JUDGMENT : Satyen Vaidya, J. By way of instant appeal, the appellant has assailed judgment dated 11.01.2018 and sentence order dated 16.01.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge­I, Solan, District Solan, H.P. in Sessions Trial No.14­NL/7 of 2013, whereby the appellant has been convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/­. In case of failure to pay fine amount, the appellant has further been ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. 2. The prosecution case in brief was that on 20.04. 2013 at about 1.30 P.M., Madho Ram Mehta (PW­1), President Gram Panchayat Madhala, noticed a human dead body lying in a rivulet at place Sansiwala within the jurisdiction of Police Station Baddi, District Solan, H.P. PW­1 was also accompanied by another person named Ram Niranjan at the relevant time. He telephonically informed Police Station Baddi. Police arrived at the spot and found an unidentified dead body between the stones/boulders in the bed of rivulet. Injuries were found on the back and front side of the head of the body, which appeared to have been caused with stone/boulder. Blood stained boulder and pieces of stones were also found near the spot. On search of the body one handkerchief, an iron nut, a bundle of biddies and black coloured ‘chappals’ (slippers) were found besides the clothes worn by the deceased. 3. Police took into possession handkerchief, iron nut, bundle of biddies and black coloured chappals sealed them in cloth parcel. Seizure Memo Ex.PW1/B was prepared. Blood stained soil, was collected from the spot besides the controlled sample of soil. Both were sealed in a cloth parcel vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/D. Two blood stained boulders were also taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/F and sealed in a cloth parcel. Photographs Ex.PW1/G­1 to Ex.PW1/G­5 of the spot were clicked on the spot. Inquest papers Ex.PW25/A were prepared and body was sent for postmortem examination. 4. The police also recovered a black coloured Cap from a distance of about 150 meters from the place where the body was lying. On inspection, some hair were found stuck inside the cap. The cap and hair were also taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/H after placing the same in a sealed packet. 5. On 23.04.2013, the police detained the appellant. On inspection, some hair were found stuck inside the cap. The cap and hair were also taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/H after placing the same in a sealed packet. 5. On 23.04.2013, the police detained the appellant. On 25.04.2013, the father of the appellant produced before the Police those clothes of appellant which he had worn on 20.04.2013. As per the father of the appellant, the appellant had changed the said clothes at home, which were subsequently washed by the mother of the appellant. The clothes were having some stains. Kamlesh Sahu, the son of the deceased identified the same clothes to have been worn by the appellant on 19.04.2013. According to Kamlesh Sahu, he had seen the appellant and the deceased together on 19.04.2013 and at that time the appellant was wearing the same clothes. The clothes so produced were taken into possession by police vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/K after placing them in a sealed cloth parcel. 6. On 25.04.2013, the police recorded the statement of appellant to the effect that he could get recovered wallet of the deceased which he had thrown while leaving the spot. Statement Ex.PW1/M was recorded in presence of PW1 Madho Ram and Kamlesh Kumar Sahu. Thereafter the accused/appellant led the police party to a place in the rivulet and got recovered the wallet of the deceased in presence of witnesses PW­1 Madho Ram, Kamlesh Sahu and Rajesh Sahu. The recovery proceedings were recorded and the wallet was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW1/P. 7. On 26.04.2013, another statement was suffered by the appellant, whereby he had disclosed to get recovered the broken mobile phone of deceased. Statement Ex.PW21/A was recorded by the police in presence of witnesses Kamal Kumar (PW­21), Kamlesh Sahu and Rajesh Sahu. On the same day, the broken mobile phone got recovered by the appellant from the bushes. Recovery memo Ex.PW21/B was prepared by the police. 8. As per the prosecution case, Kamlesh Sahu had identified the recovered wallet and mobile to be of his father late Shri Shyam Lal. 9. On 30.04.2013, two more statements of appellant were recorded by the police. Recovery memo Ex.PW21/B was prepared by the police. 8. As per the prosecution case, Kamlesh Sahu had identified the recovered wallet and mobile to be of his father late Shri Shyam Lal. 9. On 30.04.2013, two more statements of appellant were recorded by the police. In the first instance, by way of statement Ex.PW3/A, the appellant had offered to get recovered the identity card and ESI card of the deceased and by way of second statement Ex.PW3/C, he had offered to get recovered SIM card taken out by him from the mobile of the deceased. However, no recoveries were effected in pursuance to both the above statements. 10. The postmortem report Ex.PW11/B suggested the cause of death of deceased as “neurogenic shock along with head injuries leading to death by cervical fracture”. It was further opined that the injuries found on the person of deceased Shyam Lal could be caused by the boulders taken into possession by the police. 11. During investigation, PW­12 Dr. Madan Thakur obtained and preserved blood and hair samples of appellant by way of FTA card. 12. Scientific opinions were obtained. The DNA profile generated from the hair found in the cap­ recovered from near the spot matched with DNA profile generated from the blood sample of appellant. 13. Appellant was charged for commission of offence under Section 302 of the IPC. After trial, the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant, as noticed above. 14. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the entire record carefully. 15. Admittedly, there is no eye witness in the case. The prosecution had based its case entirely on circumstantial evidence. Learned trial Court had culled out the following circumstances:­ (i) Appellant was last seen in the company of deceased on 19.04.2013. (ii) Recovery of cap with hair stuck inside it, from the place near the spot where the dead body was found. (iii) DNA profile generated from the hair found inside the cap and the blood sample of appellant matched. (iv) Appellant got wallet of the deceased recovered. (v) Appellant got mobile phone of the deceased recovered. 16. (ii) Recovery of cap with hair stuck inside it, from the place near the spot where the dead body was found. (iii) DNA profile generated from the hair found inside the cap and the blood sample of appellant matched. (iv) Appellant got wallet of the deceased recovered. (v) Appellant got mobile phone of the deceased recovered. 16. On analysing the evidence in the backdrop of aforesaid circumstances, the learned trial Court found all the circumstances having been proved except circumstance No. (i) and finally concluded that all the circumstances formed a chain of events leading to the hypothesis that the appellant had committed the crime. 17. The cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence has remained impassive. The prosecution has to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. Appearance of serious doubt in the prosecution case only helps the case of accused. More serious the offence, more arduous is the duty cast upon prosecution to discharge its burden strictly in accordance with law. In absence of direct evidence, circumstances relied upon by the prosecution have to satisfy the same standard of proof i.e. beyond all reasonable doubts. Once this barrier is successfully crossed, it is to be shown that all the circumstances form a complete chain of facts suggesting only one hypothesis i.e. the guilt of the accused. 18. In Anjan Kumar Sarma v. State of Assam, (2017) 14 SCC 359 Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “14. Admittedly, this is a case of circumstantial evidence. Factors to be taken into account in adjudication of cases of circumstantial evidence laid down by this Court are: (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; (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.” 19. In Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti Vs State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1396, the legal position has further been reiterated as under:­ PRINCIPLES OF LAW RELATING TO APPRECIATION OF CIRCUMSTAN­ TIAL EVIDENCE 45. In ‘A Treatise on Judicial Evidence’, Jeremy Bentham, an English Philosopher included a whole chapter upon what lies next when the direct evidence does not lead to any special inference. It is called Circumstantial Evidence. According to him, in every case, of circumstantial evidence, there are always at least two facts to be considered: a) The Factum probandum, or say, the principal fact (the fact the exis­ tence of which is supposed or proposed to be proved; & b) The Factum probans or the evidentiary fact (the fact from the exis­ tence of which that of the factum probandumis inferred). 46. Although there can be no straight jacket formula for appreciation of circumstantial evidence, yet to convict an accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence, the Court must follow certain tests which are broadly as follows: 1. Circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; 2. Those circumstances must be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused and must be conclusive in nature; 3. The circumstances, if 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 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 but should be inconsistent with his innocence. In other words, the circumstances should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. 50. Thus, in view of the above, the Court must consider a case of circumstantial evidence in light of the aforesaid settled legal propositions. In a case of circumstantial evidence, the judgment remains essentially inferential. The inference is drawn from the established facts as the circumstances lead to particular inferences. The Court has to draw an inference with respect to whether the chain of circumstances is complete, and when the circumstances therein are collectively considered, the same must lead only to the irresistible conclusion that the accused alone is the perpetrator of the crime in question. The Court has to draw an inference with respect to whether the chain of circumstances is complete, and when the circumstances therein are collectively considered, the same must lead only to the irresistible conclusion that the accused alone is the perpetrator of the crime in question. All the circumstances so established must be of a conclusive nature, and consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. 20. It will also be gainful to reproduce following extract from the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Ramesh Bahi and another vs. State of Rajashtan (2009) 12 SCC 603 :­ “7. In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the circumstances highlighted do not establish the accusations. Learned counsel for the respondent-State on the other hand supported the judgment. 8. “10. It has been consistently laid down by this Court 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 or the guilt of any other person. (See Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR (1977 SC 1063); Eradu and Ors. v. State of Hyderabad ( AIR 1956 SC 316 ); Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka ( AIR 1983 SC 446 ); State of U.P. v. Sukhbasi and Ors. ( AIR 1985 SC 1224 ); Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab ( AIR 1987 SC 350 ); Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v. State of M.P. ( AIR 1989 SC 1890 ). 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. 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 negative the innocence of the accused and bring the offences home beyond any reasonable doubt. 11. 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 thus: '21. 11. 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 thus: '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'. 12. In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. and Ors. ( AIR 1990 SC 79 ), it was laid down that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests: '(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 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.' 13. 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. 14. 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. 14. Sir Alfred Wills in his admirable book "Wills' Circumstantial Evidence" (Chapter VI) lays down the following rules specially to be observed in the case of circumstantial evidence: (1) the facts alleged as the basis of any legal inference must be clearly proved and beyond reasonable doubt connected with the factum probandum; (2) the burden of proof is always on the party who asserts the existence of any fact, which infers legal accountability; (3) in all cases, whether of direct or circumstantial evidence the best evidence must be adduced which the nature of the case admits; (4) in order to justify the inference of guilt, the inculpatory facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation, upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt, (5) if there be any reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused, he is entitled as of right to be acquitted. 15. There is no doubt that conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence but it should be tested by the touch-stone of law relating to circumstantial evidence laid down by the this Court as far back as in 1952. 16. In Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and Anr. V. State of Madhya Pradesh, ( AIR 1952 SC 343 ), wherein it was observed thus: '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 be 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. 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.' 17. 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.' 17. A reference may be made to a later decision in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, ( AIR 1984 SC 1622 ). Therein, while dealing with circumstantial evidence, it has been held that onus was on the prosecution to prove that the chain is complete and the infirmity of lacuna in prosecution cannot be cured by false defence or plea. The conditions precedent in the words of this Court, before conviction could be based on circumstantial evidence, must be fully established. They are: (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; (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. These aspects were highlighted in State of Rajasthan v. Rajaram ( 2003 (8) SCC 180 ), State of Haryana v. Jagbir Singh and Anr. ( 2003 (11) SCC 261 ) and in State of U.P. v. Ram Balak & Anr. [2008 (13) SCALE” 21. We are governed by rule of law. No conviction can be recorded on assumption. Prosecution has to discharge its burden by proving the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and for such purposes, it has to prove the fact in issue on the basis of relevant and admissible evidence. [2008 (13) SCALE” 21. We are governed by rule of law. No conviction can be recorded on assumption. Prosecution has to discharge its burden by proving the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and for such purposes, it has to prove the fact in issue on the basis of relevant and admissible evidence. Merely, because police get knowledge about the culprit either from illegal confession extracted from him or from any other source will not absolve the prosecution from its duty to prove the guilt of the accused in accordance with law. 22. In the instant case, the prosecution has also failed to attribute and prove any motive to the appellant for commission of crime in question. In Babu vs. State of Kerala (2010) 9 SCC 189 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “25. In State of U.P. vs. Kishanpal and others (2008) 16 SCC 73 , this Court examined the importance of motive in cases of circumstantial evidence and observed: (SCC pp.87­88, paras 38­39). “38..... the motive is a thing which is primarily known to the accused themselves and it is not possible for the prosecution to explain what actually promoted or excited them to commit the particular crime. 39. The motive may be considered as a circumstance which is relevant for assessing the evidence but if the evidence is clear and unambiguous and the circumstances prove the guilt of the accused, the same is not weakened even if the motive is not a very strong one. It is also settled law that the motive loses all its importance in a case where direct evidence of eyewitnesses is available, because even if there may be a very strong motive for the accused persons to commit a particular crime, they cannot be convicted if the evidence of eyewitnesses is not convincing. In the same way, even if there may not be an apparent motive but if the evidence of the eyewitnesses is clear and reliable, the absence or inadequacy of motive cannot stand in the way of conviction." 26. This Court has also held that the absence of motive in a case depending on circumstantial evidence is a factor that weighs in favour of the accused.” 23. In light of aforesaid exposition of law, now we proceed to examine the entire evidence on record for making an assessment at the touchstone of settled legal principle. This Court has also held that the absence of motive in a case depending on circumstantial evidence is a factor that weighs in favour of the accused.” 23. In light of aforesaid exposition of law, now we proceed to examine the entire evidence on record for making an assessment at the touchstone of settled legal principle. As noticed above, learned trial Court has held that the fact of appellant last seen in the company of deceased on 19.04.2013 was not proved. Such findings have not been assailed on behalf of the State during the course of hearing. Even otherwise we concur with such findings as the same are supported by reasons and such reasons are borne from the material on record. 24. At this juncture, we feel it necessary to notice that the prosecution has not examined Kamlesh Sahu, the son of deceased as a witness. This reference is being made by us, keeping in view the fact that it was Kamlesh Sahu, who had identified the wallet and broken mobile phone recovered at the instance of appellant to be that of the deceased. In absence of the examination of Kamlesh Sahu as a witness, the fact that the wallet and broken mobile phone belonged to deceased cannot be said to have been proved by legal evidence. Though, PW­1 Madho Ram and PW­21 Kamal Kumar had made deposition to the effect that the wallet and broken mobile phone were identified by Kamlesh Sahu to be that of his late father, but it will not suffice the purpose. Their statements cannot be treated as primary evidence of the fact. The non examination of an important witness like Kamlesh Sahu by the prosecution needs to be viewed seriously and for such omission an adverse inference is liable to be drawn. 25. Learned trial Court has considered the circumstance of recovery of wallet and mobile phone to be incriminating against the appellant. Unless, the recovered articles were proved to be belonging to the deceased, the circumstances could not be said to incriminate the appellant. It can also be seen that the alleged recovery of wallet was not from any hidden place rather it was from the dry bed of rivulet which was accessible to anyone. Unless, the recovered articles were proved to be belonging to the deceased, the circumstances could not be said to incriminate the appellant. It can also be seen that the alleged recovery of wallet was not from any hidden place rather it was from the dry bed of rivulet which was accessible to anyone. It is not the case that the bed of the rivulet was so secluded that none could have visited the spot during the intervening period between 20.04.2013 and 24.04.2013 when the wallet was allegedly recovered. As regards the broken mobile phone, the police could have easily got scientific evidence to establish the ownership of the mobile phone. The IMEI number of the mobile could have led the police to an important clue. The police, for the reasons best known to it, does not appear to have made any endeavor in this regard. 26. Thus, we do not concur with the findings rendered by the learned trial Court to the effect firstly that the wallet and mobile phone belonged to the deceased and secondly their alleged recovery incriminated the appellant. 27. Lastly, the circumstance which needs scanning is the cap found at a distance of about 150 meters from the spot where the dead body was found. None of the prosecution witnesses have stated as to at what time the cap was recovered. The inquest paper Ex.PW25/A nowhere mention the articles either found on the person of deceased or in near vicinity as was required under column No.21 of the relevant form. It is evident from the record that the police had nabbed the appellant from Rohru Sub­ Division of Shimla District on 23.04.2013, however, the prosecution has not placed on record any material to suggest as to how the police got suspicion against the appellant. Further, it is the case of prosecution that the appellant had visited his home in Rohru Sub­division and father of the appellant had produced before the police the clothes which were worn by the appellant at the time of his arrival at his home. Even the father of appellant has not been examined as a witness. Thus, it is in the realm of suspicion as to how and where the police had nabbed the appellant. 28. The cap allegedly was found at a distance of about 150 meters from the spot. Even the father of appellant has not been examined as a witness. Thus, it is in the realm of suspicion as to how and where the police had nabbed the appellant. 28. The cap allegedly was found at a distance of about 150 meters from the spot. It has not been proved that the place where the cap was found was not accessible to general public. Even after, the factum of recovery of cap from the spot is held to be established, the appellant could not have been convicted only on the basis of one circumstance. 29. As discussed above, in case of circumstantial evidence, a complete chain of established circumstances has to be formed and such established facts should be pointing towards only one hypothesis that the crime has been committed by the accused and none else. In our considered view, merely finding of a cap belonging to appellant near the place where the dead body was found cannot be said to be sufficient to hold that it was appellant alone who could have committed the crime and none else as no other circumstance has been proved against. In such circumstances the appellant deserves benefit of doubt. 30. Though, the absence of motive may not be a determinative factor, yet it is an important link to complete the chain of circumstance, which is wholly missing in the present case. 31. In light of above discussion, we find substance in the appeal and the same is accordingly allowed. Consequently, the judgment dated 11.01.2018 and sentence order dated 16.01.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge­I, Solan, District Solan, H.P. in Sessions Trial No. 14­NL/7 of 2013 are set aside. Appellant is acquitted of all the charges by extending him the benefit of doubt. 32. The appellant be set free forthwith, if not required in any other case. Fine amount, if deposited by the appellant, be refunded to him. Release warrants be prepared without any delay. 33. The appellant is directed to furnish the personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/­ with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, strictly in terms of provisions of Section 437­A of the Cr.P.C. 34. The appeal is accordingly disposed of so also the miscellaneous pending application(s), if any. Records be also sent back forthwith.