JUDGMENT : VIRENDER SINGH, J. 1. The State has preferred the present appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as to as the ‘Cr.P.C.’) against the judgment dated 17.05.2010, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Chamba, District Chamba, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned trial Court’) in Sessions Trial No. 34 of 2009. 2. By way of the judgment dated 17.05.2010, the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the ‘accused’) from the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’). 3. Brief facts, leading to the filing of the present appeal, before this Court, may be summed up, as under. 4. That on 23.04.2009, Sh. Uttam Chand alongwith Sh. Balam Ram and Sh. Subhash Kumar, reported the matter to the police at Police Post Chouhra that Smt. Koula Devi, Wd/o Sh. Madho Ram, who was residing in her Adhwar (seasonal abode), had been found, in a naked condition and she might have died. 5. In order to verify the above facts, ASI Manohar Lal, In-charge, Police Post Chouhra, alongwith police officials had reached at the spot, where, Sh. Sunko Ram (complainant), got recorded his statement under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. in which, he has disclosed that he is resident of Village Kanda and labourer by profession. He was married to Ms. Saroj, D/o Smt. Koula Devi, about 25 years ago. His father-in-law had died and thereafter, his mother-in-law had started residing in Adhwar (seasonal abode), pursuing her agriculture pursuits and also looking after the livestock. The daughter of the complainant, namely, Shamo Devi, was also residing with her maternal grandmother and she used to return back daily in the evening, as there was no electricity connection in the said Adhwar. 6. On 23.04.2009, at about 6:30 a.m. as usual, she had gone to Adhwar, she immediately returned back and disclosed to her mother that someone had killed her maternal grandmother during the night time, upon which, Sh. Vijay Singh, has informed the complainant about the incident and he reached at the place of incident at about 9:00 a.m. When, he reached there, he found his mother-in-law lying dead and having the marks of injuries on her face. One blood stained danda was also found lying there. 7. Vijay Singh, has informed the complainant about the incident and he reached at the place of incident at about 9:00 a.m. When, he reached there, he found his mother-in-law lying dead and having the marks of injuries on her face. One blood stained danda was also found lying there. 7. According to the complainant, some unknown person had killed his mother-in-law in the intervening night of 22/23.04.2009. 8. On the basis of the above facts, police registered the case under Section 302 of the IPC and criminal machinery swung into motion. 9. After completing the formalities of inquest report, the dead body of the deceased was sent for post mortem examination to CHC Dalhousie and spot map was prepared. The danda, lying at the spot, was taken into possession and the blood stained portion of the danda was peeled off and was also taken into possession. The blood stained soil was taken into possession alongwith the control soil sample. After the post mortem, dead body of the deceased was handed over to her relatives for last rites. The viscera, alongwith the peeled off portion of the danda, control soil sample and blood stained soil were sent to FSL Junga, for chemical analysis. 10. In the chemical examination, the human blood was found in the blood stained soil as well as the peeled off portion of the danda and the blood group of the same was found to be B+ve. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. 11. On the basis of the suspicion, accused Ghandhi Ram was associated in the investigation of the case and on 25.05.2009, he was arrested. During his interrogation, accused has confessed that he had killed Smt. Koula Devi with the danda, as she used to object him for grazing the livestock near her Adhwar. On the basis of the statement of the accused, the ornaments of Smt. Koula Devi were got recovered from the shop of one goldsmith at Chamba, which were identified by the daughter of the deceased. The empty purse, which, according to the accused, was concealed in the bushes, was also recovered. The said purse was identified by Shamo Devi, as of her deceased maternal grandmother, Smt. Koula Devi. From the spot, the police also recovered one wooden box, which was stated to be used by the deceased to keep the money as well as the ornaments. 12. The said purse was identified by Shamo Devi, as of her deceased maternal grandmother, Smt. Koula Devi. From the spot, the police also recovered one wooden box, which was stated to be used by the deceased to keep the money as well as the ornaments. 12. After obtaining the final report, regarding the cause of death of the deceased, the police submitted the charge-sheet under Section 302 of the IPC against the accused. 13. The Charge-sheet was submitted, in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Dalhousie, who has committed the same to the Court of Sessions and consequently, the case was assigned to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, District Chamba, H.P. (learned trial Court). 14. The learned trial Court found a prima-facie case against the accused, for the commission of offence, punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. Accordingly, the accused was charge-sheeted on 07.10.2009. 15. When, the charge, so framed, was put to the accused, he had not pleaded guilty and claimed to be tried. 16. Since, the accused had not admitted his guilt and claimed to be tried, as such, the prosecution has been directed to adduce evidence, to prove the charge framed against the accused, under Section 302 of the IPC. 17. Consequently, the prosecution has examined as many as 21 witnesses, in this case. 18. After closure of the evidence, the entire incriminating evidence, appearing against the accused, was put to him, in his statement, recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. 19. The accused had denied the entire prosecution case, which was put to him and claimed that the witnesses have deposed against him falsely. 20. However, the accused has not opted to lead evidence, in his defence. 21. Thereafter, the learned trial Court has heard the arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned defence counsel, representing the accused and acquitted the accused, from the offence, punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, vide judgment dated 17.05.2010. 22. The findings of the learned trial Court have been assailed before this Court, by the State, on the ground that the learned trial Court has not only failed to appreciate the prosecution evidence in its proper perspective, but, adopted the unrealistic standard/approach to evaluate the direct and cogent prosecution evidence. 22. The findings of the learned trial Court have been assailed before this Court, by the State, on the ground that the learned trial Court has not only failed to appreciate the prosecution evidence in its proper perspective, but, adopted the unrealistic standard/approach to evaluate the direct and cogent prosecution evidence. The reasoning, as recorded by the learned trial Court, is stated to be unreasonable and unsustainable in the eyes of law, as the consistent testimony of the prosecution witnesses, on the material points, has been stated to be wrongly not considered. The findings have also been assailed on the ground that the learned trial Court has discarded the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, for untenable reasons, in the absence of any proof of animosity, between the accused and the prosecution witnesses. 23. Heavily relying upon the testimony of PW-5 Smt. Saroj, it has been argued by Sh. J.S. Guleria, Deputy Advocate General for the appellant-State that she has categorically testified that accused used to abuse her mother, who used to object the entry of the cattles, in the land of her son-in-law and the said dispute continued for years together. 24. The said statement has been highlighted to attribute the motive against the accused for killing the deceased. The factum of recovery of jewellery and purse belonging to the deceased has also been highlighted. Apart from this, the statements of PW-2 Smt. Shamo Devi and PW-4 Sh. Sobhia Ram have also been relied upon, to attribute the motive against the accused, to kill the deceased. 25. According to the learned Deputy Advocate General, the last seen theory has also been proved by the prosecution, in this case, through the evidence of PW-9 Sh. Parveen Kumar and PW-10 Sh. Puran Chand. The factum of making the disclosure statements as well as recovery, in pursuance thereto, has also been stated to be ignored by the learned trial Court. 26. On all these submissions, a prayer has been made by Sh. J.S. Guleria, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the appellant-State, that the appeal may kindly be accepted and impugned judgment of acquittal may kindly be set aside by convicting the accused, for the commission of offence, for which, he has been charge-sheeted, in the case. 27. Per contra, it has been argued by Sh. J.S. Guleria, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the appellant-State, that the appeal may kindly be accepted and impugned judgment of acquittal may kindly be set aside by convicting the accused, for the commission of offence, for which, he has been charge-sheeted, in the case. 27. Per contra, it has been argued by Sh. Naveen K. Bhardwaj, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent-accused, that the learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused, as there was no evidence, from which, even a finger of suspicion, can be raised, against the accused and that the prosecution was required to prove the case against the accused beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. 28. Highlighting the fact that the evidence of the interested witnesses has rightly been discarded by the learned trial Court and there is nothing on the file to show that any iota of evidence is there, from which, the accused could remotely be connected with the alleged offence, the learned counsel appearing for the accused has argued that, in this case, the learned trial Court has discussed each and every circumstance, which has heavily been relied upon by the prosecution, to prove the guilt of the accused and, then, the learned trial Court has rightly found that the evidence, so adduced by the prosecution, is too short, to raise any finger, against the accused. Consequently, the learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused and the said judgment of acquittal does not require any interference, from this Court, as, from no stretch of imagination, the findings, so recorded by the learned trial Court, falls within the definition of “perverse findings.” Hence, a prayer has been made to dismiss the appeal. 29. Arguments heard and perused the case file, with the active assistance of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 30. In order to decide the present appeal, in an effective manner, it would be just and appropriate, for this Court, to discuss the evidence, adduced by the prosecution and, then, to decide the fact as to whether the alleged chain of circumstantial evidence is complete, to connect the accused, with the commission of crime. 31. As stated above, when the accused had not pleaded guilty, then, the prosecution has examined as many as 21 witnesses, in this case, to prove the guilt of the accused. 32. 31. As stated above, when the accused had not pleaded guilty, then, the prosecution has examined as many as 21 witnesses, in this case, to prove the guilt of the accused. 32. The person, who had made the statement to the police under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. upon which, the FIR in question has been registered and the police machinery swung into motion, is Sh. Sunko Ram, who has been examined by the prosecution as PW-1. 32.1. According to this witness, his mother-in-law had started residing with him, after the death of her husband. She was residing in the Adhwar (seasonal abode), where, she had kept livestock and she used to look after the same. This witness was having his agricultural land there. Accused Ghandhi Ram used to go to the said Adhwar as his land was also situated near the Adhwar. 32.2. The daughter of this witness used to go to that Adhwar in the morning and return back to the home in the evening. On the date of incident, she had gone to that Adhwar, in the morning and noticed the dead body of her maternal grandmother lying in the Adhwar. After noticing the dead body, the daughter of this witness returned back to the home. Since, this witness was not present in his house, as such, he was telephonically informed by one Sh. Vijay Singh about the incident around 7:45 a.m. upon which, he straightaway went to the Adhwar and noticed that his mother-inlaw was lying dead, in a naked condition and there were injury marks on her forehead. One danda was lying there near the dead body. Except the danda, this witness did not notice anything there. 32.3. The son of this witness, alongwith the other villagers, had gone to Police Station to inform the Police. At about 11:00 a.m. the police reached at the spot and this witness has given his statement, Ex.PW-1/A, to the police. One danda, found lying there on the spot was also taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW-1/D. He has duly identified the danda as Ex.P-2. The blood stained soil as well as control sample soil was also taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW-1/E. Thereafter, the dead body was taken to Dalhousie Hospital for post mortem examination. 32.4. One danda, found lying there on the spot was also taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW-1/D. He has duly identified the danda as Ex.P-2. The blood stained soil as well as control sample soil was also taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW-1/E. Thereafter, the dead body was taken to Dalhousie Hospital for post mortem examination. 32.4. After one month, the police has arrested the accused and while in custody, he has made a statement that he had committed the murder of mother-in-law of this witness and on the next day, he had again made a statement to the police, in the presence of this witness, that he had sold the ornaments of the deceased at Chamba. On the third day, accused had again disclosed to the police about the manner, in which, he had committed the murder. 32.5. The disclosure statement of the accused is Ex.PW-1/F. The accused, in pursuance of his disclosure statement, took the police party to a shop of goldsmith at Chamba, to whom, he had sold the ornaments. The ornaments were recovered by the police and identified by the wife of this witness and the same were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW-1/G. He has also identified the gold ornaments Ex.P-8, silver chain Ex.P-9, rings Ex.P-10, 11 and 12. 32.6. According to the cross-examination of this witness, he was having 8-10 bighas land in Khabbal, Mohal Kantha, but, he feigned his ignorance about the land, which was owned by the accused in the said village. He has also feigned ignorance about the fact whether the accused Ghandhi Ram is recorded as owner of agricultural land or not. When the accused had allegedly made the disclosure statement, no one was present in the police station except this witness. 32.7. The police have informed this witness that accused Ghandhi Ram had admitted to have committed murder of mother-in-law of this witness. Next day, police had again informed him that accused had confessed to have sold the ornaments at Chamba. At that time, this witness alongwith his wife, accused and police officials was present. The police remained, at the spot, from 11:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. and during the said period, the police officials might have gone inside the Adhwar number of times. Previously, the small wooden box (sandookri) was not taken into possession and the same was taken into possession, after one month of the incident. The police remained, at the spot, from 11:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. and during the said period, the police officials might have gone inside the Adhwar number of times. Previously, the small wooden box (sandookri) was not taken into possession and the same was taken into possession, after one month of the incident. The police had visited the said Adhwar for about thirty times. The said premises were not sealed, nor the articles lying there were taken into possession. 32.8. When police left the spot, this witness had put his lock there. He has admitted that the danda, like Ex.P-2, was easily available in the village. He has admitted that in their area, widows do not wear ornaments. Easy availability of the ornaments, like P-9 to P-12, in the area, has also been admitted by him. He has admitted that when he lodged the report, he was having the knowledge that the crime has been committed by Ghandhi Ram. He has further deposed that the name of accused Ghandhi Ram was disclosed to the police, at the time of lodging the report. When, he was confronted with statement Ex.PW-1/A, then, he clearly stated that he had told the police that he was having suspicion regarding the involvement of the accused. 32.9. The ornaments were taken into possession by the police from the shop of goldsmith. Some other old ornaments were also there in the box in broken condition. Police had stayed in the jewellery shop for about 30-45 minutes. Accused lastly took the police to one shop, then to another shop and then, to the shop, from where, the said ornaments were recovered. Police stayed for about 10 minutes in the shop of goldsmith. 33. PW-2, Shamo Devi, is the daughter of complainant, namely, Sh. Sunko Ram. According to this witness, she had studied upto 5th standard and thereafter, she had discontinued her studies and started helping her parents in the domestic work. On 23.04.2009, she had gone to Adhwar at about 6:30 a.m. and noticed there that her maternal grandmother, Smt. Koula Devi was lying dead in a naked condition and there were injury marks on her face. This witness, then, returned back to her house and narrated this fact to her mother, brother and one Sh. Vijay. According to her, later on, police brought accused Ghandhi Ram. This witness, then, returned back to her house and narrated this fact to her mother, brother and one Sh. Vijay. According to her, later on, police brought accused Ghandhi Ram. At that time, her father was also with the police when accused Ghandhi Ram took the police party to Adhwar from where, he took out a purse kept concealed in the bushes and handed over the same to the police. She has identified the said purse as the purse of her maternal grandmother. One Channan and one person from Gadeti were also with the police, at that time. 33.1. According to the cross-examination of the witness, the police had recorded her statement twice on the spot. This witness had not requested her father to search the wooden box. She has admitted that purse, like Ex.P-14, is easily available in the market. There is no special identification mark on the purse Ex.P-14. 34. PW-4 Sh. Sobhia Ram, was requested by Sh. Uttam Chand to reach at Adhwar as his grandmother has been murdered, upon which, he reached at the spot. He noticed that the door of the said Adhwar was open and dead body of Smt. Koula Devi was lying in a naked condition. There were injury marks on her head. On the intimation, the police reached at the spot, at about 12:15 p.m. and inspected the spot. One danda was found lying near the dead body, which was measured and taken into possession. Lastly, he has stated that there was a dispute between the accused and the deceased, as the deceased, used to chase away the cattle out of the land of Sunko. 34.1. According to the cross-examination of this witness, the dispute between deceased and accused, firstly arose about six months ago from the date, when, he had appeared, in the witness box. No complaint, with regard to the dispute, was lodged to the police. On the day of incident, the police remained there till 3:00 p.m. This witness has admitted that on 23.04.2009, he had not got recorded, in his statement, to the police that there was a dispute between Smt. Koula Devi and Ghandhi Ram. However, according to him, Sh. Sunko had disclosed this fact to the police. The statement of this witness was recorded in the month of Baisakh. From the date of incident, this witness had visited the police post twice. 34.2. However, according to him, Sh. Sunko had disclosed this fact to the police. The statement of this witness was recorded in the month of Baisakh. From the date of incident, this witness had visited the police post twice. 34.2. When this witness had gone to the police station, the SHO concerned had inquired as why Smt. Koula Devi (deceased) was residing at Adhwar, upon which, he had replied that she was looking after the cattle of her son-in-law Sh. Sunko. The agricultural land of accused is situated in village Wangal, not in Kandha/Khabbal. 34.3. This witness was also having his Adhwar at Khabbal and according to him, the distance of Khabbal from Kantha is about 50 meters. 35. PW-5 Smt. Saroj Kumari is the daughter of deceased Smt. Koula Devi. According to her, after the death of her father, Smt. Koula Devi had started residing in Adhwar, where she had been looking after their cattle and also taking care of the crops. On 23.04.2009, PW-2 had gone to Adhwar from where, she returned back and informed this witness that deceased was found lying in Adhwar in a naked condition. Accused used to abuse the deceased as his cattle used to enter into the land owned by the husband of this witness. Not only the accused, his father and Prem Bhadur also used to abuse them. 35.1. When the accused disclosed to the police that he had sold one chain and three rings to a goldsmith at Chamba and got recovered one chain and three rings, at that time, this witness was present with the police party and he had identified the recovered chain as the same of her mother. 35.2. In the cross-examination by the learned defence counsel, this witness has admitted that she had stayed at Khabbal on the date of incident till the dead body was shifted to the hospital. On the day of alleged recovery of ornaments, this witness alongwith Bitu S/o Sh. Baldev, was with the police party. They left for Khabbal at about 2:30 p.m. The articles Ex.P-9 to P-12 do not bear any special identification mark. The police officials had brought those articles to Police Post Chamba. This witness had also gone to the shop of the goldsmith. Police party was taken to the shop of that goldsmith by the accused. They left for Khabbal at about 2:30 p.m. The articles Ex.P-9 to P-12 do not bear any special identification mark. The police officials had brought those articles to Police Post Chamba. This witness had also gone to the shop of the goldsmith. Police party was taken to the shop of that goldsmith by the accused. No conversation between police and goldsmith had taken place in the presence of this witness. This witness had identified the box, in which, her mother used to keep the jewellery and cash. The said box was not taken into possession by the police. The same was taken into possession, after the arrest of the accused. The last quarrel allegedly took place between the deceased and the accused about 10-12 days prior to the death of her mother, however, this witness was not present at the spot. 36. PW-7 Sh. Sanjeev Kumar is the Jeweller. According to him, on 23.04.2009, accused came to his shop and requested that his father is ill and admitted in hospital. According to him, the accused requested that he was in dire need of money and wanted to sell his ornaments. This witness firstly refused to purchase the said ornaments, but, in view of the persistent requests of accused, had purchased the same. On 28.05.2009, the accused alongwith police came to the shop and told that he had sold silver ornaments to this witness. Those ornaments were identified by one lady. Thereafter, those ornaments were taken into possession. He has also identified those ornaments. 36.1. In the cross-examination, this witness has admitted that the ornaments, which were allegedly identified by a lady and were recovered by the police, from the shop, were not having any special identification mark over them. This witness has not maintained any record of the customers, who used to visit the shop. The police had firstly visited the shop of this witness and thereafter, had gone to the shop of Ashok, then, to the shop of Vijay. 37. PW-8 Sh. Ashwani Kumar has stated that on 23.04.2009 at about 7:00 p.m. he was going to the house of Raju at Kathuadu. On the way, accused Ghandhi met him. He had proceeded towards village Lohad. This witness, alongwith Parveen, had gone to the house of Raju at Kathuadu and inquired about the mobile. 37. PW-8 Sh. Ashwani Kumar has stated that on 23.04.2009 at about 7:00 p.m. he was going to the house of Raju at Kathuadu. On the way, accused Ghandhi met him. He had proceeded towards village Lohad. This witness, alongwith Parveen, had gone to the house of Raju at Kathuadu and inquired about the mobile. On the next day of murder of Smt. Koula Devi, this witness had disclosed to the police that accused Ghandhi Ram had met them on the way. 37.1. On 28.05.2009, this witness was present in the market of Brangal, when, police came there, alongwith Sunko and his wife. Accused was also with them. According to his further deposition, accused disclosed to the police that he had sold the ornaments to goldsmith at Chamba and he could get those ornaments recovered from Chamba. Thereafter, the accused took the police to Chamba and in this regard, memo Ex.PW-1/F was prepared. In the shop of the goldsmith, the accused identified the ornaments, which were taken into possession vide memo, Ex.PW-1/G. He has also identified those ornaments as Ex.P-9 to Ex.P-12. Accused Ghandhi was also called by the police at the shop where this witness was standing. No document was prepared at the shop. The police party reached at Chamba at about 2:30 p.m. After reaching Chamba, the police party straightaway went to the shop of goldsmith. The accused had not disclosed the name of the goldsmith to the police. The police party remained in the shop of the goldsmith for about one and a half hours. The police inquired from the goldsmith as to whether the accused had sold the ornaments to him, upon which, he has replied in affirmative. On the directions of the police, goldsmith had taken out the ornaments and handed over to the same to the police. Other ornaments were also there in the box. He has admitted that several ornaments, like Ex.P-9 to P-12, were kept in the said box. The police party had not visited the shop of other goldsmiths, except the shop, from where, the alleged recovery was effected. 38. PW-9 is Sh. Parveen Kumar. He deposed that in the year 2009, he had gone to Chamba to see his brother-in-law, who was admitted in TB Hospital, Chamba. When, he was on his way, his sister told him regarding the theft of her mobile phone. 38. PW-9 is Sh. Parveen Kumar. He deposed that in the year 2009, he had gone to Chamba to see his brother-in-law, who was admitted in TB Hospital, Chamba. When, he was on his way, his sister told him regarding the theft of her mobile phone. On receiving this information, this witness, alongwith Sh. Ashwani, had gone to Village Kathwadu, to the house of Raju, to inquire about the stolen mobile, who had disclosed that he had not taken the mobile phone. Thereafter, he and Sh. Ashwani had returned back from the house of Raju to their village. On the way, when they were taking rest, they noticed that the accused Ghandhi Ram had proceeded towards the house of Koula Devi. Thereafter, they returned back to their house. Next day, they came to know about the death of “someone.” 38.1. On 29th May, this witness was summoned by the police at Police Post Brangal, where, accused was in custody of the police. Accused had admitted before the police that he had committed the murder of old lady and stolen money and kept concealed purse. The accused also disclosed that he had taken the purse out of the wooden box. The accused took the police party to the place, where he had kept the purse and got recovered the same from the bushes under banana tree. He has also disclosed to the police about the place, where he had kept the box, which was under a cot in the room. The purse was recovered from a distance of 25 meters from the house of the deceased. A number of residential houses were there in Village Brangal. 38.2. This witness has not disclosed to anyone that he had seen accused Ghandhi Ram proceeding towards the house of deceased. This witness was summoned to the Police of Police Post Brangal and he remained present there till 5:00 p.m. The police continued to make enquiries from the accused till 5:00 p.m. Accused was handcuffed on that day. The documents, which bear the signatures of this witness, were prepared. The distance between the Police Post from the house of the deceased is stated to be about 8 k.m. The recovery was made between 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. 39. PW-10 Sh. Puran Chand could not tell the month and year, but, stated that the date was 22nd. The documents, which bear the signatures of this witness, were prepared. The distance between the Police Post from the house of the deceased is stated to be about 8 k.m. The recovery was made between 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. 39. PW-10 Sh. Puran Chand could not tell the month and year, but, stated that the date was 22nd. He was not feeling well, so, he had hired vehicle and went to Koti Hospital and returned back. While on the way back, when he reached at Wangal, at about 5:30 p.m. Madan also met him. Thereafter, when this witness reached at Gadeti, where, Parveen and Bittu met him. At Gadeti, he noticed that accused Ghandhi Ram, with one Chandan, was consuming liquor in the house of Nirjla. He and Madan also sat in one room of the house of Nirjla and consumed one peg of liquor. Thereafter, he and Ghandhi Ram left the house of Nirjla and this witness proceeded towards his house. Ghandhi Ram carried his luggage. This witness had reached his house at about 7:30-8:00 p.m. Thereafter Ghandhi Ram demanded money for purchasing liquor. Consequently, this witness has given Rs. 10/- to Resho to provide liquor to accused Gandhi Ram. Resho gave a pint of liquor to accused Ghandhi Ram and thereafter he had consumed liquor. This witness has failed to depose about the time when the accused Ghandhi Ram had gone from there. However, according to him, he came to know about the death of Koula Devi on 23rd. 39.1. In the cross-examination, this witness has admitted that he has not disclosed to anyone that the liquor was provided by him to accused Ghandhi Ram. 40. PW-11 Sh. Parkash Chand has stated that on 22.04.2009 at about 8:00-8:30 p.m. he was sitting in the house of Resho Devi in Village Lohad and was consuming liquor. Accused Ghandhi Ram and Puran Chand were also present there. Puran Chand gave Rs. 10/- to Resho, who provided a pint of liquor to Ghandhi Ram. Accused consumed the liquor and he had also provided one peg of liquor to him. Thereafter, the accused left the spot and proceeded towards his house. On the next day, this witness had gone to attend his duty at Bharmour and in the evening, he came to know about the fact that Smt. Koula Devi was murdered by someone. 40.1. Accused consumed the liquor and he had also provided one peg of liquor to him. Thereafter, the accused left the spot and proceeded towards his house. On the next day, this witness had gone to attend his duty at Bharmour and in the evening, he came to know about the fact that Smt. Koula Devi was murdered by someone. 40.1. In the cross-examination, this witness has admitted that he had not disclosed to anyone before making the statement to the police that accused Ghandhi alongwith the uncle of this witness came to the house of Resho, where his uncle got purchased liquor for him. 41. PW-14 Dr. Om Parkash has conducted the post mortem report of the deceased Ex.PW-14/B. According to this witness, cause of death was head injury, which led to irreversible shock, cardiopulmonary arrest. This witness has noticed three visible fractures on the person of the deceased. This witness has not seen invisible fractures on the person of deceased. 42. PW-19, ASi Manohar Lal, has partly investigated the case. On 23.04.2009, Sh. Uttam Chand has lodged report with the police at Police Post Chauhra. Thereafter, this witness, alongwith police officials, went to the spot and recorded the statement of Sh. Sunko Ram Ex.PW-1/A. After making the endorsement, the same was sent to the Police, on the basis of which, FIR Ex.PW-19/B was registered. The photographs of the spot were got clicked by summoning the photographer. He has separated peeled off portion of the danda and sealed the same separately. Blood stained soil and control sample of soil were also taken into possession. 42.1. This witness, in the cross examination, has admitted that Sh. Sunko Ram did not express his suspicion, on any person, about the involvement in the crime. This witness remained on the spot for about one and a half hours and during his stay, he had examined the site minutely, but, had not noticed the sandookari (small wooden box). At that time, Sh. Sunko Ram was accompanying this witness and nobody had told this witness about this sandookari, on that day. 43. PW-21, Inspector Kanwar Singh Guleria, has also partly investigated the case. According to him, on 28.05.2009, accused, while in police custody, had made a disclosure statement, Ex.PW-1/F, in the presence of Sh. Sunko Ram and Sh. At that time, Sh. Sunko Ram was accompanying this witness and nobody had told this witness about this sandookari, on that day. 43. PW-21, Inspector Kanwar Singh Guleria, has also partly investigated the case. According to him, on 28.05.2009, accused, while in police custody, had made a disclosure statement, Ex.PW-1/F, in the presence of Sh. Sunko Ram and Sh. Ashwani Kumar, disclosing therein that he had committed the murder of Smt. Koula Devi and had taken away the ornaments of the deceased and sold the same at Chamba and could get the same recovered. Thereafter, the accused took the police party to Chamba and shown a shop situated at Museum Road Chamba. Jeweller Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, shown the ornaments, which the accused had sold to him by saying that his father was ill. Stolen articles were identified by Smt. Saroj Kumari, to be of the deceased. Those ornaments were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW-1/G in the presence of Sh. Sunki and Sh. Ashwani Kumar. 43.1. On 29.05.2009 the accused, while in the police custody, again made a disclosure statement that he could get recovered a purse from the bushes situated near the place of incident, upon which, the statement, Ex.PW-9/A, was recorded. Pursuant to the said statement, the accused got recovered the purse from the bushes. The said purse was identified by Shamo Devi to be of the deceased. 43.2. In the cross-examination, this witness had admitted that the accused was arrested from the Court premises, as he had applied for anticipatory bail, which was declined to him. 43.3. On 04.05.2009, this witness had recorded the statement of Smt. Saroj Kumari. She had raised suspicion qua the involvement of the accused in the commission of crime. 43.4. On 28.05.2009, accused allegedly made the disclosure statement at Brangal at tea stall. Then, the accused took the police party to the shop of jeweler. According to this witness, he had not taken the police party to any other shop. After seeing the photographs, this witness had not inquired from ASI Manohar Lal, as to why the wooden box was not taken into possession, as the same was visible in the photograph, Ex.PW-20/B. 44. This is the entire evidence, which has been led by the prosecution, in this case. 45. After seeing the photographs, this witness had not inquired from ASI Manohar Lal, as to why the wooden box was not taken into possession, as the same was visible in the photograph, Ex.PW-20/B. 44. This is the entire evidence, which has been led by the prosecution, in this case. 45. The learned trial Court, in this case, has discussed as many as five circumstances to judge the guilt of the accused and ultimately come to the conclusion that the circumstances, so relied upon by the prosecution, neither point out definitely and unerringly, towards the guilt of the accused, nor they formed the complete chain to suggest that within all human probabilities, the crime was committed by the accused and none else. These findings have been assailed before this Court. 46. Admittedly, this case is based upon the circumstantial evidence. It is no longer res-integra, that the conviction can be based upon the circumstantial evidence. The circumstantial evidence is not the weak type of evidence, but, in order to base the conviction on the circumstantial evidence, it has to be seen that the circumstances, so established on the record, are incriminating in nature and the chain of the circumstances, so relied/established by the prosecution, is so complete, as not to be inconsistent with any other hypothesis, except the guilt of the accused. 47. While dealing with the case, where the prosecution wants to prove the guilt of the accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence, the rule specifically applicable to such evidence must be borne in mind, as in such cases, there is always the danger that conjecture or suspicion may take place of the “legal proof.” 48. In order to base a conviction, on the circumstantial evidence, each and every piece of incriminating circumstance, must be clearly established by reliable and clinching evidence. Hon’ble Apex Court, in a recent decision in Munikrishna @ Krishna vs. State by Ulsoor P.S. 2022 (0) Supreme (SC) 1097 [Criminal Appeal Nos. 1597-1600/2022], has elaborately discussed about the nature of the circumstantial evidence. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are reproduced as under: “11. It is a case of circumstantial evidence and in a case of circumstantial evidence, the entire chain of evidence must be complete and the conclusions which is arrived after examining the chain of evidence must point towards the culpability of the accused and to no other conclusion. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are reproduced as under: “11. It is a case of circumstantial evidence and in a case of circumstantial evidence, the entire chain of evidence must be complete and the conclusions which is arrived after examining the chain of evidence must point towards the culpability of the accused and to no other conclusion. This, however, is clearly missing from the case of the prosecution. The entire case of the prosecution is based on the so called confessional statements or voluntary statements given by accused Nos. 1 to 5 (all the present appellants) while they were in police custody. Statement given by an accused to police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. is not admissible as evidence. The so-called evidence discovered under section 27 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, i.e. the recovery of stolen items and the recovery of the weapon are also very doubtful. 12. In a case of circumstantial evidence, the Court has to scrutinize each and every circumstantial possibility, which is placed before it in the form of an evidence and the evidence must point towards only one conclusion, which is the guilt of the accused. In other words, a very heavy duty is cast upon the prosecution to prove its case, beyond reasonable doubt. As early as in 1952, this Court in its seminal judgment of Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and Another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh had laid down the parameters under which the case of circumstantial evidence is to be evaluated. It states: “......It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused....” Hanumant (supra) has been consistently followed by this Court. To name a few, Tufail (alias) Simmi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, Ram Gopal vs. State of Maharashtra and Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra. In Musheer Khan @ Badshah Khan and Another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh dated 28.01.2010, this Court while discussing the nature of circumstantial evidence and the burden of proof of prosecution stated as under: “39. In a case of circumstantial evidence, one must look for complete chain of circumstances and not on snapped and scattered links which do not make a complete sequence. This Court finds that this case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence. While appreciating circumstantial evidence, the Court must adopt a cautious approach as circumstantial evidence is “inferential evidence” and proof in such a case is derivable by inference from circumstances. 40. Chief Justice Fletcher Moulton once observed that “proof does not mean rigid mathematical formula” since “that is impossible.” However, proof must mean such evidence as would induce a reasonable man to come to a definite conclusion. Circumstantial evidence, on the other hand, has been compared by Lord Coleridge “like a gossamer thread, light and as unsubstantial as the air itself and may vanish with the merest of touches.” The learned Judge also observed that such evidence may be strong in parts but it may also leave great gaps and rents through which the accused may escape. Therefore, certain rules have been judicially evolved for appreciation of circumstantial evidence. 41. To my mind, the first rule is that the facts alleged as the basis of any legal inference from circumstantial evidence must be clearly proved beyond any reasonable doubt. If conviction rests solely on circumstantial evidence, it must create a network from which there is no escape for the accused. The facts evolving out of such circumstantial evidence must be such as not to admit of any inference except that of guilt of the accused. [See: Raghav Prapanna Tripathi vs. State of U.P. AIR 1963 SC 74 : (1963) 1 Cri. L.J. 70] 42. The second principle is that all the links in the chain of evidence must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and they must exclude the evidence of guilt of any other person than the accused. [See: State of U.P. vs. Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal, (1992) 3 SCC 300 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 642 : 1992 Cri. L.J. 3693, SCC p. 309, Para 20] 43. [See: State of U.P. vs. Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal, (1992) 3 SCC 300 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 642 : 1992 Cri. L.J. 3693, SCC p. 309, Para 20] 43. While appreciating circumstantial evidence, we must remember the principle laid down in Ashraf Ali vs. King Emperor, 21 CWN 1152 : 43 IC 241 (IC at Para 14) that when in a criminal case there is conflict between presumption of innocence and any other presumption, the former must prevail. 44. The next principle is that in order to justify the inference of guilt, the inculpatory facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and are incapable of explanation upon any other reasonable hypothesis except his guilt. 45. When a murder charge is to be proved solely on circumstantial evidence, as in this case, presumption of innocence of the accused must have a dominant role. In Nibaran Chandra Roy vs. King Emperor, 11 CWN 1085, it was held that the fact that an accused person was found with a gun in his hand immediately after a gun was fired and a man was killed on the spot from which the gun was fired may be strong circumstantial evidence against the accused, but it is an error of law to hold that the burden of proving innocence lies upon the accused under such circumstances. It seems, therefore, to follow that whatever force a presumption arising under Section 106 of the Evidence Act may have in civil or in less serious criminal cases, in a trial for murder it is extremely weak in comparison with the dominant presumption of innocence. 46. The same principles have been followed by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Govinda Reddy vs. State of Mysore, AIR 1960 SC 29 : 1960 Cri. L.J. 137, where the learned Judges quoted the principles laid down in Hanumant Govind Nargundkar vs. State of M.P. AIR 1952 SC 343 : 1953 Cri. L.J. 129. The ratio in Govind AIR 1952 SC 343 : 1953 Cri. L.J. 129, quoted in AIR Para 5, p. 30 of the Report in Govinda Reddy, AIR 1960 SC 29 : 1960 Cri. L.J. 129. The ratio in Govind AIR 1952 SC 343 : 1953 Cri. L.J. 129, quoted in AIR Para 5, p. 30 of the Report in Govinda Reddy, AIR 1960 SC 29 : 1960 Cri. L.J. 137 are: “5..........“10.......in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances [which lead to the conclusion of guilt should be in the first instance] fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be [shown] that within all human probability the act must have been [committed] by the accused.” [As observed in Hanumant Govind Nargundkar vs. State of M.P. AIR 1952 SC 343 at pp. 345-346, Para 10]” The same principle has also been followed by this Court in Mohan Lal Pangasa vs. State of U.P. (1974) 4 SCC 607 : 1974 SCC (Cri) 643: AIR 1974 SC 1144 .” 49. During the course of arguments, the learned Deputy Advocate General has relied upon two circumstances i.e. recovery of the purse and recovery of the ornaments, at the instance of the accused. 50. Before discussing those two circumstances, it would be appropriate for this Court, to point out the feeble attempt made by the prosecution, to establish the factum of animosity between the accused and the deceased. 51. Motive assumes significance, in a case, where the prosecution wants to prove the guilt of the accused, on the basis of the circumstantial evidence. The Hon’ble Apex Court in a recent decision titled as Ravi Sharma vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and Another, (2022) 8 SCC 536 , has held as under: “14. When we deal with a case of circumstantial evidence, as aforesaid, motive assumes significance. Though, the motive may pale into insignificance in a case involving eyewitnesses, it may not be so when an accused is implicated based upon the circumstantial evidence. This position of law has been dealt with by this Court in the case of Tarsem Kumar vs. Delhi Administration, (1994) Supp. Though, the motive may pale into insignificance in a case involving eyewitnesses, it may not be so when an accused is implicated based upon the circumstantial evidence. This position of law has been dealt with by this Court in the case of Tarsem Kumar vs. Delhi Administration, (1994) Supp. 3 SCC 367 in the following terms: “8. Normally, there is a motive behind every criminal act and that is why investigating agency as well as the court while examining the complicity of an accused try to ascertain as to what was the motive on the part of the accused to commit the crime in question. It has been repeatedly pointed out by this Court that where the case of the prosecution has been proved beyond all reasonable doubts on basis of the materials produced before the court, the motive loses its importance. But in a case which is based on circumstantial evidence, motive for committing the crime on the part of the accused assumes greater importance. Of course, if each of the circumstances proved on behalf of the prosecution is accepted by the court for purpose of recording a finding that it was the accused who committed the crime in question, even in absence of proof of a motive for commission of such a crime, the accused can be convicted. But the investigating agency as well as the court should ascertain as far as possible as to what was the immediate impelling motive on the part of the accused which led him to commit the crime in question.” 52. Being guided by the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court, as referred to above, in Ravi Sharma’s case (supra), now this Court proceeds to discuss the evidence of the prosecution, which has been led in order to prove the fact that the accused had motive to kill Koula Devi, as there was animosity between accused and deceased on account of the fact that the accused used to chase away the domesticated animals of the deceased. 53. 53. Admittedly, the person, who has put the criminal machinery into motion, has not named the accused, in his statement, recorded under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. Ex.PW-1/A. No doubt, the FIR is not the encyclopedia of the events, but, the accused is stated to be the neighbour of the deceased and had there been any animosity or strained relations between the deceased and the accused, then, in the normal circumstances, such material facts should not have been skipped from the version of the person, who has got recorded his statement under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. 54. The deposition of PW-1, in the cross-examination, that he had knowledge, at the time of lodging the report with the police, that accused Ghandhi Ram had committed the murder, is a fact, which can be said to be an afterthought story. Had this fact been in the knowledge of PW-1, at the time of recording his statement, under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. then, such important fact should have been got recorded by him, in the said statement to the Police. 55. The story of the animosity between the deceased and accused was firstly introduced in the supplementary statement of PW-4, namely, Sh. Sobhia Ram, which, as per the record, was recorded on 27.05.2009. It is highly improbable that the factum of animosity, which must be in the knowledge of the near and dear of the deceased, has not been disclosed by them to the police, but, the said factum seems to be introduced by the police, for the first time, in the supplementary statement of PW-4 Sh. Sobhia Ram on 27.05.2009. 56. PW-4 has deposed that when the dispute arose between the accused and deceased, then, Sunko Ram and his wife were present there. However, no such deposition has been made by the complainant as well as his wife, who are relatives of the deceased. In case, such type of dispute had taken place in the presence of these two witnesses, who are daughter and son-in-law of the deceased, then, in the natural course of the events, such important fact must have been mentioned by these witnesses in their statements. In case, such type of dispute had taken place in the presence of these two witnesses, who are daughter and son-in-law of the deceased, then, in the natural course of the events, such important fact must have been mentioned by these witnesses in their statements. Whatsoever, deposed by this witness regarding the alleged animosity, has been demolished by this witness himself, when, he has deposed in the cross examination, that when he had visited the police post, after the third day of the incident, he had not disclosed to the police about the alleged dispute between the accused and the deceased. The improved version of this witness is also fatal for the case of the prosecution. 57. There is no whisper, in the statement of the son-in-law of the deceased, that his mother-in-law was having any animosity with the accused. Similarly, daughter of PW-1 has also not bothered to depose about the alleged animosity between the accused and the deceased. The daughter of the deceased, with whom the deceased was residing, after the death of her husband, has been examined as PW-5. This witness has also not uttered a single word regarding the alleged animosity between the deceased and the accused. In such situation, the feeble attempt of the prosecution to introduce the alleged animosity between the deceased and accused to prove the “motive” remains futile. 58. Now, coming to the factum of the alleged recoveries, in pursuance of the alleged disclosure statements made by the accused. 59. The prosecution, in this case, has heavily relied upon the circumstances that the accused, in the custody, had made a disclosure statement that he had sold one silver necklace and three silver rings to a goldsmith at Chamba and he could identify the said shop and get recovered the above articles. According to the prosecution, the said statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer and documents have been proved as Ex.PW-1/F, which has allegedly been witnessed by PW-1 Sh. Sunko Ram and PW-8 Sh. Ashwani Kumar. The person, who has recorded the said statement, is PW-21. According to the prosecution, the said statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer and documents have been proved as Ex.PW-1/F, which has allegedly been witnessed by PW-1 Sh. Sunko Ram and PW-8 Sh. Ashwani Kumar. The person, who has recorded the said statement, is PW-21. This witness, while stating on oath, has exaggerated the alleged version given by the accused, in the document Ex.PW-1/F. He has deposed on oath that on 28.05.2009, accused, while in police custody, made a disclosure statement, Ex.PW-1/F, in the presence of the witnesses has stated that “after committing murder of Smt. Koula Devi he had taken the ornaments of the deceased and sold the same at Chamba and could get them recovered” whereas, no such words, have been found to be recorded in the statement, Ex.PW-1/F. In this document, the accused has stated “I have sold one silver necklace and three silver rings to a goldsmith at Chamba. I can get recovered the same after identifying the shop of goldsmith.” The over-enthusiasm of the Investigating Officer to add the words that the accused had stated that after committing murder of Smt. Koula Devi, he had taken the ornaments of the deceased and sold them out at Chamba, is a fact, which destroyed the evidentiary value of the alleged disclosure statement. 60. The Investigating Officer is supposed to reiterate the exact information or statement given by the accused. By virtue of the provision under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the legislature in its wisdom, has, partially lifted the ban, in admitting the statement of the accused, made during the custody. The failure of the Investigating Officer to depose about the “exact information”, allegedly given by the accused, is also fatal for the case of the prosecution. Even otherwise, PW-1, who is the alleged signatory of the disclosure statement, Ex.PW1/F, also could not disclose about the exact information given by the accused, in his statement, recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The other signatory of the statement, Ex.PW-1/F, is Sh. Ashwani Kumar, who has been examined as PW-8. This witness has also failed to depose about the exact information given by the accused, in his statement recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. 61. The other signatory of the statement, Ex.PW-1/F, is Sh. Ashwani Kumar, who has been examined as PW-8. This witness has also failed to depose about the exact information given by the accused, in his statement recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. 61. Even otherwise, the statement of PW-8 Ashwani Kumar, is sufficient to destroy the case of the prosecution about the alleged recovery of ornaments Ex.P-9 to P-12, as this witness has stated that in his presence, the accused has allegedly made the statement that he had sold the ornaments to one goldsmith at Chamba and could get the same recovered from Chamba. Thereafter, the accused allegedly took the police party to Chamba. 62. This witness in his deposition, has stated that they had straightaway gone to the shop of goldsmith, whereas, in the next line, he has deposed that accused had not disclosed the name of goldsmith to the police in his presence. Then, how the police had gone to the shop of Sh. Sanjeev Kumar is a fact, which remained unanswered in this case. His further deposition that the accused had shown the shop of goldsmith to the police, is not liable to be accepted, as in the next line, he has deposed that the police had enquired from the said goldsmith, that the accused had sold ornaments to him. The material discrepancy between the statement of PW-8 with the statement of PW-1, as well as, his wife, is fatal for the case of prosecution. 63. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is in full agreement with the findings of the learned trial Court, qua the fact, that in view of the quality of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, in order to prove the alleged disclosure statement and recovery, pursuant thereto, it is not safe to rely upon such evidence. 64. The another fact, which has rightly been highlighted by the learned counsel appearing for the accused, in this case, is that the information allegedly given by the accused, in his disclosure statement, Ex.PW-1/F, does not fall within the definition of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, as in the alleged statement, accused has not given any definite information. 64. The another fact, which has rightly been highlighted by the learned counsel appearing for the accused, in this case, is that the information allegedly given by the accused, in his disclosure statement, Ex.PW-1/F, does not fall within the definition of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, as in the alleged statement, accused has not given any definite information. Rather, from the evidence of PW-1, it has been proved that the police had made the fishy inquiry by taking the accused to the one shop, then, to another shop and lastly, to the shop, from where the ornaments were allegedly recovered. Similarly, from the deposition of PW-8, the presence of PW-1 and PW-8, with the police, on the date of alleged recovery also become doubtful, as, PW-1 has stated that the accused had taken the police, firstly, to the one shop, then to the second shop and then, to the third shop, from where the alleged recovery was made, whereas, PW-8 has stated that the police party had not visited the shop of any other goldsmith except the shop, from where the alleged recovery was effected. 65. In such situation, there is no occasion for this Court to differ with the findings of the learned trial Court. 66. So far as the second disclosure statement, allegedly made by the accused, on 29.05.2009 is concerned, as per the prosecution case, accused Ghandhi Ram made a disclosure statement that he had taken out Rs. 1100/- from a yellow coloured purse and had thrown the purse near Adhwar and get the same recovered. The said statement was allegedly witnessed by prosecution witnesses, namely, Sh. Parveen Kumar and Sh. Chanden Lal. The Investigating Officer has deposed regarding this fact by stating that on 29.05.2009, accused made a disclosure statement that he could get recovered the purse in the bushes, near the place of incident. Again the exact information, which was allegedly given by the accused, has not been deposed by this witness during his statement on oath. 67. PW-9 Sh. Parveen Kumar has deposed that accused Ghandhi Ram admitted before the police that he had committed murder of old lady, had stolen money and kept concealed the purse (batua), whereas, in the document, Ex.PW-9/A, the word allegedly used by accused are that he had removed Rs. 1100/- from the purse and thrown the purse near Adhwar. 67. PW-9 Sh. Parveen Kumar has deposed that accused Ghandhi Ram admitted before the police that he had committed murder of old lady, had stolen money and kept concealed the purse (batua), whereas, in the document, Ex.PW-9/A, the word allegedly used by accused are that he had removed Rs. 1100/- from the purse and thrown the purse near Adhwar. There is much difference between the terms “concealed” and “thrown.” 68. The other signatory of the disclosure statement, Ex.PW-9/A, has not been examined by the prosecution, in this case, and was simply given up by the learned Public Prosecutor. 69. In such situation, there is no legal hesitation, for this Court, to draw an inference that had this witness been examined, then, he would have deposed against the prosecution. 70. As per the evidence of Investigating Officer as well as PW-9, the requirement of Section 27 of the Evidence Act has not been complied with, by the prosecution. The alleged recovery has also become doubtful, as, PW-2 has allegedly deposed that the accused took the police party to Adhwar, from where, he took out a purse kept concealed in the bushes and handed over the same to the police. Interestingly, in the examination-in-Chief, this witness has deposed that her grandmother used to keep the purse in her wooden box (sandookri). The said sandookri, with the lock on it, is clearly visible in the photograph, Ext. PW-20/B, as admitted by the Investigating Officer. When the said sandookri has not been taken into possession at the initial stage, then, the alleged recovery of the purse, that too, at the instance of the accused, comes under the cloud of suspicion. 71. At the cost of repetition, the disclosure statement allegedly made by the accused regarding the purse is Ex.PW-9/A. The said statement was recorded by PW-21. According to him, the accused, in custody, on 29.05.2009, has made the disclosure statement that he could get recovered a purse from the bushes situated near the place of incident and allegedly got recovered the purse from the bushes. Whereas, in Ex.PW-9/A, the accused allegedly made the disclosure statement, that, on 22.04.2009, he had killed Smt. Koula Devi and, thereafter, Rs. 1100/- which were in a yellow purse, were taken away and after removing the money, the purse was thrown near Adhwar. Whereas, in Ex.PW-9/A, the accused allegedly made the disclosure statement, that, on 22.04.2009, he had killed Smt. Koula Devi and, thereafter, Rs. 1100/- which were in a yellow purse, were taken away and after removing the money, the purse was thrown near Adhwar. The new story, regarding the recovery of the purse from the bushes, introduced by PW-21, is a fact, which, compels this Court to hold that the things had not happened in the manner, as deposed by PW-21. Even otherwise, PW-9 has deposed, in examination-in-chief, that he had stolen money and kept concealed the purse and the alleged recovery is stated to be from the bushes under a banana tree. Statements of PW-21 and PW-9 are in contradiction of the document Ex.PW9/A. In such situation, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the alleged recovery in pursuance to the disclosure statement, Ex.PW9/A. 72. In the post mortem report, Ex.PW-14/B, the age of the deceased has been mentioned as 70 years. As per the prosecution case, after the death of her husband, she was residing in the village of her daughter at Adhwar. In such situation, the story regarding the fact that the accused had taken away the ornaments Ex.P-9 to P-12, is not liable to be accepted as the sandookri, which was having lock over it, has not been taken into possession by the PW-19 Investigating Officer. This witness has admitted that the said sandookri was found lying under the cot, but, the Investigating Officer had not thought it proper to check the same, what to talk about taking into possession the said sandookri. 73. The grand daughter of the deceased, PW-2 Shamo Devi, has made a futile attempt by deposing that her maternal grandmother used to keep the purse, Ex.P-14 in the sandookri, this is a fact, which is not liable to be accepted, as PW-21 Investigating Officer, has admitted that the sandookri is clearly visible in the photograph, Ex.PW-20/B. 74. A bare perusal of the photograph Ex.PW-20/B shows that the said sandookri is having lock over it, then, how the accused could succeed in removing the ornaments and money out of the said sandookri. This fact remains unanswered by the prosecution, in this case. 75. The prosecution, in this case, has also relied upon the last seen theory. A bare perusal of the photograph Ex.PW-20/B shows that the said sandookri is having lock over it, then, how the accused could succeed in removing the ornaments and money out of the said sandookri. This fact remains unanswered by the prosecution, in this case. 75. The prosecution, in this case, has also relied upon the last seen theory. In order to prove the said fact, the prosecution has heavily relied upon the statement of PW-8, PW-9 and PW-10, in this case. 76. Hon’ble Apex Court in a case titled as Sunny Kapoor vs. State (UT of Chandigarh), 2006 (3) Criminal Court Cases 1 (SC), has elaborately discussed this theory i.e. last seen theory. The relevant Para of this judgment is reproduced as under: 19. The appellants have been convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence. It is now well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that for proving the guilt of commission of an offence under Section 302 IPC, the prosecution must lead evidence to connect all links in the chain so as to clearly point the guilt of the accused alone and nobody else. Recently in Ramreddy Rajeshkhanna Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2006 (3) SCALE 452 , this Court has held as under: “It is now well-settled that with a view to base a conviction on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish all the pieces of incriminating circumstances by reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances so proved must form such a chain of events as would permit no conclusion other than one of guilt of the accused. The circumstances cannot be on any other hypothesis. It is also well- settled that suspicion, however, grave may be, cannot be a substitute for a proof and the courts shall take utmost precaution in finding an accused guilty only on the basis of the circumstantial evidence.” The last-seen theory, furthermore, comes into play where the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive and the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible. Even in such a case courts should look for some corroboration.” 77. Even in such a case courts should look for some corroboration.” 77. Judging the facts and circumstances of the present case, the material question which arises for determination before this Court is whether the statements of these three witnesses are sufficient to establish the last seen theory, in this case, and to convict the accused on the basis of the above facts. 78. PW-9, Ashwani Kumar has stated that on 22nd April 2009, at about 7:00 p.m. when this witness and Parveen Kumar were going to the house of Raju at Kathuadu, then, accused Ghandhi Ram met them on the way. The accused is stated to be going towards Village Lohad and he was having some articles, which were kept by him in a sack. This witness is resident of Village Wangal. Admittedly, the accused is resident of Village Khabbal. As such, his presence in the area is natural. As such, no inference can be drawn from the said statement. 79. So far as the statement of PW-9 is concerned, his statement is too short to raise any finger of suspicion against the accused, as this witness has simply stated that when they were taking rest, while returning back from the house of Raju, then, they noticed accused Ghandhi Ram proceeding towards the house of an old lady (deceased). However, this witness, in his examination-in-chief, could not disclose about the month and simply stated that it was 22nd of 2009. From this, no inference can be drawn that on the day of incident, the accused was found allegedly going towards the house of the deceased. 80. PW-10 Puran Chand is resident of Village Lohad. He could not tell about the month and year of the alleged incident. From his entire statement, no inference can be drawn that the deceased and the accused were last seen together. As such, the said theory is also not liable even to consider, what to talk to base the conviction on the basis of said fact. 81. No doubt, a brutal murder has taken place, but this does not mean that without any clinching and clear evidence, the person, who has been named as accused, in the case, should be convicted. 82. 81. No doubt, a brutal murder has taken place, but this does not mean that without any clinching and clear evidence, the person, who has been named as accused, in the case, should be convicted. 82. The prosecution has to stand upon its own legs and no adverse inference could be drawn from the fact that the accused has denied the entire prosecution case, as the onus is upon the prosecution to prove each and every circumstance against the accused, by leading the cogent and convincing evidence. The accused has every right to take shelter under the golden principle to remain silent during the trial. 83. From any stretch of imagination, the findings, so recorded by the learned trial Court, do not fall within the definition of “perverse.” Moreover, with the judgment of acquittal in favour of accused, the presumption of innocence, which was available to the accused, at the time of inception of the trial, becomes double. 84. No other point has been urged or argued. 85. In view of the above, there is no occasion for this Court to differ with the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, while acquitting the accused. 86. Accordingly, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds are ordered to be discharged. 87. Records be sent back.