JUDGMENT Bhawani Singh, J —Accused Prem Lai alias Premu has assailed the judgment of Sessions Judge, Chamba in Sessions Trial No. 6 of 1988 dated 29th October, 1988 whereby he has been convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 4,000. In default of payment of fine, the accused has been sentenced to undergo further imprisonment for three years 2. The prosecution case, briefly, is that during the night intervening 6th and 7th of December, 1987 deceased Mst Prabhi was found dead in her room in village Tikri, Pargana Manjeer, District Chamba, In the morning of 7th December, 1987, Musaddi (PW 10) informed Porkhi Ram, Pardhan (PW 3) about the death of Mst. Prabhi. He asked Musaddi (PW 10) to report the matter to the police. Porkhi Ram, Pardhan went to village Tikri and asked the villagers to guard the dead-body. On return, Musaddi (PW10) stated that although there were Constables at the Police Station, however, there was not Head Constable or Assistant Sub- Inspector. He was directed by the police to report the matter at Police Station, Kihar. Since he had no money to go to Kihar, he returned to the village. 3. On 8th December, 1987, Ghunghri (PW 1) was informed by one Yusaf and she came to village Tikri There, she was asked by Porkhi Ram, Pardhan to report the matter to the Police Accordingly, she went to Police Station, Kihar and reported the matter there alongwith one Jai Krishan (Ex. PA). Constable Sarv Lal was deputed alongwith them to guard the dead-body and other things at the spot. The Station House Officer reached the spot on 9th December, 1987 at about 9.30 a.m. 4. Further case of the prosecution is that before the arrival of the Station House Officer, the accused was asked by Porkhi Ram, Pardhan about the incident. The accused stated that he had committed the mistake and wanted that he should be saved from the punishment. On 9th December, 1987 statement of Porkhi Ram, Pardhan was recorded under section 154, Criminal Procedure Code (Ext. PF) and First Information Report (Ext PY) was registered. The police preparred the inquest report (Ext. PC). It photographed the body through Ashok Kumar, Photographer. On 9th December, 1987 statement of Porkhi Ram, Pardhan was recorded under section 154, Criminal Procedure Code (Ext. PF) and First Information Report (Ext PY) was registered. The police preparred the inquest report (Ext. PC). It photographed the body through Ashok Kumar, Photographer. The dead-body was sent for post-mortem examination to Civil Hospital, Chamba Certain recoveries were made and statements of witnesses were also recorded On completion of the investigation, the accused was prosecuted before the trial Court alongwith Smt Jatti—mother of the accused. 5. On 20th May, 1988, the accused was charged under section 302/ 201 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Mst. Jatti under section 201 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Both of them pleaded innocence and false implication and claimed trial. Consequently, the trial commenced and the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses. It also tendered in evidence certain documents. The accused was examined under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code. He produced Jai Dial (DW 1) in defence. The trial ended in the conviction of the accused though Mst. Jatti was acquitted. In order to convict the accused, the trial Court placed reliance on factors like extra judicial confession, recoveries, motive, conduct and opportunity to commit the crime by the accused. 6. Shri Anup Chitkara, learned Counsel for the accused, questioned the legality of the impugned judgment and contended that the trial Court has not correctly appreciated the case on all the points on which the judgment is based with the result that grossly erroneous findings have been recorded for convicting the accused. The prosecution case is so weak that no conviction could be possibly recorded on this kind of evidence, Shri Anup Chitkara asserted with great vehemence, 7. Shri H. K. Bhardwaj, on the other hand, defended the impugned judgment and submitted that the prosecution has been able to establish that it was the accused and no one else who has committed the murder of Mst Prabhi. 8. Let these rival submissions be examined, Sarvan had two wives, namely, Mst. Prabhi (deceased) and Smt Ghunghri (PW 1). Sarvan had died six-seven years back. Smt. Ghunghri lives in village Rakhwani while the deceased was living in village Tikri. Smt Ghunghri has number of children while the deceased was issueless. Sarwan was the brother of Pardhan Porkhi Ram, The deceased had executed a Will (Ext. Prabhi (deceased) and Smt Ghunghri (PW 1). Sarvan had died six-seven years back. Smt. Ghunghri lives in village Rakhwani while the deceased was living in village Tikri. Smt Ghunghri has number of children while the deceased was issueless. Sarwan was the brother of Pardhan Porkhi Ram, The deceased had executed a Will (Ext. PP) dated 1st March, 1987 in favour of the accused. Through this Will, she has given her residential house and cowshed to the accused in lieu of main- tenance/services etc. She has also stated that the accused would be the absolute owner of the house and her other heirs would have no right to it. 9. The deceased complained to the Panchayat (Exts. PQ and PQ-1) that she bequeathed her house and other movable property in favour of the accused with the condition that he would look-after her during her life time and would cremate her after death and in case he failed to do so she had right to cancel the Will and use the property according to her choice. The accused was not providing her clothes and other expenses, therefore the matter may be settled after calling him and his mother Smt. Jatti. The matter appeared before the Panchayat on 29th November, 198? also. The accused was asked to provide food and clothing to her and in case he did not agree to do so, he should give the cost of the house to Smt. Prabhi whenever she demanded. The accused did not agree to these terms and left the place without putting his signatures on the application m token of his presence. 10. The prosecution has put up these facts against the accused to sustain its plea based on motive It was contended by the learned Counsel for the State that the accused apprehended that the deceased was going to change the Will and divest him of the property once Willed in his favour, so, in order to prevent her from doing so, he killed the deceased. 11. In our opinion, the prosecution cannot take any benefit out of the proceedings before the Panchayat to prove the motive in this case. The deceased wanted the Panchayat to ask the accused to provide her food, clothing and expenses. She did not want the Panchayat to set-aside the Will once executed in favour of the accused. 11. In our opinion, the prosecution cannot take any benefit out of the proceedings before the Panchayat to prove the motive in this case. The deceased wanted the Panchayat to ask the accused to provide her food, clothing and expenses. She did not want the Panchayat to set-aside the Will once executed in favour of the accused. Further, in case the accused was annoyed on account of this attitude of the deceased, he had enough time and opportunity to do away with the life of the deceased before or soon-after her complaint to the Panchayat. The version of Porkhi Ram, Pardhan (PW-3) that the accused admitted before him the commission of crime under the influence of liquor, is hardly believable. He has improved his version since it does not find mention in his earlier statement to the police (Ext. PY) where he has said that the accused told him that he was enraged and committed the murder of Prabhi because she had earlier given property to him but lateron she refused. The accused is quite young and was living with his widowed mother Smt. Jatti There is no evidence that he conspired with his mother Smt Jatti to do away with the life of the deceased to prevent her from giving the property to someone else, therefore, it is not possible that he would plan and do away with the life of the deceased to secure the property from her, It was then contended that the accused made extra judicial confession before Porkhi Ram, Pardhan (PW-3) and it is strong evidence against him. 12. Extra judicial confession is a weak kind of evidence. Before it is accepted, it is desirable to seek corroboration thereof, unless facts of the case exclude the requirement of doing so. According to the prosecution, the incident took place during the night intervening 6th and 7th December, 1987. Porkhi Ram, Pardhan had come to know about it at about 8.00 a.m. on 7th December, 1987 at the instance of Musaddi (PW-10) He came to the place of occurrence. On being asked, the accused told him that he saw the deceased in the same condition. The matter was reported to the police and two Constables came to the spot on 8th December, 1987. On being asked, the accused told him that he saw the deceased in the same condition. The matter was reported to the police and two Constables came to the spot on 8th December, 1987. The Station House Officer arrived on 9th December, 1987 at about 9 30 a.m. Porkhi Ram, Pardhan says that the accused admitted the commission of crime on 8th December, 1987 but from his statement (Ext. PF), this revelation is of 9th December, 1987, since it says : "I remained enquiring from Premu about the death of Prabhi. Then today morning at 7 a m. Premu took me aside from other people and told me that he has committed a wrong. On the intervening night of 6/7-12-1987 he on being enraged has committed murder of Prabhi because she had earlier given property to him but lateron she refused. Now he has committed the wrong. He (Premu) may be helped to save him from the police in any way and he may be escaped from the punishment " 13. In his cross-examination, this witness says that on 7-12-1987 he met Jai Dial (DW-1) and Purshotam of village Tikri and he asked them as to how Prabhi had died. He did not talk to accused Prem Lai on 7th December, 1987, although he had met him and the accused remained in the village all through He did not question him during the night of 7th December, 1987 although he remained in the village. He started enquiring about the death of the deceased on 8th December, 1987 at about 7.00 a.m. He enquired from Lachho, Jai Dial (DW-1), Tehlu, Purshottam and Man Singh at the house of Jai Dial. The two Constables reached the village on 8th December, 1987 at 8.30 p m and he was in village Tikri at that time. He did not disclose to the Constable that the accused had confessed the guilt before him The Station House Officer recorded his statement on 9th December, 1987 at about 10.00 a m. and he did not disclose that on his questioning) the accused had confessed the guilt in the presence of persons, he could not state the reason. The police did not arrest the accused on 9th December, 1987. He was arrested on 10th December, 1987. 14. The police did not arrest the accused on 9th December, 1987. He was arrested on 10th December, 1987. 14. The conduct of this witness demonstrates quite clearly that his testimony is not at all dependable His version that the accused made extra judial confession to him is absolutely false, At one stage he states. that on being asked about the incident, the accused replied that he saw the deceased in the same condition and at another place he talks about the extra judicial confession made to him by the accused. There also, he gives two versions as already noticed above. Amongst the persons mentioned by him, Jai Dial has been produced by the accused in defence. He states that : "No talk took place between Porkhi and Premu accused about the death of the deceased The police arrived after two days after death of Prabhi. After arrival of the police, the police starched the room of the deceased. Porkhi is Jaith of Suit. Ghunghri. Budhia and Hoshiara also contested President election against Porkhi Premu accused was working for Hoshiara candidate. In my presence, Premu accused never made any statement before the police." Smt. Ghunghri (PW 1) has not said anything about the so called extra judicial confession by the accused to Porkhi Ram, although, she was at the place throughout It can, therefore, be said that the accused did not make any extra judicial confession to Porki Ram (PW 3) and this piece of evidence deserves outright rejection. 15. It was then contended by Shri H K. Bhardwaj that the deceased was living alone in the house and the accused had easy access to her place and he had opportunity to do away with the life of the deceased This submission has no substance, As a matter of fact, the deceased was not living with the accused. She was occupying three-room accommodation. Perusal of site plan shows that in one of the rooms, she was keeping her animals. Middle room was vacant and she was living in the third room. The evidence points out that windows are available to the second room but not to the room where the deceased used to sleep. The prosecution case is not that the accused entered the premises through any of the windows in the middle room. Middle room was vacant and she was living in the third room. The evidence points out that windows are available to the second room but not to the room where the deceased used to sleep. The prosecution case is not that the accused entered the premises through any of the windows in the middle room. The site plan thus belies the case of the prosecution that the accused entered the room of the deceased through a small window and he admitted the same in the presence of witnesses. 16. There is another flaw in this story. Even if it is assumed that the accused entered through this small opening, he could have come out of the room through the door connecting the middle room but there is no such evidence, The accused is living in a house one part of which is in the occupation of Musaddi (PW 10) and his wife Smt. Punni (PW 11). Smt. Punni has not supported the prosecution She has been declared hostile. Masaddi (PW 10) informed Porkhi Ram (PW 3) but it has not been proved how and from whom Masaddi came to know about the death of the deceased. There is one more serious snag in the prosecution case, During her statement in the Court Smt, Ghunghri (PW 1) states that when she reached the house of the deceased, she saw blood in the room on which doubt arose in her mind. The prosecution case is that the accused had cleaned the floor with cow dung. This witness has improved her statement since in her report to the police (Ext, PA) she has stated that : "I got suspicious, I had seen blood lying outside the house and on my asking, Premu told me that Smt. Prabhi had fallen down.” 17. How the deceased had died, has not been clearly established by the prosecution. In case the accused intended to kill the deceased, he would have gone to the house of the deceased with some kind of weapon and not with the hope that he would lay his hands upon the Darat of the deceased or use his shoes to beat dead the deceased. None of the articles recovered belong to the accused They were inside the house of the deceased and could be found lying there. The recoveries of these articles under section 27 of the Evidence Act are inconsequential. None of the articles recovered belong to the accused They were inside the house of the deceased and could be found lying there. The recoveries of these articles under section 27 of the Evidence Act are inconsequential. No reliance can, therefore be placed on the recovery evidence of the prosecution. 18. Hans Raj (PW 4) is a chance witness and no reliance can be placed on his testimony which even otherwise goes against the version given by other witnesses of the prosecution. He is relation of Ghunghri (PW 1). recipient of the estate of the deceased. However, he ha& smashed the statement of Station House Officer Rai Singh (PW 13) by saying that when the accused was interrogated by the Station House Officer, he replied that he murdered the deceased on account of some landed dispute—a fact which is not stated by Station House Officer Rai Singh. 19. If we look at the initial version of Smt Ghunghri in Rapat Rojnamcha (Ext. PA), as reproduced above, it appears that the incident had not taken place inside the room. She may have fallen as stated by the accused. 20. Lastly, it was contended that the conduct of the accused in not reporting the matter to the police or raising hue and cry, demonstrated that he killed the deceased We are not impressed by this plea of the learned Counsel for the State. Who released the information about the death of the deceased ? The prosecution has left a serious void on this aspect. It has proceeded from the stage of Masaddi (PW 10) without showing how Masaddi came to know about it, since Masaddi has not said anything about it nor there is any evidence pointing oat that Masaddi had gone to the house of the deceased. Only accused could give this information and in case he had committed the crime, he would have kept quiet, more specially when the incident had not taken place in his own house. It is safe to conclude that the information was released by the accused to Masaddi who, in turn, informed Porkhi Ram, It is a village consisting of tea-twelve houses. Every one came to know of it and they came to the spot All through the accused was there. It is safe to conclude that the information was released by the accused to Masaddi who, in turn, informed Porkhi Ram, It is a village consisting of tea-twelve houses. Every one came to know of it and they came to the spot All through the accused was there. Simply because he did not report the matter to the police or raise hue and cry, it cannot be said that he behaved in this fashion because he had killed the deceased. People put m such a situation, do not behave uniformly. Some raise hue and cry and run here and there, while others become dumbfounded. This appears to have happened to the accused. He remained at the place of occurrence and did not try to run away. Consequently, the prosecution cannot derive any benefit out of this kind of behaviour of the accused. Similarly, it cannot be said that only the accused had the chance to commit the crime. He was not living with the deceased. He was occupying the house at a distance like many others, therefore, it cannot be said that only the accused could commit the crime and none else. We have tried to examine the prosecution case with all seriousness, In our considered opinion, the prosecution has not been able to establish the case against the accused. The circumstantial evidence in this case does not fulfil the requirements laid down by the apex Court in numerous decisions. It is important to refer to Kishore Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1990 SC 2140, where it has been stated that : "In a case of circumstantial evidence, all the circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt is to be drawn should be fully and cogently established. All the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. The proved circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and definite tendency, unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused. They should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. The circumstances must be satisfactorily established and the proved circumstances must bring home the offences to the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The proved circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and definite tendency, unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused. They should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. The circumstances must be satisfactorily established and the proved circumstances must bring home the offences to the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. It is not necessary that each circumstance by itself be conclusive but cumulatively must form unbroken chain of events leading to the proof of the guilt of the accused If those circumstances or some of them can be explained by any of the reasonable hypothesis then the accused must have the benefit of that hypothesis. In assessing the evidence imaginary possibilities have no role to play. What is to be considered are ordinary human probabilities. In other words when there is no direct witness to the commission of murder and the case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances relied on must be fully established. The chain of events furnished by the circumstances should be so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. If any of the circumstances proved in a case are consistent with the innocence of the accused or the chain of the continuity of the circumstances is broken, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. In assessing the evidence to find these principles, it is necessary to distinguish between facts which may be called primary or basic facts on one hand and inference of facts to be drawn from them, on the other, In regard to the proof of basic or primary facts, the Court has to Judge the evidence in the ordinary way and in appreciation of the evidence in proof of those basic facts or primary facts, there is no scope for the application of the doctrine of benefit of doubt. The Court has to consider the evidence and decide whether the evidence proves a particular fact or not Whether that fact leads to the inference of the guilt of the accused or not is another aspect and in dealing with this aspect of the problem, the doctrine of benefit would apply and an inference of guilt can be drawn only if the proved facts are inconsistent with the innocence of the accused and are consistent only with his guilt. There is a long distance between may be true and must be true. The prosecution has to travel all the way to establish fully all the chain of events which should be consistent only with hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and those circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude all hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved by the prosecution. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far consistent and complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all probability the act must have been done by the accused and the accused alone." 21. The result, therefore, is that there is merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly allowed. The judgment of the trial Court is set aside. The accused is acquitted of the charge and is ordered to be released forthwith. Appeal allowed.