JUDGMENT 1. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Barmer in Sessions Case No. 36/94 State v. Hardeen . The facts resulting in the aforesaid conviction stated briefly are thus; 2. On July 9, 1994 P.W. 1 Salam lodged a first information report in Police Station, Chohtan that at 7.00 A.M. Hardeen and his wife Surai went to their agricultural field for cultivation operation where Hardeen killed his wife and ran away. On the basis of this FIR investigation was taken up, accused Hardeen was arrested and on completion of investigation the aforesaid sessions case was started. During the course of sessions trial as many as 12 witnesses were examined and statement of the accused under Section 313, Cr.P.C. was recorded. Several documents prepared during the investigation were duly proved by persons party to the documents. The learned Additional Sessions Judge on appreciation of the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused and, therefore, proceeded to pass judgment of conviction sentencing the accused to imprisonment for life. It is against this judgment of conviction which is challenged in this appeal on several grounds argued by the learned counsel for the appellant. 3. The main contention of the learned counsel is that there are no eye witnesses of the killing and the circumstantial evidence led by the prosecution falls hopelessly short of the required standards of proof necessary for recording the finding of guilt. 4. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the accused appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor we have re-appreciated the evidence on record. 5. P.W. 1 Salam son of Amin is the person who lodged the FIR and has duly proved it. He states that at about 11.30 in the morning Marium daughter of Hardeen came to him and told him that her mother is killed by her father who has ran away. She told him that when she went to the field taking the lunch for the parents she found her mother dead in the hut and her father was not there. On this a FIR was lodged by the witness RW. 1. He accompanied Police in the hut where the body of deceased Surai was lying. She told him that when she went to the field taking the lunch for the parents she found her mother dead in the hut and her father was not there. On this a FIR was lodged by the witness RW. 1. He accompanied Police in the hut where the body of deceased Surai was lying. He saw that the dead body was lying in the hut and an axe with blood stains on it was lying nearby. It was seized by the police along with other articles like bloody earth, clothes of the deceased etc. The witness duly proved various documents of seizure. The deposition of this witness proves that Smt. Surai met homicidal; death. 6. P.W. 2 is one Maru, a panch witness to the seizure effected by the police. He deposes to have seen the dead body of Surai lying in the hut with an axe with blood stains which was seized by the police in his presence. He proves the document of seizure. The testimony of this witness is corroborated , by RW. 1. This proves that the bloody axe was seized by the police from the scene of occurrence immediately on reaching the scene of occurrence. 7. P.W. 3 is Deena Khan who deposes to be an adjacent cultivator of accused Hardeen who heard the sound of shouts by Hardeen. When he tried to see as to what was happening, he saw Hardeen going towards the village. This witness does not depose as to what Hardeen was saying or shouting. He only states to have heard his sound and saw him leaving towards village. He did not go immediately thereafter in the hut to verify the cause of shouting. When he returned to the village in the afternoon he learnt form the villagers that Suraj was killed by Hardeen who ran away. 8. P.W. 4 is the daughter of the deceased and accused. She states that when she entered the hut she found her mother lying dead and bloody axe was lying by the side of her body. Beyond that she states that she did not see anything. She however marked the foot steps of her father. Then she reported the matter to Salam P.W. 1 who lodged the FIR. She then states, that her mother was killed by her father. Admittedly she is not eye witness. She states so in her cross-examination. Beyond that she states that she did not see anything. She however marked the foot steps of her father. Then she reported the matter to Salam P.W. 1 who lodged the FIR. She then states, that her mother was killed by her father. Admittedly she is not eye witness. She states so in her cross-examination. This witness is, therefore, not an eye witness nor does she state anything which proves that the homicidal death of Sural was caused by accused Hardeen. 9. P.W. 5 is yet another cultivator in the field of accused who saw hint going shouting towards village. He also did not verify and returned to his field and after some time he learnt that Hardeen has killed his wife. The witness, therefore, does not prove anything except may be the fact that Hardeen was saying going out of the hut shouting something. RW. 6 Sher Khan is another witness who says that it was told by Marium that her mother is killed by her father. The entire evidence of this witness is hearsay and deserves no credence. RW. 7 is Kayam son of Ajim who saw the dead body of deceased and an axe lying there and was a panch to the spot panchnama, map etc. P.W. 8 is the police constable Shyamlal who took certain samples in sealed condition in the Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur. 10. P.W. 9 is Head Constable Achla Ram who was Malkhana Incharge at the relevant time and deposes of the custody of certain articles involve in the incident and transmission of those articles to the Forensic Science laboratory. RW. 10 is Station House Officer, Chohtan who investigated the homicidal death of Surai. His testimony is stereotype and does not prove anything. 11. P.W. 11 is the doctor was conducted the postmortem examination and who proved that death of Surai was homicidal. RW. 12 is police constable who carries certain samples to Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur. After examination of these witnesses statement of the accused under Section 313, Cr.P.C. was recorded and on total appreciation of the documentary and oral evidence on record the learned Judge recorded the finding of guilt and commensurate with that finding sentenced the accused to suffer imprisonment for life. 12. We are unable to uphold the order of conviction as serious infirmities have been left in the investigation by the investigating authorities. 12. We are unable to uphold the order of conviction as serious infirmities have been left in the investigation by the investigating authorities. It is because of circumstantial evidence where the accused was last seen together with the deceased and the deceased was found dead in the hut with bleeding injuries and the blooded axe found near the scene of occurrence. Though the police has taken care of seizing the axe and proving the homicidal death of Surai but no care has been taken to connect the murder weapon to the accused. In the present days of investigative skills it has become a matter of routine examination to check murder weapon and finger prints on It and compare those finger prints with the finger prints of the accused person using the said weapon. This preliminary caution necessary during the investigation of crime has not been taken by the Station House Officer. A vital link of circumstance is, therefore, missing in the present case. 13. Even if the entire evidence is taken into consideration, what is proved in the fact that the accused and the deceased went to the hut together and accused was seen leaving alone and deceased was found dead and a blood stained axe was lying nearby. The only missing link in our opinion is connection of the weapon of offence to the alleged perpetrator thereof. In the absence of this connective link it is impossible for us to sustain the finding of guilt against the accused appellant. There is nothing on the record to prove that this axe which is weapon of offence was used by the accused for causing fatal Injury to the deceased. In These circumstances we see no reason to maintain the order of conviction. The appeal must, therefore, succeed and is hereby allowed. The judgment and order of conviction is set-aside. The accused be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other crime.Appeal allowed. *******