JUDGMENT : (Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J.) 1. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order of conviction dated 29.06.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Fast Track Court No. 21, Allahabad in Session Trial No. 287A of 1999 (State Vs. Balwant @ Munnu Singh), arising out of Case Crime No. 159 of 1981, C.B.C.I.D. Crime No. 710 of 1991, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 I.P.C., Police Station Ghoorpur, District Allahabad and judgment and order of conviction dated 06.05.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Room No. 22, Allahabad in Session Trial No. 287 of 1999 (State Vs. Durvijay Singh and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 159 of 1981, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 I.P.C., Police Station Ghoorpur, District Allahabad, whereby all the accused-appellants have been convicted and sentenced to six months imprisonment under Section 147 I.P.C., one year imprisonment under Section 148 I.P.C. and life imprisonment under Section 302 read with 149 I.P.C., with default stipulation. 2. The basis of prosecution case is the written report made by P.W.1-Shambhunath, scribed by Krishnapal Gupta, as per which informant’s nephew Bhupendra Narayan @ Lallu (deceased) had left his house on 09.06.1981 at about 6:00 p.m. to participate in a Baraat (marriage procession) on his motorcycle, but he did not return. At about 2:00 hours in the night, one villager, Bhukhan Singh, came to the house of the informant and woke him up and after calling the family members informed that Bhupendra Narayan @ Lallu had been shot dead on the canal track (Nahar Ki Patri) by some unknown persons. The informant, therefore, had come to lodge the report. The first information report has been lodged on 10.06.1981 at 5:00 hours in the morning and the incident is alleged to have taken place between 6:00 to 2:00 hours in the previous evening/night intervening 09/10th of June, 1981. The investigation proceeded in the matter and inquest was held. The body was sealed, whereafter postmortem was conducted on 10.06.1981 at the mortuary at Allahabad. The postmortem report shows that the deceased sustained solitary firearm shot causing two wounds, namely, an entry wound and an exit wound. The postmortem report further shows that the deceased was shot from behind. The cause of death was shock and haemorrhage due to ante mortem gun shot injury. The deceased was found to be of average built and aged about 34 years. The postmortem report further shows that the deceased was shot from behind. The cause of death was shock and haemorrhage due to ante mortem gun shot injury. The deceased was found to be of average built and aged about 34 years. The deceased died about a day prior to holding of the postmortem. 3. It is discernable from the evidence available on record that none had actually seen the incident and the implication of the accused-appellants has essentially surfaced on the basis of allegation that one Harikant Mishra (P.W.9), son of the informant-Shambhu Nath (P.W.1) had stolen his wife’s jewellery and had given it to one of the accused, namely Durvijay Singh @ Sadau Singh. Durvijay Singh @ Sadau Singh in turn sold the jewellery to a jeweller at Ghoorpur. When these facts came to the knowledge of family members, pressure was exerted upon Durvijay Singh @ Sadau Singh to return the jewellery. It is then that a Village Panchayat was held in which the members present had resolved to seek return of jewellery from Durvijay Singh @ Sadau Singh. Sadau Singh was also called in that Panchayat but he did not attend the Panchayat. It is, there at the Panchayat that the deceased asserted that in case the jewellery is not returned by Sadau Singh, he would get his fields cultivated thereby conveying that he would take over the possession of the land of Sadau Singh. This apparently was suspected to be the motive for commissioning of the offence. The other circumstances which surfaced during the course of trial was the receipt of a letter send by the co-accused, Vijai Pratap Singh, in which he stated that for the aforesaid reasons the deceased has been shot dead by Durvijay Singh @ Sadau Singh, Lal Sahab and Ashiq Ali. This letter was send to Shyamakant and was received by post. Shyamakant is P.W.3. This letter was also addressed to one Haribhushan (not produced). This letter generated enough suspicion against the accused persons, and, in view of the alleged enmity, the Investigating Officer, after recording statements of various witnesses, proceeded to submit the charge sheet against the accused persons namely, Balwant Singh @ Munnu Singh, Durvijay Singh @ Sadau Sngh, Vijay Pratap Singh, Ashiq Ali and Lal Sahab. Lal Sahab has died during the course of trial. Lal Sahab has died during the course of trial. Cognizance on the charge sheet was taken by the concerned Magistrate whereafter charges were framed under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. against all the accused persons by the concerned Court of Sessions after committal. Contents of charges were read out whereafter the accused denied their implication and the trial commenced. It transpires that two separate trials were conducted in the matter pursuant to the same incident resulting in passing of two separate judgments dated 06.05.2003 and 29.06.2019. Evidence is common in both the trials. 4. During the course of trial the informant has been produced as P.W.1. He has proved the written report, on the basis of which the F.I.R. was lodged. In his cross-examination, P.W.1 has admitted that he has not seen the incident himself, and, that apart from the deceased, nobody else from his family had gone to attend the marriage. He has also stated that the deceased had left for the marriage procession, in his presence, from the house. P.W.1 has also stated that his son, Harikant Mishra is a drunkard with questionable morals who had stolen jewellery of his wife. P.W.1 has further stated that the deceased was engaged in sand business but he was not aware that on several instances he had disputes with persons of Mallah community, who were extracting sand for him. P.W.1 has further stated that his family members had no enmity prior to the incident with the accused in which his son had stolen the jewellery of his wife and given it to Sadau Singh. 5. P.W.2 is Rajkumar. He has also proved the incident in which Panchayat was held and the deceased had said that if the jewellery is not returned by Sadau Singh he would get his land cultivated. In the cross-examination, P.W.2 has admitted that no complaint was lodged in respect of the theft of jewellery, he was also not aware as to when the Panchayat was held and that he had only heard that such Panchayat was held. The statement of P.W.2 was recorded after three months of the incident by the Investigating Officer. In the cross-examination, P.W.2 has admitted that no complaint was lodged in respect of the theft of jewellery, he was also not aware as to when the Panchayat was held and that he had only heard that such Panchayat was held. The statement of P.W.2 was recorded after three months of the incident by the Investigating Officer. P.W.2 has been confronted with his previous statement in which he has not alleged that Sadau Singh had stopped living in the village after the incident and that such fact has been disclosed for the first time in the court by him. P.W.2 has also acknowledged that he had not seen the incident and his statement is based on what he heard from others, and, therefore, his version at the beset is hearsay in nature. P.W.2 has further admitted that field of Sadau Singh was never taken over or cultivated by the deceased. 6. P.W.3 is Shyamakant Mishra. He has stated that on 09.06.1981 the then Prime Minister Mrs. Indira Gandhi had come to address a public gathering at Jasra Bazar and large numbers of persons from adjoining areas had gone to listen to her. He has supported the prosecution case and has also alleged that he received a letter from accused Vijai Pratap Singh, in which he admitted that the deceased was done to death by Durvijay Singh @ Sadau Singh, Lal Sahab and Ashiq Ali. This letter was in two pages and was given to the Inspector of C.B.C.I.D. A copy of this letter has been produced in evidence. P.W.3 has stated that Vijai Singh was his junior in the college and that he had read out the contents of this letter to Haribhushan Mishra, whereafter, letter was given to him. P.W.3 has also stated that cousin of Durvijay Singh, namely, Shankar was done to death in which Prem Narayan Mishra (P.W.2) was an accused. The uncle of Durvijay Singh, namely, Udaybhan was done to death in which P.W.3-Shyamakant along with Harikant, Ramesh, etc., were implicated as the accused. He has stated that the letter was addressed both to P.W.3 and Harikant and contained the stamp of Jasra post office. P.W.3 has, however, admitted that he had not seen the incident. P.W.3 has been confronted with his previous statement in which there is no reference of the fact that the deceased was shot dead by Sadau Singh. He has stated that the letter was addressed both to P.W.3 and Harikant and contained the stamp of Jasra post office. P.W.3 has, however, admitted that he had not seen the incident. P.W.3 has been confronted with his previous statement in which there is no reference of the fact that the deceased was shot dead by Sadau Singh. He came to know about theft of jewellery from the mother of Harikant Mishra. P.W.3, however, has not been able to state that as to when this letter was received. He has, however, alleged that the incident was seen by Shiv Autar and Ramji. 7. P.W.4 is Prem Narayan. He has supported the prosecution case. As per him the father of the accused Vijai Pratap Singh was a Head Constable and that he had come to know about the theft of jewellery nearly a week after the incident from the father of accused Vijai Pratap Singh namely Motilal Singh Baghel. He has admitted that neither this theft of jewellery took place in his presence nor the Panchayat was held in his presence. He has further stated that the letter of Vijai Pratap Singh was shown to him by Shyamakant. P.W.4 has stated that the father of Vijai Pratap Singh, namely, Motilal Baghel, had confessed that his son had committed the murder and on such disclosure made by the father of the accused Vijai Pratap Singh that he had come to know of all such facts. 8. P.W.5 is Shri Krishna Malviya. He has alleged that on the date of incident he saw the accused, Sadau Singh and Vijai Pratap Singh consuming liquor and Sadau Singh said that today work will be done and on the next day he came to know that the deceased had died. In his cross-examination, P.W.5 has stated that he does not remember whether any meeting of Prime Minister was held on that day. The witness, Shyamakant is his class fellow. P.W.5 has stated that he does not remember when his statement was recorded by the police. He has neither gone to the place of incident nor he had seen the incident. 9. P.W.6 is B. B. Rai, who was employed in the Forensic Science Laboratory as a document expert. The witness, Shyamakant is his class fellow. P.W.5 has stated that he does not remember when his statement was recorded by the police. He has neither gone to the place of incident nor he had seen the incident. 9. P.W.6 is B. B. Rai, who was employed in the Forensic Science Laboratory as a document expert. This witness has been examined elaborately on his report, as per which two page confessional letter was written by the accused Vijai Pratap Singh and that it was in his hand writing. 10. P.W.7-Nankau has been produced. He was allegedly the person to whom the stolen jewellery was sold, but he has turned hostile. 11. P.W.8 is Dr. M. A. Haq, who had conducted the postmortem of the deceased and has proved the postmortem report. As per the doctor blackening and tattooing were present and therefore the deceased was shot at from a close range. An entry wound was found on the back of the deceased whereas an exit wound was on the front of the chest. In his opinion the shot was fired from a close range. 12. Prosecution has produced P.W.9-Harikant Mishra, who is the son of the informant. He has alleged that he was a drunkard and on the asking of Sadau Singh he had stolen his wife’s jewellery to arrange money for purchase of a motorcycle and given it to Sadau Singh. He has claimed that later on Rs. 722.40 was returned by Lallan Singh. He has also supported the case that the deceased had said that if the stolen jewellery is not returned he would cultivate the agricultural field of the accused Sudau Singh. This witness has been cross-examined at length with regard to the theft of jewellery and how he has delivered the same to Sadau Singh. He has, however, categorically admitted that it was only because of the jewellery having been given to Sadau Singh that everyone suspected the role of accused persons in committing the murder of the deceased. 13. P.W.10 is the person who runs a sweet shop at Ghoorpur. He has stated that the deceased had come to his shop and stayed there for some time. 14. The next prosecution witness is S. N. Tiwari, Deputy Superintendent, C.B.C.I.D., who has proved the charge sheet. 15. P.W.12 is one Ramji Shukla. 13. P.W.10 is the person who runs a sweet shop at Ghoorpur. He has stated that the deceased had come to his shop and stayed there for some time. 14. The next prosecution witness is S. N. Tiwari, Deputy Superintendent, C.B.C.I.D., who has proved the charge sheet. 15. P.W.12 is one Ramji Shukla. He has alleged that on the date of incident at about 9:00-9:30 hours in the night he was returning home when he saw that five persons were sitting on the culvert. Three of these five persons were identified by him as Sadau Singh, Vijai Singh and Balwant Singh and two others were unknown. On asking, Sadau Singh informed P.W.12 that he is going to participate in a marriage procession from his village. He has further stated that later on, a motorcycle came and stopped at the culvert. P.W.12, however, left and when he had gone to a certain distance he heard a gun shot. He later stated that two fires were shot. All the five persons had gone towards Jari. He had seen these persons in the torch light. In the cross-examination P.W.12 has stated that no meeting of the Prime Minister was held at Jari Bazar. His statement was recorded 10-15 days after the incident by the police. He has further stated that Sadau Singh informed him that he is going in the marriage party. 16. P.W.13 is the record keeper of the office of the S.S.P., who has stated that original records of the investigation has already been weeded out. 17. The above evidence was confronted to the accused persons and all of them claimed that fabricated evidence has been produced against them. They have also stated that the deceased was a man of criminal traits and had many enemies and that someone from those enemies had killed him and on account of enmity they have been falsely implicated. 18. Relying upon the evidence available on record the Court of Sessions has ultimately convicted and sentenced these appellants who are before this Court. 19. Shri S. D. Singh Jadaun has appeared for the accused-appellant Balwant @ Munnu Singh. For the other accused-appellants, Durvijai Singh @ Sadau Singh, Vijai Pratap Singh and Ashiq Ali, since their counsels are not present, we have requested Shri S. D. Singh Jadaun to appear as Amicus Curiae on their behalf and he has been heard on their behalf too. 20. For the other accused-appellants, Durvijai Singh @ Sadau Singh, Vijai Pratap Singh and Ashiq Ali, since their counsels are not present, we have requested Shri S. D. Singh Jadaun to appear as Amicus Curiae on their behalf and he has been heard on their behalf too. 20. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that accused-appellants are falsely implicated and there is no credible evidence against them in the matter, in as much as the three circumstances relied upon against the accused, i.e., enmity, sending of a self exculpatory confessional letter and testimony of P.W.12, would not be sufficient to complete the chain of circumstances, as is required to be connected in a case of circumstantial evidence in order to prove the guilt of the accused persons. 21. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharshtra : 1984 Cri. L.J. 178. It is submitted that some of the accused-appellants are in jail for the last fourteen years and that the appeals are liable to be allowed. 22. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has supported the judgment of conviction relying upon the testimony of witnesses. It is stated that since the incident had occurred late in night and no one had admittedly seen the incident, therefore, the prosecution has rightly relied upon the circumstances and the enmity between the accused and the deceased to prove the complicity of the accused-appellants in the present offence. Learned A.G.A. further stated that the findings recorded by the Court of Sessions is based on evidence available on record and requires no interference. 23. We have heard Shri S. D. Singh Jadaun, the learned counsel for the accused-appellants and Shri Pankaj Kumar Tripathi, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record including the original record of trial. 24. Facts, as have been noticed above, would clearly reveal that the deceased had gone to attend a marriage procession at about 6:00 p.m. on 09.06.1981. PW.1 has clearly stated that he saw the deceased going all alone on his motorcycle to take part in the marriage. It was, thereafter, at about 2:00 hours in the night that Bhukhan Singh came to his house and informed about the murder of the deceased. Bhukhan Singh, however, has not been produced before the trial court. PW.1 has clearly stated that he saw the deceased going all alone on his motorcycle to take part in the marriage. It was, thereafter, at about 2:00 hours in the night that Bhukhan Singh came to his house and informed about the murder of the deceased. Bhukhan Singh, however, has not been produced before the trial court. When and how Bhukhan Singh came to know about the incident is thus not known. The evidence on record clearly shows that none of the prosecution witnesses have actually seen the incident. The prosecution case in the present case is thus based upon circumstantial evidence and three circumstances have been relied upon to prove the complicity of the accused persons in the offence. 25. First and foremost, the circumstance relied upon against the accused-appellants is of the enmity between the deceased and the accused persons. This enmity is because of the statement made by the deceased in the Village Panchayat that if jewellery stolen by Harikant Mishra of his wife and handed over to the accused, Sadau Singh, is not returned then the deceased would get the fields of Sadau Singh cultivated. It is admitted case of the prosecution that in respect of the incident of theft of jewellery neither any complaint was made nor the deceased actually occupied the land of Sadau Singh. 26. The second circumstance relied upon against the accused-appellants is of a letter send by the accused-appellant Vijai Pratap Singh to P.W.3 admitting that Sadau Singh had actually committed the murder along with other accused on account of enmity, referred to above. This letter is alleged to have been proved by the hand writing expert of the Forensic Science Laboratory. Witnesses have also been produced in respect of the letter send by Vijai Pratap Singh. 27. The third circumstance to convict the accused-appellants is the statement of P.W.12-Ramji Shukla, who has stated that he saw three accused namely, Sadau Singh, Vijai Singh and Balwant Singh sitting on a culvert along with two other persons and soon after a person arrived on a motorcycle and later he had heard two gun shots later from a distance. 28. These three circumstances have been relied upon to implicate the accused persons. The trial court has returned the finding that these circumstances are sufficient to connect the chain of circumstances to prove the guilt of accused persons. 29. 28. These three circumstances have been relied upon to implicate the accused persons. The trial court has returned the finding that these circumstances are sufficient to connect the chain of circumstances to prove the guilt of accused persons. 29. In the appeals filed at the instance of accused persons, we are, therefore, required to examine as to whether these circumstances are proved and sufficient to complete the chain of events so as to convict the accused-appellants. 30. We propose to take up the evidence on above three circumstances in reverse order. The first circumstance taken up for examination is the statement of P.W.12-Ramji Shukla. He has stated that while he was returning home at about 9:00-9:30 hours in the night, from Jari, he saw five persons sitting on the culvert. Three of these five persons were identified as Sadau Singh, Vijai Singh and Balwant Singh. The other two persons were not known to P.W.12. P.W.12 has further stated that on being asked, Sadau Singh informed that they were going towards Piparhita to attend a marriage party from his village. He has also stated that later on a person arrived on a motorcycle and stopped near the culvert. P.W.12, thereafter, left and a little later he heard two gun shots. 31. We have carefully analysed the statement of P.W.12. In the cross-examination P.W.12 has stated that he saw these persons in the torch light. This torch has neither been recovered nor has been produced during trial. Apart from the aspect relating to source of light in which P.W.12 saw the incident, we find that the statement of P.W.12 in itself does not say much. It only says that he saw five persons sitting on the culvert. Not much importance can be given to this part of the statement in as much as the prosecution admits that there was a marriage of Nacha Aheer from their village and many persons of the village had gone to attend the marriage. The presence of Sadau Singh, Balwant Singh and Vijai Pratap Singh at the culvert falling in the way of Piparhita, therefore, cannot be taken to be an unusual event. Who were the other two persons is not known. Who was the other person who came on the motorcycle is also not known. P.W.12 admittedly left thereafter and from some distance he heard two gun shots. Who were the other two persons is not known. Who was the other person who came on the motorcycle is also not known. P.W.12 admittedly left thereafter and from some distance he heard two gun shots. PW.12 does not state that he saw the incident. He neither returned at the place of occurrence nor he verified that who was the person who was shot. Merely hearing two gun shots at a distance, would, therefore, not be a material circumstance to implicate the accused-appellants or to infer that it was the deceased who was actually shot dead by the accused persons. P.W.12 does not state that he saw the deceased at the culvert. It is admitted that solitary gun shot was the cause of death of the deceased. P.W.12 has neither identified the deceased as being the person arriving on the motorcycle, nor he returned to verify the incident. In such circumstances, the testimony of P.W.12 would not be a sufficient circumstance to be relied upon as a circumstance in the chain and thus would not be of much help to the prosecution case. 32. Coming to the next circumstance with regard to sending of letter by the accused-Vijai Pratap Singh, we find that the prosecution case in this regard is not reliable. The reason is not far to see. We are at a loss to understand as to why an accused having committed the murder in secrecy would then send a letter to the family members of the deceased acknowledging his guilt. This letter otherwise is a self exculpatory letter in as much as the accused Vijai Pratap Singh has not implicated himself in the offence. At best this letter can be treated as extra judicial confession. 33. It is to be borne in mind that while examining the confession of an accused the Courts have generally read the entire confession as a whole and not read it selectively. In Aghnoo Nagesia Vs. State of Bihar : 1965 SCC OnLine SC 109, the Supreme Court observed as under in para-12 : 12. “Shortly put, a confession may be defined as an admission of the offence by a person charged with the offence. A statement which contains self-exculpatory matter cannot amount to a confession, if the exculpatory statement is of some fact which, if true, would negative the offence alleged to be confessed. “Shortly put, a confession may be defined as an admission of the offence by a person charged with the offence. A statement which contains self-exculpatory matter cannot amount to a confession, if the exculpatory statement is of some fact which, if true, would negative the offence alleged to be confessed. If an admission of an accused is to be used against him the whole of it should be tendered in evidence, and if part of the admission is exculpatory and part inculpatory, the prosecution is not at liberty to use in evidence the inculpatory part only. See Hanumant v. State of Uttar Pradesh : (1952) 2 SCC 71 and Palvinder Kaur v. The State of Punjab : (1952) 2 SCC 177. The accused is entitled to insist that the entire admission including the exculpatory part must be tendered in evidence. But this principle is of no assistance to the accused where no part of his statement is self-exculpatory, and the prosecution intends to use the whole of the statement against the accused.” 34. On the point of exculpatory statement and its possibility to be treated as an evidence, the Apex Court in State of Tamilnadu Vs. J. Jayalalitha (2000) 5 SCC 440 has categorically observed in para-11 as under : “11. We may, at the outset, point out that there is no use with the said statement attributed to the third accused Venkataraman on account of two reasons. First is that the said author of the statement has already been arraigned in the case and a charge has been framed against him. Second is that on a reading of the statement we have noticed that it is exculpatory in nature. Hence the said statement can only lie in store and no court can possibly treat it as evidence.” 35. Law with regard to the extra judicial confession is otherwise well settled. Such confession is evidence of a weak nature and would not be sufficient to constitute sole basis for conviction. It can at best be a corroborative piece of evidence. Supreme Court in Kalinga @ Kushal Vs. State of Karnataka by Police Inspector Hubli : 2024 INSC 124 has discussed the aspect of extra judicial confession. Relevant paras of the judgment are reproduced herein as under: “14. The conviction of the appellant is largely based on the extra judicial confession allegedly made by him before PW-1. Supreme Court in Kalinga @ Kushal Vs. State of Karnataka by Police Inspector Hubli : 2024 INSC 124 has discussed the aspect of extra judicial confession. Relevant paras of the judgment are reproduced herein as under: “14. The conviction of the appellant is largely based on the extra judicial confession allegedly made by him before PW-1. So far as an extra judicial confession is concerned, it is considered as a weak type of evidence and is generally used as a corroborative link to lend credibility to the other evidence on record. In Chandrapal v. State of Chattisgarh : (2022) SCC On Line SC 705, this Court reiterated the evidentiary value of an extra judicial confession in the following words: “11. At this juncture, it may be noted that as per Section 30 of the Evidence Act, when more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offence, and a confession made by one of such persons affecting himself and some other of such persons is proved, the court may take into consideration such confession as against such other person as well as against the person who makes such confession. However, this court has consistently held that an extra judicial confession is a weak kind of evidence and unless it inspires confidence or is fully corroborated by some other evidence of clinching nature, ordinarily conviction for the offence of murder should not be made only on the evidence of extra judicial confession. As held in case of State of M.P. Through CBI v. Paltan Mallah, the extra judicial confession made by the co-accused could be admitted in evidence only as a corroborative piece of evidence. In absence of any substantive evidence against the accused, the extra judicial confession allegedly made by the co-accused loses its significance and there cannot be any conviction based on such extra judicial confession of the co-accused.” 15. It is no more res integra that an extra judicial confession must be accepted with great care and caution. If it is not supported by other evidence on record, it fails to inspire confidence and in such a case, it shall not be treated as a strong piece of evidence for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion of guilt. It is no more res integra that an extra judicial confession must be accepted with great care and caution. If it is not supported by other evidence on record, it fails to inspire confidence and in such a case, it shall not be treated as a strong piece of evidence for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion of guilt. Furthermore, the extent of acceptability of an extra judicial confession depends on the trustworthiness of the witness before whom it is given and the circumstances in which it was given. The prosecution must establish that a confession was indeed made by the accused, that it was voluntary in nature and that the contents of the confession were true. The standard required for proving an extra judicial confession to the satisfaction of the Court is on the higher side and these essential ingredients must be established beyond any reasonable doubt. The standard becomes even higher when the entire case of the prosecution necessarily rests on the extra judicial confession.” 36. In the facts of the present case, when the evidence is analysed in its entirety, we find that the prosecution case is not inspiring. There is no occasion for the accused to be sending such letter to P.W.3. This letter, moreover, implicates Sadau Singh without implicating himself in the matter. Such exculpatory letter thus deserves no serious consideration as a reliable piece of evidence. 37. The third circumstance which has been relied upon by the prosecution is the plea of enmity. The evidence on record is to the effect that Harikant Mishra (P.W.9) had stolen his wife’s jewellery and given it to Sadau Singh. This fact, although, is alleged by the prosecution witnesses, but it is admitted that no complaint or police case with regard to this incident of theft was ever lodged by anyone. It is alleged that jewellery was given to Nankau (P.W.9) but he has not supported the prosecution case in that regard. Admittedly theft of jewellery was by Harikant Mishra. It is just because of threat extended by the deceased to Sadau Singh, in a Panchayat, which is stated to be the cause of enmity. We are at a loss to understand that if the theft was committed by Harikant Mishra why no action was taken against him nor a police complaint was lodged. Harikant Mishra admits that he is a drunkard. We are at a loss to understand that if the theft was committed by Harikant Mishra why no action was taken against him nor a police complaint was lodged. Harikant Mishra admits that he is a drunkard. Total evidence on the plea of enmity is that the deceased had stated in the Panchayat that if the jewellery is not returned by Sadau Singh, he would get his land cultivated. It is admitted that the land of accused Sadau Singh was never cultivated by the deceased. Sadau Singh was not even present in the Panchayat and it is not proved that this threat was even intimated to Sadau Singh. The prosecution evidence that Sadau Singh was avoiding staying in the village is not much credible as such a version has surfaced in the testimony of witnesses for the first time during trial. All the witnesses are otherwise related to the deceased and are otherwise inimical to the accused. On the point of enmity, we otherwise found that most of the prosecution witnesses are themselves accused in the murder of cousins of the accused-Sadau Singh, namely Udaybhan and Shankar. This enmity has been suppressed by the prosecution witnesses. There are thus strong reasons for the accused persons to be falsely implicated in the matter. Mere extending of threats, in our considered view, in a Panchayat, would otherwise not be a sufficient provocation or constitute such extreme enmity that it would result in the accused killing the deceased. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the motive supplied by the prosecution is weak in nature and is not very persuasive. 38. When the evidence is viewed in the light of above discussion, we do not find that prosecution evidence is so strong and reliable so as to persuade any prudent person to come to conclusion that the chain of circumstances required to be connected in the case of circumstantial evidence are adequately connected. The evidence on the three circumstances are also not reliable. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to endorse the conclusion drawn by the Court of Sessions that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the chain of circumstances so as to successfully implicate the accused-appellants. The conclusion drawn by the trial court, therefore, cannot be sustained. 39. The evidence on the three circumstances are also not reliable. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to endorse the conclusion drawn by the Court of Sessions that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the chain of circumstances so as to successfully implicate the accused-appellants. The conclusion drawn by the trial court, therefore, cannot be sustained. 39. In that view of the matter, we set aside the finding of the Court below, as per which, the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 40. Consequently, these appeals succeed and are allowed. Judgment and order of conviction dated 29.06.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Fast Track Court No. 21, Allahabad in Session Trial No. 287A of 1999 (State Vs. Balwant @ Munnu Singh), arising out of Case Crime No. 159 of 1981, C.B.C.I.D. Crime No. 710 of 1991, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 I.P.C., Police Station Ghoorpur, District Allahabad and judgment and order of conviction dated 06.05.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Room No. 22, Allahabad in Session Trial No. 287 of 1999 (State Vs. Durvijay Singh and others), arsing out of Case Crime No. 159 of 1981, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 I.P.C., Police Station Ghoorpur, District Allahabad, are set aside. The appellants are acquitted from the charges of offence by granting them benefit of doubt. 41. Since the appellants, Dur Vijai Singh, Vijai Pratap Singh and Ashiq Ali, have already been released on bail, as such, their sureties and bonds shall stand discharged subject to compliance of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. 42. The accused-appellant, namely, Balwant @ Munnu Singh, would be released, forthwith, unless he is wanted in any other case, subject to compliance of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. 43. The trial Court record along with the copy of this Judgement and order be transmitted to the court concerned forthwith. 44. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Jail Authorities concerned and the court concerned for compliance. 45. Shri S. D. Singh Jadaun, learned Amicus Curiae appearing in Criminal Appeal No. 2117 of 2003 (Vijai Pratap Singh and another Vs. State of U.P.) and in Criminal Appeal No. 2143 of 2003 (Dur Vijai Singh Vs. State of U.P.) has rendered his valuable assistance to the Court. 45. Shri S. D. Singh Jadaun, learned Amicus Curiae appearing in Criminal Appeal No. 2117 of 2003 (Vijai Pratap Singh and another Vs. State of U.P.) and in Criminal Appeal No. 2143 of 2003 (Dur Vijai Singh Vs. State of U.P.) has rendered his valuable assistance to the Court. He be paid as per rules towards fee for the able assistance provided by him in hearing of the above mentioned two appeals.