JUDGMENT : Sushil Kukreja, J. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the impugned judgment dated 05.07.2014, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., in Session Case No. 54- D/VII/12, whereby the accused (respondent herein) was acquitted under Sections 302, 201, 379 and 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’). 2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, as per the prosecution story are that on 29.02.2012 at about 8:30 P.M., Tenzin Donyo, owner of Kunga Guest House, Bhagsu Road, Mecleodganj, District Kangra reported to the police that a boy namely Ujer Bashir checked in at his guest house and on same day, at about 7.45 A.M., the room, in which the said boy checked in, was found locked. When the said room was opened with extra key, a boy was found lying dead on the floor. This Information was reduced into writing and an entry in the daily diary was recorded in the Police Station. ASI Dujesh Kumar went to the spot for verification of this entry. He recorded the statement of the complainant under Section 154 of Cr. P.C., wherein, it has been stated by the complainant that he was running Kunga Guest House comprising of 08 rooms for the last 10 years. On 26.02.2012 a Kashmiri boy, who disclosed his name as Ujer Bashir son of Bashik Ahmed, resident of Shalimar came and after making entry in the register, room No. 303 was given to him. Since there was no bathroom attached to this room, as such, he insisted for a room with attached bathroom and on this, room No. D-9 was given to him. Ujer Bashir was alone and he had given his Identity card. On 29.02.2012 at 7.45 A.M. the complainant found room No. D-9 locked and when the said room was opened with the duplicate key, dead body of a boy in the pool of blood was found lying on the floor. The complainant suspected that Ujer Bashir, who stayed in this room had murdered the boy and fled away after locking the room. On the statement of the complainant, case FIR under Section 302 was registered. Photographs of the spot were taken and site plan was prepared. The complainant suspected that Ujer Bashir, who stayed in this room had murdered the boy and fled away after locking the room. On the statement of the complainant, case FIR under Section 302 was registered. Photographs of the spot were taken and site plan was prepared. RFSL team was also called on the spot and with their assistance blood, butts of cigarettes, hair, shoes, underwear, fingerprints from the empty water bottle and two cups were lifted from the spot for forensic examination. The dead body was sent to Zonal Hospital, Dharamshala for post mortem and after post mortem, the Medical Officer opined that the deceased died due to multiple stab wounds leading Injuries to both lungs and heart causing massive hemorrhage, shock and death. During the investigation, it was unearthed that on 26.02.2012 in the morning Ujer Bashir checked in at Kunga Guest House with accused Antima Rani and they stayed in room No. D-9 till 10-11:00 A:M on 27.02.2012. On 27.02.2012 at about 9-9:30 P.M. Ujer Bashir and accused came to the guest house in the taxi of deceased Sanjay Kumar bearing registration No. HP-01-D-1710, which they hired at Kotwali Bazar, Dharamshala. The deceased also went to their room, where they had altercation on some issue, upon which, Ujer Bashir and accused murdered the deceased with the blows of beer bottle and fled away in the taxi of the deceased along with his mobile phone having SIM No. 98162 92224, jacket and shawl of the deceased and knife used to commit the offence. On 28.02.2012 due to mechanical defect, they left the taxi near Kiratpur and threw the key in the bushes. On 28.02.1012 one Tashi Yanjung, a friend of the deceased, called the deceased on his aforesaid mobile, upon which, Ujer Bashir disclosed to have murdered him. As per call details, the location of phone was found to be in Delhi, as such, investigating team went to Delhi and statement of Imtiyaz was recorded, who disclosed that Ujer Bashir has gone to Kashmir and was using the mobile phone No. 9596016753 and on observation, its location was found to be in Shalimar, Srinagar. On checking the IMEI number of this mobile, It was found to be IMEI number of the mobile phone of the deceased and on this basis, the police came to the conclusion that Ujer Bashir murdered the deceased and fled away to Srinagar. On checking the IMEI number of this mobile, It was found to be IMEI number of the mobile phone of the deceased and on this basis, the police came to the conclusion that Ujer Bashir murdered the deceased and fled away to Srinagar. On 07.03.2012, Ujer Bashir was arrested. Ujer Bashir made a statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act to the effect that he was using the mobile phone of the deceased with SIM of his uncle Fiyaz Ahmed and had thrown the mobile phone after breaking the same in the water and on his demarcation, memo to that effect was prepared. During the Investigation, it was also unearthed that on 27.02.2012, when the accused was with Ujer Bashir at Dharamshala, she called her friend Yogesh Sharma who gave her a mobile phone. The accused through this mobile phone sent a message to Yogesh Sharma on 10.03.2012. On checking call details, location of this mobile phone was found to be in Chandigarh and as such on 21.03.2012, the accused was arrested at Chandigarh. During the investigation, the accused made a disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act qua demarcation of the spot as well as recovery of key of the car and memo to this effect was prepared. The taxi of the deceased, which was used by the accused, was taken into possession from Police Station Kiratpur. FSL report was obtained, as per which, hair strands which were lifted from the spot, matched with the hair sample of the accused. CCTV footages of the Kunga Guest House and Toll Plaza Kiratpur were also obtained for comparison with the photographs of Ujer Bashir and the accused and in this behalf report of CFSL CBI New Delhi was obtained. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 379 and 34 of IPC was filed against the accused in the Court. Subsequently, Ujer Bashir was found to be juvenile and separate enquiry report against him was filed before the Iearned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Dharamshala. 3. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as 27 witnesses. Statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr. P.C. was recorded, wherein she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. Subsequently, Ujer Bashir was found to be juvenile and separate enquiry report against him was filed before the Iearned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Dharamshala. 3. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as 27 witnesses. Statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr. P.C. was recorded, wherein she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. The learned Trial Court, vide impugned judgment dated 05.07.2014 acquitted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 379 and 34 of IPC, hence the instant appeal preferred by the appellant/State. 5. The learned Deputy Advocate General for the appellant/State contended that the impugned judgment is against the law and facts, based upon surmises and conjectures, thus liable to set-aside. He further contended that the learned Trial Court has committed grave error by not properly appreciating the evidence of recovery of hair strands of accused Antima Rani on the spot, which as per report of RFSL, Ext. PW-26/H gave positive result that same were found similar to hair strands lifted from the spot. He also contended that the learned trial Court has not appreciated the evidence that deceased was last seen with accused Antima Rani and co-accused juvenile Ujer Bashir on 27.02.2012 at about 9:30 P.M. at Kotwali Bazar Dharamshala despite the fact that PW-6, Ashok Raj had fully established the presence of a Kashmiri boy and a girl there, as such, the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court deserves to be quashed and set-aside by allowing the instant appeal and the accused be convicted. 6. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondent/accused contended that the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is the result of proper appreciation of the material on record and the same was passed after appreciating the evidence and law in its right and true perspective. He further contended that the learned Trial Court has passed a well reasoned judgment, which does not require any interference, thus the instant appeal, which is devoid of any merit, be dismissed. 7. We have heard the learned Deputy Advocate General for the appellant/State, learned Counsel for the respondent/accused and carefully examined the entire records. 8. It is well settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a catena of decisions that an Appellate Court has full power to review, re- appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. We have heard the learned Deputy Advocate General for the appellant/State, learned Counsel for the respondent/accused and carefully examined the entire records. 8. It is well settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a catena of decisions that an Appellate Court has full power to review, re- appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. However, Appellate Court must bear in mind that in case of acquittal there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent Court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court. Further, if two reasonable views are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the Appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court, merely, because the Appellate Court could have arrived at a different conclusion than that of the Trial Court. 9. It is also a settled position of law that the burden of proof in a criminal trial never shifts and it is always the burden of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence. In fact, it is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the more serious the offence, the stricter the degree of proof required, since a higher degree of assurance is required to convict the accused. 10. Admittedly, there is no direct evidence led by the prosecution to show the involvement of the accused and the entire case of the prosecution is based upon circumstantial evidence. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has relied upon the following five circumstances: “Circumstance No. 1: The accused checked in Kunga Guest House with Ujer Bashir. Circumstance No.2:- The accused and Ujer Bashir hired taxi of deceased at Kotwali Bazar, Dharmashala on 27.02.2012 at about 9:30 P.M. In other words, deceased was last seen with the accused and Ujer Bashir on 27.02.2012 at about 9:30 P.M. at Kotwali Bazar, Dharamshala. Circumstance No.3:- The accused and Ujer Bashir fled away after the occurrence without payment along with car and belongings of the deceased. Circumstance No.3:- The accused and Ujer Bashir fled away after the occurrence without payment along with car and belongings of the deceased. Circumstance No.4: The recovery of dead body of the deceased was effected from Room No. D-9 of Kunga Guest House. Circumstance No-5: The accused is identified by PW-3 Dharminder Kumar, PW-4 Thinlay Wangtop and PW-6 Ashok Rai. Circumstance No. 6: Recovery of hair strands of the accused on the spot. Circumstance No. 7: Disclosure statement of the accused under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. 11. It is a well settled proposition of law that conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence. But all the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution must be clearly established. The proved circumstances must be such as would reasonably exclude the possibility of innocence of the accused. In other words, the circumstantial evidence should be consistent with the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocence. The chain of circumstance should be so complete to lead to the only conclusion that it was only the accused and none else, who had committed the crime. The principles on which the circumstantial evidence is to be evaluated have been stated and reiterated by the Supreme Court in numerous judgments. Various judicial pronouncements have laid down the golden principles with regard to conviction in case which rests upon circumstantial evidence i.e. the circumstance from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established with the further caution that the circumstances, "Must or Should" and not may be established. Further golden principle as laid down is that the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved and should be of conclusive nature and tendency. 12. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 where the Hon'ble Court while discussing the entire gamut of decision has laid down the five golden principles of proof in a case based on circumstantial evidence thereby laying down that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be fully established: “153. … … … … … … … … (1)  the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. … … … … … … … … (1)  the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. … … … … … … … … (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused that is to say, they should not be explained on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except that one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probabilities the act must have been done by the accused.” 13. When a case rests on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused, but must also be inconsistent with his innocence meaning thereby that every reasonable possibility of innocence of accused must be excluded before the accused is held guilty of an offence on the strength of circumstantial evidence. 14. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda’s case (supra), it has further been held that in a case of circumstantial evidence, it is incumbent upon the court to satisfy itself that: “159. … … … … … … … … (1) various links in the chain of evidence led by the prosecution have been satisfactorily proved, (2) the said circumstance point to the guilt of the accused with reasonable definiteness, and (3) the circumstance is in proximity to the time and situation.” 15. In the case of Vijay Shankar vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2015) 12 SCC 644 , the Hon?ble Apex held that the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime  was  committed  by  the  accused. Paragraph  8  of  the aforesaid judgment reads as under: "8. There is no eye-witness to the occurrence and the entire case is based upon circumstantial evidence. Paragraph  8  of  the aforesaid judgment reads as under: "8. There is no eye-witness to the occurrence and the entire case is based upon circumstantial evidence. The normal principle is that in a case based on circumstantial evidence the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; that these circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; that the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and they should be incapable of explanation of any hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with their innocence vide Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 . The same view was reiterated in Bablu vs. State of Rajasthan, (2007) 2 SCC (Cri). 590." 16. In the case of State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Raj Kumar, reported in (2018) 2 SCC 69 , Hon’ble Apex Court was considering a case based on circumstantial evidence. Their Lordships while taking note of the well settled legal position, in Paragraphs 9 and 10 observed as under: "9. Prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. It is well settled that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established and that those circumstances must be conclusive in nature unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused. Moreover all the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a complete chain and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence. 10. In a case, based on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be drawn only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused. In Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra (2006) 10 SCC 681 , it was held as under:- "12. 10. In a case, based on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be drawn only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused. In Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra (2006) 10 SCC 681 , it was held as under:- "12. ...........The normal principle in a case based on circumstantial evidence is that the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; that those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; that the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and they should be incapable of explanation on any hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with their innocence.The same principle was reiterated in State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram (2006) 12 SCC 254 , Ganesh Lal v. State of Rajasthan (2002) 1 SCC 731 , State of Maharashtra v. Suresh (2000) 1 SCC 471 and State of Tamil Nadu v.Rajendran (1999) 8 SCC 679 ." 17. In Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 SCC online SC 1396, the legal position has further been reiterated as under: “PRINCIPLES OF LAW RELATING TO APPRECIATION OF CIRCUMSTANCTIAL EVIDENCE 45. In ‘A Treatise on Judicial Evidence’, Jeremy Bentham, an English Philosopher included a whole chapter upon what lies next when the direct evidence does not lead to any special inference. It is called Circumstantial Evidence. According to him, in every case, of circumstantial evidence, there are always at least two facts to be considered: a) The Factum probandum, or say, the principal fact (the fact the existence of which is supposed to proposed to be proved; & b) The Factum probans or the evidentiary fact (the fact from the existence of which that of the factum probandumis inferred). 46. Although there can be no straight jacket formula for appreciation of circumstantial evidence, yet to convict an accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence, the Court must follow certain tests which are broadly as follows: 1. Circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; 2. 46. Although there can be no straight jacket formula for appreciation of circumstantial evidence, yet to convict an accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence, the Court must follow certain tests which are broadly as follows: 1. Circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; 2. Those circumstances must be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused and must be conclusive in nature; 3. The circumstances, if taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed b the accused and none else; and 4. The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. In other words, the circumstances should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. 50. Thus, in view of the above, the Court must consider a case of circumstantial evidence in light of the aforesaid settled legal propositions. In a case of circumstantial evidence, the judgment remains essentially inferential. The inference is drawn from the established facts as the circumstances lead to particular inferences. The court has to drawn inference with respect to whether the chain of circumstances is complete, and when the circumstances therein are collectively considered, the same must lead only to the irresistible conclusion that the accused alone is the perpetrator of the crime in question. All the circumstances so established must be of a conclusive nature, and consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused.” 18. In a recent judgment, in the case of Raja Naykar vs. State of Chattisgarh, (2024) 3 SCC 481 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has again reiterated as under: “17. It can thus clearly be seen that it is necessary for the prosecution that the circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The Court holds that it is a primary principle that the accused “must be” and not merely “may be” proved guilty before a court can convict the accused. It has been held that there is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between “may be proved” and “must be or should be proved”. The Court holds that it is a primary principle that the accused “must be” and not merely “may be” proved guilty before a court can convict the accused. It has been held that there is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between “may be proved” and “must be or should be proved”. It has been held that the facts so established should be consistent only with the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. It has further been held that the circumstances should be such that they exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. It has been held that there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probabilities the act must have been done by the accused.” 19. Now, we would proceed to examine if the prosecution has been able to establish the above mentioned seven circumstances in order to bring home the guilt of the accused in the present case in the light of the aforesaid settled legal proposition. 20. Circumstance No. 1: The accused checked in Kunga Guest House with Ujer Bashir. 20(a). As per prosecution story, on 26.02.2012 at about 9.00 A.M. Ujer Bashir checked in at room No. D-9 of Kunga Guest House and when he checked in, he was alone. There is no reference in the statement of the complainant that any girl too checked in at room No. D-9 with said Ujer Bashir. There is also no mention in the complaint of the complainant, Ext PW1/A as well as FIR Ext. PW11/J that any girl was accompanying Ujer Bashir, when he checked in room No. D-9 of Kunga Guest House. The statement of this witness further shows that Ujer Bashir did not check in the room in his presence and as such, his statement qua Identification of Ujer Bashir is not worth believing. He has categorically admitted in his cross-examination that in his statement Ext. PW1/A and subsequent supplementary statements, he has not disclosed to the police that Ujer Bashir occupied the room in his presence and further that he can identify him. In view of such statement, the identification of Ujer Bashir by this witness becomes meaningless. He has categorically admitted in his cross-examination that in his statement Ext. PW1/A and subsequent supplementary statements, he has not disclosed to the police that Ujer Bashir occupied the room in his presence and further that he can identify him. In view of such statement, the identification of Ujer Bashir by this witness becomes meaningless. 20(b). The version of the complainant was later on twisted by PW-3 Dharminder Kumar, waiter and PW-4 Thinley Wangtop, managing the affairs of the guest house. PW-3 Dharminder Kumar and PW-4 Thinley Wangtop have deposed that Ujer Bashir came to Kunga Guest House along with a girl on 26.02.2012 at about 9.15 A.M. and room No. 303 was shown to them, but since there was no attached bathroom, as such, they checked In room No. D-9 in the ground floor of the guest house. An entry Ext PW-4/A in the visitor’s register Ext. P-1 was made by PW-4 at No. 471. Ujer Bashir also handed over his identity card Ext. P-2 and visiting card Ext. P-3 to PW-4. Ujer Bashir disclosed that the girl accompanying him would not stay in the guest house as she was local. Thereafter Ujer Bashir and the girl accompanying him went to the restaurant of the guest house and had snacks. The testimonies of the aforesaid witnesses show that the accused did not stay with Ujer Bashir in the guest house. This fact has been further fortified from the cross-examination of PW-3 and PW-4. PW-3 in his cross- examination has categorically stated that he had not seen any boy or girl with Ujer Bashir on 27.02.2012 and 28.02.2012. He further deposed that he had not given statement to the police that he saw Ujer Bashir residing with the accused in the guest house from 26.02.2012 to 28.02.2012 and according to this witness, on 27.02.2012 Ujer Bashir was alone. Similarly, PW-4 has admitted that he had not seen anybody residing with Ujer Bashir in the guest house from 26.02.2012 to 28.02.2012. He has further admitted that he did not disclose to the police on 29.02.2012 that he saw Ujer Bashir with a girl. 20(c) Thus, the testimonies of the aforesaid witnesses renders the first circumstance highly doubtful that the accused stayed in Kunga Guest House with Ujer Bashir on 26.02.2012 and 27.02.2012. He has further admitted that he did not disclose to the police on 29.02.2012 that he saw Ujer Bashir with a girl. 20(c) Thus, the testimonies of the aforesaid witnesses renders the first circumstance highly doubtful that the accused stayed in Kunga Guest House with Ujer Bashir on 26.02.2012 and 27.02.2012. On 27.02.2012, only Ujer Bashir went to the restaurant of the guest house and took eatables to the room occupied by him. There is no evidence to establish that at the relevant time the accused was with Ujer Bashir at Kunga Guest House. To substantiate the presence of the accused, even CCTV footage of the restaurant was also taken by the expert. PW-23 Vivek Kumar, has converted the CCTV footage into a CD and also prepared the photographs of a male and a female on the basis of CCTV footage and CD of said footage. After the accused was arrested, her photographs Ext. P-31 to Ext. P-32 were taken for comparison with the CCTV footage of the guest house and report of CFSL CBI, New Delhi Ext. PW-27/G was obtained and as per this report, photographs of the accused did not match with CCTV footage. Therefore, the report of CFSL CBI, New Delhi Ext. PW- 27/G falsifies the case set up by the prosecution qua presence of the accused with Ujer Bashir in the guest house. 21. Circumstance No.2:- The accused and Ujer Bashir hired taxi of deceased at Kotwali Bazar, Dharmashala on 27.02.2012 at about 9:30 P.M. In other words, deceased was last seen with the accused and Ujer Bashir on 27.02.2012 at about 9:30 P.M. at Kotwali Bazar, Dharamshala. 21(a). To substantiate this circumstance, the prosecution has examined PW-6 Ashok Rai, who was running a tea shop at Kotwall Bazar, Dharamshala. He deposed that on 27.02.2012 at about 10.00 P.M. one Kashmiri boy and a girl came to his shop and asked for telephone number of the police and they remained in his shop for 20-25 minutes when the taxi driver Billa came to his shop. He further deposed that the said boy and girl went to Mecleodganj in the taxi of Billa. As per the prosecution case, the accused and Ujer Bashir were in the company of the deceased Sanjay Kumar before he was murdered on 27.02.2012. However, the statement of PW-6 Ashok Rai is absolutely silent about the deceased Sanjay Kumar. He further deposed that the said boy and girl went to Mecleodganj in the taxi of Billa. As per the prosecution case, the accused and Ujer Bashir were in the company of the deceased Sanjay Kumar before he was murdered on 27.02.2012. However, the statement of PW-6 Ashok Rai is absolutely silent about the deceased Sanjay Kumar. In his statement there is reference of taxi driver Billa. He has not deposed anything about registration number of the said taxi to link that Ujer Bashir and accused hired the taxi of deceased Sanjay Kumar. Further, as per prosecution story, it is alleged that Ujer Bashir and accused came to Kunga Guest House in the taxi of deceased Sanjay Kumar, but no one in the guest house saw all of them together either in the guest house or in room No. D-9. The statements of PW-3 Dharminder Kumar and PW-4 Thinley Wangtop are absolutely silent about this important aspect to come to the conclusion that in fact the accused was in the company of Ujer Bashir and deceased Sanjay Kumar on 27.02.2012 at about 11.00 P.M. in room No. D-9 of Kunga Guest House. 21(b) As observed earlier, PW-3 has categorically stated that he has not seen any body with Ujer Bashir on 27.02.2012 and 28.02.2012 and to the similar fact is the statement of PW-4 Thinley Wangtop. There must be some cogent evidence on record to prove that the accused was with the deceased prior to his death and only then the burden would shift upon the accused to explain the circumstances in which death was caused. PW-3 and PW-4 had seen the accused in the guest house only on 26.02.2012 and thereafter they had not seen her there. The dead body was recovered on 29.02.2012. The post mortem examination was conducted on 29.02.2012 at about 4.00 P.M. at Zonal Hospital, Dharamshala. As per Medical Officer, probable time between death and post mortem was 48 hours. Thus, the testimony of PW-6 Ashok Rai that the taxi was hired at about 10.00 P.M. becomes doubtful. PW-6 has also not identified the accused beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubt and he has simply deposed that the said girl seems to be like accused present in the Court. The deposition of PW-6 shows that he was not certain about the girl who had come to his shop. PW-6 has also not identified the accused beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubt and he has simply deposed that the said girl seems to be like accused present in the Court. The deposition of PW-6 shows that he was not certain about the girl who had come to his shop. Therefore, the testimony of PW-6 does not establish that the accused was with the deceased at the time of death. To prove the theory of last seen together, the prosecution should establish the time of death, which the prosecution failed to do in this case. However, there is absolutely no evidence to establish that the accused was with the deceased at the time of his death. Therefore, even this circumstance is extremely suspicious. 22. Circumstance No.3:- The accused and Ujer Bashir fled away after the occurrence without payment along with car and belongings of the deceased. 22(a) As per the prosecution story, after murder of the deceased at about 11:00 P.M. on 27.02.2012, Ujer Bashir and accused fled away with the car, mobile phone, jacket and shawl of the deceased and weapon of offence i.e. knife and left the car near Kiratpur on 28.02.2012 after throwing the key in the bushes. To substantiate so, CCTV footage of the Toll Plaza Kiratpur was taken for comparison with the photographs of the accused Ext. P-31 and Ext. P-32 and report of CFL CBI, New Delhi was obtained. However, this report falsifies the case set up by the prosecution that the accused fled away with Ujer Bashir in the car of the deceased. As such the prosecution story regarding this circumstance is falsified. The recovery of alleged car and its key was not at all effected at the instance of the accused to link that she in fact fled away with the car and other belongings of the deceased. 23. Circumstance No.4: The recovery of dead body of the deceased was effected from Room No. D-9 of Kunga Guest House. 23(a). As per the prosecution story as well as statement of PW-1 Tenzin Donyo (complainant) on 29.02.2012, room No. D-9 was found locked in the morning and when the said room was opened with duplicate key, dead body of Sanjay Kumar was found and subsequently the matter was reported to the police. 23(a). As per the prosecution story as well as statement of PW-1 Tenzin Donyo (complainant) on 29.02.2012, room No. D-9 was found locked in the morning and when the said room was opened with duplicate key, dead body of Sanjay Kumar was found and subsequently the matter was reported to the police. This fact that complainant came to know that dead body of Sanjay Kumar was lying  in Room No. D-9 can hardly be said to be an incriminating circumstance vis-à-vis the accused. 24. Circumstance No-5: The accused is identified by PW-3 Dharminder Kumar, PW-4 Thinlay Wangtop and PW-6 Ashok Rai. 24(a). As already observed earlier, the identity of the accused on the best of CCTV footage and as per report of CFSL CBI, New Delhi, Ext PW-27/G has not been established. As such, testimonies of these witnesses, regarding the identity of the accused, assume importance. As per evidence, after the arrest, the accused was shown to PW-3 on 24.03.2012 and similarly as per PW-6, the accused was shown to him. This evidence shows that these witnesses did not know the accused by name, but could only identify her from her appearance. Thus, in these circumstances, test Identification parade was necessary so that substantive evidence in the court about Identification could get corroboration from the Identification parade. However, the prosecution did not take any steps in that regard and no test Identification parade had been held. 25. Circumstance No-6: The recovery of hair strands of the accused on the spot. 25(a). As per prosecution story, hair strands of the accused were recovered in room No. D-9 of Kunga Guest House and with the assistance of FSL team, the same were lifted and sealed with three seals of seal impression 'C' in the presence of PW-2 Dina Nath and PW Safar Singh, vide memo Ext PW-2/H. Subsequently, after arrest of the accused, she was medically examined and her hair sample was collected for comparison with the hair strands lifted from the spot. The hair strands lifted from the spot and hair sample of the accused were sent to RFSL Dharamshala and as per report of RFSL, Dharamshala, Ext. PW-26/H hair sample of the accused was found similar to hair strands lifted from the spot. Ext. PW-2/H is the memo vide which hair strands were lifted from the spot and were sealed In a carton with three seals of seal impression 'C'. PW-26/H hair sample of the accused was found similar to hair strands lifted from the spot. Ext. PW-2/H is the memo vide which hair strands were lifted from the spot and were sealed In a carton with three seals of seal impression 'C'. This memo is absolutely silent that any specimen seal impression was also obtained and further to whom the seal after use was handed over. PW-2 Dina Nath is the sole witness to this memo examined by the prosecution, but the seal was not handed over to him. As per statement of this witness recorded by the police during the Investigation, seal after use was handed over to witness Wangdue. The statement of PW-27, Gurbachan Singh, Investigating Officer, is absolutely silent as to whom seal after use was handed over. The Investigating Officer though denied specific suggestion of the learned defence counsel that the seal with which parcel containing hair strands was sealed was kept by him and it was not handed over to any witness, but he could not tell the name of such witness to whom this seal was handed over. Surprisingly, PW Wangdue has not been examined by the prosecution and this witness was given up. As such a doubt appears from the evidence on record that after sealing the parcel containing hair strands, the seal was handed over to any Independent witness. 25(b). The statement of PW-2 Dina Nath one of the witnesses to recovery memo Ext. PW-2/H is also absolutely silent about the person to whom the seal 'C' after use was handed over. Had the parcel been sealed in his presence, he should have deposed with certainty as to whom the seal after use was handed over. As per the evidence on record, chances of tampering with the parcel containing hair strands cannot be overruled. The photographs Ext. PW-26/D-5 and Ext. PW-26/D-6 reveal about the hair strands lifted from the floor. There are no photographs about hair strands lifted from the bed and quilt. The hair strands alleged to have been lifted from the spot in the presence of PW-2 Dina Nath. However, as per the statement of this witness hair strands were lifted by the police and RFSL team only from the bed and quilt. Similar is the statement of PW-26 ASI Dujesh Kumar. The hair strands alleged to have been lifted from the spot in the presence of PW-2 Dina Nath. However, as per the statement of this witness hair strands were lifted by the police and RFSL team only from the bed and quilt. Similar is the statement of PW-26 ASI Dujesh Kumar. The statements of both these witnesses, who were present when the hair strands were lifted, are silent about the lifting of hair strands from the floor, as shown in photographs Ext. PW-26/D-5 and Ext. PW-26/D-6. Meaning thereby that as per these witnesses, no hair strands were lifted from the floor. As such photographs about hair strands so proved on record are not in consonance with the versions of the aforesaid witnesses and consequently the recovery of hair strands is not free from doubt. The parcel containing hair strands was sent to RFSL Dharamshala vide R.C. No 66/21 through PW-14 Yashpal. The statement of PW-14 is absolutely silent that along with the parcel he also carried specimen of seal Impression 'C'. Similar is the statement of PW-11 H.C. Bhoop Singh, the then MHC, who handed over this parcel to PW-14, is also silent about handing over the specimen of seal Impression 'C' to PW-14 along with the parcel to be deposited In RFSL Dharamshala. Meaning thereby that the specimen of seal Impression 'C' was not sent with the parcel. Therefore, in this background, a reference is made to report Ext PW-25/K. As per this report, seals on the parcel were seen intact and tallied with the specimen seal sent with the docket. When as per evidence no seal was sent with the docket through PW-14 HHC Yashpal, then which seal was tallied with the seals on the parcel. This link in this regard is absolutely missing. As such, the reports of FSL regarding hair strands are not worth believing. 26. Circumstance No. 7: The disclosure statement of the accused under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. 26(a) As per prosecution story, during the Investigation, the accused made a disclosure statement Ext. PW-27/C while in custody to the effect that she can give demarcation of the room of the Kunga Guest House Mecleodganj, where she stayed on 26/27-02-2014 with Ujer Bashir and where she had hidden the Jacket, shawl, knife and purse at Chandigarh. 26(a) As per prosecution story, during the Investigation, the accused made a disclosure statement Ext. PW-27/C while in custody to the effect that she can give demarcation of the room of the Kunga Guest House Mecleodganj, where she stayed on 26/27-02-2014 with Ujer Bashir and where she had hidden the Jacket, shawl, knife and purse at Chandigarh. Subsequent to this disclosure statement, the accused gave the demarcation of the room No. D-9 of the Kunga Guest House vide memo Ext. PW-27/D in the presence of PW-5 Sunil Kumar and one Vishal Sharma. However, such disclosure statement of the accused is not admissible as no recovery on its basis was effected. Even during the examination of PW-5 Sunil Kumar, the learned defence counsel raised such objection on the ground that such statement is not admissible as the accused cannot be a witness against herself and as such the statement is hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. This objection of the learned defence counsel was held to be sustainable, as it is only the part of the statement which is not incriminating and leads to discovery become admissible. 27. Hence, on a thorough consideration of the entire evidence on record, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish all the aforesaid seven circumstances, from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn in terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Sharad Birdichand Sarda’s case (supra). It is a settled law that suspicion, howsoever strong, cannot take the place of proof. Thus, in our considered opinion, the accused will be entitled to the benefit of doubt as the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The trial Court was justified in acquitting the accused and there are no grounds for us to interfere with the judgment challenged by the prosecution. The view taken by the learned Trial Court was the only possible view, as such the appeal, which is devoid of merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand(s) disposed of.