B. PANIGRAHI, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal assails the order of conviction dated 30th January, 1980 passed by the Ld. Sessions judge, Bankura and sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. ( 2 ) THE prosecution story stated in brief is that deceased, Subhadra, the sister of P. W. 1 was given in marriage to the appellant Asok Bairagya on 9 Baisakh, 1892 B. S. After the marriage she used to live for sometime is his house and one month before the date of incident she came to the house of P. W. 1 accompanied by her father-in-law. On 7. 8. 85, the appellant came to the house of P. W. 1 and impressed his family members that he would take back Subhadra to his house and on his way would take her to the house of his Mashi (maternal aunt) at village Rasbehari within P. S. Kotulpur. On 9. 8. 85 at about 10 A. M. the appellant and P. W. 1's sister, Subhadra proceeded from the house of P. W. 1 towards Mashi's house of the appellant. On the way around 3/5. 30 P. M. one Sanyasi Mallick (P. W 6) saw both the appellant and deceased beyond Kotulpur. On the following morning that is 10. 8. 85 at about 6 A. M. the appellant came to the house of P. W. 1 with his brother, Dilip and narrated that before proceeding to the Mashi's house he and Subhadra went to watch a movie and while he was engaged in purchasing tickets, he found Subhadra missing. P. W. 1, his cousin brother Bipad Taran and the accused had set out in search of Subhadra. Despite thorough search they could not find Subhadra at Kotulpur. P. W. 1 informed about the missing of his sister at Kotulpur P. S. From there P. W. 1 and the appellant proceeded towards Khoondanga where they have been informed that a dead body of a female was floating in the river Darukeswar. Strong suspicion haunted in the mind of P. W. 1 that it might be the appellant who must have been the assailant of his sister. Therefore, he asked one Sushil Chakraborty to keep watch over the appellant and thereafter proceed to Nanager Ghat. They learnt from the villagers that a dead body wrapped in cloth was found floating. Strong suspicion haunted in the mind of P. W. 1 that it might be the appellant who must have been the assailant of his sister. Therefore, he asked one Sushil Chakraborty to keep watch over the appellant and thereafter proceed to Nanager Ghat. They learnt from the villagers that a dead body wrapped in cloth was found floating. P. W. 1 moving towards the down-stream along the flank of the river Darukeswar finally traced the dead body of Subhadra at about 3. 30/4 P. M. P. W. 2 who was deputed to Kotulpur, informed that a dead body of a female was floating in the river Darukeswar in the village Nanager Ghat. Immediately following such information the S. I came to the place of incident at about 2. 45 A. M. P. W. 1 handed-over a written report to him on the basis of which Kotulpur P. S. Case No. 1, dated 11. 8. 85 was registered by P. W, 12 against the appellant. P. W. 15 investigated into the offence, held inquest over the dead body of Subhadra and examined witnesses. The dead body was sent for Necroscopic examination through the constable No. 983 Taraprasanna. In the mean while, the appellant was arrested from the village Khoondanga. P. W. 17 Dr. P. G. Bhattacharjee who conducted the Post-mortem examination over the dead body of Subhadra noticed that the death was due to manual strangulation, which was ante-mortem and homicidal in nature. From the Post-mortem report it further transpires that these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary courses of nature to cause death. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was placed against the appellant. ( 3 ) THE appellant was prosecuted for committing the murder of his wife Subhadra punishable under Section 302 I. P. C. He, inter alia pleaded that he has been falsely implicated into this case. His defence plea is that the deceased, Subhadra a had clandestinely slipped away while the accused was engaged in purchasing tickets. ( 4 ) THE Trial Court has, however, on consideration of evidence recorded an order of conviction and passed the sentence of life imprisonment. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Mukherji vehemently argued that the ld. trial court has failed to consider the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in its proper perspective. ( 4 ) THE Trial Court has, however, on consideration of evidence recorded an order of conviction and passed the sentence of life imprisonment. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Mukherji vehemently argued that the ld. trial court has failed to consider the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in its proper perspective. He mechanically attached undue emphasis on the testimony of P. W. 1, P. W. 5 and also P. W. 6. Mr. Mukherji strongly urged that in this case no direct evidence is available and therefore, it should be wary and circumspect to find out, if every link, in the chain of circumstances has been firmly established. On the contrary, if any link in the chain of events is found missing no conviction should be recorded. ( 6 ) IN a case depending on circumstantial evidence, there should be a definite tendency pointing toward the guilt of the appellant Chronology of events must be satisfactorily brought on record. A moral conviction, however strong or genuine, cannot amount to a legal conviction supportable in law. It must be realised that the well established rule of criminal justice is that "fouler the Crime higher the proof". We could not be rest content without citing the leading decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1984 Supreme Court, page 622 (In the case of Sharad v. The State of Maharashtra ). In the above decision, these following principles have been laid down. " (1)the circumstances from which the conclusion 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, they should not be explainable on my other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. (3)the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. (4)they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5)there must be a chain of evidence so complete 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. ( 7 ) WE are, therefore to find out how far the prosecution has been able to bring home the charge of murder against the appellant. ( 7 ) WE are, therefore to find out how far the prosecution has been able to bring home the charge of murder against the appellant. In this connection, the ld. Sessions Judge has considered the following circumstances that (i) Subhadra (since deceased) was in her parent's place when on 7. 8. 85, the accused came there and both left on 9. 8. 85 the appellant taking in charge of Subhadra apparently did proceed to his Mashi's house. (ii) Subhadra never returned alive to her parent's house and her dead body was found floating next day in the river with the injuries. (iii) The accused was aware that Subhadra was unchaste. (iv) Subhadra had ample opportunity to go to her alleged paramour leaving her parent' house. (v) The possibility of slipping away from the company of the appellant was ruled out. (vi) The statement of the appellant that he did not return to his house with Subhadra along the way stated by P. W. 6 fits in well with the possibility of Subhadra being with him all the while. In addition of the above circumstances, other circumstances have been taken into consideration by the court below : (I)that the appellant did not inform P. W. 1 or P. W. 5' in the night of 9. 8. 85. (II)the appellant did not inform the police immediately after noticing that Subhadra was allegedly missing. (III)the accused lodged a missing diary only on ft next day morning. Appellant furnished P. W. 1 false information that the deceased eloped from his company. ( 8 ) THE Trial Court was of the view that the above links in the chain of events had firmly established the prosecution story which is incompatible with the innocence of the accused. ( 9 ) THE learned counsel Mr. Mukherjee advanced an inexorable plea that the evidence adduced by the prosecution has not been properly established. In a case of murder mostly depending upon circumstantial evidence, motive for the commission of the same has to be established. The prosecution in order to bring motive for committing the offence against the appellant made an attempt to establish that since the victim had conceived prior to marriage which ultimately the appellant knew about, the latter must have made serious attempt to exterminate her. ( 10 ) IN this connection, we are taken through the contents of the F. I. R. , Exhibit-1. ( 10 ) IN this connection, we are taken through the contents of the F. I. R. , Exhibit-1. Although in the F. I. R. it is alleged that the appellant came to know about the promiscuous relation of the victim and subsequent abortion to get rid of the child, but the F. I. R. not being a substantive evidence, we are to search for any other evidence adduced in this regard. ( 11 ) P. W. 1 in his evidence did not speak a word about the motive. Let us make a reference to the evidence to the of P. W. 5, the father of the deceased, who said that the father-in-law of the deceased told him to terminate the pregnancy of Subhadra Accordingly, the pregnancy was terminated. It is far-fetched to conceive for a moment that since the father of the appellant had known about the pregnancy the appellant might have, presumably, known it. ( 12 ) NONE of the prosecution witnesses had ever claimed that there was no love lost between the appellant and deceased. No credible, trust worthy and believable evidence has been adduced by the prosecution that the appellant had known about the promiscuous behaviour of the victim or she had any extramarital relation with any other person other than her husband. ( 13 ) IN the above premises, we hold that the prosecution has not been able to establish that the appellant had known about the premarital relationship and also the termination of pregnancy before she proceed with him to Kotulpur. ( 14 ) TURNING to the evidence of P. W. 17 who conducted the port-mortem examination over the dead body of Subhadra we find that he testified to the effect that the abortion might have taken place three days prior to Subhadra's death. From common experience we gather that no parent would ever allow their daughter to go with the husband following the abortion. She needed complete rest till her full recovery. We are not in position to appreciate as to how and under what circumstances, P. W. 5 had allowed his daughter to accompany the appellant. ( 15 ) MR. Mukherjee, appearing for the appellant vehemently argued that in this case the dead body was not properly identified before the Medical Officer who conducted the Post-Mortem examination. We are not in position to appreciate as to how and under what circumstances, P. W. 5 had allowed his daughter to accompany the appellant. ( 15 ) MR. Mukherjee, appearing for the appellant vehemently argued that in this case the dead body was not properly identified before the Medical Officer who conducted the Post-Mortem examination. Therefore his evidence would carry little weight to hold that conducted the pecroscopic examination on the dead of Subhadra. We fad to understand as to how the appellant raised this contention, while, there is no dispute regarding the death of Subhadra. The inquest report has, also been proved by the prosecution in this case which suggests the death of Subhadra. ( 16 ) THE learned counsel for the prosecution Mr. Ghosh urged with strong intensity of conviction that in this case the prosecution as far as possible proved all the circumstances that are required to take a view that it was the appellant alone who committed this offence. He indicated that from Kotulpur Cinema-Hall, the Kotulpur P. S. is only 100 cubits away. The appellant, when he found his wife missing, was expected to lodge a missing report in the P. S. His deliberate omission to lodge the report is against the normal human conduct and, therefore, the Trial Court in its opinion has appropriately reached the conclusion about the culpability of the appellant. ( 17 ) IT was further contended by the prosecution that the accused in this case has failed to inform out the night of the occurrence, the fact about his wife being missing, which he was expected to do to the family members of the deceased's family. These two circumstances at least go a long way disprove his innocence. ( 18 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Mukherji has taken us through the statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He has given a reasonable explanation that because the river was in spate due to high-tide, he could not cross the river on the night of the occurrence and on the following day, early in the morning he informed the inmates of the deceased's family. There is no dispute that in the following morning the information of missing of the deceased was intimated to P. W. 1 and 5. There is no dispute that in the following morning the information of missing of the deceased was intimated to P. W. 1 and 5. Now it is to be considered that the above circumstances can at all be said to be incriminating and if so, can those be taken against the accused without being put in the accused's examination under Section 313 Cr. P. C. enabling him to explain those circumstances. ( 19 ) THE accused gave out in his statement that he made frantic search in the night and went to his relations' house when he could not trace her out, finally came back to his house and on the following morning went to inform P. W. 1. It is the normal human conduct to immediately search for the missing person and not rush to the police station for furnishing the report. In the night he could have gone to the house of P. W. 5 but for the high-tide in the river he could not cross the same. Therefore, in the above back-ground those cannot be taken as telling or incriminating circumstances to bring home the charge. ( 20 ) WE find another striking feature present in this case that if the trial court was of the opinion that the appellant should have furnished information in the police station and failure of the same would be a strong circum stance against him, then, why the trial court failed to put such questions in 313 Cr. P. C. examination to the accused. If those circumstances were not put to the accused, can those be taken into consideration adversely against the appellant. In this regard the decision of Apex Court reported in AIR 1976, Supreme Court, page 557 in the case of Changule v. The Stale of Maharashtra is sufficient to support our view which is quoted hereunder "the fact that the appellant was said to be absconding, not having been put to him under Section 342 Cr. P. C. could not be used against him". The trial Court seemingly has not put the above circumstances which in his opinion are additional link against the accused. So. therefore, those materials could not have been used against him. This view has also been confirmed in Sharad v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1984 Supreme Court. P. C. could not be used against him". The trial Court seemingly has not put the above circumstances which in his opinion are additional link against the accused. So. therefore, those materials could not have been used against him. This view has also been confirmed in Sharad v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1984 Supreme Court. ( 21 ) THE main link which the prosecution wants to introduce in evidence is that both the deceased and the appellant were 'last seen together'. According to P. W. 6 he had seen both, the appellant and the deceased at Kotulpur between 3/3. 30 P. M. It seems, therefore, to suggest that the appellant was in the company of the deceased at Kotulpur at least till 3/3. 30 P. M. While appreciating the contention of the prosecution, it is to be mentioned here that the dead body was recovered at Nanagar Ghat. The distance between Kotulpur and Nanagar Ghat is about six miles. P. W. 1 in his evidence narrated that the distance between Kotulpur and Khoondanga is about five miles where they fast learnt that the dead body was floating in the river. Prosecution has not made any attempt to adduce any evidence that the deceased and the appellant were found together in between Kotulpur and Khoondanga. They were seen together between 3/3. 30 PM, by P. W. 6. It is contended by the defence that it is highly improbable to assume that a man after killing the victim at Kotulpur would carry the dead body during the day time all the way to Khoondanga and throw it in the river No evidence has been adduced by the prosecution as to what is the distance between Darukeswar river from Kotulpur. Even assuming P. W. 6 had last seen the deceased in the company of the appellant between the 3/3. 30 P. M. then also there is a wide gap as to what had happened thereafter and how the dead body was found floating near the village near Nanagar Ghat. The prosecution has not led before the court any satisfactory explanation as to how the dead body could reach the village Khoondanga and finally at Nanagar Ghat. The appellant cannot be held guilty only on account of being in the company of the decried much before the incident and to have been last seen together. The prosecution has not led before the court any satisfactory explanation as to how the dead body could reach the village Khoondanga and finally at Nanagar Ghat. The appellant cannot be held guilty only on account of being in the company of the decried much before the incident and to have been last seen together. In this connection the defence has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1993, Supreme Court at page 110 in the case of Anant Bhubancroa Kulkarni v. The State of Maharashtra. It is held in that case as follows :-"the accused cannot be convicted merely on the circumstances of last seen and that the dead body was found in the aforesaid building occupied by him". ( 22 ) THE circumstances on which the prosecution sought to rely on must have a close nexus with the crime. Mr. Mukherjee invited our attention that the circumstances relied by the prosecution have no proximate relation to the actual occurrence and these circumstances do not suggest the acts done, and as to when and where the death was caused. A statement merely suggesting motive for a crime cannot be admitted in evidence unless it is so intimately connected with the transaction. At the cost of repetition we may state here that the prosecution has significantly failed to establish that the accused has had knowledge regarding the premarital conception of the deceased. ( 23 ) THE learned Trial Court seemingly relied on the evidence of P. W. 15, Ramprosad Mondal. Mr. Ghosh, learned counsel, appearing for the prosecution advanced an unimpressive argument that this witness narrated in evidence to have been a dead body floating in the river and a few persons including the accused pushed the dead body into the river. Therefore, it is suggestive of the fact that the accused had his hands in glove with the incident. ( 24 ) MR. Mukherjee while repelling the contention invited our attention to the cross-examination of P. W. 15 where it is brought out that he did not know as to who pushed the dead body into the river. Therefore, we feel unsafe to rely on the evidence of P. W. 15. This witness further stated to have a discussion with the police following the incident. Therefore, we feel unsafe to rely on the evidence of P. W. 15. This witness further stated to have a discussion with the police following the incident. If this part of the statement is believed we fail to appreciate as to what prevented him to reveal before the police as to what he saw in the morning. ( 25 ) MOST of the circumstances relied on by the learned Sessions Judge have least bearing in arriving at any positive conclusion regarding the complicity of the appellant in the case. We have discussed that there was no opportunity for the appellant to know about the premarital conception of the deceased, even assuming that the appellant knew about un-chastity or nature of easy virtually of the deceased, he had enough opportunity to do away with her when she was in his house. ( 26 ) THE learned Trial Court has indicated in its judgment that Subhadra had ample opportunity to go to her alleged paramour leaving her parent's house. This observation appears to be speculative in nature, inasmuch as the exact reason as to why she could not escape with her paramour might be within her exclusive knowledge. The defence has suggested to the witnesses that while the accused was busy in purchasing tickets the victim slipped away from his company. Such possibility cannot be ruled out when the deceased had extramarital relationship with another person who is other than her husband. ( 27 ) THE learned Sessions Judge has based his findings on few more circumstances, like the deliberate omission to lodge report in the P. S. or furnishing information to the inmates of the deceased's house in the same night. At length, we have discussed these circumstances in our judgment and discarded the prosecution story on account of those being not put to the accused under Section 313 Cr. P. C. examination. ( 28 ) IT is further well settled that the prosecution must stand or fail on its own legs and it cannot derive any strength from the weakness of defence. This is trite law and no decision has taken a contrary view. In some cases it is held that when 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. This is trite law and no decision has taken a contrary view. In some cases it is held that when 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. Since few finks in the chain of events seemingly appear to have snapped the plea of the prosecution that the additional circumstances would come to its aid will not hold good. ( 29 ) THIS now brings us to the fag end of our judgment. After a detailed discussion of the evidence relating to the circumstance of the case and interpretation of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in. Sharad's Case (ibid) the legal and factual position are summarised thus :- (I)that the deceased Subhadra was the legally married wife. of the deceased. (II)prior to this incident the appellant visited her house. (III) the appellant and Subhadra came from his father-in-law's house to visit Mashi's house. (IV) the victim Subhadra was found missing at Kotulpur on 9. 8. 85. (V)the appellant went to inform about the missing of Subhadra on 10. 8. 85 morning and he along with P. W. 1 went to the police station where P. W. 1 lodged the missing report. (VI) the dead body was found at Nanagar Ghat on 11. 8. 85 at 2. 45 A. M. (VII) the victim met a homicidal death. ( 30 ) THE cumulative effect of these circumstances appears to us to be not sufficient to hold that the prosecution has proved its case to bring home the charge against the accused. Even at the worst, on consideration of the evidence and circumstance referred to above, we me of the view that this a case where the prosecution did not prove its case unerringly and conclusively against the appellant and at any rate two views are possible. Even at the worst, on consideration of the evidence and circumstance referred to above, we me of the view that this a case where the prosecution did not prove its case unerringly and conclusively against the appellant and at any rate two views are possible. When two views could be possible from the evidence placed before the court, one in favour of the accused and the other against him, the view supporting the accused should, rather, be preferred. Even if we err. the benefit of doubt must go to the accused. ( 31 ) IN view of the fact that the two views are possible on the evidence on record, one pointing to the guilt of the appellant and other leading to his innocence, the accused is entitled to have the benefit of the one which is favourable to him. Accordingly the prosecution case having not been proved beyond all reasonable doubts the appellant is entitled to an acquittal. The conviction and sentence passed against him for the commission of murder of Subhadra hereby stand set aside. ( 32 ) THUS, the appeal is, accordingly, allowed and the accused be set at liberty forthwith. He is discharged from the bail bond. M. G. Mukherji, J. I agree. Application allowed.