JUDGMENT : This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence both dated 05 th June 2013 rendered in Sessions Case No.13/2012. 2. In the sessions trial, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.50,000/- under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant has further been convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for fourteen years and a fine of Rs.10,000/- under section 397 of the Indian Penal Code with a default stipulation to undergo simple imprisonment for one and a half month. 3. The case of prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence as no person came forward to inform the Investigating Officer about the manner of occurrence and the person who had committed murder of Shrawan. The case of the prosecution as projected in the written report of Kishana Ram is that on 10 th April 2012 around 7:05 AM a telephonic information was received from Sarpanch of Kharia Neev that a dead body was seen in a ditch connecting the road leading to Sojat City. In the written report, Kishana Ram stated that Shrawan who was his nephew was working at the shop of Sohanji Kumhar. On 09 th April 2012, Shrawan started for the shop of Sohanji Kumhar and did not come back home. On the next day, when he received an information about the dead body of an unknown person lying in the ditch near the road leading to Sojat City he went there and identified that the dead body was of his nephew Shrawan. After the investigation, a charge-sheet was laid against the appellant and he faced the trial on the charge of committing murder of Shrawan. 4. In the trial, the prosecution examined twenty three witnesses out of whom the Investigating Officer tendered evidence as P.W.-19. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sojat (Pali) considered seven incriminating circumstances which were projected against the appellant to establish the charge of murder against him. However, the learned Judge did not accept the theory of last seen together and disbelieved the evidence of recovery of mobile phone at the instance of the appellant. In paragraph no.44 of the judgment under challenge, the learned Judge dealt with the incriminating materials established against the appellant in the following manner :- ^^44- vr% mijksDr ifjfLFkfr;kas esa mijksDr foospu ds i'pkr eSa bl er ij igq?pk gw? In paragraph no.44 of the judgment under challenge, the learned Judge dealt with the incriminating materials established against the appellant in the following manner :- ^^44- vr% mijksDr ifjfLFkfr;kas esa mijksDr foospu ds i'pkr eSa bl er ij igq?pk gw? fd vfHk;kstu i{k vfHk;qDr ds fo:) fuEu ifjfLFkfr;k? fl) djus esa lQy jgk gS% 1%& vfHk;qDr dks gLrxr izdj.k esa fnukad 22@04@2012 dks QnZ izn'kZ ih 38 ds tfj;s fxj¶rkj djus ij mldh deht] isUV ij [kwu ik;k tkuk o fof/k foKku iz;ksx'kkyk dh fjiksVZ izn'kZ ih 49 ds vuqlkj mijksDr [kwu dk ekuo jDr gksuk o mijksDr [kwu dk xzqi ekSds ls ¼nq?kZVuk LFky ls½ tCr dh xbZ [kwu vkywnk feV~Vh o e`rd dh pIiyksa] ?kM+h] diM+s ij ik;s x;s [kwu ds xzqi ds leku gksuk] 2%& vfHk;qDr }kjk nh xbZ nQk 27 dh lwpuk ds vuqlj.k esa vUos"k.k vf/kdkjh }kjk QnZ tCrh ih 13 ds tfj;s e`rd ds LokfeRo dh eksVjlkbfdy la[;k vkj ts 22@ ,l ,Q 4290 tCr djuk o mijksDr eksVjlkbfdy dh lhV ij fiNys fgLls esa [kwu ds NhaVs yxs gq, ik;k tkuk o eksVjlkbfdy ds ihNs dsfj;j ij csd cRrh ij [kwu ds NhaVs yxs gq, ik;k tkuk o iqfyl }kjk mijksDr eksVjlkbfdy dh lhV dk og fgLlk ftl ij [kwu yxk gqvk Fkk] dks dksV dj tCr djuk o fof/k foKku iz;ksx'kkyk dh fjiksVZ izn'kZ ih 49 ds vuqlkj mijksDr lhV ij ik;k x;k [kwu dk xzqi e`rd ds diM+kas vkfn o ekSds ij ikbZ xbZ [kwu vkywnk feV~Vh ds [kwu dk xzqi leku gksuk] 3%& vfHk;qDr Jo.kflag dh fxj¶rkjh ds le; QnZ izn'kZ ih 38 ds vuqlkj mldh tsc ls ghjks gks.Mk Liys.Mj eksVj lkbfdy dh pkch ikbZ tkuk] 4%& vfHk;qDr Jo.kflag ds pksV izfrosnu ds vuqlkj mlds 'kjhj ij pksVsa ikbZ tkuk] mDr pksVksa dh vof/k ?kVuk ds le; dh gksuk]** English Translation :- " 44. Therefore, in light of the aforesaid circumstances and after due interpretation of the above discussion, I have reached on this conclusion that the prosecution has successfully established the following circumstances against the accused. 1:- The accused, in the present case, was arrested on 22/04/2012 vide Exhibit P-38, and blood was found on his shirt and pants. Therefore, in light of the aforesaid circumstances and after due interpretation of the above discussion, I have reached on this conclusion that the prosecution has successfully established the following circumstances against the accused. 1:- The accused, in the present case, was arrested on 22/04/2012 vide Exhibit P-38, and blood was found on his shirt and pants. As per the Forensic Science Laboratory report vide Exhibit P-49, the blood was human blood and the blood group matched with the blood-stained soil seized from the place of the incident as well as with the blood found on the deceased's slippers, watch and clothes. 2:- Pursuant to the information revealed by the accused under Section 27, the Investigating Officer seized the motorcycle bearing registration number RJ 22/SF 4290, owned by the deceased, through Seizure Memo Exhibit P-13. Bloodstains were found on the rear portion of the motorcycle seat, as well as splattered on the carrier and the tail light of the motorcycle. The police subsequently cut and seized the portion of the seat where the bloodstains were present. As per the Forensic Science Laboratory report, Exhibit P- 49, the blood group found on the said seat matched the blood group of the stains found on the deceased’s clothes and the bloodstained soil collected from the scene of the incident. 3:- At the time of the arrest of the accused, Shravan Singh, as per Memo Exhibit P-38, a key of a Hero Honda Splendor motorcycle was found in his pocket. 4:- As per the injury report of the accused Shravan Singh, injuries were found on his body, and the duration of those injuries corresponded with the time of the incident." 5. Ms. Laxmi Rathore, the learned Amicus has invited our attention to the findings recorded by the learned Judge in the paragraph no.43 of the judgment to submit that the disclosure statement of the appellant was not accepted as an incriminating material against him and while so the recoveries allegedly effected at the instance of the appellant became suspicious. On the other hand, Mr. C.S. Ojha, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of conviction contending that the prosecution was able to establish the incriminating circumstances by producing clear, cogent and convincing evidence through the prosecution witnesses. 6. We would first see the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. On the other hand, Mr. C.S. Ojha, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of conviction contending that the prosecution was able to establish the incriminating circumstances by producing clear, cogent and convincing evidence through the prosecution witnesses. 6. We would first see the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. P.W.1 Kishna Ram stated in the Court that there was no blood stain on the knife and the knife was about one feet in size. P.W.2 Mangala Ram admitted in the Court that he is an illiterate person and he could not recollect the mobile phone number of Gangaram. P.W.6 Natharam stated in his cross-examination that he did not find a watch at the scene of the crime. P.W.7 Ramesh Chandra was produced by the prosecution to establish that he had sold the motor-cycle to the deceased but any sale document of the motor-cycle was not brought on record. In his examination-in- chief, P.W.8 Parwat Kumar stated that he found liquor bottles on the ground but the other prosecution witnesses did not make a mention about the alcohol bottles found at the place of occurrence. Furthermore, there was significant discrepancy in the statement of P.W.9 Bhawani Singh who was the Malkhana Incharge, P.W.10 Chain Singh and P.W.20 Deepa Ram who is the seizure witness. While P.W.10 Chain Singh stated that the seal was in capital English letters, P.W.20 Deepa Ram stated in the Court that the seal of the police station was in Hindi. 7. To begin with, we would indicate that the trial Court was not correct in referring to the disclosure statement of the appellant to accept the prosecution evidence regarding ownership of the motor-cycle and other connecting evidences because the disclosure statement of the appellant was not found coming within the sweep of section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Proceeding further, we find that the trial Judge has considered injuries on the appellant as an incriminating material though the prosecution did not disclose the manner of occurrence and, in fact, it could not have because there is no eyewitness to the occurrence. We further find that the recovery of the key of Hero Honda Splendor from the pocket of appellant at the time of his arrest is also not established. We further find that the recovery of the key of Hero Honda Splendor from the pocket of appellant at the time of his arrest is also not established. Another incriminating material which according to the trial Judge indicates that the appellant was involved in the crime is seizure of blood-stained shirt and pant of the appellant and the blood group of such blood stains being same as the blood found on the sandal, watch and clothes of the deceased Shrawan. This is also quite unnatural that the appellant was wearing the same clothes having blood stains even two days after the date of the incident. 8. In our opinion, a judgment of conviction could not have been recorded by the trial Judge on the basis of such evidence. The seizure of blood-stained clothes of the appellant which contained blood of the same group as was found on the cloths, sandal and watch of the deceased would raise a grave suspicion against the appellant but that evidence by itself cannot establish that the appellant is the person who committed murder of Shrawan. 9. This is fundamental in criminal jurisprudence that the identity of an accused must clearly be established and the prosecution must produce such evidence in the Court that would leave no manner of doubt about complicity of the accused in the crime. This is also too well settled a law that wherever a doubt would arise, the benefit should be extended to the accused. There was no independent witnesses to the recovery of motor-cycle and the statement of any person at Gordhan Singh’s house was not recorded. Even the credibility and reliability of the prosecution witnesses are highly questionable and the chain of circumstances is not complete. This is well settled that the prosecution should satisfy the triple test in order to establish the guilt of the accused where its case is based on circumstantial evidence. In “Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh” (1952) 2 SCC 71 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under :- “It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. 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. In spite of the forceful arguments addressed to us by the learned Advocate General on behalf of the State we have not been able to discover any such evidence either intrinsic within Ext. P-3A or outside and we are constrained to observe that the courts below have just fallen into the error against which warning was uttered by Baron Alderson in the abovementioned case.” 10. After having examined the materials on record, we find that the prosecution failed to establish the charge against the appellant under sections 302 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, we interfere with the judgment of conviction dated 05 th June 2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sojat, District Pali in Sessions Case No.13/2012 and the sentence awarded to the appellant is also set aside. 11. D.B. Criminal Appeal No.674 of 2013 is allowed. 12. The appellant- Sharwan Singh who is in jail custody shall be released forthwith if not wanted in connection to any other criminal case. 13. We appreciate the assistance rendered by Ms. Laxmi Rathore, the learned Amicus Curiae in the present matter.