JUDGMENT :

Koul, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment dated 23.02.2013, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, acquitting respondents herein, the State of J&K has preferred the instant appeal.

2. Respondents 1 to 3 were facing charge under Sections 302/498-A/34 RPC and respondent no.4 under Section 302/109/498-A RPC in case FIR No.69/2007.

3. It is worthwhile to mention here that the entire prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court, while dealing with the cases of circumstantial evidence in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116, has held that the onus was on the prosecution to prove that the chain is complete and infirmity or lacuna in prosecution case cannot be cured by false defence or plea. The conditions precedent before conviction could be based on circumstantial evidence, which must be fully established, which are:

(i) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned “must” or “should” and not “may be” established;

(ii) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, t