JUDGMENT : Barman, J. - This is an appeal from an order of conviction and sentence, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sambalpur Sundergarh, whereby he convicted the accused Appellant u/s 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for life, in the circumstances hereinafter stated. 2. The prosecution of the accused Appellant arose out of an incident, which took place in the night of September 12-13-1960 at village Romachi in the district of Samblapur where, one Muni Kisanin is alleged to have been murdered by the accused Appellant with a Tabal (axe). On September 13, 1960 at 9.30 a.m. the First Information Report was lodged at the local police station, six miles away from the place of occurrence, by the uncle of the deceased (P.W. 11). On September 14, 1960 the doctor held post-mortem examination of the deceased?s dead body. On September 15, 1960 the accused Appellant was arrested at his village Kunmendra, 25 miles away from the place of occurrence. 3. The background-in which the accused Appellant was prosecuted for the alleged murder of the deceased, shortly stated, was this: The accused Karmu Kisan had married Julia Kisanin (p.w. 1) sometime in the year 1959; before the marriage Julia was in love with one Sega Kisan (p.w. 3) of the village Romabahel which is the place of occurrence as aforesaid; Julia?s father gave Julia in marriage with the accused Karmu against her will; after the marriage, the accused Karmu lived with Julia at her father?s place at Gudiali; but the accused and his wife Julia were not pulling on well. It is said that Julia was still in love with Sega and continued her illicit connection with him. Julia had a co-villager girl friend Minai Kianin (p.w. 2); Minai bad also love intrigue with one Petra Kisan (p.w. 4) of the same village. It is said that Julia was still in love with Sega and continued her illicit connection with him. Julia had a co-villager girl friend Minai Kianin (p.w. 2); Minai bad also love intrigue with one Petra Kisan (p.w. 4) of the same village. On the date of the occurrence-September 12, 1960-Julia and her girl friend Minai both went to the market at a neighboring village Lanjiberna; there they met their respective lovers (Sega and Petra); from the market, Julia and Minai went together to the house of Sega at village Romabahal to enjoy each other?s company; they stayed there for the night; in the night, Julia kept with Sega in the name bed on his verandah, whereas Minai and Petra spit together in another part of the same house; the deceased Muni Kisanin, who is a neighbour of Sega, also slept in the house of age that night. Towards the middle of the night, when Julia and Sega were sleeping together, it is said that the accused (Julia?s husband) appeared there with a weapon like Tabal (M.O. II) and attempted to give a stroke with it to Julia; thereupon, Julia awakened on seeing the accused Appellant attempting to strike her with the weapon, she is said to have shouted out and roused Sega from his sleepy at this the accused is said to have run away; Own Sega and Petra made a search for the accused in the neighbourhood but could not get any trace of him. On account of this incident Sega was afraid that some evil might come from the accused; then they (Sega, Julia, Minai and Petra) shifted to the house of the deceased Muni and slept there for the rest of the night; but the deceased Muni came and slept on the bed where Julia and ega had slept previously. Naga (p.w. 5), brother of Muni, the deceased, came and slept with his sister at the request of Sega; some time thereafter in the same night, the accused appeared again with a Tabal (M.O. II) and gave a stroke with it on the neck of Muni, mistaking her to be Julia sleeping with Sega. The prosecution case is that the accused left the Tabal there and fled away from the place, unseen and unnoticed; Muni the deceased met with her death without even Naga coming to know of the fact. The prosecution case is that the accused left the Tabal there and fled away from the place, unseen and unnoticed; Muni the deceased met with her death without even Naga coming to know of the fact. At about dawn, during the last part of the night at about cock-crow, the deceased?s brother Naga got up from his sleep and found blood stains on his wearing clothes; he looked round and found Muni lying in a pool of blood with a cut injury on her neck; then Naga reported the matter to Sega and others of the village. The matter was, in due course, reported to the police by P.W. 11, the uncle of the deceased as aforesaid. Thereafter, the investigation was taken up by the police and then the accused was arrested at his village Kunmendra, 25 miles away from the place of occurrence, on September 15, 1960. After investigation, the accused was charged with murder of the deceased Muni u/s 302 Indian Penal Code for having cut her neck by means of a Tabal. 4. The defence taken on behalf of the accused Appellant was a simple denial of the entire incident, and he denied that he had ever gone to the house of Sega in the night of the incident and attempted to attack Julia as alleged. 5. The prosecution called as many as 15 witnesses including p.ws. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 as the occurrence witnesses, and p.ws. 6, 7 and 8 as witnesses in support of the case of the prosecution, trying to connect the Tabal with the murder; according to the prosecution case, the Tabal was taken by the accused from the house of p. w. 6; his son (while) p.w. 8 is said to have reported to him (p.w. 6) that the Tabal had been taken by the accused. The other material witnesses are the doctor (P.W. 12) and the Magistrate (P.W. 13) and the two investigating police officers (p.ws. 14 and 15). 6. There is no eye-witness to the incident. The prosecution case solely rests on the circumstantial evidence as given by the so-called occurrence witnesses p.ws. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. P.W. 1 is Julia Kisanin, p.w. 2 is Minai Kisanin, p.w. 3 is Sega Kisan, p.w. 4 is Petra Kisan and p.w. 5 is Nega Kisan. 14 and 15). 6. There is no eye-witness to the incident. The prosecution case solely rests on the circumstantial evidence as given by the so-called occurrence witnesses p.ws. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. P.W. 1 is Julia Kisanin, p.w. 2 is Minai Kisanin, p.w. 3 is Sega Kisan, p.w. 4 is Petra Kisan and p.w. 5 is Nega Kisan. None of these witnesses, except P.W. 1, while narrating the story of the incident, stated that they saw the accused on the night of the incident. The evidence of P.W. 1 Julia is that she saw the accused Karmu Kisan, her husband, had come and attempted to strike her with the Tabal (M.O. II) and thereupon she roused Sega and Patra and narrated what she had seen. The other witnesses however did not see the accused having come to that house on the night of the incident. 7. The question in whether the conviction of the accused Appellant u/s 302 Indian Penal Code can be supported on the circumstantial evidence in this case. It appears from the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge that he had based the conviction purely on the probabilities of the case and in fact, on his own findings, he came to the conclusion that it is quite possible that, Julia could identify the accused on the night of the incident; further the learned Sessions Judge also found that the accused must have mistaken Nega (p.w. 5) to be Sega. (p.w. 3); it was further found by the learned Sessions Judge that it is highly probable that the accused and none else fact given the fatal stroke to the deceased Muni. It is thus amply clear that the conviction is based on mere probabilities and inferences not based on satisfactory evidence. 8. In. (p.w. 3); it was further found by the learned Sessions Judge that it is highly probable that the accused and none else fact given the fatal stroke to the deceased Muni. It is thus amply clear that the conviction is based on mere probabilities and inferences not based on satisfactory evidence. 8. In. the ultimate analysis of the evidence adduced in this case, the striking circumstances in favour of the accused Appellant appear to be these: The murder having taken place at dead of night there was no possibility of Julia (P.W. 1) having identified the accused as the person who made an attempt on her as engaged ; the evidence of p.w. 8 the child witness, who said about the Tabal having been taken by the accuse from their house, cannot be relied upon because there was no corroboration of his evidence; the evidence of p.w. 6 and p.w. 7 who only spoke about the ownership of the Tabal, does not however corroborate the evidence of p.w. 8 as to the fact of the accused having taken the Tabal from their house; the other staggering circumstance wrier weakened the prosecution case was the fact that the deceased?s brother p.w. 5, who was sleeping with the deceased on that fatal night-himself could not know about what had taken place although he was sleeping by the side of his sister the deceased; it is unintelligible how the brother who was sleeping by her side, would not know about his sister having been murdered in the circumstances hereinbefore stated. 9. This leads me to consideration of the recovery of the Tabal and the Lungi, from which the prosecution attempted to comment the accused Appellant with the murder of the deceased. As discussed above the evidence of p.ws. 6, 7 and 8 cannot he relied upon so as to connect the Tabal with the alleged murder. Apart from the fact that the evidence of the child witness p. w. 8 cannot be solely relied upon, there is no corroboration of his testimony by any of the other witnesses p.ws. 6 and 7. With regard to the Lungi, which is said to have been recovered from the house of the father-in-law, where the accused is said to have been residing after his marriage, the evidence of p.w. 9 the father-in-law is that the accused was using the Lungi about a month before the occurrence. 6 and 7. With regard to the Lungi, which is said to have been recovered from the house of the father-in-law, where the accused is said to have been residing after his marriage, the evidence of p.w. 9 the father-in-law is that the accused was using the Lungi about a month before the occurrence. Therefore it is clear that the Lungi could not have been used by the accused Appellant on the night of the occurrence. That apart, the prosecution case that certain blood-stains were found in the lungi is not also helpful for the prosecution because the blood-stains were found to be not sufficient for group test as found in the Serologist?s Report. 10. Next we come to the circumstances-on which the prosecution relied, that the accused Appellant had absconded from the place of occurrence and ultimately he was arrested two days after the date of occurrence en September 15, 1960. The evidence is that the accused had gone to his father?s place at Kunmendra to attend Nuakhai festival at the request of his father. Assuming the prosecution case to be true, that the accused Appellant was usually residing in his father-in-law?s house after marriage, even so, third is nothing unusual for the son to go to his father?s place to attend a festival at the request of his father, as appears from the statement of the accused u/s 342 Code of Criminal Procedure Therefore, I do not accept the prosecution case that the accused Appellant was trying to evade arrest by absconded 16 from the place of occurrence as alleged. 11. Upon consideration of the entire evidence, taken as a whole, I am of opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was the accused Appellant who had committed the murder of the deceased Muni Kisanin. 11. Upon consideration of the entire evidence, taken as a whole, I am of opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was the accused Appellant who had committed the murder of the deceased Muni Kisanin. It is well settled that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances, from which the conclusion of guilt is to he 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; 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. In the present case, I am satisfied that the chain of evidence is not complete, and in view of the missing links, the prosecution case must fail. 12. In this view of the case, the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Session Judge must be set aside. The accused Appellant is, accordingly, acquitted and he should be set at liberty forthwith. Das, J. 13. I agree.