JUDGMENT

Phukan, J.-This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 24.01.97 passed by the High Court of Kerala in Criminal Appeal No. 485/93. The High Court allowed the appeal filed by the State by setting aside the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Kozhikode Division dated 26th March, 1993 in Sessions Case No. 9/92.

2. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted accused Mujeeb @ Mujeeb Rahman (A1), Johnson (A2) and Akbar (A3) who were charged under Sections 302, 392, 201 and 120-B IPC read with Section 34 IPC.

3. The High Court as stated above allowed the appeal filed by the State and convicted all the three accused under the above Sections. The present appeal has been filed only by two accused namely A1 and A3, A2 is not before us.

4. The prosecution case was that on 30.03.91 at about 11.30 a.m A1 reached Koyilandy Taxi Stand, hired the Tourist Taxi (Ambassador Car) driven by Balan of Thazha Valappil. A1 went in that car to Ashar lodge in Koyilandy where the other accused were staying and all of them proceeded in the car to Wynad and spent some time in Pookode lake. Thereafter, they visited Thirunelli Temple and Mananthavadi. While they were returning to Thamarasserry, it was alleged by the prosecution that soft drink "Fruity" mixed with sleeping pills was given to the driver Balan and also intoxicating liquor. After immobilizing and removing him from the driver s seat, A1 drove the car to Thamarassery and Eangampuzha. At about 11.30 p.m. they strangulated the driver Balan with a thorthu and proceeded to Puthuppadi. They also took away the purse and watch from deceased Balan and with the intention to cause disappearance of evidence of murder and robbery they threw the dead body of deceased at one kilometer west of 9th point curve at Wynad Ghat Section. The accused took the car to Mysore and Bangalore and altered the registration number and also sold the watch and some other things of the deceased at Mysore and stayed there. They returned to Sultan s Battery and on 04.04.91 in the evening they entrusted the car for service in an automobile workshop informing that they would take the car on the next day morning. The owner of the workshop found that there was alteration of registration number of the car and getting suspicious he informed the sub-inspector of police, Sultan s Battery. In the morning of 05.04.91 the sub-Inspector along with other police personnel came to the workshop in mufti and when the accused came to the workshop they were apprehended and taken to the police station.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6. In absence of direct evidence prosecution tried to prove the case through circumstantial evidence.

7. When a case rests on circumstantial evidence, such evidence must be cogently and firmly established. These circumstances should form a chain pointing towards the guilt of the accused and the same should be so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else. If any link in the chain is missing the guilt of the accused cannot be established.

8. In Mohan Lal Pangasa v. The State of U.P.1, this Court held that it is trite law that when the evidence against an accused person, particularly when he is charged with a grave offence like murder, if it consists of only circumstances and not direct oral evidence, it must be qualitatively such that on every reasonable hypothesis the conclusion must be that the accused is guilty; not fantastic possibilities nor freak inferences but rational deductions which reasonable minds make from the probative force of facts and circumstances.

9. In Umedbhai Jadavbhai v. State of Gujarat2 this Court held that it is well settled that in a case resting on circumstantial evidence all the circumstances brought out by the prosecution, must inevitably and exclusively point to the guilt of the accused and there should be no circumstance which may reasonably be considered consistent with