JUDGMENT S. B. Sinha, J. The sole appellant Vijay kumar Trivedi, by reason of the judgment passed by Sri Damodar Prasad, 5th Additional Judicial Commission, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 522/86 has been convicted for commission TR no. 22/86 of an offence of murdering his wife Chaya Devi on 22. 9. 1985 and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life. 2. On 23. 9. 1985 at about I P. M., Ps. W. 1 Ganesh Tiwary, who is said to be uncle (Mausa) of the deceased and maternal uncle (MaMa) of the appellant gave a fardbayan before the officer in charge of Namkum Police Station, alleging inter alia therein that the appellant and the deceased were married on 20th May, 1985 and thereafter, they had been staying together in his residence at Tatishilway. According to the informant, the behaviour of the appellant towards his wife was very rude and he used to assault her without any reason, where for, the informant did not allow them to live in his house and thereafter the appellant and the deceased shifted to a quarter of Bharat wire Industries at Mahilong being quarter no. 4 The informant in his fardbayan further alleged that the behaviour of the appellant towards the deceased in the new quarter was also not good and he had been intimated by his Munshi that the appellant used to assault the deceased daily without any reason wha1soever. The informant allegedly asked the appellant not to assault the deceased on several occasions. The brother of the appellant was also intimated as they also become annoyed with his behaviour but the appellant did not pay heed to anyone. 3. In the aforementioned fardbayan, it was further alleged that at about 7 p. m. on 22.9. 1985, Baijnath Singh. Munshi (P. W. 10) sent an information to him that the deceased Chaya Devi was lying dead in her quarter and her body was burnt. It was further alleged that blood was also coming out from her mouth. Upon the aforementioned information received by him from PW 10, the informant went to the residence of the appellant and allegedly found the dead body of the deceased lying on the floor. He further found burn injuries on her person, He had also allegedly found blood on the ground. 4. Upon the aforementioned information received by him from PW 10, the informant went to the residence of the appellant and allegedly found the dead body of the deceased lying on the floor. He further found burn injuries on her person, He had also allegedly found blood on the ground. 4. In this connection, he allegedly made an enquiry from the people of the locality and came to learn that the appellant had killed his wife and burnt her dead body in order to screen the evidence. 5. P. W. 10 Ganesh Tiwary had allegedly informed Sri Bartu Mahto, a local Mukhiya and Sri Hari Prasad Mishra, Mukhiya of Tatishilway. He had also informed the brother of the appellant. According to the informant he could not inform the Police in the night as it was too late and so information was sent to the Police in the morning 6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined 12 witnesses. P. W. 1 Ganesh Tiwary is the informant himself. He supported the case made out in his fardbayan. 7. P. W. 2 Ram Naresh Tiwary and P. W. 3 Yadu Nandan Tiwary in their deposition stated that the appellant allegedly used to assault his wife. P. W. 4 Dr. Renu Bala, was an Associate Professor in Forensic Department of Rajendra Medical College Hospital, Ranchi, who held 'he autopsy on the dead body of Chaya Devi on 24. 9. 1985 at about 11. 30 hours. According to this witness, the following injury was found on the dead body:- "Burn area covering whole body surface except sole of Feet and a portion of lower part of both legs. The burn was more deep on the front part of right side chest and front part of right thigh. 8. According to the doctor, the death was due to shock and suffocation due to burn injury which were ante mortem in nature. In her cross examination, she stated that there was no sign of any mechanical injury. She further admitted that such injury was possible due to fire in course of cooking. 9. P. W. 5 is Harishankar Mishra. In his evidence, this witness stated that on 23.9.1985 he saw Chaya Devi lying dead and her clothes were burnt. He further stated that the Sub Inspector of Police seized kerosine oil and blood in his presence. She further admitted that such injury was possible due to fire in course of cooking. 9. P. W. 5 is Harishankar Mishra. In his evidence, this witness stated that on 23.9.1985 he saw Chaya Devi lying dead and her clothes were burnt. He further stated that the Sub Inspector of Police seized kerosine oil and blood in his presence. He is also a witness to the seizure list which was marked as Ext. 4. He however, stated that he did not know whether the accused used to assault the deceased. This witness was declared hostile. In his cross examination by the prosecution, he further denied that he had stated before the police regarding the assault on the deceased by the appellant. He further denied that he had informed Ganesh Tiwary with regard to the misbehaviour of the appellant with the deceased. He further denied that when he found the quarter of the appellant lonely, he called out Chaya Devi but having not receive any response, lighted a match and found that the door was closed and upon opening whereof, he found, the dead body of Chaya Devi and thereafter he informed Baijnath Singh. He further denied that he caught the accused and forced him to sit. 10. PW 6 is Triveni Prasad Verma. This witness was also declared hostile and was cross examined by the prosecution. In his cross examination, he denied to have made any statements before the police. Although, in his examination in-chief, he stated that he had seen Vijay (appellant) purchasing kerosine, but in cross examination, he denied the same. This witness further denied that he bad over seen the appellant assaulting the deceased. 11. PW 7 is Laljee Prasad. He has merely been tendered. PW 8 is Had Pruad Nath Mishra, Mukhiya of Tatis ilway. This witness was also declared hostile. He stated that his statements were recorded by the Police. 12. PW 9 Bartu Mahto is Mukhiya of Mahilong Gram Panchayat. According to this witness, he came to learn about the occurrence from a darwan of Kanti Factory, whereupon, he went to the place of occurrence and found that the room of the appellant was locked and one darwan with Baijnath Singh had been catching hold of the appellant and the police also reached there. He allegedly saw Baijnath Singh opening the door and thereafter found Chaya Devi dead. He allegedly saw Baijnath Singh opening the door and thereafter found Chaya Devi dead. In his cross examination by the prosecution, he denied to have stated before the police that the mother of the appellant persuaded the appellant to allow Chaya Devi to go with her. In his cross examination by the defence, he further alleged that tile door was closed by Baijnath Singh and he has been keeping the key. 13. PW 10 is Baijnath Singh. According to this witness the appel1ant and the deceased quarreled 15 days prior to the occurrence. He admitted to have written a letter to the PW 1 which was marked as Ext. 2. This witness was also declared hostile. In his cross examination by the prosecution, his attention was drawn to his earlier statements made before the police but he denied to have made the same. 14. PW 11, Gaurpriya Mishra is the mother of the deceased. According to this witness, after marriage the appellant started assaulting her daughter. She further alleged that she came to Ranchi to take her daughter back with her but the appellant did not allow the deceased to accompany her. She further stated that tile appellant bad demanded a sum of Rs. 5000/- in respect whereof she had allegedly made a complaint to the Mukhiya of Tatishilway Gram Panchayat. 15. She further alleged that Mukhiya came to the accused but the latter premised that be would not assault the deceased. Butt in the sight, the appellant assaulted Chaya Devi. According to this witness, she reported the matter again to Sri Bartu Mahto, Mukhiya of Mahilong and PW 1 removed the appellant from his residence. She allegedly wanted to take the deceased with her but the appellant forcibly took away the deceased and kept her in the quarter of PW 10. She further stated that Bartu Mahto came and consoled her stating that the appellant would not in future misbehave with the deceased. Thereafter, she received a telegram, whereby she was informed that her daughter was serious and on receipt of the same, she came to Ranchi and found her dead. She proved a photograph of the deceased which was marked as Ext. 1, and the negatives whereof was marked as Ext. 1/1 to IV. The aforementioned telegram was marked as Ext. 6. 16. She proved a photograph of the deceased which was marked as Ext. 1, and the negatives whereof was marked as Ext. 1/1 to IV. The aforementioned telegram was marked as Ext. 6. 16. According to this witness, Ganesh Tiwary and Yadunandan Tiwary told her that the deceased was killed by the appellant. 17. PW 12 Ram Kripal Singh is the Investigating Officer. He found Kerosine oil on the floor of the room where the dead body of the deceased was lying. He further found a container of five litres and found that some kerosine oil was left therein. He further found blood coming out of the mouth of the deceased. He proved the seizure list which was marked as Ext. 8. This witness stated that PW 11 did not tell him about the demand of a sum of Rs. 5000/- from her. 18. The learned court below in para 10 of his judgment held that the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the accused on the basis of the circumstantial evidences brough on records. 19. According to the learned court below, the circumstances as against the appellant, which point out to his guilt are :- (A) That the relation between the appellant and the deceased was Dot happy. (B) The deceased used to live with the appellant alone, (C) There was none except the accused in room where the death was caused. (D) The conduct of the appellant is not fair as be did not gave any explanation for his non reporting of the matter to the police. (E) The appellant did not make any attempt to remove her to hospital. (F) No cooking material was found inside the room rather kerosine oil was found inside the room. (G) No kerosine ovan or stove was found inside the room. (H) The appellant did not allow the deceased to go with her mother which shows that the appellant kept her with him with an intention to do away with her life. 20. Mr. P. S. Dayal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant firstly submitted that circumstances pointed out by the learned court below are not such which lead to an irresistible conclusion that the appellant was guilty of committing the murder of his wife. 21. The learned counsel pointed out that PW 1 did not state about the demand of dowry. 21. The learned counsel pointed out that PW 1 did not state about the demand of dowry. The learned counsel further point out that PW 1 further did not witness any actual assault by the appellant on the deceased. It was further submitted that as the first information report was lodged in the afternoon of the next date, it is not known when the death took place. 22. He further drew our attention to the fact that P W 1 admitted that when he went to the place of occurrence, the appellant had already been there but he did not state anything with regard to the death of his wife. 23. It was further submitted that PW 2 also could not say definitely about the strained relationship between the appellant and the deceased. With regard to the evidence of P W 3, the learned counsel submitted that this witness did not see the appellant actually assaulting the deceased. 24. Mr. Dayal further drew our attention to the medical evidence and submitted that doctor had also found that the burn injuries were ante mortem in nature and no mechanical injury was found on the dead body. 25. In this connection, our attention was further drawn to the fact that PW 10 in his deposition categorically stated that the appellant came after the dead body was lying on the ground and be had also been weeping. 26. According to the learned counsel, in view of the fact that the appellant did not flee away and be was also found present by the informant when he reached at the place of occurrence and in view of the fact that P W 10 found the appellant weeping over the death of his wife, there can not be any doubt that he did not commit the murder of his wife. 27. In the connection, the learned counsel has placed strong repliance upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in Yaqub Ansari Vs. The State of Bihar (1988 BBCJ page-31). 28. 27. In the connection, the learned counsel has placed strong repliance upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in Yaqub Ansari Vs. The State of Bihar (1988 BBCJ page-31). 28. This case depicts a sad state of affairs where a court of law in view of the fall in the human values and growing apathy on the part of prosecution witness to state the truth, have no other option but to acquit a person who might have committed the murder of a young girl, who wall aged only 18 years at the time of her death. 29. We are expressing our anguish more in view of the fact that this is not a case where the marriage of the appellant with the deceased was an arranged one but as the materials brought on record show that they fell in love with each other and married in a temple with the intervention of P W 1. 30. As noticed hereinbefore the said marriage took place on 20th May, 1986 and only within a period of four months a valuable life of a young woman came to an end. 31. However, remorseful the event may be but bound as we are by the laws of the land, we have to decide this case only on the basis of the legal evidence brought on records. 32. P W 1 who is a common relation of both the appellant and the deceased and he played a vital role in arranging their marriage is the informant. 33. There is no doubt that this witness pointed out his finger of suspicion only towards the accused. He after the marriage of appellant with the deceased allowed them to live in his quarter but had to ask them to vacate the same as allegedly the appellant used to assault his wife. 34. This witness, however, admitted in his cross examination that he never witnessed any actual assault. He further deposed that PW 10 informed him about the fact that the appellant allegedly used to assault his wife and in this connection, he proved a letter which was marked as Ext. 2. PW 10 did not deny the correctness of the said letter but in para 10 of his deposition stated that he wrote the letter on the basis of the in-formations received by him. 35. 2. PW 10 did not deny the correctness of the said letter but in para 10 of his deposition stated that he wrote the letter on the basis of the in-formations received by him. 35. PWs 2 and 3 similarly could not prove as to whether the appellant used to assault the deceased as no assault took place in their presence. PW 2 further, when asked, could not say about the state of relationship between the appellant and the deceased. 36. PW 4 is the doctor. As noticed hereinbefore, although PW 12 as also the other witnesses namely PW 1, PW 10 etc stated that they found that blood was coming out of the mouth of the deceased and in fact some blood was also seized by pw 12 from the place of occurrence, but the prosecution failed to obtain the opinion of the doctor in this regard. If the deceased died out of the burn injury received by her, it does not stand to any reason as to why the prosecution witnesses stated that Investigating Officer found blood on the floor where the dead body was lying and further found that blood had coming out of the mouth of the deceased: although, according to the doctor no mechanical injury was found on her dead Body, In a case where a body is burnt after assault, some mark of violence should be found unless the same is superficial in nature. PW 4, in such a situation was required to state in the post mortem report definitely after examing the vital organs of the dead body as to whether the death was caused because of injuries received by the deceased or owing to asphyxia caused by reason of the burn injuries. 37. We also fail to understand as to why PW 1 or the Mukhiya of the villages Mahilong or Tatishilway as also PW 10 could not inform the police as the police station was only five kilometres away from the place of occurrence although, the place of occurrence and Namkum police station are situate on a high way and particularly, in view of fact that at village Mahilong there is an industrial establishments wherein the appellant and the other witnesses had been working. 38. It also appears curious that according to P. W.9 (Battu Mahto) police came there in the night itself but no F. I. R. was lodged. 38. It also appears curious that according to P. W.9 (Battu Mahto) police came there in the night itself but no F. I. R. was lodged. Further, it does not stand to any reason as to why if the appellant was apprehended immediately after the occurrence and he had been confined in a room but he was not handed over to the police. 39. According to Pw 1, himself he received the information about the death of the deceased at about 7 P. M. No cogent ground has a.180 been shown as to why the fardbayan was recorded at 1 P. M. on the next day. 40. Pw 6 who had seen the appellant buying kerosine oil in a perplexed condition contradicted himself in cross examination. It is true that according to the Investigating officer, neither any cooking material nor any kerosine stove was found but it has also not been brought on record as to what wall the means adopted by deceased in cooking their food. 41. There is also no evidence on record to show nor any witness has stated that they had either actually seen the appellant assaulting his wife nor any mark of violence on the dead body was found at any point of time. 42. The story of demand of a sum of Rs. 5000/- allegedly made by the appellant to his in laws, although stated by the Pw 11 in her deposition, it is evident from the statement of Pw 12 that she did not make any such statement before him. 43. The learned trial court laid a great emphasis on the conduct of the appellant but in our opinion, the conduct of the appellant is not a relevant fact for the purpose of proving his guilt. 44. Although, the deceased had been living with the appellant in the same quarter, there is no evidence to show that the appellant had left the house immediately after the occurrence nor anybody could say about his movement immediately thereafter. 45. P.W. 10 seated (although declaredhostile) that he had informed the appellant about the death of his wife and he started weeping. The appellant had also not fled away from place. He was also found along with other witnesses by Pw 1 when be arrived there. 46. 45. P.W. 10 seated (although declaredhostile) that he had informed the appellant about the death of his wife and he started weeping. The appellant had also not fled away from place. He was also found along with other witnesses by Pw 1 when be arrived there. 46. There is no doubt that strong suspicion arises in our mind that the appellant may be responsible for the death of his wife but suspicion however great, can not be a substitute for proof. It is well known that there is a big gap between "may be guilty" and "is guilty". 47. Commission of an offence by an accused person can be proved by circumstantial evidences brought on record, but before arriving at such a conclusion, it must be held that the circumstances brought on record lead to an irresistible conclusion that the appellant is guilty of commission of the offence. 48. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. The State of Maharastra (AIR 1984 S. C., Page 1622), The Supreme Court has held that a prosecution case must stand or fall on its own leg and it cannot derive any support from weakness of the defence. It is now well known that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case based on circumstantial evidence alone can be said to be fully established ;- (1) "The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. (2) The facts so established should be consist ant only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused that is to say they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. (3) The circumstance should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. (4) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the Act, have been done by the accused." 49. We have pointed out hereinbefore that the evidences brought on records by the prosecution is not such which may be said to have fulfilled all pre-conditions for conviction the appellant on the basis of the circumstantial evidence alone. 50. We have pointed out hereinbefore that the evidences brought on records by the prosecution is not such which may be said to have fulfilled all pre-conditions for conviction the appellant on the basis of the circumstantial evidence alone. 50. There is further a serious lacuna in this case, The learned court below has unfortunately did not realise the gravity of the requirement of law in putting the circumstantial evidences brought on record to the accused in his examination under Section 313 Cr. P.C. 51. It is now well known that those circumstance which lead to the guilt of the accused must be placed before the accused in his examination under Section 313 Cr. P. C. so that he, if so advised, may deny or explain away the same and on its failure to do so, such a circumstances can not be used as against the accused for recording his conviction. 52. Taking thus all facts and circumstances of the prosecution, we are of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to grant of benefit of doubt by us. 53. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the appellant is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless required to be detained in connection with other cases. D. Sinha, J. :- I agree HP. Appeal allowed.