Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 2806 (ALL)

Km. Gulrooh Tarannum @ Raxi v. State of U. P.

2023-12-13

ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, SYED AFTAB HUSAIN RIZVI

body2023
JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is by the accused appellant against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, dated 01.06.2013, passed by the Additional Session Judge, Court No.2, Aligarh in Session Trial No.951 of 2008, State vs. Km. Gulrooh Tarannum @ Raxi (arising out of Case Crime No.633 of 2007) Police Station Civil Line, District Aligarh, whereby the accused appellant has been convicted under section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.50,000/-and in default of fine she is to undergo six months additional simple imprisonment, separately, for committing murder of two deceased Hasan Aziz Farooqi and Rana Aziz Farooqi; under section 304 IPC for two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/ and in default of fine she is to undergo one month additional simple imprisonment; under section 420 IPC for three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/-and in default of fine she is to undergo three months additional simple imprisonment; under section 467 IPC for five years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.20,000/-and in default of fine she is to undergo six months additional simple imprisonment; under section 468 IPC for three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/-and in default of fine she is to undergo three months additional simple imprisonment; under section 471 IPC for one year rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences are to run concurrently. 2. Hasan Aziz Farooqi was employed in Aligarh Muslim University and retired from the post of Section Officer. His wife Smt. Rana Aziz Farooqi was a teacher in Aligarh Public School. After her retirement both Hasan Aziz Farooqi and Smt. Rana Azia Farooqi were living at House No.3/18, United Colony, Amir Nisha, Police Station Civil Lines, Aligarh. As per the informant (PW-1), Hasan Aziz Farooqi and Smt. Rana Aziz Farooqi were to reach Lucknow on 23.11.2007 but they did not reach. Their nephew Rehaw Farooqi, who was residing at Lucknow, called the informant to go and verify. Accordingly, the informant came to the house of Hasan Aziz Farooqi and found the door to be locked from outside. He smelled stench coming out of the house and contacted the owner Fazal Abbas (PW-2). The house was searched from all sides and with the help of neighbours the lock was broke open. Accordingly, the informant came to the house of Hasan Aziz Farooqi and found the door to be locked from outside. He smelled stench coming out of the house and contacted the owner Fazal Abbas (PW-2). The house was searched from all sides and with the help of neighbours the lock was broke open. It was found that dead body of Smt. Farooqi was lying on double bed whereas dead body of Hasan Aziz Farooqi was lying on the floor. It appeared that the death has occurred several days back. The informant suspected that some unknown person killed the elderly couple and locked the house. A written report (Ex.Ka.1) in that regard has been given by the informant to the Incharge, Police Station Civil Lines, Aligarh. Contents of the written report were transcribed in the general diary and First Information Report was lodged as Case Crime No.633 of 2007, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Civil Lines, District Aligarh on 24.11.2007 at 11.30 am. 3. According to the prosecution case, the accused appellant was living in a different portion of the same house where deceased couple was also residing. After dead body of elderly couple was found the police contacted the accused appellant and she was arrested on 26.11.2007. According to the police, one Nokia mobile phone belonging to the accused herself and one mobile phone belonging to deceased couple was recovered from the accused appellant. Recovery is said to have been witnessed by PW-1. During the course of investigation it was found that the deceased couple had opened a joint saving bank account in the Bank of Baroda, Branch Malkhan Nagar, Aligarh bearing account no.2161010000716 on 31st August, 2007. It was found that deposits made in the joint account of deceased couple had been withdrawn vide five cheques bearing cheque no.760722 dated 18.10.2007 for a sum of Rs.2,10,000/-; cheque no.760727 dated 22.10.2007 for a sum of Rs.25,000/-; cheque no.760737 dated 23.10.2007 for a sum of Rs.1,34,000/-; cheque no.760730 dated 13.11.2007 for a sum of Rs.45,000/- and; cheque no.760734 dated 14.11.2007 for a sum of Rs.2,56,000/-. The cheque leaflets utilized for withdrawal of the aforesaid amounts was actually issued to the accused appellant who had a separate account in the same branch. The cheque leaflets utilized for withdrawal of the aforesaid amounts was actually issued to the accused appellant who had a separate account in the same branch. The primary reason for implicating the accused appellant in the present case is the use of cheque leaflets issued by Bank of Baroda to the accused appellant, for withdrawing aforesaid amounts from the joint account of the deceased couple. The cheque book issue register was recovered by the police vide Ex.Ka.35. 4. Investigation proceeded in the matter and inquest was conducted between 01.30 pm to 02.45 pm and the inquest witnesses found the death to have occurred several days earlier. There were no apparent signs of injury on the body of the two deceased. The inquest witnesses opined that in order to ascertain the cause of death postmortem be carried out of the dead bodies of two deceased. The bodies accordingly were sealed and sent for postmortem. The postmortem was conducted on 25.11.2007 at 09.45 am. The condition of the bodies as also the injuries noticed on the two deceased in the postmortem are enumerated hereinafter:- “Deceased – Hasan Aziz Farooqi Age- 62 years Antemortem Injuries 1. Contusion 6cm x 3cm right side face on dissection fractured temporal bone right side. 2. Contusion 3cm x 2cm over nose, deformity of nose, fractured of nose bone. 3. Contusional area of size 10cm x 6cm left side chest, fractured 5th and 6th ribs. Cause of death – Due to haemorrhagic shock and respiratory failure as a result of ante-mortem injuries. Duration – Two to Seven days Deceased – Rana Aziz Farooqi Age- 55 years Antemortem Injuries 1. Contusion 12cm x 6cm left side chest, fractured left side rd, 4th, 5th ribs. 2. Contusion 20cm x 10 cm right side chest, fractured right side 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th ribs. Cause of death – Due to haemorrhagic shock and respiratory failure as a result of ante-mortem injuries. Duration – Two to Seven days” 5. As per the postmortem reports the cause of death of both the deceased was haemorrhage due to shock and respiratory failure as a result of ante-mortem injuries. The expected time of death as per the postmortem report was 2 to 7 days prior to conduct of postmortem. 6. Duration – Two to Seven days” 5. As per the postmortem reports the cause of death of both the deceased was haemorrhage due to shock and respiratory failure as a result of ante-mortem injuries. The expected time of death as per the postmortem report was 2 to 7 days prior to conduct of postmortem. 6. The Investigating Officer collected bloodstained and plain earth as well as clothes of the two deceased, as also the cheque leaflets utilized for withdrawal of the amount, and sent it all to the Forensic Laboratory, for its opinion. Report of the Forensic Laboratory has been exhibited as Ex.Ka.47 as per which blood was found on the clothes of two deceased but the signatures made on the cheque leaflets did not match with the handwriting of the accused appellant. 7. The Investigating Officer recorded the statement of witnesses and ultimately submitted charge sheet against the accused appellant under Sections 302, 404 IPC on 12.02.2008. The concerned Magistrate having taken cognizance committed the case to the court of sessions where it got registered as Session Trial No.851 of 2008. Charges were framed against the accused appellant under Sections 302, 404, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC on 17.01.2009. The accused appellant was made aware of the charges to which she denied and demanded trial. 8. As per the prosecution case, the accused appellant was in dire need of money as she had availed of education loan and its repayment was due. With ill motive and object the accused appellant withdrew amounts from the account of the deceased couple by fabricating documents and then gave poison to Hasan Aziz Farooqi on 16.11.2007. After Hasan Aziz Farooqi became unconscious the accused pounced on his chest and caused his death due to suffocation and the injuries caused, on the same day. When Smt. Rana Aziz Farooqi returned at 04.30 in the same evening, the accused appellant offered her coffee in a similar fashion by mixing poison in it and after she became immobile pressed on her chest too and suffocated her to death. 9. When Smt. Rana Aziz Farooqi returned at 04.30 in the same evening, the accused appellant offered her coffee in a similar fashion by mixing poison in it and after she became immobile pressed on her chest too and suffocated her to death. 9. In order to prove its case the prosecution has relied upon documentary evidence in the form of first information report as Ex.Ka.2; written report as Ex.Ka.1; recovery memo of bloodstained and plain earth as Ex.Ka.16; recovery memo of mobile as Ex.Ka.33; recovery memo of cheque book register and supurdginama as Ex.Ka.35; recovery memo of cheques and sample signature card as Ex.Ka.36; postmortem report of Hasan Aziz Farooqi as Ex.Ka.31; postmortem report of Rana Aziz Farooqi as Ex.Ka.32; report of Forensic Science Laboratory as Ex.Ka.47 & Ex.Ka.48; inquest reports of Hasan Aziz Farooqi as Ex.Ka.5 and Rana Aziz Farooqi as Ex.Ka.11; chargesheet as Ex.Ka.37 and; site plan as Ex.Ka.4 etc. 10. In addition to the above documentary evidence, the prosecution has produced oral testimony of informant Shams Iqbal as PW-1. Fasal Abbas Naqvi, who was the owner of the house wherein deceased couple and accused were residing, has been produced as PW-2. PW-3 is Shabuddin, who was a Constable in the concerned police station and has proved the chik FIR. PW-4 is Akhilesh Tiwari, who was posted as Clerk in the Bank of Baroda, Malkhan Nagar, Aligarh, and has proved the issuance of token against aforesaid five cheques for payment of amounts referred to above. 11. PW-5 is Kuldeep Singh, who was Sub Inspector and was entrusted with the investigation of Case Crime No.633 of 2007. He had prepared first parcha and had recorded statement of PW-1 in the case diary. He had also prepared the site plan. PW-5 had also conducted the inquest etc. He had also proved the various police papers as well as recovery of bloodstained and plain earth. PW-6 is Rajnish Sonkar, who was posted as Senior Managar, Canara Bank. He has not recognized the accused but has merely proved the fact that loan had been availed of by the accused. PW-7 is Raman Kant, who was posted as Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank and proved the fact that an account was opened by the accused appellant on 04.09.2004 and also verified the fact of depositing Rs.16,720/- in her account. 12. PW-7 is Raman Kant, who was posted as Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank and proved the fact that an account was opened by the accused appellant on 04.09.2004 and also verified the fact of depositing Rs.16,720/- in her account. 12. PW-8 is Ashok Kumar Gupta, who was posted at Punjab National Bank, Deputyganj, Bulandshahr and has proved the deposit of repayment amount towards education loan in the account of accused on 17.11.2007. PW-9 is Abdul Sagar, who was posted as Branch Manager in the State Bank of India, AMU Branch, Aligarh. This witness has proved withdrawal of various amounts from the account of deceased Hasan Aziz Farooqi whereafter such amounts apparently were deposited in the Bank of Baroda by clearance of cheques. PW-10 is Arun Kumar Vishnoi, who was posted as Officer in the Bank of Baroda and has proved the release of amounts upon clearing of five cheques issued to the accused appellants from the joint account of the deceased. Testimony of PW-10 is relevant and shall be dealt with in detail later. 13. PW-11 is Dr. Tariq Ahmad, who has proved the postmortem report of the two deceased. As per PW-11 both the deceased died several days prior to conduct of postmortem and decomposition of their bodies had already commenced. Maggots were also found on their bodies. In the opinion of doctor, the death occurred 2-7 days prior to postmortem. He has stated that the time of death of both the deceased is different but it cannot be specified. 14. PW-12 is Laxman Rai, who was the Incharge Inspector in Police Station Civil Line, Aligarh. This witness has stated that he had taken over the investigation of present investigation on 25.11.2007 and had arrested the accused on 26.11.2007. He has proved recovery of two mobile phones from the accused on the date of arrest. As per this witness, the accused confessed her offence and had also explained the manner in which she initially offered poison to the two deceased and later caused their death due to suffocation. He also stated that the accused appellant had informed him that she was residing at Venus Apartment but he made no enquiries about the details or ownership of such house nor he visited Venus Apartment to verify as to when the accused appellant shifted to such address. 15. He also stated that the accused appellant had informed him that she was residing at Venus Apartment but he made no enquiries about the details or ownership of such house nor he visited Venus Apartment to verify as to when the accused appellant shifted to such address. 15. PW-13 is Uttam Chand, who was posted as Joint Manager of Bank of Baroda and has verified the fact that a total sum of Rs.6,70,000/-has been illegally withdrawn from the joint account of two deceased by utilizing cheque leaflets issued to the accused appellant. This witness has stated that the payment vide five cheques were released on bearer cheques which contained joint signatures of both the deceased on its front and reverse. It is also stated that the cheques contained signatures of one Shahnawaj on the reverse and apparently the amount was received by Shahnawaj himself. 16. PW-14 is Shri Kishan, who was posted as Constable and has proved the document relating to dispatch of recovered material to the Forensic Laboratory at Agra. 17. The accused appellant was confronted with the incriminating material produced by the prosecution against her. She empathetically denied having killed anyone. She has denied the recovery of mobile phone as also other evidence which has been produced against her. With regard to deposit of Rs.45,000/-on 11.07.2007, towards repayment of loan, the accused explained that she deposited her money in the Overseas Bank account and had withdrawn it from bank. Some of the money deposited in the account was from her savings and also from the salary which she received as a teacher. She has empathetically denied having withdrawn any amount from the joint account of the two deceased. Accused appellant also stated that police personnels have falsely implicated her. In reply to the last question, the accused appellant has stated that her cheque book and passbook got stolen regarding which she gave written and oral information to the bank. With regard to the report of Forensic Laboratory the appellant has stated that she had no knowledge as to who signed on cheque leaflets for withdrawal of amount from the joint account of deceased couple. 18. In defence, the accused appellant has produced Puran Singh as DW-1, who has stated that withdrawal was made from the joint account of the two deceased lastly on 19.11.2007 and on that date the joint account was lastly operated. 18. In defence, the accused appellant has produced Puran Singh as DW-1, who has stated that withdrawal was made from the joint account of the two deceased lastly on 19.11.2007 and on that date the joint account was lastly operated. The withdrawal slip contained signatures of the two deceased whereupon a sum of Rs.896 was actually withdrawn. The defence witness has also stated that he is not aware as to who had withdrawn the amount. However, as per rules the account holder was required to be present for withdrawal of amount and for closure of account. He has proved the bank records in respect of withdrawal of amount from the joint account of the two deceased and its closure. 19. The court below has examined the evidence produced by prosecution as also the defence version and has come to the conclusion that the death of elderly couple was caused by the accused appellant so as to cover up the huge amount illegally withdrawn from their joint account. The court below has found that this was a case based on circumstantial evidence and the circumstances clearly completed the chain such that it led to hypothesis of guilt attributed to the accused appellant. The court below has taken into consideration the fact that accused appellant was residing next to the house of deceased couple and had disappeared soon after their death. The court below has also taken note of the fact that the mobile phone of the deceased had been recovered from the accused appellant. The important circumstance which had been relied upon by the court below to implicate the accused appellant is the use of five cheque leaflets issued to the accused appellant for illegal withdrawal of Rs.6,70,000/-from the joint account of the two deceased. Trial court has also taken note of fact that the relationship between the accused and two deceased was cordial and the deceased couple treated the accused like their daughter. This relationship of trust had been misutilized by the accused appellant to illegally withdraw the huge amount from their joint account and then to cover it up she killed the two deceased. It is with such findings that the court below has convicted the accused appellant and sentenced her vide impugned judgment and order. Aggrieved by it, the accused appellant is before this Court in the present appeal. 20. It is with such findings that the court below has convicted the accused appellant and sentenced her vide impugned judgment and order. Aggrieved by it, the accused appellant is before this Court in the present appeal. 20. Sri Prashant Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that this is a case of circumstantial evidence in which the chain of events have not been connected so as to prove the guilt of the accused appellant. It is further submitted that the recovery of mobile phone has not been proved from the accused appellant since the sole independent witness of recovery of mobile phone, namely PW1, has turned hostile. 21. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the accused appellant had already shifted her residence to Venus Apartment and that such fact was clearly mentioned in the bank records relating to issuance of cheque book to her. It is further submitted that the prosecution has not been able to establish that the amount of Rs.6,70,000/-was in fact withdrawn by the accused appellant. It is the case of the appellant that her cheque book and passbook was misplaced on the very day that it was issued by the bank, in respect of which written and oral information was given to the bank authorities. Learned counsel further argues that it was otherwise not possible for the bank to have released any amount on a cheque leaflets issued to different account holder. The complicity of bank officials is explicit on record, which has been overlooked. Learned counsel further submits that the accused appellant had sufficient means to repay the loan amount of Rs.71,000/-and the prosecution case that for such purposes Rs.6,70,000/-were unauthorizedly withdrawn by the accused appellant is merely an allegation without any proof of it. Learned counsel further submits that neither the withdrawal of amount by the appellant is proved nor her complicity has been established, and therefore, her conviction and sentence is liable to be reversed. Learned counsel also submits that accused appellant otherwise has undergone incarceration of more than 13 years and has been recently enlarged on bail by the Supreme Court. 22. Learned counsel further submits that neither the withdrawal of amount by the appellant is proved nor her complicity has been established, and therefore, her conviction and sentence is liable to be reversed. Learned counsel also submits that accused appellant otherwise has undergone incarceration of more than 13 years and has been recently enlarged on bail by the Supreme Court. 22. Sri Amit Sinha, learned AGA, on the other hand, contends that there is definite motive attributed to the accused appellant for committing the offence and the fact that cheque leaflets issued to the accused appellant had admittedly been used for withdrawing Rs.6,70,000/-clearly proves the involvement of accused appellant in committing the offence. It is also submitted that the recovery of mobile phone from the accused appellant is clearly established and is a strong circumstance against the accused appellant. Learned AGA further submits that the fact that accused appellant was residing next to the house of the deceased and had shifted soon after death to another location also proves her complicity in offence. 23. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the records of the present appeal including the lower court records. 24. From the facts placed before the Court, it is apparent that the two deceased died a homicidal death while they were inside her house and the factum of death was brought to light by PW-1 on 24.11.2007. The prosecution case essentially relies upon the confessional statement of the accused as well as recovery of a mobile phone of the deceased from her. Prosecution has also relied upon the fact that 5 cheque leaflets issued to the accused appellant has been utilized for withdrawing a sum of Rs.6,70,000/-from the joint account of the deceased. The circumstance that the accused appellant lived next to the house of the deceased couple and she soon left her place of abode is also a circumstance which is relied upon against her. 25. The records clearly reveal that there is no ocular testimony of the incident. The postmortem report reveals that the deceased died due to shock and haemorrhage on account of respiratory failure caused due to ante-mortem injuries. The viscera was preserved. Report of the forensic laboratory in that regard has been exhibited in which no traces of any poison etc. are found. 26. The postmortem report reveals that the deceased died due to shock and haemorrhage on account of respiratory failure caused due to ante-mortem injuries. The viscera was preserved. Report of the forensic laboratory in that regard has been exhibited in which no traces of any poison etc. are found. 26. The prosecution case that the accused appellant administered poison to the two deceased and taking advantage of their immobility caused injuries resulting in their death due to suffocation does not find support from the evidence on record in the form of viscera report. Apart from the confession of the accused appellant, there is no other trace or evidence to show that the two deceased were administered poison. The confession of accused is not before the Magistrate and even the inadmissible confession made before the Police is not proved. The fact that viscera report does not support administering of poison dents the prosecution case with regard to the manner in which the offence has been committed. 27. This being a case of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution is required to establish that the chain of events are such that it leads to the hypothesis of guilt exclusively attributed to the accused appellant and that there is no alternate hypothesis of innocence of the accused appellant available on record. The evidence in that regard has been minutely scanned by us with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties. 28. First and foremost, we take up the issue relating to recovery of the mobile phone of the deceased from the accused appellant. This recovery is proved vide Ex. K-33. According to the Investigating Officer, mobile phone of the accused appellant alongwith the mobile phone of the deceased was recovered from the accused. PW-12 in his examination-in-chief has stated that the accused appellant disclosed him that one of the mobile phone recovered belonged to the deceased. However, in the cross-examination the Investigating Officer i.e. PW-12 has stated that he could ascertain that the recovered phone was of the deceased on the basis of call detail record. No call detail record, however, has been produced in evidence. There is no certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act. The statement of PW-12 regarding the manner in which he came to know that one of the recovered phone belonged to the deceased is found to be inconsistent. No call detail record, however, has been produced in evidence. There is no certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act. The statement of PW-12 regarding the manner in which he came to know that one of the recovered phone belonged to the deceased is found to be inconsistent. We further find that recovery of mobile phone is established by the testimony of PW-1. PW-1 is the only person, who is said to have signed the recovery memo. When PW-1 has been produced in evidence, he has clearly turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution case with regard to recovery of mobile phone of deceased from the accused appellant. There is no other manner in which the recovery of mobile phone is established. We also find that there is no statement of the accused recorded by the Investigating Officer, which led to such recovery from the accused appellant. The recovery of mobile phone could have been read against the accused appellant only if such recovery was shown to have been distinctly made on the basis of information furnished by the accused, in terms of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. There is admittedly no evidence on record about any information of the accused leading to recovery of the mobile phone. The evidence in that regard is found to be wholly insufficient. The circumstance relating to recovery of mobile phone, therefore, is also not found to have been established. 29. We have perused the judgment of the trial court, which contains a finding that recovery of mobile phone is proved but the evidence noticed above has not been taken note of nor the applicable law has been applied with reference to the statutory scheme before returning such finding. The finding of the court below with regard to recovery of mobile phone having been established from the accused appellant is, consequently, unsustainable and is reversed. 30. The other circumstance relied upon by the prosecution against the accused appellant is that the accused was staying next to the house of the deceased and she soon left her place of abode after their death. This circumstance is sought to be proved on the strength of testimony of PW-2. PW-2 has supported the prosecution case in this regard but has admitted in his testimony that there was no written agreement of tenancy executed in favour of the accused appellant. This circumstance is sought to be proved on the strength of testimony of PW-2. PW-2 has supported the prosecution case in this regard but has admitted in his testimony that there was no written agreement of tenancy executed in favour of the accused appellant. PW-2 has not been able to tell as to when she approached him to let out his house and since when she was staying in his premises. He also had no knowledge about the timings of work and when would she return. He has denied the suggestion that there was any demand of increased rent from the accused. PW-2, however, has stated that he had left his house about 20-25 days prior to the incident and had only returned on 21.11.2007. Upon return he noticed no abnormality. He was not informed by anyone that stench was oozing out of the house. 31. The defence has placed heavy reliance upon Ex.Ka-35, which is the recovery of cheque issue register from the Punjab National Bank. The recovery memo clearly contains recital to the fact that when cheque leaflets were issued to the accused appellant, her address was mentioned as F/5-Vth Floor, Venus Apartment. The Investigating Officer of the case i.e. PW-12 has also admitted that he was informed by the accused appellant that sometime prior to the incident accused appellant had shifted to Venus Apartment. PW-12 though admits that such fact was disclosed to him but he made no attempt either to visit Venus Apartment nor made any enquiry as to who was the owner of this house. PW-2 has also stated that the accused appellant informed her that while he had gone out of Aligarh, she had shifted to Venus Apartment. From the evidence placed on record, we find that the defence set up by the accused that she had shifted to Venus Apartment is probablized from Ex.Ka-34 and is otherwise accepted by PW-12 in his testimony. When exactly the accused appellant had shifted to Venus Apartment or when was it taken on rent are issues on which there are no definite evidence produced by the prosecution. Upon evaluation of evidence in this regard, we do not find the circumstance of accused appellant leaving her place of abode soon after the incident to have been established beyond reasonable doubt. On this aspect, we are inclined to grant benefit of doubt to the accused appellant. 32. Upon evaluation of evidence in this regard, we do not find the circumstance of accused appellant leaving her place of abode soon after the incident to have been established beyond reasonable doubt. On this aspect, we are inclined to grant benefit of doubt to the accused appellant. 32. This takes us to the most important aspect of the present case i.e. utilization of cheque leaflets issued to the accused appellant for withdrawal of Rs.6,70,000/-from the account of the deceased. The evidence has been perused by us and it is not in issue that 5 cheque leaflets, which had been utilized for withdrawal of Rs.6,70,000/-, were in fact issued to the accused appellant. These cheques have been duly exhibited during trial as Ex.Ka-38. The account opening form has also been exhibited and is part of the record. All 5 cheque leaflets contain the signatures of the two deceased. The cheques and the account opening form, both, contain the signatures of the two deceased. The signatures of the deceased are also present on the reverse of all 5 cheques. We have carefully perused the exhibited cheque leaflets and the account opening form containing signatures of deceased. There is apparent variation in the signatures of the deceased on the front and reverse of the cheques even with the naked eye. What is, however, surprising to note is that on the reverse of these 5 cheques, there is a signature of one Shahnawaj. Signatures of Shahnawaj are present in all 5 cheques. The spelling and signatures of Shahnawaj are distinct on all 5 cheques. We are at a loss to understand as to how payment against a bearer cheque contained additional signatures of Shahnawaj. PW-10 and PW-13 in their testimony have admitted that payments drawn from the account of the deceased have apparently been released to Shahnawaj. This Shahnawaj has neither been identified nor has been made an accused in the case. We also find the signatures on the cheques of the deceased to vary substantially from the admitted signatures contained in the account opening form, which is duly exhibited. What is more striking is that these cheque leaflets had in fact been issued to the accused appellant. Cheque leaflets issued to a particular account holder can be utilized for withdrawal of amount from the concerned account holder only. What is more striking is that these cheque leaflets had in fact been issued to the accused appellant. Cheque leaflets issued to a particular account holder can be utilized for withdrawal of amount from the concerned account holder only. In the event cheque leaflets issued to the accused appellant was being utilized for withdrawal of amount from the joint account of the deceased, an objection ought to have been raised by the bank officials. No payment could be released in such eventuality. No such objection is apparently raised by any of the bank officials. PW10 and PW-13 in their testimony have categorically admitted that they never saw the accused appellant withdrawing any amount from the account of the deceased. None of the witnesses have even established the presence of the accused at the bank on the date when these withdrawals were made from the account of the deceased. 33. Bank officials in their testimony have admitted that greater scrutiny is expected to be carried out by the bank officials when bearer cheques are encashed for a sum above Rs.2 lacs. No such scrutiny was in fact done by the bank officials. This fact is admitted to PW-10 and PW-13. PW-13 has also accepted that withdrawal was allowed by PW-10 of sums above Rs.2 lacs by exceeding his jurisdiction. Ordinarily withdrawal of amount from a different account by presenting cheque leaflets of a different account would be impermissible. The manner in which the bank allowed these leaflets to be utilized for withdrawal of sums from a different account remains a matter of serious concern and has been grossly overlooked by the court below. The prosecution has not been able to come up with any explanation in this regard. 34. We also find from evidence on record that the accused appellant had sent a handwritten letter on 15.10.2007 to the Branch Manager of Bank of Baroda clearly stating that she has lost her cheque book containing 20 blank leafs and that any payment from these cheques be stopped. It is the case of the accused appellant that this letter was not accepted by hand, and therefore, he sent it by registered post on 15.10.2007. The receipt of dispatch of this letter by registered post is duly produced vide Paper No.59Kha. It is the case of the accused appellant that this letter was not accepted by hand, and therefore, he sent it by registered post on 15.10.2007. The receipt of dispatch of this letter by registered post is duly produced vide Paper No.59Kha. The bank officials have been confronted with these documents, and except to state that no letter was received there is no other evidence produced by the bank in the form of letter receiving register etc. to show that such information was actually not received by the bank. 35. The fact that cheque leaflets were already reported by the accused appellant to have been stolen, coupled with the fact that payments were released on these cheque leaflets from a different account, unauthorizedly, by bank officials, who clearly exceeded their jurisdiction in releasing such amount, clearly casts a shadow of doubt upon the role of the bank officials, which has neither been investigated by the Investigating Officer nor explained either before the trial court or before this Court. 36. So far as the motive attributed to the accused appellant is concerned, the only evidence produced by the prosecution is with regard to return of loan amount availed of by the accused appellant. This amount of loan was of Rs.71,000/-. The accused appellant in her statement has clearly indicated that she had a Savings Bank Account in the Indian Overseas Bank, from which she had withdrawn the amount to repay the loan. It is otherwise indicated that the accused appellant is a qualified teacher and was working when she was implicated in the present case. Accused appellant, therefore, had sufficient means available to her to have repaid the education loan amount. 37. The fact that accused appellant had availed of education loan otherwise indicates that accused appellant came from a family of humble origin and intended to pursue her studies further. We find it difficult to accept the prosecution case that merely for repayment of loan amount of Rs.71,000/-, she would commit the double murder, particularly when the deceased couple treated her like her daughter. If reimbursement of Rs.71,000/-loan was the only purpose, it was possible that the accused appellant would have borrowed or taken such amount from the deceased couple, considering their close relationship. The prosecution witnesses have admitted that the deceased couple treated the accused appellant as their daughter. The deceased couple admittedly had no other issue. 38. If reimbursement of Rs.71,000/-loan was the only purpose, it was possible that the accused appellant would have borrowed or taken such amount from the deceased couple, considering their close relationship. The prosecution witnesses have admitted that the deceased couple treated the accused appellant as their daughter. The deceased couple admittedly had no other issue. 38. A case based upon circumstantial evidence is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and standard of proof in this regard stands crystallized in paras 152 and 153 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sharad Birdichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622 . The proposition of law in that regard has consistently been followed and reiterated in a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Jabir and others Vs. State Of Uttarakhand, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 32, wherein the Supreme Court observed as under in paras 25 and 26:- “25. A basic principle of criminal jurisprudence is that in circumstantial evidence cases, the prosecution is obliged to prove each circumstance, beyond reasonable doubt, as well the as the links between all circumstances; such circumstances, taken cumulatively, should 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; further, the facts so proved should unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused. 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. These were so stated in Sarad Birdichand Sarda (supra) where the court, after quoting from Hanumant, observed that: “153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an Accused can be said to be fully established: (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned ‘must or should’ and not ‘may be’ established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned ‘must or should’ and not ‘may be’ established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between ‘may be proved’ and “must be or should be proved” as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra (1973) 2 SCC 793 where the following observations were made : [SCC para 19, p. 807 : SCC (Cri.) p. 1047] Certainly, it is a primary principle that the Accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the Accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the Accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the Accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the Accused.” 154. These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence.” 26. These panchsheel precepts, so to say, are now fundamental rules, iterated time and again, and require adherence not only for their precedential weight, but as the only safe bases upon which conviction in circumstantial evidence cases can soundly rest.” 39. When the evidence in the present case is minutely scrutinized with reference to the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Sharad Birdichand Sarda (supra) and consistently followed in other decision as well as reiterated in Jabir (Supra), we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution has utterly failed to connect the chain of events so as to point exclusively to the hypothesis of guilt attributed to the accused appellant. Several aspects including the role of bank officials as well as Shahnawaj, who received the sums withdrawn from the bank, have been left completely overlooked. Several aspects including the role of bank officials as well as Shahnawaj, who received the sums withdrawn from the bank, have been left completely overlooked. The accused appellant cannot be held liable for the murder of two elderly couple merely because cheque leaflets issued to her had been misutilized for withdrawal of Rs.6,70,000/-from the joint account of the two deceased. 40. For the reasons, discussions and deliberations held above, we cannot approve the conclusion and finding returned by the court below with regard to guilt of the accused appellant. The conviction and sentence of the accused appellant is, consequently, reversed. 41. Accordingly, this appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 1.6.2013 is hereby set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against her. Since the appellant has already been released on bail by the Supreme Court, as such, her sureties and bail bonds shall stand discharged and she shall be set free, unless she is wanted in any other case, subject to compliance of section 437A Cr.P.C.