JUDGMENT : P.B.Suresh Kumar, J. The appellants are the accused in S.C.No.826 of 2013 on the files of the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge-V, Palakkad. They stand convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code ( IPC ) for the murder of one Pradeep. Among the appeals, Crl.A.No.1317 of 2019 is preferred by the first accused and Crl.A.No.1382 of 2019 is preferred by the second accused. 2. At 6.30 p.m., on 14.11.2011, one Sunesh, a friend of Pradeep informed Kozhinjampara Police that the former received information from one Remani Kounder, a ward member that Pradeep is lying wounded at a place called “Kulukkapara Puzhamedu” and when Sunesh proceeded to that place, Pradeep was found lying soaked in blood with cut wounds on his head, face, left hand and neck. It was also informed by Sunesh to the police that even though he and his friends took Pradeep to Esaf Hospital, Kozhinjampara and then to Paalana Hospital, Palakkad, Pradeep breathed his last by the time they reached the latter hospital. A case was registered by Kozhinjampara Police based on the said information. The investigation conducted in the case revealed that the first accused who is a neighbour of Pradeep maintained enmity towards Pradeep as Pradeep hacked his brother Sivaprakash in an earlier occasion; that on account of the said enmity, accused 1 to 3 stopped Pradeep at Kulukkapara Puzhamedu at about 4 p.m. on the relevant day and accused 1 and 2 among them, hacked Pradeep throughout his body with the choppers carried by them. The third accused being a juvenile, the final report against him was submitted before the Juvenile Court and the final report against accused 1 and 2 was submitted before the jurisdictional Magistrate. 3. On accused 1 and 2 being committed to trial, the Court of Session framed charges against them in terms of the final report, to which they pleaded not guilty. The evidence in the case consists of the oral evidence of PWs 1 to 26 and Exts.P1 to P33 proved through them. MO1 to MO8 series are the material objects identified by the witnesses. Exts.D1 to D7 are the case diary statements of the witnesses marked at the instance of the defence. The evidence in the case consists of the oral evidence of PWs 1 to 26 and Exts.P1 to P33 proved through them. MO1 to MO8 series are the material objects identified by the witnesses. Exts.D1 to D7 are the case diary statements of the witnesses marked at the instance of the defence. The accused were thereupon questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code) as regards the incriminating evidence brought out by the prosecution. The accused denied the same. As the Court of Session did not find the case to be one fit for acquittal under Section 232 of the Code, the accused were called upon to enter on their defence. The accused examined three witnesses on their side at that stage as DW1 to DW3. Ext.X1 is a document marked by the defence through DW1 and Ext.X2 is a document marked by the defence through DW3. Thereafter, on an appreciation of the evidence, the Court of Session found the accused guilty of the offences referred to above and sentenced them, among others, to imprisonment for life. The accused are deeply aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, hence these appeals. 4. Heard Adv.P.K.Varghese for the first accused and Adv.Vishnu Prasad Nair for the second accused. Sri.Alex M.Thombra, the learned Public Prosecutor addressed arguments on behalf of the State. 5. The issue that arises for consideration in the appeals is whether the conviction of the accused and the sentence passed against them, are sustainable in law. 6. The essence of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the accused is that there is no evidence in the case to connect the accused with the crime. It was pointed out that even though the ocular witnesses cited by the prosecution to prove the occurrence turned hostile, the accused were convicted by the Court of Session based on circumstances relied on by the prosecution. According to the learned counsel, the circumstances proved in the case do not establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned decision of the Court of Session. 7. In the light of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the accused, it is necessary to delve into the evidence let in by the prosecution. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned decision of the Court of Session. 7. In the light of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the accused, it is necessary to delve into the evidence let in by the prosecution. The witness who was examined as PW1 is Sunesh, the friend of Pradeep at whose instance the case was registered. PW1 affirmed that it was he who furnished the information and identified his signature in Ext.P1 First Information Statement. It was clarified by PW1 in his evidence that he had not seen the occurrence. It was also clarified by PW1 that his name is Sunesh and that he is referred to as Suresh by mistake in Ext.P1. In addition, it was deposed by PW1 that there was a case registered against Pradeep in connection with an occurrence in which the latter hacked the brother of the first accused. It was also deposed by PW1 that at about 1 p.m. on the relevant day, he saw the accused standing by the side of a motorcycle near the scene of occurrence. 8. PW2 was a witness cited by the prosecution to prove the occurrence, but he turned hostile. PW3 is a person who was engaged in patching tyres at Kozhinjampara and he had previous acquaintance with Pradeep as also the accused. It was deposed by PW3 that he saw the occurrence in which Pradeep sustained injuries. The version of PW3 as regards the occurrence was that while he was proceeding to his house for lunch from his shop located at Kozhinjampara, he saw the accused persons hacking Pradeep with choppers near the cremation ground. It was his version that there were a few ladies also at the scene at the relevant time and all of them witnessed the occurrence and cried out. It was also his version that the accused fled from the scene immediately thereafter in a motorcycle and that they carried the weapons also with them. It was also his version that the wounds of Pradeep were tied thereupon by a lady named Kamalam. PW3 identified MO1 series choppers as those used by the accused to inflict injuries on Pradeep and MO2 as the iron rod found at the scene at the relevant time. Likewise, PW3 identified MO3 as the shirt worn by the first accused at the time of occurrence. PW3 identified MO1 series choppers as those used by the accused to inflict injuries on Pradeep and MO2 as the iron rod found at the scene at the relevant time. Likewise, PW3 identified MO3 as the shirt worn by the first accused at the time of occurrence. In cross-examination, PW3 admitted that the lady named Kamalam referred to by him in his evidence is none other than his mother. PW3 denied the suggestion put to him during cross-examination that he is a person who is undergoing treatment for mental illness. When it was put to PW3 in cross-examination that he does not appear to have stated to the police that he saw the occurrence, PW3 denied the same and asserted that he stated to the police that he saw the occurrence. Likewise, when it was put to PW3 in cross-examination that his statement to the police was only that he had hearsay information about the occurrence, he denied the same and asserted that he did not give such a statement to the police. PW3 also denied the suggestion made to him in cross-examination that he does not appear to have stated to the police that he saw all the three accused carrying choppers with them. Similarly, PW3 denied the suggestion put to him during cross-examination that he does not appear to have stated to the police that accused 1 and 2 were wearing MO3 and MO4 shirts respectively at the time of occurrence. 9. PW4 is a cousin brother of Pradeep. His evidence was that at about 1.30 p.m. on 14.11.2011, he saw the accused together near the place of occurrence. PWs 5 and 9 are neighbours of Pradeep. Even though PWs 5 and 9 turned hostile to the prosecution, both of them affirmed in their evidence that there was an occurrence in which Pradeep hacked the brother of the first accused namely Sivaprakash. PW10 is Kamalam, the mother of PW3 referred to by him in his evidence. She deposed that on the relevant day, she saw Pradeep soaked in blood on the side of the road near the cremation ground. The version of PW10 was that it was she who tied the wounds of Pradeep and gave water to him. It was deposed by PW10 in her evidence that she had not seen the occurrence. PW11 is the brother of the second accused. The version of PW10 was that it was she who tied the wounds of Pradeep and gave water to him. It was deposed by PW10 in her evidence that she had not seen the occurrence. PW11 is the brother of the second accused. Even though he turned hostile to the prosecution, it was deposed by him that he had a motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-45E-7238 and that Pradeep obtained the said motorcycle from him at about 9 a.m. on the relevant day to go to Kozhinjampara. PW12 is the sister of Pradeep. It was deposed by PW12 that when she went to the house of one of her relatives on the morning of the relevant day at about 9 a.m. in the pillion of the motorcycle owned by PW11 and ridden by Pradeep, she saw the first accused near a petrol pump. It was also deposed by PW11 that after sometime, she noticed that the first accused was following them in a motorcycle accompanied by another person. 10. PW13 is the elder brother of Pradeep. His evidence was that when he went to the scene on getting to know of the occurrence, he saw Pradeep soaked in blood and that those who were present there at the relevant time told him that it was the accused who hacked Pradeep and that they fled from the scene in a motorcycle. PW13 affirmed in his evidence that there was a clash between Pradeep and the brother of the first accused, in an earlier occasion. 11. PW15 was the doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination on the body of the deceased and issued Ext.P12 post-mortem certificate. The ante-mortem injuries found by PW15 at the time of the post-mortem examination as deposed by him are the following: “1. Incised wound 17x1x4.5cm, obliquely placed on top and right side of head, curved with convexity upwards, backwards and to right. The right lower back end was 6 cm above top of root of right ear. The left upper front end was at 15cm above root of nose in midline top of head. Both-ends of the wound were sharp cut and edges were contused. The wound cut the scalp underneath and further cut the skull in full thickness, the cut involving the right frontal parietal and temporal bones. The cut in skull measured 16 cm in length. The wound further cut the dura and brain underneath. Both-ends of the wound were sharp cut and edges were contused. The wound cut the scalp underneath and further cut the skull in full thickness, the cut involving the right frontal parietal and temporal bones. The cut in skull measured 16 cm in length. The wound further cut the dura and brain underneath. The cut in brain measured 11x0.5x2cm in the right frontal parietal and temporal bones. The wound was directed downwards to front and to left. Subdural and subarachnoid bleeding was present over brain. Brain was intensely pale. 2. Avulsed incised wound 11x 1 x 4 cm on top of head, more to left, lower front end 8 cm above left eyebrow and 2 cm outer to midline. The right back end was seen merging with the left end of previous injury. The left back end was 11 cm above top of left ear. The wound avulsed scalp and outer table of skull over an area of 6x4cm, backwards and to left. Ends of the wound were - sharp cut and edges contused. 3. Incised wound 3x0.2x0.3 cm on the avulsed flap of scalp obliquely placed with lower right end at 10 cm above root of nose. 4. Incised wound 3x1x3 cm on left side of face obliquely placed with upper back round cut end at 4 cm in front of root of top of left ear. The lower inner sharp cut end was 6 cm outer to left nostril. The wound cut the skin and soft tissues underneath and penetrated the left maxilla bone to enter the sinus cavity. The wound was directed downwards to left and backwards. 5. Incised wound 14x3x5.5 cm obliquely placed on right side of face and head front lower round cut end at just above root of right nostril and 2.5 cm outer-to midline nose. The upper back sharp cut end was at 1.5 cm above top of root of right ear. The wound was deeper at front end and cut the skin and soft tissues underneath and cut the maxilla bone in full thickness and penetrated the soft palate. At its back end the wound cut the scalp. The wound was directed downwards to left and backwards. 6. Incised wound 11x5x4.5 cm obliquely placed on right side of neck upper back end at 4 cm above root of neck and 2.5 cm outer to midline back of neck. At its back end the wound cut the scalp. The wound was directed downwards to left and backwards. 6. Incised wound 11x5x4.5 cm obliquely placed on right side of neck upper back end at 4 cm above root of neck and 2.5 cm outer to midline back of neck. The lower front end was 6 cm below jaw margin and 1.4 cm outer to midline. Both ends of the wound were sharp cut and edges contused. The wound had a side cut with sharp cut end of size 1.5x0.5 cm along its upper border at 4 cm behind lower front end. The wound cut the skin subcutaneous tissues and muscles underneath. Two separate cuts could be identified in the depth of the wound one of which was corresponding to the side cut. Blood vessels including the common carotid artery on right side were cut. The wound cut the cervical spinal column between 1 and second cervical vertebrae and also through the body of 3 rd cervical vertebra, up to half thickness of the spinal column. The spinal cord underneath was partially cut. The wound was directed downwards to left and backwards. 7. Incised wound 1.2 x 0.3x 2 cm on right half of front of neck obliquely placed with upper inner round cut end at 4 cm outer to midline and 0.5 cm below jaw margin. The wound was in line with the side cut of previous injury. 8. Incised wound 1x0.4x0.5 cm on right half of front of neck transversely oblique with inner end at 6 cm below jaw margin and 2 cm outer to midline. The wound was in line with lower front end of injury No. 6. Both ends of the wound were sharp cut. 9. Incised wound 2.2x0.36x1cm, transversely oblique on front of neck in midline, 6.5 cm below chin. The wound cut the skin and subcutaneous tissues underneath and cut the thyroid cartilage in full thickness. The wound was in line with previous injury. 10. Incised wound 10x6x4cm, vertically oblique on upper and outer aspects of right shoulder upper inner end at 7cm outer to root of neck in transverse midline top of shoulder. The lower outer end was at 20cm above elbow at just outer to midline outer aspect of arm. The wound was in line with previous injury. 10. Incised wound 10x6x4cm, vertically oblique on upper and outer aspects of right shoulder upper inner end at 7cm outer to root of neck in transverse midline top of shoulder. The lower outer end was at 20cm above elbow at just outer to midline outer aspect of arm. The wound continued downwards and to front as a contused abrasion 8x0.3cm with its lower end at 12cm above elbow and 1cm in front of midline outer aspect of upper arm. The wound cut the skin subcutaneous and ligaments underneath and cut opened the joint capsule of right shoulder. The head of right humerus was cut in full thickness. The ends of the wound were sharp cut and edges contused. The wound was directed downwards, to left and to front. 11. Superficial incised wound 3x0.3cm on outer aspect of right forearm, vertically oblique, upper front end at 6cm below elbow. 12. Superficial incised wound 4x0.3cm on back of right wrist and forearm lower outer end at outer end of wrist. 13. Superficial incised would 1.5x0.2cm on outer aspect of right index finger obliquely placed at 1cm below root of finger. 14. Incised amputation of left hand obliquely except for a flap of skin 4cm broad on the inner aspect of forearm the wound measuring 11x4cm, with its lower inner end at 1cm above wrist at midline inner aspect of wrist. The upper back end was 5cm above wrist on border between back and inner aspect of forearm. The upper frontend was 5cm above wrist at 1cm outer to midline front of forearm. The wound cut skin all soft tissues including fascia tendons and blood vessels and both bones of forearm in full thickness. The wound was directed upwards and to left. 15. Incised wound 1.4x0.8x0.5cm on back of left hand just above root of ring finger with avulsion of skin downwards and to right. 16. Superficial incised wound 2.8x0.2cm obliquely placed on back of left forearm upper back end at 6cm above wrist. 17. Superficial incised wound 2x0.2cm on back of left forearm obliquely placed with upper back end at 14cm below elbow. 18. Incised wound 2.8x0.8x1.2cm transversely oblique on front and inner aspects of left forearm upper inner end at 6cm below elbow.” It was opined by PW15 in his evidence that the deceased died due to cut injuries to head and neck. Superficial incised wound 2x0.2cm on back of left forearm obliquely placed with upper back end at 14cm below elbow. 18. Incised wound 2.8x0.8x1.2cm transversely oblique on front and inner aspects of left forearm upper inner end at 6cm below elbow.” It was opined by PW15 in his evidence that the deceased died due to cut injuries to head and neck. It was also opined by PW15 that MO1 series choppers could produce the incised wounds including the fatal injuries to the head and neck. 12. PW16 was the Scientific Assistant attached to the Regional Forensic Laboratory, Thrissur who examined the scene of occurrence on 15.11.2011 and collected the various objects from the scene for forensic examination, and later issued Ext.P13 report in respect of the same. Item 6 in Ext.P13 report is MO3 shirt, items 12 and 13 therein are MO1 series choppers, item 14 therein is MO2 metallic pipe and item 15 therein is MO5 plastic sack. It was deposed by PW16 that Item 6 contained human blood and although items 14 and 15 contained blood, its origin could not be determined. It was also deposed by PW16 that items 12 and 13 did not contain blood. 13. PW26 was the police officer who conducted the investigation in the case. It was PW26 who arrested the accused on 16.11.2011. It was deposed by PW26 that during the interrogation pursuant to the arrest, it was disclosed to him by the first accused that he has concealed two choppers and an iron rod in a plastic sack by submerging the said sack in a mossy pond at a place called Eruthempathy and when he was taken to that place as guided by the first accused, he took out MO1 series choppers and MO2 iron rod kept in MO5 plastic sack from the water near the ghat on the eastern side of the pond and he seized the same as per Ext.P7 mahazar. Ext.P7(a) is the disclosure of the first accused which led to the recovery of MO1 series choppers, MO2 iron rod and MO5 plastic sack. It was clarified by PW26 in cross-examination that PW3 had not disclosed to him that he saw the occurrence and what was stated by him was that he only heard about the occurrence. Ext.P7(a) is the disclosure of the first accused which led to the recovery of MO1 series choppers, MO2 iron rod and MO5 plastic sack. It was clarified by PW26 in cross-examination that PW3 had not disclosed to him that he saw the occurrence and what was stated by him was that he only heard about the occurrence. Similarly, it was clarified by PW26 in cross-examination that PW3 had not stated to him that all the three accused had choppers in their hands at the relevant time nor had he furnished the particulars of the clothes worn by the accused at the relevant time. 14. Among the witnesses examined on the side of the defence, DW1 was the Medical Superintendent of the Government Mental Health Hospital, Thrissur. She deposed that PW3 had undergone psychiatric treatment from the said hospital on 15.02.2016, 22.02.2016, 02.03.2016 and 21.03.2016. Ext.X1 is the case sheet maintained at the hospital pertaining to the treatment given to PW3. The witness who was examined as DW2 was the Medical Superintendent of the Community Health Centre, Kozhinjampara. He deposed that the records kept in the said hospital reveal that PW3 had undergone psychiatric treatment from the said hospital also during the period from 27.04.2017 to 23.05.2019. 15. It is on an evaluation of the evidence discussed above that the Court of Session came to the conclusion that the accused are guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC . The pointed question is whether the Court of Session is justified in arriving at the said conclusion on the basis of the evidence discussed above. 16. As noted, even though the case is one attempted to be proved by the prosecution through direct evidence, all the witnesses cited by the prosecution to prove the occurrence except PW3, turned hostile. As fas as PW3 is concerned, it has been established in the case through the evidence of PW26, the investigating officer that PW3 had not stated to him that he saw the occurrence, and his version in the statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code was that he had only hearsay information about the occurrence. It is seen that, in the circumstances, even the Court of Session did not accept PW3 as an ocular witness. It is seen that, in the circumstances, even the Court of Session did not accept PW3 as an ocular witness. We do not find any infirmity in the view taken by the Court of Session in this regard, especially when it has come out in evidence that PW3 was a person who was undergoing treatment for mental illness on several occasions after the occurrence and also due to his unusual behaviour of addressing his mother by her name as if she were unknown to him, while giving evidence. We take this view also for the reason that PW3 had not stated to PW26 while recording his statement under Section 161 of the Code that all the three accused had choppers in their hands at the relevant time nor had he furnished to PW26, the particulars of the clothes worn by the accused at the relevant time. In other words, the evidence tendered by PW3 on the above aspects are not consistent with his previous statement. There is yet another reason also for us to hold so, as PW10 who had tied the wounds of the deceased immediately after the occurrence has admitted in her evidence that she had not seen the wounds, whereas the version of PW3 was that PW10 and other ladies saw the occurrence. 17. Be that as it may, the Court of Session, in the circumstances, is seen to have found the accused guilty based on the circumstances established in the case. The pointed question in the above background is whether the circumstances proved in the case would establish the guilt of accused 1 and 2 beyond reasonable doubt. 18. One of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the accused is as regards the motive alleged by the prosecution for the accused to commit the crime. The motive alleged is that Pradeep had hacked the brother of the first accused during October 2010 and the accused thereby caused the death of Pradeep on account of that enmity. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the accused in this regard is that the particulars of the case, if any, registered in connection with that occurrence were not brought on record, and in the absence of any material in that regard, it cannot be said that the motive has been established beyond reasonable doubt. We are not impressed by this argument. We are not impressed by this argument. No doubt, the prosecution is expected in cases of this nature to produce the particulars of the case registered when it alleges that the motive for the crime is a previous crime. But, merely on account of the said omission on the part of the prosecution to do so, it cannot be held straight away that the prosecution failed to establish the motive, if there is other satisfactory evidence before the court to hold in terms of Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, that such an occurrence took place. In the case on hand, there is satisfactory evidence to hold that there was a previous clash between the deceased and the brother of the first accused and that the latter sustained serious injuries in that clash, even though there are no materials to establish the nature and manner in which the injuries were inflicted. As such, it cannot be said that the prosecution has failed to prove the motive of the accused to commit the crime. 19. Another argument seriously pressed into service by the learned counsel for the accused is as regards the evidence given by PW26 that MO1 series choppers and MO2 iron rod were recovered based on the information furnished by the first accused which is relevant under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The argument is that the evidence tendered by PW26 is too artificial and cannot be believed. It is seen that the recovery of MO1 series choppers and MO2 iron rod was effected on 17.11.2011 and the same are seen produced before the court only on 24.11.2011. There is not even formal evidence from the side of the investigating officer as to the cause for the said delay. Be that as it may, Ext.P13 report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Thrissur shows that MO1 series choppers did not contain traces of blood. True, PW15, the doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination on the body of the deceased, deposed in his evidence that the injuries sustained by the deceased are possible with choppers in the nature of MO1 series, even though there was no evidence on the side of the doctor that any of the injuries sustained by the deceased is possible with MO2 iron rod. In the circumstances, in the absence of blood on MO1 series choppers, it is doubtful as to whether the same were weapons that were used by the assailants to inflict injuries on the deceased and if that be so, the recovery of MO1 series choppers and MO2 iron rod may not be of any relevance in the case. 20. It is seen that one of the circumstances relied on by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused is that MO3 shirt of the first accused contained human blood. It is seen from the materials that it was PW3 who gave evidence that the first accused was wearing MO3 shirt at the time of occurrence. Inasmuch as it is found that the presence of PW3 at the scene at the relevant time, is doubtful, we are of the view that it is not safe to place reliance on the said circumstance while evaluating the circumstances for considering the question as to whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 21. It is now trite that the circumstances to be proved to establish the guilt of the accused in a given case, shall be of a conclusive nature and tendency and the same shall be fully established, which means that the circumstances shall unequivocally establish the truth of the facts, leaving no reasonable doubt, or alternative explanation and the same should have a definite tendency of implicating the accused in the crime. If one examines the evidence let in by the prosecution in the case on hand keeping in mind the principles aforesaid, the following are the circumstances that could be taken as proved : (i) that the accused and deceased were persons residing in the same neighbourhood and were persons known to each other; (ii) that the deceased caused serious injuries to the brother of the first accused in an earlier occasion, on account of which, the deceased and the first accused were not in cordial terms thereafter; (iii) that the death of the victim was a homicide and that he died on account of the cut injuries sustained to his head and neck at the place called Kulukkapara Puzhamedu; (iv) that the cut injuries sustained by the deceased on his head and neck were in the nature of injuries that could be inflicted with weapons in the nature of MO1 series choppers; (v) that PW1, the friend of the deceased who gave Ext.P1 First Information Statement, saw the accused standing by the side of a motorcycle near the scene of occurrence at about 1 p.m. on the relevant day; (vi) that PW4, the cousin brother of the deceased saw the accused together near the place of occurrence at about 1.30 p.m. on the relevant day; (vii) that PW12, the sister of the deceased saw the first accused following the motorcycle in which she was riding pillion with the deceased at about 9 a.m. on the relevant day, while they were proceeding to the house of one of their relatives; The question that remains to be considered is whether the circumstances mentioned above are sufficient to hold beyond reasonable doubt that it was accused 1 and 2 who committed the murder of the deceased. Before examining the said question, it is necessary to keep in mind the principles to be followed in this regard. Before examining the said question, it is necessary to keep in mind the principles to be followed in this regard. The principles are: (1) that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn are fully established, (2) that the facts so established are 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) that the circumstances are of a conclusive nature and tendency, (4) that they should exclude every possible hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, and (5) that 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. We are of the view that the above mentioned circumstances would not form a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and would not show that in all human probability, it was accused 1 and 2 who caused the death of Pradeep. Needles to say, the appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt. In the result, the appeals are allowed. The conviction of the appellants for the offences charged against them is set aside and they are acquitted. They shall be set at liberty forthwith and released from custody, if their continued detention is not required in connection with any other case. Registry is directed to communicate the above order forthwith to the concerned prison, where the appellants are undergoing incarceration.