JUDGMENT : Vijay Bishnoi, J. These two appeals have been preferred against the judgment dated 27.9.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Pali, Headquarter Jaitaran (for short ‘the trial court’) in Sessions Case No.31/2003. 2. D.B. Criminal Appeal No.924/2011 is preferred on behalf of complainant-appellant Sattar Khan challenging acquittal of respondent No.2 – Umrao from the offences under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC; respondent No.3 – Raju Khan @ Shaukat Khan from the offences under Sections 302, 120-B and 201 IPC and accused-respondent Nos.4 to 8 from the offences under Sections 201 and 176 IPC. 3. S.B. Criminal Appeal No.851/2011 is preferred on behalf of appellant – Umrao challenging the impugned judgment dated 27.9.2011 passed by the trial court, whereby he has been convicted for the offence under Section 201 IPC and sentenced to four years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months’ simple imprisonment. 4. Brief facts of the case are that complainant-appellant Sattar Khan (D.B. Criminal Appeal No.924/2011) filed a written report (Ex.P/1) dated 12.8.2000 before the SHO, PS Jaitaran at 7:30 AM stating therein that his younger brother Salim is living with him and when he did not reach the home in the night of 9.8.2000, he started searching for him at about 11:00 PM because his gouna (Muklava) was to be solemnized on 11.8.2000. The complainant, in his written report, has stated that he searched his younger brother at everywhere, but today at 4:00 AM, Mumtaj Khan S/o Sattar and Salim S/o Rafiq knocked his door and called him and when he came out from the house, Salim S/o Rafiq told him that dead body of his younger brother Salim is lying on the road and he also told that when he came out of the house, he saw that the tenants of Niyamat Khan namely Nathmal Patwari, Shyamlal @ Bhupendra, Umrao were dragging the dead body of his younger brother Salim and they threw it on the road, however, when they reached there, all of them ran away. It is further stated by the complainant that he informed about the incident to the police on telephone and the respected residents of the colony had also seen the dead body of his brother, which was in bad shape and eyes of the dead body were burnt by some substance. It is further stated by the complainant that he informed about the incident to the police on telephone and the respected residents of the colony had also seen the dead body of his brother, which was in bad shape and eyes of the dead body were burnt by some substance. It is further stated that the house, from where the dead body of Salim was dragged was stinking badly and skin of his hand was stuck in a Moped, lying in the house. It is also alleged by the complainant that his brother was detained by accused persons Nathmal, Shyamlal @ Bhupendra and Umrao and they killed him. It is also alleged that some more persons are involved in the commission of murder of his brother. 5. On receiving the report, the police reached the spot, prepared a site map and started investigation. The accused persons namely Nathmal, Shyamlal @ Bhupendra and Umrao were arrested from the house of Nathmal and other evidence was also collected by the police from the house of Nathmal. 6. After recording statements of the several persons and collecting evidence, the police filed charge-sheet against the accused persons. The post mortem of the dead body was conducted but cause of death is not mentioned in the post mortem report, however, it is mentioned that the cause of death of the deceased cannot be ascertained because the dead body is badly decomposed. 7. After investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against accused persons Shyamlal @ Bhupendra, Nathmal, Umrao and Raju Khan for the offences under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B IPC and filed charge-sheet against accused persons Niyamat Khan, Smt. Rukiya, Imran, Rafiq Khan and Bablu for the offences under Sections 302, 201 and 176 IPC. As the case was triable by Sessions Court, it was transferred to the court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Sojat, Camp Jaitaran and from there it was transferred to the trial court. 8. The trial court has framed charges against the accused Shyamlal @ Bhupendra, Nathmal, Umrao and Raju for the offences under Sections 302, 120-B and 201 IPC, however, accused Niyamat, Smt. Rukiya, Imran, Rafiq and Bablu were charged for the offences under Sections 201 and 176 IPC. 9. Since accused Nathmal died during trial, the proceedings against him were dropped and as accused Shyamlal was found juvenile, his case was sent to the Juvenile Justice Board, Pali. 10. 9. Since accused Nathmal died during trial, the proceedings against him were dropped and as accused Shyamlal was found juvenile, his case was sent to the Juvenile Justice Board, Pali. 10. To prove the charges against the accused persons, the prosecution has produced as many as 26 witnesses and also exhibited certain documents and articles. Statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 CrPC, wherein it is claimed that they have falsely been implicated in the case. Accused Niyamat Khan, Smt. Rukiya, Raju, Imran and Bablu, in their statements under Section 313 CrPC, have stated that dead bodies of two pigs were lying in a nearby plot and on account of that, bad smell was spread in the entire colony. 11. The trial court, after analyzing the evidence produced by the parties, has acquitted the respondent No.2 from the offences under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC, however, convicted him for the offence under Section 201 IPC. The trial court has acquitted the respondent No.3 from the offences under Sections 302, 120-B and 201 IPC and respondent Nos.4 to 8 from the offences under Sections 201 and 176 IPC. 12. Assailing the impugned judgment, learned counsel appearing for appellant – Sattar Khan has argued that the trial court has grossly erred in acquitting the respondent No.2 from the offences under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC and respondent No.3 from the offences under Sections 302, 120-B and 201 IPC and the respondent Nos.4 to 8 from the offences under Sections 201 and 176 IPC. It is argued that the trial court has not appreciated the prosecution evidence and material produced on record in right perspective and has illegally acquitted the accused vide judgment impugned. It is further argued that though, the instant case is based on circumstantial evidence, however, the chain of events is linked by the prosecution by producing cogent and reliable evidence, but the trial court has illegally disbelieved the same for mechanical reasons. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant has, therefore, argued that the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and the accused respondents are liable to be convicted and sentenced for the offences, they were charged by the trial court. 14. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant has, therefore, argued that the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and the accused respondents are liable to be convicted and sentenced for the offences, they were charged by the trial court. 14. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents has vehemently argued that the trial court has not committed any illegality in acquitting the respondent No.3 from the offences under Sections 302, 120-B and 201 IPC and respondent Nos.4 to 8 from the offences under Sections 201 and 176 IPC as the prosecution has failed to prove cogent and reliable evidence to connect them with the commission of offence. It is argued that admittedly the prosecution has failed to produce any direct evidence and the case of the prosecution rests upon the circumstantial evidence only. It is submitted that the respondent Nos.4 to 8 were charged for the offences under Sections 201 and 176 IPC for the reason that they had not informed the police regarding the dead body, which was hidden in their house. Learned counsel has submitted that the accused persons namely Nathmal and Shyamlal @ Bhupendra were the tenants of respondent No.4 Niyamat Khan, but the portion which was rented to them is altogether separate from the residence of the respondent Nos.4 to 8. It is argued that the trial court has also taken note of the fact that house of respondent No.4 Niyamat Khan was having two portions, one of which was rented out to accused Nathmal and Shyamlal @ Bhupendra and there is only one door between both the portions which was not found open. It is also submitted that the trial court has also taken note of the fact that on the plot situated near the house of respondent No.4 Niyamat Khan, dead bodies of two pigs were lying from last two to three days and they were stinking badly, due to which, all the residents of the colony were suffering. It is further argued that as a matter of fact, the respondent Nos.4 to 8 had no access to the rented premises, as such, there was no occasion for them to know that one dead body is lying in the rented premises because the smell of dead bodies of two pigs was also spread all over the colony. It is further argued that as a matter of fact, the respondent Nos.4 to 8 had no access to the rented premises, as such, there was no occasion for them to know that one dead body is lying in the rented premises because the smell of dead bodies of two pigs was also spread all over the colony. It is further submitted that the prosecution has failed to produce any evidence to the effect that the respondent Nos.4 to 8 were aware of the fact that the dead body was lying in the rented premises. Learned counsel has, therefore, argued that the trial court has not committed any illegality in acquitting the respondent Nos.4 to 8 from the offences under Sections 201 and 176 IPC. 15. It is further argued that so far as the case against respondent No.3 Raju Khan @ Shaukat Khan is concerned, the prosecution has produced complainant Sattar Khan (PW-2), who has stated that he saw deceased Salim in the company of accused Raju and Shyamlal in the night of 9.8.2000. Learned counsel has argued that simply because Sattar Khan (PW-2) saw the respondent No.3 Raju alias Shaukat Khan in the company of deceased Salim on 9.8.2000, it cannot be concluded that he was connected with the commission of crime in any manner. It is argued that no corroborative evidence of this effect has been produced by the prosecution that the respondent No.3 was last seen with deceased Salim on 9.8.2000. Learned counsel, thus, submitted that the trial court has rightly acquitted the respondent No.3 Raju Khan @ Shaukat Khan for the offences under Sections 302, 120-B and 201 IPC. 16. So far as respondent No.2 Umrao is concerned, learned counsel Mr. Suresh Kumbhat has argued that though the trial court has rightly acquitted him from the offences under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC, but it has erred in convicting and sentencing him for the offence under Section 201 IPC. Learned counsel has submitted that as the prosecution has failed to prove involvement of respondent No.2 with the commission of crime, the trial court has rightly acquitted him from the offences under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC, but despite there being no admissible evidence against the respondent No.2 in this regard, the trial court has convicted him for the offence under Section 201 IPC. It is, therefore, argued that the impugned judgment passed by the trial court acquitting the respondent Nos.2 and 3 from the offences under Sections 302, 120-B and 201 IPC and the respondent Nos.4 to 8 from the offences under Sections 201 and 176 IPC is liable to be affirmed, however, the judgment of the trial court convicting and sentencing the respondent No.2 for the offence under Section 201 IPC is liable to be set aside. 17. Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully scrutinized the record. 18. First of all, we deal with the case of the respondent Nos.4 to 8 viz. Niyamat Khan, Smt. Rukiya, Imran, Rafique Khan and Bablu @ Nisar to ascertain whether the prosecution has produced reliable and cogent evidence to bring home the guilt of the above named accused respondents, for which, they have been charged. 19. Admittedly, no direct evidence in respect of commission of crime is available against the above named respondents and the prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence. 20. On the basis of written report (Ex.P/1) submitted by Sattar Khan (PW-2), the police registered FIR No.237/2000 (Ex.P/111) at Police Station Jaitaran, Distt. Pali on 12.8.2000. In the written report, the respondent Nos.4 to 8 have not been named, whereas accused Nathmal, Shyamlal and Umrao have been named. The prosecution case against the respondent Nos.4 to 8 is this that though they were aware about the dead body hidden in the rented house of Nathmal, but they did not inform the police about the same. The prosecution has failed to produce any evidence to the effect that the respondent Nos.4 to 8 were aware of the fact that co-accused Nathmal, Shyamlal and Umrao murdered deceased Salim and hid his dead body in the house. To establish the charge under Section 201 IPC, the prosecution first has to prove that an offence has been committed and the accused knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear. 21. From the entire evidence produced by the prosecution, it can be gathered that the prosecution has failed to prove that the respondent Nos.4 to 8 had reasons to believe that the offence has been committed and despite having the knowledge tried to screen the offender by disposing of the dead body. 22. 21. From the entire evidence produced by the prosecution, it can be gathered that the prosecution has failed to prove that the respondent Nos.4 to 8 had reasons to believe that the offence has been committed and despite having the knowledge tried to screen the offender by disposing of the dead body. 22. Sattar Khan (PW-2), in his court statement, has simply stated that he is having doubt that the respondent No.4, Niyamat Khan, respondent No.7 Rafique Khan and respondent No.8 Bablu @ Nisar along with co-accused Raju, Shyamlal, Nathmal, his son-in-law and one lady are involved in the commission of crime. The other witnesses namely Salim (PW-1) and Mumtaj (PW-3) have stated that they saw accused Shyamlal, Nathmal and respondent No.2 Umrao dragging the dead body of Salim, however, they have not uttered a word against the respondent Nos.4 to 8. 23. Shaira (PW-7), mother of deceased Salim, has also not deposed a single word against respondent Nos.4 to 8. The police also did not recover anything related to the case at the instance of the respondent Nos.4 to 8. 24. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Palvinder Kaur Vs. The State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1952 SC 354 has held as under : “15. In order to establish the charge under section 201, Indian Penal Code, it is essential to prove that an offence has been committed – mere suspicion that it has been committed is not sufficient, - that the accused knew or had reason to believe that such offence had been committed, and with the requisite knowledge and with the intent to screen the offender from legal punishment causes the evidence thereof to disappear or gives false information respecting such offences knowing or having reason to believe the same to be false.” 25. Relying on Palvinder Kaur’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dinesh Kumar Kalidas Patel Vs. The State of Gujarat, reported in AIR 2018 SC 951 has held as under : “15. Relying on Palvinder Kaur’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dinesh Kumar Kalidas Patel Vs. The State of Gujarat, reported in AIR 2018 SC 951 has held as under : “15. Thus, the law is well-settled that a charge Under Section 201 of the India Penal Code can be independently laid and conviction maintained also, in case the prosecution is able to establish that an offence had been committed, the person charged with the offence had the knowledge or the reason to believe that the offence had been committed, the said person has caused disappearance of evidence and such act of disappearance has been done with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment. Mere suspicion is not sufficient, it must be proved that the Accused knew or had a reason to believe that the offence has been committed and yet he caused the evidence to disappear so as to screen the offender. The offender may be either himself or any other person.” 26. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, if we go through the evidence produced by the prosecution, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the respondent Nos.4 to 8 for the offences under Sections 201 and 176 IPC. The explanation given by the respondent Nos.4 to 8, in their statements recorded under Section 313 CrPC that the dead bodies of two pigs were lying in the nearby plot from two to three days and bad smell was spread in the entire colony is reasonable and the trial court has rightly relied upon the same. 27. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any illegality in the impugned judgment passed by the trial court acquitting the respondent Nos.4 to 8 from the offences under Sections 201 and 176 IPC. 28. So far as respondent Nos.2 and 3 viz. Umrao and Raju @ Shaukat respectively are concerned, they were charged with the offences under Sections 302, 120-B and 201 IPC. To bring home the guilt of the accused respondent No.3 Raju, the prosecution has come out with a case that he was seen with the deceased on 9.8.2000, however, no corroborative evidence of last seen is produced by the prosecution. Admittedly, respondent Raju was not named in the complaint/FIR filed by Sattar Khan (PW-2). To bring home the guilt of the accused respondent No.3 Raju, the prosecution has come out with a case that he was seen with the deceased on 9.8.2000, however, no corroborative evidence of last seen is produced by the prosecution. Admittedly, respondent Raju was not named in the complaint/FIR filed by Sattar Khan (PW-2). Though, Sattar Khan (PW-2) has stated that he saw respondent Raju, but no other evidence corroborating the said version of Sattar Khan (PW-2) was produced by the prosecution to prove the charge under Section 120-B IPC. The prosecution has to produce evidence to the effect that two or more persons conspired together to commit an offence or and actionable ground, that is say, there should be a prima facie evidence that the person was a party to the conspiracy before his acts can be used against the co-conspirators. 29. In the present case, though Sattar Khan (PW-2) has stated that deceased Salim was seen in the company of accused respondent Nos.2 and 3 Umrao and Raju respectively, but no other evidence is produced by the prosecution to the effect that the above named accused respondents were in agreement to kill deceased Salim. 30. So far as charge for the offence under Section 201 IPC against the respondent No.3 Raju is concerned, again the prosecution has failed to prove that respondent No.3 was having knowledge of murder of deceased Salim and with the intention to screen the offender, he caused the evidence to disappear. 31. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the trial court has not committed any illegality in acquitting the accused respondent No.3 for the offences under Sections 302, 120-B and 201 IPC. 32. So far as respondent No.2 Umrao is concerned, though, the trial court has acquitted him from the offences under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC, but convicted for the offence under Section 201 IPC. Admittedly, the dead body of deceased Salim was found in early hours of 12.8.2000 and as per the prosecution, he was missing since night of 9.8.2000. As per the post mortem report, dead body of Salim was badly decomposed and his death occurred two to three days prior to the day when his dead body was found. 33. Admittedly, the dead body of deceased Salim was found in early hours of 12.8.2000 and as per the prosecution, he was missing since night of 9.8.2000. As per the post mortem report, dead body of Salim was badly decomposed and his death occurred two to three days prior to the day when his dead body was found. 33. After analyzing the prosecution evidence, the trial court has held that the prosecution has failed to produce any such evidence that the accused respondent No.2 was present in Jaitaran prior to 12.8.2000 when the dead body of Salim was found. The trial court has held that no direct evidence is available on record to suggest that the respondent No.2 Umrao along with accused Nathmal and Shyamlal @ Bhupendra either murdered deceased Salim or had conspired to commit his murder along with the above named accused persons. 34. After carefully scrutinizing the evidence produced by the prosecution, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to produce any evidence to the effect that prior to the day when the dead body of the deceased was found, the accused respondent No.2 Umrao had entered into conspiracy with the accused respondents namely Nathmal and Shyamlal to commit murder of deceased Salim and, in such circumstances, no fault is found with the decision of the trial court acquitting the accused respondent No.2 from the offences under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC. 35. So far as conviction of respondent No.2 Umrao for the offence under Section 201 IPC is concerned, the trial court has placed heavy reliance on the fact that accused respondent No.2 Umrao was found in the house of accused Nathmal on 12.8.2000 and he was arrested along with accused Nathmal and Shyamlal @ Bhupendra. The trial court has also placed reliance on the fact that the clothes of respondent No.2 were found in a washing machine in the house of Nathmal, whereon, body remains and blood stains of the deceased were found. 36. The trial court has also placed reliance on the fact that the clothes of respondent No.2 were found in a washing machine in the house of Nathmal, whereon, body remains and blood stains of the deceased were found. 36. Though, the prosecution has produced two witnesses namely Salim (PW-1) and Mumtaj (PW-3), who have stated that they saw respondent No.2 dragging the dead body of deceased Salim from the house of Nathmal along with coaccused Nathmal and Shyamlal and after seeing this, they ran away towards their house and bolted the door, but the trial court has disbelieved their testimony and found that their presence at 4 AM is highly doubtful. 37. Now, the evidence of arrest of the respondent No.2 Umrao from the house of Nathmal on 12.8.2000 and recovery of clothes from the washing machine from the house of Nathmal containing body remains and blood stains of deceased Salim is the only evidence on which the trial court has placed reliance while convicting him for the offence under Section 201 IPC. Simply because the respondent No.2 Umrao was arrested along with co-accused persons namely Nathmal and Shyamlal @ Bhupendra, it cannot be said that he disposed of the dead body of the deceased. As observed earlier, the case of the prosecution rests upon circumstantial evidence only as no direct evidence is available on record. 38. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Navaneethakrishnan Vs. The State, reported in AIR 2018 SC 2027 has held as under : “23. The law is well settled that each and every incriminating circumstance must be clearly established by reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances so proved must form a chain of events from which the only irresistible conclusion about the guilt of the Accused can be safely drawn and no other hypothesis against the guilt is possible. In a case depending largely upon circumstantial evidence, there is always a danger that conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof. The court must satisfy itself that various circumstances in the chain of events must be such as to Rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the Accused. When the important link goes, the chain of circumstances gets snapped and the other circumstances cannot, in any manner, establish the guilt of the Accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The court must satisfy itself that various circumstances in the chain of events must be such as to Rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the Accused. When the important link goes, the chain of circumstances gets snapped and the other circumstances cannot, in any manner, establish the guilt of the Accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The court has to be watchful and avoid the danger of allowing the suspicion to take the place of legal proof for sometimes, unconsciously it may happen to be a short step between moral certainty and legal proof. There is a long mental distance between “may be true” and “must be true” and the same divides conjectures from sure conclusions. The court in mindful of caution by the settled principles of law and the decisions rendered by this Court that in a given case like this, where the prosecution rests on the circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must place and prove all the necessary circumstances, which would constitute a complete chain without a snap and pointing to the hypotheses that except the Accused, no one had committed the offence, which in the present case, the prosecution has failed to prove.” 39. It is important to note that the prosecution has produced two witnesses namely Salim (PW-1) and Mumtaj (PW-3), who have stated that they saw the respondent No.2 while dragging the dead body of the deceased from the house of Nathmal along with other co-accused persons, but the trial court has not relied upon their testimony and disbelieved the said witnesses. In the opinion of this Court, the prosecution has failed to produce any reliable and clinching evidence regarding the chain of events, on the basis of which, only irresistible conclusion about the guilt of the accused can safely be drawn. The chain of events gets snapped when the trial court has not relied upon the testimony of two witnesses i.e. Salim (PW-1) and Mumtaj (PW-3). 40. It is also to be noticed that the trial court has placed reliance on another piece of evidence i.e. recovery of clothes of the respondent No.2 from a washing machine from his house containing blood stains and body remains of the deceased. 40. It is also to be noticed that the trial court has placed reliance on another piece of evidence i.e. recovery of clothes of the respondent No.2 from a washing machine from his house containing blood stains and body remains of the deceased. As per the FSL report, human blood was found on the clothes recovered from the accused respondent No.2, but the prosecution has not produced any evidence to the effect that the blood found on the clothes is of what group and the same is matching with the blood group of the deceased. Simply finding of human blood on the clothes of the respondent No.2 Umrao does not by itself establish his guilt unless he connects with the murder of deceased Salim. 41. In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the trial court has erred in convicting the accused respondent No.2 Umrao (D.B. Criminal Appeal No.924/2011) for the offence under Section 201 IPC and the said conviction cannot be sustained. 42. Resultantly, D.B. Criminal Appeal No.924/2011 is dismissed. 43. However, S.B. Criminal Appeal No.851/2011 preferred on behalf of appellant - Umrao is allowed and the conviction and sentence awarded to him by the trial court for the offence under Section 201 IPC is set aside. The impugned judgment passed by the trial court is modified accordingly. 44. Appellant – Umrao is on bail, his bail bonds stand cancelled. He need not surrender. 45. Record of the trial court be sent back immediately.