JUDGMENT - A.S. BAGGA, J.:---This is the appeal against the judgment and order dated 10th August, 1994 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Beed in Sessions Case No. 13/94 thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under section 302 I.P.C. and sentencing him to imprisonment for life and payment of fine of Rs. 500/- in default further rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. Prosecution case, in brief, is as follows : On 11-9-1993 at about 2 p.m. Police Patil of village Murshadpur (examined as P.W. 2) was informed by one Suryabhan Javale (examined as P.W. 1) that a dead body of an unknown woman was lying in the field of Asaram Javale. The said Police Patil, therefore, went to the field of Asaram Javale and saw dead body of unknown woman. He posted Kotwal on the spot and went to the Police Station at Beed and lodged report at Exhibit 17. The report lodged by said Police Patil came to be reduced into writing by P.S.I. Ramrao (examined as P.W. 6). An offence punishable under section 307 of I.P.C. came to be registered at Exhibit 17. P.S.I. Ramdas visited the place of the occurrence and recorded inquest panchanama at Exhibit 12 and also spot panchanama at Exhibit 15. The dead body of unknown woman aged around 30 years was found lying with end of the saree on the neck suggesting thereby that the woman had been strangulated to death. The dead body was found in the field known as "Barad" field belonging to one Asaram Javale situated at a distance of about one furlong from Beed Limbarui road. Marks of the dragging of body from the place where it was lying upto Babool tree at a distance of about one furlong were visible from under the tree of Babool. A pair of chappal and chit bearing name of hospital and photograph were also allegedly attached. P.S.I. Ramdas sent the body for post-mortem examination, recorded the statement of witnesses and filed the charge sheet against the appellant and his father. The appellant came to be arrested on 20-9-1993 at 11.30 p.m. The father of the appellant Sudam was not to be found and was shown as absconding in the charge sheet. The appellant only came to be tried for the offence of murder of that unknown woman who later came to be identified as Manda. 3. The appellant came to be arrested on 20-9-1993 at 11.30 p.m. The father of the appellant Sudam was not to be found and was shown as absconding in the charge sheet. The appellant only came to be tried for the offence of murder of that unknown woman who later came to be identified as Manda. 3. The appellant pleaded not guilty when the charge sheet came to be framed and explained to him by learned trial Judge. His defence has been of total denial. Learned Judge, on the basis of evidence as came to be adduced before him, proceeded to convict the accused and pass sentence which has been impugned in this appeal. On the basis of evidence of Dr. Pandurang (examined as P.W. 4) who conducted post mortem learned, Judge held that deceased died homicidal death. Dr. Pandurang in his post mortem notes at Exhibit 23 had found ligature mark around neck of the deceased, ecchymosis changes below the ligature mark and opined that deceased died on account of asphyxia due to strangulation. 4. As far as complexity of the appellant is concerned, case rested on the oral evidence of P.W. 3 Santram Bhalerao (examined at Exhibit 20) and P.W. 7 Jaibai Bhaurao (examined as Exhibit 35). Both these witnesses testified that the appellant was married to one Jaishree (examined as P.W. 5). They further stated that deceased Manda had stayed at Limbarui and stayed with the appellant prior to 10/15 days of the occurrence of the incident. During the absence of the appellant's wife namely; Jaishree, it was shown by the prosecution that P.W. 5 Jaishree - wife of the appellant had left appellant and Manda had come to the village to stay with the accused in her absence. The appellant had brought his wife Jaishree back and Manda was sent to Nashik. Manda, however, again arrived and which was disliked by the appellant. There was quarrel between appellant and Manda. The appellant took deceased Manda in order to reach her at Beed. The appellant was followed by his father. After sometime, both of them returned but Manda was not with them. Manda, however, again arrived and which was disliked by the appellant. There was quarrel between appellant and Manda. The appellant took deceased Manda in order to reach her at Beed. The appellant was followed by his father. After sometime, both of them returned but Manda was not with them. On the basis of the evidence, the learned Judge, concluded that since Manda was taken away by appellant and his father and they returned without her and Manda was found dead in the field on the next afternoon, this circumstance alongwith fact that a photograph and chit bearing name of the hospital were found from the spot. Learned Judge proceeded to convict the appellant for the offence of murder of said woman Manda. 5. Learned Judge observed that these circumstances unerringly point to the guilt of the appellant and are inconsistent with his innocence and proceeded to convict the appellant by the impugned order. 6. We have been taken through the evidence and material on record by Shri Patil, learned Counsel for the appellant. We have heared learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and have examined the oral evidence of Santram P.W. 3 and Jaibai P.W. 7 carefully. 7. It would be seen that the appellant is married to Jaishree who has been examined as P.W. 5. Though it was stated by the prosecution that Jaishree - wife of the appellant had deserted her, she in her examination did not support. The witnesses P.W. 3 and 7 in their evidence stated that in absence of Jaishree wife of the appellant, one woman by name Manda had come to the village prior to 10/15 days of the occurrence and that the dead body which was found in the field was that of Manda. P.W. 7 Jaibai admitted that she did not visit the field where dead body was lying and that she stated that it was body of Manda on the information received by her from her husband. As regards P.W. 3 Shantaram Bhalerao other witness, he stated that he did not go very close to the dead body in order to say whether there were burn injuries on the person of the dead body. It has come in the evidence of Dr. As regards P.W. 3 Shantaram Bhalerao other witness, he stated that he did not go very close to the dead body in order to say whether there were burn injuries on the person of the dead body. It has come in the evidence of Dr. Pandurang P.W. 4 who conducted post mortem examination of the dead body, that there were burn injuries on the person of the dead body and burns on many part of the body to the extent of 66%. It was also deposed by the doctor that the face of the dead woman was burnt to the extent of 9%. It was nobody's case that the woman who had come to the village by name Manda was married to the appellant. What was stated was that she visited the village and stayed there in absence of the wife of the appellant Jaishree P.W. 5. Prosecution did not examine any of the relatives of Manda who had come to the village. There is no evidence and, therefore, it is not known as to where the woman had come from and who were her relatives. The person whose dead body was found was always referred to as unknown woman. In post mortem examination also, body is referred to as body of the unknown woman. 8. P.W. 7 Jaibai Bhaurao stated that appellant did not like return of Manda in presence of Jaishree and wanted her to leave the place. Since woman Manda refused to leave, she was assaulted by appellant. It was further deposed by Jaibai P.W. 7 that she saw accused taking Manda and the appellant was followed by his father. She further stated that appellant returned and was asked by her where was Manda and the appellant replied that Manda was not found. The learned Judge, on the basis of aforesaid evidence, found the accused guilty. 9. We are mindful of the legal requirement in case where the guilt has to be brought home on circumstantial evidence. The circumstances from which a conclusion is to be drawn should be fully proved, the circumstances should be conclusive in nature and they should be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt and inconsistent with the innocence and finally the circumstances should exclude possibility of guilt of any person other than the accused. 10. We have examined the evidence in the light of aforesaid legal requirements. 10. We have examined the evidence in the light of aforesaid legal requirements. What has been brought on record is that a woman visited the village of the appellant, stayed there for some days prior to the incident in question, during the absence of Jaishree the wife of the appellant. On arrival of the wife of the appellant, said woman Manda returned and this was not liked by the appellant. Appellant allegedly assaulted her and accompanied her to reach her to Beed and when he came, Manda was not with him. Next day, the body of unknown woman is found in the field and that unknown body is shown to be that of Manda. For proving the fact of arrival of one Manda in the village and for showing that woman's arrival in the village was disliked by the appellant and that appellant was found in the company of Manda and were last seen together, only evidence on record is that of P.W. 7 Jaibai. Jaibai's own son had married second woman during the subsistence of his first wife and his wife had died on account of burn injuries. A suggestion was given to Jaibai that she was deposing false against appellant as appellant had been instrumental in prosecution of the son of Jaibai. Veracity of the evidence of Jaibai was, therefore, questioned. In addition to this infirmity, we note that except the oral evidence of these two witnesses, there is nothing on record which would connect the appellant with the murder of the unknown woman. First of all, the evidence of Jaishree (sic Jaibai) P.W. 7 does not inspire confidence. This witness Jaibai has narrated the story in minute details which does not seem to us to be natural. She deposed about arrival of woman whose name she said was Manda, she talks about marriage of Manda with the appellant. She further says that appellant has taken Manda to Nasik. She knows about the incident when Manda returned in presence of Jaishree and when appellant assaulted Manda, she further deposed to have had seen appellant leaving with Manda and followed by his father and also saw appellant returning without Manda. Admittedly, all this did not happen on the same date and time and presence of the said witness on all such occasions was most unlikely. Admittedly, all this did not happen on the same date and time and presence of the said witness on all such occasions was most unlikely. Finally, she deposed that the dead body was of Manda though she did not visit the spot where the dead body of unknown woman was found. Even if the evidence of P.W. 3 and the present P.W. 7 Jaibai was to be accepted, what has been established against the appellant is that he was last seen with woman by name Manda. This circumstance by itself cannot lead to irresistible inference that it was appellant who murdered her particularly when it has not been established beyond reasonable doubt that the body of unknown woman was in fact of Manda the woman who had visited the village. 11. As stated earlier, there is no other incriminating circumstance which could connect the appellant with the crime. It is pertinent to note that in the post mortem examination, 66% burn injuries have also been found on the dead body. The incident in question appears to have taken place below Babul tree. Dead body has been dragged upto one furlong upto the place where it was finally found. Though it was stated that a photograph and a document of hospital were attached from the spot, the evidence in this respect is also not trustworthy. P.W. No. 1 Suryabhan Javale who is signatory to the spot panchanama, stated that he was called as panch at 10 a.m. He further deposed that the Police Officer came on the spot at 11 O'clock on 11-9-1993. He further stated to have signed only spot panchanama and that his signature was not obtained on any piece of paper or photograph, etc. Investigating Officer, on the other hand, has stated to have obtained panch's signature on the photograph which was on record. Photograph and the document, however, do not bear signature of the witnesses. The dead body admittedly was found at 2 O'clock and panchanama was recorded at 5 p.m. The appellant stated in his examination under section 313 that the photograph and document of hospital were attached from him at the time of his arrest. Thus, it is doubtful that the photograph and document were found at the place of the occurrence. 12. The dead body admittedly was found at 2 O'clock and panchanama was recorded at 5 p.m. The appellant stated in his examination under section 313 that the photograph and document of hospital were attached from him at the time of his arrest. Thus, it is doubtful that the photograph and document were found at the place of the occurrence. 12. For the reasons which we have discussed earlier, we find it unsafe to rely oral evidence of P.W. 3 and P.W. 7 with regard to the identity of unknown woman by name Manda who had come to the village. The evidence of P.W. 7, with details about the talks between the appellant, Manda and Jaishree and the assault by appellant on Manda finally taking Manda away does not also inspire confidence. We find it unsafe to conclude on the basis of oral evidence of the only witness P.W. 7 that woman by name Manda had come and stayed with the appellant and that appellant had some motive to do away with her and that it was Manda whose dead body was found on the next day in the field. First of all, oral evidence about the appellant last seen together with Manda is doubtful. Even assuming for the moment that he was seen with one Manda, there is further doubt that it was Manda who was found dead on the next day. Further, even if it was to be assumed that the body of unknown dead woman in fact was that of Manda, still on the basis of appellant having been seen last with Manda in itself is not sufficient to conclude that it was appellant who committed murder. The circumstantial evidence falls short to conclude irresistibly that it was the appellant and appellant alone who committed the crime. 13. For these reasons, we feel that this is a case in which appellant has to be given benefit of doubt. 14. In the result, we allow the appeal and set aside the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under section 302 I.P.C. and the sentence of imprisonment for life imposed upon by him by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Beed in Sessions Case No. 13 of 1994. The appellant shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. The professional fees payable to Shri P.R. Patil, appointed as amicus curiae, is quantified at Rs. 2,000/-. Appeal allowed. The appellant shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. The professional fees payable to Shri P.R. Patil, appointed as amicus curiae, is quantified at Rs. 2,000/-. Appeal allowed. -----