JUDGMENT : BIRENDRA KUMAR, J. 1. The sole appellant Satish Sharma @ Seeto faced trial before the learned Special Judge (SC/ST), Karauli in Sessions Case No. 20/2015 arising out of FIR No. 648/2014 registered with Hindaun Police Station. Though charges were for offences under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act also however the learned trial Judge has recorded conviction under Section 302 IPC only and awarded life imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 10,000/- by judgment and order dated 25.9.2018. In default of payment of fine, 6 months simple imprisonment has been ordered. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence are under challenge in this appeal. 2. The prosecution case as disclosed in the written report submitted to Hindaun Police Station by Bhoor Singh (PW-4) is that his daughter Kamla was a widow and after the death of her husband, she was living along with her 9 years old son Raj Kumar (PW-10) at Indrapura in her own house. Her elder sister Smt. Laxmi (PW-7) was also residing in the same locality in a different house. In the morning of 13.9.2014, the appellant called the informant on mobile stating that Kamla is not picking up her phone. The appellant wanted to know from Kamla whether Rajkumar went to school or not. Thereafter, the informant phoned to Kamla. Someone picked up the phone and informed that murder of Kamla has been committed. Thereafter, the informant and his wife Ginni (PW-12) went to the house of Kamla. They saw a huge crowd there. Kamla was lying dead in her house. Her neck was covered with Chunni (wrapper). There was signs of pressure on the neck of Kamla. Outside the room, a charpai (coat) was also there on which some country-made liquor, cigarette and Guthkha were also found. A Godrej Almirah of Kamla was also found open, her clothes were scattered. According to the informant, some unknown person might have entered into the house of Kamla and committed her murder by throttling. After registration of the police case, investigation was taken up by PW-21 Ramdayal. Ramdayal had performed only some formalities regarding seizure of different articles found at the place of incident. Dead body was sent for post mortem examination etc. PW-21 Ramdayal had seized a cap near the dead body of Kamla which was usually used by the Muslim members of the society. Ramdayal had performed only some formalities regarding seizure of different articles found at the place of incident. Dead body was sent for post mortem examination etc. PW-21 Ramdayal had seized a cap near the dead body of Kamla which was usually used by the Muslim members of the society. Thereafter, investigation was taken up by PW-20 Kailash on 15.9.2014. On 19.9.2014, Kailash recorded statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the parents of the deceased as well as of Master Raj Kumar, the son of deceased. Raj Kumar has been examined as PW-10. Till then, no suspicion was there against anyone. For the first time on 3.3.2015, after delay of 6 months, statements of PW-6 Ashish Meena, PW-7 Laxmi, PW-8 Seema, PW-13 Sridevi were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and it started raising suspicion against the appellant to be involved in the murder of Kamla. It is worth to mention here that it has come in the prosecution evidence that Kamla had five sisters besides three brothers. Out of the five sisters, Kamla and Laxmi were living in the same locality. Seema was residing with Laxmi and Sridevi used to visit Laxmi off and on. Laxmi was already a married lady and after differences with her husband, she was living with PW-6 Ashish Meena (as per PW-6) in the relationships of marriage. 3. The prosecution produced altogether 28 witnesses. PW-1 Ali Mohammad, PW-2 Yakub Ali, PW-9 Mahroom, PW-11 Smt. Sammo alias Sameem, PW-15 Iqbal and PW-19 Kesanti have been declared hostile by the prosecution. It is worth to mention that plurality of the evidence is not the requirement of law to prove a criminal charge. However, if the prosecution produces a number of hostile witnesses without ascertaining that these witnesses are not going to support the prosecution case, non support of prosecution case by these witnesses would certainly weaken the prosecution case. 4. PW-3 Rajesh Kumar, PW-14 Girdhari Singh PW-17 Rambarosi PW-18 Mahesh, PW-22 Montu Gupta, PW-23 Sanjeevanand Sinha PW-24 Radharaman PW-25 Pooran Singh and PW-26 Vasu Kapil are formal witnesses as they either have registered the FIR or only submitted charge-sheet in the case without making any investigation or have proved some exhibited documents. PW-16 Dr. Deepchand Koli had performed post mortem examination on the dead body of Kamla and he has found homicidal death by strangulation. PW-16 Dr. Deepchand Koli had performed post mortem examination on the dead body of Kamla and he has found homicidal death by strangulation. PW-20 Kailash, PW-21 Ramdayal, PW-27 Man Singh Chaudhary and PW-28 Shiv Bhagwan are Investigating Officers of the case who partly investigated the case on different time period. 5. Till submission of the charge-sheet, the prosecution case was based on circumstantial evidence as per admission of the Investigating Officer. PW-4 Bhoor Singh and PW-12 Ginni are parents of deceased Kamla. PW-5 Rajveer is witness of inquest as well as Devar of deceased Kamla. PW-7 Smt. Laxmi, PW-8 Smt. Seema and PW-13 Sri Devi are full sisters of Kamla. PW-6 Ashish Meena is paramour of PW-7 Smt. Laxmi and PW-10 Raj Kumar is minor son of deceased Kamla. As such, all these witnesses are interested and partisan witnesses. They have improved the prosecution case for the first time in the court as would be evident from their testimony when they were confronted with their police statements, therefore, testimony of these witnesses requires to be scrutinized with great care and caution. 6. Mr. Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant contends that the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. However, no circumstance relied upon by the prosecution stands proved nor the chain of circumstances are complete. Rather, there is prosecution evidence that indicates that the murder of Kamla might have been committed by some other person for some different reason. Learned counsel contends that when the prosecution case rests purely on circumstantial evidence, motive undoubtedly plays an important part in order to tilt the scale against the accused. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State (Delhi Administration) vs. Shri Gulzari Lal Tandon, AIR 1979 SC 1382 . Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Harbeer Singh vs. Sheeshpal and Others, (2016) Cr. L.R. (SC) 1131 for his submission that inordinate delay in recording the statements of the prosecution witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. especially when the witnesses are interested one creates doubt on the trustworthiness of the prosecution case. 7. Ms. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Harbeer Singh vs. Sheeshpal and Others, (2016) Cr. L.R. (SC) 1131 for his submission that inordinate delay in recording the statements of the prosecution witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. especially when the witnesses are interested one creates doubt on the trustworthiness of the prosecution case. 7. Ms. Alka Bhatnagar, AGA would contend that there is clinching evidence of motive of the appellant to commit the murder as well as of last seen when the appellant was seen entering into the house of Kamla in the night and on the same night, her murder was committed. Learned counsel submits that PW-10, the son of the deceased who was present at the time of incident has given description of the incident as eye-witness and Raj Kumar further stated that due to fear, he could not disclose the incident to anyone earlier. The learned trial Judge has minutely examined the evidences, therefore, the impugned judgment requires no interference by this Court. 8. It is worth to note that it is not the prosecution case that at any point of the investigation of the case done by different police officials, the police was hostile to the prosecution. Therefore, the evidence collected by the police and produced before the Court cannot be overlooked to accept the improved version of the prosecution witnesses of the incident for the first time in the witness box especially when they were confronted with the police statements. The police recorded statements of three material witnesses, i.e. the parents of the deceased and the child of the deceased within three days of incident i.e. on 16.9.2014. 9. PW-6 Ashish Meena has alleged that the appellant had motive to commit the murder of Kamla for the reason that appellant was insisting Kamla to sell out her house and to purchase another house at a different place. The parents and sisters of Kamla advised her not to agree with these proposals. It is worth to mention here that the parents and sisters of Kamla were examined as prosecution witnesses but they have not stated that Kamla ever informed them that the appellant was pressurizing to sell out the house to purchase at some other place. The aforesaid motive was disclosed for the first time in the witness box without making such statement before the Police. The aforesaid motive was disclosed for the first time in the witness box without making such statement before the Police. Since Kamla was not having good relation with PW-6 Ashish Meena or her sister Laxmi for some family dispute, Laxmi and Ashish had some reason and motive to speak against the appellant who had cool relations with Kamla. PW-1 Ali Mohammad has stated that relationship amongst the three sisters was estranged. Even the mother Ginny had deposed that since last few months, Laxmi was not behaving well with Kamla. Even PW-6 Ashish Meena has admitted that they were not in talking terms or visiting term with Kamla. In the aforesaid circumstance, the sole testimony of PW-6 made for the first time in the court that the appellant had motive to commit murder of Kamla is not acceptable. There is prosecution evidence that Kamla had intimate relations with Mukesh and Mukesh used to visit the house of Kamla and some times Mukesh and Kamla were seen on the same bike. The aforesaid has come in the evidence of mother PW-12. The appellant used to forbade Kamla not to have relationship with Mukesh. In the aforesaid circumstance, it cannot be completely ruled out that Mukesh had no grudge against Kamla as after relationship with the appellant, Kamla had started making distance from Mukesh which would be evident from the prosecution evidence itself. PW-7 Smt. Laxmi is not a hostile witness. She has admitted that Rafiq, the neighbour of Kamla had intimate relations with Kamla. A cap used by the Muslim community was found near the dead body. These materials are against the prosecution case that only appellant would have committed the murder. 10. PW-7 Smt. Laxmi for the first time deposed in court that she along with Seema and Shridevi were brushing their teeth at about 8-9 PM, they saw that the appellant was entering into the house of Kamla and on the same night, murder of Kamla was committed. Seema has not supported these facts. Seema is not a hostile witness, therefore, the prosecution evidence is controverting itself on the circumstance of last seen. Moreover, for the first time in the court, the prosecution asserted about the last seen. PW-7 Smt. Laxmi has admitted that the deceased had intimate relations with neighbour Rafiq also. There is prosecution evidence that the appellant had cozy relations with Kamla till her death. Moreover, for the first time in the court, the prosecution asserted about the last seen. PW-7 Smt. Laxmi has admitted that the deceased had intimate relations with neighbour Rafiq also. There is prosecution evidence that the appellant had cozy relations with Kamla till her death. The appellant used to visit the house of Kamla off and on and was helping Kamla. PW-12 the mother of Kamla admitted that Kamla had relationship with Mukesh also who surreptitiously used to visit the house of Kamla. Kamla had acquaintance with Mukesh since she was working in the hospital in the past. Some other relatives had gone to the extent that intimacy between the appellant and Kamla was so deep that Kamla used to open the doors of the house for appellant only and not for anyone else. Kamla was taking special care for food of the appellant. Moreover, the manner of incident indicates that a Godrej almirah was found opened. Some of the household articles especially the ornaments were found removed, therefore, it cannot be irresistibly concluded that these facts are pointer against the appellant who was in cool relationship with Kamla. 11. PW-10 Raj Kumar in his examination-in-chief had not supported the prosecution case. Prosecution declared him hostile. In his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Ex.P/19) also he had not levelled any allegation against the appellant. Therefore, there was no reason for the prosecution to declare him hostile but the prosecution declared the witness as hostile and in the cross-examination by the prosecution, for the first time, the witness has stated that the appellant had committed murder of his mother. Cross-examination of the witness was deferred for some other date and on that day, PW-10 Raj Kumar appeared as a tutored witness and without any specific question put by the appellant side, he narrated the entire story that he had seen the appellant committing murder of his mother. Since the evidence coming in cross-examination is inconsistent with the prosecution case and suffers from exaggeration, the testimony of this witness cannot be accepted and should be rejected as tutored statement especially when the witness had not stated anything in his examination-in-chief that he had seen the appellant committing the murder. The Investigating Officer examined as prosecution witness stated that on the conclusion of the investigation, they found a case of circumstantial evidence. There was no eye-witness of the incident. 12. The Investigating Officer examined as prosecution witness stated that on the conclusion of the investigation, they found a case of circumstantial evidence. There was no eye-witness of the incident. 12. The law relating to appreciation of prosecution case based on circumstantial evidence is well settled that the prosecution must prove each of the circumstances relied upon and the proved circumstance must form a chain not only pointing towards guilt of the accused rather excluding any hypothesis of innocence of the accused. Moreover, the suspicion howsoever strong may be cannot take the place of proof. 13. On appreciation of evidence available on record, it emerges that the prosecution had failed to prove that appellant had any motive to commit the murder rather, only the appellant had motive. The prosecution witnesses have admitted that the deceased had relationship with Mukesh also, prior to developing relations with the appellant, hence Mukesh had also some grudges. The prosecution witnesses for the first time developed “last seen” evidence in court which was not before the police. Moreover, the last seen statement was not acceptable for the reasons discussed above. There was no special grudge of the appellant developed against Kamla rather till the last days of Kamla, the appellant was found helping the family of Kamla. 14. The learned trial Judge failed to appreciate that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove a chain of circumstances against the appellant leading to only conclusion that the appellant was involved in the murder of Kamla and no other reason was there for her murder. 15. Therefore, in our view, the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant. Hence, giving benefit of doubt, we acquit the appellant. 16. In the result, the impugned judgment and order of sentence is hereby set aside and the appeal is allowed. Let the appellant who is in custody be released forthwith in this case. 17. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. 18. Appellant is directed to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 16. In the result, the impugned judgment and order of sentence is hereby set aside and the appeal is allowed. Let the appellant who is in custody be released forthwith in this case. 17. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. 18. Appellant is directed to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount in accordance with Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. before the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) within two weeks from the date of release to the effect that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against this judgment or on grant of leave, the appellant on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Apex Court. The bail bond will be effective for a period of six months.