JUDGMENT : Kanhaiyaji, J. 1. In Sessions Trial No. 25 of 1968, the appellant before us, Chota Lakhiram Murmu, has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life by the Sessions Judge of Santal Parganas. He has been held guilty of having murdered one Thakurain Murmu on the 26th April, 1967. The prosecution case, as narrated by informant Samu Murmu (P.W. 1) is that deceased Thakurain Murmu was the fua of the informant. She was a widow and had no issue, and she was living with Samu Murmu (informant) and his elder brother Charan Murmu (P.W. 3) at their house in village Karmp. On the 26th April, 1967, Charan Murmu had gone to Ramgarh with his family, while Thakurain and Samu Murmu remained at home. Samu Murmu was unmarried. At about 2 or 3 p.m., Samu went to bring a spade and a Tamni (a sort of Gainta) from the house of a neighbour named Sufal Murmu. At that time, Thakurain Murmu was sitting on the pinda of the eastern room of the house. Samu saw from the house of Sufal that appellant Chota Lakhiram Murmu shot an arrow from his bow on the left side of the chest of Thakurain. Thakurain fled towards the village road. In the meantime the appellant tried to pull out the arrow from her chest. While the handle was pulled out, the iron-head remained stuck in the chest. The appellant fled away with the handle, and Thakurain fell down and expired within a very short time. After that, Samu went there and saw that blood was flowing out of the injury caused by the arrow and also from her mouth. After that, Bodi Hansdah (P.W. 7) and other persons arrived there. Samu ran to Ramgarh and informed his brother, Charan, of the occurrence. On return from Ramgarh, Samu went to Gopikandar police station accompanied by two or three persons and lodged the first information report of the occurrence. The first information report was recorded by Sub-Inspector Rama Prasad Singh (P.W. 11). On the basis of that first information report, the Sub-Inspector of Police instituted a case and started investigation. He examined the persons, who were present at the Police Station, and thereafter left for the place of occurrence and reached there at 10 a.m. on the 27th April, 1967. 2. On the basis of that first information report, the Sub-Inspector of Police instituted a case and started investigation. He examined the persons, who were present at the Police Station, and thereafter left for the place of occurrence and reached there at 10 a.m. on the 27th April, 1967. 2. Reaching the village, the Sub-Inspector examined Charan Murmu (P.W. 3), Bodi Hansdah (P.W. 7), Chita Murmu (P.W. 8), Digi Murandi (P.W. 2) Chumkui Tudi (P.W. 9) and others. He arrested the appellant who had been detained by the villagers. One Jetha Hembrom produced a bow and two arrows which he seized in presence of the witnesses. He then held an inquest over the dead body which was lying in the gali in presence of the same witnesses and prepared an inquest report. He found the iron portion of the arrow stuck in the left side of the chest. 3. Thereafter, the Sub-Inspector held an inspection of the place of occurrence and found that a large quantity of blood had flown out of the wound in the chest caused by the arrow. The house of the informant was at a distance of 55 steps from there. He seized the blood-stained earth by scraping the same in presence of the same witnesses. He then prepared a sketch map with necessary explanatory notes. Thereafter, he sent the dead body to Dumka Hospital for post-mortem examination. On the 28th April, 1967, he forwarded the appellant in the custody of a constable, but, he escaped from the constable's custody and was subsequently arrested in Assam by Inspector Braj Kishore Kumar (P.W. 10) on the 27th July, 1967. The Sub-Inspector got the statements of the step-sister and step-mother of the appellant recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On the 10th May, 1967, he sent the seized blood-stained earth to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Patna, for Chemical Examination. When the appellant was re-arrested and brought from Assam, the Sub-Inspector submitted charge-sheet against him on the 28th July, 1967. The Sub-divisional Magistrate of Dumka took cognizance of the case, and, Shri R.N. Singh, Munsif-Magistrate, First Class, Dumka, held the usual preliminary inquiry under Chapter XVIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure and committed the appellant to the Court of Sessions to stand his trial under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The Sub-divisional Magistrate of Dumka took cognizance of the case, and, Shri R.N. Singh, Munsif-Magistrate, First Class, Dumka, held the usual preliminary inquiry under Chapter XVIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure and committed the appellant to the Court of Sessions to stand his trial under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. In the Court of Sessions, the charge was slightly amended at the instance of the Public Prosecutor and read over and explained to the appellant in Santali with the help of an interpreter. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge. From the trend of the cross examination of the witnesses, the main defence of the appellant appears to be that the appellant had been implicated, because Charan Murmu (P.W. 3) and Samu (P.W. 1) were after grabbing the property which his father had left. 5. The appellant has filed this appeal from Jail. Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, appearing amicus curiae, has submitted that the JUDGMENT : of the learned Sessions Judge is incorrect, and the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained in the facts and circumstances of this case. He placed before us the entire evidence of the prosecution witnesses; and he rightly submitted that when the learned Sessions Judge had discarded the evidence of the eye-witness and a major portion of the evidence of the other witnesses, the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained on the basis of the circumstantial evidence in this particular case. 6. It is not in dispute that Thakurain Murmu, the deceased, had received wound on the left side of her chest and that she had died as a result of the said injury at the time and place alleged by the prosecution. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses supports this part of the prosecution case. Their evidence shows that Thakurain had fallen in the gali and died there with an injury on her chest. The arrow was stuck in the wound. In this connection, it is better to refer to the evidence of the doctor who was examined in the committing court and whose evidence was tendered by the prosecution under Section 509 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the Court of Sessions. Dr. Jagdish Chandra Brahma (witness no. The arrow was stuck in the wound. In this connection, it is better to refer to the evidence of the doctor who was examined in the committing court and whose evidence was tendered by the prosecution under Section 509 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the Court of Sessions. Dr. Jagdish Chandra Brahma (witness no. 2 in the committing court) held post-mortem examination of the dead body of Thakurain Murmu on the 28th April, 1967, at 12-30 p.m., and he found the following injury on her person: One incised wound 1 " X " penetrating into the left pleural cavity situated in the sixth intercostal space on the mid-axillary line directed interiorly and to the right. In the opinion of the doctor, the death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of the injury described above, which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The post-mortem report dated the 28th April, 1967 fully supports the opinion of the doctor. 7. As to the place of occurrence, it is fully established by the evidence of Sub-Inspector Rama Prasad Singh (P.W. 11) who had visited the place of occurrence the next morning and found the dead body of Thakurain Murmu lying at that very spot and in the same condition with an arrow stuck in the injury of the chest. He also found a large quantity of blood which had flown out of the wound and fallen on the ground. The spot was about 55 steps west of the informant's house. 8. In this case, the important question for consideration is as to whether it was the appellant who had inflicted the fatal injury with an arrow on the deceased. There is only one witness who is alleged to be an eye-witness, and who claims to have seen the occurrence. He is Samu Murmu (P.W. 1), the informant, who is the nephew of the deceased. The learned Sessions Judge has himself observed that the evidence given by him is not acceptable in view of the contradictions between the statements made by him in the Sessions Court and before the committing court and the police. Before Sub-Inspector Rama Prasad Singh (P.W. 11) he has not stated that he had seen the occurrence with his own eyes. The learned Sessions Judge has himself observed that the evidence given by him is not acceptable in view of the contradictions between the statements made by him in the Sessions Court and before the committing court and the police. Before Sub-Inspector Rama Prasad Singh (P.W. 11) he has not stated that he had seen the occurrence with his own eyes. On the contrary, he had stated before him that Bodi Hansda (P.W. 7) and one Dhona Baskey of Rampur were at that moment sitting inside the house of Sufal Murmu and talking together, when he heard the voice of Thakurain calling out "Hopna, Hopna", and thereupon all the three of them came out of Sufal's house and saw Thakurain fallen there on the road with an arrow stuck in her chest. The statement of P.W. 1 does not inspire confidence on account of the fact that instead of going to the Police Station then and there he rushed to Ramgarh accompanied by Bodi Hansda (P.W. 7) to inform his brother Charan Murmu (P.W. 3) of the occurrence. P.W. 1 has stated that on the way he met Digi (P.W. 2) and Chhita (P.W. 8). On being questioned by Digi Marandi (P.W. 2), Samu stated that he was going to inform his brother at Ramgarh about the incident. P.W. 8 has stated the when she asked Samu as to who had killed Thakurain, he stated that he could not say as to who had killed her. On that other hand in this respect, the evidence of P.W. 2 is quite to the contrary, as she has stated that Samu said that Lakhiram had killed his fua with an arrow. Moreover, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Rama Prasad Singh (P.W. 11) has denied that Samu had told him that his brother had gone to Ramgarh on the day the occurrence took place. He has further said that Bodi had not said that while going to Ramgarh he met Chhita and Digi. Bodi had not also stated before the Sub-Inspector that Samu had narrated the occurrence to Charan. Having considered the entire evidence of P.W. 1, the learned Sessions Judge is, in my opinion, correct in discarding his evidence. 9. There is no other eye-witness to the occurrence. Bodi had not also stated before the Sub-Inspector that Samu had narrated the occurrence to Charan. Having considered the entire evidence of P.W. 1, the learned Sessions Judge is, in my opinion, correct in discarding his evidence. 9. There is no other eye-witness to the occurrence. Now, it has to be seen whether the circumstantial evidence on which the learned Sessions Judge has relied is sufficient to lead to the only conclusion proving the guilt of the appellant. It is well established that however strong the suspicion may be, that will not take the place of proof. In this connection, it is profitable to notice the dictum as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of (1) Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and another V. State of Madhya Pradesh (A.I.R. 1952 SC 343) which is to the effect that in dealing with circumstantial evidence the rules specially applicable to such evidence must be borne in mind. In such cases there is always the danger that conjecture of suspicion may take the place of legal proof. 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 within 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. 10. Therefore, we have to see in this case whether the chain of circumstantial evidence is complete. 10. Therefore, we have to see in this case whether the chain of circumstantial evidence is complete. The motive alleged on the part of the appellant which might have impelled him to form an intention to kill Thakurain is to be found in the words of P.W. 1 that Thakurain was a witchcraft and that the appellant had a doubt that she had killed his father fifteen days before the date of the occurrence; but the motive as alleged by the prosecution is doubtful inasmuch as the father of the appellant had died one or two months before the date of occurrence, as stated by P.W. 1 himself in his evidence before the committing court. The evidence of P.W. 1 in the committing court was tendered in the Court of Sessions under Section 288 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This fact is also corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Supai Murandi. He has stated that the father of the appellant was dead and that after his death, Malho, the step-mother of the appellant had married another person and was residing in another village. Therefore, it seems that the prosecution has invented a motive on the part of the appellant in support of its case. The learned Sessions Judge is not right in saying that the father of the appellant had died fifteen days before the date of the occurrence and the appellant laboured under the belief that he had died on account of witchcraft practised upon him by Thakurain. 11. The other circumstances relied on by the learned Sessions Judge is that the appellant was holding out threats to kill Thakurain on that account. This part of the prosecution story is based upon the evidence of Samu (P.W. 1) corroborated by his earlier statement in the first information report and supported by Charan Murmu (P.W. 3) and Bodi Hansda (P.W. 7). I have shown above that the basis which could justify the belief that the appellant had such a motive is weakened by the fact that the father of the appellant had died not fifteen days before the date of the occurrence but one or two months before that date. There seems to be no immediate cause for which the appellant would have taken such a drastic action to wreak vengeance upon Thakurain on the day the occurrence took place. 12. There seems to be no immediate cause for which the appellant would have taken such a drastic action to wreak vengeance upon Thakurain on the day the occurrence took place. 12. The next circumstance is the statement of Chumkui Tudu (P.W. 9) who, just before the time of the occurrence, had gone to the house of the appellant for taking khaini, and, at that very time she saw the appellant emerging out of his house with a bow and arrows. Muni, the step-sister of the appellant who was present there, began to implore him not to go out with the bow and arrows; and, thereupon the appellant stated that he would go out whatever the consequences may be. The evidence of this witness is highly improbable. It is in evidence that the house of the appellant and the other persons are in close proximity. If Muni, the step-sister, and his step-mother wanted to check him from going out, they would have raised an alarm to dissuade him from doing any criminal act. Even if it be accepted that the appellant had gone out of the house with bow and arrows determined to commit an offence, it cannot be held that he must have committed this offence for which he was charged. The evidence of Digi Marandi (P.W. 2) and Chhita Murmu (P.W. 8), who had gone to fetch water, is that while they were returning with water filled in their pitchers at about the time of the occurrence, they saw the appellant running away. The learned Sessions Judge has observed that there is some difference between their statements as to the weapon which the appellant had in his hand at the time they saw him running away. In my opinion, it is not a case of minor discrepancy; but their evidence makes out quite clearly that they did not see the appellant, as alleged by them. P.W. 2 Digi Marandi has stated that she saw the appellant running with a bow and arrows, but she did not inform P.W. 1 Samu Murmu about this fact. She did not inform the villagers as well that she had seen the appellant running with a bow and arrows who had assembled near the dead body of Thakurain. This witness was not examined in the committing court. She did not inform the villagers as well that she had seen the appellant running with a bow and arrows who had assembled near the dead body of Thakurain. This witness was not examined in the committing court. The cross-examination of this witness shows that she did not give out the material statements before the police which she herself admitted in her cross-examination. The evidence of Chhita Murmu (P.W. 8) is equally unsatisfactory. She says that she saw the appellant running, but she was not sure whether he had bow and arrows in his hand. One particular statement of this witness is most important inasmuch as she has stated that when she asked Samu (P.W. 1) as to who had killed Thakurain, he said that he was not sure as to who had killed her. It appears that it was not known to the witness at that point of time as to who was the real assailant of Thakurain. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on the evidence of these two witnesses, namely, Digi Marandi (P.W. 2) and Chhita Murmu (P.W. 8). 13. The learned Sessions Judge has also considered the conduct of the appellant after the occurrence. It is in evidence that the appellant was not available in the night of the occurrence and he came back only the next day when he was arrested by the villagers. The above circumstance was put to the appellant in his examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the appellant clearly admitted that it was a fact that he returned home the next morning. It is true that the appellant was not in his house on the day of occurrence, but this circumstance by itself cannot lead to the only inference that he had committed the offence for which he was tried. In my opinion, the learned Sessions Judge is not right in holding that the defence has not disclosed any reason as to why the appellant had been implicated. The motive for implicating the appellant is almost admitted by P.W. 1 himself. He has stated that Charan Murmu (P.W. 3) and he, after the date of the occurrence, were cultivating lands of the appellant. Of course, they have denied that they had removed the entire movable properties of the appellant. 14. The motive for implicating the appellant is almost admitted by P.W. 1 himself. He has stated that Charan Murmu (P.W. 3) and he, after the date of the occurrence, were cultivating lands of the appellant. Of course, they have denied that they had removed the entire movable properties of the appellant. 14. The medical evidence, discussed above, only shows that Thakurain died of an arrow injury; but it docs not show that the wound was caused by the appellant and none else. In the circumstances, in my opinion, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt brought home to the appellant. For the reasons given above, I find that there is no evidence on the record to justify a conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the appellant must be given the benefit of doubt. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed, and the appellant is acquitted of the charge framed against him. He will now be forthwith released from Jail, if he is not wanted in some other case. Bahadur, J. I agree Appeal allowed.