Judgment : Radhakishan Agrawal, J. 1. This acquittal appeal filed by the Appellant/State arises out of the judgment dated 23.09.2017 passed by the Sessions Judge, Kabirdham (Kawardha), C.G. in Sessions Case No. 16/2017, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the accused persons/respondents herein of the charges under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “IPC”) on the basis of benefit of doubt. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 08.12.2016, at around 12:00 p.m., one Hazari Gond reached his agricultural field situated at Village Dhuanchapar Khar to harvest sesame crops, where he noticed the dead body of an unknown male, aged about 40 years, lying in the adjoining field of one Veer Singh. The dead body was found bleeding from the mouth and a green-colored scarf, tied with two knots, was found around the neck. Thereafter, Hazari Gond immediately informed the villagers and subsequently, they went to Police Station Taregaon Forest, District Kabirdham, where a merg intimation (Ex.P-1) was recorded. During the inquest proceedings, the dead body was identified as that of Anujram Patel (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) by PW-2 Visram Patel and one Raju Patel. The dead body was then sent for postmortem examination, which was conducted by PW-11 Dr. Devendra Belchandan. As per the postmortem report (Ex.P-19), the cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation and the nature of death was homicidal. During investigation, blood-stained soil, plain soil, a black cloth from the deceased’s pant pocket, a purse containing slips with mobile numbers and a pair of slippers were seized vide Ex. P-5. Based on statements recorded during the enquiry, suspicion arose that the deceased’s wife- Kaushalya Bai, was having an illicit relationship with accused/respondent No.1- Nandram Shrivas. It was revealed that on 07.12.2016, PW-8 Salikram and PW-9 Punitram had seen the accused persons allegedly taking the deceased- Anujram, on a motorcycle and later murdering him. On the basis of the evidence collected during enquiry, a First Information Report (Ex.P-22) was registered against the accused persons/respondents. The accused persons were taken into custody as per Exs.P-25 and P-26. Vide Ex.P-10, the memorandum statement of accused- Jugut Ram was recorded, pursuant to which, an old mobile phone of the deceased was seized vide Ex. P-11. Vide Ex. P-12, a Hero Honda CD-Dawn motorcycle bearing registration number CG-10-DB-8293 was seized from the house of accused- Nandram. The accused persons were taken into custody as per Exs.P-25 and P-26. Vide Ex.P-10, the memorandum statement of accused- Jugut Ram was recorded, pursuant to which, an old mobile phone of the deceased was seized vide Ex. P-11. Vide Ex. P-12, a Hero Honda CD-Dawn motorcycle bearing registration number CG-10-DB-8293 was seized from the house of accused- Nandram. Vide Ex. P-17, a green towel (scarf) was also seized. The seized articles were sent to FSL for chemical examination and the FSL report (Ex.P-29) was found to be inconclusive. 3. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused persons/respondents before the concerned trial Court. The accused persons/respondents abjured their guilt and prayed for trial. 4. The trial Court, after hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, by the impugned judgment acquitted the accused persons/respondents herein of said charges leveled against them. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned trial Court is unjustified in acquitting the accused persons/respondents as there is ample evidence available on record to connect them with the offences in question. He would further submit that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts. He would further submit that from the evidence of PW-8 Salikram and PW-9 Punitram Markam, it is quite vivid that on the date of incident, deceased was seen lastly in the company of the accused persons. He would also submit that prosecution has established the motive for the offence and despite the availability of sufficient evidence on record, the learned trial Court committed a grave error in acquitting the accused persons/respondents. Therefore, the impugned judgment of acquittal suffers from perversity and illegality and is liable to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/accused persons would support the impugned judgment and submit that there is no cogent or clinching evidence on record to show that the respondents are the perpetrator of the crime in question. He would further submit that the prosecution has failed to prove its beyond all reasonable doubt. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/accused persons would support the impugned judgment and submit that there is no cogent or clinching evidence on record to show that the respondents are the perpetrator of the crime in question. He would further submit that the prosecution has failed to prove its beyond all reasonable doubt. He would also submit that PW-8 Salikram and PW-9 Punitram, who are said to have last seen the deceased in the company of the accused persons and PW-3 Rukmani and PW-10 Nathuram, who are the witnesses to the memorandum and seizure, have not supported the case of the prosecution case. Thus, the learned trial Court, after evaluating the entire evidence on record, has rightly acquitted the accused persons. Therefore, the appeal filed by the State deserves to be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. The Supreme Court in the matter of Jafarudheen and others vs. State of Kerala (2022) 8 SCC 440 has considered the scope of interference in Appeal against acquittal, which reads as under:- “25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 CrPC, the appellate court has to consider whether the trial court's view can be terms as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.” 9. The question that now arises for consideration is whether the respondents are the authors of the crime in question. 10. Admittedly, the present case rests on circumstantial evidence as there is no direct evidence available on record. The five golden principles, which constitute the panchsheel of proof in a case based on circumstantial evidence, have been laid down by their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 , wherein it was observed in paragraph 153 as under: “153. The five golden principles, which constitute the panchsheel of proof in a case based on circumstantial evidence, have been laid down by their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 , wherein it was observed in paragraph 153 as under: “153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established : (1)the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between 'may be proved' and “must be or should be proved” as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra (1973) 2 SCC 793 where the following observations were made : [SCC para 19, p. 807 : SCC (Cri) p. 1047] Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. (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 explainable 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 the 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 probability the act must have been done by the accused.” 11. First, we shall consider the circumstance found proved by the trial Court against the respondents with regard to the motive of the offence. According to the contents of FIR (Ex. P-22), it was alleged that respondent No.1 Nandram had an illicit relationship with the deceased's wife- Kaushalya and in order to eliminate the deceased, the accused persons hatched a plan to commit his murder. However, a careful perusal of the evidence on record does not support these allegations. According to the contents of FIR (Ex. P-22), it was alleged that respondent No.1 Nandram had an illicit relationship with the deceased's wife- Kaushalya and in order to eliminate the deceased, the accused persons hatched a plan to commit his murder. However, a careful perusal of the evidence on record does not support these allegations. There is no direct or circumstantial evidence to indicate that respondent No.1 Nandram had any illicit relationship with the deceased’s wife. The prosecution did not produce any witness, document or material evidence to establish such a relationship. In particular, the wife of the deceased- Kaushalya, has not been examined by the prosecution, despite being a crucial witness to prove the alleged illicit relationship. In the absence of evidence establishing such a relationship, it cannot be inferred that it was the motive for the alleged murder. Mere allegations in the FIR, without supporting evidence, are insufficient to prove the motive. Thus, the prosecution has failed to establish the motive for the offence against the respondents. 12. As regards the next circumstance found proved by the trial Court, it pertains to the alleged last-seen evidence, wherein the deceased was reportedly seen in the company of the respondents by PW-8 Salikram and PW-9 Punitram. PW-8 Salikram has stated in his deposition that before the incident, he had gone to Kui Market along with the deceased and PW-9 Punitram. At about 4:00 pm, while returning on the same motorcycle, near village Rokhni, the accused persons allegedly stopped them and asked the deceased to accompany them to the market. Thereafter, the deceased told him and PW-9 Punitram to proceed ahead stating that he would go with the accused persons, and accordingly, they left the place. He has further stated that two days later, he came to know from the villagers that deceased- Anujram has died. He has deposed that he last saw the deceased near village Rokhni, going towards the market along with the accused persons and after that, he did not see the deceased alive. In cross-examination, he admitted that two days before the body of the deceased was found, he had gone to the market with the deceased and PW-9 on his motorcycle. He has deposed that he last saw the deceased near village Rokhni, going towards the market along with the accused persons and after that, he did not see the deceased alive. In cross-examination, he admitted that two days before the body of the deceased was found, he had gone to the market with the deceased and PW-9 on his motorcycle. He also admitted that in his police statement (Ex.D-1), recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., he had told that the accused persons had stopped the motorcycle by waving their hands near village Rokhni, however, the said fact is not mentioned in his police statement (Ex.D-1). He further admitted that his statement was recorded two to three days after the body was found, but his statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded on 04.01.2017 i.e. more than a month after the incident. He also admitted that he had met and talked with the father of the deceased before making his statement, but he did not inform him or any other relative that the accused persons had stopped them near village Rokhni and taken the deceased with them. 13. Likewise, PW-9 Punitram Markam has stated in his deposition that he, along with the deceased and PW-8 Salikram, was returning from the market on the same motorcycle at about 4:30 pm. Near village Rokhni, the accused persons allegedly stopped the motorcycle by waving their hands, upon which, PW-8 Salikram stopped the vehicle. The deceased then told them that “my person has come and you both may go,” and accordingly, he and PW-8 Salikram left the place, while the deceased accompanied the accused persons. He has further stated that two days later, he came to know from the father of the deceased that the deceased has died and he is unaware of how the deceased died. He has also deposed that one month after the body was found, he went to the Taragaon Forest Police Station along with villagers at the behest of the police. In cross-examination, he admitted that he did not disclose to the police that the accused persons had stopped the motorcycle of the deceased at village Rokhni and that the deceased had told them to return. In cross-examination, he admitted that he did not disclose to the police that the accused persons had stopped the motorcycle of the deceased at village Rokhni and that the deceased had told them to return. He also admitted that in his presence, respondent No.1 Nandram did not disclose to the police that he had an illicit relationship with the wife of the deceased or that he, along with respondent No.2, had committed the murder. 14. The Supreme Court in the matter of Padman Bibhar vs State of Odisha , 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 613 relying on its own judgment observed that the evidence of last seen is a very weak type of evidence and only on that basis, the conviction of the accused persons are very difficult without corroboration with other circumstances pointing towards guilt of the accused persons and held in paras 20 & 21 as under: “20. This Court in Kanhaiya Lal vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2014) 4 SCC 715 has held that evidence on ‘last seen together’ is a weak piece of evidence and conviction only on the basis of ‘last seen together’ without there being any other corroborative evidence against the accused, is not sufficient to convict the accused for an offence under Section 302 IPC. The following passage from the judgment in paras 12 and 15 can be profitably referred: “12. The circumstance of last seen together does not by itself and necessarily lead to the inference that it was the accused who committed the crime. There must be something more establishing connectivity between the accused and the crime. Mere nonexplanation on the part of the appellant, in our considered opinion, by itself cannot lead to proof of guilt against the appellant. 15. The theory of last seen—the appellant having gone with the deceased in the manner noticed hereinbefore, is the singular piece of circumstantial evidence available against him. The conviction of the appellant cannot be maintained merely on suspicion, however strong it may be, or on his conduct. These facts assume further importance on account of absence of proof of motive particularly when it is proved that there was cordial relationship between the accused and the deceased for a long time. The conviction of the appellant cannot be maintained merely on suspicion, however strong it may be, or on his conduct. These facts assume further importance on account of absence of proof of motive particularly when it is proved that there was cordial relationship between the accused and the deceased for a long time. The fact situation bears great similarity to that in Madho Singh v. State of Rajasthan,(2010) 15 SCC 588” 21.Similarly, this Court in Rambraksh @ Jalim vs. State of Chhattisgarh reported in (2016) 12 SCC 251 has reiterated above legal position in the following words in paras 12 and 13: “12. It is trite law that a conviction cannot be recorded against the accused merely on the ground that the accused was last seen with the deceased. In other words, a conviction cannot be based on the only circumstance of last seen together. Normally, last seen theory comes into play where the time gap, between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were seen last alive and when the deceased is found dead, is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the perpetrator of the crime becomes impossible. To record a conviction, the last seen together itself would not be sufficient and the prosecution has to complete the chain of circumstances to bring home the guilt of the accused. 13. In a similar fact situation this Court in Krishnan v. State of T.N. (2014) 12 SCC 279 held as follows: (SCC pp. 284-85, paras 21-24) “21. The conviction cannot be based only on circumstance of last seen together with the deceased. In Arjun Marik v. State of Bihar (1994) Supp (2) SCC 372 this Court held as follows: (SCC p. 385, para 31) ‘31. Thus the evidence that the appellant had gone to Sitaram in the evening of 19-7-1985 and had stayed in the night at the house of deceased Sitaram is very shaky and inconclusive. Even if it is accepted that they were there it would at best amount to be the evidence of the appellants having been seen last together with the deceased. Even if it is accepted that they were there it would at best amount to be the evidence of the appellants having been seen last together with the deceased. But it is settled law that the only circumstance of last seen will not complete the chain of circumstances to record the finding that it is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and, therefore, no conviction on that basis alone can be founded.’ 22. This Court in Bodhraj v. State of J&K, (2002) 8 SCC 45 held that: (SCC p. 63, para 31) ‘31. The last seen theory comes into play where the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible.’ It will be hazardous to come to a conclusion of guilt in cases where there is no other positive evidence to conclude that the accused and the deceased were last seen together. 23. There is unexplained delay of six days in lodging the FIR. As per prosecution story the deceased Manikandan was last seen on 4-4-2004 at Vadakkumelur Village during Panguni Uthiram Festival at Mariyamman Temple. The body of the deceased was taken from the borewell by the fire service personnel after more than seven days. There is no other positive material on record to show that the deceased was last seen together with the accused and in the intervening period of seven days there was nobody in contact with the deceased. 24. In Jaswant Gir v. State of Punjab , (2005) 12 SCC 438 , this Court held that in the absence of any other links in the chain of circumstantial evidence, the appellant cannot be convicted solely on the basis of “last seen together” even if version of the prosecution witness in this regard is believed.” 15. 24. In Jaswant Gir v. State of Punjab , (2005) 12 SCC 438 , this Court held that in the absence of any other links in the chain of circumstantial evidence, the appellant cannot be convicted solely on the basis of “last seen together” even if version of the prosecution witness in this regard is believed.” 15. When the present matter is examined in the light of above decision by the Supreme Court coupled with evidence on record shows that although PW-8 Salikram and PW-9 Nandram stated that the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused persons near village Rokhni, but this fact has not been disclosed by them either to the police, the father of the deceased, or any relative soon after the incident, which indicates that their conduct was not natural. The alleged incident occurred on 07-08.12.2016, while their police statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. were recorded on 04.01.2017, nearly a month later. Had they truly seen the deceased in the company of the accused persons, it is reasonable to expect that they would have informed the police or the relatives immediately despite they were present at the village. Their failure to do so casts serious doubt on the reliability of their statements. Therefore, it cannot be conclusively established from their evidence that the deceased was seen lastly in the company of the accused persons on the date of the incident. 16. In addition, the witnesses to the memorandum and seizure, namely PW-3 Rukhmani Patel and PW-10 Nathuram, have also not supported the prosecution’s case. Further, according to the Seizure Memo (Ex.P-11), an old mobile phone was alleged to have been seized from respondent No.2. However, the police personnel, including the Investigating Officer, could not prove that the seized mobile belonged to the deceased- Anujram, nor could they establish that the mobile contained any SIM card. Furthermore, the prosecution has also failed to prove that the alleged seized scarf tied around the neck of the deceased and a pair of slippers belonged to the accused persons. Moreover, the FSL report does not provide any conclusive evidence linking the respondents to the crime in question. Furthermore, the prosecution has also failed to prove that the alleged seized scarf tied around the neck of the deceased and a pair of slippers belonged to the accused persons. Moreover, the FSL report does not provide any conclusive evidence linking the respondents to the crime in question. If the case of the prosecution is taken as it is, then it appears that the entire case of the prosecution was made on the basis of mere suspicion, but, suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot take the place of proof. 17. In this regard, the Supreme Court in the matter of Sujit Biswas vs State of Assam (2013) 12 SCC 406 has held in para 13 which reads as under:- “13. Suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot take the place of proof and there is a large difference between something that “may be” proved, and something that “will be proved”. In a criminal trial, suspicion no matter how strong, cannot and must not be permitted to take place of proof. This is for the reason that the mental distance between `may be’ and `must be’ is quite large, and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. In a criminal case, the court has a duty to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take the place of legal proof. The large distance between `may be’ true and `must be’ true, must be covered by way of clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence produced by the prosecution, before an accused is condemned as a convict, and the basic and golden rule must be applied. In such cases, while keeping in mind the distance between `may be’ true and `must be’ true, the court must maintain the vital distance between mere conjectures and sure conclusions to be arrived at, on the touchstone of dispassionate judicial scrutiny, based upon a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all features of the case, as well as the quality and credibility of the evidence brought on record. The court must ensure, that miscarriage of justice is avoided, and if the facts and circumstances of a case so demand, then the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused, keeping in mind that a reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely probable doubt, but a fair doubt that is based upon reason and common sense as held in by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sujit Biswas (supra). 18. In the matter of Kali Ram vs State of H.P. (1973) 2 SCC 808 , the Supreme Court has held in para 25 which reads as under:- “25.Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favorable to the accused should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in cases where the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence.” 19. The learned trial Court has elaborately discussed the evidence led by the prosecution and after analyzing the entire evidence led by the prosecution, came to the conclusion that there is no cogent and clinching evidence on record to show that accused persons are the perpetrators of the crime in question and further held that the prosecution has failed to prove any motive or prior enmity between the accused persons and the deceased and as such, acquitted the accused persons/respondents of the said charges on the basis of benefit of doubt as the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 20. After considering the material available on record as well as the elaborate judgment impugned passed by the trial Court and also keeping in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court in aforesaid matters, we are of considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the five golden principles to constitute the ‘panchsheel’ of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence, as laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (supra) and the judgment impugned acquitting the accused persons / respondents herein of the said charges is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 21. 21. Accordingly, this appeal by the appellant/State against the acquittal of the accused persons / respondents herein is hereby dismissed.