JUDGMENT Kamat, J. -These three appeals are directed against a common judgment convicting the appellant under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to imprisonment for life in Sessions Case No. 15/87. The conviction has been made and sentence awarded by the Addl. Sessions Judge, South Goa, Margao on the charge that on the intervening night of 25/26th March, 1987 between 21.00 and 6.00 hours at Madloband, Velvaddo, Quelossim, the appellants in furtherance of common intention assaulted Sebastia Juliano Almeida with dandas, ribs and rough rubble stones with the intention of causing his death and inflicted on him injuries due to said Sabastiao died on the spot. 2. These three appeal conveniently disposed by a common judgment. Appellant Mingue1 in Criminal Appeal No. 2/88 was accused No. 1 in that Sessions Case. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 1/88 is Francisco who was accused No.2 and in Criminal Appeal No. 28/87 appellant Nicolau was accused No.3. For the sake of convenience we will refer to them as accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in this judgment. 3. In support of the prosecution case as many as 25 prosecution witnesses have been examined and having regard to the contentions raised presently in these appeals it may not be necessary to refer to many of the prosecution witnesses. It is common ground that the dead body of Sebastiao Julliano Alnieide was found lying alongside the road of Quelossim on - 26th March, 1987 but however it is equally common ground that there are no eye-witnesses to the offence committed on him. The entire prosecution evidence rests on circumstances. 4. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that Sebastiao Julliano Almeida had strained relationship with his wife known as Josefina and as a result of this estrangement she had been residing at her parental house at a village called Nuvem since more than a year prior to the discovery of the dead body of said Sebastiao. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are brothers and they are the sons of the elder brother of the deceased Sebastiao by name Jose. That accused No.3 Nicolau is the son of the cousin brother of said Sebastiao. It is, the prosecution case that all the accused had illicit relations with aforementioned Josefina and more particularly accused No.1 Minguel had very intimate relations with her. That accused No.3 Nicolau is the son of the cousin brother of said Sebastiao. It is, the prosecution case that all the accused had illicit relations with aforementioned Josefina and more particularly accused No.1 Minguel had very intimate relations with her. This illicit relationship is mentioned to be the motive for murdering afore mentioned Sebastiao. That on the night of 25th March, 1987 after Sebastiao had dinner at the residence of his brother-in-law Mariano Xavier (P.W. 2) while returning home all the three accused attacked him with dandas, sticks and rough rubble stones and killed him on the spot. Once the body was discovered on the morning of 26th March, 1987 a complaint was soon lodged first at the Cortalim Out-Post followed by a regular recording of the F.I.R at the Police Station of Vasco-da-Gama and the accused were on the evening of the same day and finally put up to trial which led them to their conviction which is now challenged in these appeals. 5. Several contentions are taken in these appeals. Broadly stated it is submitted that the circumstantial evidence collected and led by the prosecution is insufficient to sustain conviction of the accused any event the prosecution has miserably tailed, to establish all links in the chain, which are vital in the matter of conviction being based on circumstantial evidence. (i) It is contended on behalf of the accused that illicit relationship between accused or any one of them and Josefina, widow of the deceased is itself not established and in no case such relationship could have been the motive for murder of Sebastiao. (ii) Counsel for appellants urged that the learned Judge has erroneously relied upon the so called extra-judicial confessions of P. W. 11 Sebastiao Fernandes firstly because he resiled from his earlier statement and secondly he was declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution. (iii) Regard being had to contradictions and intrinsic evidentiary value, the learned Judge has fallen in error in believing the prosecution witnesses Nos. 6, 10 and 13. Once this evidence is discarded, the accused are not at all identified and nothing remains to connect them with murder of Sebastiao. (iv) It is equally urged that the learned Judge ought not to have accepted the evidence of the so called nail clippings. 6, 10 and 13. Once this evidence is discarded, the accused are not at all identified and nothing remains to connect them with murder of Sebastiao. (iv) It is equally urged that the learned Judge ought not to have accepted the evidence of the so called nail clippings. Merely because nail clippings had human blood that by itself is not sufficient to connect the accused with the murder. It is therefore now urged that if these grievances of the accused are accepted there can, be no alternative but to record acquittal of the appellants. 6. Mr. Rebello, learned counsel for the appellants says that in the first instance it is not possible to conclude and accept from the prosecution evidence that the appellants at all had any illicit relationship with aforementioned Josefina. Having regard to the evidence according to him there is no into of evidence to establish any such connection and at the most an inference may give rise that that relationship between Josefina and accused - No.1 Minguel were otherwise cordial as Aunt and nephew. In the same vein he further argues that even if there was some illicit relationship between Josefina and accused Minguel it was an old affair and in any case it is not possible to involve accused No. 2. Francisco and accused No. 3 Nicolau in the crime and in any event there is no evidence worth the name to suggest that such illicit relationship could be the motive for-murdering Sebastiao on the night of 25th March, 1987. In this connection it must be stated that a number of witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution who have unanimously mentioned that accused No.1 Minguel was in love with Josefina and they were having illicit relationship. The statement are of general nature. For instance, P. W. 1 Pascoal Sequeire who is related to deceased Sebastiao being cousin of his mother and who lodged the First Information Report at the Vasco Police Station on the morning of 26th March, 1987 after the discovery of the body of Sebastiao says that Minguel and deceased's wife Josefina used to have illicit relations. But however immediately qualifies his statement by saying that this was told to him by Sebastiao himself. But however immediately qualifies his statement by saying that this was told to him by Sebastiao himself. The statements of other witnesses P.W. 2 Mariano Xavier, P.W. 3 Rosario Almeida, P.W.4 Teodoro Almeida, P.W. 5 Guilhermina Almeida, P.W. 6 Roque Almeida and P.W. 10 Luiza Almeida are unanimous in mentioning that accused No.1 Minguel had illicit relationship with the wife of the deceased, but all of them equally maintained that their knowledge was based on the information given by the deceased Sebastiao himself. Most of these witnesses more particularly P.Ws. 1 to P.W. 5 are otherwise closely related to the deceased Sebastiao. It is therefore not understood as rightly argued by Shri F. Rebello, counsel for the appellants that none of these witnesses so far referred to have otherwise spoken about the illicit relationship to their knowledge or have attributed anything directly to Josefina and Minguel or the other accused. He further pointed out that their only source being the deceased, it is possible to accept having regard to various other circumstances that deceased Sebastiao was wrongly entertaining a notion that his nephew was having illicit relations with his wife or that he was entertaining a strong suspicion. 13th April. 1988 7. There are a few more witnesses on this subject of illicit relationship and having regard to what is contended by the learned public Prosecutor we are dealing with them separately according to the learned Public Prosecutor these witnesses gave details of the intimate relationship between Josefina and accused No. 1 Minguel. In this connection P.W. 10 Luiza Almeida's evidence be scanned. In the first place it may be mentioned that this Luiza is again closely related to accused Nos. 1 and 2 who are the sons of her cousin brother and accused No.3 is her nephew. She mentioned that deceased Sebastiao informed her about the love affair between Josefina and Minguel and despite residing in the close vicinity of the house on the other side of the road otherwise does not say anything more about that relationship. There may be some minor justification for Public Prosecutor to mention the evidence of two witnesses namely Antonio Piedade Almeida (P.W. 12) and Luiza Souza (P.W. 13). P.W. 12 Antonio Almeida says: "I know the widow of Sebastiao by name Josefina. Accused No. 1 Minguel and Josefina were in love. There may be some minor justification for Public Prosecutor to mention the evidence of two witnesses namely Antonio Piedade Almeida (P.W. 12) and Luiza Souza (P.W. 13). P.W. 12 Antonio Almeida says: "I know the widow of Sebastiao by name Josefina. Accused No. 1 Minguel and Josefina were in love. I know this fact because I have seen their love affair with my own eyes from my house situated close to the house of Minguel. Minguel was staying in the house of Josefina while Sebestiao was staying abroad. For the matter in her deposition P.W. 13 Luisa Souza says thus: "I had seen twice or thrice the accused Minguel and Josefina wife of deceased moving around together. I saw them at Cortalim when I used to go to sell fish." But however this statement is not found in the statement recorded by the Police and this omission amounting to contradiction was brought on record in her cross-examination. The effect of the evidence of these two witnesses in our view does not in any manner throw light on the intimacy or illicit relationship between Minguel and Josefina. The statement of Antonio Almeida (P.W. 12) is as vague as the statements of other witnesses. No doubt he mentions that he has seen the love affair with his own eyes but does not elaborate nor the prosecution put any further question to him as to what actually he saw or what sort of affair that was going on. The story of Luiza Souza (P.W. 13) is no better because according to her she saw them together at Cortalim on two or three occasion. It may be relevant to notice that it is not the case of Luiza that she saw them at some odd place or at some odd place or at such a time of the hour that should arouse suspicion about it. Therefore the two statements again in our view do not lend support to the prosecution story to have such intrinsic evidentiary value that Minguel and Josefina were having illicit relations. The overall effect of the evidence no doubt leads to suspicion in that behalf but we must however make certain that suspicion cannot substitute for legal evidence. This being all the evidence in regard to illicit relationship we fail to understand as to how that by itself could at all find favour with the learned Addl. The overall effect of the evidence no doubt leads to suspicion in that behalf but we must however make certain that suspicion cannot substitute for legal evidence. This being all the evidence in regard to illicit relationship we fail to understand as to how that by itself could at all find favour with the learned Addl. Sessions Judge for in our view it is not possible to hold conclusively that it establishes such relationship. 8. It is indeed found by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge that the story of the handing over of the jacket by accused No.1 after the midnight mass on Christmas night lends colour to such intimacy. In the first place we may observe that the prosecution has clearly established facts more or less to this effect: That after the midnight mass was over deceased Sebastiao had a quarrel with accused No.1 Minguel on asking upon the latter to hand over to him the cloth out of which jacket worn by Minguel had been got stitched. This quarrel assumes some proportion and a witness by name Elias George Xavier (P.W. 8) intervened and with a view to avert a quarrel going out of proportion the witness prevailed upon accused Minguel to hand over the jacket to deceased. Despite Minguel was slapped by deceased Sebastiao he cooly handed over the jacket to him. It is possible to accept though there exists some doubt that the cloth out of, which the jacket was got prepared had been imported by deceased Sebastiao and it may be further possible that Josefina had offered that cloth to accused Minguel who had stitched a jacket out of the same. But then it is equally an admitted fact that at the instance of deceased Sebastiao accused Minguel was looking after certain interests of his family and for that matter even resided at his house and therefore even if Josefina had offered the cloth to him that by itself ought not naturally lead to the theory that there was intimacy or illicit relationship between them. This in our view cannot be accepted as a link in chain in the absence of other corroborative evidence which we have so far discussed and which we will be discussing hereafter. 9. The next evidence that found favour with the trial Court is the evidence of P.W. 6 Roque Almeida, P.W. 10, Luiza Almeida and P.W 13 Luiza Souza. This in our view cannot be accepted as a link in chain in the absence of other corroborative evidence which we have so far discussed and which we will be discussing hereafter. 9. The next evidence that found favour with the trial Court is the evidence of P.W. 6 Roque Almeida, P.W. 10, Luiza Almeida and P.W 13 Luiza Souza. These three witnesses have unanimously given a version that the three accused were found together on the road opposite their house on the night of 25th March, 1987 around 9 p.m. In view of the controversy now raised it will be advantageous to refer to their evidence though it is not required to refer to in greater detail. P.W. 6 Roque Almeida says that at about 9.10 p.m. when he was sitting in the verandah of his house he saw A. 1 and A. 2 on the road in front of his house. Ten minutes prior to that he had seen accused No.3 Nicolau on the road and Nicolau going away after which A. 1 and A. 2 left. Undisputably Sebastiao was found murdered on this night although his dead body was recovered in the early hours of 26th March, 1987. This evidence is heavily criticized by the learned counsel and not without justification and we may presently point out that he himself says that if there were no street lights he could not have identified any person standing on the road from his house. Admittedly his house is 20 to 30 meters away from the road and his own house had no electric lights. Though however in his evidence he identified the accused, this evidence stands belied by his owe version when he contradicted his own statement made before the Police recorded under section 162 Cr. P.C. soon after the incident. For the matter he said: "I have not stated to the Police that from 23rd March to 25th March, 1987 there was no supply of street lights." In view of this contradiction it is clear that there were no street lights for at least three days from 23rd March to 25th March, 1987 and having regard to what he mentioned earlier that in the absence of lights he could not have identified the accused will have to be accepted. Therefore it does not stand to reason that evidence of Roque Almeida is liable to be accepted. Therefore it does not stand to reason that evidence of Roque Almeida is liable to be accepted. P.W. 10 Luiza Almeida is his wife. She otherwise corroborates her husband Roque Almeida in suggesting that she identified all the three accused who were standing on the road as mentioned by her husband. The identification is again based on the street lights. Having exposed as to the absence of street lights vide the evidence of Roque Almeida it IS not possible again to hold that this lady is able to identify the accused who were standing on the road according to her at a distance of 20 to 30 metres in the absence of street lights. Coming to the last of the witnesses on this aspect is Luiza Souza who is P.W. 13. It may be at once pointed out that finally it emerges that this woman who sells fish is also residing in the same house of Roque Almeida i.e. P.W. 6. There is again great justification in the criticism leveled by Shri Rebello insofar as the evidence of this witness is concerned because according to her she was returning after selling fish at about 9 p.m. and by which time P.W. 6 Roque Almeda, P. W. 10 Luiza and family members were already having dinner. She identified the accused to be on the road on the strength of the lights of a passing taxi that was coming from Cortalim to Loutoulim side. It is pointed out to us by reading her evidence that having regard to the position where the accused were allegedly standing the headlights of the passing vehicle would blind witness Luiza and in that blindness it is not possible for her to identify the accused who were facing towards Loutoulim side. It has also come in evidence that there is a bend near the Chapel were the accused were purported to be standing and there is therefore justification in what is shown to us by the defence that this Luiza could not have identified the accused with the lights of the passing vehicle. There are several more reasons why her evidence is suspectful and therefore cannot be relied upon. In fact we have been shown a number of contradictions brought on record in the matter of her statements. There are several more reasons why her evidence is suspectful and therefore cannot be relied upon. In fact we have been shown a number of contradictions brought on record in the matter of her statements. Apart from the contradictions what is standing out against her is that despite being an inmate of the house of P.W. 6 Roque Almeida according to her she never spoke about this incident till her statement was got recorded by the Police on 2nd April, 1987. In the first place it may be seen that her statement was recorded by the Police almost on the eighth day of the discovery of the dead body of Sebastiao. Having regard to the relationship between the family of Roque Almeida and the deceased it is just not possible to hold that this witness will not divulge, about her seeing the three accused on the road on Cle fateful night of 25th March, 1987. The statement of this witness Luisa Souza had been again recorded under section 164 by the J.M.F.C. and as pointed out earlier a number contradictions have been brought on record. We will however come to the subject of evidentiary value of statements recorded under section 164 a little latter but suffice for the present to hold that the evidence of this woman does not inspire confidence and the connection she has with the family of Roque Ameida, and Luiza Almeida P.Ws. 6 and 13 respectively who evidence we have just discarded is enough pointer not to rely on the evidence of this witness also. 10. Having regard to the version of these three witnesses P.W. 6 Roque, P.W. 10 Luiza and P.W. 13 Luiza Souza and from what we have highlighted above it is just not possible to hold that all the accused were found on the road in a group on the fateful night around 9 p.m. on 25th March, 1987 and we therefore fail to understand as to how despite all these discrepancies the Addl. Sessions Judge accepted and relied upon the evidence of these persons. Identification of the accused therefore goes off the board. 11. The next of the circumstance that is found against the accused is the so called extra-judicial confession made by Minguel accused No.1 to P.W. 11 Sebastiao Fernandes. Sessions Judge accepted and relied upon the evidence of these persons. Identification of the accused therefore goes off the board. 11. The next of the circumstance that is found against the accused is the so called extra-judicial confession made by Minguel accused No.1 to P.W. 11 Sebastiao Fernandes. In the first place itself we may make it clear that accused No.1 Minguel and A. 2 Francisco are the brothers-in-law of Sebastiao Fernandes and the Investigating Officer took the caution of getting-his statement recorded under section 164 Cr. P.C. before the J.M.F.C. The evidence of the Judicial Magistrate is recorded as P.W. 20. It is true that in the statement recorded by the Magistrate, Sebastiao Fernandes mentions "about 21.30 hours Minguel Almeida and his brother Francisce Almeida came to our residence and were very nervous and I asked them as to' what has happened for which Minguel Almeida has replied and told me that "anvem Sebastiao Almeidak add gatla". It is true that this statement is recorded under section 164 Cr. P.C. and which is duly proved by the Magistrate (P.W. 20) but it is equally true that when Sebastiao Fernandes was examined before the Court he gave a different version and resiled from his earlier statement made under section 164 Cr. P. C. The result was that he was declared hostile and prosecution was permitted to cross-examine him. The statement that he made before the Magistrate is brought on record in his cross-examination. Shri Reballo, learned counsel for the appellants has made a submission before us that the statement under section] 64 Cr. P.C. is no substantive evidence by itself and it is admissible only for the purposes either to corroborate or to contradict the witness and nothing beyond that. He justifiably relies on the authority of State of Delhi v. Shri Ram Lohia1. It is not necessary for us to go into the facts of the case involved before the Supreme Court and suffice to mention that the Supreme Court has clearly held that the statement of witness recorded under section 164 is not substantive evidence and it can be used only to corroborate or contradict that witness. It is not necessary for us to go into the facts of the case involved before the Supreme Court and suffice to mention that the Supreme Court has clearly held that the statement of witness recorded under section 164 is not substantive evidence and it can be used only to corroborate or contradict that witness. For that matter it is held that even when the witness says that whatever statement he made under section 164 is true does not make such a statement admissible in evidence but what is presently lost sight of is that this Sebastiao has resiled from his statement and he has been declared hostile and cross-examined. Therefore in our view his evidence cannot be relied upon and not in any case for the purpose of conviction. The defence again rightly puts reliance on the Authority of Jagu Singh v The State (Delhi Administration)2. Succinctly put the Supreme. Court says, it is now well settled that when a witness, who has been called by the prosecution, is permitted to be cross-examined on behalf of the prosecution, the result of that course being adopted is to discredit that witness altogether and not merely to get rid of a part of his testimony. The fact remains that once he resiled from his earlier statement and he was declared hostile, his evidence has become totally untrustworthy and therefore by no standards it can be relied upon. Similar is the effect in the decision of Balak Ram and another v State of U.P.3. It is again in respect of the credibility of the witness and evidentiary value of statement recorded under section 164, The Supreme Court says that that evidence- must be approached with caution because the witnesses feel tied to their previous statements given on oath and have but a theoretical freedom to depart from the earlier, version. In the light of these authorities we can advantageously point out here that evidence of P.W.13 Luiza Souza had also been recorded under section 164 and we have pointed out as to how her evidence suffers from several infirmities. Despite this being the position it is really not understood as to how the learned Addl. In the light of these authorities we can advantageously point out here that evidence of P.W.13 Luiza Souza had also been recorded under section 164 and we have pointed out as to how her evidence suffers from several infirmities. Despite this being the position it is really not understood as to how the learned Addl. Sessions Judge fell into the prosecution trap in accepting the evidence of Sebastiao Fernandes (P.W. 11) and further relied upon for making that the basis of conviction or being one of the links in the chain of events or circumstances. 12. We will now come to the last of the circumstances relied upon by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. He holds that once the accused were arrested Dr. D.J. Souza, Jr. Pathologist, P.W. 23 took their nail clippings. These nail clippings were forwarded for chemical analysis and the report mentions their nail chippings to have human blood on them. According to the learned Judge having regard to so many circumstances against the accused, which we have already exposed this is a very important link in the chain and therefore clearly establishes the guilt of the accused. 13. In fact it must be held that defence challenge on this matter is liable to be accepted without any reservation. It' is firstly pointed out by the learned counsel that there is nothing to establish that the nail clippings were of the accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3. His grievance is that there is no difficulty in accepting the statement of Jr. Pathologist that in fact nail clippings were taken from accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 soon after they were apprehended but however he says that there is no guarantee that such nail clippings were not substituted by the Police. In that he points out that the flaw is that the Constable to whom the nail clippings were given by the Jr. Pathologist has not been examined. The allegation appears to be that if the Constable had been examined it could have been known whether the nail clippings were directly forwarded to the Office of the Chemical Analyser or {he Forensic Laboratory as also the other factors like time, seal, etc. Without going through unnecessary details we may presently point out that Jr. Pathologist P.W. 23 mentions that he handed over the nail clippings to police Constable No. 0775 on 23rd March, 1987. Without going through unnecessary details we may presently point out that Jr. Pathologist P.W. 23 mentions that he handed over the nail clippings to police Constable No. 0775 on 23rd March, 1987. It is an admitted position that this Constable has not been examined. The Investigating Officer who has been examined as P.W. 25 mentions that he obtained the nail clippings and himself forward to the Forensic Laboratory for Chemical Examination. Going by the assumption that the argument of the defence of substitution is not acceptable, the result of the examination by the Chemical Examiner does not connect the accused to the crime and we will succinctly point out the same. The nail clippings are Exhs. 10 and 11 of accused No.2 Francisco, 12 and 13 of accused No. Minguel and 14 and 15 of accused No.3 Nicolau. Undisputably the blood group of accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are A positive, A positive and AB positive respectively. Undisputably the blood group of deceased Sebastiao also is A group. Blood was detected on Exhs. 10, 11, 12 and 14 and no blood was detected on Exhs. 13 15. But here again though the blood detected is human the Chemical Analyser could not determine its group. Though we mentioned earlier that the blood group of Sebastiao is A group it was on the basis of the blood found on his clothes he was wearing when he was found dead and these clothes were sent to the Chemical Analyser who has indicated the blood group of the deceased.' In fact we fail to understand as to why the police did not try to find out the blood group of the deceased, de hors the clothes as very often we 'come across cases that the determination of the blood group on the clothes remain inconclusive because of disintegnition as a result of time factor. We may only observe that in murder cases it is desirable that testing of the blood group is done independently of the Chemical Analyser's report on the clothes, etc. Once we have discarded so many circumstances it is again just not possible for us merely because nail clippings of the accused were found to be tainted with human blood that the accused can be connected to the murder of Sebastiao. 14. Once we have discarded so many circumstances it is again just not possible for us merely because nail clippings of the accused were found to be tainted with human blood that the accused can be connected to the murder of Sebastiao. 14. Once we have already discarded the theory of the prosecution that the motive for murder was the illicit relationship between accused No.1 Minguel and Josefina and further not accepted the extra-judicial confession and that too for cogent reasons and when the evidence in relation to nail clippings is doubtful it is not possible to sustain the conviction of the accused. In fact these are the circumstances, which weighed upon the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. 15. We will however not rest here and record some of the observation we have made after going through the entire paper book. We have already mentioned earlier that most of the prosecution witnesses are related to both deceased Sebastiao as well as the accused and are further ,elated inter se. What therefore emerges from their evidence is that the deceased Sebastiao had been twice out of India in Gulf; that he returned for the first time after being abroad for a period of about three years and he returned for the second time within a short while. There is no dispute and since the learned Public Prosecutor does not dispute we may not refer to the evidence in detail. On the construction of the evidence we may mention that between the year 1982 till about March/April 1986 deceased Sebastiao was away from India. He again left sometime in April/May 1986 and returned in December, 1986. From the evidence on record it transpires that accused Minguel used to reside in the house of Sebastiao during the time deceased Sebastiao was away from his village for the first time. It is also clear from the evidence that accused No.1 Mingual was also away in Gulf but however it is not clear during which period. But it equally transpires that once Sebastiao came home in December, 1986 accused Minguel was not residing in his house. Undisputably it further transpires and without any reservation that for a period of about one year prior to December, 1986 Josefina was not in her matrimonial house on account of quarrels with her husband and she was residing in her parents house since about December, 1985 onwards at Nuvem. Undisputably it further transpires and without any reservation that for a period of about one year prior to December, 1986 Josefina was not in her matrimonial house on account of quarrels with her husband and she was residing in her parents house since about December, 1985 onwards at Nuvem. No attempt has been made by the prosecution that accused Minguel was visiting Josefina at her parents house at Navem. We are making this clear to point out that even if the story of illicit relationship between Minguel and Josefina is accepted it is sometime prior to 1985 and at and rate there was nothing live about it for quite sometime before murder and nothing more is pointed out by the prosecution. It is therefore not understood in what 60n, text the prosecution tried to bring this relationship as a motive for murder, which admittedly took place in March, 1987. No serious attempt has been made by the prosecution in that connection. It is therefore difficult to accept this type of evidence as a motive for murder. There is some justification for the defence counsel to urge before us by relying on the authority of State (Delhi Administration) v. Gulzarilal Tandan4, that when the prosecution rests purely on circumstantial evidence, motive undoubtedly plays an important part in order to tilt the scale against the accused. There is great justification in what is pointed out as the Supreme Court mentions that motive undoubtedly plays an important role when the prosecution case rests purely on circumstantial evidence. But however with a caution that such circumstantial evidence must be wholly inconsistent with the innocence of the accused and consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt. We do not think we should dilate any more on this aspect. 16. We affirm that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has rightly discarded the so called discovery of the clothes by the accused or the theory of the dogs going to the house of accused Nos. 1 and 2. The learned Judge has also rightly discarded the recovery of two sticks from the pond and one stick from the field and even if such recovery was to be accepted it is clear from the report of the Chemical Analyser that no blood was detected on them. admittedly two dandas M.Os. 8 and 9 and several rough rubble stones were found near the dead body. admittedly two dandas M.Os. 8 and 9 and several rough rubble stones were found near the dead body. We are not required to go into details of this as from the evidence on record we are unable to connect the accused with these articles. The fact remains that deceased Sebastiao lost his life in a brutal attack. The injuries are as many as 44, the cause of his death is cranio cerebral damage due to blunt force, object, or surface and there can be no doubt that he was done to death by the aid of the said dandas and rough rubble stones, but however this mystery has not been solved as to who did it. We have therefore no alternative but to record acquittal so far as accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are concerned. 17. However, before we part may mention by way of caution and for future guidance of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. In 313 Cr. P.C. statement recorded we find that the question/ answers of the three accused are recorded at one and the same place one after the other. Though no grievance was made on this aspect of the matter by the learned counsel for the defence it has become necessary for us to mention that this practice will have to be stopped. It is well known that all Courts are hard pressed for time but it is needless to iterate that that by itself cannot be made an alibi for giving a go-by to the established procedure. Circumstances appearing against each of the accused are required to be put to them with a view to allow them an opportunity to explain what is appearing against, the accused. The law is also clear that answers given to questions put to accused can also be taken against them. In our view it is imperative that each and every question must be put to the accused separately and their answers recorded also separately. The manner in which the present record is made is far from happy and though in the present case there is no prejudice caused to the accused yet if such a course is adopted and defence take) up a grievance it is possible that a well proved prosecution case may have to be interfered with on the allegation of prejudice in putting questions to the accused in this fashion. It is therefore desirable that questions should be put individually to all accused no matter that such questions are uniform and some more time will have to be wasted. In our view it is worth it when the law mandates it. 18. For the foregoing reasons the convictions of the accused under section 302 of I.P.C. and their sentences are hereby quashed and set aside and the appeals are accordingly allowed. The accused are acquitted and set at liberty. 1.AIR 19080 SC 490 2. AIR 1975 SC 1400 3. AIR 1914 SC 2165. 4. AIR 1979 SC 1382 .