Judgment D. S. Dhaliwal, J. 1. -appellants surajdeo Singh and Indar Devi has been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for, the offence under Sec.302 read with Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code by 1st additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali at hajipur vide his judgment and order dated 13-12-1984 passed in Sessions trial case No.49/28 of 1981/84. Hence, this appeal by the convicts. 2. The prosecution case can briefly be stated like this: asharfi Devi (deceased) was married to Surajdeo Singh (Appellant No.1)and was residing with him in the house of her in-laws in village basantpur. Indar Devi is mother of surajdeo Singh, appellant. Shivaji singh (P. W.2), the brother of the deceased went to see his sister at the house of the appellant No.1 on 7- 1-1980 in village Basantpur. On reaching there he found that his sister was not present in the house. On query, Surajdeo singh told that Asharfi Devi had fled away from the house due to some quarrel with her mother-in-law, Indar devi (appellant ). After this while shivaji Singh was returning he came to know from some ladies who were cutting grass that his sister had been done to death by her husband and thereafter thrown in the river. Shivaji Singh returned to his village and on the next day, i. e.8-1-1980 started searching for the dead body of his sister in the company of Bishwanath Singh (P. W.1), ram Nagina Singh (P. W.3), Ram Sundar Singh (P. W.4) and others. Ultimately on 9-1-1980 they found the dead body of Asharfi Devi entangled in a bush in the river near village Rasal pur. Shivaji Singh then went to Police station, Jandaha and lodged a written report (Ext.1) on the basis of which the case was formally registered. Abdul hafiz Khan, Officer-in-charge, Police station, Jandaha took up the investigation. He came to the place where the dead body was recovered, prepared inquest report (Ext.6) and sent it for post-mortem examination. 3. On 10-1-1980, Dr. R. K. Sinha (P. W.11) conducted autopsy on the dead body of Asharfi Devi. He found ecchymosis in area around neck horizontal 4"x3" on the front of the neck on the hyoid bone. On dissection tissues were found congested and fracture of the corrnue was detected. 3. On 10-1-1980, Dr. R. K. Sinha (P. W.11) conducted autopsy on the dead body of Asharfi Devi. He found ecchymosis in area around neck horizontal 4"x3" on the front of the neck on the hyoid bone. On dissection tissues were found congested and fracture of the corrnue was detected. There was also acchymosis 6"x4" on the back of left chest at the level of 7th, 8th and 9th ribs in the mid clavicular line. The doctor opined that Asharfi Devi died due to strangulation and that the lime which elapsed between the death and postmortem was within 36 to 96 hours. 4. After completion of the investigation the appellants were charge-sheeted and tried for the offence under sections 302/34 and 201 of the Indian penal Code. 5. At trial, the prosecution in order to prove its case, examined as many as 12 witnesses. Bishwanath singh (P. W.1), Shivaji Singh (P. W.2), ram Sundar Singh (P. W.4) and harendra Singh (P. W.5) deposed about the search which led to the recovery of the dead body of Asharfi Devi. Shivaji singh (P. W.2) is the brother of the deceased and first informant of the case. He too has deposed with regard to the search and recovery. Yogendra singh (P. W.6) is the father of the deceased. He deposed about the factum of marriage and ill-treatment of his daughter by the appellants. Ram nagina Singh (P. W.3) and Gauri Devi (P. W.7) mother of the deceased have been simply tendered. The evidence of gopal Chaudhary , (P. W.8), Darpanarain Singh (P. W.9) and Randhir kumar Singh (P. W.10) is only formal. Dr. R. K. Sinha (P. W.11) proved postmortem report (Ext.4 ). Abdul Hafiz khan (P. W.12) is the Investigating Officer of the case. 6. The appellants when examined under Sec.313, Cr. PC. , denied the prosecution allegations. In defence, they examined Bishundeo Rai, sarpanch (D. W.1) to prove petition (Ext.4)intimating him regarding the disappearance of Asharfi Devi. Taking into consideration certain circumstances appearing in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses the learned Additional sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants for the offence under section 302 read with Sec.34 of the indian Penal Code, as indicated earlier. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants, the A. P. P. for the state and have perused the Records. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants, the A. P. P. for the state and have perused the Records. The contention of the counsel for the appellants is that the trial court has mainly relied upon three circumstances, that is, firstly the motive; secondly that the. Investigating Officer found the room of the house of the accused freshly plastered; and thirdly that no information regarding missing of Asharfi devi was given to the Police or to her parents by any of the appellants. The counsel maintained that so far as the circumstances of motive is concerned, no ill-treatment or harassment of the deceased is alleged in the first information report. As regards the other circumstance, his contention is that it is absolutely of no value and the third circumstance regarding non-giving of information is at best a suspicious circumstance against the appellants which cannot in itself be taken sufficient to warrant conviction. It is also contended that none of the circumstances was ever put to the appellants at the time of their examination under section 313 Cr. P. C. and as such these cannot be used against the appellants as they were never given an opportunity to explain them. 8. We find sufficient merit in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. Since there is no direct evidence to connect the appellants with the offence the prosecution case rests purely on circumstantial evidence. It is well settled that in cases resting purely on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution in the first instance must prove each and every circumstance to the hilt and the proved circumstances must then form a chain so complete in itself so 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. 9. On the circumstance of motive, in the first information report lodged by the brother of the deceased there is absolutely no mention that the deceased was ever being ill-treated or harassed by any of the appellants. There is only a bald statement of yogendra Singh (P. W 6) that after the marriage the in-iaws were harassing his daughter. There is absolutely no documentary evidence to indicate that the deceased ever protested to any one regarding her alleged ill-treatment. There is only a bald statement of yogendra Singh (P. W 6) that after the marriage the in-iaws were harassing his daughter. There is absolutely no documentary evidence to indicate that the deceased ever protested to any one regarding her alleged ill-treatment. The deceased was married long back and it has appeared in evidence that she was having two male issues eged about 10 years and 7 years and out of them one child is even now residing with appellants. The prosecution has not led any evidence to show the immediate, cause of the occurrence. The prosecution evidence on the point of motive, therefore, is very weak and cannot be accepted. As regards the second circumstances, the Investigating Officer has stated that when he went to the house of the appellants during investigation of the case, he found the room to be freshly plastered. This is hardly any circumstance which can militate against the innocence of the accused. The only other circumstance is that the appellants did not inform the Police and the family members of the deceased regarding her leaving the matrimonial home. Here in this respect the case of the appellant No.1 is that he had filed application (Ext. A) before the sarpanch of the Gram Kutcherry who has also been examined as D. W.1. No doubt the date of the deceased having left the house is different according to the application and according to the representation made by the appellant No.1 to the brother of the deceased and as such the genuineness of the application is open to doubt, but it is well settled that an accused be convicted merely upon the weakness of his defence. There is nothing on record to indicate that the appellants ever informed the police or the family members of the deceased. Although this circumstance thus, stands proved against the appellants, but this solitary circumstance at best gives rise to a strong suspicion against the appellants, and the suspicion, however strong cannot take the place of positive proof against the appellants. The aforesaid solitary circumstance proved, therefore, not sufficient enough to warrant their conviction. 10. Furthermore, on perusal of the records we find that none of the circumstances taken into consideration by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for recording the conviction of the appellants was ever put to the appellants during their examination under Section 313, Cr. The aforesaid solitary circumstance proved, therefore, not sufficient enough to warrant their conviction. 10. Furthermore, on perusal of the records we find that none of the circumstances taken into consideration by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for recording the conviction of the appellants was ever put to the appellants during their examination under Section 313, Cr. P. C. There is catena of authorities of the Apex Court laying down that when any circumstance appearing against the accused in the prosecution evidence is not put to him at the time of his examination under section 313, Cr. P. C. to enable him to explain the said circumstance, it cannot be used against him. A. I. R.1953 S. C.468 (Hate Singh V/s. State of Madhya bharat), A. I. R.1979 S. C.1566 (Aher rama V/s. State of Gujarat) and A. I. R.1984 S. C.1622 (Sharad V/s. State of maharashtra) are some leading cases on this point. 11. From the discussions above, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellants beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. The appeal is, therefore, allowed, the conviction recorded against the appellants and the sentence passed upon them is set aside and they are acquitted of the charge. The appellants are discharged of the bail bonds furnished by them. Appeal Allowed.