JUDGMENT R. N. Sahay, J. - Appellant Bhola Jha is in custody since 4.6.1991. Prior to his conviction, he was in custody for about a year. The appellant was charged and tried along with his mother. Smt. Jaya Devi for the offences punishable under sections 302/120B, 302/34 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur, who tried the appellant found him guilty under section 302/34 Indian Penal Code despite the fact that the co-accused mother of the appellant was acquitted. The appellant was acquitted of the charges under section 498A Indian Penal Code. 2. The evidence against both the accused was identical. The appellant was convicted and his mother was acquitted because the victim was wife of the appellant. There is no eye witness to the occurrence. The appellant has been convicted on circumstantial evidence. The only circumstance being that the dead body of Bibha Devi, wife of the appellant was found in the house of the appellant. According to the post-mortem report the deceased was strangulated to death. 3. Uma Kant Jha, father-in-law of the appellant and father of the deceased Bibha Devi gave his fardbeyan at the Varandah of the house of the appellant at village Titra Bishunpur in the district of Muzaffarpur before the Sub- Inspector of Police of Sakra Police Station, in/eralia, stating following facts. About three years ago, daughter of the informant was married to Bhola Jha of village Titra. After Gauna in the last Baisakh she was living at her in-laws house. Since about 5-6 days the relation between his• daughter and other family members had become strained. The sister of Bhola Jha (Appellant) also used to quarrel with Bibha Devi the deceased. On getting information, the informant went to see his daughter and stayed in the village Titra from 17.9.1986 to 21.9.1986 and during that period he conciliated the differences amongst his daughter and her husband, mother- in-law and sister-in-law with the help of his elder daughter, who was also married in the same village. When the informant wanted to take his daughter with him, the father-in-law of his daughter assured him that henceforth no body would vex his daughter. 4. On 22.9.1986 one Uday Sankar Jha of village Titra informed the informant that Bibha. Devi was killed by throttling on 22.9.1986 by her family members. When the informant wanted to take his daughter with him, the father-in-law of his daughter assured him that henceforth no body would vex his daughter. 4. On 22.9.1986 one Uday Sankar Jha of village Titra informed the informant that Bibha. Devi was killed by throttling on 22.9.1986 by her family members. On this information, the informant immediately rusher to village Titra and reached there at 7.00 A.M. He found his daughter lying dead in Angan. Thereafter the informant informed the other villagers, who came and saw his daughter. The informant claimed that his daughter was killed by her mother-in-law Jaya Devi, father-in-law Umakant Jha, husband Bhola Jha (present appellant) and his sister Rita Devi by throttling. 5. The appellant during investigation denied the charge and submitted that he was innocent. It was wrong to say that his relation with his wife was not happy. He never quarrelled with his wife. It was not a case of murder. The medical report had been manufactured to implicate the appellant. He also contended that there was no legal evidence to connect the appellant with the crime. It was also stated that news of the death of his wife was given to one of the prosecution witnesses, namely, Sunayana Devi (P.W.3), the Gotni of elder sister of deceased Bibha Devi. It was submitted that had it been a case of murder, he would have attempted to dispose of the dead body instead of informing Sunayana Devi. The appellant submitted that the informant went in the clutches of unscrupulous persons, who were inimical to the appellants family. 6. During trial the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses. Most of the witnesses turned hostile. There is no direct or indirect evidence against the appellant. 7. According to the medical evidence, following ante-mortem injuries were found on the person of the deceased Bibha Devi : (i) Bruise with echymosis found (2" x 1/2") on the right side of the neck. There was bruises all over the neck and back of the neck. On dissection the neck muscles was highly congested. The trachia lyrnex, hyoid bone, thyroid cartiledge, all found ruptured and highly congested. Blood was also present in the trachia. (ii) The cause of death is due to asphyxia caused by throttling by pressure over neck by hard substances, may be by two thumbs (as suggested). On dissection the neck muscles was highly congested. The trachia lyrnex, hyoid bone, thyroid cartiledge, all found ruptured and highly congested. Blood was also present in the trachia. (ii) The cause of death is due to asphyxia caused by throttling by pressure over neck by hard substances, may be by two thumbs (as suggested). The surgeon, who performed postmortem examination of the deceased stated in his cross-examination that : "On the attack of epilepsy, froth and blood comes out from the mouth of patient. The injuries noticed by me, may be caused to a serious patient of epilepsy, if the neck of the patient, on attack falls on the pasi of a cot. Tile serious attack of epilepsy may cause death of the patient." 8. Dr. Arnitesh Ranjan Srivastava (D.W.2) was examined on behalf of the appellant. D.W.2 was, at the relevant time, doing private practice at village Siho in the district of Muzaffarpur. He said that on 15.7.1986 he had examined the deceased Bibha Devi. wife of the appellant He found the patient suffering from "grandmal epilepsy". He again examined her on 20.7.1986, 6.8.1986, 14.9.1986 and 21.9.1986 and prescribed medicines. Tile prescription given by him is Ext. A. He said that in the disease of epilepsy a patient undergoes convulsion and becomes unconscious. In rare cases, it may cause death. 9. It is significant that the father of the deceased denied that Bibha Devi ever suffered from epilepsy. 10. Learned Additional Sessions Judge reiterated the following circumstances from the evidence against the appellant : "17. From the statement of the witnesses cited above, following facts and circumstances come to light : (i) That deceased Bibha Devi was married with the accused Bhola Jim three years before her death. That five months before the occurrence she on Gauna had gone first of all to her marital home where she resided till last. (ii) From the statements of the witnesses and also from the estimate of the doctor who held the post-mortem examination it appears that she died at about in the afternoon of 22.9.1986. (iii) On the alleged date of occurrence atleast accused Bhola Jha have been found present in the scene village (vide P.W. 1 and 2). (ii) From the statements of the witnesses and also from the estimate of the doctor who held the post-mortem examination it appears that she died at about in the afternoon of 22.9.1986. (iii) On the alleged date of occurrence atleast accused Bhola Jha have been found present in the scene village (vide P.W. 1 and 2). (iv) The medical evidence coupled with statements of other witnesses go to show that death of Bibha was homicidal one, as a result of asphyxia caused due to throttling by pressure over neck by hard substances may be thumbs. (v) It further appears, that the accused persons, who although were not expressing their grievances openly were not happy with the dowry and presentations given to them at the time of marriage (vide P.W. 6 paragraph 6) and they used to say so. (vi) It also appears that about 8 days before the alleged occurrence some differences cropped in between Bibha Devi and the accused persons (P.W. 3 paragraph 4). However, this witness has shown her ignorance regarding the stand of accused Jaya Devi in the aforesaid difference. (vii) That few days before the alleged occurrence the deceased had expressed doubts before her father Uma Kant Jha (P.W.11) that she will be killed by her in-law and on this ground had requested him to take her back to his house. (viii) It also appears from the statements of P.W. 1 at para 4 and P.W. 3 at paragraph 10 that Bhola Jha had informed the villagers regarding the illness of his wife i.e. the deceased. This conduct of the accused appears very surprising one and speaks a volume against his claim of innocence. Undoubtedly the death of Bibha was homicidal one. This accused being the husband was expected to make suitable complaints for starting a legal proceeding but he instead of doing so attempted to hush up the matter by spreading the concocted news of the illness of his wife. In my opinion the conduct of the accused Bhola Jha shown soon after the occurrence being admissible in evidence is suggestive of the guilty conscience of the accused. (ix) The statements of P.W.3 and his daughter P.W.7 who soon after the occurrence had visited the house of the deceased saw that the dead body of Bibha Devi was laid unattended on a bedless palang in most neglected manner. (ix) The statements of P.W.3 and his daughter P.W.7 who soon after the occurrence had visited the house of the deceased saw that the dead body of Bibha Devi was laid unattended on a bedless palang in most neglected manner. This fact indicates that the accused persons together with their family members had no sympathy with or regard for the deceased and they had not grieved due to the aforesaid death. This fact again moves the point against the innocence of the accused persons. (x) The alleged murder took place in day time, allegedly inside the house in which the deceased together with the accused persons had been residing. It cannot be expected that such heineous crime would have been committed without tacit connivance of the family members. (xi) In the last it may be added here that accused Bhola Jha who being husband would have made sacred promises before the nupital fire for giving protection to his wife is not corning forward with an explanation as to how her wife met a homicidal death. The defence version put forward in this context appears to be highly improbable. These facts again impliedly indicates towards the guilt of the accused Bhola Jha." 11. However, co-accused, mother of the appellant was acquitted on the ground that there was no evidence that on the alleged date of occurrence she was present in the house. So far present appellant is concerned, it was held that he was present in the house. It is established fact that the dead body of the deceased with injuries was found lying in tile house of the appellant. 12. However, moot question for consideration is whether the appellant can be convicted under section 302/34 Indian Penal Code on the single piece of evidence that the dead body of Bibha Devi with injuries was found in the house of the appellant and considering the fact that the deceased died in the house of the appellant. 13. Ram Kumari Devi (P.W.1) was declared hostile. She had stated that the deceased was suffering from epilepsy. The appellant had gone to graze his buffalo and in the meantime, Bibha Devi died. P.W.2 Veena Devi has deposed that the deceased was living happily with her husband and his mother and there was no quarrel. This witness was also declared hostile. She further stated that Bibha died of illness. 14. The appellant had gone to graze his buffalo and in the meantime, Bibha Devi died. P.W.2 Veena Devi has deposed that the deceased was living happily with her husband and his mother and there was no quarrel. This witness was also declared hostile. She further stated that Bibha died of illness. 14. Sunayana Devi (P.W.3) is not hostile witness. She has stated that the relationship between the deceased and accused persons were good but some quarrel had taken place about 8 days prior to the occurrence. This witness is Gotni of elder sister of the deceased. Bhuwan Rai (P.W.4) was declared hostile. He stated that Bibha was ill. There was no witness to say that the appellant was in the house during death. Madhuri Kumari (P.W. 7) and Sudha Kumari (P.W.8) are daughters of Sunayana Devi (P.W.3) Madhuri Kumari said that she had seen blood coming out of the nose of Bibha Devi. In cross-examination she stated that she could not recall as to who had gone to inform about the death of Bibha. Uday Shankar Jha (P.W.10) is son of Sunayana Devi (P.W.3). 15. Uma Kant Jha (P.W.11) is the informant and father of the deceased. He has alleged that the relation between the deceased and her Nanad was not cordial. Then he said about his son-in-law and Samdhin. The main allegation was against the sister of the appellant. The informant said that his deceased daughter had complained that she was not given food. 16. There is no evidence about ill treatment except the informant's evidence. The question is whether the conviction can be sustained on the meagre evidence adduced by the prosecution and only on the basis that the dead body of the deceased with injuries was found in the house of the appellant. 17. In Balram Prasad Agrawal vs. State of Bihar and ors., JT 1996 (11) S.C.60, the victim was married lady aged about 28 years. The evidence was that the deceased had fallen in the well situated in the backyard of the house of her in-laws. She was earlier assaulted by her in-laws. The accused persons were tried under sections 498A, 302 and 120B Indian Penal Code. The evidence was that the deceased had fallen in the well situated in the backyard of the house of her in-laws. She was earlier assaulted by her in-laws. The accused persons were tried under sections 498A, 302 and 120B Indian Penal Code. Learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused persons under section 302/34 Indian penal Code because the trial court found himself helpless and he could not convict the accused persons in absence of sufficient evidence brought on record by the prosecution. The accused persons were acquitted. The informant went in revision. The revision application was dismissed. The informant went in appeal before the Supreme Court. The argument before the Supreme Court was that the trial court erred in not framing charge under section 498A Indian Penal Code. The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal under section 302/34 Indian penal Code with following observation :- "6. Having given our anxious consideration to these rival contentions we have reached the conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to make out any case against the respondent-accused under section 302 read with section 34 IPC. There is no evidence to show that on that fateful night the accused or anyone of them had pushed or thrown Kiran Devi in the well. But that is not the end of the matter. As rightly contended by learned senior counsel for the appellant the evidence on record clearly indicated that a case was made out against the accused under section 498A, IPC.........." 18. In the present case the trial court acquitted the appellant under section 498A Indian Penal Code for the lack of evidence. The appellant cannot be convicted under section 498A Indian Penal Code by this Court. 19. In Sham Lal Vs. State of Haryana, JT 1997 (3) S.C.91, which is again a bride burning case, the Supreme Court observed as follows : "3. The High Court counted some circumstances, in the absence of any eye-witness and reached the conclusion that the circumstances have concatenated themselves into a complete chain establishing that appellant had killed her by setting her ablaze after dousing her with kerosene. 4. On a scrutiny of the evidence we are of the view that the circumstances are far too meagre for reaching the conclusion that appellant had set her on fire." 20. The evidence in Sham Lal's case (supra) was that victim Neelam Rani was admitted in the hospital in precarious condition. 4. On a scrutiny of the evidence we are of the view that the circumstances are far too meagre for reaching the conclusion that appellant had set her on fire." 20. The evidence in Sham Lal's case (supra) was that victim Neelam Rani was admitted in the hospital in precarious condition. Her body was charred. The father of the victim saw the husband standing nearby. The informant asked the accused (son-in-law) whether she was killed on which he answered with folded hands that it was a mistake on his part for that he should be forgiven. The Supreme Court set aside the conviction under section 302 Indian Penal Code but convicted the appellant under section 498A Indian Penal Code. 21. In Anant Chintaman Lagu vs. State of Bombay, A.I.R. 1960 S.C.500, the Supreme Court observed "Circumstantial evidence in this context means a combination of facts creating a network through which there is no escape for the accused, because the acts taken as a whole do not admit of any inference but of his guilt. To rely upon the findings of the medical man who conducted the postmortem and of the chemical analyser as decisive of the matter is to render the other evidence entirely fruitless. While the circumstances often speak with unerring cartainty, the autopsy and chemical analysis taken by themselves may be most misleading. No doubt, due weight must be given to the negative findings at such examinations. But, bearing in mind the difficult task which the man of medicine performs and the limitations under which he works, his failure should not be taken as tile end of the case, for on good and probative circumstances, an irresistible inference of guilt can be drawn". 22. In Eradu vs. State of Hydrabad, A.I.R. 1956 S.C. 316, the evidence against the accused was of much stronger nature. Stolen articles had also been recovered. The Supreme Court applying the principle of circumstantial evidence held that the evidence was not sufficient to convict the appellant on circumstantial evidence. 23. It would be, therefore, apparent from what has been discussed above that the circumstantial evidence relied upon by the prosecution in the instant case is not of such character to be consistent with the guilt of the appellant. The appellant cannot be convicted on isolated circumstances. 23. It would be, therefore, apparent from what has been discussed above that the circumstantial evidence relied upon by the prosecution in the instant case is not of such character to be consistent with the guilt of the appellant. The appellant cannot be convicted on isolated circumstances. There must be chain of circumstances to invoke the doctrine of circumstantial evidence, learned Additional Sessions Judge completely erred in convicting the appellant ignoring the well established rule of circumstantial evidence. On the same evidence mother of the appellant was acquitted. There is no evidence that the appellant was seen in the house. There was no motive for the murder. 24. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the conviction of the appellant is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charges. The appellant is in custody for the last seven years. He is directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. P. K. Sarkar, J. -I agree.