughter of the appellant had gone missing and he went to the Police Station for filing report. On 21.06.2013, they again went to the Police Station to file the missing report along with appellant but the report was not registered and the appellant was arrested. This witness was not declared hostile though he did not support the prosecution. 12. On 21.06.2013, they again went to the Police Station to file the missing report along with appellant but the report was not registered and the appellant was arrested. This witness was not declared hostile though he did not support the prosecution. 12. PW-27-Jagjit Singh is the Investigating Officer who conducted the investigation in the FIR and seized the documents prepared by the Firdous Ahmed Giri vide seizure memo ExTP-18. He got the photographs of the deceased published in the newspapers and Doordarshan for identification of the dead body. On 23.06.2013, Joginder Paswan, Lakhan Paul and others came to him and informed him that the dead girl was Rintu Kumari, daughter of the Ram Preet Paswan and Satinder Paswan identified the dead body by identification memo (ExTP-18/1). On 24.06.2013, he sought information regarding Raju who told him that on 20.06.2013 in the evening, Rintu Kumari was going with her mother and caught his hand and told her mother that she wanted to marry him but Rintu’s mother slapped him and took Rintu Kumari with her. During cross examination stated that on 30.07.2013, he arrested the appellant from FCI godown, Railway Station, Jammu and prepared the arrest memo. The appellant also made disclosure statement and it bears his signatures on the disclosure memo and recovery memo. The site plan of place of recovery of the weapon was prepared by him (ExPT-18/3). He further stated that as per the investigation, appellant was seen by Head Constable Kewal Krishan and SPO Rajinder Kumar while he was keeping the bag having the dead body of the deceased on the Railway Platform. He admitted that he had not kept Raju as witness in the present case though he was an important witness. The Investigating Officer PW-27 Jagjit Singh has categorically stated that he had not recorded the statement of Raju with whom the deceased was having a love affair and it requires to be noted that he was the important witness because as per prosecution story, in the night intervening 20th/21st of March, 2021 at 11 PM, the deceased was stated to have caught hold hand of Raju and she told her mother that she would marry him. The mother of the deceased slapped Raju 2/3 times and this circumstance could have been proved by Raju only, particularly when the mother of the deceased is also an accused and non-association/non-examination of this material witness by Investigating Officer is fatal to the prosecution case, as such, this circumstance has not been proved by the prosecution. In Gargi v. State of Haryana, (2019) 9 SCC 738 , the Apex Court noted the following circumstances while acquitting the accused therein:- “20.2. It is also note worthy that as per PW-7, he got the information from one T.R. Malhotra at about 11.30 p.m. who, in turn, had received the information on telephone from a colleague of the deceased. Neither any enquiry was made from the said T. R. Malhotra nor any other effort was made to find out the colleague of the deceased who had telephone him. 20.5. Apart from the above noted omissions at the very initial stage, we find absolutely no reason that the Investigation Officer PW-10, even after allegedly making enquiries in the locality regarding the character of the appellant from 5-10 persons, neither mentioned this fact in the investigation report nor recorded the statement of anyone of them. This Investigating Officer further stated to have joined the children of the appellant in the investigation but did not record their statements either. This Officer also did not bother to take the statement of the tenant, whose testimony would have been of immense significance, looking to the nature of accusations as also the factors related with the building in question.” Circumstance No. (ii): 13. So far as the second circumstance is concerned that in the night intervening 20th/21st of March, 2013 at 11 PM, the appellant, his wife and the deceased were lastly seen in their rented accommodation at Channi Rama, PW-6 Satinder Paswan, PW-7 Joginder Paswan and PW-8 Lakhanpaul were examined by the prosecution but they have not supported the prosecution story, as such, this circumstance also remained unproved. Circumstance No. (iii). 14. The third circumstance is regarding the disclosure statement made by the appellant and recovery of pillow pursuant thereto, that was used to smother the deceased. As already observed that PW-7 Joginder Paswan has not supported the prosecution and he was the only independent witness to the disclosure and recovery memo, other being PW- 13 Surjeet Singh. Circumstance No. (iii). 14. The third circumstance is regarding the disclosure statement made by the appellant and recovery of pillow pursuant thereto, that was used to smother the deceased. As already observed that PW-7 Joginder Paswan has not supported the prosecution and he was the only independent witness to the disclosure and recovery memo, other being PW- 13 Surjeet Singh. PW Surjeet Singh, who was a Police constable, stated that on 05.08.2013, he was posted in GRP Police Post, Jammu. In his presence, the appellant made a disclosure statement that he had hidden a pillow with which he had killed his daughter and the same was recovered. He admitted the signatures and contents thereof. During cross examination, he stated that it is correct that FIR was registered on 21.06.2013 and on the same day the house from where the weapon of offence was recovered, was sealed by the Police in the presence of Magistrate concerned and the keys were with the Police. He does not know with whom the keys of the house were lying. The appellant used to visit the Police Station to file a missing report of his daughter in his presence. No other witness including the accused signed the disclosure statement and the recovery memo or any other document. PW-11 Mohd. Sarwar Lone deposed that in his presence the police had recovered one pillow and seizure memo bears his signatures. He also attested the site plan prepared by the Patwari. The identification parade of the accused was conducted in his presence and memo was prepared at his instance and exhibited as ExtP-P/11. In cross examination stated that he attested the seizure memo of pillow (weapon of offence) and the site plan on 20.08.2013 and 23.08.2013 respectively. During investigation, the appellant was not identified by civilian witness but by two police personnel who were posted in the GRP Post. 15. The perusal of the statement of PW-13 Surjeet Singh reveals that the place from where the pillow was recovered was already under the lock and key of the Police and he has not been able to demonstrate as to with whom the key was lying. The pillow is an ordinary household article available in every home. 15. The perusal of the statement of PW-13 Surjeet Singh reveals that the place from where the pillow was recovered was already under the lock and key of the Police and he has not been able to demonstrate as to with whom the key was lying. The pillow is an ordinary household article available in every home. No forensic examination of pillow has been got conducted by the Investigating Officer as to whether there were stains of saliva or nasal discharge on it particularly when the prosecution story is that the death was caused by smothering by use of pillow. PW-20 Sarwar has attested the seizure memo on 20.08.2013, when the same was prepared on 05.08.2013. It will not be safe to place reliance upon the disclosure and recovery memo when the independent witness has not supported the prosecution and the place of recovery was under the control of Police. Even otherwise there is nothing on record that the pillow recovered was used for commission of offence. As such, this circumstance too has not been proved by the prosecution. Circumstance No. (iv): 16. The fourth circumstance is that the death of the deceased was caused by smothering. PW-24 Dr. Deepti Mahajan and PW-25 Dr. Rubina Mirza being part of Board, conducted the post-mortem of the dead body and stated that as per post mortem report (ExTP-14), they had given an opinion that no definite opinion as to cause of the death can be given in this case. Thereafter, SHO concerned made an application to the Medical Officer, GMC Jammu that was referred to the Board Members on which they had given an opinion contrary to post mortem findings. A perusal of the statement of Doctors, PW-24 Deepti Mahajan and PW-25 Rubina Mirza reveal that they had initially in their opinion stated that no definite opinion can be furnished as to cause of death in this case but suddenly on the application of SHO, they opined that death in this case could be caused by asphyxia due to smothering. In view of two contradictory opinions, no reliance can be placed on either of them. So in light of the conflicting opinions, it cannot be conclusively determined that the death of the deceased was caused due to smothering. Circumstance No. (v): 17. In view of two contradictory opinions, no reliance can be placed on either of them. So in light of the conflicting opinions, it cannot be conclusively determined that the death of the deceased was caused due to smothering. Circumstance No. (v): 17. The last circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is that PWs 4 and 5 i.e. Head Constable Kewal Krishan and SPO Rajinder Kumar had seen the appellant while he was keeping the gunny bag on the Platform. The prosecution also relied upon the identification parade conducted in the presence of Naib Tehsildar Bahu Fort, Jammu. PW-4 Kewal Krishan has deposed about the proceedings conducted on 21.06.2013 when a gunny bag was found lying unattended in the coach of Amritsar-Bhatinda Express. PW-5 Rajinder Kumar-SPO is also witness to the proceedings conducted on 21.06.2013 at 6.30 AM. Both the witnesses PW-4 Kewal Krishan and PW-5 Rajinder Kumar have not deposed anything with regard to the conducting of the identification parade. In view of this, this circumstance has also not been proved by the prosecution. 18. We have gone through the judgment impugned passed by the learned trial court and it appears that the learned trial court has passed the judgment on basis of assumptions only without there being any legal evidence on record to substantiate such assumptions. The learned trial court has placed much reliance upon the conduct of appellant in absconding and not reporting the matter to Police. The plea of abscondence is also doubtful as the appellant was arrested from FCI Godown Jammu. PW-9 Shanker Paswan stated that he along with appellant went to Police for lodging missing report of the daughter of the appellant. More so, the learned trial court has observed that the Investigating Officer has proved the disclosure memo and consequent recovery. As already observed, the independent witness has turned hostile and the place of alleged recovery was under the lock and key of Police. Also, there is nothing on record to establish beyond doubt that the pillow allegedly recovered pursuant to the disclosure statement was used for smothering the deceased. It appears that the learned trial court has convicted the appellant only on the basis of suspicion. Needless to say the suspicion, however strong cannot replace proof. In “Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam”, (2013) 12 SCC 406 ”, the Apex Court has held as under:- 13. It appears that the learned trial court has convicted the appellant only on the basis of suspicion. Needless to say the suspicion, however strong cannot replace proof. In “Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam”, (2013) 12 SCC 406 ”, the Apex Court has held as under:- 13. 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 something that “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 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 mere 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 v. State of M.P. [ AIR 1952 SC 343 ] , State v. Mahender Singh Dahiya [ (2011) 3 SCC 109 ] and Ramesh Harijan v. State of U.P. [ (2012) 5 SCC 777 ) 19. The same principle has been reiterated by Hon’ble Apex Court in criminal appeal no. 25 of 2012, titled “Ram Niwas versus State of Haryana”, decided on 1.08.2022 by observing as under:- 20. The same principle has been reiterated by Hon’ble Apex Court in criminal appeal no. 25 of 2012, titled “Ram Niwas versus State of Haryana”, decided on 1.08.2022 by observing as under:- 20. It is settled law that the suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt. An accused cannot be convicted on the ground of suspicion, no matter how strong it is. An accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 20. As already observed by us that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the incriminating circumstances against the appellant and the learned trial court in fact has not even considered these projected incriminating circumstances while convicting the appellant. Before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must fully be established and the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused. There has to be a chain of evidence so complete, as not to leave any reasonable doubt for any 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. In “Shanti Devi v. State of Rajasthan” reported in (2012) 12 SCC 158 , Apex Court held that the principles for conviction of the accused based on circumstantial evidence are:- “10.1. The circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be proved must be cogently or firmly established. 10.2. The circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused. 10.3. The circumstances taken cumulatively must form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused and none else. 10.4. The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.” 21. In fact in such scenario, the appellant was required to be acquitted because of failure on the part of prosecution to prove the incriminating circumstances against him. 22. In fact in such scenario, the appellant was required to be acquitted because of failure on the part of prosecution to prove the incriminating circumstances against him. 22. In view of all what has been discussed above, the appeal is allowed and the judgment and order dated 01.05.2015 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu in file No.18/Sessions titled “State versus Ram Preet Paswan”, convicting the appellant for commission of offence under sections 302, 201 RPC is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge and the challan is dismissed. The appellant be released forthwith, provided he is not required in any other case. 23. Reference is answered accordingly. 24. Record of the trial court be sent back along with copy of the judgment.