JUDGMENT : (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) 1. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State assisted with learned counsel for the informant in both the appeals. 2. The instant criminal appeals have been preferred by the appellants challenging their conviction and sentence for the offence under section 302 and 201 of IPC dated 30.10.2002/31.10.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge FTC-V, Deoghar in S.C. Case No.214 of 1996 and arising out of G.R. No.254 of 1995 (T.R. No.599 of 1996), whereby and whereunder the appellants were sentenced to undergone R.I. for life for the offence under section 302 of IPC and R.I. for three years for the offence under section 201 of IPC. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. FACTUAL MATRIX 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 01.06.1995 in the noon, the appellant No.1 Govind Das came to the house of the informant Jhula Devi (P.W.2) and asked her daughter-in- law to send her husband (since deceased) to him but on that day the informant’s son did not go to the house of Govind Das. On the next day i.e. on 02.06.1995 in the morning at about 12:00-1:00 PM, the wife of Gogla Manjhi namely Tarwa Devi came to the house of the informant and told that a clerk of school namely Dasrath Manjhi had come to her house and he is calling Basudeo Das for talking with him. Upon this, Basudeo Das followed with wife of Gogla Manjhi and went to her home but did not return till 5 PM. It is further alleged that when the informant went to the house of Gogla Manjhi then she saw that Basudeo Das accompanying with son of the informant then she asked Dasrath Manjhi as to where he is going along with her son in night, then he disclosed that her son Basudeo Das will stay in his house in the night and in the morning, he will go to the home of his maternal uncle Govind Das. It is further alleged that in the morning, the informant went to factory, where her son was also working, but came to know that he did not join the duty in the night. It is further alleged that in the morning, the informant went to factory, where her son was also working, but came to know that he did not join the duty in the night. Thereafter, she went in search of her son Basudeo Das near Madhupur Market also where she came to know that towards east of Lerwa Harijan School, Dangal, a dead body of a boy is lying resembling with the son of the informant. Then, she went there and saw he dead bod of her son. The police had also arrived there. The informant raised suspicion against Dasrath Manjhi, Govind Das, Tarwa Devi and others might have killed her son and disposed of the dead body in Dangal. 4. On the basis of Fardbayan of the informant, FIR was registered for the offence under section 302 of IPC against the unknown miscreants. After completing the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the above named appellants for the offences under sections 302/201 of IPC. After taking cognizance, the case was committed to the court of Sessions where S.C. Case No.214 of 1996 was registered. The accused persons/appellants denied the charges leveled against them and claimed to be tried. After conclusion of the trial, all the appellants have been held guilty and sentenced for the offences under sections 302/201 of IPC. 5. It appears that Cr. Appeal(D.B.) No.787 of 2002 was filed by all the appellants. Thereafter Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.04 of 2003 was separately filed by the appellant Tarwa Devi in which, vide order dated 07.01.2003, she was granted bail during pendency of this appeal. Since Tarwa Devi had already filed an appeal being Cr. Appeal(D.B.) No.787 of 2002, hence videorder No.4 dated 17.02.2003, after taking explanation from the paravikar of Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.04 of 2003 namely Nepali Bhuiyan, who happens to be son of the appellant, Tarwa Devi and giving him warning, Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.04 of 2003 was ordered to be tagged with Cr. Appeal(D.B.) No.787 of 2002 for hearing. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants assailing the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellants have vehemently argued that in spite of suspicion raised by the informant against the appellants, the FIR was instituted against unknown miscreants. Appeal (D.B.) No.04 of 2003 was ordered to be tagged with Cr. Appeal(D.B.) No.787 of 2002 for hearing. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants assailing the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellants have vehemently argued that in spite of suspicion raised by the informant against the appellants, the FIR was instituted against unknown miscreants. Admittedly, there is no witness of the occurrence and no positive materials have been brought on record showing any specific overt act or perpetration of the appellants in the alleged offence of murder of the deceased. The suspicion raised by the informant against the appellants never culminated into legal proof and the learned trial court has also committed same illegality by convicting the appellants only on the basis of suspicion, which has been casted in the evidence of witnesses examined by the prosecution. No incriminating articles used in commission of offence of murder has been recovered from the possession of any of the appellants. No motive behind the occurrence has been attributed as to why the appellants were desiring to kill the deceased. The informant has only seen her deceased son in the house of Tarwa Devi while he was taking meal and nothing else. The appellant Dashrath Manjhi is an assistant in the Welfare Department at Chaibasa not a clerk in a school as alleged in the FIR. The appellant No.3 Tarwa Devi was a widow lady aged about 45 years on the date of alleged occurrence. It is further submitted that no independent witness or any local villagers have been examined to prove the prosecution story showing the involvement of the appellants in commission of murder of the deceased. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellants is absolutely illegal and fit to be set aside, allowing these appeals. 7. Per Contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State assisted by learned counsel for the informant have defended the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellants submitting that learned trial court has very wisely and aptly appreciated and evaluated the evidence of the witnesses. There are sufficient circumstantial evidence completing the chain of events against the appellants to prove their guilt for commission of murder. Hence, there is no merit in these appeals and substance in the points of argument raised on behalf of the appellant. There are sufficient circumstantial evidence completing the chain of events against the appellants to prove their guilt for commission of murder. Hence, there is no merit in these appeals and substance in the points of argument raised on behalf of the appellant. Therefore, these appeals are devoid of merits and fit to be dismissed. 8. We have gone through the entire case record along with impugned judgment and order in the light of contentions raised on behalf of both side. It appears that in order to substantiate the charges leveled against the appellants; altogether 15 witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. Apart from oral testimony of the witnesses following documentary evidence have been adduced:- Ext.1 Post-mortem report of deceased. Ext.2 Carbon copy of inquest report bearing signature of witness Jagranth Manjhi Ext.3 Signature of witness Ramkishore Bhokta on inquest report. Ext.4 the seizure list of blood stained soil. (ii) plastic slipper of the deceaased Ext.5 Signature of S.I. Anil Kumar on Fardbayan (Scriber of fardbayan) 9. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence and the case of the defence is plea of innocence and false implication. 10. For proper appreciation of the case, we have to take brief resume of testimony of witnesses:- P.W.1 Jitan Das is the father of the deceased. According to his evidence, Tarwa Devi (appellant No.3) came to his house in the morning at about 5 AM and proceeded to her house along with his son for talking with Dasrath Manjhi. It is further deposed that till 12 PM, when his son did not come to his home, then this witness went to the house of Tarwa Devi and saw that Dasrath Manjhi, Tarwa Devi and his son Basudeo Das were eating meat and paratha and also consuming liquor. Then, this witness requested to his son to come back to home but he did not return and went to the house of Govind Das along with Dasrath Manjhi to attend panchyati. Thereafter, the dead body of the deceased was found near the school. Then, this witness requested to his son to come back to home but he did not return and went to the house of Govind Das along with Dasrath Manjhi to attend panchyati. Thereafter, the dead body of the deceased was found near the school. This witness has been suggested by the defence that the deceased Basudeo Das had joined the gang of dacoits and several criminal cases of theft and dacoity were pending against him and two instances of cases have been suggested by defence, namely, Madhupur P.S. Case No.29 of 1984 registered for the offence under sections 457 and 380 of IPC and Madhupur P.S. Case No.200 of 1992 registered for the offence under section 392 of IPC. Hence, he might be killed by his own associates and the appellants have been falsely been implicated in this case because there was some dispute between Govind Das(appellant No.1) and his sister Jhula Devi (informant) regarding partition of ancestral property. P.W.2 Jhula Devi (informant) has proved the contents of her fardbayan and claimed to have seen that her son was called from by Tarwa Devi upon her house and was taking meal there along with Dasrath Manjhi. She has further deposed that when her son did not return, she went to see him at the house of Tarwa Devi but her son did not return rather he went along with Dasrath Manjhi to the house of Govind Das. Thereafter, this witness came to know that the dead body of her son was lying in a ditch near Lerwa school. She has not stated about any previous dispute or enmity with the accused persons or with her son rather she had denied the involvement of her son in criminal cases. P.W. 3 Gopal Das, P.W.6 Chandrakishore Chaurisiya and P.W.7 Shivnath Mistry have been tendered by the prosecution and stated nothing. P.W. 4 Sundari Mosmatti is the wife of the deceased and she has stated in the same line as her mother-in- law(P.W.2) has stated. But, this witness in her cross-examination has categorically stated that prior to the occurrence, Tarwa Devi did not come to her house and her husband never consumed liquor in her house. P.W.5 Kunti Devi is co-worker in Glass Factory with the informant. she has simply admitted that she had seen Tarwa Devi at the house of Basudeo Das(deceased) in the morning at about 6 AM. P.W.5 Kunti Devi is co-worker in Glass Factory with the informant. she has simply admitted that she had seen Tarwa Devi at the house of Basudeo Das(deceased) in the morning at about 6 AM. P.W.8 Vijay Kumar Das is brother of the deceased and is a worker of Baijnath Glass Factory. This witness appears to be hearsay witness from his mother and has only seen the dead body of the deceased. P.W.9 Dr. M. A. Sattar has conducted the autopsy on dead body of the deceased on 03.06.1995, who was brought and identified by constable No. 250 Chedi Mistry and Chaukidar 5/12 Pattan Turi. This witness has found eight stabbed injuries on different part of the body including neck of the deceased and one lacerated wound black in colour on left shoulder 4 ½ x 3”; Time elapsed since death within 36 hours and it is opined that the death was caused due to hemorrhage and shock as a result of stab injury Nos.1 to 4 and associated with other wounds, which were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, caused by sharp penetrating weapon like dagger and proved the post-mortem report(Ext.1) P.W.10 Bishnku Rawani has been declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.11 Jagarnath Manjhi is a witness of inquest report, who has proved Ext.2 P.W.12 witness of inquest report Ramkishore Bhokta proved the signature proved as Ext.3. P.W. 13 Rakhal Das has claimed to see the dead body of the deceased near school and nothing else. P.W.14 Ali Mohammad, the advocate clerk is a formal witness and has proved the signature of A.S.I. Md. Ahmad of seizure list (Ext.4) P.W.15 Akhtar Ali, advocate clerk has simply proved the signature of S.I. Anil Kumar (scriber of fardbayan of the informant) Ext.5. 11. From the aforesaid discussion of the prosecution evidence, it is obvious that except single circumstance of last seen of the deceased with Tarwa Devi and Dasrath Manjhi while taking meal in the house of Tarwa Devi, there is no other circumstance against the appellants. The prosecution has not brought any materials showing direct involvement of the appellants in causing death of the deceased by stabbing him in brutal manner as found in the post-mortem report. No previous enmity showing any motive behind the occurrence at the hands of the appellants has been proved by the prosecution. The prosecution has not brought any materials showing direct involvement of the appellants in causing death of the deceased by stabbing him in brutal manner as found in the post-mortem report. No previous enmity showing any motive behind the occurrence at the hands of the appellants has been proved by the prosecution. Other chain of circumstances, forming link of circumstantial evidence against the appellants are lacking in this case. It is a case pertaining to murder and the deceased has also shown to be a known criminal. Therefore, strong evidence is required to prove the guilt of the appellants for their conviction. We find that learned trial court has absolutely failed to take proper care and attention while basing conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence. The time tested judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 provides guidelines for conviction based on circumstantial evidence, wherein it has been held as under:- “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 : 1973 SCC, when the observations were made:- “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.” 12. We have given anxious consideration to overall facts and circumstances of the case and evidence available on record along with impugned judgment and order and find that learned trial court has committed serious illegality in properly appreciating the evidence of the witnesses and without marshalling the incriminating circumstances available against the appellants and without establishment the chain of circumstances leading towards guilt of the appellants has recorded the conviction and sentence, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is hereby, set aside. 13. Accordingly, both the appeals are allowed. The appellants are acquitted from the charges levelled against them. 14. As the appellants are already on bail, thus they and their bailors are discharged from the liabilities of the bail bonds. 15. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of accordingly. 16. Let the copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Record be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful. 14. As the appellants are already on bail, thus they and their bailors are discharged from the liabilities of the bail bonds. 15. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of accordingly. 16. Let the copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Record be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful. Per Ananda Sen, J. : I agree.