JUDGMENT : Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. 1. All the above appeals are arising out of common Crime number, and common Session Trial, therefore, they are being heard and decided collectively. 2. These appeals are being filed by the respective appellants under Section 374(2) CrPC challenging their conviction and sentence dated 06.12.2023, passed by the 4th Additional Session Judge, Bilaspur, in Session Trial No. 35 of 2020, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as below: Name of the appellant Conviction Sentence Prabhunath Singh (CRA-2330 of 2023) Under Section 302/120B of the IPC (wrongly mention 102B in the impugned judgment) Life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation Mithilesh Singh @ Babloo and Vimal @ Vimlesh Singh (CRA-388 of 2024) Under Section 302 in alternate, 302/120-B of the IPC Life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation Only for Mithilesh Singh @ Babloo Under Section 201 read with Section 120-B of the IPC RI for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation Only for Mithilesh Singh @ Babloo Under Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act RI for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation Babu Pandey, @ Ghanshyam Upadhyay (CRA- 415 of 2024) Under Section 302 of the IPC, alternatively, 302/120B of the IPC Life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation Under Section 201 read with Section 120-B of the IPC RI for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation Anup Kumar Tiwari @ Golu (CRA-495 of 2024) Under Section 302/120B of the IPC Life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation Under Section 201 read with Section 120-B of the IPC RI for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation Under Section 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act RI for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 10.04.2018, PW-2, Devendra Nirmalkar, saw a dead-body of unknown male near Fadhakhar-Mahmand road, and gave Merg intimation Ex.P-2 to the Police Station Sirgitti, Bilaspur. The Police personnel went to that place, after calling the witnesses, Inquest Ex.P-6 was prepared in their presence. The deadbody was sent for its post-mortem to the District Hospital, Bilaspur, where PW-20, Dr Mayank Shrivastava has conducted the post-mortem of the dead-body, and gave his report Ex.P-65. The Police personnel went to that place, after calling the witnesses, Inquest Ex.P-6 was prepared in their presence. The deadbody was sent for its post-mortem to the District Hospital, Bilaspur, where PW-20, Dr Mayank Shrivastava has conducted the post-mortem of the dead-body, and gave his report Ex.P-65. While conducting post-mortem, the doctor has found various injuries on the body of the deceased, including fracture of Skull-bone, and opined that cause of death was Coma due to head injury by hard and blunt object, and the death was homicidal in nature. The time gap between the death and the post mortem is 2-4 days prior to the autopsy of the dead-body. Short postmortem report, Ex.P-67 has also been obtained by the Police from the doctor. Query was raised by the Police from the doctor who conducted the post-mortem, that whether the injuries found on the body of the deceased can be caused by gun-shot injury by country made pistol or not. While replying the query, the doctor has opined that the above injuries may be caused by Desi Pistol and the query report is Ex.P-66. Fist Information Report (FIR), Ex.P-35 has been recorded on 10.04.2018 for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC against unknown persons. Spot Map, Ex.P-36 was prepared by the Police, and Ex.P-18 was prepared by the Patwari. During the investigation, appellant Harish Paswan (since dead) has been taken into custody and he was interrogated by the Police. His memorandum statement, Ex.P-1 was recorded on 26.08.2018 at about 15:00 hours, in which he disclosed the entire episode of the incident. In his memorandum statement, he disclosed the names of other accused persons, with whom he conspired and then, the Police have taken custody of other accused persons also. The memorandum statement of the accused/appellant-Prabhunath Singh has been recorded on 26.09.2018 at about 23:30 hours vide Ex.P3, and one Samsung Mobile phone, one Vodaphone Micro sim card, having cellular No.9233388036 have been seized vide seizure memo Ex.P4. The memorandum statement of the accused/appellant-Prabhunath Singh has been recorded on 26.09.2018 at about 23:30 hours vide Ex.P3, and one Samsung Mobile phone, one Vodaphone Micro sim card, having cellular No.9233388036 have been seized vide seizure memo Ex.P4. The memorandum statement of the accused/appellant-Mithilesh Singh @ Babloo has been recorded on 24.04.2018 at about 14:05 hours vide Ex.P9, on the basis of which, one Mobile phone of Hitec Company, one broken sim card of Airtel Company, having its No. 8009531324, one Nokia mobile phone having Airtel sim card of No.8429568961, a piece of paper on which phone numbers of other accused persons were kept written by accused/appellant Harish Paswan, two numbers country made pistols, three numbers live cartridges having embossment “KF 7.65” at its base have been seized vide seizure memo Ex.P13. The memorandum statement of the accused/appellant Anup Kumar Tiwari @ Golu has been recorded on 24.04.2018 at about 17:30 hours vide Ex.P10, on the basis of which, one Hero Splender Motorcycle and five numbers of cartridges having embossment of “KF 8mm” at its base have been seized vide seizure memo Ex.P14. 4. During the investigation, memorandum statement of accused/appellant Vimal @ Vimlesh Singh has been recorded on 18.05.2019 at about 14:30 hours vide Ex.P-26; memorandum statement of accused/appellant Babu Pandey @ Ghanshyam Upadhyay has been recorded on 18.05.2019 at about 11:00 hours vide Ex.P-31, based on which, one old Samsung Mobile phone, having sim in it has been seized vide seizure memo Ex.P-32. 5. Notice under Section 91 of the CrPC was given to accused/appellant Mithilesh @ Babloo with respect to production of valid document for possession of two numbers country made pistols and three live cartridges, and mobile phones, but he could not produce any valid document having their possession and said that he was not having any document with him. Likewise, notice under Section 91 of the CrPC was also given to accused/appellant Anup Kumar Tiwari @ Golu for production of valid document for possession of Hero Splender Motorcycle and five numbers of cartridges, and he too has stated that he is not having any document for the same. Likewise, notice under Section 91 of the CrPC was also given to accused/appellant Anup Kumar Tiwari @ Golu for production of valid document for possession of Hero Splender Motorcycle and five numbers of cartridges, and he too has stated that he is not having any document for the same. The seized country made pistols (two number), and three live cartridges seized from Mithilesh @ Babloo and five live cartridges seized from Anup Kumar Tiwari @ Golu were sent for their examination to the Office of the Reserve Inspector, Reserve Police Centre, Armory, Bilaspur, from where, its report Ex.P-41 was received. 6. During the investigation, the Police has made request from the Cyber Cell, Bilaspur for providing call detail report of Mobile No. 9302850850, and 8878000304 which belong to deceased Shankar Prasad, vide requisition Ex.P-42. The Cyber Cell has provided the relevant documents of the call details which are Ex.P-43, and Ex.P-44. The certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act has also been issued by the In-charge, Cyber Cell, Bilaspur vide Ex.P-45. Another requisition for providing call details of Mobile No.7898118098 was made by the Police vide Ex.P-46 and the same is Ex.P-47. The Certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act issued by the Cyber Cell, Bilaspur is Ex.P-48. The other requisition Ex. P-49 for call details of Mobile Nos. with respect to Mobile No.8143884680, 7054707446, and 7470528232, which comes from the call detail of the Mobile number of the deceased which are given by the Cyber Cell vide Ex.P-50. Another application for call detail of mobile no. 8009531324 was made to the Cyber Cell Bilaspur vide Ex.P-53, and its call details, and its call detail report is Ex.P-54. Certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act issued by the Cell is Ex.P-55. After examination of the call details, the Police have again made requisition to the Cyber Cell, Bilaspur for furnishing details with respect to the contact, with any other mobile number, if any, that the mobile number 7054707446 and the requisition is Ex.P-56 and in reply to that, the Police has given the call details, Ex.P-57 and the Certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act is Ex.P-58. 7. 7. The call details of Mobile number of Harish Paswan i.e. 9546480947 have also been requisitioned by the Police vide Ex.P-59, and in compliance of that, call report Ex.P-60 was issued by the In-charge, Cyber Cell, Bilaspur, along with Ex.P-61, Certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. Call details of Mobile No.9233388036, Ex.P-63, which belongs to P.N. Singh has also been obtained from the Cyber Cell, and the Certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act is Ex.P-64. 8. The Police recorded statements of the witnesses under Section 161 of the CrPC and after completion of usual investigation, accused/appellants were arrested, and after seizure of various exhibits, and articles, Police filed Charge-sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201, 120B and 34 of the IPC, and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. 9. The case was committed to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, from where the same has been transferred to the learned trial Court for its transfer. 10. Learned trial Court has framed charge against the accused persons/appellants as under: Name of the accused /appellant Charge Mithilesh Singh @ Babloo Section 302 of the IPC, in alternative, Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the IPC, Section 201 read with Section 120-B of IPC, and Section 25(1) (b)(a) of the Arms Act. Anup Kumar Tiwari @ Golu Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the IPC, Section 201 read with Section 120-B of IPC, and Section 25(1)(b)(a) of the Arms Act. Harish Paswan (since dead) Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the IPC Prabhunath Singh Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the IPC Vimal @ Vimlesh Singh Section 302 read with 120-B of the IPC Babu Pandey, @ Ghanshyam Upadhyay Section 302 of the IPC, in alternative, Section 302 read with Section 120-B of IPC and Section 201 read with Section 120-B of IPC. 11. The accused persons have abjured their guilt and claimed trial. 12. In order to establish the charge against the accused persons, the prosecution has examined as many as 26 witnesses. The statements under Section 313 of the CrPC of the accused persons have also been recorded in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them, pleaded innocence and submitted that they have been falsely implicated in the offence. 13. 12. In order to establish the charge against the accused persons, the prosecution has examined as many as 26 witnesses. The statements under Section 313 of the CrPC of the accused persons have also been recorded in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them, pleaded innocence and submitted that they have been falsely implicated in the offence. 13. Prosecution has examined the following witnesses in support of its case : PW-01 Jitendra Singh PW-02 Devendra Nirmalkar PW-03 Yogesh Tande PW-04 Rakhi Shrivastava PW-05 Mukesh Shrivastava PW-06 Ravindra Daharia PW-07 Ramji Paswan PW-08 Shobha Devi PW-09 Sanjay Soni PW-10 Abdul Safir PW-11 Afzal Hussain PW-12 Anil Kumar Agrawal PW-13 Dinesh Verma PW-14 Ashok Kumar Dubey PW-15 Ram Naresh Goutam PW-16 Shitla Prasad Tripathi PW-17 Surendra Kumar Baghel PW-18 Jugal Kishor PW-19 Hemant Aditya PW-20 Dr. Mayank Shrivastava PW-21 Ravindra Tiwari PW-22 Ravindra Kumar Dubey PW-23 Dharmendra Sahu PW-24 Dharmendra Pandey PW-25 Kashinath Dubey PW-26 Mohit Kumar Mishra 14. Mayank Shrivastava PW-21 Ravindra Tiwari PW-22 Ravindra Kumar Dubey PW-23 Dharmendra Sahu PW-24 Dharmendra Pandey PW-25 Kashinath Dubey PW-26 Mohit Kumar Mishra 14. Amongst others, the prosecution has exhibited the following documents in support of its case: Exhibits/Articles Description of documents P/01 Memorandum statement of Harish Paswan on 26.06.2018 P/02 Merg Intimation P/03 Memorandum statement of Prabhunath Singh on 29.06.2018 P/04 Property Seizure Memo P/05 Summons U/s 175 of Cr.P.C. P/06 Inquest Report/Naksha Panchayatnama P/07 Police statement of Chhotu @Mukesh Shrivastava P/08 Notice U/s 160 of Cr.P.C. P/09 Memorandum statement of Mithlesh Singh @ Babloo 24.04.2018 P/10 Memorandum statement of Golu @ Anup Kumar Tiwari on 24.04.2018 P/11 to P/14 Property Seizure Memo P/15 & P/16 Arrest/ court Surrender Memo P/17 Memo for providing of Spot Map P/18 Spot Map P/19 Memo to Armorer for examination of seized Pistol P/20 Memo to JMFC requesting to issue production warrant of accused Harish Paswan P/21 Memo to JMFC regarding permission for formal arrest of the accused Harish Paswan P/22 Arrest/Court Surrender Memo P/23 & P/24 Final Report P/25 Memo to JMFC regarding permission for formal arrest of the accused Bimlesh P/26 Memorandum statement of Bimlesh Singh P/27 Arrest/ Court Surrender Memo P/28 Information of Arrest P/29 Arrest/Court Surrender Memo P/30 Information of Arrest P/31 Memorandum statement of Ghanshyam on 28.03.2019 P/32 &P/33 Property Seizure Memo P/34 Memo to JMFC requesting to issue production warrant of accused Bimlesh Singh P/35 First Information Report P/36 Crime Details Form P/37 & P/38 Notice U/s 91 of Cr.P.C. P/39 Information of Arrest P/41 Examination report of seized Pistol (Katta) P/42 Application for call details P/43 Call details of Mobile No. 9302850850 P/44 Call details of Mobile No. 8878000304 P/45 Certificate U/s 65B Evidence Act P/46 Application for call details P/47 Call details of Mobile No. 7898118098 P/48 Certificate U/s 65 B Evidence Act P/49 Application for call details P/50 Call details of Mobile No. 8143884680 P/51 Call details of Mobile No. 7054707446 P/52 Certificate U/s 65 B Evidence Act P/53 Application for call details P/54 Call details of Mobile No. 8009531324 P/55 Certificate U/s 65 B Evidence Act P/56 Memo to Cyber Cell for IMEI search of Mobile No. 7054707446 P/57 Call details of IMEI No. 911523401463490 P/58 Certificate U/s 65 B Evidence Act P/59 Application for call details P/60 Call details of Mobile No. 9546480947 P/61 Certificate U/s 65 B Evidence Act P/62 Application for call details P/63 Call details of Mobile No. 9233388036 P/64 Certificate U/s 65 Evidence Act P/65 Application for P.M and P.M Report P/66 Memo for query on P.M Report and query report P/67 Memo seeking short P.M Report and Report 15. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution, learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment, hence, these appeals by the appellants. 16. Learned counsel for the respective appellants would submit that there is no eyewitness to the incident, case of the prosecution is based only on the circumstantial evidence, particularly, on the call details of the mobile phones. The call details of the seized mobile phones, which are allegedly said to be recovered from the appellants are not sufficient to hold guilt of the appellants in the offence. All the accused persons are residing at different states in the country and there is no nexus between them. There is no motive to commit the offence of murder of the deceased-Shankar Prasad. There is no other cogent and clinching evidence against the accused persons to convict them. The chain of circumstances as required by the law and also determined by various authoritative pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, has not been completed. There are material omissions and contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses. The call detail reports have not been duly proved in the manner it is required to be proved, therefore, the appellants are entitled for their acquittal. 17. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes and submitted that the link of circumstantial evidence has been duly proved which forms the complete chain in connecting the appellants with the offence in question. Although they are the residents of different states of the country, but in the case of conspiracy, they may be conspired, and the same can be proved by their active participation either by the mobile calls, or by their conduct, which has been done in the present case. From the call details of the mobile numbers, it appears in the case that all the accused persons are connected with each other through the mobile phones. If they are not connected with each other, the call detail reports would not have shown their mobile call connection at the relevant point of time. Although there is no sufficient evidence with respect to the motive to commit murder of the deceased, the motive is in built track in the minds of either the deceased, or the accused persons, which is very difficult to extract from their minds or from their conduct. Although there is no sufficient evidence with respect to the motive to commit murder of the deceased, the motive is in built track in the minds of either the deceased, or the accused persons, which is very difficult to extract from their minds or from their conduct. Therefore, even in absence of any motive for commission of offence available on record, if the sufficient evidence available on record, the accused persons can be convicted in the alleged offence. In the present case, the chain of circumstantial evidence has been completed by cogent and clinching evidence and therefore, the learned trial Court is justified in convicting the appellants and sentenced them, which needs no interference. 18. Heard learned counsel for the parties with utmost sagacity and perused the record. 19. The case of the prosecution is based upon the circumstantial evidence and there is no eyewitness to the incident. Some of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which holds the field of circumstantial evidence are given below for ready reference: The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravindra Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2022 (7) SCC 581 has held in para 10 of its judgment, as under:- 10. The conviction of A2 is based only upon circumstantial evidence. Hence, in order to sustain a conviction, it is imperative that the chain of circumstances is complete, cogent and coherent. This court has consistently held in a long line of cases [See Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR (1977 SC 1063); Eradu and Ors. v. State of Hyderabad ( AIR 1956 SC 316 ); Earabhadrappa @ Krishnappa v. State of Karnataka ( AIR 1983 SC 446 ); State of U.P. v. Sukhbasi and Ors. ( AIR 1985 SC 1224 ); Balwinder Singh @ Dalbir Singh v. State of Punjab ( AIR 1987 SC 350 ); Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v. State of M.P. ( AIR 1989 SC 1890 )] that where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused. The circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. 10.1. The circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. 10.1. In Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab ( AIR 1954 SC 621 ), it was laid down that where the case depends upon the conclusion drawn from circumstances, the cumulative effect of the circumstances must be such as to negate the innocence of the accused and bring the offence home beyond any reasonable doubt. 10.2. We may also make a reference to a decision of this Court in C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of A.P. (1996) 10 SCC 193 , wherein it has been observed that: “21. In a case based 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....”. In the matter of Surendra Kumar and Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2021 (20) SCC 430 , the Hon’ble supreme Court has held in paragraphs 11 and 12 of its judgment as under:- “11. As the case against the appellants is entirely based on circumstantial evidence, it is necessary to determine whether the available evidence lead only to the conclusion of guilt and exclude all contrary hypothesis. The enunciation on the law of circumstantial evidence stood the test of time since Hanumant Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1952 SC 343 where Mahajan J., has written as under:- “10............It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused...............” 12. The nature, character and essential proof required in criminal cases was discussed in detail by Fazal Ali J in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 and the proposition of law culled out on circumstantial evidence was approved in many subsequent judgments and was recently reiterated by Krishna Murari J., writing the opinion for a three Judges Bench in Shailendra Rajdev Pasvan & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. where it was succinctly laid down as under:- “17. It is well settled by now that in a case based on circumstantial evidence the courts ought to have a conscientious approach and conviction ought to be recorded only in case all the links of the chain are complete pointing to the guilt of the accused. Each link unless connected together to form a chain may suggest suspicion but the same in itself cannot take place of proof and will not be sufficient to convict the accused.” In the matter of Digambar Vaishnav and Another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, 2019 (4) SCC 522 , the Hon’ble supreme Court has held as under : “14. One of the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence is undeniably that the burden of proof squarely rests on the prosecution and that the general burden never shifts. There can be no conviction on the basis of surmises and conjectures or suspicion howsoever grave it may be. Strong suspicion, strong coincidences and grave doubt cannot take the place of legal proof. The onus of the prosecution cannot be discharged by referring to very strong suspicion and existence of highly suspicious factors to inculpate the accused nor falsity of defence could take the place of proof which the prosecution has to establish in order to succeed, though a false plea by the defence at best, be considered as an additional circumstance, if other circumstances unfailingly point to the guilt. 15. 15. This Court in Jaharlal Das v. State of Orissa, (1991) 3 SCC 27 , has held that even if the offence is a shocking one, the gravity of offence cannot by itself overweigh as far as legal proof is concerned. In cases depending highly upon the circumstantial evidence, there is always a danger that the conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof. The court has to be watchful and ensure that the conjecture and suspicion do not take the place of legal proof. The court must satisfy itself that various circumstances in the chain of evidence should be established clearly and that the completed chain must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused. 16. In order to sustain the conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence, the following three conditions must be satisfied: i) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; ii) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; and iii) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else, and it should also be incapable of explanation on any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused. 17. In Varkey Joseph v. State of Kerala, 1993 Suppl (3) SCC 745, this Court has held that suspicion is not the substitute for proof. There is a long distance between 'may be true' and 'must be true' and the prosecution has to travel all the way to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 18. In Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam, (2013) 12 SCC 406 , this Court, while examining the distinction between 'proof beyond reasonable doubt' and 'suspicion' has held as under: "13. Suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot take the place of proof, and there is a large differ- ence 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 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. In such cases, while keeping in mind the distance between “may be” true and “must be” true, the court must maintain the vital distance between mere conjectures and sure conclusions to be arrived at, on the touchstone of dispassionate judicial scrutiny, based upon a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all features of the case, as well as the quality and credibility of the evidence brought on record. The court must ensure, that miscarriage of justice is avoided, and if the facts and circumstances of a case so demand, then the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused, keeping in mind that a reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely probable doubt, but a fair doubt that is based upon reason and common sense". The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Madhu Vs. State of Kerala, 2012 (2) SCC 399 has held in paragraph 5 as under: “5. The care and caution with which circumstantial evidence has to be evaluated stands recognized by judicial precedent. Only circumstantial evidence of a very high order can satisfy the test of proof in a criminal prosecution. In a case resting on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete unbroken chain of events leading to the determination that the inference being drawn from the evidence is the only inescapable conclusion. In the absence of convincing circumstantial evidence, an accused would be entitled to the benefit of doubt.” In the matter of Nagendra Sah Vs. State of Bihar, 2021 (10) SCC 725 in paragraphs 17 and 18 replying upon the golden principles enumerated in case Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1984 (4) SCC 116 , the Supreme Court has held as under: “17. State of Bihar, 2021 (10) SCC 725 in paragraphs 17 and 18 replying upon the golden principles enumerated in case Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1984 (4) SCC 116 , the Supreme Court has held as under: “17. As the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence, we may make a useful reference to a leading decision of this Court on the subject. In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, in paragraph 153, this Court has laid down five golden principles (Panchsheel) which govern a case based only on circumstantial evidence. Paragraph 153 reads thus : “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. 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 & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra where the following observations were made: 19.....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.” (emphasis added). 18. Paragraphs 158 to 160 of the said decision are also relevant which read thus : “158. 18. Paragraphs 158 to 160 of the said decision are also relevant which read thus : “158. It may be necessary here to notice a very forceful argument submitted by the Additional Solicitor-General relying on a decision of this Court in Deonandan Mishra v. State of Bihar, to supplement his argument that if the defence case is false it would constitute an additional link so as to fortify the prosecution case. With due respect to the learned Additional Solicitor-General we are unable to agree with the interpretation given by him of the aforesaid case, the relevant portion of which may be extracted thus: 9.......But in a case like this where the various links as started above have been satisfactorily made out and the circumstances point to the appellant as the probable assailant, with reasonable definiteness and in proximity to the deceased as regards time and situation, . . . such absence of explanation or false explanation would itself be an additional link which completes the chain." 159. It will be seen that this Court while taking into account the absence of explanation or a false explanation did hold that it will amount to be an additional link to complete the chain but these observations must be read in the light of what this Court said earlier, viz., before a false explanation can be used as additional link, the following essential conditions must be satisfied : (1) various links in the chain of evidence led by the prosecution have been satisfactorily proved, (2) the said circumstance points to the guilt of the accused with reasonable definiteness, and (3) the circumstance is in proximity to the time and situation. 160. If these conditions are fulfilled, only then a court can use a false explanation or a false defence as an additional link to lend an assurance to the court and not otherwise. On the facts and circumstances of the present case, this does not appear to be such a case. This aspect of the matter was examined in Shankarlal case where this Court observed thus: 30........Besides, falsity of defence cannot take the place of proof of facts which the prosecution has to establish in order to succeed. A false plea can at best be considered as an additional circumstance, if other circumstances point unfailingly to the guilt of the accused." (emphasis added)” 20. A false plea can at best be considered as an additional circumstance, if other circumstances point unfailingly to the guilt of the accused." (emphasis added)” 20. In the present case, when the Police have received merg intimation on 10.4.2018 from PW2, Devendra Nirmalkar that a dead body was lying near Fadhakhar, Police started enquiry. During the merg inquiry, PW17, the Investigating Officer, Surendra Kumar Baghel went on the spot and seized a Samsung mobile phone having its IMEI No. 358223/08/826940/8 and 358224/08/826940/6 including two SIM cards of BSNL and Vodaphone company vide seizure memo Ex. P-11. 21. PW19, Hemant Aditya, who was the Sub-Inspector of Cyber Cell, Bilaspur has stated in his deposition that the Sirgitti Police has made a request for call details of Mobile No.9302850850 and 8878000304 which are the mobile phone numbers of the deceased Shankar Prasad and obtained the same from the respective Company and gave the call details to the police vide Ex. P-43 and Ex. P-44. On the basis of these call details, the accused Mithilesh Singh alias Babloo was arrested by the police on 24.4.2018 and his memorandum statement Ex. P-9 was recorded, then he disclosed the entire incident to the police, as also the involvement of other co-accused persons and the conspiracy between them. Then the police persons have interrogated the other accused persons, recorded their memorandum statements, and have made various seizures of their mobile phones and desi pistols and live cartridges which have been described in the earlier part of the judgment. Except the memorandum and seizure, and their mobile call details, no other evidence is available on record to connect the accused persons in the offence in question. The prosecution has tried to connect the link that before the date of incident the accused persons had telephonic call with each other. The accused Prabhunath Singh has given a contract to kill the deceased- Shankar Prasad to one Harish Paswan. The learned trial court has considered the mobile call details as connecting link to prove the conspiracy between the accused persons by shifting the burden upon the defence. 22. The accused Prabhunath Singh has given a contract to kill the deceased- Shankar Prasad to one Harish Paswan. The learned trial court has considered the mobile call details as connecting link to prove the conspiracy between the accused persons by shifting the burden upon the defence. 22. Learned trial court has also taken a view by shifting the burden upon the defence that the accused persons were known to each other, and therefore, they had telephonic call to each other and thus, they are being the strangers, had telephonic call at the relevant point of time and accused Prabhunath Singh, who gave the contract to kill the deceased- Shankar Prasad to other accused persons. 23. The deceased was an employee of accused Prabhunath Singh and due to the activities of deceased-Shankar Prasad that he joined the other company, Prabhunath Singh went in loss in his business and therefore, he conspired with other accused persons through the mobile phone and ultimately, deceased-Shankar Prasad was murdered. Memorandum and Seizure 24. The relevancy and evidentiary value of disclosure statement made by the accused persons came to be considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Manoj Kumar Soni Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 SCC Online (SC) 984, wherein it has been observed in paragraphs 21 to 25 as under : “21. The facts of the case reveal that all the accused persons made disclosure statements to the I.O. whereupon recovery of money, jewellery, etc. was effected. Although it is quite unusual that all five accused, after being arrested, would lead the I.O. to the places for effecting recovery of the stolen articles, we do not propose to disbelieve the prosecution plea only on this score. Manoj's involvement was primarily based on the disclosure statements made by co-accused Suleman and Jaihind where they admitted to selling the stolen articles to him and a similar statement made by Manoj himself which led to recovery under Section 27, Evidence Act. Similarly, both the courts below, in convicting Kallu, largely relied upon the disclosure statement made by Kallu himself as well as co-accused Jaihind, who confessed to giving Rs.3,000.00 to Kallu from the stolen money and storing a country-made pistol along with three cartridges at his house/tapra. 22. A doubt looms: can disclosure statements per se, unaccompanied by any supporting evidence, be deemed adequate to secure a conviction? We find it implausible. 22. A doubt looms: can disclosure statements per se, unaccompanied by any supporting evidence, be deemed adequate to secure a conviction? We find it implausible. Although disclosure statements hold significance as a contributing factor in unriddling a case, in our opinion, they are not so strong a piece of evidence sufficient on its own and without anything more to bring home the charges beyond reasonable doubt. 23. The law on the evidentiary value of disclosure statements under Section 27, Evidence Act made by the accused himself seems to be well established. The decision of the Privy Council in Pulukuri Kotayya and others vs. King-Emperor holds the field even today wherein it was held that the provided information must be directly relevant to the discovered fact, including details about the physical object, its place of origin, and the accused person's awareness of these aspects. The Privy Council observed: The difficulty, however great, of proving that a fact discovered on information supplied by the accused is a relevant fact can afford no justification for reading into s. 27 something which is not there, and admitting in evidence a confession barred by s. 26. Except in cases in which the possession, or concealment, of an object constitutes the gist of the offence charged, it can seldom happen that information relating to the discovery of a fact forms the foundation of the prosecution case. It is only one link in the chain of proof, and the other links must be forged in manner allowed by law. 24. The law on the evidentiary value of disclosure statements of coaccused too is settled; the courts have hesitated to place reliance solely on disclosure statements of co-accused and used them merely to support the conviction or, as Sir Lawrence Jenkins observed in Emperor vs. Lalit Mohan Chuckerburty, to "lend assurance to other evidence against a coaccused". In Haricharan Kurmi vs. State of Bihar, this Court, speaking through the Constitution Bench, elaborated upon the approach to be adopted by courts when dealing with disclosure statements: 13. In Haricharan Kurmi vs. State of Bihar, this Court, speaking through the Constitution Bench, elaborated upon the approach to be adopted by courts when dealing with disclosure statements: 13. In dealing with a criminal case where the prosecution relies upon the confession of one accused person against another accused person, the proper approach to adopt is to consider the other evidence against such an accused person, and if the said evidence appears to be satisfactory and the court is inclined to hold that the said evidence may sustain the charge framed against the said accused person, the court turns to the confession with a view to assure itself that the conclusion which it is inclined to draw from the other evidence is right. 25. In yet another case of discrediting a flawed conviction under Section 411, IPC, this Court, in Shiv Kumar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh overturned the conviction under Section 411, declined to place undue reliance solely on the disclosure statements of the co-accused, and held: 24…... the disclosure statement of one accused cannot be accepted as a proof of the appellant having knowledge of utensils being stolen goods. The prosecution has also failed to establish any basis for the appellant to believe that the utensils seized from him were stolen articles. The factum of selling utensils at a lower price cannot, by itself, lead to the conclusion that the appellant was aware of the theft of those articles. The essential ingredient of mens rea is clearly not established for the charge under Section 411 IPC. The prosecution's evidence on this aspect, as they would speak of the character Gratiano in Merchant of Venice, can be appropriately described as, "you speak an infinite deal of nothing." [William Shakespeare, Merchant of Venice, Act 1 Scene 1.]” 25. PW17, Surendra Kumar Baghel has stated in his deposition that on 24.04.2018 he interrogated the accused Mithilesh Alias Babloo and recorded his memorandum statement. He disclosed in his memorandum statement that while he was detained in jail at Baliya, UP, he met with accused- Vimal Singh and on his instance, he came to Bilaspur and introduced the deceased-Shankar Prasad. PW17, Surendra Kumar Baghel has stated in his deposition that on 24.04.2018 he interrogated the accused Mithilesh Alias Babloo and recorded his memorandum statement. He disclosed in his memorandum statement that while he was detained in jail at Baliya, UP, he met with accused- Vimal Singh and on his instance, he came to Bilaspur and introduced the deceased-Shankar Prasad. Thereafter, they were in search of a room for deceased-Shankar Prasad, and he, along with other accused persons Babu Pandey @ Ghanshyam Upadhyay, and Vimal Singh, prepared a plan to kill the deceased-Shankar Prasad and chosen the place where the deceased has to be killed. Deceased-Shankar Prasad was called to see the rented house and they have taken him towards the Fadhakhar-Mahmand bypass road and in an isolated place, Mithilesh Singh @ Babloo made fire from his pistol on back side of the neck of the deceased by which he fell down and he again made another fire on his head and at that time Babu Pandey @ Ghanshyam Upadhyay dragged him towards garbage pit and he made another fire on the temporal region of the deceased and came back from there. On his memorandum statement, the police has seized the motor cycle, pistol and three live cartridges from the house of accused Anup Kumar Tiwari @ Golu and also concealed the mobile phone and SIM card. Thereafter, the pistol, live cartridges and mobile phones including SIM cards have been seized from the accused Mithilesh Singh @ Babloo. PW17 has further stated that on 24.04.2018, he recorded the memorandum statement of accused-Anup Kumar Tiwari @ Golu, he too has disclosed about the conspiracy with the accused-Harish Paswan (since dead) and on his instructions, he accepted his request and after about one week, Vimal, who was the resident of Baliya, UP came to him and subsequently Mithilesh Singh @ Babloo and Babu Pandey @ Ghanshyam Upadhyay also came to him, took his Hero-Honda motorcycle and when they returned on the next day, they disclosed that they have committed murder of a person. In the night they stayed in his company and on the next morning they returned back. On his memorandum, the police has seized the Hero-Honda motorcycle and five live cartridges vide Ex.P-14. In the night they stayed in his company and on the next morning they returned back. On his memorandum, the police has seized the Hero-Honda motorcycle and five live cartridges vide Ex.P-14. PW17 has further stated that he obtained call details of mobile phone of deceased-shankar Prasad, and in his cross examination, he stated that he has not prepared any Panchnama with respect to functioning of mobile phone. 26. The witness to the memorandum statement of Mithilesh Singh alias Babloo Ex.P-9 are, PW6 Ravindra Dahariya and PW11 Afzal Hussain. PW6 has stated in his evidence that he did not know about the incident but his signature is there in the documents Ex.P-8 to Ex.P-17 which are the memorandum statements of Mithilesh Singh @ Babloo and Anup Kumar Tiwari @ Golu, co-accused. 27. Leading questions have been asked from these witnesses but they denied about the proceedings of recording of memorandum statements and its seizure witness made by Mithilesh Singh @ Babloo and Anup Kumar Tiwari @ Golu. In his cross-examination he admitted that he signed the documents on the instructions of the Police personnel at the Police Station-Sirgitti. 28. The other witnesses of the memorandum statement and seizure of Mithilesh Singh @ Babloo, PW11 Afzal Hussain who has also not supported the memorandum and seizure of Mithilesh Singh @ babloo and have stated that on the instructions of the Police Personnel, he had signed the documents EX.P-9 to EX.P-14. Leading questions were asked from this witness too, but he has not supported the case of the prosecution. 29. Memorandum statement of accused Harish Paswan (since dead) Ex.P1 was recorded on 26.06.2018 by PW12, Anil Kumar Agrawal, who is the Inspector of Police, who stated in his deposition that on 25.06.2018, he has taken into custody the accused-Harish Paswan, and recorded his memorandum statement on 26.06.2018 in presence of the witness PW10, Abdul Safir and PW1, Jitendra Singh Rajput. No seizure has been made from Harish Paswan. PW1 Jitendra Singh and PW10 Abdul Safir not supported the case of the prosecution and completely denied memorandum statement of the accused-Harish Paswan (since dead), they only admitted their signature in the memorandum statement Ex.P-1. 30. No seizure has been made from Harish Paswan. PW1 Jitendra Singh and PW10 Abdul Safir not supported the case of the prosecution and completely denied memorandum statement of the accused-Harish Paswan (since dead), they only admitted their signature in the memorandum statement Ex.P-1. 30. PW 15 Ram Naresh Goutam, who was posted as Sub Inspector at Police Station Sakti in between April 2018 till August 2018, has stated in his deposition that he had gone to the State of West Bengal to arrest the accused-Prabhunath Singh and he has taken him into Custody and recorded his memorandum in which it was disclosed that he engaged in the Security Company Business. His company is running business at Odisha, West Bengal, Andhra Pradesh, and Chhattisgarh. The deceased Shankar Prasad was also working with him since the year 2008. 10 months prior to the date of incident, the deceased left his company and joined one other company of Sanjay Soni, and therefore, the business of accused-Prabhunath Singh was deteriorated. The deceased embezzled also some amount of the Company, and therefore, to eliminate Shankar Prasad from his way, he gave contract for his murder to shooter Harish Paswan. PW 15 seized a mobile phone from accused Prabhunath Singh vide seizure memo Ex.P-4 having two sim cards in it. In his cross examination, nothing has been asked from him and he reiterated the recording of memorandum statement of accused-Prabhunath Singh only, based on which mobile phone was recovered. 31. Witnesses of memorandum of accused-Prabhunath Singh are, PW3 Yogesh Tande, and PW23- Dharmendra Sahu. PW3 has not supported the case of prosecution and admitted his signature only on the documents. PW23 has stated in his evidence that memorandum statement of accused-Prabhunath Singh was recorded in his presence and he signed on Ex.P-3. After declaring him hostile, he supported the case of the prosecution that accused-Prabhunath Singh stated in the memorandum statement that he gave contract to kill the deceased- Shankar Prasad to Harish Paswan. In his cross examination he stated that he could not remember as to where he has signed the document, he further stated that he has signed the document at Asansol. 32. In his cross examination he stated that he could not remember as to where he has signed the document, he further stated that he has signed the document at Asansol. 32. On 28.3.2019 PW16, Shitla Prasad Tripathi, ASI, Police Station Sirgitti, Bilaspur has recorded memorandum statement of accused-Babu Pandey @ Ghanshyam Upadhyay, who disclosed in his memorandum statement that Vimlesh has called him to Bilaspur, and when he went to Vimlesh, he informed that he received a contract to kill deceased-Shankar Prasad, through Prabhunath Singh, and Harish Paswan gave him Rs. 2,50,000/- to kill the deceased-Shankar Prasad. On 09.04.2018, Babu Pandey @ Ghanshyam Upadhyay along with Vimlesh and Mithilesh Singh, went to Bilaspur. They left him near a Beetel shop, and both of them had gone to bring the deceased-Shankar Prasad. When they brought deceased-Shankar Prasad, Vimlesh gave him a pistol and Mithilesh made fire from his pistol on the back side of the neck of the deceased. He dragged the body of the deceased towards the jungle and they return back to Raipur. 33. The memorandum statement of accused-Babu Pandey @ Ghanshyam Upadhyay was recorded by PW16, Shitla Prasad Tripathi. Based on it, mobile phone has been seized having sim card of mobile number 7398510174. He has arrested the accused-Babu Pandey on 28.03.2019 at the Police Station, Pakadi, District Baliya (UP). In cross examination, he too has remained firm in recording memorandum statement of the above mentioned accused, and supported the procedure he drawn, while recording the memorandum statement of the accused vide Ex.P-31 and seizure Ex.P-32, his arrest memo is Ex.P-33 and application made by him for production Warrant of accused Vimlesh is Ex.P-34. 34. Witness of memorandum Ex.P-31 are PW21 Ravindra Tiwari and PW24 Dharmendra Pandey. Both of them had turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution, except admitting their signature over the documents Ex.P-31, Ex.P-32 and Ex.P-33. Call details 35. PW19, Hemant Aditya, who was posted as ASI at the Cyber Cell, Bilaspur, stated in his evidence that he received an application from Police Station, Sirgitti for call details of Mobile No.9302850850 and 8878000304. On this application, he obtained call details of above two mobile numbers from the Airtel and Vodaphone Company, took the printout and gave it to the Sirigitti Police. Call details of mobile number 9302850850 is Ex.P-43 and the call details of mobile number 8878000304 is Ex.P-44. On this application, he obtained call details of above two mobile numbers from the Airtel and Vodaphone Company, took the printout and gave it to the Sirigitti Police. Call details of mobile number 9302850850 is Ex.P-43 and the call details of mobile number 8878000304 is Ex.P-44. He has issued certificate under Section 65B of the evidence Act, which is Ex.P-45. Sirigitti Police has again asked for call details of another mobile number of deceased-Shankar Prasad i.e. 7898118098, and he obtained call details from Airtel Company, took out the print and gave it to Sirgitti Police, which is Ex.P-47. The certificate of Section 65B of the evidence Act given by him is Ex.P-48. 36. Further, Sirgitti Police asked for call details of three other mobile numbers which were suspected by the police and they are 8143884680, 7054707446 and 7470528232 which is Ex.P-49. He obtained the call details of above three numbers from Airtel company, took out the print and gave it to Sirigitti Police vide Ex.P-50 and P-51 and the certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act is Ex.P-52. He further stated that the suspected mobile number of 7054707446 was continuously in contact with the mobile number 8009531324, and therefore, Police asked for call details of mobile number 8009531324 which is Ex.P-53 and he obtained the call details of the said mobile number from Airtel Company, took out the print and gave it to the Sirgitti Police, which is Ex.P-54 and the certificate under Section 65B of Evidence Act is Ex.P-55. 37. Again, on the request made by the Sirigitti police, he obtained call details of mobile number 7054707446 from the Airtel Company and took out the print and gave it to Sirigitti Police Vide Ex.P-57 and the Certificate under Section 65B of Evidence Act is Ex.P-58. The call details of mobile number 9546480947 were obtained from Airtel company and gave its printout to Sirigitti Police Vide Ex.P-60 and the Certificate Under Section 65B of Evidence Act is Ex.P-61. The call details of mobile number 9233388036 which belongs to accused Prabhunath Singh was obtained by him from Vodaphone Company, and took out the print and gave it to Sirigitti Police Vide Ex.P-63 and the Certificate Under Section 65B of Evidence Act is Ex.P-64. 38. The call details of mobile number 9233388036 which belongs to accused Prabhunath Singh was obtained by him from Vodaphone Company, and took out the print and gave it to Sirigitti Police Vide Ex.P-63 and the Certificate Under Section 65B of Evidence Act is Ex.P-64. 38. From the analysis of above call details, he found that in the mobile phone of the deceased-Shankar Prasad, 7898118098, the suspected mobile number 7054707446 was frequently connected on 07.04.2018 and 08.04.2018. Further, the suspected mobile number 7054707446 was regularly connected with the mobile phone of the deceased-Shankar Prasad i.e. 7898118098. 39. From the analysis of the call details of the mobile number 8009531324, it appears that IMEI no. of the said mobile phone was used on 9th January to 15th January, and 15th January to 13th April, 2018 and the location of the said mobile was in the State of UP, East Circle, upto 27th March, 2018, and MP Sidhi Circle, from 29th March to 9th April,2018. Thereafter, location of the phone was in the State of West Bengal circle on 10th April, 2018 and in Bihar Circle on 11th April,2018, and again in UP Circle on 12th and 13th April, 2018. There was a link call with the above mobile number and the mobile numbers of Harish Paswan, and Prabhunath Singh. At that time, the mobile location of Harish Paswan was at Bihar Circle. In cross examination, he admitted that the suspected mobile numbers are as he stated earlier, by which the mobile number of the deceased-Shankar Prasad was remain in contact. These suspected mobile numbers are not allotted in the name of accused persons, with which the call was connected in the mobile number of the deceased Shankar Prasad. He further admitted that the mobile number 9546480947 and 9233388036 are not registered under the name of accused-Harish Paswan and Prabhunath Singh. The mobile number of 9546480947 is owned by one Nuddin @ Allauddin. He further stated that on the basis of memorandum statement Ex.P-59 of Mithilesh Singh @ Babloo, he stated that, the said mobile number is of Harish Paswan. He further admitted that the mobile number is 9302850850 is not registered in the name of deceased-Shankar Prasad, and the other mobile number 7898118098, he has not submitted any document with respect to it. He further admitted that the mobile number is 9302850850 is not registered in the name of deceased-Shankar Prasad, and the other mobile number 7898118098, he has not submitted any document with respect to it. He further admitted that he has not prepared any separate application for obtaining call details from the service provider company and there is no mention of any date, as to when the call details were obtained by him. He further admitted that he asked for call details through the government e-mails, and obtained copies of the call details through the office computer, and took printout and send the same to the Police Station. He has received call details from the mobile company, and he has not prepared any Panchnama for the same and he has also not produced any certificate that he is a Cyber expert. He further admitted in his cross examination, that he has not obtained any prior permission from his senior authority. He further admitted that the call details which he received, not got verified from any Nodal Officer of the concerned Cellular Telephone Company. He further stated that he has not submitted any CD or Pen drive with respect to the data collected by him. 40. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Kiriti Pal Vs. State of West Bengal, 2015 (11) SCC 178 , while considering the issue of admissibility and relevancy of telephonic conversation made between the persons, as evidence, in paragraph 30 to 33 has observed as under: “30. Apart from telephonic conversation, no other evidence was adduced by the prosecution to bring home that first accused hatched a conspiracy. There is no evidence to prove as to how the appellants 2 and 3 (Siddique Mia and Mustaque Mia) had gone to the place of occurrence and what was their subsequent conduct. Their presence near the scene of occurrence could have been established by the prosecution either by examining some witnesses near and around the place of occurrence or by proving the location of the calls so as to establish the proximity of the accused with the scene of occurrence. Apart from the extract of the call records, no other evidence was adduced by the prosecution to establish the conspiracy. 31. Apart from telephonic conversation, prosecution also relied upon recoveries made pursuant to the confessional statement of the appellants 2 and 3 (Siddique Mia and Mustaque Mia). Apart from the extract of the call records, no other evidence was adduced by the prosecution to establish the conspiracy. 31. Apart from telephonic conversation, prosecution also relied upon recoveries made pursuant to the confessional statement of the appellants 2 and 3 (Siddique Mia and Mustaque Mia). Pursuant to the statement of Siddique Mia one TVS Fiero red colour motor cycle bearing No. WB-54B/8245 with its key and nokia mobile handset (phone No.9932345230) were seized under Ext.17/3. Pursuant to the statement of Mustaque Mia nokia mobile handset having connection No. 9932705533, one gold finger ring in the shape of a flower with inscription of letter ‘Anjali’, and silver made chain with one Amethist and red coral fitted with it were seized under Ext. 18/3. Recoveries made and seizure list were sought to be proved by examination of PW17-Uttam Mondal. PW17 had deposed that he knew deceased Anjali. PW17 was then employed in the hotel run by Bhagyadhar Dhibar which was owned by Anjali. In his evidence PW17 stated that in January 2009, two or three gentlemen came to his hotel and took his signature and that he did not know why his signatures were being taken. Though PW17 identified his signatures in the seizure list, evidence of PW17 no way establishes recoveries being made at the instance of the accused 2 and 3. Evidence of PW17 is far from convincing and is not of much assistance to the prosecution as he has not clearly spoken about the recoveries and the seizure list. The gold ring and silver made chain recovered were also not shown to the other witnesses for being identified as that of Anjali. No other evidence was adduced by the prosecution to substantiate the recovery of objects and the seizure list. 32. So far as the complicity of fourth accused-Durga Sutradhar, the prosecution mainly relied upon the call record and judicial confession of Durga recorded by Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Suri, Birbhum (Ext.26). Prosecution relied upon the recovery a notebook seized from the possession of appellant Durga Sutradhar where she has written Kiriti’s phone number clandestinely coded as ‘Dadu’. Ext. 30 call records of Kiriti Pal phone also revealed that there were number of calls from Kiriti Pal to fourth appellant. Prosecution relied upon the recovery a notebook seized from the possession of appellant Durga Sutradhar where she has written Kiriti’s phone number clandestinely coded as ‘Dadu’. Ext. 30 call records of Kiriti Pal phone also revealed that there were number of calls from Kiriti Pal to fourth appellant. Like in the case of appellants No. 2 and 3 (Siddique Mia and Mustaque Mia) apart from telephone calls, no other evidence was adduced by the prosecution to bring home the guilt of fourth accused-Durga Sutradhar. Insofar as the judicial confessional statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., it is not an inculpatory statement; but it is only to the effect of showing the subsequent conduct of A-1 Kiriti Pal in threatening Durga Sutradhar–fourth appellant not to disclose anything to the police. In our view, neither the telephone calls between the first appellant-Kiriti Pal and Durga Sutradhar-fourth appellant nor her confessional statement by themselves would be sufficient to establish the guilt of fourth appellant. 33. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the court must adopt a very conscious approach and should record conviction only if all the links in the chain are complete pointing to the guilt of the accused. All the links forming complete chain must be firmly established by the prosecution. Each link taken separately may just suggest suspicion but such suspicion itself may not take the place of proof and not sufficient to convict the accused. All the circumstances must be firmly established and must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt. But that is not to say that the prosecution must meet each and every hypothesis put forward by the accused however farfetched it may be. As discussed earlier, the telephonic calls and the recovery may raise suspicion against the accused but mere suspicion itself cannot take the place of proof. In our view, evidence adduced by the prosecution against appellants 2 and 3 (Siddique Mia and Mustaque Mia) do not form a complete chain connecting the accused with the crime and the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 IPC read with Section 120B IPC cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside. Likewise, conviction of fourth appellant-Durga Sutradhar under Section 120B cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.” 41. The telephonic conversation between the accused persons raises only suspicion, and the suspicion, however strong, cannot take place the proof. Likewise, conviction of fourth appellant-Durga Sutradhar under Section 120B cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.” 41. The telephonic conversation between the accused persons raises only suspicion, and the suspicion, however strong, cannot take place the proof. The prosecution is required to prove each and every circumstance beyond reasonable doubt to complete the chain of circumstance to bring home the guilt of the accused persons. In a case of circumstantial evidence, it is for the prosecution to establish that all the links in the chain of circumstances are complete leading inescapably to the only hypothesis of the guilt of the accused leaving out any possibility of innocence. Suspicion howsoever strong, cannot take place of proof. Motive 42. In the present case, no motive has been proved by the prosecution. In the circumstantial evidence, motive becomes an important link to complete the chain of circumstances. The prosecution case is that Prabhunath Singh was running a Security Agency business, in which the deceased was working with him. The deceased left the company of the accused Prabhunath Singh, and joined the company of one Sanjay Soni, and thereby, the company of accused Prabhunath Singh went into loss and that was the reason, the accused Prabhunath Singh intended to eliminate the deceased Shankar Prasad from the Security agency business, for which he gave contract to kill the deceased, to the accused- Harish Paswan. Except for the memorandum statement of the accused persons, there is no evidence with respect to motive. 43. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nathuni Yadav Vs. State of Bihar, 1978 (9) SCC 238, has held as under: “Motive for doing a criminal act is generally a difficult area for prosecution. One cannot normally see into the mind of another. Motive is the emotion which impells a man to do a particular act. Such impelling cause need not necessarily be proportionally grave to do grave crimes. Many a murders have been committed without any known or prominent motive. It is quite possible that the aforesaid impelling factor would remain undiscoverable. Lord Chief Justice Champbell struck a note of caution in Reg v. Palmer (Shorthand Report at page 308 SCC May 1850; thus: "But if there be any motive which can be assigned, I am bound to tell you that the adequacy of that motive is of little importance. It is quite possible that the aforesaid impelling factor would remain undiscoverable. Lord Chief Justice Champbell struck a note of caution in Reg v. Palmer (Shorthand Report at page 308 SCC May 1850; thus: "But if there be any motive which can be assigned, I am bound to tell you that the adequacy of that motive is of little importance. We know, from experience of criminal courts that atrocious crimes of this sort have been committed from very slight motives; not merely from malice and revenge, but to gain a small pecuniary advantage, and to drive off for a time pressing difficulties". Though, it is a sound proposition that every criminal act is done with a motive, it is unsound to suggest that no such criminal act can be presumed unless motive is proved. After all motive is a psychological phenomenon. Mere fact that prosecution failed to translate that mental disposition of the accused into evidence does not mean that no such mental Condition existed in the mind of the assailant.” 44. Further, in case of Pradeep Kumar Singh & Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2009 Cri.L.J. 770, in paragraph 21, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “21. In the present case entire case of prosecution is silent on the motive part and there is no evidence in this regard. Though in order to prove charge under Section 302, I. P. C. motive part is insignificant when the case of prosecution is based on direct evidence, however, if the case is based on circumstantial evidence motive part assumes great significance inasmuch as its existence is an enlightening factor in a process of presumptive reasoning. …..” 45. In another case reported in Niranjan Panja Vs. State of West Bengal, 2010 (6) SCC 525 , in paragraph 10 of its judgment the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that motive has an important role in a case based on circumstantial evidence. Therefore, in the present case, a link of motive is missing to complete the chain of circumstantial evidence. Conclusion :- 46. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to adduce any cogent and conclusive evidence connecting the accused persons/appellants with the crime in question. Therefore, in the present case, a link of motive is missing to complete the chain of circumstantial evidence. Conclusion :- 46. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to adduce any cogent and conclusive evidence connecting the accused persons/appellants with the crime in question. So also, the learned trial court has not given a thoughtful consideration to the evidence available before it while holding the accused persons/appellants guilty of commission of murder of the deceased-Shankar Prasad. The conviction of the accused persons/appellants of all the charges levelled against them are thus liable to be set-aside. Accordingly, all the appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is set aside. The appellants stand acquitted from all the charges. They are reported to be in jail. They shall be set free if not required in any other case. 47. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A of the CrPC, each of the appellants is directed to furnish a personal bond in terms of Form-45 prescribed in the CrPC of sum of Rs.25,000/- with one reliable surety in the like amount before the Court concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellants, on receipt of notice thereof shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 48. The trial court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action.