Judgment :- 1. Appellant is the 1st accused in S.C. 25/1982 of the Sessions Court, Quilon. Appellant along with A2 and A3 were charged under S.302, 201,120B and 34 of the I.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge found Al guilty under S.302 and 201 of the I.P.C. and he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under S.302 of the I.P.C. No separate sentence was awarded under S.201 of the I.P.C. A2 and A3 were found not guilty and they were acquitted. 2. A3's husband Budhan (deceased) was found missing. The prosecution case is that Al developed illicit intimacy with A3 (wife of deceased) and as they wanted to continue their illicit relationship unhinde red by the deceased they along with A2 conspired to murder deceased and carried out their nefarious intention successfully and concealed the corpse by burying him. P.W.1, elder brother of Budhan was informed by A3's father Kunjupillai (P.W.4) about the disappearance of Budhan 10 days prior to 19-8-1980. It was on 19-8-1980 that P.W.4 gave the above information to P.W.1., P.W.1 made enquiries about his brother. On getting information that Budhan was killed and buried by the accused, he went to Pooyapally police station on 13-2-1981 at 8.45 A.M. and lodged Ext. P1 first information statement. P.W. 15 Sub Inspector recorded the first information statement and registered crime 17/81. Ext. P17 is the first information report. P.W.20 conducted investigation of the case. At 11 P.M. on 13-2-1982 appellant was arrested and on the basis of the information given by him and as pointed out by him a corpse was exhumed in the presence of P.W.11, Executive II Class Magistrate, Kottarakkara. P.W.20 prepared scene mahazar Ext.P20 which has been attested by P.W.11. Ext.P8 is the inquest report. As the corpse was in an unidentifiable condition, investigating officer took steps for photographic super imposition. P.W. 12, Professor, Forensic Medicine and Police Surgeon, Medical College Hospital, Alleppey conducted autopsy and issued Ext.P8 postmortem certificate. With the skull and mandible collected by P.W. 12 and with Ext. P10 photograph, super imposition technique was done. Prosecution relies on the result of super imposition to establish that the dead body exhumed is that of deceased Budhan. 3. P.W. 12, Professor, Forensic Medicine and Police Surgeon, Medical College Hospital, Alleppey conducted autopsy and issued Ext.P8 postmortem certificate. With the skull and mandible collected by P.W. 12 and with Ext. P10 photograph, super imposition technique was done. Prosecution relies on the result of super imposition to establish that the dead body exhumed is that of deceased Budhan. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the prosecution case is entirely dependent upon circumstantial evidence and as the circumstances relied on by the prosecution are found wanting to establish every link in the chain of evidence it is indeed difficult to come to a finding against the appellant. Prosecution relied on the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 (brothers of the deceased) regarding the identification of the body. Another circumstance relied on by the prosecution is the evidence of P.W.7 with regard to the motive and the threat administered by the accused in doing away with Budhan. The trump card of the prosecution case is the discovery of the dead body as pointed out by the appellant. Prosecution also relies on the photographic super imposition method adopted by P.W. 12 and his certificate that the skull could have been that of the figure in Ext. P10 photo. 4. As the prosecution case is built upon circumstantial evidence we have to consider whether the circumstances would unerringly establish the guilt of the appellant. If the circumstances are cogent and firm enough to establish the guilt of the appellant undoubtedly he has to be held guilty. For that, circumstantial evidence should cumulatively establish the prosecution case. In other words, chain of circumstantial evidence should be complete and there cannot be any missing link. 5. Advocate Mr. G. Janardhana Kurup appearing for the appellant contended that the motive for the crime has not been established in the case. He argued that lack of motive in a case depending upon circumstantial evidence is a factor that has to be reckoned unlike in a case where there is direct ocular account of the incident. P.W. 6's evidence in chief examination that Al and A3 were having illicit intimacy is not based on his direct knowledge. He admitted in chief examination itself that it is only a talk among the local people. P.W.7 was also examined to prove the illicit intimacy between Al and A3. P.W. 6's evidence in chief examination that Al and A3 were having illicit intimacy is not based on his direct knowledge. He admitted in chief examination itself that it is only a talk among the local people. P.W.7 was also examined to prove the illicit intimacy between Al and A3. He deposed that appellant had sought his help to do away with Budhan and he chastised the appellant for having entertained such evil designs. According to P.W. 7, appellant then told him that the suggestion was only made in a jocular manner. Prosecution relied on the evidence of P.W. 7 to establish the motive on the part of the appellant to liquidate Budhan as he was an obstacle to appellant's amorous relationship with A3. But, his evidence is difficult to be believed as be kept the above information as a closely guarded secret for a long time. P.W.7 stated in cross-examination that he had occasion to go to the house of A3 after appellant had declared his intention to do away with Budhan. He did not tell a word about it either to Budhan or his wife even though he and Budhan were friends. He did not divulge the information he knew to any one even when the cropse was exhumed. He also did not inform the police authorities about what the appellant had told him even after he came to know of the disappearance of Budhan. The above circumstances cast suspicion on the evidence of P.W.7. On the sole testimony of P.W.7. it is difficult to accept the prosecution evidence that Al was responsible for the death of Budhan. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that there is no evidence in the case to show that the appellant and deceased were seen last together and therefore an important piece of connecting evidence is missing in the case. There is considerable force in the above contention. None of the witnesses examined on the side of the prosecution has given evidence that they saw the appellant and the deceased together and it was thereafter that the later was not seen in the locality. 7. Though Al to A3 were arraigned by the prosecution to have committed the crime of murder of Budhan there is no iota of evidence to show that they engineered a conspiracy to kill him. 7. Though Al to A3 were arraigned by the prosecution to have committed the crime of murder of Budhan there is no iota of evidence to show that they engineered a conspiracy to kill him. In Para.24 of the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge it has been held that the evidence against Al and A2 that they were found talking with each other in August, 1980 which was followed by the disappearance of Budhan from the locality and that A2 was absconding till he was arrested on 4-10-1981 would not lead to any inference regarding the complicity of A2 in the incident, and the circumstantial evidence in the case is hardly sufficient to bring home the guilt of A2 and A3 in the crime. 8. Though P.Ws.1 and 2 stated that they could identify the dead body of Budhan, no reliance can be placed on their testimony as P.Ws.11 and 20 in unmistakable terms stated that the corpse was in an unidentifiable condition. As the dead body was exhumed after more than 6 months it is very difficult to place any reliance on the testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2 that they could identify it as that of Budhan. Counsel for the appellant pointed out that the super imposition technique adopted by P.W. 12 is not fool proof as he did not get any reference point to take a life size enlargement. Moreover, the photograph of the deceased was admittedly not a recent one. The prosecution relies on the evidence of P.Ws.11 and 20 and the exhumation of the body as pointed out by the appellant to establish that he alone could have known where the dead body was buried and hence it is abundantly clear that he perpetrated the crime. Counsel for the appellant submitted that on the aforesaid solitary evidence it would not be safe to come to such a conclusion as no other circumstances unerringly point out his role in the crime. 9. P.W. 20 stated that on 14-2-1981 he started preparation of mahazar Ext. P20 from the place where the body was exhumed, According to P.W.20, appellant was brought to the place on 14-2-1981 and as pointed out by him P.W. 20 began the preparation of the mahazar at 9 A.M. P.W. 11 stated that at 10.30 a.m. on 14-2-1981 appellant pointed out the place of burial to him. P20 from the place where the body was exhumed, According to P.W.20, appellant was brought to the place on 14-2-1981 and as pointed out by him P.W. 20 began the preparation of the mahazar at 9 A.M. P.W. 11 stated that at 10.30 a.m. on 14-2-1981 appellant pointed out the place of burial to him. There is apparent inconsistency in the evidence of P.Ws.11 and 20, with regard to the time of pointing out the place of burial by the appellant. If the evidence of P.W.20 is believed, appellant pointed out the place where the dead body was concealed at 9 a.m. whereas P.W.11's evidence would show that it was at 10.30 a.m. There was no necessity for the appellant to show the place where the dead body was buried on two occasions. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the above inconsistency is sufficient to cause suspicion in the discovery evidence. As the only evidence in the case is with regard to the exhumation of the corpse as pointed out by the appellant the above inconsistency cannot be lightly disregarded. 10. Counsel for the appellant relying on AIR. 1947 Privy Council 67 (Kottaya v. Emperor) argued that unless the discovery evidence in the case constitutes the offence alleged against the appellant, it cannot form the basis of conviction as there is no other circumstantial evidence to pinpoint his guilt. The discovery evidence is only a link in the chain of proof and if the other links are found wanting to bring home the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt it would not alone be sufficient to establish the prosecution case. As already pointed out, the circumstantial evidence in the case is not complete to forge a strong chain of evidence to connect the appellant with the crime. Suspicion however strong cannot supplant legal evidence found necessary in a case. 11. As already pointed out, the circumstantial evidence in the case is not complete to forge a strong chain of evidence to connect the appellant with the crime. Suspicion however strong cannot supplant legal evidence found necessary in a case. 11. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the discovery evidence in the case is sufficient at any rate to hold that the appellant committed offence under S.201 of the I. P. C. Counsel for the appellant relying on Dasratharama Reddy v. State of A.P. (1971 S.C.C. (Crl.) 472) contended that if the evidence relating to the crime and disappearance of its evidence is the same and the case of the prosecution regarding the offence of murder is not accepted, appellant cannot be convicted under S.201 of the I.P.C. In para 24 of the above judgment it has been held as follows: "If once the case of the prosecution regarding the offence of murder is not accepted, it follows that the appellant cannot be convicted for the offence under S.201 of the I. P. C. because the evidence relating to that offence is common." That was a case, like the present, where there was only one accused and he was acquitted of the charge under S.302, and consequently, on the same evidence, also of the charge under S.201 of the I.P.C. It is useful to refer in this context to A.I.R. 1966 S C. 821 (K.K. Jadav v. State of Gujarat) wherein it has been held as follows (para 9): "The mere fact that the dead body was pointed out by the appellant or was discovered as a result of a statement made by him would not necessarily lead to the conclusion of the offence of murder." In the light of the above Supreme Court decision also it has to be held that the solitary piece of discovery evidence is not sufficient to establish the prosecution case against the appellant. 12. On a consideration of the entire evidence we find that the prosecution has not established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. We hold that the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt. The conviction and sentence entered against the appellant by the learned Sessions Judge are hereby set aside. The appellant is found not guilty and he is acquitted and set at liberty if not required to be detained for any other cause. The appeal stands allowed.