JUDGMENT : Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. 1. This Criminal Appeal under Section 374 , Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment and order of sentence dated 21.04.1995 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh, in Sessions Case No. 60/86 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Chetram), whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted and sentenced as below: Offence under Sentence(s) Fine(s) Section 302 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 1 month Rigorous Imprisonment. Section 201 IPC One year’s Rigorous Imprisonment Rs 100/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 days Rigorous Imprisonment. Section 379 IPC Six months of Rigorous Imprisonment - 1.1. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 1986 and the present appeal has been pending since the year 1995. 2. The prosecution case, as unfolded in the oral report lodged on 07.08.1986 at about 5:00 PM by complainant Kaluram, is that his son Ramuram had been working as an agricultural labourer in the fields of Sardar Gurmel Singh, along with Birbal Meghwal of Longwala. It was stated that on 05.08.1986, in the morning, Ramuram had gone for work in the fields of Gurmel Singh but did not return home that evening. When the complainant visited the house of Gurmel Singh to inquire about his son, the latter informed the complainant that on the said morning, he, his brother Baljeet Singh, Ramuram, and accused-appellant-Chetram (son of Birbal) were engaged in agricultural work at Naka, and at around 11:00 AM, he and Baljeet returned home, leaving behind Ramuram and Chetram. 2.1. It was further stated that Chetram returned to Gurmel Singh’s house at around 3:30 PM and informed that at around 01:00 PM, Ramuram had left stating that he was going to Ayalki, and that Chetram himself returned due to stomach pain. However, when Ramuram did not return home, the complainant went to Ayalki and inquired whereupon he was informed that Ramuram had not come there. The complainant then returned and informed Gurmel Singh of this fact, whereafter he, along with Gurmel Singh, Sohan Singh, and Prabhu, proceeded to inquire about Ramuram from Chetram at his residence. 2.2. However, when Ramuram did not return home, the complainant went to Ayalki and inquired whereupon he was informed that Ramuram had not come there. The complainant then returned and informed Gurmel Singh of this fact, whereafter he, along with Gurmel Singh, Sohan Singh, and Prabhu, proceeded to inquire about Ramuram from Chetram at his residence. 2.2. It was further stated therein that upon being questioned again, Chetram initially reiterated his earlier version but subsequently confessed that two days earlier, after Gurmel Singh and Baljeet Singh had left the field, he prepared tea which got spoiled, leading to a quarrel wherein Ramuram slapped him, and they were separated by neighbour Amarjeet. He further confessed that at around 01:00 PM, while Ramuram was sleeping, he inflicted a kasiya blow on his neck, followed by 2–3 more blows, after which Ramuram became unconscious. He then dragged the body and threw it in the standing Narma crop nearby. 2.3. Thereafter, on being asked to show the place, Chetram led them to the fields of Gurmel Singh, where the dead body of Ramuram was found lying in the standing Narma crop, bearing injuries on the neck, right hand, and both legs, and the HMT wristwatch ordinarily worn by Ramuram was missing. The complainant thereafter proceeded to Police Station Pilibanga, where the report was lodged. 2.4. After the investigation, a charge-sheet under Sections 302 , 201, and 379 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘ IPC ’) was presented against the accused-appellant; the charges were read over to the accused-appellant and explained to him, to which he denied and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the present case. 2.5. During the course of trial, the prosecution produced 9 witnesses and 33 documents were exhibited; in defence, no witness was produced. 2.6. In his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused–appellant denied the prosecution allegations and asserted that on the relevant day, Gurmel Singh and Baljit Singh had sent him to fetch water while they continued digging the field. Upon his return, he allegedly found Ramuram lying dead in the field, and at that time, Baljit Singh and Gurmel Singh threatened him to run away, warning that otherwise he too would be beaten. Upon his return, he allegedly found Ramuram lying dead in the field, and at that time, Baljit Singh and Gurmel Singh threatened him to run away, warning that otherwise he too would be beaten. The appellant further stated that Ramuram was having an illicit relationship with the wife of Baljit Singh, which, according to him, provided the motive for Baljit Singh and Gurmel Singh to commit the crime. He additionally alleged that he was assaulted and coerced by the police into making a false confession, and that the police, in order to shield the real culprits, falsely implicated him in the present case. 2.7. Thereafter, upon hearing the contentions of both the parties as well as considering the material evidence placed on record, the learned Trial Court, convicted and sentenced the accused- appellant, as above, vide the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.04.1995, against which the present appeal has been preferred by the accused-appellant. 3. Mr. Chaitanya Gehlot, learned Amicus Curiae for the accused–appellant submits that the impugned judgment of conviction is wholly unsustainable in law, as the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It was submitted that the prosecution has examined a total of nine witnesses; however, the material and independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution case, which strikes at the very root of the prosecution version. 3.1. It was submitted that PW-5 Amarjeet, the only alleged eyewitness, who was stated to have witnessed the initial altercation between the deceased and the appellant while preparing tea, and had intervened, has completely denied the prosecution story, stating before the Trial Court that he did not know how or by whom Ramuram was killed, nor had he seen any quarrel or beating between the appellant and the deceased. He was, therefore, declared hostile, and his testimony being the only alleged direct evidence, is fatal to the prosecution case. 3.1.2. In the absence of any direct evidence, the case rests on circumstantial evidence. However, it is submitted that the chain of circumstances is not established in any manner. 3.2. He was, therefore, declared hostile, and his testimony being the only alleged direct evidence, is fatal to the prosecution case. 3.1.2. In the absence of any direct evidence, the case rests on circumstantial evidence. However, it is submitted that the chain of circumstances is not established in any manner. 3.2. Learned counsel further submitted that PW-3 Gamdoor Singh, the motbir witness to the preparation of site plan, inquest memo, fard surat-haal and collection of soil, has not supported the prosecution case and admitted that he merely put his thumb impression on documents without knowing their contents, and did not even go near the dead body due to fear and perturbation. His testimony, therefore, does not advance the prosecution case. 3.3. Learned counsel also submitted that the complainant PW-1 Kaluram, father of the deceased, who is also the witness to the alleged extra-judicial confession, resiled from the contents of the FIR and completely deviated from the prosecution version. In his deposition, he stated that he saw the dead body only when Gurmel Singh informed him that a dead body was lying in his field, and that he should come and identify it. The said witness further deposed that he lodged a complaint against Gurmel Singh and Baljeet Singh, whom he suspected to be responsible for the murder on account of an alleged illicit relationship of the deceased with the wife of Baljeet Singh. The said witness also deposed that he had never made any allegation against the appellant and that he gave the report on being threatened and persuaded by the said persons. PW-1 was declared hostile, and nothing incriminating could be elicited against the appellant in cross-examination. 3.4. As regards the alleged extra-judicial confession, learned counsel submitted that the only supporting witness PW-2 Gurmel Singh cannot be relied upon in view of the testimony of PW-1, which places Gurmel Singh himself under suspicion in connection with the incident. It is submitted that an extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence, and in the present case, it is wholly unsafe to base conviction upon it in the absence of strong corroboration. 3.5. Learned counsel further submitted that the alleged recoveries of kasiya and the HMT wristwatch of the deceased vide Ex.P-20 and Ex.P-23, also do not stand proved. It is submitted that an extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence, and in the present case, it is wholly unsafe to base conviction upon it in the absence of strong corroboration. 3.5. Learned counsel further submitted that the alleged recoveries of kasiya and the HMT wristwatch of the deceased vide Ex.P-20 and Ex.P-23, also do not stand proved. One motbir to the memos is PW-1 Kaluram, who has turned hostile, and the other motbir Khyali Ram has not been produced by the prosecution. Non-examination of such a material witness draws adverse inference against the prosecution case. 3.6. Learned counsel submitted that the remaining witnesses, namely medical officers, police personnel, malkhana in-charge and FSL carrier, are purely formal witnesses and do not connect the appellant with the alleged crime in any manner. Even if the post- mortem report proves homicidal death, it does not implicate the accused-appellant in the absence of any legally admissible evidence. 3.7. Learned counsel also submitted that as per the statement of PW.8 Privthi Singh, SHO, Pilibanga, neighbours, namely Poorn Singh, Satpal, Nihal Singh, residing in the nearby premises to the place of incident were interogated however, their statements were not recorded. Neither statements of the wives of Baljit Singh and Gurmel Singh were recorded as they had illicit relation with the deceased. 3.8. It was also submitted that the prosecution story becomes doubtful as the dead body is alleged to have remained in an open agricultural field for nearly three days, yet no one noticed it, including those regularly working in the area. Such a circumstance is unnatural and undermines the credibility of the prosecution case. 3.9. In the above background, it was submitted that: (i) The star witness (PW-1), father of the deceased, has turned hostile, and has rather supported the innocence of the appellant. (ii) The alleged eyewitness (PW-5) has turned hostile completely, proving nothing against the appellant. (iii) The alleged extra-judicial confession is unreliable, weak, and uncorroborated. (iv) Recovery memos are not proved, and failure to produce independent witness vitiates the prosecution case. (v) Circumstantial chain is incomplete, and no motive or mens rea has been proved. The conviction based solely upon conjecture, suspicion and surmises is unsustainable. (iii) The alleged extra-judicial confession is unreliable, weak, and uncorroborated. (iv) Recovery memos are not proved, and failure to produce independent witness vitiates the prosecution case. (v) Circumstantial chain is incomplete, and no motive or mens rea has been proved. The conviction based solely upon conjecture, suspicion and surmises is unsustainable. It was submitted that this is a case of no evidence, and the trial court has erred in convicting the appellant mechanically without appreciating the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof. Accordingly, it was most humbly prayed that the present appeal be allowed, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence be quashed and set aside, and the appellant be acquitted of the charges under Sections 302 and 201 IPC , as none of the essential ingredients stand proved against him. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Ramesh Dewasi, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent–State submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court is well-reasoned and based upon proper appreciation of the evidence available on record. It was submitted that the prosecution has successfully established the guilt of the accused– appellant beyond all reasonable doubts, and the impugned conviction does not warrant interference in the appellate jurisdiction. 4.1. It was further submitted that although certain witnesses resiled partly from their initial statements, the overall prosecution evidence, when read cumulatively, clearly establishes the circumstances leading to the commission of the crime and the direct involvement of the accused–appellant. The prosecution case is primarily based on a combination of extra-judicial confession, recovery of the weapon of offence, recovery of the deceased’s wristwatch at the instance of the accused, and the medical evidence corroborating the inflicted injuries. All these circumstances form a complete chain pointing unmistakably towards the guilt of the appellant. 4.2. It was also submitted that PW-2 Gurmel Singh has convincingly proved the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant immediately after the incident, wherein the appellant admitted to have assaulted the deceased with kasiya and throwing his body in the standing Narma crop. The testimony of PW-2 inspires confidence and has remained consistent even in cross- examination. Extra-judicial confession, though a weak type of evidence, can form the basis of conviction when found voluntary, truthful and corroborated by surrounding circumstances, as is the case here. 4.3. The testimony of PW-2 inspires confidence and has remained consistent even in cross- examination. Extra-judicial confession, though a weak type of evidence, can form the basis of conviction when found voluntary, truthful and corroborated by surrounding circumstances, as is the case here. 4.3. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the recovery of weapon (kasiya) and the HMT wristwatch belonging to the deceased from the possession of the appellant, vide Ex.P-20 and Ex.P-23, adds crucial importance to the prosecution case. The recoveries directly connect the accused with the crime scene and corroborate the extra-judicial confession as well as the medical evidence. The hostile attitude of one recovery witness (PW-1 Kaluram) does not nullify the lawful recovery, and the prosecution cannot be penalized for non-cooperation or hostility of witnesses. 4.4. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that the testimonies of PW-7 Dr. J.P. Swami, who conducted the postmortem, and PW-1 Dr. Sohan Lal, clearly establish that the deceased suffered fatal injuries consistent with blows inflicted by a sharp-edged agricultural implement such as kasiya. Thus, the medical evidence fully supports the prosecution case and rules out any hypothesis other than homicidal death caused intentionally by the accused-appellant whose extra-judicial confession to PW.2 further supports the case. 4.5. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the defence theory of false implication is an afterthought, unsupported by any material. The appellant’s statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is vague, inconsistent, and fails to discharge the burden, especially when the appellant was last seen with the deceased soon before the murder. The last-seen circumstance, coupled with recovery and extra-judicial confession, forms a cogent and complete chain of circumstances from which guilt of the accused is the only logical inference. 4.6. Learned Public Prosecutor further contended that mere hostility of some prosecution witnesses does not demolish the entire case when independent corroboration exists through consistent circumstantial evidence, recovery memos, medical findings, and extra-judicial confession. The learned Trial Court rightly appreciated the material evidence, applied correct legal principles, and convicted the appellant on sound grounds. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case. 6. The learned Trial Court rightly appreciated the material evidence, applied correct legal principles, and convicted the appellant on sound grounds. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case. 6. This Court observes that this appeal challenges the judgment dated 21.04.1995 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No. 60/1986, convicting the appellant Chet Ram under Sections 302 , 201 and 379 IPC for the alleged murder of Ramuram, based entirely on circumstantial evidence including an alleged extra-judicial confession, last-seen theory, recoveries of weapon and wristwatch, and supporting medical and FSL documents. The issue before this Court is whether the prosecution has established a complete, reliable and unimpeachable chain of incriminating circumstances proving the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, or whether the inconsistencies, hostile testimonies and investigation lapses render the conviction unsustainable. 7. This Court is conscious of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra , (1984) 4 SCC 116 , relevant portion whereof is reproduced as hereunder-: “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. 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 v. State of Maharashtra [ (1973) 2 SCC 793 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 1033:1973 Crl LJ 1783] where the observations were made: [SCC para 19, p. 807: SCC (Cri) p. 1047] “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. 154. These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence”. 8. This Court observes that the prosecution’s narrative begins to crumble at its very foundation because PW-5 Amarjeet, projected as the only eyewitness who allegedly intervened in a quarrel between the appellant and deceased over curdling of tea, has completely disowned his earlier statement and turned hostile. He unequivocally deposed before the Trial Court: 8.1. This categorical denial not only destroys the alleged first link of a conflict or motive but also eliminates the only claimed direct observation of events preceding the alleged assault. Once PW-5 denies any knowledge, the prosecution is stripped of any eyewitness support, and the entire case necessarily falls back upon circumstantial evidence. 9. This Court observes that the prosecution faces an even deeper setback because PW-1 Kaluram, the father of the deceased and the complainant who lodged FIR Ex.P-1, has materially and comprehensively resiled from the prosecution case. Once PW-5 denies any knowledge, the prosecution is stripped of any eyewitness support, and the entire case necessarily falls back upon circumstantial evidence. 9. This Court observes that the prosecution faces an even deeper setback because PW-1 Kaluram, the father of the deceased and the complainant who lodged FIR Ex.P-1, has materially and comprehensively resiled from the prosecution case. He categorically stated that the FIR was lodged not voluntarily but under pressure, and that he never made allegations against the appellant. He stated under oath: 9.1. He repeated that he suspected Gurmel and Baljeet, alleging illicit relations as motive, and further disclosed that: 9.2. This testimony fundamentally contradicts the FIR version and eliminates the appellant from the spectrum of suspicion. It also casts serious doubt on the genuineness of the FIR narrative itself and shakes the very credibility of the prosecution’s genesis. 10. This Court further observes that the prosecution’s reliance on the alleged extra-judicial confession before PW-2 Gurmel Singh is wholly misplaced. Extra-judicial confession is inherently a weak type of evidence and requires strict scrutiny. Here, the confession is said to have been made to a person whom PW-1 himself alleges to be under suspicion due to motive relating to alleged illicit relation. When the witness before whom confession is alleged stands himself in the zone of suspicion, his testimony is incapable of forming a legally reliable basis for conviction. 10.1.This Court further notes that there is no independent witness to corroborate such confession nor any contemporaneous record to prove voluntariness or truthfulness. PW-1 denies hearing any confession at all. Thus, the extra-judicial confession becomes unsafe and unreliable. 11. This Court also observes that a highly improbable aspect of the prosecution version is the assertion that the dead body lay in an open agricultural field for nearly three days unnoticed by farmers, residents and even the landowner, despite active agricultural activity in the surrounding area. Such a circumstance is contrary to ordinary human conduct and natural probabilities. This unexplained and unnatural assertion creates serious doubt concerning the alleged time and place of death, which is fatal to the prosecution case. 12. This Court further observes that PW-8 Investigating Officer Prithvi Singh admitted that key independent witnesses, namely, Poorn Singh, Satpal and Nihal Singh, residing adjacent to the alleged location, were interrogated, but their statements were not recorded. He conceded: 12.1. 12. This Court further observes that PW-8 Investigating Officer Prithvi Singh admitted that key independent witnesses, namely, Poorn Singh, Satpal and Nihal Singh, residing adjacent to the alleged location, were interrogated, but their statements were not recorded. He conceded: 12.1. He also admitted that the statements of wives of Gurmel and Baljeet, important for motive and timeline verification, were not taken due to the fact of the illicit relationship. Such selective omission amounts to withholding material evidence and seriously undermines fairness and completeness of investigation. 13. This Court further observes that the prosecution relies on Naksha Mauka (Ex.P-7) and related documents to establish the scene of occurrence. However, PW-3 Gamdoor Singh, the attesting witness, stated that he was sitting “2–2.5 kille duur” and merely affixed his thumb impression at the behest of police, stating: 13.1.This admission makes it evident that he had no knowledge of what the site plan depicts. 13.2.This Court also observes that the Naksha Mauka does not depict expected physical evidence such as drag marks, footprints, or disturbance, despite the prosecution alleging that the body was dragged and thrown. These material omissions cast serious doubt on the accuracy and reliability of the police-prepared site map. 14. This Court further observes that the alleged recoveries of the Kasiya (Ex.P-20) and HMT wristwatch (Ex.P-23) are rendered unproved due to PW-1 turning hostile and denial of witnessing recovery, while the other motbir Khyali Ram was not examined. The prosecution having failed to examine a crucial independent witness invokes adverse inference. Therefore, the recoveries cannot be treated as incriminating circumstances. 15. This Court also observes that PW-7 Dr. J.P. Swami proved the Post-Mortem Report (Ex.P-6) and confirmed homicidal death. However, he admitted that injuries could be caused by any sharp- edged weapon and did not correlate them to the alleged weapon. Medical evidence therefore does not connect the appellant and only establishes homicide, which was never disputed. 16. This Court further observes that the last-seen theory fails due to a substantial and unexplained time gap between last sighting (11:00 AM on 05.08.1986 by PW.2 Gurmel Singh) and alleged death about 44 hours prior, as per the PMR, followed by late body discovery on 07.08.1986. The body remained in an open field for nearly three days unnoticed, an improbable circumstance. The testimony of PW-1 Kaluram, father of the deceased further raises a plausible alternative hypothesis. 17. The body remained in an open field for nearly three days unnoticed, an improbable circumstance. The testimony of PW-1 Kaluram, father of the deceased further raises a plausible alternative hypothesis. 17. This Court also observes that the cumulative deficiencies, hostile primary witnesses, unreliable extra-judicial confession, improbable circumstances of body discovery, serious investigative lapses, unreliable Naksha Mauka, unproved recoveries, non-linking medical and forensic evidence, and a broken circumstantial chain, demonstrate that the prosecution has failed to prove guilt beyond all reasonable doubts. Suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute proof. The appellant is therefore entitled to benefit of doubt. 18. This Court further observes that when the judgment of conviction is challenged before the Appellate Court, a proper appreciation of the evidence recorded by the learned Trial Court has to be made. The power of the Appellate Court is provided under Section 386 (b) of Cr.PC, which reads as under:- “ 386. Powers of the Appellate Court. (b) in an appeal from a conviction— (i) reverse the finding and sentence and acquit or discharge the accused, or order him to be re-tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction subordinate to such Appellate Court or committed for trial, or (ii) alter the finding, maintaining the sentence, or (iii) with or without altering the finding, alter the nature or the extent, or the nature and extent, of the sentence, but not so as to enhance the same.” 18.1.This Court also observes that as provided under Section 386 (b)(i) Cr.P.C., the Appellate Court has the power to reverse the findings of the conviction, so as to acquit the accused. 19. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations and looking into the factual matrix of the present case, as well as in view of the aforementioned precedent laws, the present appeal is allowed. Accordingly, while quashing and setting aside the conviction and order of sentence dated 21.04.1995 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh, in Sessions Case No. 60/86 (State of Rajasthan vs Chetram), the accused-appellant is acquitted of the charges against him. The appellant is on bail in pursuance of the order dated 24.07.1995 passed by this Hon’ble Court in D.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail (Suspension of Sentence) Application No. 194/1995 in D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 178/95. His bail bonds stand discharged. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the learned trial Court be sent back forthwith. The appellant is on bail in pursuance of the order dated 24.07.1995 passed by this Hon’ble Court in D.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail (Suspension of Sentence) Application No. 194/1995 in D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 178/95. His bail bonds stand discharged. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the learned trial Court be sent back forthwith. 19.1.However, keeping in view the provisions of Section 437 - A Cr.P.C./ 481 B.N.S.S., the accused-appellant is hereby directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- and a surety bond each in the like amount before the learned Trial court which shall be effective for a period of six months to the effect that in the event of filing of a Special Leave Petition against the present judgment on receipt of notice thereof, the accused-appellant shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as and when called upon to do so. 19.2.All pending applications stand disposed of. The record of the learned Trial Court be returned forthwith. 20. This Court is thankful to Mr. Chaitanya Gahlot, learned counsel who has rendered his assistance as Amicus Curiae, on behalf of the accused-appellant, in the present adjudication.