Judgment N. I. TIBREWAL, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant, Gaun Shanker has filed this appeal against the judgment dated, May 25, 1994 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sambar Lake, Jaipur, in Sessions Case No. 1/93, whereby he was convicted and sentenced under Section 302 IPC to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- or in default of payment of fine three months simple imprisonment. ( 2 ) INITIALLY, the appellant and three others co-accused were prosecuted for various offences including u/section 302 IPC. However, other accused persons were acquitted of all the charges. ( 3 ) THE facts in brief are that Smt. Santosh, the deceased was married to the appellant about ten years ago. She died in the night of 15th September 1992. The appellant made a report at Police Station, Sambhar Lake on the same night at 11. 30 p. m. wherein it was stated that he and his family members had gone to witness Ram Lila, but his wife declined to go with them. She was left at home where she was cleaning utensils. At 10. 45 p. m. his neighbour Om Ji came in Ram Lila and intimated that his house was burning. On getting the information, they went to the house and extinguished the fire. Thereafter, when they went inside the house they found the dead body of Smt. Santosh an this report, inquiry was initiated under Section 174 Cr. P. C. During investigation, the S. H. O. , Trilok Chand (PW 13) prepared inquest report (Ex. P. 7) at 12. 05 at night. He suspected that cognizable offence was committed as Smt. Santosh had met a homicidal death. Consequently Crime No. 106/92 under Section 302/34 IPC was registered vide FIR Ex. P. 37 and further investigation was made. Photographs, Ex. P. 8 to Ex. P. 17 were taken by the Photographer vide negatives Ex. P. 18 to Ex. P. 27. Site-plan Ex. P. 34 was prepared. The post-mortem of the dead body was conducted by a Board of three Doctors consisting of PW 16, Dr. S. K. Verma, PWI7, Dr. Bharat Bhushan Dhingra and PW 18, Dr. Smt. Jyoti Dhingra. The post-mortem report is Ex. P. 32. Two slabs of the stones of the size 2 x 2 feet were seized vide Ex. P. 33 from the place of incident. S. K. Verma, PWI7, Dr. Bharat Bhushan Dhingra and PW 18, Dr. Smt. Jyoti Dhingra. The post-mortem report is Ex. P. 32. Two slabs of the stones of the size 2 x 2 feet were seized vide Ex. P. 33 from the place of incident. All the four accused persons were arrested. Thereafter, on the basis of information (Ex. PAS), a plastic Jaricane was recovered from Store-room near the kitchen of the house vide seizure memo (Ex. P. 44 ). After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed against all the four accused persons in the Court of the concerned Magistrate, who committed the accused persons to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sambhar Lake to face trial. The co-accused Mahendra was charged under Section 302 IPC or in the alternative under Section 302/34 IPC, while the remaining accused were charged under Sections 302 or 302/34 IPC and 498a IPC. The appellant Gauri Shanker was also charged of the offence under Section 302 IPC. During trial, the prosecution examined 30 witnesses. ( 4 ) THE accused persons denied their involvement in the crime. The accused-appellant produced number of letters which have been exhibited as Ex. D. 1 to Ex. D. 18 to show that no point of time, Smt. Santosh had any grievance. The learned Trial Court classified the prosecution witnesses in three categories. In the first category, the witnesses are, PW 1 Smt. Guddi, Bhabi of the deceased, PW 2 Smt. Gyarsi Devi, mother of the deceased, PW 3 Ganeshi Lal and PW 5 Bhag Chand, brothers of the deceased, PW 4 Madan Lat, brother-in-law of the deceased and PW 19 Prem Chand, cousin brother of the deceased. These witnesses, thus, were real relatives of the deceased, and they were examined to show that the deceased was not being properly kept by the accused persons and she used to be scolded by them for not giving birth to a child. In the second category, the witnesses are PW 6 Smt. Madhu Sharma, PW 7 Smt. Mecca, PW 8 Akhilesh Sharma, PW 9 Shambhu Kumar Soni, PW 10 Rameshwar, PW 11 Murli, PW 12 Rajesh Kumar, PW 13 another Rajesh Kumar, PW 14 Gaja Nand Agrawal PW 15 Chandresh, PW 20 Sita Ram, PW 21 Ram Chander, PW 22 Manish Agrawal, PW 23 Mohan, PW 24 Gopi Kishan and PW 29 Kishan Murari. These witnesses arc either neighbours or the witnesses of various recoveries and seizure memos. In the third category the witnesses are, PW 16, Dr. S. K. Verma, PW 17 Dr. Bharat Bhushan Dhingra, PW 18 Dr. (Smt.) Jyoti Dhingra, who were members of the Medical Board and conducted the post-mortem of the dead body of Smt. Santosh vide post-mortem report, Ex. P. 32, PW 25 S. H. O. , Ramgopal, PW 26 Head Constable am Prakash, PW 27 Constable Dhanna Ram, PW 28 S. H. O. Deepak Bhatnagar and PW 30 S. H. O. Trilok Chand. They are police personnels connected with investigation of the case. ( 5 ) THE Trial Court held that the following circumstances were proved in the case: (i) that the accused persons were present in the house at the time of occurrence. (ii) that death of Smt. Santosh was not due to burning, (iii) the accused-appellant Gauri Shanker had a motive to commit murder. For co-accused Mahendra, the learned Judge observed that he was not member of the family of appellant-Gauri Shanker and there was no evidence on record that he was present in the house at the time of occurrence. Hence, it was held that charges were not proved against him. For Smt. Rukmani Devi and Smt. Parmeshwari Devi it was observed that looking to their age and health it was not proved beyond reasonable doubt that they participated in committing murder of the deceased. ( 6 ) SHRI A. K. Gupta, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, strenuously argued that there is no direct evidence to connect the appellant with crime. He also contended that a number of letters were produced and proved on record by the accused which showed that neither Smt. Santosh nor her parents had any grievance against any of the accused at any point of time and the evidence of the relative witnesses of the deceased that she was being scolded by the accused persons were not giving birth to a child or was subjected to harassment of cruelty was not believable at all. Learned Counsel further contended that there is no evidence on record to prove that the appellant or other co-accused were present in the house at the time of occurrence and the finding of the Trial Court in this connection is without any basis. Learned Counsel further contended that there is no evidence on record to prove that the appellant or other co-accused were present in the house at the time of occurrence and the finding of the Trial Court in this connection is without any basis. It was also contended that the chain of the guilt of the accused-appellant was not complete to sustain his conviction, as such, he should also be acquitted. He has given careful consideration to the above submissions. ( 7 ) AT the out-set, it may be stated that there is no direct evidence to connect the appellant with the crime and the case rested on circumstantial evidence. It is well settled that before a Court can act on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances proved must be complete and of a conclusive nature so as to be fully inconsistent with the innocence of the accused and are not explainable to any other hypothesis, except the guilt of the accused. In order to sustain conviction of an accused on circlmstantial evidence, the prosecution must satisfy the following three conditions: (i) The circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; (ii) Those circumstances should be of a definite tendency and unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; (iii) The circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probabilities the crime was committed by the accused and none-else and it should also be incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused. In the background of the above legal position, we have to examine the evidence against the appellant. ( 8 ) FIRST of all we take the relative witnesses of the deceased who have been examined to prove the motive against the accused. PW 1 Smt. Guddi, is Bhabi of the deceased. She has stated that Smt. Santosh was married to the appellant on 7th July, 1983. She also stated that whenever Santosh used to come at her parents house she used to complain of beating by the appellant at the instance of his sister and mother. His mother-in-law and Nanadt used to scold her for being without issue. She has stated that Smt. Santosh was married to the appellant on 7th July, 1983. She also stated that whenever Santosh used to come at her parents house she used to complain of beating by the appellant at the instance of his sister and mother. His mother-in-law and Nanadt used to scold her for being without issue. She then stated that they got the information of the death of Smt. Santosh in the early morning of 16th September, 1992 and they were informed that her husband and other family members had gone to witness Ramlila and in their absence she died due to burning. In cross-examination, she stated that in the last 9 years, Smt. Santosh came 8 or 9 times to her parents house. She also stated that three years prior to her statement, she had seen some marks of injuries on the body of Smt. Santosh. She had came with her husband Gauri Shanker appellant and next day, she went back to her in-laws house. She further stated that she did not know the dates when she came and went. She further stated that two-three times they had seen the injuries on the person of Smt. Santosh. She also admitted that her injuries were not shown to the Doctor as they were not serious and were only abrasions. She also stated that no report was made to the police by them for assaulting Smt. Santosh by her in-laws and this fact was also not disclosed to the neighbours. She also stated that her husband Bhag Chand also did not make any complaint to any person in Sambhar town. Then she stated that they never complained to the in-laws of Smt. Santosh for beating her. For letters Exs. D. 1 and D. 2, she showed her ignorance, whether they were in the hand-writing of deceased Santosh. For letters, Exs. D. 3, D. 4, D. 5, D. 6, D. 7 and D. 8 she admitted to certain the signatures of her husband Bhag Chand. PW 2, Gyarsi Devi, is the mother of the deceased. In examination-in-chief she has stated that her daughter Smt. Santosh used to complain whenever she came to her that her husband used to beat her at the instance of his mother and sister and that she used to be scolded for not giving birth to a child. PW 2, Gyarsi Devi, is the mother of the deceased. In examination-in-chief she has stated that her daughter Smt. Santosh used to complain whenever she came to her that her husband used to beat her at the instance of his mother and sister and that she used to be scolded for not giving birth to a child. In cross-examination she stated that three to four years prior to the occurrence, the complaint of beating her was made and that no report was made to the police about this fact. No complaint was made to the Panchayat. She admitted that three persons had come to intimate and take them after the occurrence and they were sent by the accused-appellant and after their arrival Smt. Santosh was cremated. PW 3 Ganeshi Lal, the brother of the deceased, has stated nothing about the beating to the deceased by the accused persons. He also admitted that he had participated in the cremation of the deceased. He then admitted that the letters, Exs. D. 3to D. 8 were of his brother. PW 4 Madan Lal, is brother-in-law of the deceased. In the examination-in-chief he stated in a general way of making complaint by the deceased against the appellant. In cross-examination he admitted that he had participated in the cremation and when they reached to the appellants house he began to weep on seeing them. PW 5 Bhag Chand is brother of the deceased. In examination-in-chief he has only stated that his sister used to make complaint that from 5 a. m. to late at night she used to be compelled to work and she was not given proper meals; that she used to be scolded by the mother-in-law or Nanad of the deceased for not giving birth to a child. In cross examination, he admitted that the appellant had sent Jagdish and two-three more persons to intimate them about the death of Smt. Santosh and they were summoned by the appellant. Then, he stated that on coming at Sambhar, they did not find the appellant to be in a gloomy condition. He admitted that he used to write letters to the accused persons and to his sister, but he never made any complaint to the in-laws for their behaviour or for not providing meals in time or about beating. He also did not make any complaint in the Panchayat. He admitted that the letter Ex. He admitted that he used to write letters to the accused persons and to his sister, but he never made any complaint to the in-laws for their behaviour or for not providing meals in time or about beating. He also did not make any complaint in the Panchayat. He admitted that the letter Ex. p. i contain signature of his sister Samosh and it was in her handwriting. For Ex. D. 10 also he gave a similar statement. He also admitted that portion TC to D of Ex. D. 10 was in his handwriting. He admitted that Ex. D- 11 was in the handwriting of Smt. Santosh and it contained her signatures at A to B. Ex. D. 12 was also in the handwriting of Smt. Santosh and contained his signature at portion A to B and then at portion TE to FT. He also admitted that letter Ex. D. 13 was in the handwriting of Santosh and contained her signatures at A to B. Similar was the statement for letters Exs. D-14, D-15, D-2 and D-16. He also admitted that letters Exs. D-3, D-4, D-5, D-6, D- 7 and D-8 were in his hand-writing and contained his signatures. He also admitted to have participated in the cremation of Smt. Santosh and stated that they returned to their home on the same night and did not meet any neighbour and the persons of their community at Sambhar. He also admitted that no report was made by him or any person of his family at Police Station, Sambhar Lake about their suspicion of committing murder by the accused persons. PW 19, Prem Chand has stated that Smt. Santosh had met him once in May 1992 when she had complained of beating her by her husband. In cross-examination he stated that she did not make any report before the police nor got the injuries of Smt. Santosh examined by Doctor. He also did not write any letter for beating Smt. Santosh. He expressed his ignorance about the writers of the lenders Exs. Dl to Ex. D. 17. ( 9 ) FROM the above oral evidence, which is quite vague, whether it can be said that the appellant used to beat Smt. Santosh? These statements are to be considered in the light of various letters Ex. D. 1 to Ex. He expressed his ignorance about the writers of the lenders Exs. Dl to Ex. D. 17. ( 9 ) FROM the above oral evidence, which is quite vague, whether it can be said that the appellant used to beat Smt. Santosh? These statements are to be considered in the light of various letters Ex. D. 1 to Ex. D. 18, wherein there is not even slightest whispering about any beating to Smt. Santosh or about the fact that she used to be scolded or humiliated by any family member of her in-laws. On the contrary, a perusal of these letters shows that everything was alright and the letters have been written by the deceased and her brother from time to time in normal manner as there were good relations between them. Further, after the death of Smt. Santosh, the appellant had intimated the parents of the deceased and her brothers and the family members participated in the cremation. None of them had put any grievance at that time and no report was made by them. Further about the earlier beatings neither any report was made to the police nor any complaint was made to the community Panchayat. The injuries were also not got examined from any Doctor. After giving our careful consideration to the entire evidence in the light of the various letters, which have been proved on record and the conduct of the witnesses, we are not inclined to accept the vague evidence of general nature that Smt. Santosh used to be beaten by the appellant at the instance of his mother and sister and that she used to be scolded by her in-laws for not giving birth to a child. The learned Trial Court did not consider the contents of the letters and the statements of the witnesses in their cross-examination. If it had considered the entire statements of the aforesaid witnesses in the light of contents in the letters, perhaps, there would have been no justification for recording a finding that the appellant used to beat his wife Smt. Santosh at the instance of his mother and sister. ( 10 ) IN second category of witnesses, PW 6 Madhu Shalma is wife of co-accused, Mahendra Kumar. She has stated that she had gone to witness Ram Lila alongwith her husband in town Sambhar. For other co-accused she stated that she did not know them. ( 10 ) IN second category of witnesses, PW 6 Madhu Shalma is wife of co-accused, Mahendra Kumar. She has stated that she had gone to witness Ram Lila alongwith her husband in town Sambhar. For other co-accused she stated that she did not know them. She was declared hostile by the prosecution. PW 7 Kumari Meena, is the real sister of co-accused Mahendra Kumar. She made similar statement to that of PW 6 Madhu Sharma and was declared hostile. PW 8 Akhilesh Sharma was also declared hostile as he did not support the prosecution case. PW 9 is Sambhu Kumar Soni who was sent by the appellant Gauri Shanker to Pushkar town at his in-laws house to intimate them about the death of Smt. Santosh and ask them to come to Sambhar. He too, was declared hostile. PW 10 Rameshwar Lal, has stated that he had gone to see Ramlila at Sainbhar and the appellant Gauri Shanker and co-accused Mahendra Kumar were also seen there in Ramlilat. He further stated that he heard that the house of Gauri Shanker caught fire. He was also declared hostile. PW 11 is Murli Photographer. He has testified the fact of taking 10 snaps of the deceased Santosh. PW 12 Rajesh Kumar, is a witness of seizure memo, Ex. P. 4, but he was declared hostile as he did not support the prosecution case. PW 13 another Rajesh Kumar and PW 14 Gajanand Agarwal were also declared hostile as they did not support the prosecution case. PW 15, Chandresh was a witness of site- plan Ex. P. 31, but he did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. PW 20, Sita Ram was a witness of seizure memo of stone slabs, but he did not support the prosecution case. PW 21 was a witness of seizure memos, Ex. P. 33 and Ex. P. 34, but in cross-examination he stated that in his presence neither the stone slabs were recovered nor the burnt clothes were seized and his signatures were obtained on blank papers. PW 22, Manish was also declared hostile as he did not support the prosecution case. Similar is the position of the witness Mohan, PW 23. PW 24, Gopi Kishan, was a witness of site-plans, Ex. P. 36 and Ex. P. 31. PW 22, Manish was also declared hostile as he did not support the prosecution case. Similar is the position of the witness Mohan, PW 23. PW 24, Gopi Kishan, was a witness of site-plans, Ex. P. 36 and Ex. P. 31. However, in cross examination, he stated that in his presence site inspection was not made and his signatures were obtained on blank papers. The last witness is PW-29, Krishna Murari. He testified that inquest report Ex. P. 7 was prepared in his presence and at portion G to H were his signatures. In cross-examination, he admitted that the relationship between Gauri Shanker and his wife were sweet He also admitted his signatures A to B on letter Exs. D-17 and D-18. ( 11 ) A scrutiny of the above evidence would make it clear that no incriminating circumstances was proved against the accused-appellant. Learned Trial Court committed serious error in drawing an inference from the above evidence that the appellant was at his house at the time of occurrence. The learned Trial Court further erred in observing that the accused-appellant could have led evidence to prove that he had gone to witness Ramlila but he did not make any attempt to do so. He has drawn adverse inference against the appellant for not producing evidence to the effect that he had gone to see Ramlila. This approach is quite foreign in criminal jurisprudence. In our considered view, the finding of the Trial Court that the accused-appellant was present at his house at the time of occurrence is without any evidence. The inferences drawn by the Trial Court from the above evidence are not sustainable in law. ( 12 ) THE third category of the witnesses consist of medical evidence and the evidence of the Police Officers. Even, we accept the argument of the learned Public Prosecutor that medical evidence and symptoms of the deceased showed that it was a homicidal death, the matter does not proceed further in absence of any other evidence to connect the appellant with the crime. As stated earlier, two circumstances relied upon by the prosecution regarding the motive and the presence of the appellant at his house at the time of occurrence are not proved from the evidence and if those two circumstances are eliminated, then there remains no evidence to connect the appellant with the crime. As stated earlier, two circumstances relied upon by the prosecution regarding the motive and the presence of the appellant at his house at the time of occurrence are not proved from the evidence and if those two circumstances are eliminated, then there remains no evidence to connect the appellant with the crime. It is true, the death of Smt. Santosh, wife of the appellant at her in-laws house may create strong suspicion against the members who lived in the house, but the suspicion alone cannot take the place of evidence for recording conviction of murder. Other accused persons have already been acquitted by the Trial Court and we find that the appellant also deserves to be given the same treatment in absence of any evidence against him. Consequently, we have no option but to accept this appeal and we hereby accept it The conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC are set aside. He is acquitted of the charge. He shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case. Appeal allowed.