Short Note : 1. The prosecution case briefly stated at the trial was that the appellant was married to Sevantibai five years before the present incident which occurred in the night intervening 23rd and 24th January, 1975. They had no issue and the appellant was in employment of Fatia for watching the crops. He lived with his wife in a tapra in the field itself at village Kamodwada, which is a small village in which about 100 or 150 families are residing. Sevantibai was the daughter of Chhajju (PW.7) and younger sister of Naniya (PW.1). Further, according to the prosecution, the appellant suspected some illegitimate connection between his wife Sevantibai, the deceased and one Bheru and, therefore, did not seriously work with the result that he was in deficit finances. The appellant and his wife Sevantibai were, therefore, taking their meals with Chhajju (PW.7). On 24-1-1975 when the appellant and the deceased did not, as usual, come to Chhajju (P.W.7) for meals, he sent his grand son to ascertain the reasons for their absence. The grandson found Sevantibai lying dead in their tapra and the appellant was missing. Naniya (PW1), therefore, lodged the report (Ex. P-1), the same day. Despite extensive search, the appellant could not be found in the village and his whereabouts were not known. Held : Admittedly in the present case there are no eye-witnesses. The case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence. The only circumstances brought out against the appellant are that as deposed by Chhajju (PW.7), father of the deceased that she had taken her meals along with the appellant at his house on the previous night and that thereafter they left his house together. Apart from this evidence of last seen together at the house of Chhajju (PW.7), the other circumstantial evidence is that the appellant absconded and could not be traced for a period of about four months till the time of his arrest. This evidence, in our opinion, is not sufficient to come to the irresistible conclusion that it was the appellant and none else who must have committed the murder of Sevantibai. 2. There is no evidence to indicate that at the time of murder or near about the appellant was last seen together with his wife. This evidence, in our opinion, is not sufficient to come to the irresistible conclusion that it was the appellant and none else who must have committed the murder of Sevantibai. 2. There is no evidence to indicate that at the time of murder or near about the appellant was last seen together with his wife. Admittedly, the appellant was a labourer whose earnings were meagre and according to his statement it is quite likely that he might have left the house to earn wages as he knew that Chhajju (PW7), the father of Sevantibai was there to look after her and in order to earn wages he left that place. It is true that his subsequent conduct of absconsion for a period of about four months may at best raise a great suspicion against him but his grossly negligent conduct towards his wife during all this period will not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the appellant must have killed the deceased. In case of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has to establish the whole link in such a manner that no doubt is left regarding the commission of the offence by the person, who is alleged to have committed that offence. But in the present case, in our opinion, these circumstances as referred to above, are not sufficient to hold the appellant guilty of murder of his wife and in these circumstances he is entitled to the benefit of doubt. It is the duty of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and simply because the prosecution has not been able to produce all the evidence will not also mean that whatever evidence has been produced by the prosecution should be relied upon in coming to the conclusion that the appellant is the only guilty person. Appeal allowed.