Judgment : Chandra Dhari Singh, J. 1. The instant Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the accused-appellants namely Ram Prakash, Ramesh, Jagdish, Matti, Ram Sajiwan, Tulsi Ram and Dal Chand against a judgment and order dated 17.10.1989 passed by learned Special Judge (E.C. Act) / Additional Sessions Judge, Jalaun at Orai in Sessions Trial No. 29/89, whereby learned Judge convicted each of the appellants for the offence under Sections 147, 302/149 and 201 I.P.C. and sentenced them as under:- (a) Imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 read with 149 I.P.C., (b) Rigorous imprisonment of seven years for the offence under Section 201 I.P.C. and, (c) Rigorous imprisonment of two years for the offence under Section 147 I.P.C. All the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. Taking into consideration the office report dated 15.10.2025, the instant criminal appeal stands abated qua appellant nos. 4, 6 and 7 namely Matti, Tulsi Ram and Dal Chand, vide order of this Court dated 21.01.2026. Brief Facts 3. The fact of the prosecution case is that a written report was filed on 19.09.1988 by Hari Ram son of Ghanshyam Ahirwar, resident of Village Bhadrekhi stating inter-alia that on 17.09.1988, on account of some dispute over the grazing of his field, a quarrel took place between the accused persons i.e. Ram Prakash, Ramesh, Jagdish, Matti, Dal Chand, Ram Sajiwan and Tulsi Ram on one side and the complainant and his son on the other. Thereafter, the accused persons threatened the complainant and his son for dire consequences within two-three days. It is further alleged that on 19.09.1988 at about 07:00 AM, his grandson namely Lakshmi, aged about 12 years had left home to go to the sorghum (jwar) field. At about 09:00 AM, wife of the complainant Smt. Mankura went to the field to give food to Lakshmi, however, he was not found at the field. After that, Smt. Mankura returned to her home and told the complainant about missing of Lakshmi. The complainant set out in search of Lakshmi. Despite thorough search in the village as well as in the jungle, Lakshmi could not be traced out. The complainant suspected that the accused persons had kidnapped Lakshmi with an intent to kill him. The aforesaid written report was marked Ext.Ka.1. 4. The complainant set out in search of Lakshmi. Despite thorough search in the village as well as in the jungle, Lakshmi could not be traced out. The complainant suspected that the accused persons had kidnapped Lakshmi with an intent to kill him. The aforesaid written report was marked Ext.Ka.1. 4. On the basis of aforesaid written report, a First Information Report was lodged on 19.09.1988 at 20:10 hours at Case Crime No. 347 of 1988, under Section 364 I.P.C., Police Station Aata, District Jalaun. The said First Information Report was marked as Ext.Ka.6. 5. After registration of the aforesaid case, the law set into motion and investigation of the aforesaid case has started. 6. The First Information Report of this case was written by Head Moharir Abdul Aziz. On 19.09.1988, the investigating officer S.I. Ayodhya Prasad Tripathi (PW-8) has started the investigation and recorded the statement of first informant. Thereafter, he along with Sub Inspector R.K. Singh, constables Triyogi Narayan, Krishna Kumar Mishra, Mahendra Singh and Shiv Narayan Agnihotri left for the place of incident. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of Mankura, Shivpal, Ram Charan, Babu Dhobi and Sevaram. On 20.09.1988, he recorded the statement of Pyaji Lal, Ram Ratan Lakshyakar. Thereafter, they began the search of the child and the accused persons. At about 01:30 PM, the accused persons were arrested. The accused persons were interrogated in front of witnesses namely Raj Bahadur Singh and Bharat Singh. Thereafter, he accompanying with the accused persons and witnesses, reached to the place of incident where the deceased- Lakshmi was murdered. At the scene of crime, blood stains were found on the pebbles and soil. Blood stained soil and plain soil were collected from the spot, packed into separate containers, and recovery memo was prepared, which was marked as Ext.Ka.2. From the scene of crime, the dead body of the abducted boy Lakshmi which was concealed within the drain by soil and grass, was found. The witnesses have duly verified the recovery. All the aforesaid accused persons further disclosed that they have also concealed a trowel (khurpi), a sickle (hasiya) and a shovel (fawda) about 10 paces further down the drain. The aforesaid assault of weapons were recovered having blood stains. The said recovery was marked as Ext.Ka.3. On 20.09.1988, the inquest proceedings on the dead body of the deceased was conducted. The photo lash and challan lash were prepared. The aforesaid assault of weapons were recovered having blood stains. The said recovery was marked as Ext.Ka.3. On 20.09.1988, the inquest proceedings on the dead body of the deceased was conducted. The photo lash and challan lash were prepared. The dead body of the deceased was sealed and sent for post-mortem examination through Constable Mahendra Singh and Home Guard Sevaram. Thereafter, the statement of witnesses of inquest were recorded. 7. After culmination of investigation, the investigating officer submitted charge-sheet on 07.10.1988, which was marked as Ext.Ka.14. 8. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions, where case was registered as Sessions Trial No. 29 of 1989. Learned Special Judge (E.C. Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Jalaun at Orai vide order dated 05.04.1989 framed charges against the accused appellants for the offence under Sections 147, 302/149 and 201 I.P.C., which were read over and explained to the accused-appellants in hindi, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 9. To bring home guilt of the accused-appellants beyond the hilt, the prosecution has examined as many as eight prosecution witnesses, out of whom Hariram (PW-1), Babu (PW-2), Pyajilal (PW-3), Bharat Singh (PW-4), Mankura (PW-5) and Sevaram (PW-6) are the witnesses of fact, whereas, H.K.Bandel (PW-7) and Ayodhya Prasad Tripathi (PW-8) are formal witnesses. 10. The statement of Hariram (PW-1) was recorded on 18.05.1989. This witness, in his deposition, has stated that he knew all the accused persons. On the date of incident, his grandson Lakshmi, aged about 11-12 years, had gone to the fields at about 07:00 AM. His wife Manakuri went to the filed to see him. She had also taken his meal with her, but she did not find him there. She returned and informed him about the missing of Lakshmi. Thereafter, he went to search his grandson along with his wife. He searched him about 01:00 PM and then returned home. Thereafter, he searched for him in the village. The villagers also started searching for Lakshmi, but he could not be found till sunset. When his grandson could not be found, he got a report scribed by Sevaram. Whatever he stated was written by Sevaram, and he read it over to me and then he affixed his thumb impression on the said report. The villagers also started searching for Lakshmi, but he could not be found till sunset. When his grandson could not be found, he got a report scribed by Sevaram. Whatever he stated was written by Sevaram, and he read it over to me and then he affixed his thumb impression on the said report. The said report was marked as Ext.Ka.1, was taken to the police station and lodged the same. He next stated that two days prior to the incident, accused persons had grazed their cattle in his field, upon which, he protested due to which the accused persons abused him and his son and also attempted to assault them. They have also threatened them that within two or three days, they would teach a lesson. 11. However, this witness in his cross-examination has admitted that he did not lodge any report at the police station regarding the said grazing or the threat extended by the accused persons. 12. The statement of Babu (PW-2) was recorded on 18.05.1989. This witness, in his deposition, has stated that on the day of incident, he went to attend the call of nature. On the way, near the field of Chhedha, he saw the deceased proceeding towards his field and at a distance of about 100 steps behind the deceased, the accused persons namely Dal Chand, Malti, Tulsiram, Ram Prakash, Ram Sajeevan, Suresh and Jagdish were following him. Malti, Dal Chand and Tulsi Ram were carrying lathis, Ram Prakash and Ram Sajeevan were carrying spades (fawda), Suresh was carrying a khurpi and Jagdish was carrying a sickle (hasiya). Thereafter, he returned to his village and after that went to Village Sadhara. In the evening at about 06:00 PM when he returned to his village, he came to know that Lakshmi is missing. He immediately informed about the aforesaid facts to the father of Lakshmi. 13. The statement of Pyaji Lal (PW-3) was recorded on 04.07.1989. This witness, in his deposition, has stated that on the day of incident at about 08:00 AM, he was going to jungle with Ram Ratan and when they reached near the field of Nashrat, they met the accused persons as they were walking towards the village from the forest. Their hands and clothes were covered with mud. This witness, in his deposition, has stated that on the day of incident at about 08:00 AM, he was going to jungle with Ram Ratan and when they reached near the field of Nashrat, they met the accused persons as they were walking towards the village from the forest. Their hands and clothes were covered with mud. On being asked that from where they were coming, the accused persons told that they had gone to dig and they had also hunt. They had done their job and fled away. He also stated that in the evening when he returned home, he came to know that Lakshmi is missing. Upon receiving the news, he went to Shivpal's house and told him about the above incident. Shivpal told him about the heated argument with the accused and that the accused had also threatened him to face dire consequences within two or three days. 14. The statement of Bharat Singh (PW-4) was recorded on 04.07.1989. This witness, in his deposition, has stated that it was about nine and a half months ago, he was at Bhadrekhi Tonga stand. There, he met Inspector Tripathi with some constables. They have the accused appellants in their custody. The accused admitted that they could recover the dead body of the deceased where it had been buried. The accused took them to Launkiya Nala. The accused first took us to the spot where the dead body had been cut. At the place of incident, blood was present. Thereafter, they took us to fifteen steps east to the field of Jashoda and pointed out the spot where the dead body had been buried. On the direction of Inspector, the accused dug out the dead body of the deceased with their hands. About ten steps from there, two shovels, one trowel and one sickle were found. The recovery memo of weapon of assault was prepared. Blood stained and plain soil were also recovered. 15. The statement of Mankura (PW-5) was recorded on 12.07.1989. This witness, in her deposition, has stated that in the morning, her grandson left the house for sorghum filed to look out for crops. She at about eight or nine in the morning went to the filed to give food to her grandson, but could not find him. She started crying and returned home. This witness, in her deposition, has stated that in the morning, her grandson left the house for sorghum filed to look out for crops. She at about eight or nine in the morning went to the filed to give food to her grandson, but could not find him. She started crying and returned home. She told her husband as well as the villagers that Lakshmi was not at the field. Thereafter, the villagers kept searching for him but could not find him. In the evening, her husband lodged a complaint at police station. 16. The statement of Sevaram (PW-6) was recorded on 12.07.1989. This witness, in his deposition, has stated that he, on the dictation of Hariram (PW-1), has wrote the written report (Ext.Ka.1). 17. The statement of Dr. H.K. Bandel (PW-7) was recorded on 05.08.1989. This witness, in his deposition, has stated that on 21.09.1988, he was posted as an ophthalmologist at the District Hospital, Orai. On 21.09.1988 at about 04:00 PM, he conducted the post-mortem on the cadaver of the deceased-Lakshmi. The deceased was approximately twelve years old and had been dead for two and a quarter days. The body of the deceased had begun to decompose. As per post-mortem report, following injury was found:- “An incised wound with clear margins 7cm x 3cm x bone deep. Present on the upper aspect of the neck 7cm below the central part of the ramus of mandible trachea and other adjacent structures cut away and cervical vertebrae also cut away” 18. On internal examination, the brain was found liquified, 3rd vertebrae was cut away larynx, trachea was cut away, both the lungs were putrid, right side of the heart was full of blood whereas the left side was empty. The esophagus was cut away. Stomach was empty. Both the intestine was full of fecal matter and gasses. Liver is clean and kidneys are putrid. 19. As per the opinion of the doctor, the deceased died due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injury. 20. The death of the deceased could have occurred at around 07:00 AM on 19.09.1988. The antemortem injury could have been caused by a sickle (hasiya) or a trowel (khurpi). 21. Liver is clean and kidneys are putrid. 19. As per the opinion of the doctor, the deceased died due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injury. 20. The death of the deceased could have occurred at around 07:00 AM on 19.09.1988. The antemortem injury could have been caused by a sickle (hasiya) or a trowel (khurpi). 21. S.I. Ayodhya Prasad Tripathi (PW-8), in his deposition, has stated that he conducted the investigation, recorded the statements of witnesses, effected the recovery of the dead body and blood-stained weapons, and upon completion of the investigation, submitted the charge-sheet before the concerned court. 22. After closure of prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused appellants namely Ram Prakash, Ramesh, Jagdish, Matti, Ram Sajiwan, Tulsi Ram and Dal Chand has been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., who denied the charges levelled against them. 23. Learned Special Judge (E.C. Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Jalaun after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and assessing, evaluating and scrutinizing the evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as indicated herein above. 24. Hence, the instant appeal. Submissions on behalf of Accused-Appellants 25. Shri Dharam Pal Singh, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the surviving appellants i.e. Ram Prakash, Ramesh, Jagdish and Ram Sajiwan has assailed the impugned judgment and order dated 17.10.1989 passed by the trial court on the ground that the circumstantial evidence, adduced by the prosecution, is insufficient to complete the chain of circumstances. 26. It is further submitted that the alleged motive attributed to the accused-appellants is neither strong nor convincing so as to compel them to commit such a grave and heinous offence. It is well settled that when a case rests on circumstantial evidence, motive assumes significant importance; however, in the present case, the purported motive appears insufficient to form a reliable link in the chain of circumstances. In the absence of a cogent and convincing motive, the attempt to connect the accused-appellants with the alleged offence becomes highly doubtful and unsustainable in law. 27. Learned counsel for the appellants also submits that the evidence of last seen by Babu (PW-2) and Pyajilal (PW-3) is concocted and highly improbable. 28. In the post-mortem report, there is only a single injury whereas number of assault of weapons containing blood stains have been recovered, therefore, the medical evidence is also contradictory with the version of the prosecution case. 29. 28. In the post-mortem report, there is only a single injury whereas number of assault of weapons containing blood stains have been recovered, therefore, the medical evidence is also contradictory with the version of the prosecution case. 29. It is lastly submitted that in the present case, the incomplete and inconsistent circumstances give rise to a reasonable doubt, the benefit of which must necessarily be extended to the accused-appellants. Accordingly, the conviction cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. It is thus prayed that the appellants be acquitted of all the charges. Submissions on behalf of Respondent-State 30. Per-contra, Mr. S.N. Tiwari, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State has supported the impugned judgment and order by contending that the conviction recorded by the trial court is well reasoned and based upon cogent evidence. 31. It is submitted that on the joint pointing out of the accused- appellants, the dead body of the deceased and the weapons of crime containing blood stains were recovered. 32. It is next submitted that Babu (PW-2) and Piyaji Lal (PW-3) in their evidence has disclosed the involvement of accused-appellants in the commission of crime. 33. Lastly, learned A.G.A. submits that a clear motive has been established and the chain of circumstances is complete. Analysis and Conclusion 34. Heard Mr. Dharam Pal Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Siddharth Niranjan, learned counsel for the appellant nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 namely Ram Prakash, Ramesh, Jagdish and Ram Sajiwan; Mr. S.N. Tiwari, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. 35. We have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned A.G.A. for the State. We have also carefully perused the entire record of the case including the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, documentary evidence and medical report. 36. The following issues arise for consideration in the present appeal: (i) Whether the prosecution has been able to establish a complete chain of circumstances pointing unerringly towards the guilt of the accused-appellants? (ii) Whether the conviction of the appellants under Sections 147, 302/149 and 201 I.P.C. is sustainable in law? 37. 36. The following issues arise for consideration in the present appeal: (i) Whether the prosecution has been able to establish a complete chain of circumstances pointing unerringly towards the guilt of the accused-appellants? (ii) Whether the conviction of the appellants under Sections 147, 302/149 and 201 I.P.C. is sustainable in law? 37. It is a settled proposition of law that in cases based purely on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances which must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with any other hypothesis. The circumstances must be of a conclusive nature and tendency. 38. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra , AIR 1984 SC 1622 has laid down the five golden principles governing cases based on circumstantial evidence, which require: (a) the circumstances must be fully established; (b) the facts so established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt; (c) the circumstances must be conclusive; (d) they must exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and (e) there must be a complete chain of evidence. 39. In State of U.P. Vs. Ashok Kumar Srivastava ,(1992) Cr.L.J.1104 it was pointed out that great care must be taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied on is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in the favour of the accused must be accepted. It was also pointed out that the circumstances relied upon must be found to have fully established and cumulative effect of all the facts so established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt. 40. In the case of Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of M.P. AIR 1952 SC 343 , Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under: "It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. ...." 41. In the case of Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. 1989 Supp (2) SCC 706 , Hon'ble Apex Court opined as under: "10. Before adverting to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel, we shall at the threshold point out that in the present case there is no direct evidence to connect the accused with the offence in question and the prosecution rests its case solely on circumstantial evidence. This Court in a series of decisions has consistently held that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence such evidence must satisfy the following tests: (1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought 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 probability the crime was committed by 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 and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. 42. In the case of Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy v. State of A.P. (2006) 10 SCC 172 , Hon'ble Apex Court again considered the case of conviction based on circumstantial evidence and held as under: "26. It is now well settled that with a view to base a conviction on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish all the pieces of incriminating circumstances by reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances so proved must form such a chain of events as would permit no conclusion other than one of guilt of the accused. The circumstances cannot be on any other hypothesis. The circumstances cannot be on any other hypothesis. It is also well settled that suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot be a substitute for a proof and the courts shall take utmost precaution in finding an accused guilty only on the basis of the circumstantial evidence.” 43. In the case of Sattatiya v. State of Maharashtra . (2008) 3 SCC 210 , Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: "10. We have thoughtfully considered the entire matter. It is settled law that an offence can be proved not only by direct evidence but also by circumstantial evidence where there is no direct evidence. The court can draw an inference of guilt when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be totally incompatible with the innocence of the accused. Of course, the circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances." This Court further observed in the aforesaid decision that: "17. At this stage, we also deem it proper to observe that in exercise of power under Article 136 of the Constitution, this Court will be extremely loath to upset the judgment of conviction which is confirmed in appeal. However, if it is found that the appreciation of evidence in a case, which is entirely based on circumstantial evidence, is vitiated by serious errors and on that account miscarriage of justice has been occasioned, then the Court will certainly interfere even with the concurrent findings recorded by the trial court and the High Court--Bharat v. State of M.P., (2003) 3 SCC 106 . " 44. The decision in Sharad Birdichand Sarda (Supra) has recently been followed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of judgement including Laxman Pradad alias Laxman Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh , 2023 (3) SCC (Cri) 27 and R. Sreenivasa Vs. State of Karnataka (2024) 17 SCC 426 45. " 44. The decision in Sharad Birdichand Sarda (Supra) has recently been followed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of judgement including Laxman Pradad alias Laxman Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh , 2023 (3) SCC (Cri) 27 and R. Sreenivasa Vs. State of Karnataka (2024) 17 SCC 426 45. The Supreme Court in the case of Pankaj vs. State of Rajasthan (2016) 16 SCC 192 , has held that “when the genesis and the manner of the incident is doubtful, the accused cannot be convicted.” It also referred to Bhagwan Sahai vs. State of Rajasthan AIR 2016 SC 2714 , which states that once the prosecution is found to have suppressed the origin of the occurrence, the only proper course is to grant the benefit of doubt. 46. The aforesaid judgment has recently been followed by the Supreme Court in the case of Goverdhan and Another vs. State of Chhattisgarh , (2025) 3 SCC 378 wherein, the Court has held as under:- “20. As per Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, a fact can be said to have been proved when, after considering the matters before it, the court either believes it to exist or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act up on the supposition that it exists. The court undertakes this exercise of examining whether the facts alleged including the particular criminal acts attributed to the accused are proved or not. 21. It is also to be noted that the law does not contemplate stitching the pieces of evidence in a watertight manner, for the standard of proof in a criminal case is not proof beyond all doubts but only beyond reasonable doubt. In other words, if a clear picture emerges on piecing together all evidence which indicates beyond reasonable doubt of the role played by the accused in the perpetration of the crime, the court holds the accused criminally liable and punishes them under the provisions of the penal code, in contradistinction to the requirement of proof based on the preponderance of probabilities as in case of civil proceedings. 22. It will be relevant to discuss, at this juncture, what is meant by “reasonable doubt”. It means that such doubt must be free from suppositional speculation. 22. It will be relevant to discuss, at this juncture, what is meant by “reasonable doubt”. It means that such doubt must be free from suppositional speculation. It must not be the result of minute emotional detailing, and the doubt must be actual and substantial and not merely vague apprehension. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or amerely possible doubt, but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense.” 47. The Supreme Court in the case of Jitendra Kumar Mishra @ Jittu vs. State of Madhya Pradesh , 2024 INSC 20 , has held as under : “We are conscious of the fact that the appellate court should be slow in interfering with the conviction recorded by the courts below but where the evidence on record indicates the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and that a plausible view, different from the one expressed by the courts below can be taken, the appellate court should not shy away in giving the benefit of doubt to the accused persons.” 48. Insofar as motive is concerned, the alleged motive is a dispute over grazing of cattle. However, Hariram (PW-1), in his cross-examination, has categorically admitted that no report regarding the alleged dispute or threat was ever lodged. Thus, the motive appears to be weak and not of such a nature as would impel the accused to commit the gruesome murder of a minor child. 49. The prosecution has relied upon the testimony of Babu (PW- 2) to establish the “last seen” theory. However, the conduct of this witness appears unnatural. Despite allegedly seeing the accused persons following the deceased at a distance of about 100 paces armed with weapons, he neither raised any alarm nor informed anyone immediately. He disclosed this fact only in the evening after learning about the missing child. 50. The Supreme Court in the case of Kanhaiya Lal vs. State of Rajasthan , (2014) 4 SCC 715 has held that the 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. 51. 51. The Supreme Court again reiterated the aforesaid legal position of “last seen together” in the case of Rambraksh @ Jalim vs. State of Chhattisgarh , (2016) 12 SCC 251 and held that “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. 52. Furthermore, in the present case, there exists a considerable time gap between the alleged last seen and the recovery of the dead body of the deceased-Lakshmi, which weakens the prosecution case. 53. The testimony of Pyajilal (PW-3) merely indicates that the accused persons were seen returning from the jungle with muddy clothes. Such evidence is highly vague and does not directly connect the accused with the commission of the crime. This circumstance, at best, creates suspicion, but falls short of proof beyond reasonable doubt. 54. The prosecution has relied upon the recovery of the dead body of the deceased-Lakshmi and weapons at the instance of the accused persons. It is noteworthy that the recovery has been made from an open place (drain area), accessible to all, and thus the evidentiary value of such recovery is diminished. Moreover, no forensic report has been produced by the prosecution to establish that the blood stains on the alleged weapons matched that of the deceased. In absence of such scientific evidence, the recovery loses its incriminating character. 55. As per the post-mortem report, only a single incised wound was found on the neck of the deceased. However, multiple weapons i.e. a shovel, sickle, and trowel, have been allegedly used in the commission of the offence. This creates a material contradiction between the ocular and medical evidence, which goes to the root of the prosecution case. 56. 55. As per the post-mortem report, only a single incised wound was found on the neck of the deceased. However, multiple weapons i.e. a shovel, sickle, and trowel, have been allegedly used in the commission of the offence. This creates a material contradiction between the ocular and medical evidence, which goes to the root of the prosecution case. 56. This Court is also of the view that to sustain conviction under Section 147 I.P.C., the prosecution must establish the existence of an unlawful assembly with a common object. Unlawful assembly has been defined under Section 141 I.P.C., which reads as under:- Section 141. Unlawful Assembly- An assembly of five or more persons is designated an “unlawful assembly”, if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is: First- To overawe by criminal force, or show of criminal force, the Central or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State, or any public servant in the exercise of the lawful power of such public servant; or Second- To resist the execution of any law, or of any legal process; or Third- To commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other offence; or Fourth- By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to any person to take or obtain possession of any property, or to deprive any person of the enjoyment of a right of way, or of the use of water or other incorporeal right of which he is in possession or enjoyment, or to enforce any right or supposed right; or Fifth- By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to compel any person to do what he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do what he is legally entitled to do. 57. In the present case, in absence of reliable evidence proving participation of the accused in the alleged offence, the charge under Section 147 I.P.C. cannot be sustained. 58. Insofar as Section 302 read with 149 I.P.C. is concerned, the prosecution has failed to establish that the accused formed an unlawful assembly with a common object to commit murder. The essential ingredients of Section 149 I.P.C. are not satisfied, as the participation and common object have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. is unsustainable. 59. The essential ingredients of Section 149 I.P.C. are not satisfied, as the participation and common object have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. is unsustainable. 59. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Krishnappa vs. State of Karnataka , (2012) 11 SCC 237 has held as under: “20. It is now well settled law that the provisions of Section 149 IPC will be attracted whenever any offence committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or when the members of that assembly knew that offence is likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, so that every person, who, at the time of committing of that offence is a member, will be also vicariously held liable and guilty of that offence. Section 149 IPC creates a constructive or vicarious liability of the members of the unlawful assembly for the unlawful acts committed pursuant to the common object by any other member of that assembly. This principle ropes in every member of the assembly to be guilty of an offence where that offence is committed by any member of that assembly in prosecution of common object of that assembly, or such members or assembly knew that offence is likely to be committed in prosecution of that object. 21. The factum of causing injury or not causing injury would not be relevant, where accused is sought to be roped in with the aid of Section 149 IPC. The relevant question to be examined by the court is whether the accused was a member of an unlawful assembly and not whether he actually took active part in the crime or not.” 60. The charge under Section 201 I.P.C. requires proof that the accused caused disappearance of evidence of the offence. In the absence of reliable evidence connecting the accused with the murder itself, the conviction under Section 201 I.P.C. cannot stand independently. 61. Upon cumulative consideration of the entire evidence on record, this Court finds that: (i) The chain of circumstances is incomplete. (ii) The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. (iii) The evidence on record raises suspicion, but does not establish guilt conclusively. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the benefit of doubt must go to the accused. 62. (ii) The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. (iii) The evidence on record raises suspicion, but does not establish guilt conclusively. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the benefit of doubt must go to the accused. 62. Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed. 63. The judgment and order dated 17.10.1989 passed by the learned Special Judge (E.C. Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Jalaun at Orai in Sessions Trial No. 29 of 1989 are hereby set aside. 64. The accused-appellants, namely Ram Prakash, Ramesh, Jagdish and Ram Sajiwan, are acquitted of all charges under Sections 147, 302/149 and 201 I.P.C. 65. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. 66. Let a copy of this judgment be transmitted to the court concerned for necessary information and compliance.