JUDGMENT : Though the findings are concurrent yet we are satisfied an interference is called for in this appeal. The appellant, Sebastian, the sole accused in this case, was convicted under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life for the alleged offence of committing the murder of his wife. His appeal has been dismissed by the High Court. 2. The case entirely rests on the circumstantial evidence. The accused married the deceased, daughter of PW2 in 1972 and they had no children. PW 2, the mother of the deceased deposed that there were some quarrels between the accused and the deceased and that on 27-12-78 the accused took the deceased from the house of PW 2. PW 1, a neighbour and resides 300 yards away from the house of accused deposed that he saw the accused and the deceased on 27-12-78 at 5 p.m. On 28-12-78, PW 1 went to the house of accused but could not find him. He peeped in and found the deceased lying dead inside the house. PW 1 rushed to the police station and gave an FIR. The accused when examined under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code stated that he left his residence at 4 p.m. on 27-12-78 to visit his brother at Thookkupalam Village, 10 miles away and that since he could not get any vehicle, he was not able to return home that day. He also stated that as soon as he came to know of the incident he rushed to the police station to give information. The prosecution also examined PW8, a (sic) police station to speak about extra judicial confession but that has rightly been rejected by the Court. No doubt the medical evidence shows that the death was due to asphyxial due to strangulation but the question is whether the circumstances are sufficient to bring home the guilt and whether the explanation given by the accused is not probable and plausible? 3. No doubt the medical evidence shows that the death was due to asphyxial due to strangulation but the question is whether the circumstances are sufficient to bring home the guilt and whether the explanation given by the accused is not probable and plausible? 3. It can be seen even if we accept the prosecution case that accused was seen by PW 1 in the house only at 5.00 P.M. and thereafter there is no evidence about his whereabouts but since he was the husband and he was supposed to be living with his wife he has to come forward with an explanation and he has stated in his statement under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code that he went to his brother's house. Both the courts below, however, held that he has not adduced evidence in proof of his absence from the house. What we have to see in such cases is whether the accused has given a probable explanation and that strong suspicion created by the prosecution cannot take the place of actual proof and as held by this Court in a number of cases the circumstantial evidence should not give scope to any other hypothesis, however, remote it may be. Both the courts also have commented that the attitude of the accused in rushing to the police station without weeping at the body is also strange. It is difficult to say that how one would react in such a situation. However, a confrontation between wife and husband and which is sought to be proved on circumstantial evidence should generally be accepted unless there are strong grounds to delink the accused from that picture. Here we find it difficult to exclude the explanation given by the accused. Since the case rests on circumstantial evidence and applying the principles laid down by this Court in number of cases, we find it necessary to interfere with the concurrent findings. 4. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence awarded against the appellant are set aside. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds shall stand discharged. Appeal allowed.