1. Vide this order, above mentioned two appeals would be disposed of, as they have arisen out of judgment/order of conviction and sentence of the appellants/accused dated 28.02.2019 and 19.03.2019, passed by the trial Court.

2. The accused were convicted and sentenced as under:

"….The convict No. 1 Amar Chand is sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 20,000/- for the commission of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year.

The convict No. 1 Amar Chand is further sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a terms of two years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the commission of offence punishable under Section 201 read with Section120-B of IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

The convict No. 1 Amar Chand is also sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a terms of three years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the commission of offence punishable under Section 404 read with Section 120-B of IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

The convict No. 1 Amar Chand is also sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a terms of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the commission of offence punishable under Section 452 read with Section 120-B of IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

The convict No. 2 Lata Devi is sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- for the commission of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year.

The convict No. 2 Lata Devi is further sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a terms of two years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the commission of offence punishable under Section 201 read with Section 120-B of IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

The convict No. 2 Lata Devi is also sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a terms of three years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the commission of offence punishable under Section 404 read with Section 120-B of IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month……….."

3. The prosecution case was set in motion on the basis of the complaint lodged by PW-1 Shyam Lal, brother of the deceased.

4. It was the case of the complainant that Manoj Kumar was his younger brother and was residing in Village Behna alongwith his wife and three daughters. On 31.03.2014, the complainant came to know that Manoj Kumar had gone to Shimla, but had not returned home. Thereafter, he had also came to know that the wife of his brother Manoj Kumar had lodged a missing report, qua her husband, on 04.04.2014, whereas, Manoj Kumar had left his house for Shimla on 26.03.2014. Despite search, whereabouts of Manoj Kumar could not be located and due to this reason, he had a suspicion that the wife of his brother Manoj Kumar might have got her husband abducted with a view to commit his murder. On the basis of the complaint, F.I.R. No. 164/2014, dated 28.05.2014 was registered at Police station Balh, District Mandi, H.P., under Sections 364 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "the IPC").

5. PW-33, Madan Dhiman, Deputy Superintendent of Police, recorded the statements of Bhishma Devi, Nirmala Devi, Leela Devi and Tara Devi as well as supplementary statement of the complainant on 28.05.2014. On 01.06.2014, statements of Gauri Devi, Desh Raj and Bittu were recorded by the Investigating Officer. On suspicion, Satish Kumar, Amar Chand and Lata Devi were called to the police station for interrogation. On the basis of disclosure statements of accused Satish Kumar and Amar Chand, dead body of Manoj Kumar was recovered from Row Pali bridge, BBMB canal near Baggi.

6. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities challan was presented against accused Lata Devi, Amar Chand and Satish Kumar under Sections 302, 452, 404, 201 and 120-B IPC.

7. Charges were framed against the accused under Sections 302, 201, 404, 452, read with Section 120-B IPC. Accused did not plead guilty to the charges framed against them and claimed trial.

8. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 34 witnesses during trial. Accused, when examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, after the close of prosecution evidence, prayed that they were innocent and had been falsely involved in the case. Accused did not examine any witness in their defence.

9. Trial Court ordered the conviction and sentence of the accused, as mentioned in paragraph-2 of the judgment.

10. Aggrieved against their conviction and sentence, as ordered by the trial Court, all the accused have preferred separate appeals. During pendency of the appeals, so far as accused Satish Kumar alias Sethi is concerned, he died on 26.04.2021 and consequently, appeal filed by him was disposed of, as having abated. Thus, now it is only the role of accused Amar Chand and Lata Devi that is to be taken up for consideration by this Court while deciding the appeals filed by them.

11. Learned Senior Counsel for appellant Amar Chand has submitted that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove its case. Material witnesses had not supported the prosecution case during trial. So far as complainant PW-1 Shyam Lal, his wife PW-3 Bhishma Devi and PW-2 Nirmala Devi, sister of the deceased are concerned, they had made material improvements in their statements while appearing in the witness box and their statements being hearsay, could not be relied upon to base the conviction of the appellants. The daughters of the deceased have not supported the prosecution case during trial. They had specifically deposed that their mother and father were having cordial relations. They had not given any blood samples for examination. They had also stated that their father never used to wear any rings in his fingers. So far as circumstance of extra judicial confession suffered by appellant Lata Devi was concerned, PW-6 Gauri Devi had not supported the prosecution case. PW-13 Desh Raj, who had been examined, vis-à-vis, act and conduct of appellant Amar Chand, had also not supported the prosecution story. Prosecution had also based reliance on circumstance that rings belonging to the deceased had been sold by the accused, but the material witnesses in this regard, i.e. PW-23 Harcharan Singh, PW-24, Guruprakash and PW-29 Mahender Pal, had not supported the prosecution case during trial. Independent witness with regard to recovery of dead body at the instance of Satish Kumar had also not supported the prosecution case during trial. No reliance can be based on the recovery of clothes of appellant Amar Chand as well as darat at his instance, because the said articles were not having any blood stains and the darat allegedly recovered at the instance of accused was normally kept by an agriculturist, as it was an agricultural implement. The vehicle belonging to the deceased was lying abandoned at the time of its recovery. As per the prosecution story, the blood stains lifted from the vehicle matched with the blood sample of PW-19 Simran Kumari, daughter of the deceased. However, the daughter of the deceased had categorically stated in their cross-examination that they had not given any blood sample for examination, as alleged by the prosecution. It was also alleged by the prosecution that some blood stains had been lifted from the house of the deceased which were found under the bed box, but there was no such expert report to suggest that said blood stains matched with the blood group of the deceased. So far as circumstance of illicit relationship of appellants Amar Singh and Lata Devi is concerned, the material witness, i.e. PW-7 Bittu had not supported the prosecution case, whereas, testimonies of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 were merely hearsay.

12. In support of his contentions, learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1597-1600 of 2022, titled Munikrishna@ Krishna etc. Vs. State by Ulsoor PS. Paragraphs 11 and 12 of the said judgment is reproduced as under:-

"11. It is a case of circumstantial evidence and in a case of circumstantial evidence, the entire chain of evidence must be complete and the conclusions which is arrived after examining the chain of evidence must point towards the culpability of the accused and to no other conclusion. This, however, is clearly missing from the case of the prosecution. The entire case of the prosecution is based on the so-called confessional statements or voluntary statements given by accused Nos. 1 to 5 (all the present appellants) while they were in police custody. Statement given by an accused to police under Section 161 of Cr. PC is not admissible as evidence. The so-called evidence discovered under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, i.e., the recovery of stolen items and the recovery of the weapon are also very doubtful.

12. In a case of circumstantial evidence, the Court has to scrutinize each and every circumstantial possibility, which is placed before it in the form of an evidence and the evidence must point towards only one conclusion, which is the guilt of the accused. In other words, a very heavy duty is cast upon the prosecution to prove its case, beyond reasonable doubt. As early as in 1952, this Court in its seminal judgment of Hanumant Govind Nargundkar & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1 had laid down the parameters under which the case of circumstantial evidence is to be evaluated. It states:-

"… 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…"

Hanumant (supra) has been consistently followed by this Court. To name a few, Tufail (Alias) Simmi vs. State of Utter Pradesh 2, Ram Gopal v. State of Maharashtra 3 and Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra 4.

In Musheer Khan @ Badshah Khan & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh 5 dated 28.01.2010, this Court while discussing the nature of circumstantial evidence and the burden of proof of prosecution stated as under:-

"39. In a case of circumstantial evidence, one must look for complete chain of circumstances and not on snapped and scattered links which do not make a complete sequence. This Court finds that this case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence. While appreciating circumstantial evidence, the Court must adopt a cautious approach as circumstantial evidence is "inferential evidence" and proof in such a case is derivable by inference from circumstances.

40. Chief Justice Fletcher Moulton once observed that "proof does not mean rigid mathematical formula" since "that is impossible". However, proof must mean such evidence as would induce a reasonable man to come to a definite conclusion. Circumstantial evidence, on the other hand, has been compared by Lord Coleridge "like a gossamer thread, light and as unsubstantial as the air itself and may vanish with the merest of touches". The learned Judge also observed that such evidence may be strong in parts but it may also leave great gaps and rents through which the accused may escape. Therefore, certain rules have been judicially evolved for appreciation of circumstantial evidence.

41. To my mind, the first rule is that the facts alleged as the basis of any legal inference from circumstantial evidence must be clearly proved beyond any reasonable doubt. If conviction rests solely on circumstantial evidence, it must create a network from which there is no escape for the accused. The facts evolving out of such circumstantial evidence must be such as not to admit of any inference except that of guilt of the accused. (See Raghav Prapanna Tripathi v. State of U.P. [AIR 1963 SC 74 [LQ/SC/1962/236] : (1963) 1 Cri. LJ 70])

42. The second principle is that all the links in the chain of evidence must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and they must exclude the evidence of guilt of any other person than the accused. (See State of U.P. v. Dr. Ravinder Prakash Mittal [(1992) 3 SCC 300 [LQ/SC/1992/360] : 1992 SCC (Cri.) 642 [LQ/SC/1992/360] : 1992 Cri. LJ 3693], SCC p. 309, para 20.)

43. While appreciating circumstantial evidence, we must remember the principle laid down in Ashraf Ali v. King Emperor [21 CWN 1152: 43 IC 241] (IC at para 14) that when in a criminal case there is conflict between presumption of innocence and any other presumption, the former must prevail.

44. The next principle is that in order to justify the inference of guilt, the inculpatory facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and are incapable of explanation upon any other reasonable hypothesis except his guilt.

45. When a murder charge is to be proved solely on circumstantial evidence, as in this case, presumption of innocence of the accused must have a dominant role. In Nibaran Chandra Roy v. King Emperor [11 CWN 1085] it was held that the fact that an accused person was found with a gun in his hand immediately after a gun was fired and a man was killed on the spot from which the gun was fired may be strong circumstantial evidence against the accused, but it is an error of law to hold that the burden of proving innocence lies upon the accused under such circumstances. It seems, therefore, to follow that whatever force a presumption arising under Section 106 of the Evidence Act may have in civil or in less serious criminal cases, in a trial for murder it is extremely weak in comparison with the dominant presumption of innocence.

46. The same principles have been followed by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Govinda Reddy v. State of Mysore [AIR 1960 SC 29 [LQ/SC/1958/91] : 1960 Cri. LJ 137] where the learned Judges quoted the principles laid down in Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of M.P. [AIR 1952 SC 343 [LQ/SC/1952/49] : 1953 Cri. LJ 129] The ratio in Govind [AIR 1952 SC 343 [LQ/SC/1952/49] : 1953 Cri. LJ 129] quoted in AIR para 5, p. 30 of the Report in Govinda Reddy [AIR 1960 SC 29 [LQ/SC/1958/91] : 1960 Cri. LJ 137] are:

"5. … '10. … in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances [which lead to the conclusion of guilt should be in the first instance] 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 [shown] that within all human probability the act must have been [committed] by the accused.' [As observed in Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of M.P., AIR 1952 SC 343 [LQ/SC/1952/49] at pp. 345-46, para 10.]" The same principle has also been followed by this Court in Mohan Lal Pangasa v. State of U.P. [(1974) 4 SCC 607 [LQ/SC/1974/147] : 1974 SCC (Cri.) 643 [LQ/SC/1974/147] : AIR 1974 SC 1144 [LQ/SC/1974/147] ]"

13. Learned counsel for appellant Lata Devi has adopted the arguments raised by learned Senior Counsel for appellant Amar Chand and has further submitted that appellant has been falsely involved in this case by PW-1, as he was having civil litigation with her husband. Appellant had no motive to commit the murder of her husband, as she was having cordial relations with her husband and appellant had lodged missing report qua her husband.

14. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the appeals and has submitted that the prosecution has been successful in proving its case. Appellants were having illicit relations and they had committed the murder of deceased Manoj Kumar in connivance with each other.

15. The present case relates to murder of Manoj Kumar. The prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence. Let us examine the circumstances brought on record by the prosecution to come to a conclusion, as to whether the prosecution had been successful in proving its case to establish the guilt of the appellants, vis-à-vis, charges framed against them.

16. The first circumstance brought on record by the prosecution is that appellants Lata Devi and Amar Chand were having illicit relationship and due to this reason, they had committed the murder of deceased Manoj Kumar. In this regard, the prosecution has examined PW-7 Bittu, who is an independent witness. The said witness while appearing in the witness box during trial did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. Now we are left with the statements of PW-1, Shyam Lal, PW-2 Nirmala Devi and PW-3 Bhishma Devi with regard to this circumstance.

17. PW-1 Shyam Lal, has deposed that before lodging of missing report of deceased Manoj Kumar he (deceased) had caught red handed appellants Lata Devi and Amar Chand in a compromising position and he (deceased) had come to know about the said fact from other persons. Deceased Manoj Kumar had also given beatings to his wife Lata Devi and Amar Chand at that time and thereafter Lata Devi had gone to her parental house. Appellant Amar Chand had threatened deceased Manoj Kumar that he would kill him while driving the vehicle on the road. However, compromise was effected between deceased Manoj Kumar and his wife Lata Devi and thereafter appellant Lata Devi started residing with her husband Manoj Kumar and their children. In his cross-examination, he deposed that his father has bequeathed his property in favour of deceased Manoj Kumar by executing a Will. Nothing had been given by his father to him and his sister. He admitted that there was civil litigation with regard to the said property between him and deceased Manoj Kumar. He further admitted that neither he was present at the spot when appellants Amar Chand and Lata Devi were caught red handed by deceased Manoj Kumar, nor he had any discussion, vis-à-vis, the said incident with deceased Manoj Kumar. The villagers had seen appellants Amar Chand and Lata Devi in a compromising position, but he could not tell the name of any person, who had seen the incident. He volunteered that the incident had been disclosed to him by deceased Manoj Kumar. However, he admitted that he had not disclosed the said fact to the police or anybody else and was disclosing the same for the first time in the Court. He also admitted that no compromise had taken place in his presence between deceased Manoj Kumar and his wife after the indecent incident.

18. So far as incident alleged by PW-1 with regard to the fact that the deceased had caught his wife and appellant Amar Chand in a compromising position is concerned, the same is merely hearsay. PW-1 had neither witnessed the incident, nor had been able to disclose the name of any person, who had disclosed the incident to him. PW-1 admitted that no discussion had taken place about the incident with deceased Manoj Kumar, but thereafter he changed his stand and said that deceased Manoj Kumar had himself told him the said fact. He admitted that the said fact had not been disclosed by him to the police at the time of recording of his statement by the police. No compromise between the deceased and his wife had taken place in his presence. Hence, statement of PW-1 being merely hearsay, cannot be relied upon to base the conviction of the appellants. Moreover, the said witness had made material improvements in his statement while appearing in the witness box in this regard. The factum of the incident in question, was not disclosed by this witness at the time of lodging of the F.I.R.

19. PW-2, Nirmala Devi, sister of the deceased, deposed that appellants Amar Chand and Lata Devi had been caught red handed in a compromising position by her brother Manoj Kumar about one and half month before the incident. Deceased Manoj Kumar had given beatings to the appellants. Appellant Amar Chand had threatened the deceased with dire consequences. Thereafter, compromise had taken place between deceased Manoj Kumar and appellant Lata Devi and she had started residing in her matrimonial home. In her cross-examination, she deposed that version given by her with regard to witnessing the incident by deceased Manoj Kumar, vis-à-vis, illicit relationship of the appellants, was hearsay version and the same has been narrated to her by her sister-in-law Bhishma. No compromise had taken place in her presence. She also did not know from where the appellants had been caught by the deceased or where appellant Amar Chand had threatened the deceased.

20. Thus, the testimony of PW-2 being hearsay cannot be relied upon to come to a conclusion that circumstance of illicit relationship of the appellants Amar Chand and Lata Devi had been established by the prosecution.

21. PW-3, Bhishma Devi is the wife of complainant Shyam Lal. She has also deposed to the effect that appellant Amar Chand had come to the house of appellant Lata Devi and they were having illicit relationship for a long time. Deceased Manoj Kumar had received information about their illicit relationship and had caught them in compromising position in his room. Thereafter deceased Manoj Kumar had given beatings to appellant Amar Chand and appellant Lata Devi had gone to her paternal house. Appellant Amar Chand had threatened deceased Manoj Kumar with dire consequences. Gauri Devi (PW-6) had seen the entire incident. Appellant Lata Devi had threatened her (PW-6) that in case she disclosed about their relationship to anybody, she would kill her. In her cross-examination, she deposed that she was not having cordial relationship with Lata Devi. She had visited the house of appellant Lata Devi 1-2 years prior to the death of deceased Manoj Kumar. She had not disclosed to the police regarding threats given to Gauri Devi (PW-6) by the appellants. She had not personally witnessed the incident, stated by her in her examination-in-chief as well as threats given by appellant Amar Chand to deceased Manoj Kumar. She could not name any person from the village or adjoining villages, who had witnessed the incident in question as well as beatings and threats exchanged between deceased Manoj Kumar and appellant Amar Chand. The incident had been narrated to her by the villagers, but she could not name any person in this regard. No compromise had taken place in her presence between deceased Manoj Kumar and appellant Lata Devi.

22. Thus, so far as testimony of PW-3 is concerned, the same is also hearsay and she had also made material improvements in her statement while appearing in the witness box, as the said facts had not been narrated by her to the police and were deposed by her while appearing in the witness box at the first time. Hence, testimony of PW-3 cannot be relied upon, vis-à-vis, circumstance of illicit relationship of appellant Amar Chand and Lata Devi. Moreover, as per this witness, Gauri Devi (PW-6) had witnessed the incident, but Gauri Devi while appearing in the witness box, as PW-6, had not supported the prosecution case.

23. Independent witness (PW-7) examined by the prosecution with regard to circumstance of illicit relationship of the appellants, had not supported the prosecution case during trial. Moreover the daughters of the deceased had been examined during trial, as PW-18 to PW-20 and they all deposed that their parents were having cordial relationship. Hence, we are of the opinion that the prosecution had failed to establish on record the circumstance of illicit relationship of the appellants, which could have provided them a motive to have committed the murder of the deceased.

24. The next circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is with regard to extra judicial confession suffered by appellant Lata Devi before PW-6 Gauri Devi. However, so far as PW-6 Gauri Devi is concerned, she had not supported the prosecution case during trial. Hence, the circumstance of extra judicial confession suffered by appellant Lata Devi before PW-6 Gauri Devi had not been established during trial.

25. The next circumstance sought to be brought on record by the prosecution was with regard to the act and conduct of appellant Amar Chand after the missing of deceased Manoj Kumar. In this regard, the prosecution has examined PW-13, Desh Raj. The said witness had, however, not supported the prosecution case during trial. Hence, the circumstance, vis-à-vis, the act and conduct of appellant Amar Chand, after deceased Manoj Kumar had gone missing, had not been established during trial.

26. The next circumstance sought to be brought on record by the prosecution was with regard to recovery of clothes and darat used at the time of incident, at the instance of appellant Amar Chand. In this regard, prosecution has examined PW-4 Prakash Chand and PW-5 Shiv Pal. The said witnesses have deposed to the effect that clothes of appellant Amar Chand as well as darat used by him at the time of alleged incident had been recovered on the basis of disclosure statement suffered by him. However, as per report of Forensic Science Laboratory, no blood was detected on the clothes of appellant Amar Chand as well as on darat recovered at his instance. Since the clothes of appellant Amar Chand, recovered during trial, did not bear any blood stains, the said recovery is rendered meaningless.

27. So far as darat allegedly recovered at the instance of appellant Amar Chand is concerned, the same was also not having any blood stains. The Investigating Officer, in his cross-examination, has also admitted that the darat as well as clothes (of appellant Amar Chand) recovered at the instance of Amar Chand, had no blood stains. Thus, it cannot be conclusively held that darat allegedly recovered at the instance of appellant Amar Chand had been used at the time of incident.

28. It was also the case of prosecution that appellant Amar Chand had stated in his statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") to the effect that danda used by him at the time of incident had been burnt. However, the Investigating Officer in his cross-examination, has admitted the fact that the appellant had not shown the place, where the alleged danda had been burnt by him. Hence, disclosure statement of Amar Chand, Exhibit PW-4/D in this regard under Section 27 of the Act fails to advance the prosecution case.

29. The next circumstance sought to be brought on record by the prosecution was with regard to the recovery of the rings of the deceased, which had been allegedly sold by appellant Amar Chand. In this regard prosecution has examined, PW-29 Mahender Pal. However, PW-29 while appearing in the witness box, did not support the prosecution case in this regard and stated that he did not know appellant Amar Chand, nor he knew anything about the case.

30. In order to corroborate the statement of PW-29, the prosecution had examined PW-23 Harcharan Singh and PW-24 Guruprakash. However, the said witnesses also did not support the prosecution case during trial. PW-23 and PW-24 stated that they could not identify appellant Amar Chand, nor he was known to them earlier. Moreover, the daughters of the deceased while appearing in the witness box as PW-18 to PW-20, have deposed in their cross-examination that their father never used to wear any rings. Thus, the prosecution has failed to establish the circumstance of recovery of rings of the deceased allegedly sold by appellant Amar Chand to PW-29, Mahender Pal.

31. The next circumstance relied upon by the prosecution was with regard to the recovery of the dead body of the deceased at the instance of Satish Kumar (since deceased) and appellant Amar Chand. In this regard, the prosecution had examined PW-4 Prakash Chand, PW-5 Shiv Pal (S/o. Sh. Ram Dayal), PW-9 Shiv Pal (S/o. Sh. Sant Ram), PW-10 Udham Singh and PW-17 Mast Ram. So far as PW-4, PW-5, PW-9 and PW-10 are concerned, they have not supported the prosecution case to the effect that dead body of the deceased was recovered at the instance of the said accused.

32. PW-17 Mast Ram has deposed that all the accused/appellants namely Lata Devi, Amar Chand and Satish Kumar had shown to the police in their presence, the place from where they had collected the stones to be put in the bag alongwith the dead body. However, there is no statement under Section 27 of the Act in this regard to the effect that the accused could disclose the place from where they had lifted the stones to be put in the bag alongwith the dead body. Hence, the statement of PW-17 in this regard fails to advance the prosecution case.

33. PW-17 further deposed that he alongwith the relatives had gone to Raw Station where accused/appellant Satish Kumar and Amar Chand had disclosed to the police that they had thrown the dead body of deceased Manoj Kumar, after killing him, in the canal. However, PW-17 is not the witness to disclosure statement of Satish Kumar, Exhibit PW-4/C, wherein it was recorded that Satish Kumar had demarcated the place where dead body of deceased Manoj Kumar had been thrown. The witnesses to the said memo are PW-4 Prakash Chand, PW-5 Shiv Pal and PW-10 Udham Singh, who have not supported the prosecution case. PW-17 was also confronted with his earlier statements Mark D-1, Mark D-2 and Mark D-3, where the fact that the place, where the dead body of the deceased had been thrown, had been demarcated by appellant Amar Chand and Satish Kumar, was not recorded. PW-33, Investigating Officer, in his cross-examination admitted that appellant Amar Chand had not given any statement under Section 27 of the Act that after killing deceased Manoj Kumar they had packed up the dead body and disposed off the same in the canal.

34. Thus, the circumstance that appellant Amar Chand had demarcated the place, where the dead body of deceased Manoj Kumar had been thrown, after committing his murder, is not established on record and in fact the said circumstance has been only brought on record during trial by way of improvements made by PW-17 Mast Ram, as during investigation, it was not the prosecution story that appellant Amar Chand had demarcated the place, where the dead body of the deceased had been thrown, after commission of the murder.

35. Another circumstance, sought to be brought on record by the prosecution was with regard to foot mats of the vehicle of the deceased, recovered at the instance of Satish Kumar. Since Satish Kumar has died and appeal filed by him has been disposed of, as having abated, the said circumstance becomes irrelevant, so far as the case of appellants Lata Devi and Amar Chand is concerned.

36. The next circumstance sought to be brought on record by the prosecution was that the vehicle of the deceased was lying abandoned and had been recovered. From the said vehicle, blood stains were lifted and the same were compared with the blood sample of PW-18 Anjana Kumari and PW-19 Simran Kumari, daughter of the deceased. As per report of Forensic Science Laboratory, Exhibit PW-21/1, DNA profile obtained from the blood stains lifted from the vehicle of the deceased matched with the DNA profile of his daughters Anjana Kumari and Simran Kumari. However, the daughters of the deceased while appearing in the witness box as PW-18 and PW-19 have deposed that they had not given any blood sample for examination. Be that as it may, the fact that blood stains lifted from the vehicle of the deceased matched with the DNA profile of the daughters of the deceased, fail to connect the appellants with the alleged crime, as the vehicle in question had not been recovered at the instance of appellants, but was lying abandoned and had been recovered by the Investigating Agency during investigation.

37. Another circumstance sought to be brought on record by the prosecution was that the blood stains, which had been lifted from the mattress lying on the bed box from the house of the deceased were of the deceased. However, as per Forensic Science Laboratory examination report, Exhibit PW-22/C, the blood which was detected on piece of mattress, was insufficient for Serological examination.

38. Thus, the prosecution had failed to establish the circumstance that the blood stains lifted from the mattress lying on the bed box available in the house of deceased were of the deceased.

39. After carefully going through all the circumstances brought on record by the prosecution to establish its case, we are of the opinion that the prosecution had been unsuccessful in completing the chain of circumstances, leading towards to guilt of the accused/appellants and negating their innocence. Rather, in the present case possibility that somebody else might have committed the murder, cannot be ruled out. PW-6, material witness to extra judicial confession suffered by appellant Lata Devi, had not supported the prosecution case during trial. Daughters (PW-18, PW-19 and PW-20) of the deceased have not supported the prosecution case during trial. PW-7, PW-23, PW-24 and PW-29 have not supported the prosecution case on material aspects. Although, the complainant, who is brother of the deceased has alleged that appellants Amar Chand and Lata Devi were having illicit relationship and due to this reason, they had committed the murder of his brother, is also not established on record. At the time of lodging of the F.I.R., the complainant had merely raised suspicion against appellant Lata Devi and the version put forth by the complainant that the appellants were having illicit relationship and had been caught red handed by deceased Manoj Kumar, was stated by him for the first time in the Court during trial. Moreover, the said incident had not taken place in the presence of PW-1 and version in this connection by him was merely hearsay. PW-1 was having civil litigation with the deceased and had not been given any share in the property by his father and possibility that due to this reason, he might have falsely involved appellant Lata Devi in this case, cannot be ruled out. PW-2 and PW-3 had apparently supported the cause of PW-1 due to their relationship with PW-1.

40. Since the prosecution had failed to prove the motive available with the appellants to have committed the murder of the deceased as well as the other circumstances, sought to be relied upon by it, we are of the opinion that the appellants are liable to be acquitted from the charges framed against them.

41. Accordingly, both the appeals are allowed and appellants Amar Chand alias Pillu and Lata Devi are acquitted of the charges framed against them. Impugned judgment/order passed by the trial Court, whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced qua offence punishable under Sections 302, 201, 452, 404, read with Section 120-B of IPC are set aside. Appellants, who are in custody, be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.

42. In view of the provisions of Section 437-A Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, appellants Amar Chand alias Pillu and Lata Devi are directed to furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- (each), and surety in the like amount, before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, which shall be effective for a period of six months, with stipulation that in the event of Special Leave Petition being filed against this judgment or on grant of leave, the appellants aforesaid, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court.

43. Release warrant of appellants Amar Chand alias Pillu and Lata Devi be issued by the office forthwith.