JUDGMENT : PANKAJ PUROHIT, J. 1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant assailing the judgment and order dated 11.09.2018, passed by learned Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Sessions Trial No. 291 of 2012, State vs. Prem, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 30,000/- and in default of fine, he was sentenced to undergo two years’ additional simple imprisonment. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that a report was lodged by Shiv Kumar on 19.07.2012 at about 18:15 hours at Police Station Shyampur, District Haridwar to the effect that, on 16.07.2012 at about 12 noon, his mother-Krishna Devi and his father-Khem Chandra had gone in the jungle to fetch the wood. When they did not return taking the wood for a long time, he along with other people searched his parents and then his mother and father both were found dead in a jungle, who had been killed by causing injuries by some unknown persons. On the basis of above information, the case was registered under Section 302 IPC being Case Crime No. 56 of 2012 at Police Station Shyampur, District Haridwar. 3. The investigation officer conducted investigation of the case, recorded the statements of witnesses and after inspecting the place of occurrence, prepared the site plan, inquest and sent dead bodies for post-mortem and on completion of investigation submitted a charge-sheet under Section 302 IPC in the court. The cognizance was taken against the accused /appellant and the case was committed to learned Sessions Judge for trial. 4. On 04.01.2013 charge was framed against the accused under Section 302 IPC, which the accused denied and claim to be tried. 5. As many as seventeen witnesses were produced by the prosecution to prove its case against the appellant. They are PW-1/Shiv Kumar (informant), PW-2/Indra Singh, PW-3/Dhyan Singh, PW-4/Kartar Singh, PW-5/Rampal, PW-6/Amichand, PW-7/Smt. Meera, PW-8/Rohtash, PW-9/Smt. Rajo Devi, PW-10/Smt. Kanchan, PW-11/Smt. Santosh, PW-12/Virendra, PW-13/Dr. B.N. Pathak, PW-14/Head Constable Girijesh Tripathi, PW-15/Inspector Ritesh Sah, PW-16/S.I. Deepak Kathait and PW-17/Dharmendra Singh and documentary evidence was exhibited by the prosecution witnesses. 6. Thereafter, the statement of accused-appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which the accused stated the prosecution case to be false and stated that he is innocent but denied to give any evidence in defence. 7. 6. Thereafter, the statement of accused-appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which the accused stated the prosecution case to be false and stated that he is innocent but denied to give any evidence in defence. 7. The trial court on conclusion of trial, found the case to be proved against the accused-appellant beyond all reasonable doubt and it accordingly proceeded to convict and sentence the accused-appellant as mentioned in paragraph no. 1 of this judgment. 8. PW-1/Shiv Kumar has reiterated the version of FIR that on 19.07.2012 at about 12 noon, his parents had gone to jungle to fetch the wood, but they did not return and when the search was conducted, they both were found dead in the jungle. Some unknown persons had killed them by inflicting injuries. He has also stated that police recorded his statement for three to four times, as in his statement, he informed the police that the accused-appellant used to keep enmity with his father on the pretext that his father was doing some black magic over him. 9. PW-2/Inder Singh is known to the deceased-Khem Chand. He has stated that on 19.07.2012 at about 12 of the noon, he had seen both the deceased persons going towards jungle. On receiving information from his guard, that two dead bodies were lying in the jungle, he went to the spot where the Investigating Officer prepared the recovery memos (Ext.Ka-7), where he put his signatures. 10. PW-3/Dhyan Singh has stated that on hearing the noise that the deceased persons had been killed by someone in the jungle, he went to the spot. He has also put his signatures on the recovery memo (Ext.Ka-7). 11. PW-4/Kartar Singh is the guard of PW-2. He has stated in the evidence that two years ago, he was doing work with PW-2 on the date of occurrence, he was watering the field. At about 12 noon after watering the field, he was going to have his meal. On the way, deceased-Khem Chand and his wife met him and he had conversation with them. On the same day at about 03:00 p.m. while he was going towards jungle, he was informed that two persons were lying dead beneath the tree where at, about 4:00 p.m., he went on to the spot and saw the dead bodies of deceased persons. 12. On the same day at about 03:00 p.m. while he was going towards jungle, he was informed that two persons were lying dead beneath the tree where at, about 4:00 p.m., he went on to the spot and saw the dead bodies of deceased persons. 12. PW-5/Rampal has stated that on 19.07.2012 at about 02:00 p.m. he had gone in the jungle to feed the cows and in the jungle he saw the accused-appellant going rapidly near a tree. The accused was having a thick weapon bainta, which was 2 to 2.5 feet long. The accused did not stop though this witness called him. After the departure of accused, he saw the parents of informant were lying dead in naked condition and blood was oozing out from their injuries, on which, he returned and met with PW-4/Kartar Singh to whom he stated about all the facts. 13. PW-6/Amichand did not support the prosecution story and was declared hostile. 14. PW-7/Smt. Meera is the daughter of deceased-Khem Chand. This witness has only stated about receiving the information regarding the death of her parents from her daughter, on which, she also went towards the jungle where she saw her parents in a dead condition. 15. PW-8/Rohtas has mainly stated in his evidence that on 19.07.2012, PW-5/Rampal went in the jungle to collect the wood and after returning, he (PW-5) informed him that the dead bodies of Khem Chand and Krishna Devi were lying in a jungle and thereafter, they went to see the bodies. 16. PW-9/Smt. Rajo Devi is the daughter of deceased-Khem Chand. She has only stated about receiving the information regarding her parents lying unconscious in the jungle from one Raj Kumar of the village. 17. PW-10/Smt. Kanchan is the wife of informant-PW-1. She has stated that, on 19.07.2012 at about 12 to 12:30 p.m., after departure of parents of informant, accused came to her house and inquired from this witness as to where her mother-in-law and father-in-law had gone and in which direction they had gone, on which, this witness had told that they had gone in the jungle towards the nursery to fetch the wood. In the evening at about 04:30 to 5:00 p.m. her husband informed her that his parents had been murdered by someone in the jungle and then they all went to see their parents. 18. PW-11/Smt. Santosh is also a daughter of deceased-Khem Chand. In the evening at about 04:30 to 5:00 p.m. her husband informed her that his parents had been murdered by someone in the jungle and then they all went to see their parents. 18. PW-11/Smt. Santosh is also a daughter of deceased-Khem Chand. She has stated that she also got information about the murder of her parents on 19.07.2012 by someone over phone. 19. PW-12/Virendra has not supported the prosecution story and was declared hostile by the prosecution. 20. PW-13 is Dr. B.N. Pathak, who has conducted post mortem examination on the bodies of both the deceased persons. The following ante mortem injuries were recorded by this witness, In the post mortem examination of Khem Chandra (Ext.Ka-2), the following ante mortem injuries were recorded: “(i) LCW size 4 cm x 1 cm x bone deep left side of head. (ii) LCW 4 x 1.5 cm x bone deep right side back of occipital. (iii) A contused swelling on left eye size about 6 x 6 cm. (iv) LCW size 3.5 x 1 cm x through and through left lower lip. (v) A contused swelling both side face in the area of 19 x 16 cm. (vi) Both mandible fractured. (vii) Left frontal bone fractured. (viii) Base fractured. Cause of death is shock and haemorrhage due to ante mortem injuries.” In the post mortem examination of Krishna Devi (Ext.Ka-3), the following ante mortem injuries were recorded: (i) LCW 4 cm x 1 cm x bone deep left side back of head. (ii) LCW 12 cm x 1 cm 1 bone deep right side forehead to top of head. (iii) LCW 9 cm x 6 cm extending right side forehead to below right, eye right side. (iv) Frontal bone of skull fractured. (v) Facial bone around eye fractured on right side. (vi) Upper jaw bone fractured. (vii) Occipital bone right side fractured. (viii) Temporaral bone right side fractured. (ix) Base fractured. Cause of death is shock and haemorrhage due to anti mortem injuries.” 21. PW-14 is the Head Constable-Girijesh Tripathi is a formal police witness. 22. PW-15/Inspector Ritesh Shah is the Investigating Officer of the case. On completion of investigation, he submitted the charge-sheet against the accused in the court. 23. PW-16/S.I. Deepak Kathait is also a police witness. He has proved the recovery of dead bodies and produced recovery memos (Ext.Ka-22 and Ext.Ka-23). 24. 22. PW-15/Inspector Ritesh Shah is the Investigating Officer of the case. On completion of investigation, he submitted the charge-sheet against the accused in the court. 23. PW-16/S.I. Deepak Kathait is also a police witness. He has proved the recovery of dead bodies and produced recovery memos (Ext.Ka-22 and Ext.Ka-23). 24. PW-17/Dharam Singh Rautela is also a formal police witness. 25. Thereafter, the statement of appellant-accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the allegations made against him and stated that he had been falsely implicated in the crime. 26. We have heard learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and learned Deputy Advocate General for the State, at length and thoroughly examined the record of the case with the help of learned counsels. It is a case based on circumstantial evidence. It is well settled that in a case based upon circumstantial evidence, the chain has to be complete in all aspects so as to unerringly indicate the guilt of the accused. 27. Learned Amicus Curiae argued that this is a blind case, where the dead body of the parents of informant PW-1-Shiv Kumar was found in a jungle in the evening on 19.07.2012. The first information report was lodged by PW-1 Shiv Kumar on the same day i.e. 19.07.2012 at about 18:15 hours in Police Station Shyampur against the unknown persons. It is vehemently argued by learned Amicus Curiae that the appellant was arrested only on 11.08.2012 by the police at about 16:45 hours from a place ‘Gendi Khata’ (Shyampur), District Haridwar after 23 days of the incident; he was caught without any evidence but only on the information given by the informer. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that till 11.08.2012, there was no iota of evidence available with the prosecution to nab the appellant, who was the next door neighbour of the informant-Shiv Kumar and the deceased couple. All the evidence, according to the learned Amicus Curiae, was gathered in the shape of alleged recoveries under Section 27 of the Evidence Act at the pointing out of the appellant i.e. bloodstained earth, Bainta and the clothes allegedly put on by the appellant at the time of incident i.e. bloodstained pant, trouser and shirt, and this recovery does not inspire any confidence. 28. 28. The learned Amicus Curiae also submitted that since the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence, no motive has been assigned against the appellant to commit such a heinous crime and since the case is based on circumstantial evidence, the absence of motive would strongly be weighed in favour of the appellant. In order to buttress her arguments, she relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Nandu Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh), 2022 SCC Online SC 1454. It is further submitted by learned Amicus Curiae that none of the circumstances has been proved by the prosecution against the appellant. The link in the chain of circumstances is evidently missing; the evidence of last seen was also palpable and doubtful, as stated by PW-5/Rampal and on the basis of such weak evidence, appellant cannot be convicted. 29. Per contra, learned Deputy Advocate General supported the impugned judgment and order on the ground that the circumstance of last seen evidence, the recovery of bloodstained Bainta and bloodstained clothes put on by the appellant at the time of commission of the crime under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, makes the chain of circumstances complete and, therefore, it is contended by him that the appellant was rightly convicted and sentenced by the trial Court vide the impugned judgment. 30. On a careful consideration of the arguments put forth by learned counsel for either party and perusal of the entire record of the case, there is no manner of doubt that this is a case of blind murders of aged Khem Singh and Krishna Devi, parents of the informant (PW-1) Shiv Kumar, who were found brutally murdered in the jungle in the evening of 19.07.2012. In the first information report (Ext.Ka-1), PW-1 Shiv Kumar nowhere disclosed as to whether he was informed by anyone either PW-5 Rampal or PW-4 Kartar Singh of his village, rather he disclosed in the first information report that when his parents did not come back from the forest, he searched for them and found them lying dead in the forest. PW-1, during trial, narrated the same version and explained that when his parents did not return till 05:30 p.m., he went to search for them along with his two brother-in-laws and with two other persons in the jungle, where at a distance of 1-1.5 Km. PW-1, during trial, narrated the same version and explained that when his parents did not return till 05:30 p.m., he went to search for them along with his two brother-in-laws and with two other persons in the jungle, where at a distance of 1-1.5 Km. from village, he found both of his parents dead. The severe injuries had been inflicted by some unknown persons on the head of his both parents. PW-1 further says that thereafter, he lodged the first information report by writing it through Vijaypal R/o Kankhal, Haridwar. 31. Out of 17 witnesses examined, only PW-4 Kartar Singh and PW-5 Rampal narrated the fact that at 12 in the noon, they saw the deceased-Khem Singh and his wife going to the forest. PW-4 further narrated that when at about 03:30 p.m. he got up from nap, he went to the premises of PW-2/Inder Singh, prepared the tea and after having tea with Inder Singh, he went to bring wood from the jungle where on the way PW-5 met him and informed him that two persons were lying dead near a tree. 32. It is only PW-5/Rampal who deposed during trial that he saw the appellant, who is resident of Bahar Pilli, rushing near a tree carrying a thick Bainta in his hand, which was 2-2½ feet long and when he called him, he did not stop and thereafter, when PW-5 reached near the tree, he saw Khem Singh and Krishna Devi lying dead. This evidence of PW-5/Rampal did not find support from PW-4/Kartar Singh whom he met. PW-2/Inder Singh and PW-3/Dhyan Singh also did not divulge anything regarding the presence of appellant at the scene of occurrence, just prior to the incident, and they nowhere said that PW-5/Rampal disclosed it to them, particularly, when all of these persons were there at the spot and after the dead bodies were found. Thus, the evidence of seeing the appellant near the scene of crime is very weak and cannot be made a basis for the conviction. 33. So far as the recovery of bloodstained Bainta at the pointing out of the appellant is concerned, the same does not inspire confidence, simply, for the reason that before proceeding for the recovery, no disclosure statement of the appellant-accused was recorded by the Investigating Officer (PW-15). 33. So far as the recovery of bloodstained Bainta at the pointing out of the appellant is concerned, the same does not inspire confidence, simply, for the reason that before proceeding for the recovery, no disclosure statement of the appellant-accused was recorded by the Investigating Officer (PW-15). The same is the case with recovery of bloodstained trouser and shirt allegedly put on by the appellant while committing the crime. 34. There is one more fact which also belies the story of the prosecution of the alleged recovery which is the FSL report on record. According to the prosecution, along with materials exhibits Bainta, trouser and shirt material (Ext.Ka-24 & 25) were sent to the FSL for examination, and according to the report of FSL dated 29.09.2012, no human blood was found there-upon. Thus, the theory of blood in the trouser and shirt, recovered from the house of the appellant, is also ruled out. On the weapon of assault-Bainta (Ext.Ka-24), the blood was found in disintegrated form due to which its origin could not have been ascertained. In this view of the matter, the so-called recovery would not come to give support to the prosecution case as a circumstance to convict the appellant. 35. According to PW-15-Investigating Officer, he recorded the statement of PW-5/Rampal on 23.07.2012, but the delay in arresting the accused on 11.08.2012, who was a next door neighbour of the deceased, makes the entire case of the prosecution highly doubtful, and it only casts an inference that in order to just solve the case, the appellant was arrested. 36. So far as the argument of learned Amicus Curiae in respect of absence of motive is concerned, we have examined the record and also gone through the evidence of prosecution witnesses. We are also of the same opinion that there is no motive assigned to the appellant to commit such a heinous crime of murdering the aged parents of PW-1/Shiv Kumar. A very weak attempt has been done by the prosecution to bring on record, as a motive, against the appellant through PW-1-Shiv Kumar when he says in the court as PW-1 that his father was a devotee and the appellant was inimical with him for the reason that he thought that his father was doing some black witchcraft against him. 37. 37. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the motive attains significance and the absence of motive weighs in favour of the accused, as enunciated and propounded by the Hon’ble Apex Court in various judgments. In Shivaji Chintappa Patil vs. State of Maharastra, 2021 (5) SCC 626 , it is held that: “27. Though, in a case of direct evidence, motive would not be relevant, in a case of circumstantial evidence, motive plays an important link to complete the chain of circumstances.” 38. Like-wise, in the case of Anwar Ali vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2020) 10 SCC 166 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held as hereunder: “24. Now so far as the submission on behalf of the accused that in the present case the prosecution has failed to establish and prove the motive and therefore the accused deserves acquittal is concerned, it is true that the absence of proving the motive cannot be a ground to reject the prosecution case. It is also true and as held by this Court in Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar that if motive is proved that would supply a link in the chain of circumstantial evidence but the absence thereof cannot be a ground to reject the prosecution case. However, at the same time, as observed by this Court in Babu, absence of motive in a case depending on circumstantial evidence is a factor that weighs in favour of the accused. In Paras 25 and 26, it is observed and held as under: (Babu case, SCC pp 200-201) “25. In State of U.P vs. Kishanpal, this Court examined the importance of motive in cases of circumstantial evidence and observed: (SCC pp. 87-88, Paras 38-39) “38.........the motive is a thing which is primarily known to the accused themselves and it is not possible for the prosecution to explain what actually promoted or ex-cited them to commit the particular crime. 39. The motive may be considered as a circumstance which is relevant for assessing the evidence but if the evidence is clear and unambiguous and the circum-stances prove the guilt of the accused, the same is not weakened even if the motive is not a very strong one. 39. The motive may be considered as a circumstance which is relevant for assessing the evidence but if the evidence is clear and unambiguous and the circum-stances prove the guilt of the accused, the same is not weakened even if the motive is not a very strong one. It is also settled law that the motive loses all its importance in a case where direct evidence of eyewitnesses is available, because even if there may be a very strong motive for the accused persons to commit a particular crime, they cannot be convicted if the evidence of eye-witnesses is not convincing. In the same way, even if there may not be an apparent motive but if the evidence of the eyewitnesses is clear and reliable, the absence or inadequacy of motive cannot stand in the way of conviction.” 39. No other witness was examined even to substantiate the weak motive of using alleged witchcraft upon the appellant by the father of PW-1/Shiv Kumar. 40. Moreover, there are various contradictions and developments in the evidence of prosecution witnesses when confronted from the statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. The evidence of PW-5-Rampal appears to be an evidence, which is developed, during trial. 41. From the aforesaid discussion and examination of the record, it appears that prosecution could not complete the chain of circumstances which would indicate only the guilt of the accused-appellant. The circumstances, relied upon by learned trial court, while convicting the appellant, are not proved by the prosecution, especially the circumstances nos. 4, 5, 7 and 8. 42. This is settled principle of law that there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances. Here in the case at hand, there are various missing links in the chain of circumstances which makes the case of the prosecution highly doubtful and it cannot be said at all that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. 43. In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that onus was on the prosecution to prove that the chain is complete and the infirmity or lacuna in prosecution cannot be cured by false defence or plea. 43. In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that onus was on the prosecution to prove that the chain is complete and the infirmity or lacuna in prosecution cannot be cured by false defence or plea. The conditions precedent before conviction could be based on circumstantial evidence, must be fully established, which are given as under: “(i) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned 'must or should and not ‘may be’ established. (ii) 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. (iii) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. (iv) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. (v) 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.” 44. Having examined the case of the prosecution and on the basis of principle initiated in the aforesaid Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (Supra), we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution miserably failed to complete the chain of circumstances against the appellant and he cannot be convicted in a blind murder case like this. 45. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 11.09.2018 passed by learned Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Sessions Trial No. 291 of 2012, State vs. Prem, is hereby set-aside. Conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC is hereby quashed and sentence awarded to him to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 30,000/- is also hereby set aside. Appellant is in jail. Let he be released forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case. 46. Let the lower court record be sent back.