Judgment :

Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.

Challenge in this appeal is to the order of acquittal recorded by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court. The respondents faced trial for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short IPC). Learned IVth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kanpur found the respondents guilty and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and two years rigorous imprisonment respectively for the aforesaid two offences. In appeal, the High Court reversed the judgment of conviction and directed acquittal.

In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant-State submitted that the circumstances which were highlighted by the trial court to record conviction have been without any basis reversed by the High Court. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the judgment of acquittal.

The prosecution version rested on circumstantial evidence. The law regarding circumstantial evidence is well settled. When a case rests upon the circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy three tests: (1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sough to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established: (2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; (3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probabilities the crime was committed by the accused and none else.

The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any order hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused. The circumstantial evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. (See Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1982 SC, 1157)

In his case, the prosecution relied on following circumstances:

(1) The deceased Veer Singh Gautam was posted as Supervisor of Kray Vikray Samiti, Reona at the time of occurrence and the accused Udai Narain was

Adhyaksha/Supervisor of that Society.

(2) Veer Singh Gautam was on friendly terms with accused Udai Narain and Shyam Behari and was doing grain business in their partnership.

(3) The deceased Veer Singh Gautam went to his house on the occasion of Raksha Bandhan (3.8.1979) and brought Rs. 25,000/- for investing in the aforesaid business.

(4) Accused Shyam Behari and Udai Narain had gone to the house of deceased in village Hardauli and deceased Veer Singh Gautam asked them to render account of levy and asked them to either give money in cash or grain to make up the account.

(5) Veer Singh Gautam after returning from his house left Reona for Daheli.

(6) Veer Sing Gautam left Rathgaaon on 13.8.1979 on a truck going towards Nauranga and got down from that truck when he reached near the culvert of village Daheli.

(7) The deceased was seen going in the company of accused Shyam Behari and Udai Narain towards their house on the outskirts of village Daheli.

(8) (Deceased) Veer Singh Gautam was last seen at about 10.30 P.M. on 13.8.1979 in the company of all the four accused at the door of the house of accused Shyam Behari and Udai Narain and that all of them including the accused went up stairs.

(9) Shrieks were heard in the night from the upper story of the house of accused Udai Narain and Shyam Behari.

(10) All the four accused were seen moving towards village Daheli at about 21 m. in the night of 13/14-8-1979 and accused Munni Lal was carrying a gunny bag on his head and in enquiry by Ram Asrey (PW3) he told that they were carrying manure for their field.

(11) The recovery of the dead body of (deceased) Veer Singh Gautam was made on 23.8.1979 on the pointing out of appellant Shyam Behari.

The trial court held that the circumstances 1,3,8 and 11 were proved and presented a complete chain of circumstances which established the guilt of the