JUDGMENT : ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J. 1. The Criminal Reference and these four Appeals have arisen from a common judgment and order dated 27.03.2018/30.03.2018, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vikasnagar, District Dehradun in Sessions Trial No. 39 of 2015 State of Uttarakhand vs. Raju Das and three Others. All the appellants-accused have been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201, 392, 411 and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short “IPC”). 2. The Trial Court has awarded death sentence to the appellant-accused Raju Das for the offence under Section 302 IPC and referred the matter to this Court for confirmation of the same in terms of the provisions of Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 3. Appellants Kundan Das, Guddu and Bablu have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.50,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo for two years each. 4. All the appellants have been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years each and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each for the offence under Section 201 IPC, and in default of payment of fine, they have been directed to undergo further imprisonment for a period of six months. They have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years each and a fine of Rs. 25,000/- each for the offence under Section 392 IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for a period of one year each. They have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years each and a fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offence under Section 411 IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for a period of one month each. They have been further sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs. 25,000/- each for the offence under Section 120B IPC, and in default of payment of fine, they have been directed to undergo further imprisonment for a period of one year. 5. The Criminal Reference will be treated as a leading case. 6. The prosecution case briefly stated is that Sub-Inspector Thakur Singh Rawat (PW4) was the officer-in-charge at Purola Police Station. 5. The Criminal Reference will be treated as a leading case. 6. The prosecution case briefly stated is that Sub-Inspector Thakur Singh Rawat (PW4) was the officer-in-charge at Purola Police Station. On 31.10.2014, on receiving an information about the dead body of an unknown person in the bushes near the road, he reached on the spot along with other police personnel and conducted inquest proceedings. About seven feet long nylon rope (Material Ext. 48) and about four feet long white cotton cloth (Material Ext. 49) was tied around the neck of the deceased. The said nylon rope and white cotton cloth were seized by the police vide Memo (Ext. Ka.57). After preparing the inquest report (Ext. Ka.21), other formalities were performed to send the dead body for post-mortem examination. 7. The post-mortem examination of the dead body of the unknown person, aged about 32 years, was conducted by Dr. Bhagendra Singh Rawat (PW6) on 01.11.2014. 8. An FIR No. 15 of 2014 (Ext. Ka. 13) was lodged at Police Station Purola, District Uttarkashi on 10.11.2014 at 20.15 hrs pursuant to a written information (Ext. Ka. 1) received from Sub-Inspector Ravi Prasad (PW1). The FIR was registered by Constable Vikram Singh Tomar (PW2) against unknown person under Section 302 IPC and Section 201 IPC. 9. The investigation was handed over to Sub-Inspector Ravi Prasad (PW1). 10. Mriganka Das (PW9), resident of District Nadia, West Bengal, gave a report dated 29.10.2014 (Ext. Ka. 25) to Police Station Saket, New Delhi stating that his sister Moumita Das used to reside in Delhi. She went to visit Dehradun with her friend Abhijit Pal. His sister’s mobile phone number 08826454369 is switched off since 23.10.2014. 11. Durga Das Rathore (PW8), who was the Sub-Inspector posted at Saket Police Station, inquired into the said missing report. Call details of Moumita Das’s mobile phone number 8826454369 and Abhijit Pal’s mobile phone number 7042711318 were obtained by him. Moumita Das’s mobile phone was continuously switched off since 23.10.2014. An application (Ext. Ka. 26) was given by him to the Commissioner of Police, New Delhi to get the International Mobile Equipment Identity (in short, “IMEI”) number of the mobile phone of Moumita Das and Abhijit Pal. On receiving the call detail report, it was revealed that several calls had been made from Abhijit Pal’s mobile phone to mobile phone number 9917881103 on 23.10.2014. Therefore, an application (Ext. Ka. On receiving the call detail report, it was revealed that several calls had been made from Abhijit Pal’s mobile phone to mobile phone number 9917881103 on 23.10.2014. Therefore, an application (Ext. Ka. 27) was given by him to the Commissioner of Police, New Delhi to get the call detail report of Raju’s mobile phone number 9917881103. 12. Abhijit Pal’s family members were contacted by Sub-Inspector Durga Das Rathore (PW8) on 08.11.2014, who informed him that Abhijit Pal’s father had lodged a missing report of Abhijit Pal at Police Station Dum Dum, Kolkata. 13. As per call detail report, Subscriber Identity Module (in short, “SIM”) number 8979480447 was found to be used in Moumita Das’s mobile phone from 24.10.2014. On receiving the identification report of the said number by Sub-Inspector Durga Das Rathore (PW8), it was found that the said SIM number was in the name of one Mohan Das son of Karam. On contacting by Sub-Inspector Durga Das Rathore (PW8) on the said SIM number, he came to know that the said SIM number was being used by Raju Das (appellant). 14. Durga Das Rathore (PW8), Constable Gopal (PW7) and Abhijit Pal’s cousins Amitabh Das (PW10) and Joyonta Pal (PW11) reached Police Station Vikasnagar, District Dehradun on 09.11.2014 in search of Raju Das. They reached Police Station Chakrata on 10.11.2014. They came to know that a few days ago an unidentified dead body was found in Purola. They reached Police Station Purola on 10.11.2014. After seeing the inquest report and the photograph of the deceased at Police Station Purola, Amitabh Das (PW10) and Joyonta Pal (PW11) identified the photograph as that of their cousin Abhijit Pal. Regarding the identification of the deceased, an application (Ext. Ka.34) was given by Joyonta Pal (PW11) to the Police Station Purola. 15. On 11.11.2014, Sub-Inspector Ravi Prasad (PW1), officer-in-charge of Police Station Chakrata, Mukesh Thaledi (PW5), Constable Gopal (PW7), Sub-Inspector Durga Das Rathore (PW8), Amitabh Das (PW10) and Joyonta Pal (PW11) went to Tiger Fall via Lakhamandal in search of suspect Raju Das. They got information from an informer that Raju Das was going to Vikasnagar from Tungrauli village in his Bolero bearing Registration Number UK07TA/7916. After sometime, Raju Das was seen coming in his said vehicle. He was apprehended at 11:30 a.m. He was shown the photographs of Moumita Das and Abhijit Pal. 16. They got information from an informer that Raju Das was going to Vikasnagar from Tungrauli village in his Bolero bearing Registration Number UK07TA/7916. After sometime, Raju Das was seen coming in his said vehicle. He was apprehended at 11:30 a.m. He was shown the photographs of Moumita Das and Abhijit Pal. 16. While confessing his guilt, Raju Das stated that he had taken them in his vehicle to go to Tiger Fall on 23.10.2014 at around 05:30 p.m. On the way, he met Kundan, Guddu and Bablu, residents of his village, at Chakrata Gate. They sat in the back seat of his vehicle because he had to leave both of them at Tiger Fall and go to his village. On the way, his village friends started molesting the girl sitting on the middle seat. The boy sitting in the vehicle protested them. They beat him. Instead of taking the vehicle to Tiger Fall, he took it towards Lakhamandal. On the way, his companions tied a rope around the boy’s neck from behind and killed him. Keeping the boy’s body on the back seat, all three of them came to the middle seat. He took his vehicle beyond Lakhamandal. He, Guddu and Kundan caught hold of the girl’s hands and legs and Bablu raped her. They feared that if the girl was left alive, they would be trapped, so they strangled the girl to death with a scarf. To dispose of the dead bodies, they reached the Yamuna bridge at Varnigad at around 10-11 p.m. It was very dark on the bridge. They took out the girl’s dead body from the vehicle and threw it in the Yamuna river. Then they saw the light of a vehicle coming from Navgaon. So, keeping the boy’s body in the vehicle, they went towards Navgaon. He stopped the vehicle at a lonely place. They threw the body off the road. Thereafter, they went to their village by vehicle via Lakhamandal. He further told that Bablu, Kundan and Guddu work in the village. They can be found in the village. 17. During the search of Raju Das, a purse (Material Ext. 11) was found in his pocket, which contained Rs.200/- (Material Ext. 10), Voter ID card of Mohan Das (Material Ext. 9) and a copy of the photo identity card of the deceased Abhijit Pal (Material Ext. 8). They can be found in the village. 17. During the search of Raju Das, a purse (Material Ext. 11) was found in his pocket, which contained Rs.200/- (Material Ext. 10), Voter ID card of Mohan Das (Material Ext. 9) and a copy of the photo identity card of the deceased Abhijit Pal (Material Ext. 8). Raju Das told that the purse belonged to Abhijit Pal. The police party went towards his village Tungrauli with Raju Das and his Bolero vehicle. Three persons were seen coming on the road outside the village. Raju Das indicated that the persons coming were Kundan, Bablu and Guddu. They were apprehended. Bablu had covered himself with a shawl (Material Ext. 4), seeing which Amitabh Das told that it was the shawl of his deceased brother. During the search of Kundan Das, a black colored Nokia model 1616 mobile phone (Material Ext. 6) without SIM, whose IMEI number was 3534-06043775891, was recovered from the pocket of his pants. Nothing was recovered from Guddu during his search. They were arrested at 14:00 hrs. The recovered articles were sealed on the spot. Despite efforts, member of the public could not be found to testify. Recovery Fard (Ext. Ka.2) was prepared by Sub-Inspector Ravi Prasad (PW1). The Fard was signed by the witnesses present and the accused persons. A copy of Fard was jointly given to the accused persons. Constable Dharmendra drove Raju Das’s Bolero vehicle and took the vehicle to the police station. 18. On 11.11.2014 at 20:00 hrs., the police seized the seat cover (Material Ext. 1) of the Bolero Jeep and sealed it vide Memo (Ext. Ka. 8). 19. On 11.11.2014, a site plan (Ext. Ka. 14) of the place from where Abhijit’s dead body was recovered was prepared by Sub-Inspector Ravi Prasad (PW1). 20. On 13.11.2014, Sub-Inspector Thakur Singh Rawat (PW4) along with other police personnel, including female police personnel, reached the banks of Yamuna river. A dead body of a woman was found between two streams of Yamuna river. Apart from a black shirt above her waist, there was no other clothing on her body. The body was identified by Suranjana Rai and Ram Kumar, relatives of the deceased present at the spot. But, they told that they are only 50 percent sure that the said dead body is that of Moumita Das. Sub-Inspector Thakur Singh Rawat (PW4) conducted inquest proceedings. The body was identified by Suranjana Rai and Ram Kumar, relatives of the deceased present at the spot. But, they told that they are only 50 percent sure that the said dead body is that of Moumita Das. Sub-Inspector Thakur Singh Rawat (PW4) conducted inquest proceedings. After preparing the inquest report (Ext. Ka. 15), other formalities were performed to send the dead body for post-mortem examination. 21. Mriganka Das (PW9), brother of the deceased, identified her after looking at the photograph of her dead body on 15.11.2014. 22. The post-mortem examination of the dead body of Moumita Das, aged about 28 years, was conducted by Dr. Anand Singh Rana (PW13) with the help of his colleague Dr. B.S. Rawat on 15.11.2014. 23. Sub-Inspector Thakur Singh Rawat (PW4) obtained police custody remand of all the accused from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Uttarkashi on 18.11.2014. 24. It was told by all the accused that they had thrown away the bags of the deceased persons. 25. Sub-Inspector Thakur Singh Rawat (PW4), Sub-Inspector Ravi Prasad (PW1) and other police constables reached Kalsi- Chakrata motor road with all the accused on 19.11.2014. Raju Das asked the police to stop the vehicle and told that he had thrown the bags down from there. Two bags were recovered at the behest of Raju Das and Bablu. A battery charger, black colored pants, a stall, a pencil, a pen, an air ticket from Howrah to New Delhi, train ticket, one diary and other articles (Material Ext. 15 to 24) were found in a bag (Material Ext. 14). In the another bag (Material Ext. 13), a blue colored diary, a kurta, a pajama, a half T-shirt, a copy of Moumita Das’s voter card, ladies undergarments, a copy of Abhijit’s PAN card and other articles (Material Ext. 25 to 46) were found. A site plan of the recovery place (Ext. Ka. 18) and a Recovery Memo (Ext. Ka. 19) were prepared by Sub-Inspector Thakur Singh Rawat (PW4). 26. The investigation of this case was handed over to Sub-Inspector Thakur Singh Rawat (PW4) on 12.11.2014. 27. Since the incident place was in Dehradun, the investigation of this case was transferred to Dehradun. In compliance with the order of the Superintendent of Police, Dehradun, the investigation of this case was taken over by Digpal Singh Kohli, SSI of Police Station Vikasnagar, Dehradun (PW15) on 29.11.2014. 28. 27. Since the incident place was in Dehradun, the investigation of this case was transferred to Dehradun. In compliance with the order of the Superintendent of Police, Dehradun, the investigation of this case was taken over by Digpal Singh Kohli, SSI of Police Station Vikasnagar, Dehradun (PW15) on 29.11.2014. 28. The investigation of this case was transferred to Sub-Inspector Pratibha (PW16). An application was given by her to the Chief Judicial Magistrate to take the sample of Bablu’s blood. After the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, the sample of Bablu’s blood was taken by the doctor. The seat cover of the vehicle and blood sample were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through the Constable Mukesh Chandra Chamoli (PW17). The statements of the witnesses recorded by the former investigators were perused by Sub-Inspector Pratibha (PW16). The statements of the witnesses were recorded by her and after concluding the investigation, a charge-sheet (Ext. Ka. 55) was filed by her against all the accused under Sections 302, 201, 392, 411, 376D, 120B and Section 34 IPC. 29. The trial court framed charges against the appellants-accused under Sections 120B, 302, 201, 392, 411 and Section 376 read with Section 34 IPC. As the appellants-accused pleaded innocence, trial was held. 30. In order to establish the accusations, prosecution examined 20 witnesses. 31. Statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded. Appellants-accused denied all the incriminating evidence, produced by the prosecution. 32. Five witnesses have been examined in defence. 33. Munna Das (DW1) is the real brother of the appellant Kundan. Roshan Lal (DW2) is the real brother of the appellant Guddu. According to Jagat Ram (DW3) and Amar Singh (DW4), they had gone to their relatives’ house in village Tungrauli and according to Khema Das (DW5), he had gone to village Tungrauli to buy potatoes. The appellants are residents of village Tungrauli. As per the defence witnesses, at around 12-1 in the night of 11.11.2014, Kundan and Guddu were taken away from their houses by the police. Munna Das (DW1), Roshan Lal (DW2), Jagat Ram (DW3) and Amar Singh (DW4) have stated that there is a dispute regarding land and trees between Raju Das’s family and families of Guddu and Kundan. 34. As per the defence witnesses, at around 12-1 in the night of 11.11.2014, Kundan and Guddu were taken away from their houses by the police. Munna Das (DW1), Roshan Lal (DW2), Jagat Ram (DW3) and Amar Singh (DW4) have stated that there is a dispute regarding land and trees between Raju Das’s family and families of Guddu and Kundan. 34. The trial court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, by the impugned judgment while acquitting the appellants-accused of the charge under Section 376 read with Section 34 IPC convicted them under Sections 120B, 302, 201, 392 and Section 411 IPC. 35. Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, learned Senior Advocate, contended that Raju Das was not arrested at the place from where he was said to be arrested, which is also supported by the statement made by Sub-Inspector Durga Das Rathore (PW8) in his cross-examination where he stated that the arrest memo was not prepared at the place where Raju Das was arrested. The confessional statement is not admissible. The alleged recovery is false. There was no independent witness at the time of the alleged recovery. There are serious contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses, and, no reliable evidence regarding conspiracy has been produced by the prosecution. 36. Mr. Mohd. Matlub, Advocate and Mr. Rajendra Singh Azad, Advocate have supported the arguments of Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, Senior Advocate. 37. On the other hand, Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Deputy Advocate General, has supported the impugned judgment. He contended that the chain of circumstances proved on the record against the appellants is as under: (i) The appellant Raju Das confessed his guilt before the prosecution witnesses Amitabh Das (PW10) and Joyonta Pal (PW11). (ii) Recovery of purse, Voter ID of Mohan Das, a copy of the photo identity card, shawl of the deceased Abhijit Pal, mobile phone of the deceased Moumita Das and two bags. (iii) Conspiracy of the appellants-accused in the commission of offence. 38. The present case rests on circumstantial evidence. No one had seen the assault by the appellants on the deceased. 39. It is a well established law that in cases of the circumstantial evidence, all circumstances relied upon by the prosecution must be established by cogent and reliable evidence and all the proved circumstances must provide a complete chain. 38. The present case rests on circumstantial evidence. No one had seen the assault by the appellants on the deceased. 39. It is a well established law that in cases of the circumstantial evidence, all circumstances relied upon by the prosecution must be established by cogent and reliable evidence and all the proved circumstances must provide a complete chain. The chain of evidence should be 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. 40. In Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that when a case rests on circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy these tests: (i) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn, should be fully established. (ii) The facts so established should be consisted only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that it 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 to show 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 probabilities, the act must have been done by the accused. 41. The principle of circumstantial evidence has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a plethora of cases. In C. Chenga Reddy vs. State of A.P. (1996) 10 SCC 193 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed, “In a case base on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further, the proved circumstances, must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence.” The same principles were reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Trimukh Maroti Kirkan vs. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 10 SCC 681 , Mohd. Further, the proved circumstances, must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence.” The same principles were reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Trimukh Maroti Kirkan vs. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 10 SCC 681 , Mohd. Arif alias Ashfaq vs. State (N.C.T. of Delhi), (2011) 13 SCC 621 , Sunil Clifford Daniel vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 11 SCC 205 and a number of other decisions. 42. On the basis of the above well-settled principles, we proceed to examine whether the appellants can be held to be guilty. 43. The name of accused Raju Das had come to light before he confessed. Therefore, Durga Das Rathore (PW8), who was the Sub-Inspector posted at Saket Police Station, had given an application (Ext. Ka. 27) to the Commissioner of Police, New Delhi to get the call details of Raju Das’s mobile phone. Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act is broadly worded and it excludes from evidence a confession made by the accused to a police officer under any circumstances. The phrase “accused of any offence” means a person against whom a formal accusation relating to the commission of an offence has been levelled. A confession made to a police officer is inadmissible not only against the person making it but is also inadmissible against the other accused and a confession made by a person while he was in the custody of the police is also inadmissible under Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act unless made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate. 44. The case of the prosecution is that Raju Das was using mobile phone number 9917881103. As per call detail report, SIM number 8979480447 was found to be used in Moumita Das’s mobile phone from 24.10.2014. On receiving the identification report of the said number, it was found that the said SIM number was in the name of one Mohan Das son of Karam. The said SIM number was being used by Raju Das. 45. Hussain Mustafa Jaidi (PW18), the Nodal Officer of Idea Cellular Limited, has stated that the hand set of IMEI Number 355531042137690 was being used on mobile phone number 9917881103 and before that the hand set of IMEI Number 911358850163080 was being used. The said SIM number was being used by Raju Das. 45. Hussain Mustafa Jaidi (PW18), the Nodal Officer of Idea Cellular Limited, has stated that the hand set of IMEI Number 355531042137690 was being used on mobile phone number 9917881103 and before that the hand set of IMEI Number 911358850163080 was being used. Vishal Mishra (PW19), the Nodal Officer of Bharti Airtel Limited, has stated that the SIM Number 8979480447 was allotted to Mohan Das son of Karam. The prosecution witness Chandrashekhar (PW20), the Nodal Officer of Bharti Airtel Limited, has stated that Pre-Paid SIM Number 7042711318 was allotted to Abhijit Pal. 46. The IMEI number is a unique number for identifying a device. It identifies the mobile phone’s model, date of purchase etc. IMEI numbers help track down the stolen mobile phone. The prosecution has not produced any reliable evidence in relation to the IMEI number of Abhijit Pal’s mobile phone nor has any cogent evidence been produced that the IMEI Number 355531042137690 or IMEI Number 911358850163080 belonged to Moumita Das. 47. The case of the prosecution is that on 19.11.2014, at the instance of the appellants-accused, two bags of the deceased were recovered, which were taken into possession vide Memo (Ext. Ka. 19) and both the bags were kept in a white cloth and sealed on the spot. One of the recovered bags was shown to Mriganka Das (PW9), the brother of the deceased, who claimed that the bag and the items in it belonged to his sister (deceased), but, he has stated in his cross-examination that he was shown only the items. The said items were neither sealed nor opened in his presence. That is, the said articles were in open condition at that time. This contradiction has not been explained by the prosecution. As a result of the said contradiction not being explained by the prosecution, the case of the prosecution becomes doubtful that the alleged articles were recovered at the instance of the appellants-accused which were sealed on the spot. 48. As per the prosecution, Raju Das was apprehended. A purse was found in his pocket, which contained a Voter ID card of Moumita Das (deceased) and a copy of Identity Card of the deceased Abhijit Pal. On the confession of Raju Das, the other three accused were apprehended outside village Tungrauli. 48. As per the prosecution, Raju Das was apprehended. A purse was found in his pocket, which contained a Voter ID card of Moumita Das (deceased) and a copy of Identity Card of the deceased Abhijit Pal. On the confession of Raju Das, the other three accused were apprehended outside village Tungrauli. The shawl that Bablu wore was said to be that of deceased Abhijit Pal. A mobile phone Nokia model 1616 IMEI, without SIM, Number 353406043775891 was recovered from the possession of the accused Kundan Das. Fard (Ext. Ka.2) was prepared on the spot after arresting the accused. The Fard was signed on the spot by the witnesses present and accused. 49. Constable Sohan Singh (PW3) has stated in his cross-examination that after arresting all the accused, they were taken to Chakrata, where the arrest memo was prepared and he had signed it at Chakrata. 50. The case of the prosecution is that despite efforts, member of the public could not be found to testify at the time of recovery. Constable Gopal (PW7) stated in his cross-examination that the police had secured independent witnesses on the spot. Amitabh Das (PW10) has stated in his cross-examination that no one from the neighborhood was called to the spot. 51. According to the prosecution, Fard was not prepared at the place where Raju Das was apprehended. After arresting all the accused, Fard was prepared. In his cross-examination, Joyonta Pal (PW11) has stated that Fard was prepared at the place where Raju Das was apprehended. After arresting the remaining accused, Fard was not prepared. 52. In invoking the provisions of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, the Court should be very vigilant to ensure the credibility of the evidence. In the present matter, the contradictory statements of the prosecution’s witnesses regarding the recoveries do not inspire confidence. 53. According to the report of Forensic Science Laboratory, no blood was found on the seat cover of Bolero Jeep. 54. According to the prosecution, the appellants-accused were arrested on 11.11.2014 and recoveries were made on the same day, whereas it has been deposed by Mukesh Thaledi (PW5) in his examination-in-chief that appellants-accused were arrested on 10.11.2014 and recoveries were made on the same day, which makes the entire case of prosecution doubtful. 55. 54. According to the prosecution, the appellants-accused were arrested on 11.11.2014 and recoveries were made on the same day, whereas it has been deposed by Mukesh Thaledi (PW5) in his examination-in-chief that appellants-accused were arrested on 10.11.2014 and recoveries were made on the same day, which makes the entire case of prosecution doubtful. 55. In Bhagwan Singh and Others vs. State of M.P., (2002) 4 SCC 85 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal case is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other of his innocence, the view which is favorable to the accused should be adopted. 56. It is also a basic rule of the criminal jurisprudence that suspicion, however, strong cannot take place of proof. In Sujit Biswas vs. State of Assam, AIR 2013 SC 3817 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot take the place of proof, and there is a large difference between something that “may be” proved, and something that “will be proved.” In a criminal trial, suspicion no matter how strong, cannot and must not be permitted to take place of proof. This is for the reason that the mental distance between “may be” and “must be” is quite large, and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. In a criminal case, the Court has a duty to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take the place of legal proof. The large distance between “may be true” and “must be true”, must be covered by way of clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence produced by the prosecution, before an accused is condemned as a convict, and the basic and golden rule must be applied. 57. The post-mortem of the dead body of Abhijit Pal was conducted by Dr. Bhagendra Singh Rawat (PW6) on 01.11.2014 and the post-mortem of the dead body of Moumita Das was conducted by Dr. Anand Singh Rana (PW13) on 15.11.2014 with the help of Dr. B.S. Rawat. 57. The post-mortem of the dead body of Abhijit Pal was conducted by Dr. Bhagendra Singh Rawat (PW6) on 01.11.2014 and the post-mortem of the dead body of Moumita Das was conducted by Dr. Anand Singh Rana (PW13) on 15.11.2014 with the help of Dr. B.S. Rawat. Although, injury marks were found and Hyoid bone of the deceased Moumita Das was found fractured and their death was ruled as homicidal, the prosecution has to prove that the death of the deceased was caused by the appellants and in all human probabilities, the act must have been done by the appellants only. Even grave suspicion cannot take place of proof. 58. In light of above discussion, it is clear that statements of the prosecution witnesses do not inspire confidence to convict the appellants as creating serious doubt. 59. Thus, taking into consideration the nature and quality of over all evidence, oral and documentary, on record, we find it difficult to uphold the conviction of the appellants under Sections 302, 201, 392, 411 and Section 120B IPC and in the facts and circumstances of the case, they deserve to be acquitted of these charges. All the appeals are allowed. 60. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants in Sessions Trial No. 39 of 2015, State of Uttarakhand vs. Raju Das and three Others is set aside. Appellants are acquitted of the charges under Sections 302, 201, 392, 411 and Section 120B IPC. Appellants be released from judicial custody immediately, if not required for any other offence. 61. The reference is answered accordingly. 62. Each of the appellants is directed to make compliance of Section 437 A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 within four weeks from today by appearing before the concerned Trial Court and execute a personal bond and furnish two reliable sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. 63. A copy of this judgment be sent to the Trial Court and concerned Superintendent of Jail. 64. A copy of this judgment be placed in the connected appeals.