JUDGMENT : Per Rajani Dubey, J Since both these appeals arise out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.1.2020 passed by VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in ST No.22/2019, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. By the impugned judgment, each of the appellants stands convicted and sentenced as under: Conviction Sentence Under Section 120B read with Section 302 of IPC. Life imprisonment, fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default thereof to suffer additional RI for two months. Under Section 302 read with Section 120B of IPC. Life imprisonment, fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default thereof to suffer additional RI for two months. Under Section 201 of IPC. RI for two years, pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default thereof to undergo additional RI for two months. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that accused/appellant Kishore Sahu had borrowed Rs.4,500/- from deceased Prakash Verma and as the deceased used to demand his money back frequently and disrespectfully, appellant Kishore Sahu got annoyed of it and hence hatched a criminal conspiracy with accused/appellant Rajkumar Verma for committing murder of Prakash Verma. In furtherance of that conspiracy, on 10.10.2018 appellant Kishore Sahu called the deceased at the place of occurrence on the pretext of returning his money and when the deceased demanded his money, appellant Kishore Sahu assaulted him with knife on his neck whereas appellant Rajkumar Verma assaulted with blade on his neck and thus committed his murder. In order to cause disappearance of evidence of the crime, the dead body was thrown into the bushes and after burning the bloodstained clothes, the ashes were thrown in the mines. However, on 11.10.2018 on information being received regarding dead body of an unknown person lying on the spot, Dehati merg intimation and Dehati Nalishi were registered and the investigation was set in motion. 3. During investigation, statements of the witnesses were recorded, seizure of certain articles were made; the accused/appellants were taken into custody on suspicion and their memorandum statements were recorded and after completion of usual investigation, charge sheet under Sections 302, 201, 120B, 34 of IPC was filed against the accused/appellants. Learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 120B, 302/34 and 201/34 of IPC against the accused persons, which were abjured by them and they prayed for trial. 4. Learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 120B, 302/34 and 201/34 of IPC against the accused persons, which were abjured by them and they prayed for trial. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses in all. Statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. However, no witness was examined by them in their defence. 5. Learned trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. Hence these appeals. 6. Learned counsel for the accused/appellants would submits that the impugned judgment is per se illegal and contrary to the material available on record and rather it is based on conjecture and surmises. There is absolutely no evidence against the appellants to connect them with the crime in question. PW-6 Manish Kumar Nirmalkar and PW-10 Umesh Verma, witnesses to memorandum and seizure have turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case. There is no eyewitness in the present case and it rests wholly upon circumstantial evidence but the prosecution has utterly failed to prove a complete chain of circumstantial evidence to substantiate its case. Learned trial Court has convicted the appellant Kishore Sahu only on the ground that he borrowed money from the deceased and the deceased was repeatedly demanding his money back. As regards appellant Rajkumar Verma, the prosecution has failed to establish any motive or intention on his part to commit murder of the deceased. The material prosecution witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and their evidence suffers from the vice of contradiction and omission. The prosecution witnesses have specifically stated that there was no quarrel or dispute between the deceased and the accused persons. Since presence of appellant Kishore Sahu at the place of occurrence is not duly proved as well as memorandum Ex.P/8 & P/9 are rendered futile, the impugned conviction of the appellants is contrary to law. Even PW-9 Dr. M Nirala has not supported the prosecution case. Furthermore, the FSL report is not conclusive because though blood was found the knife allegedly seized from appellant Kishore Sahu, but its origin and group could not be determined. Even PW-9 Dr. M Nirala has not supported the prosecution case. Furthermore, the FSL report is not conclusive because though blood was found the knife allegedly seized from appellant Kishore Sahu, but its origin and group could not be determined. In the given facts and circumstances of the case and the quality of evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned trial Court was absolutely not justified in holding the appellants guilty of the aforesaid offence and therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Mohd. Muslim Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (Now Uttarakhand), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 489; judgment dated 08th August, 2024 in CRA No. 2828-2829 of 2023 ( 2024 INSC 590 ) in the case of Allarakha Habib Memon etc. Vs. State of Gujarat and judgment dated 12.3.2024 of this Court in CRA No.244/2021 in the matter of Hemchand @ Hemu Sahu Vs. State of CG. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supporting the impugned judgment submits that the trial Court considering all the relevant aspects of the matter in light of oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution has rightly convicted and sentenced the present appellants by the impugned judgment which calls for no interference by this Court. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. As regards the homicidal death of deceased Prakash Verma, PW-9 Dr. M. Nirala states that on 12.10.2018 he conducted postmortem on the body of deceased Prakash Verma and found that the dead body was of an average built male, both eyes were semi-open, mouth closed, tongue inside the mouth, bloodstains were present on face and right forearm. On internal examination, he found the following injuries: (i) incised wound present on left side occipital region 3 x 0.5 cm, (ii) chop wound present on neck situated 2 cm below from left angle of mandible extends to 2.5 cm below from right angle of mandible. Trachea and esophagus are cut. Margins are sharp. Horizontal cut mark present on 5th cervical vertebra 1 x 0.2 cm. Contusion present on below chop wound. Trachea and esophagus are cut. Margins are sharp. Horizontal cut mark present on 5th cervical vertebra 1 x 0.2 cm. Contusion present on below chop wound. (iii) multiple contusions present on left cheek, 3 x 2 & 3 x 1 cm in right forehead 3 x 1, 2 x 1 & 1 x 1 cm in right zygomatic region, 3 x 2 and 1 x 1 cm in right cheek 3 x 1 and 2 x 1 cm. (iv) ecchymosis present on left side parietal underscalp. Skull bone and meninges are intact. (v) subdural hematoma present on left parietal lobe and left lobe of cerebellum. According to the doctor, injuries No. (i) and (ii) were caused with hard and sharp object whereas rest of the injuries were caused with hard and blunt object and were sufficient to cause death. In his opinion, the cause of death was hemorrhage and shock and the nature of death was homicidal. The aforesaid medical evidence of the autopsy surgeon remains unrebutted in cross-examination. Thus, in view of specific unrebutted medical evidence, it stands proved beyond reasonable doubt that death of Prakash Verma was homicidal in nature. 10. Learned trial Court has convicted the appellants on the basis of circumstantial evidence i.e. memorandum of appellants Kishore Sahu and Rajkumar Verma vide Ex.P/8 & P/9, seizure of motorcycle and knife (Ex.P/10) and ashes (Ex.P/11); recovery of mobile phone of the deceased at the instance of appellant Kishore Sahu; presence of blood on seized knife as per FSL report (Article A) and motive with appellant Kishore Sahu as there used to be frequent quarrel between the deceased and Kishore Sahu over some money transaction. 11. PW-6 Manish Kumar Nirmalkar, a witness to the memorandum and seizure, in para 3 of his examination-in-chief states that the police had interrogated the accused persons, on which Kishore disclosed to have kept the burnt clothes in his house but he does not remember as to where he (Kishore) disclosed to have kept the knife and he disclosed to have hidden the mobile of deceased in the pond and got it recovered. Thereafter at the instance of accused, the police seized mobile from the pond. He states that knife was also seized from accused Kishore but today he does not remember the place of seizure. The other accused also disclosed something to police but today he does not remember that. Thereafter at the instance of accused, the police seized mobile from the pond. He states that knife was also seized from accused Kishore but today he does not remember the place of seizure. The other accused also disclosed something to police but today he does not remember that. He admits his signature on the memorandum statements (Ex.P/8 & P/9) and seizures Ex.P/10 to P/12. In cross-examination he admits that he cannot tell as to from where and whose possession the knife was seized. He admits that the place from where mobile phone was seized, is an open place which is accessible to all. In para 7 he admits that there was never any dispute or quarrel between the deceased and accused Kishore and that there was friendship between them. He admits that he did not see accused Kishore and deceased Prakash going together in the evening when Praksh went missing. 12. PW-10 Umesh Verma is another witness to the memorandum and seizure. He states that in his presence, accused Kishore disclosed to the police that after committing murder of Prakash with the help of accused Rajkumar, the dead body was thrown into bushes and they fled with his mobile and that the bloodstained shirt and belt of Rajkumar were burnt near the pond. In para 3 he states that after recording memorandum of accused Kishore, the police went to the house of Kishore and seized motorcycle and the knife which were used in commission of offence at the instance of Kishore. Thereafter, the police seized remnants of burnt clothes, buckle of belt, shirt-button and the mobile from the bushes near the pond. In cross-examination he admits that the deceased was his tenant for the last 10 years, he had cordial relations with him and that today father of the deceased has come with him for giving statement. 13. As per seizure of Ex.P/10, one motorcycle and one knife were seized on the memorandum of accused Kishore Sahu. However, as per FSL report (Art. A), blood was found only in Article J - Knife and due to disintegration of blood, its origin and group could not be determined. Though both the seizure witnesses have stated that mobile was seized at the instance of accused Kishore, but the prosecution has utterly failed to prove by adducing any cogent oral and documentary evidence that the said mobile was owned by the deceased. 14. Though both the seizure witnesses have stated that mobile was seized at the instance of accused Kishore, but the prosecution has utterly failed to prove by adducing any cogent oral and documentary evidence that the said mobile was owned by the deceased. 14. PW-5 Govind Verma states that the police seized mobile receipt from him as per seizure memo Ex.P/7. In cross-examination he admits that this mobile phone was purchased by him in his name and its price was paid by him and later on recovered from Prakash. However, he states that nothing was reduced in writing by him regarding getting mobile to the deceased and that the deceased also did not give any receipt to him regarding giving money to him. 15. From the statements of seizure witnesses it is also clear that though on the memorandum of accused Rajkumar Verma (Ex.P/9), some ashes were seized but the investigating officer PW-12 Laxman Kumeti admitted in para 14 that none of the witnesses stated regarding accused Kishore and the deceased being last seen together prior to the date of incident at the place of occurrence. FSL report (Art. A) also makes it clear that the seized ashes were not sent to FSL for chemical analysis. Being so, the seizure of ashes loses its significance and it cannot be said with certainty that it had any connection with the crime in question. 16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mohd. Muslim (supra) held in paras 23 & 24 as under: "23. ... Thus, in the absence of any credible eye witness to the incident and the fact that the presence of the accused appellants at the place of incident is also not well established, we are constrained to accord benefit of doubt to both the accused appellants. 24. Even if we ignore certain other major discrepancies in the oral evidence, the delay in conducting the post-mortem, the difference in the name of the weapons of crime, i.e., "tabal" or "palkti" which are more or less similar types of instruments for cutting crops etc., it is a case where the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the accused appellants have committed the offence beyond any reasonable doubt." 17. Recently, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Allarakha Habib Memon etc. (supra) held from paras 43 to 46 of its judgment as under: "43. Recently, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Allarakha Habib Memon etc. (supra) held from paras 43 to 46 of its judgment as under: "43. The trial Court as well as the High Court heavily relied upon the FSL reports (Exhibits 111-115) for finding corroboration to the evidence of the eyewitnesses and in drawing a conclusion regarding culpability of the appellants for the crime. We may reiterate that the testimony of the so-called eyewitnesses has already been discarded above by holding the same to be doubtful. Thus, even presuming that the FSL reports (Exhibits 111-115) conclude that the blood group found on the weapons recovered at the instance of the accused matched with the blood group of the deceased, this circumstance in isolation, cannot be considered sufficient so as to link the accused with the crime. In this regard, reliance can be placed on the judgment of Mustkeem alias Sirajudeen v. State of Rajasthan (2011) 11 SCC 724 , wherein this Court held that sole circumstance of recovery of bloodstained weapon cannot form the basis of conviction unless the same was connected with the murder of the deceased by the accused. The relevant portion is extracted hereinbelow:- "19. The AB blood group which was found on the clothes of the deceased does not by itself establish the guilt of the appellant unless the same was connected with the murder of the deceased by the appellants. None of the witnesses examined by the prosecution could establish that fact. The blood found on the sword recovered at the Instance of Mustkeem was not sufficient for test as the same had already disintegrated. At any rate, due to the reasons elaborated in the following paragraphs, the fact that the traces of blood found on the deceased matched those found on the recovered weapons cannot ipso facto enable us to arrive at the conclusion that the latter were used for the murder." (emphasis supplied) 44. On a perusal of the deposition of the Investigating Officer (PW- 18), we find his evidence on the aspect of disclosure statements made by the accused-appellant leading to the recoveries to be totally perfunctory and unacceptable. The witness did not elaborate upon the words spoken by the accused-appellant at the time of making the disclosure statements. 45. On a perusal of the deposition of the Investigating Officer (PW- 18), we find his evidence on the aspect of disclosure statements made by the accused-appellant leading to the recoveries to be totally perfunctory and unacceptable. The witness did not elaborate upon the words spoken by the accused-appellant at the time of making the disclosure statements. 45. On a threadbare analysis of the entire record, we do not find that the prosecution examined any witness who had deposed about the link evidence/safe custody of the mudammal articles right from the time they were received at the police station and seized till the time the same reached the FSL. Hence, otherwise also, the FSL report (Exhibits 111-115) pales into insignificance. Investigating Officer (PW-18) deposed that he arrested the accused persons. A detailed enquiry was made from all three accused-appellants, and they were examined for the injuries found on their bodies. Thereafter, all the accused-appellants conveyed their willingness to show the place of the offence and thereafter, panchnama as per Section 27 of the Evidence Act was prepared. Since the place of incident was also known to police, this disclosure is irrelevant. Search of the houses of the accused-appellant was undertaken in presence of the panch witnesses and a big knife was seized from the house of the accused Mohmedfaruk Palak, vide panchnama(Exhibit-52). 46. Hence, we are of the firm view that neither the disclosure statements made by the accused were proved as per law nor the same resulted into any discovery which could be accepted as incriminating inasmuch as the requisite link evidence was never presented by the prosecution so as to establish that the recovered articles remained in the self-safe condition from the date of the seizure till the same reached the FSL." 18. This Court in the matter of Hemchand @ Hemu Sahu (supra) observed from paras 18 to 21 of its judgment as under: "18. Since there is no eye-witness account to the incident, the case is completely based on circumstantial evidence. In such a case, the chain of circumstances is required to be established. The Supreme Court in Sattatiya allas Satish Rajanna Kartala Vs. State of Maharashtra (2008) 3 SCC 210 has reiterated the law laid down at paras 12, which is reproduced hereunder: "12. In such a case, the chain of circumstances is required to be established. The Supreme Court in Sattatiya allas Satish Rajanna Kartala Vs. State of Maharashtra (2008) 3 SCC 210 has reiterated the law laid down at paras 12, which is reproduced hereunder: "12. In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. 1989 Supp (2) SCC 706, this Court held that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, the following tests must be satisfied : (1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established, (2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; (3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so as to 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 (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence." 19) In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 , it was held that the onus was on the prosecution to prove that the chain is complete and falsity or untenability of the defence set up by the accused cannot be made basis for ignoring serious infirmity or lacuna in the prosecution case. The Court then proceeded to indicate the conditions which must be fully established before conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence. These are (SCC p. 185, para 153)- (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned "must" or "should' and not 'may be established; (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. 20) In State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava (1992) 2 SCC 86 , it was pointed out that great care must be taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied on is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour of the accused must be accepted. It was also pointed out that the circumstances relied upon must be found to have been fully established and the cumulative effect of all the facts so established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt." 21) Recently, in Ram Pratap Versus State of Haryana (2023) 2 SCC 345 the Supreme Court reiterated the observations made in catena of cases including Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (supra) and held that the suspicion, howsoever strong, cannot substitute proof beyond reasonable doubt. The court emphasised that there is not only a grammatical but also a legal distinction between "may" and "must". For proving a case based on circumstantial evidence, it is necessary for the prosecution to establish each and every circumstance beyond reasonable doubt, and further, that the circumstances so proved must form a complete chain of evidence so as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show, in all human probability, that the act has been done by the accused. Further, it has been held that the facts so established must exclude every hypothesis except the guilt of the accused." 19. In light of aforesaid principles of law, if we examine the facts and evidence available in the present case, it is crystal clear that there is no eyewitness to the incident and the case is completely based on circumstantial evidence. Learned trial Court based on the memorandum statements and consequent seizure of knife and mobile phone held the appellants guilty of the aforesaid crime. However, as discussed above, the statements of both these memorandum and seizure witnesses are not reliable. The FSL report is also not conclusive as no human blood was found on the seized knife. Ownership of the seizure mobile could also not be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Even the prosecution has failed to attribute any motive for commission of the offence to the accused persons. There is also no evidence as to the accused persons being last seen together with the deceased. Ownership of the seizure mobile could also not be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Even the prosecution has failed to attribute any motive for commission of the offence to the accused persons. There is also no evidence as to the accused persons being last seen together with the deceased. Thus, the chain of circumstantial evidence is not so complete which could unerringly point towards the guilt of the appellants. This being the position, the learned trial Court was not justified in holding the appellants guilty for commission of the crime in question and they deserve to be acquitted of the charges by giving them benefit of doubt. 20. In the result, both the appeals are allowed and the impugned judgment of the learned trial Court is hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges under Sections 120B/302, 302/120B and 201 of IPC. Appellant Rajkumar Verma in CRA No.475/2020 is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bonds shall remain in operation for a period of six months from today in view of provisions of Section 437A of CrPC. However, appellant Kishore Sahu in CRA No.430/2020 is still in jail, therefore, he be set free forthwith if not required in any other case. Appellant Kishore Sahu is directed to furnish a personal bond in terms of form No.45 prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure for a sum of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties in the like amount before the Court concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months alongwith an undertaking that in the event of filing of special leave petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant on receipt of notice thereon shall appear before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 21. The record of the trial Court along with copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action.