JUDGMENT 1. - Accused-appellant Rameshwar son of Shri Heeralal was tried by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar for committing the murder of his wife Mst. Shiv-kori. He found him guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 I P.C. and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer two years' rigorous imprisonment. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that in the night preceding the date of murder accused Rameshwar was seen by PW 2 Jaggu and PW 3 Gulla in the outskirt of the village. In the morning he is said to have been seen by PW 1 Dungaram and P. W. 11 Navrang Singh coming out of the room where the dead body of his wife was lying. After his arrest he got one bodkin discovered at his instance, but same was not found to be stained with blood and as such it is of no use to the prosecution. A bloodstained 'chhaddi' was recovered from the possession of the accused at the time of his arrest. The blood stained chaddi was seized and sealed and the same was sent to the Chemical Analyst for examination, who found it to be stained with blood and later on the same was found to be stained with blood by the Serologist. The reports of the Chemical Analyst as well as that of the Serologist are Ex. P/22 and Ex. P/23 respectively. The police after usual investigation submitted a challan against the accused under Section 302 IPC. in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar and ultimately after commitment, the Mused was tried by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar. 3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge placing reliance on the circumstantial evidence convicted the accused-appellant under Section 302 I. P. C. and unfenced him as stated above. Hence this appeal. 4. There is no dispute between the parties that the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence and there is no eye witness of the occurrence. The law regarding circumstantial evidence is well settled that in order to convict an accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be such which cannot be explained to any other hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. The law regarding circumstantial evidence is well settled that in order to convict an accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be such which cannot be explained to any other hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. The prosecution has placed reliance on the following circumstances:- (i) The accused was seen going out of the village earlier during the same night when the murder is said to have been committed. (ii) The accused was seen coming out of the room where the dead body of Shivkori was lying. (iii) Recovery of bodkin. (iv) Recovery of a blood stained Chaddi. (v) The accused absconded from the scene of occurrence after the murder for a period of ten days. (vi) Motive. 5. As regards motive it would suffice to say that PW 13 Mst. Chhotudi during the course of cross-examination asserted that the deceased was a bad charactered woman, but when she was further cross-examined on the point, she failed to state as to how she came to that conclusion. She further admitted that she had never seen her son i. e. the accused quarrelling with his wife regarding the character of the deceased. 6. PW 14 Mohan stated that nearly six days prior to the date of the occurrence he saw the accused and his wife quarrelling with each other as the husband of the deceased insisted for bringing some money by the wife from her father for construction of a house. Thus the prosecution has tried to led two different types of evidence regarding motive, which indicates that the prosecution itself was not sure about the motive of the murder. 7. PW 2 Jaggu, PW 3 Gulla and PW 9 Ram Kumar have been produced to prove that they saw the accused passing near the outskirt of the village on the night of the occurrence. This circumstance in itself is insufficient. Even otherwise this circumstance has not been proved by satisfactory evidence. PW 2 Jaggu and PW 3 Gulla were declared hostile by the prosecution and the prosecution has discredited them by cross-examining them and only Ram Kumar had seen the appellant. 8. The third circumstance relied upon is regarding the accused coming out of the room where the wife of the accused was lying. PW 2 Jaggu and PW 3 Gulla were declared hostile by the prosecution and the prosecution has discredited them by cross-examining them and only Ram Kumar had seen the appellant. 8. The third circumstance relied upon is regarding the accused coming out of the room where the wife of the accused was lying. It has not been proved by any positive evidence that at that time the room was closed from inside or the accused was seen coming out of the room just after the murder. It has come in the prosecution evidence that at the relevant time a large number of villagers had already gathered and the women folk had started weeping. Thus, it is clearly established that at the time when the accused was seen coming out of the room the people had seen that Mst. Shivkori was lying dead in the room and there was nothing unnatural for the accused going in the room and seeing the dead body of his wife. This circumstance even if believed into cannot lead to irresistible conclusion that the accused was murderer of Mst. Shivkori. 9. The fourth circumstance namely, the recovery of bodkin is of no avail to the prosecution as already stated above. 10. As regards the recovery of a blood stained chaddi, it would suffice to say what the prosecution has failed to prove the extent of the blood stains found on the chaddi. A small boil on the body of a man can also produce some blood stains in a chaddi or a villager as he is in usual course of his business while scaling down from a tree can sustain some injuries causing stains of blood on his chaddi. It will not be out of place to mention here that the chaddi was recovered after ten days of the occurrence and there is nothing to hold that the blood found on the chaddi of the accused had appeared on it on the date of the occurrence. If he would have sustained blood stains during the course of murder, then he had sufficient time to wash of the chaddi and he would not have kept it as it was. Besides that the blood group of the stains on the chaddi was also not proved. 11. Now the only evidence which remains is regarding absconding of the accused. If he would have sustained blood stains during the course of murder, then he had sufficient time to wash of the chaddi and he would not have kept it as it was. Besides that the blood group of the stains on the chaddi was also not proved. 11. Now the only evidence which remains is regarding absconding of the accused. This in itself is no circumstance to convict an accused for murder. Sometimes innocent people, out of timidity of fear run away from their house. 12. There is no other circumstance relied upon by the prosecution for convicting the accused. The circumstance relied upon by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for convicting the accused cannot be said to be sufficient for holding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt. 13. The prosecution is bound to prove the case by cogent, reliable and positive evidence. There is a long distance between the words 'may be true' and 'must be true and even if we hold that the prosecution story may be true, we can tot uphold the conviction. 14. The net result of the above discussion is that the appeal is accepted. The conviction and sentence awarded to the accused-appellant are set aside and he is acquitted of the charge framed against him. He is ordered to be released forth with if not required in any other case.Appeal Allowed. *******