J. G. CHITRA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Judge, Mandsaur, in S. T. No. 91 of 1984 in which the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 307 I. P. C. and sen tenced her to undergo R. I. for four years. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case is as under : In the night intervening between 12th and 13th Febru ary, 1984 the appellant and her husband were in a room in the house of her husband, victim Mohammad Hussain. Mohammad Hussain asked the appellant to sleep with him in the said room but she did not do so and sat near wall of that room blaming Mohammad Hussain and thereafter she went to sleep near the sister of her husband and the wife of the brother of her husband. In the night the victim noticed that somebody assaulted him on the nose by sharp weapon and caused him injury. At that time the appellant shouted that thieves had come and committed the theft in the house. By hearing the commotion, some villag ers came inside the house by jumping the com pound wall. Thereafter, they searched the thieves but the thieves were not found in the house. Mohammad Hussain was taken by a truck to the police station Nahar Garh where F. I. R. was lodged. He was taken to hospital where he was medically treated. ( 3 ) DURING the course of investigation the Investigating machinery found that the appellant was the person who had caused the injury on the nose of Mohammad Hussain. After completing investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where the appellant faced the trial. The learned Sessions Judge, Mandsaur, after recording the evidence and appreciating it in the light of arguments advanced, concluded that the prosecution had proved that the appellant had caused the said injury to Mohammad Hussain, her husband, in the night intervening 12th and 13th of February, 1984. He concluded that the appellant had committed an offence punishable under Section 307 I. P. C. Thereafter, the appellant was convicted and sentenced as mentioned above and the said order is subject matter of challenge in the present appeal. He concluded that the appellant had committed an offence punishable under Section 307 I. P. C. Thereafter, the appellant was convicted and sentenced as mentioned above and the said order is subject matter of challenge in the present appeal. ( 4 ) THE learned defence counsel made a refer ence to the evidence on record and submitted that in the F. I. R. P. W. Mohammad Hussain, the vic tim himself mentioned that when he noticed that by some sharp edged weapon he was assaulted in the night by culprits (Badmase Ne), he shouted and those culprits ran away and the persons from the village came in his house after hearing the commotion. It has been mentioned in the F. I. R. , Ex. P/2, that a box was found open in the house and it has been mentioned in the F. I. R. that according to P. W. Mohammad Hussain those culprits have entered in the house by jumping the compound wall. He made reference to the evi dence of the witnesses and submitted that earlier, neither Mohammad Hussain nor his close rela tives residing in the house expressed that the appellant was the person who caused those inju ries. According to him on account of improper advice of some body who was having grudge against the appellant she has been implicated falsely in this case. ( 5 ) THE learned Panel Advocate representing the State in this matter submitted that it was the appellant who caused the injury to P. W. Mohammad Hussain and it has been established by the evidence on record and, therefore, the learned Judge has committed no error in convict ing and sentencing the appellant. ( 6 ) THE learned defence counsel pointed out that the learned trial Court has erroneously drawn conclusions against the appellant though the evi dence on record was not supporting those conclu sions. He pointed out that for the purpose of implicating the appellant falsely in this case, the statement made by the appellant in view of Section 27 of the Evidence Act and discovery of fact article in pursuance of the said information has been falsely concocted by the prosecution. The learned Advocate for the State justified the con clusion drawn by the learned trial Judge. The learned Advocate for the State justified the con clusion drawn by the learned trial Judge. ( 7 ) I find force in the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant and dismiss the argument advanced on behalf of the State for the reasons mentioned hereunder. ( 8 ) THE present case is a case dependent on circumstantial evidence because no body has seen the appellant causing those injuries to the victim Mohammad Hussain. It is a settled prin ciple of law that if the prosecution case is depend ing on circumstantial evidence, it is for the pros ecution to prove various links of chain of the circumstances by reliable evidence and chain of circumstantial evidence should only be pointing to the guilt of the accused unequivocally. In the matter of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, judgment reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622 : (1984 Cri LJ 1738) it has been observed by Supreme Court that it is well settled that the prosecution must stand or fall on its own legs and in cannot derive any strength from the weakness of the defence. Where various links in a chain are in themselves complete, then a false plea or a false defence may be called into aid only to lend assurance to the Court. In other words, before using the additional link it must be proved that all the links in the chain are complete and do not suffer from any infirmity. It is not the law that where there is any infirmity or lacuna in the prosecution case, the same could be cured or supplied by a false defence or a plea which is not accepted by a court. Before false explanation can be used as additional link, the following essential conditions must be satisfied. (1) Various links in the chain of evidence led by the prosecution have been satisfactorily proved. (2) the said circumstances point to the guilt of the accused with reasonable definiteness, and (3) the circumstances are in proximity to the time and situation. If these conditions are fulfilled, only then a Court can use a false explanation or a false defence as an additional link to lend an assurance to the Court and not otherwise. (2) the said circumstances point to the guilt of the accused with reasonable definiteness, and (3) the circumstances are in proximity to the time and situation. If these conditions are fulfilled, only then a Court can use a false explanation or a false defence as an additional link to lend an assurance to the Court and not otherwise. ( 9 ) IN the same judgment the Supreme Court observed that when the prosecution is relying on circumstantial evidence for conviction against the accused following conditions must be ful filled before a conviction can be based on cir cumstantial evidence : - (1) the circumstances from which the conclu sion 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 consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, that it should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. (3) the circumstances should be of a conclu sive nature and tendency. (4) they should exclude every possible hy pothesis except the one to be proved and (5) there must be chain of evidence as com plete 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 must have been done by the accused. ( 10 ) IN the same matter the Supreme Court observed that "a case can be said to be proved only when there is certain and explicit evidence and no person can be convicted on pure mora1 conviction". It is well settled that where on the evidence two possibilities are available or open, one which goes in favour of the prosecution and the other which benefits an accused, the accused is undoubtedly entitled to the benefit of doubt. In the same matter the Supreme Court observed that when the Court is to appreciate the evidence of close relatives of the victim, the Court should examine their evidence with great care and cau tion because, such witnesses have tendency to exaggerate or add facts. In view of these observa tions of the Supreme Court the learned trial Judge should have appreciated the evidence on record and should not have drawn conclusions against appellant in context with the charge levelled against her. In view of these observa tions of the Supreme Court the learned trial Judge should have appreciated the evidence on record and should not have drawn conclusions against appellant in context with the charge levelled against her. ( 11 ) IN the present matter following are the circumstances which are sought to use against the appellant for her conviction : (1) The appel lant was not having cordial relations with her husband, P. W. Mohammad Hussain. (2) The appellant was present in the house in the night in which Mohammad Hussain was injured in the said night. (3) The appellant was shouting 'chor Chor' and was telling that some thieves had entered in the house and had burgled; (4) The appellant told the prosecution witnesses that some of her ornaments and dresses were stolen by the thieves and (5) The appellant gave information to the Investigating Officer and in pursuance of that information the fact that silver anklet was con cealed in the rat-hole near a bush was discovered. ( 12 ) IT is to be noted that in the present matter P. W. Mohammad Hussain, the husband of the appellant himself mentioned in the Lx. P/1 that in the said right he suddenly was awakened when some culprits had assaulted him by a sharp weapon on his nose and he started shouting and, there fore, those culprits ran away. Thereafter, as men tioned by him in the F. I. R. villagers came there. He mentioned in that F. I. R. that a box was found open in his house and the culprits had ran 'away' by jumping the compound wall of his house. This F. I. R. was recorded at 4 A. M. on 13-4-1984 in Nahargarh Police Station which was at the dis tance of about 20 K. M. away from the said village. ( 13 ) WHEN P. W. Mohammad Hussain was being given medical treatment, the investigating officer recorded his statement and at that time he, as per prosecution case, stated that his wife might have caused the same injury. Perhaps, in view of that, the appellant was arrested on 18-2-1984 and on the same day at 11. 30 A. M. she, it is alleged, gave the information that she was ready to lead to police and panch witnesses to a bush under which she had concealed the silver anklet by putting dust on it. Perhaps, in view of that, the appellant was arrested on 18-2-1984 and on the same day at 11. 30 A. M. she, it is alleged, gave the information that she was ready to lead to police and panch witnesses to a bush under which she had concealed the silver anklet by putting dust on it. The investigating officer and the panch-witnesses went along with her and in persuance of this information a silver anklet was seized on the same day from beneath a bush known as 'jarmaney', from a rat-hole which was a foot deep. ( 14 ) THE prosecution wanted to show by the evidence on record that villagers searched around the house of Mohammad Hussain in the night but the clothes of appellant were not found, but in the morning they were found by them. The prosecu tion wanted to suggest by this that the appellant for the purpose of justifying her case of entry of the thieves and assault by them on the nose of her husband or on the portion of the body of Mohammad Hussain near the nose threw her clothes outside the house sometime in the night. ( 15 ) THE learned Trial Judge observed that because of the strained relations of the appellant with her husband, Mohammad Hussain, the ap pellant had assaulted him. He drew the following inferences against the appellant : (1) Because of the strained relations with Mohammad Hussain, her husband, the appellant had motive to assault him; (2) the appellant was in the same house in the same night (3) the appellant started shouting 'chor Chor' and her conduct was thereafter unnatural; (4) In pursuance of the information by the appellant the silver anklet was seized from a rat-hole under the Jermany bush and (5) the appellant herself told that thieves had taken away her ornaments and clothes. ( 16 ) THESE circumstances which are being sought to be used against the appellant for the purpose of her conviction by the prosecution are totally insufficient for proving that the appellant 'must' have caused the said injuries on the nose or portion of the body near the nose of P. W. Mohammad Hussain. The conduct of the appel lant cannot be said to be unnatural because when all the persons near her were frightened how a lady aged about 18 years old could be expected to with cool mind ? The conduct of the appel lant cannot be said to be unnatural because when all the persons near her were frightened how a lady aged about 18 years old could be expected to with cool mind ? P. W. Mohammad Hussain had to tell in his cross-examination that the appellant had caused him the said injuries but he did not tell it to any body including his near relations and the villagers who had collected there at the relevant time. The trial judge observed that the appellant was shouting falsely and deliberately 'chor-Chor. ' for the purpose of saving herself and indicated that the thieves had entered in the house and they had caused the injuries on the person of Mohammad Hussain when the door of the said house was chained from inside. He doubted as to the thieves could have made entry in the said house when it was closed from inside. It is in evidence on record that villagers namely Dalsher, Chappu, Gol Mohammad and Munnan entered in the house by jumping the compound wall of the said house. When these four persons, who were not thieves have come inside the house when it was chained from outside by jumping compound wall, how the thieves, in clandestine way, in the night could not have done so ? ( 17 ) IF the evidence on record is carefully examined, it could be noticed that P. W. Mohammad Hussain must have been enraged against the appellant because it has come in the evidence that in the said night when he told the appellant to sleep with him on his bed she did not do so and for that he had beaten her by giving 3 -4 slaps. His evidence shows that thereafter she went for sleeping with his sister and the wife of his brother. At this juncture, it is important to note that it is the evidence of P. W. Aijaj and Shamim that in the said night Shamim and Akila, the wife of the brother of Mohammad Hussain were sleeping together in Varanda of the said house while Mohammad-Hussain and the appellant were sleeping in a room. At this juncture, it is important to note that it is the evidence of P. W. Aijaj and Shamim that in the said night Shamim and Akila, the wife of the brother of Mohammad Hussain were sleeping together in Varanda of the said house while Mohammad-Hussain and the appellant were sleeping in a room. In view of this inconsistent evidence on this point one will have to believe that in the said night the appellant might have slipped at last with P. W. Mohammad Hussain for some time and there might have been some pushing or beating which resulted in the breaking of bangles of the appellant and said bangle pieces might have been lying on the bed of the appellant's husband. It is quite possible that in the night when they were so sleeping, in the darkness some culprits might have entered in the house with sharp edged weapon and the culprits might have caused injuries on his nose and en the portion of the body near nose. It is possible that thieves might have ran away after noticing that the appel lant was awaken and started shouting. It is impor tant to note at this juncture that it has come in the evidence of P. Ws. Mohammad Hussain, Shamim and Aijaj that the appellant troddened the body of Shamim and Akila in the process of running away and because that they might have been got up and at that time the appellant might have been shouting 'chor-Chor'. It might be possible that instead of the appellant, the thieves might have done so and in the night after getting awaken, suddenly, they might have got frightened and those witnesses might have felt that it was the appellant who had troddened their body when he was shouting 'chor-Chor'. This conduct of the appellant in running out of the room and shouting 'chor-Chor' in view of the evidence on record does not sound to be unnatural at all, because it has come in the prosecution evidence itself that in those days, there were burglaries in the village and, therefore, the villagers were forming groups and were doing the work of taking the rounds in the night. It is to be noted that because of such activities on the part of the villagers, the wit nesses named Dalsher, Chappur, Gul Mohammad and Munnan came to the house of Mohammad Hussain. It is to be noted that because of such activities on the part of the villagers, the wit nesses named Dalsher, Chappur, Gul Mohammad and Munnan came to the house of Mohammad Hussain. It is pertinent to note that a woman noticed commotion and told those persons that there was some commotion in the house of Mohammad Hussain. ( 18 ) THE inference of the learned Trial Judge that thieves could not have made entry in the house because the said house was chained from the inside is totally devoid of any substance because when Chappu, Gul Mohammad, Dalsher and Munnan, by jumping the compound wall, could come inside the house though the door of the said house was chained from inside, how thieves could not do so ? The inference of the learned Judge that the appellant had thrown her clothes some time in the said night for the pur pose of creating the case of theft, it also totally unwarranted, in view of evidence on record. Because, it is important to note that the prosecu tion witnesses and other villagers were near the appellant after the said incident in the said whole remaining night and because of that, she would not have get the opportunity of throwing her clothes outside the house, for the purpose of creating the scene of burglary, in the said house. It is important to note that it is the case of the prosecution that in the said night villagers were taking rounds near the house of Mohammad Hussain for searching culprits but could not found them. It is important to note that they did not find clothes of the appellant outside the house at that time. ( 19 ) THE learned Trial Judge has also indicated his inclination that to save herself the appellant created a false case of burglary in the house and thieves causing those injuries to Mohammad Hussain. This opinion of Trial Judge is palpably false and it is not warranted by the evidence on record. It appears from the record that he was under the impression that those villagers took round for the purpose of searching culprits and Shamim and Aijaj also tried to search the culprits the same house and the culprits, thieves, were not found inside the house. It appears from the record that he was under the impression that those villagers took round for the purpose of searching culprits and Shamim and Aijaj also tried to search the culprits the same house and the culprits, thieves, were not found inside the house. It is very difficult to believe that the thieves after noticing the inmates of the house were awakened, in all probability, would remain in the said house when the com pound wall of the said house was not high to jump. They would easily jump over the wall. The thieves would have definitely selected that way to run away. Such opinion and observations are difficult to be digested. ( 20 ) THERE is no substance in the evidence which has been adduced for the purpose of show ing that the appellant gave some information to Investigating Officer and Panch witnesses and in pursuance of that information silver anklet was discovered from a hole under 'jarmeny' bush. It is pertinent to note that as per prosecution case, the said information was given by the appellant at 11. 30 A. M. The Investigating Agency till that time was not having sufficient evidence against the appellant for implicating her in the said offence. When, that was so, and when the appellant was in a mood of giving such state ment, voluntarily, in all probability, the Investigating Machinery would have started immedi ately to find out where, in fact, the appellant had concealed silver anklet and for that, they would not wait till 3. 15 P. M. It is important to note that the memorandum of information discloses description as to how that the silver anklet was concealed in a rat-hole. It is mentioned that it was concealed below the 'jermany' bush in a rat-hole by putting dust over it. Had the appellant give such information voluntarily, as the prosecution wants to show, she would have given information specifically and would have led the police and the Panch-witnesses to a rat hole where the silver anklet was concealed by her and in that event, she would have been given description of the said rat-hole in memorandum of information. But it is not so. ( 21 ) ANOTHER unnatural thing exposing the falsity of the prosecution case is evidence led by the prosecution on this point. It is to be noted that the rat hole was one foot deep. But it is not so. ( 21 ) ANOTHER unnatural thing exposing the falsity of the prosecution case is evidence led by the prosecution on this point. It is to be noted that the rat hole was one foot deep. If the appellant was intending to make a false show of theft and was ready to part with her silver anklet for sometime she would not have chosen the rat-hole having depth of one foot, because in view of human experience and conduct, she would have been interested to recover it again and such person not leave such ornaments in a rat-hole which was one foot deep. She could not have concealed the said ornament, under the 'jermany' bush by putting dust on it. How, she could con ceal the ornament in a hole of 1 foot deep in the dark night ? It sounds to be very unnatural. There was fear of some body, including, rats taking away the ornament from the hole. Such a conduct is not normal and natural on the part of a lady who happens to be the appellant in this case. It is to be noted in this context that as to why she would conceal said ornament below 'jermany' bush by putting dust and why she would put her hand in such a deep rat-hole inviting the risk of getting a snake bite. Normally, a woman would not have done that way in the night-time. Thus, in view of all this, I do not find any hesitation in coming to the conclusion that this evidence is fabricated for the purpose of creating evidence against the appellant when the prosecution was finding it difficult to implicate her in the charge of causing such injuries to Mohammad Hussain. ( 22 ) THE prosecution wanted to show that the relations between Mohammad Hussain and the appellant were not cordial. The learned Judge should have considered the evidence on this aspect of the matter, while drawing this inference against the appellant. The evidence on record itself shows that on that day the appellant had returned to her husband's house and slept, for some time with him and thereafter with female relatives of her husband. Not only that, she slept in the said room where her husband was sleeping, which appears to be natural. The evidence on record itself shows that on that day the appellant had returned to her husband's house and slept, for some time with him and thereafter with female relatives of her husband. Not only that, she slept in the said room where her husband was sleeping, which appears to be natural. All these things show that their relations were cordial, at least, not so inimical making the appellant to cause such bodily injury to her husband in whose house she had come to reside. ( 23 ) THUS, the prosecution has failed to prove several circumstances which have been brought forth against the appellant for proving that the appellant is guilty. The prosecution has failed to inter-link these circumstances. It was the duty of the prosecution to prove each and every circum stance beyond reasonable doubt and connect these circumstances so as to exclude hypothesis indicating innocence of accused. If was the duty of the prosecution to establish strong chain of circumstances which would have unequivocally pointed towards the guilt of the accused. In the present matter it is not so. ( 24 ) THE learned trial Judge has drawn infer ences against the appellant totally in improper way. These inferences are also against the normal experience of human beings and normal, natural human conduct. Thus, the learned trial Judge landed in domain of error and committed error of facts as well as of law while convicting and sentencing the appellant for an offence punish able under Section 307 I. P. C. I do not find any hesitation in concluding that the order of convic tion and sentence is improper, incorrect and bad in law. It will have to be set aside and the appeal will have to be allowed. Hence, it is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence recorded in Sessions Trial No. 91 of 1984 is hereby set aside and the appellant is acquitted. Her bail-bond stands discharged. No interference in the order of trial court in respect of Muddemal articles. Appeal allowed. .