A. PASAYAT, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant, convicted under section 3 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the I. P. C.) assails legality of the ORDER of conviction and sentence passed by learned Sessions Judge, Cuttack. ( 2 ) FACTUAL backdrop as projected by the prosecution is to the following effect. Appellant Harekrishna and the deceased Debaki were in love. Since there was objection to their entering into wedlock, they were meeting secretly, and had also by exchange of garlands tied nuptial knot. The former filed an application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, the Cr. P. C.) for maintenance, when differences between them surfaced. The matter was posted to 2. 5. 1984 and the deceased had come to Cuttack to tender evidence. She returned to the house of her mother (P. W. 1) where she was ordinarily residing. On 3. 5. 1984, the accused-appellant went to P. W. 1 s house late at night, knocked at the door and at his request the deceased accompanied him towards a pond situated at a distance of about 50 cubits from the house of PW. 1. In the early hours of morning of the next day i. e. 4. 5. 1984, bebaki was discovered in unconscious stage and was removed to Bentkar P. H. C. where she was declared dead by the attending Doctor (P. W. 8 ). Visit of accused was noticed by Ramij Dei (PW. 2) the sister-in-law of the deceased. The Medical officer of Benkar P. R. C. reported the incident to the Police Authorities. P. W. 9 who was then posted as A. S. I. of Police enquired into the matter under the direction of the Officer-in-charge of Cuttack Sadar P. S. (PW. 10) P. W. 9 held the inquest over the dead body and sent it to the S. C. B. Medical College Hospital for Post-mortem examination. Post-mortem, was conducted by P. W. 7 a Post Graduate Student in the Forensic and Toxicology Department. A case under section 302, I. P. C. was registered by P. W. 10 on his own information on the basis of the Post Mortem report (Ext 2) Ext 6 is the formal F. I. R. which was recorded by P. W. 10. ( 3 ) TO further its case, prosecution examined 10 witnesses, description of some of which has been indicated above. ( 3 ) TO further its case, prosecution examined 10 witnesses, description of some of which has been indicated above. Except P. W. 4, the brother of the deceased, evidence of other witnesses is not of much consequence, except that it throws some light on the question as to whether there was any marital relationship between the deceased and the accused. The accused took a plea of denial of the incident as alleged. ( 4 ) LEARNED Sessions Judge was of the view that circumstanial evidence clearly established guilt of the accused. He highlighted the evidence of witnesses in relation to marital relationship, and came to hold that the accused and the deceased were in visiting terms, notwithstanding the pendency of the proceeding for maintenance. He took particular note of finding expressed by the Doctor conducting the post-mortem examination that a foetus and placenta of about 3-1/2 months duration was noticed in the-uterus of the deceased. Applying the Last seen togethert hypothesis, learned Sessions Judge came to hold that the prosecution has been able to establish the guilt of the accused and accordingly convicted him under section 302, I. P. C. and sentenced him imprisonment for life. ( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for appellant has highlighted several statements of P. Ws. 1, 2 and 4, which according to him show incredibility of prosecution case. According to him they are so prevaricating and contradictory that they are not worthy of acceptance, particularly in a case where fate of accused hangs on circumstantial evidence. Mr. Nayak, learned Addi. Government Advocate however, submits that chaint of circumstantial evidence is established and conclusions of learned Sessions Judge in the background of peculiar, love, hate relationship between the parties and their access to each other notwithstanding filing of the cases, leave no doubt about the guilt of the accused. Mr. Nayak, learned Addi. Government Advocate however, submits that chaint of circumstantial evidence is established and conclusions of learned Sessions Judge in the background of peculiar, love, hate relationship between the parties and their access to each other notwithstanding filing of the cases, leave no doubt about the guilt of the accused. ( 6 ) IT is a fundamental principle of Criminal Jurisprudence that circumstantial evidence should point inevitably to the conclusion that it was the accused and the accused only who was perpetrator of the offence and such evidence should be incompatible with the innocence of the accused where there is no eye-witness and the case against the accused depends entirely on circumstantial evidence, the standard of proof required to convict accused on such evidence is that the circumstances relied upon must be fully established and the chain evidence furnished by the circumstances should be so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. Circumstantial evidence consists of various links in a chain which if complete leads to an undoubted conclusion that the accused alone could have committed the offence with which he is charged. Every evidentiary circumstance is a probative link, strong or weak and should be made out with certainty. Link after link forged firmly by credible testimony may form a strong chain of sure guilt binding the accused. Each link taken separately may just suggest but when hooked on to the next and on again, may manacle the accused inescapably. Only then can the facts suffice to convict an accused? ( 7 ) MERELY because an accused and the de ceased were last seen together, would not be sufficient for conviction of the accused. That circumstance has to be linked with some evidence to show that their being last seen together had any nexus with the homicidal death. The mere fact that the accused was last seen with the deceased does not lead to the irresistible inference of the guilt. ( 8 ) IN our opinion, agreement relating to marriage, pendancy of proceeding for maintenance and evidence in relation thereto would be significant only if prosecution is able to establish that the accused had visited the house of the deceased on 3. 5. 1984 at night as asserted by P. Ws. 1 and 2. ( 8 ) IN our opinion, agreement relating to marriage, pendancy of proceeding for maintenance and evidence in relation thereto would be significant only if prosecution is able to establish that the accused had visited the house of the deceased on 3. 5. 1984 at night as asserted by P. Ws. 1 and 2. P. W. 1 has stated that at about 10 p. m. she and the deceased went to sleep. Some of the villagers were sleeping on the verandah while some others in the courtyard of her house. She does not state that P. W. 2 was either present or aware of the visit of the accused. She has stated that she followed the deceased and the accused when they went out. She has clearly admitted that she did not tell any of the villagers who had gathered when the unconscious body of the deceased was found near the pond about the visit of the accused. She had admitted that she told her son Bishnu (P. W4) about the visit of Harekrishna after she regain her senses. She accepted that she did not tell the 1. 0. that she had followed the accused and the deceased when they went out, and/or that accused told her not to follow them P. W. 2 had given prevaricating statement as to whether her husband Radhakrushna was present in the house on the fateful night. While in her examination in chief, she has stated that she and her husband were sleeping in one room and Debaki, the deceased was sleeping in the other room with her mother-in-law (P. W. 1), in her cross examination, she has stated that her husband was not present as he was engaged in some work and gone out. Though she had stated in her examination-in-chief that the accused had gone to their house at about mid-night, in her cross-examination she indicated the time between 9 p. m. to 10 p. m. There may be some substance in the argument of learned Counsel for prosecution that being rustic her sense of time was not account. But one significant factor which is noticed, is the time given in the F. I. R. P. W. 10. has categorically stated that P. Ws. 1 and 2 had stated before him that the accused called the deceased at about 2 a. m. This vital discrepancy has not been explained by the prosecution. But one significant factor which is noticed, is the time given in the F. I. R. P. W. 10. has categorically stated that P. Ws. 1 and 2 had stated before him that the accused called the deceased at about 2 a. m. This vital discrepancy has not been explained by the prosecution. In addition, we find from the report of the Medical officer (Ext. 3) that he had intimated the officer-in-charge of Sadar P. S. that the deceased was brought in unconscious stage for suspected poisoning. This was so reported to him by the persons who had gone to the P. H. C. and P. W. 4 the brother of the deceased was one of thcm. Learned Sessions Judge has not attached any importance to this aspect observing that the evidence of Doctor clearly established that death was due to injuries sustained particularly, internal injuries on the neck and therefore, any other possible manner of death is ruled out. But he has missed to notice that by the time the deceased was brought to the hospital, nobody seemed to have linked the accused with the crime. Evidence of P. W. 4 is significant in this regard. He has stated that he learnt about the visit of the accused from his mother after he returned from the hospital. He has further stated that his sister-in-law (P. W. 2) told him about such visit in the hospital. In our view therefore, prosecution has failed to prove about the visit of accused on 3. 5. 1984 night as claimed. That being the position, last seen together hypotheses cannot be pressed into service by the prosecution against the accused. It is, therefore, unnecessary to dilate whether there was any agreement for marriage, or the accused and the deceased were in visiting terms. The learned Sessions Judge has attached great importance to the fact that the accused was seen going towards Cuttack in the early hours of morning of 4. 5. 1984. No evidence has been brought on record to show that at that time deceased was lying in unconscious state. The learned Sessions Judge has presumed that he must have known it as the news of the deceased was lying in such state must have been circulated in the village like wild fire. There is no material to support such conclusion. The same is based on surmises and conjectures, and is indefensible. The learned Sessions Judge has presumed that he must have known it as the news of the deceased was lying in such state must have been circulated in the village like wild fire. There is no material to support such conclusion. The same is based on surmises and conjectures, and is indefensible. ( 9 ) ON analysis of the evidence tendered, and conjoint consideration of totality of circumstances, we do not think this to be a case where it can be said that they are consistent only with the guilt of tile accused and wholly inconsistent with his innocence. ( 10 ) THE accused-appellant is entitled to an order of acquittal and we direct accordingly. He set at liberty fort with; Bail-bonds be discharged. Appeal allowed.