Judgment R.G. DESHPANDE, J.:---Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Judge, Panaji-Goa, the appellant/accused has approached this Court through the present appeal. The appellant is convicted for offences punishable under section 302 and section 379 of Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life for the offence under section 302 and also is imposed fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months more. For the offence under section 379 I.P.C he is to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and, in default, to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment. Needless to mention that the sentences are to run concurrently. 2.The prosecution case, in short, is that on 5th of March, 1997, between 9.45 hours and 12.30 hours, during the day time, the accused with a motive of committing theft assaulted one Smt. Lazarina, wife of Marcelino Correia, with a wooden piece having the shape like a cricket bat. The injuries were caused on her head and the accused thereafter committed theft of one National Panasonic transistor worth Rs. 350/- from the house of the said victim Lazarina, who succumbed to the injuries on the spot itself. 3.According to the prosecution, the present appellant/accused Shantappa alias Santosh, since about a month and half prior to the incident was working in a hotel run by one Abraham, the son of Mrs. Lazarina, the deceased. It is alleged by the prosecution that along with the accused, there were other four persons working in the hotel of the deceased. All these employees were provided with residential facilities in the precincts of the residential premises of the deceased herself. The prosecution further alleges that on 4th March, 1997, as usual, the husband of Lazarina with his daughter-in-law and the servants, except the appellant, left for the hotel early in the morning in their tempo. The accused on the pretext that he was not keeping good health and had an upset stomach, stayed behind and did not go on the job on that day. The prosecution alleged that Smt. Lazarina gave some medicine to the accused on that day and also further arranged to send him to the hospital with one passer-by who was going on his bicycle. The prosecution alleged that Smt. Lazarina gave some medicine to the accused on that day and also further arranged to send him to the hospital with one passer-by who was going on his bicycle. All through the day on 4th March 1997, the accused remained to home and did not go on duty. 4.According to the prosecution, the alleged incident is of 5th March, 1997 and on that day, as usual, early in the morning, Marcelino, the husband of the deceased, along with his daughter-in-law and four servants left for the hotel which is run under the name and style of "Hungry Mac" situated at Vasco-da-Gama. On this day also, the accused complained about his upset stomach and did not go to work. After Marcelino along with his other servants and daughter-in-law left for the hotel, at about 7.30 Abraham also along with his mother left for his office. From the record it is clear that generally, Abraham, on his way to office, used to drop his mother to the Church on scooter and as has come on record, daughter of Abraham was also with him at that time. It is clear that Lazarina, the deceased, used to go to the Church for Mass every day in the morning and generally used to return by 8.30 a.m. On the fateful day also, there appeared to have been no change in the abovesaid programme and Lazarina had gone to the Church for Mass. On her way back, she was dropped at home at about 9.30 a.m., by one Jerry Correia who is examined as P.W. 22 in this case. As per the prosecution, after Mrs. Lazarina reached home, it appears that the alleged incident took place wherein it is alleged that she was given a severe beating with a wooden bat and she succumbed to the injuries. It is also alleged by the prosecution that the accused in the same morning was seen playing with the same said bat. It is also established on the record that certain construction work was going on, on the first floor of the house of Marcelino Correia and his wife Lazarina. Some labourers were already working on the first floor and one of them was working in the Courtyard of Lazarina. It is also established on the record that certain construction work was going on, on the first floor of the house of Marcelino Correia and his wife Lazarina. Some labourers were already working on the first floor and one of them was working in the Courtyard of Lazarina. 5.The prosecution story is that the accused on very same day was seen leaving the place of offence and he had factually left the very township along with bags and baggages which was seen by one Chandrakant P.W. 3, a contractor who had taken the contract of doing the work on the first floor of the house of the deceased. 6.P.W. 15, Salvador Dias, on the basis of the information given to him by Andrew Vaz, P.W. 13, reported the matter to the Police Station of Goa Velha. It was about 12.40 noon. This oral report of P.W. 15 Salvador Dias was reduced into writing in the Station Diary by the Station House Officer Ajish Nagori who is examined as P.W. 28 in this matter. This report is at Exhibit P.W. 28-A on page 150 of the paper book of this appeal. From this report it is absolutely clear that Salvador Dias had narrated all the details as regards the death of Lazarina and he has specifically mentioned that somebody had murdered her and that the body was lying in the bathroom. This report makes it clear that the police authorities were aware of the fact through this report that the lady had died there on the spot and the same was so declared by P.W. 7, one Dr. Arnaldo Milagres Feranandes who had declared that Lazarina had already expired there only. We are narrating in detail about this report with a specific intention to find out as to whether was it a First Information Report or not, or the report which is given by Abraham P.W. 1 at Exhibit P.W. 1-A at page 39 of the paper book is the First Information Report. We will deal with this aspect in the judgment at an appropriate stage subsequently. 7.It is clear from the record that there is one another report which is lodged by P.W. 1 Abraham Correia. We will deal with this aspect in the judgment at an appropriate stage subsequently. 7.It is clear from the record that there is one another report which is lodged by P.W. 1 Abraham Correia. As per this report, Abraham after narrating details about his residence and business, mentioned in his report that one worker Santosh whose full name was not known to Abraham was working in his hotel since last one and half month. Santosh came from Karnataka. Abraham narrated that on 4-3-1997, Santosh did not go to work. On 5-3-1997 also, according to the complainant, as usual, the father of the complainant along with four other workers, namely, Devidas Gawde, Mario, Vijay and one another left for Vasco at about 6.15 a.m. At about 7.20 a.m. Abraham left the house long with his mother Lazarina Correia and daughter Lusia Correia. Luisa was said to be 6 years of age at the relevant time. Abraham further stated that he dropped his mother near the Post Office at Agassaim and he went to Vasco with his daughter. According to him, Santosh was in his room when Abraham left along with the mother and daughter. The house of the deceased was no doubt closed as is made clear in the report itself. 8.As per this complainant at about 12 noon, while the complainant was in his office, his father Marcelino Correia came to the office of the complainant and informed him that there was a theft in their house. According to Abraham, he immediately rushed to the house where he saw many people had gathered and then he came to know that his mother Lazarina was murdered. The complainant stated that he entered the house and saw his mother lying dead in the toilet in pool of blood with very many injuries on her head and back. According to this complainant, in the toilet he saw a mixer of Sumeet make, a rubber chappal, a plastic jug and piece of cloth which were full of blood. He further narrated in his complaint that a wooden cricket bat was found in a newly constructed toilet adjacent to the abovesaid toilet. He further narrated that the bedroom of his mother was ransacked. Two cupboards were open and the handle of the safe was also broken. He in the complaint mentioned that he saw a pick axe on the spot near the safe. He further narrated that the bedroom of his mother was ransacked. Two cupboards were open and the handle of the safe was also broken. He in the complaint mentioned that he saw a pick axe on the spot near the safe. In the said same complaint he further narrated that he suspected Santosh who must have killed his mother by assaulting her with wooden bat on her head. We feel it necessary to make a reference to an important fact here itself that this complaint though bears the date 5-3-1997, unfortunately, it does not bear the timing as to when it was lodged in the Police Station. No doubt, the Station House Officer who appears to have accepted the complaint, has put the timing while signing the same at 12.45 hours. On the basis of the complaint, P.S.I. Sammy Tavares who has been examined as P.W. 31 at record page 156, set the investigation into motion. On that day, he recorded the statements of about 13 persons. Prior to that, he drew a sketch of the spot and also seized very many articles which according to him were necessary for the prosecution case. The articles which were seized from the spot are a mixer, one creamish plastic mug, one black shirt, one greenish underwear, one rubber chappal, one wooden bat, one pinkish colour long sleeve shirt, one bunch of long black hair, one piece of steel handle of safe, one pick axe with wooden handle and a cotton lungi which was according to him blue and greenish. Spot panchanama was prepared by this witness P.W. 31 which is Exhibit P.W. 2-A. The map which he drew of the scene of occurrence is Exhibit P.W. 2-B. 9.After having seized the abovesaid articles, as usual, necessary formalities of sending the same to chemical analyser were completed. The accused was arrested on 26-3-1997 at Bijapur in Karnataka in Hotel "Satkar" where he was working as Waiter. Two keys were recovered from the accused and thereafter, the accused was brought to Goa. It has come on record that the accused volunteered to discover the articles such as a piece of cloth which he had concealed under a bush and the briefcase which he had carried, which according to him, was kept at Vasco in the house of the Hasanappa Sangali. It has come on record that the accused volunteered to discover the articles such as a piece of cloth which he had concealed under a bush and the briefcase which he had carried, which according to him, was kept at Vasco in the house of the Hasanappa Sangali. After completion of investigation and after having received the necessary reports, charge sheet was filed in the Court under sections 302 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code on 23rd of June, 1997. The case was committed to the Sessions Court and the learned District and Sessions Judge, Panaji, framed the charge on 23rd July, 1997 under sections 302 and 379 of Indian Penal Code. 10.The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 11.The prosecution, in all, examined 31 witness in this matter on its behalf. However, pertinent it is to note that there is no eye-witness to the alleged incident and the case totally rests on the circumstantial evidence that is brought on record by the prosecution. Therefore, while reading through the evidence as is brought by the prosecution and since the evidence is absolutely of circumstantial nature, this Court will have to dissect the same no doubt with eagle's eye and surgeon's fingers. Maximum caution will have to be taken while scanning this evidence so as to find out as to whether there exists satisfactory evidence to connect the accused with the alleged crime. 12.The evidence will have to be divided into three compartments. First, the evidence of those witnesses who tried to connect the accused with the alleged offence. We have no hesitation to mention here at this stage that the prosecution has tried to bring maximum number of witnesses to indicate the involvement of the accused in the alleged crime. The second compartment will be the medical evidence on the record. And the third one will be the evidence of the investigating machinery. 13.The prosecution has examined P.W. 1 Abraham, the son of the deceased Lazarina. This witness in his deposition has stated that on 4-3-1997, as usual, his father, his wife and workers, except the accused, left at 6.15 a.m. The accused had said to him that he was having loose motions and as such, he would stay back. According to this witness, his mother Lazarina gave some tablets to the accused along with black tea. According to this witness, his mother Lazarina gave some tablets to the accused along with black tea. Abraham further stated in his deposition that he and his mother along with his daughter also left at 7.30 a.m. He dropped his mother near the Post Office of Agassaim from where she went to the Church to attend the prayers. According to this witness, at about 12 noon on that day, i.e. on 5-3-1997, his father came to his office at Vasco and told him that some robbery had taken place in their house. This witness stated that upon the information of his father he and his father and his wife i.e. Abraham's wife, left for their house. On reaching home, they found a crowd there. This witness narrated that in the morning while going to the office his mother had locked the house and the accused at that time was in the out house which is separate from the main house. He has further stated in his deposition that, as usual, his mother returned at 8.30 a.m. This witness further narrated that on seeing the crowd, he entered the house as its front door was open. After going inside the house, he saw his mother lying in the toilet in a pool of blood. Then he narrated very many things which he witnessed in the toilet which were lying there. He stated that his mother had bleeding injuries on her head. He also described the bat which was seen by him in the adjoining new toilet. He further narrated about he having seen in the bedroom a broken handle of the safe and two open cupboards. He, in his deposition, stated that he noticed one red colour radio (transistor) with the shape like telephone was missing. He further states that his mother had the habit of collecting five rupees coins, which according to him, were found missing. 14.This witness subsequently in his examination-in-chief identified the bat, i.e. M.O. 6 as also Sumeet Mixer, M.O. 1. He also identified the plastic mug, M.O. 2 and the broken handle of the safe, M.O. 9. He also identified the radio, M.O. 16, and pick axe M.O. 10. He also identified the chappal as, according to him, it belonged to his mother. However, surprisingly, he stated that he did not know the colour of the chappal of his mother. He also identified the plastic mug, M.O. 2 and the broken handle of the safe, M.O. 9. He also identified the radio, M.O. 16, and pick axe M.O. 10. He also identified the chappal as, according to him, it belonged to his mother. However, surprisingly, he stated that he did not know the colour of the chappal of his mother. This witness also identified the lungi and the shirt, which according to this witness, the accused was wearing on that day in the morning. He thus identified the clothes of the accused, i.e. M.O. 7 and M.O. 11, respectively. 15.This witness was cross-examined at length wherein he had to admit that he did not remember to have met the accused in the morning of 5-3-1997. He has further stated that he even did not remember as to whether he met the accused on the previous evening, i.e. 4-3-1997. He stated that M.O. 6, the wooden bat, belonged to his son who used to play with it. The age of the son was 12 years at the relevant time. He has further stated about the construction work which was going on, on the first floor. According to him, there were three workers working on the day of the incident. However, according to him, there used to be five workers. Before parting with the evidence of this witness, we would like to specifically point out that this witness has nowhere stated in his deposition as to how did his father come to know about the alleged incident. This witness has also not make it clear in his deposition as to where were his two daughters and the son. It is also pertinent to note that when this witness has specifically stated in his cross-examination that he did not remember as to whether he met the accused on the previous evening i.e. on the evening of 4-3-1997 and also did not remember as to whether he met the accused early in the morning of 5-3-1997, as to how he could specifically remember the dress the accused had worn on that morning. It is also pertinent to note that this witness has nowhere referred to the name of Chandrakant to whom the contract was given and who according to the prosecution, was regularly visiting the site. It is also pertinent to note that this witness has nowhere referred to the name of Chandrakant to whom the contract was given and who according to the prosecution, was regularly visiting the site. This witness Abraham in his complaint surprisingly has not made a reference as to where were his wife Aida and his son, because he in the complaint has not made a reference to the name of his wife who along with the people had left the house on the morning on that day for going to the Hotel. This witness is also silent as regards the whereabout of his son and two daughter. 16.In the background of the deposition of P.W. 1, it would be appropriate to refer to the evidence of P.W. 18 Marcelino Correia who is the father of P.W. 1 Abraham. Marcelino is examined at Exhibit 24. As per this witness, he came to know about the incident at the hotel at Vasco-da-Gama. According to this witness, he was with his brother Clement in the Hotel when he received message on phone, that his house was robbed. This witness further states that he came home at Agassaim along with his brother Clement on a motor cycle. This witness thereafter referred to the incident of 5th March, 1997 and also of 4th March, 1997. He also refers to the incidents that his wife had given some medicine to the accused. This witness further stated that after having returned along with Clement to home, he saw many people gathered there. He stated that he entered the house from the front door. He further narrated that he was told by the people who has gathered there that his wife was murdered. He further narrated about the injuries which he saw on the person of his wife and further that she was lying in pool of blood. He further narrated that after going to the bedroom he found that the bed was made helter skelter and the handle of the safe was lying broken on the ground. He further narrated about the mixer which was lying in the kitchen. This witness further specifically stated that some coins were found missing. However, besides that, nothing was stolen from the house. 17.This witness in his cross-examination had to specifically state that he did not tell anyone that Santosh murdered his wife. He further narrated about the mixer which was lying in the kitchen. This witness further specifically stated that some coins were found missing. However, besides that, nothing was stolen from the house. 17.This witness in his cross-examination had to specifically state that he did not tell anyone that Santosh murdered his wife. However, according to him, people told him that Santosh had murdered his wife. However, he was not in a position to name a single person who had told him that Santosh had murdered his wife. The statement of this witness was recorded by the police on the same day and again on 20th of March, 1997. He further stated that he was taken by the police to Mangor near the place where the police authorities alleged to have seized the briefcase and the transistor. This witness stated that he did not enter the hut but; the transistor was shown by the police to him outside the hut. One pertinent thing to be noted is that neither P.W. 1 nor P.W. 18 say anything about the missing of any ornaments either from the house or from the person of the deceased. It would be appropriate at this stage itself to make a reference to the fact that it is very difficult to reconcile the statements of these two important witnesses, Abraham and Marcelino. Abraham stated that his father had gone to the office of Abraham, reported about the theft and Abraham with his wife and father left for home. Abraham is absolutely silent as regards the presence of Clement either in his Office along with the father or even at his home when he reached there. On the other hand, P.W. 18 surprisingly stated that on hearing the news he straightaway along with his brother Clement on the motor-cycle of the brother, reached home. This P.W. 18 does not say that on his way he had been to the office of Abraham and he along with Abraham and Abraham's wife had gone home. Sufficient it would be to say that above all, this witness Clement, who is alleged to be the brother of Marcelino, is not examined in this case by prosecution. It is also further pertinent to note that who did telephone Marcelino in his Hotel is also not mentioned anywhere by Marcelino in his deposition. Sufficient it would be to say that above all, this witness Clement, who is alleged to be the brother of Marcelino, is not examined in this case by prosecution. It is also further pertinent to note that who did telephone Marcelino in his Hotel is also not mentioned anywhere by Marcelino in his deposition. A passing reference will have to be made here as regards finding of the mixer in the kitchen and not in the toilet to which reference is made by this witness. Through the evidence of Abraham and other witnesses it is brought on the record that the mixer was said to be lying in the toilet whereas this witness is absolutely confident about the mixer having been found lying in the kitchen. These minor details will have to be seen through the evidence of various witnesses as it is a case which totally rests on circumstantial evidence, as narrated earlier. 18.The other material witness is P.W. 3 Chandrakant Shetkar. He is a contractor, who had undertaken the work of construction on the first floor. This witness stated that he knew Lazarina, the deceased. He had engaged four workers for the construction work on the first floor. Those workers were Sadashiv, Ulhas, Shanker and Janu. He has further narrated that Janu usually used to work on the ground for clearing the sand and the other three used to work on the first floor. According to this witness, he on 5-3-1997, at about 9.00 a.m., went to the site of construction. He saw deceased Lazarina was returning home on motor-cycle of someone. After reaching home, according to this witness, the lady had gone to the first floor to see the work. Thereafter, she called Chandrakant to her house for a cup of tea. Chandrakant requested the deceased to switch on the motor pump for sprinkling the water on the construction work. However, the lady had directed Chandrakant himself to get the motor switched on. He said that at about 9.30 a.m. , one woman had gone to the house of Lazarina calling her Lazarina. That lady had some talk with the deceased. However, this witness was not in a position to know as to what it was about. Thereafter the said woman had left. This witness stated that thereafter, he and Shanker continued sprinkling water on the first floor. That lady had some talk with the deceased. However, this witness was not in a position to know as to what it was about. Thereafter the said woman had left. This witness stated that thereafter, he and Shanker continued sprinkling water on the first floor. 19.According to Chandrakant, at about 11.30 a.m., one Valerian P.W. 19, a relative of the deceased, had come to the house of the deceased and had started calling her. However, since there was no reply, this Valerian asked Chandrakant where the deceased was. Chandrakant told him that she was inside the house. This witness Chandrakant stated that in the morning, at about 9 O'clock, this witness had seen the accused playing with a bat and ball and at that time the accused was wearing a lungi and a pink shirt. According to him, Valerian kept the fish in the house of the deceased but he did not know where. Chandrakant left the site at about 11.30 a.m. as he had to go to bring the fish from the market. This witness stated that at about that time he saw the accused carrying a briefcase and a lungi in his hand and rushing from the said house towards the road. This witness, however, when asked, could not narrate the clothes which the accused had on his person. He specifically stated he did not remember now what clothes the accused was wearing at that time. This witness returned from the market at about 12 noon and he saw a crowd just outside the house of the deceased. He was told by someone that Lazarina had been killed by someone and that she was put in the toilet. This witness said that when he entered the house he found the deceased lying all covered with blood. In cross-examination this witness had to specifically admit that he did not know the woman who had gone to the house of Lazarina in the morning and as to how long she was in her house. He stated that he did not know if till 11.30 a.m. that lady was there in Lazarina's house or not. He further stated that he did not know from which side of the house Valerian had left the home of the deceased. He stated that it was Valerian's son who told him about the murder of Lazarina. He stated that he did not know if till 11.30 a.m. that lady was there in Lazarina's house or not. He further stated that he did not know from which side of the house Valerian had left the home of the deceased. He stated that it was Valerian's son who told him about the murder of Lazarina. It is pertinent to note that when asked about the clothes which Valerian had put on at that time, this witness frankly admitted that he did not remember about the same. 20.According to the prosecution, this witness P.W. 3 is one of those persons who saw first the accused going away from the house of the deceased. He is the person who has tried to identify the clothes on the person of the accused at that time. It is worth to note that this witness was on the spot right from 9.30 in the morning till 11.30 and as per his own saying moving here and there in the premises. However, according to this witness, he first saw the accused playing with bat and ball and thereafter he saw the accused leaving the place of occurrence. But for these two occurrences, he does not appear to have noticed the whereabouts of the accused nor does he say that anything unusual had happened in the house. He does not say if there was any screaming, shouting or any other noise of any sort coming from the house of Lazarina. We have to specifically make a reference to this aspect because we are dealing with such type of injuries alleged to have been inflicted by the accused, which in ordinary course cannot be caused without there being some type of noise, shouting or screaming. 21.The next witness who is said to be a material one, is P.W. 10 Janu , who is examined at Exhibit 16. This witness Janu was working as Helper to the contractor Chandra, i.e. P.W. 3. He stated that he knew the accused who was working in the Hotel of Abraham at Vasco-da-Gama. This witness stated that he was doing the work of sieving the sand for the purposes of cementing. He stated that the accused was residing in a room near the house of Abraham. He stated that on the day of the incident, P.W. 3 Chandra left the construction site at about 11.30. This witness stated that he was doing the work of sieving the sand for the purposes of cementing. He stated that the accused was residing in a room near the house of Abraham. He stated that on the day of the incident, P.W. 3 Chandra left the construction site at about 11.30. He is a witness who confirms the presence of Chandra on the spot till 11.30. According to this witness the accused followed him ( he wanted to suggest that the accused followed Chandrakant). At that item, according to the witness, the accused was wearing a shirt and carrying a bag in his hand. According to this witness, while going, the accused told him that the accused was going home. On having been asked as to when he would return, the accused had stated that he would return after a month. According to this witness, at that time the accused was wearing a lungi. He stated that he would identify the bag, the lungi and the shirt, if shown to him. He further identified M.O. 15 the bag, M.O. 11 the lungi and M.O. 7 the shirt. This witness, however, surprisingly, stated that he did not notice or he was not aware if anybody had gone to the house of the deceased with fish having been brought from the market. He further stated that Chandrakant was there upto 11.30 and according to him, it was the habit of Chandra to go at the site at 8.30 a.m. On the day of the incident also, Chandra had gone to the site of work at 8.30 a.m. and till 11.30 a.m. he was there. This witness, however, denied to have seen Chandra going on the ground floor of the house of the deceased and talking to her. This witness stated that he saw the accused coming from his own room when he had told this witness that he was going home. According to this witness, he was taken to the Police Station twice for recording his statement and there was a gap of 12 days between the two statements. According to him, the accused had left at about 11.30 a.m. . This witness stated that the man who had gone to the house of Lazarina along with the fish, left the house around 12 noon. According to him, the accused had left at about 11.30 a.m. . This witness stated that the man who had gone to the house of Lazarina along with the fish, left the house around 12 noon. However, he stated that he did not know the said person nor could he see as to what were the clothes on the person of that. However , this witness does not say that he had seen the accused either going or coming out of the house of the deceased. He does not say having seen any blood stained clothes on the person of the accused. The blood stained lungi is seized from the room where the accused was staying with other his co-workers. With this evidence, we will have to find out as to whether is this evidence that strong to connect the accused with the alleged crime. 22.Andrew Vaz was P.W. 13. He is the witness who reached the spot of occurrence much earlier in point of time than any other witness. As per this witness, he was going from Bambolim to Agassaim. It was at about 12 to 12.30 noon. On the way he met a lady named Lucy who told him that father of Andrew had told her that there was a theft in the house of Abraham. He, therefore, proceeded to the house of Abraham where he witnessed his father sitting in the compound of the premises of the deceased. His father's name is Valerian Vaz who is examined as P.W. 19. According to this witness, the front door of the house of Abraham was closed and, therefore, he was required to enter from the back door which was open. Since he did not find anyone in the house he called in the name of his aunt Lazarina. However, since there was no reply, both the father and the son came out. This witness stated that he had told his father not to touch anything on the spot. By the time, some people had gathered. Andrew told those people that he was going to the Police Station to lodge a complaint. However, some members of the gathering advised this witness that he should search for Lazarina first. He made enquiries from the labourers who were working there as to whether they had seen Lazarina. The reply was in the negative. Andrew told those people that he was going to the Police Station to lodge a complaint. However, some members of the gathering advised this witness that he should search for Lazarina first. He made enquiries from the labourers who were working there as to whether they had seen Lazarina. The reply was in the negative. This witness stated that he again entered the house from the back door and on search after pushing open the door of the toilet, he saw his aunt who had fallen down with her head downwards and legs upwards. She was badly injured. Blood was oozing from the injuries. He saw that there was mixer and a mug lying in the toilet. He told the incident to the other people who had gathered there. He, thereafter, told that he was going to the Police Station. On way he met one Salu, the Sarpanch of Village Panchayat, Agassaim. He narrated the incident to this Salu and asked him to give complaint to the Police Station and to take the Doctor to the house of Abraham. He proceeded to Vasco to bring the family members of Lazarina. He says that he returned with Abraham and his wife. He narrated about the ornaments which were on the person of Lazarina. He further narrated that he was told by the labourers on the site that they had seen the one worker from the Hotel going out in between 10.30 to 11.00 a.m. . 23.There are very many discrepancies in his deposition and, particularly, when he was confronted with the omissions in his statement made to the police, he could not satisfactorily explain the same. It is pertinent to note from his deposition that he had gone to fetch Abraham and his wife. However, as we have seen earlier, Abraham does not refer to the name of this witness at all. 24.In this chain the other relevant witness would be P.W. 15 Salvador Dias. This witness stated that Andrew had told him that he should take some Doctor to the home of Lazarina. According to this witness, Andrew had told this man that Andrew had broke open the door of the toilet to find out his aunt. 24.In this chain the other relevant witness would be P.W. 15 Salvador Dias. This witness stated that Andrew had told him that he should take some Doctor to the home of Lazarina. According to this witness, Andrew had told this man that Andrew had broke open the door of the toilet to find out his aunt. He is the person who had first reported the matter to the police to which we have already made a reference, which is Exhibit P.W. 28/A. According to him, his report was reduced into writing by the Station House Officer. In his cross-examination, surprisingly, this witness has stated that the toilet door was latched from inside when he went there. This witness has further stated that he had gone to Dr. Arnaldo and took him to the house of Lazarina. According to this witness, Dr. Arnaldo verified and declared that Lazarina was dead. It is clear from the record that the police report which he made was definitely after he had first visited the house of Lazarina and after Doctor having declared Lazarina dead. 25.P.W. 17 Mario Dias is one of the workers in the Hotel of Abraham who used to reside with the accused in the room. He stated that all those five waiters working in the Hotel of Abraham were residing in the same room. He corroborated the story that on 4th of March, 1997 the accused did not go to work. He further narrated that on 5-3-1997 at about 11.30 a.m. a phone call was received in the Hotel informing about the murder of Lazarina. He stated that the phone was received by Aida, the wife of Abraham and according to this witness, she returned home with Abraham. He is a witness who is said to have identified Muddemal Object No. 7, a pink shirt and Muddemal Object No. 11, a lungi. This witness is specifically silent about the conduct, behaviour and steps taken by the father of Abraham. He does not say that it was Abraham's father who had received the phone call and that at that time Clement the uncle of Abraham was also present in the Hotel. This witness does not say anything about as to who had made the phone call. He does not say that it was Abraham's father who had received the phone call and that at that time Clement the uncle of Abraham was also present in the Hotel. This witness does not say anything about as to who had made the phone call. If the deposition of these witness is tried to be reconciled or tallied with each other, it is absolutely clear that all of them are at variance in material particulars and in such circumstances, we will have to be very much cautious in accepting the evidence of these persons, much less to connect the accused with the alleged crime. 26.P.W.19, Valeriano, who is examined by the prosecution, is the husband of the sister of the deceased. As per this witness, at about 9 a.m., he had gone to the house of Lazarina who gave him Rs. 30/-. He saw Chandrakant working on the site. There were other five or six workers working there. Between 10.45 and 11.00 a.m., he returned with fish and straightaway entered the house of Lazarina from the back door. He does not say as to what was the position of the front door, as to whether it was closed or not. After entering the house, he narrated that he saw the gas was on. He, therefore, switched off the gas burner. According to this witness, there was nothing which was kept on the gas when it was on. He further narrated that he kept the fish in the kitchen and got out of the house through the back door itself and was sitting in the verandah of the house of Lazarina for about one hour and, thereafter, he went back of his home. The conduct of this witness really does not inspire confidence as regards the truthfulness of this witness. This conduct does not appear to be natural and that of a normal man. 27.P.W. 19 Valeriano does not say that he searched for Lazarina in or around the house. This conduct of him does not appears to be probable. It was only after the wife of this witness told him to go back and find out about Lazarina, he returned to the house of Lazarina after 5 to 10 minutes, he saw many people had gathered there in front of the house of Lazarina. This conduct of him does not appears to be probable. It was only after the wife of this witness told him to go back and find out about Lazarina, he returned to the house of Lazarina after 5 to 10 minutes, he saw many people had gathered there in front of the house of Lazarina. This witness told that by that time Andrew also had reached there and a talk as regards robbery was going on. He further narrated that, thereafter, he saw Lazarina lying in the toilet. In the cross-examination, this witness tried to improve by saying that he went to his home at about 11.00 a.m. He further stated that he might have been sitting there for only about 15 minutes. We are unable to place any reliance on this witness for the very simple reason that the alleged incident has occurred in between 11.30 a.m. to 11.40 a.m.. According to this witness, as disposed by him in his chief, he had gone to buy fish at about 11 o'clock or quarter to 11 and for about an hour he was sitting in the compound of Lazarina's house. If something untoward was happening in the house during that period, this witness definitely would have noticed the same or, at least, would have heard the sound though not of shouting but at least of pushing of something or breaking or falling of something, the safe was broken, the lady was seen in the toilet, her neck was tied with a wire of a mixer. Taking into consideration the injuries on the person of the deceased, it is impossible to conceive of the idea that all this must have happened as if in a soundproof home. 28.P.W. 21 appears to have been examined just for the sake of getting certain articles identified, i.e. the lungi and the shirt of the accused. But for this, it appears that there was no other intention on the part of the prosecution to examine this witness. He happened to be a regular visitor of the house of the deceased as they were neighbours. This witness used to go to the house of the deceased to collect "dhon" (pig feed). But for this, it appears that there was no other intention on the part of the prosecution to examine this witness. He happened to be a regular visitor of the house of the deceased as they were neighbours. This witness used to go to the house of the deceased to collect "dhon" (pig feed). As per this witness, when he went to collect "dhon", he saw the accused coming from the back side of the house and the accused had told this witness that Lazarina was not there in the house and she had gone to Vasco. This witness when he returned thereafter came to know about the murder of Lazarina. Pertinent it is to note that when confronted with his police statement, this witness had to accept that he did not tell the police as to what was the dialogue between him and the accused. He does not say that he saw the accused coming out of the house of the deceased nor does he say that the clothes on the person of the accused were blood stained. If there was merciless beating, it is impossible that there would have not been blood stains or sprinkles of blood on the person and the clothes of the accused. 29.Jerry Correia, P.W. 22, is examined to show that he reached the lady to her house on his motor-bike in the morning after her prayers in the Church. P.W. 30 Shankar Sawant is examined to show that he was there on the spot as he was working on the site. However, this witness does not say anything material insofar as the alleged involvement of the accused is concerned. On the other hand, as per this witness, Chandrakant was present at the site till 12.00 o'clock and only thereafter Chandrakant left to fetch fish from the market. According to this witness, he did not identify the accused as he did not know him. Surprisingly, this witness has stated that he heard some noise down below to the effect that somebody had murdered a lady. However, inspite of this, according to this witness, he did not go on the ground floor to find out as to what had happened. For what better purpose this witness has been examined by the prosecution is best known to the prosecution itself. 30.The second compartment of the evidence is that of investigation. However, inspite of this, according to this witness, he did not go on the ground floor to find out as to what had happened. For what better purpose this witness has been examined by the prosecution is best known to the prosecution itself. 30.The second compartment of the evidence is that of investigation. Near about 12 witness on this point are examined. P.W. 2 Xavier Gracias is a panch witness on the panchanama of scene of offence which is Exhibit P.W. 2/A. He admitted that he had no occasion to know Santosh, i.e. the accused. This witness identified blood-stained Shirt, Muddemal object No. 3 and the grinder Muddemal Object No. 4 which lying in the toilet. He identified the chappal, Muddemal Object No. 5. Wooden bat was also identified by him which is Muddemal Object No. 6. He also identified the Shirt, Muddemal Object No. 7. So far as regards this witness is concerned, he has specifically stated that the shirt which is said to have been found which was of pink colour was about 8 to 10 metres away from the toilet where the dead body was found. According to this witness, all these articles were blood-stained. The second witness on this panchanama is one Hilary John Perira, who is not examined by the prosecution. P.W. 8 is examined by the prosecution in proof of the investigation. P.W. 23 is the Police Photographer who snapped the spot of occurrence. 31.P.W. 11 is panch witness for the recovery of the shirt, briefcase, the radio, full pant and two belts, which according to the prosecution were recovered as per the discovery made by the accused himself. However, it would be appropriate, before dealing with this aspect, to deal with the point as to how the accused and where he was arrested. As per the prosecution, P.S.I. Sammy Tavares, P.W. 31, received the information that the accused was at Bijapur in Karnataka State. This information he received sometime on 25th of March, 1997. He, therefore, along with two panchas proceeded to Bijapur in a private jeep. At Bijapur, he arrested the accused in "Satkar" Hotel where the accused was working as a waiter. Arrest panchanama was prepared in presence of panchas. Two keys were seized from the accused. 'Exhibit P.W. 20/A is the said panchanama. Luis D'sa, P.W. 24 and one Rajendra, P.W. 20 were the panch witnesses. At Bijapur, he arrested the accused in "Satkar" Hotel where the accused was working as a waiter. Arrest panchanama was prepared in presence of panchas. Two keys were seized from the accused. 'Exhibit P.W. 20/A is the said panchanama. Luis D'sa, P.W. 24 and one Rajendra, P.W. 20 were the panch witnesses. Panchanama was prepared at the Hotel "Satkar" and the statement of the Hotel owner was also recorded. Accused was brought back to Vasco. According to this witness, the accused took the investigating party to the spot where according to the prosecution, the accused had kept concealed the cloth piece hidden in the gap in between the wall under the bushes. According to this witness, he attached the same. Thereafter, the accused took the Investigating Officer to Mangor Hill, Vasco, to the house of one Hasanappa Chalwadi. This Hasanaapa's house was situated in a slum. A briefcase was attached from the hut which according to the accused belonged to him. In the said briefcase, it is alleged that a transistor was found which is alleged to have been stolen from the house of Abraham. The briefcase was opened with the keys which were seized from the person of the accused at Bijapur. The cloth piece is said to be Muddemal Object No. 14 and the transistor Muddemal Object No. 16. A white pant was also there in the briefcase and also leather belts which the witness P.W. 31 identified as M.O. 17 and M.O. 18, respectively. Hasanappa's statement is said to have been recorded. However, pertinent it is to note that this man Hasan is not examined by the prosecution. 32.P.W. 31 is cross-examined at length and is totally exposed. It is pertinent to note that this witness appears to have treated P.W. 1'A as the First Information Report which no doubt, makes a reference to the name of the alleged accused. In the complaint referred to above, it is stated "I suspect that the said Santosh must have killed my mother by assaulting her with wooden bat on her head". We are unable to accept this complaint of Abraham as First Information Report. We find that earlier to this, Salvador Dias P.W. 15 had already lodged a complaint of a cognizable offence even before the complaint was lodged by Abraham P.W. 1. We are unable to accept this complaint of Abraham as First Information Report. We find that earlier to this, Salvador Dias P.W. 15 had already lodged a complaint of a cognizable offence even before the complaint was lodged by Abraham P.W. 1. This complaint we have already referred to, which is Exhibit P.W. 28/A which gives details about the alleged incident and particularly about the murder. The wording in the said complaint reads "Lazarina Correia has been killed by someone and yet she is lying in the toilet". In Vernacular, it is like this: "Lazarina Correia konni tori marle ahe ti nannint poddleli ahe". This report lodged by Salvador Dias P.W. 15, in our opinion, is first in point of time and should have been treated as First Information Report by the Police. However, the name of the alleged accused as suspect is missing from the said report. The complaint lodged by Abraham in an improved and modified form, therefore, could not be treated as First Information Report and will have to be treated as a statement of Abraham during the investigation, as the investigation was set in motion immediately on lodging of P.W. 28/A. 33.P.W. 8 is the owner of Hotel "Satkar" of Bijapur in Karnataka State. He stated that the accused was working in his Hotel. P.W. 9 is a launder who had taken the accused to Suresh Kanchan P.W. 8 for the job. P.W. 11 Ramesh Pednekar, is a driver who was panch witness for Exhibit P.W. 11/A for recovery of shirt, briefcase, radio, full pant and two belts. However, from the deposition of this witness there hardly remains any doubt about his being a regular witness for the police. It is also pertinent to note that this Ramesh Pednekar could not even point out as to whom did that hut belong to. P.W. 12 Ludovico Correia is another panch witness at Exhibit P.W. 12/A for the clothes of the deceased which were collected from the mortuary. It is pertinent to note that but for the skirt or frock of the deceased, no other clothes including her undergarments appear to have been attached. 34.P.W. 20 Rajendra Fatarpekar and P.W. 24 Luis D'sa are the two panch witnesses who were taken to Bijapur. It is pertinent to note that but for the skirt or frock of the deceased, no other clothes including her undergarments appear to have been attached. 34.P.W. 20 Rajendra Fatarpekar and P.W. 24 Luis D'sa are the two panch witnesses who were taken to Bijapur. However, it is, after going through the depositions of these witnesses, difficult to believe these witnesses as none of them stated anything material except what has been seized. P.W. 20, no doubt has been totally exposed in his cross-examination when he was confronted with the omissions which were there in his statement. The very presence of this witness was tried to be shown as doubtful at Bijapur with the investigating party. The same is the case as regards the other witness P.W. 24 and we feel it unsafe to rely on these witnesses as both these witnesses were taken from Goa to Karnataka and we have no doubt that they can be conveniently branded as partisan witnesses interested in the success of the prosecution. All through, these witnesses have been with the police party throughout the journey which is said to be overnight journey on their way to Bijapur and whole day journey on the next day while returning to Goa. But for the seizure of the keys and arrest of the accused, these witnesses do not say anything about the incident. 35.P.W. 28 is the Police Constable who at the relevant time, i.e. 5-3-1997, was working as Station House Officer who had recorded the statement of Salvador Dias. According to this witness, after recording the statement of Salvador Dias, immediately the matter was set in motion as he immediately contacted PSI Sammy Tavares (P.W. 31) on wireless informing him about the alleged incident. P.W. 29 is Dhananjay Shetye, Assistant Sub-Inspector, who at the relevant time, was a dog handler in the Police Department. According to this witness, dog squad was called to assist the investigation. However, after going through the deposition of the witness, it is absolutely clear that the dog squad was not of any use in the investigation. 36.The only material witness now, if at all is required to be dealt with, is P.W. 31. He is the Investigating Officer. He made spot panchanama P.W. 2/A, drew the sketch P.W. 2/D and recorded the complaint P.W. 1/A. He drew the inquest report and also recorded the statements of thirteen persons. 36.The only material witness now, if at all is required to be dealt with, is P.W. 31. He is the Investigating Officer. He made spot panchanama P.W. 2/A, drew the sketch P.W. 2/D and recorded the complaint P.W. 1/A. He drew the inquest report and also recorded the statements of thirteen persons. He had to specifically admit that there was no complaint as regards the missing of the coins and hence a complaint of the theft of the coins was not registered. This witness seized the articles which were on the spot and as per the procedure to be followed, all these articles were sent for chemical analysis as all of them were blood stained. He also sent the clothes of the deceased for Chemical Analyser's report as well as the clothes of the alleged accused. 37.On the point of medical evidences, four witnesses are examined by the prosecution. The first witness is P.W. 7 Dr. Arnold Milagres Fernandes. He is a private medical practitioner who examined the accused on 4-3-1997 and had given him medicines for his upset stomach. He is the same Doctor who, on 5-3-1997, at about 12 noon, was taken to the house of the deceased by Andrew, nephew of the deceased, and who after having examined the deceased, declared that she was dead. P.W. 4 is the Medical Officer, Goa Medical College, who took the blood sample of the deceased and reported that it belonged to group "O Rh positive". P.W. 5, Dr. M.V. Mallya, Lecturer in Pathology, Goa Medical Collage, had taken the blood group of the accused reporting it to be "B Rh positive". 38.Dr. E.J. Rodrigues, P.W. 6, a Lecturer in Forensic Medical Science, Goa Medical Collage, is the person who conducted the post-mortem in the present matter. His memorandum of autopsy is at Exhibit P.W. 6/A. A detailed post-mortem report is given by the said Doctor mentioning very many injuries on the person of the deceased and the fractures on the skull. The Doctor has no doubt given a detailed report about the internal injuries also on the person of the deceased. The cause of death as per the Doctor's report is due to cranic cerebral damage (head injury) as a result of impact or forceful blow by a blunt object or surface which was necessarily a fatal one. The Doctor has no doubt given a detailed report about the internal injuries also on the person of the deceased. The cause of death as per the Doctor's report is due to cranic cerebral damage (head injury) as a result of impact or forceful blow by a blunt object or surface which was necessarily a fatal one. Absence of legature marks on the neck or any internal injury correspondings to that, overrules the possibility is using the cord or wire for strangulating or throttling the lady. The cause of death does not show that the death was due to asphixia. The cause of death is shown as injury on the head by blunt object. 39.The learned Advocate Shri Kanekar, appearing on behalf of the appellant, specifically and fairly stated that he does not challenge the medical report as, according to him, it shows the factual position as regards the injuries on the dead body. However, Shri Kanekar definitely argues that the story as regards the use of the Mixer cord has to be totally overruled for there is no reference as regards the injuries due to that cord on the person of the deceased. We have no hesitation in accepting this argument of Shri Kanekar. There is also no doubt that the death was homicidal death. Now the only question that needs to be answered is as to who is the author or who is responsible for causing those injuries. 40.After dealing with the evidence of these various witnesses on different points, we have to find out as to whether is the evidence sufficient to connect the accused with the alleged crime? At the cost of repetition, we have to observe that it is a case totally of circumstantial evidence as no eye-witness was there in the present episode. 41.Ms. Winnie Countinho, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, argued that the involvement of the accused in the present crime is established beyond doubt and in support of her contention, she has no doubt argued that the presence of the accused in the house on the day of the incident has been established by P.W. 10 and P.W. 16 and according to her, by remaining absent from duty and staying at home on 4th and 5th March, 1997 on some false pretext, the accused was preparing a plan to do away with the deceased. For this purpose, she invited our attention to the depositions of the witnesses P.W. 2, P.W. 3, P.W. 17, P.W. 18, P.W. 10 and P.W. 16 about whom have already dealt with in details. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the accused has not offered any explanation as to why he did not go to work on those two days, i.e. 4th and 5th of March, 1997. However, while arguing this with all vehemence, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor failed to point out as to what was that object or intention for which the accused was staying back and was preparing the plan. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor argued that from the evidence of P.W. 10, P.W. 16 and P.W. 3, it is established that the accused left the town immediately after commission of the offence and that too, without informing his master. The argument of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, in our opinion, is very hard to digest. At the most, it could be said that it was just a coincidence that the accused left his place of work or his room, when the lady was murdered. That does not, in any way, in our opinion, would drive us to an irresistible conclusion that it was the accused, and the accused alone who has committed the said murder. 42.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor argues that P.W. 11 identified the packet, the briefcase and also the radio. P.W. 3, according to her, identified the briefcase while the same is the case as regards P.W. 16 and P.W. 10. Merely because the briefcase in the hand of the accused was identified does not mean that the accused had anything to do with the murder. It has already come on record that the said briefcase did belong to the accused himself and it was not the briefcase of anyone else. It is not the case of the prosecution that the briefcase belonged to the family of the deceased. If a thing which belongs to a particular person and if it is identified by the witness that at the relevant time was with that person, it does not mean that he has to be straightaway connected with the alleged crime. It is not the case of the prosecution that the briefcase belonged to the family of the deceased. If a thing which belongs to a particular person and if it is identified by the witness that at the relevant time was with that person, it does not mean that he has to be straightaway connected with the alleged crime. Identification of the other articles which were seized from the spot of occurrence also does not involve the accused in the crime as none of these articles were pointed to be belonging to the accused. The argument of the learned Advocate for the prosecution would have been accepted if it was shown that some of the articles which were seized on the spot did belong to the accused. 43.The argument of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and on which she heavily places reliance was article Muddemal Object No. 11, a blood-stained lungi and article Muddemal Object No. 6, a bat which as per the Chemical Analyser's report or scientific report, discloses blood group "O Rh positive" thereon. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor argued that lungi M.O. 11 and shirt M.O. 7 were the clothes used by the accused. However, in fact, there is no convincing evidence to that effect that these two clothes belonged to the accused, particularly when M.O. 11 was recovered from the room where the accused alone was not staying but there were other four waiters from the same Hotel who were also staying. It is not proved beyond doubt that it was the same lungi which the accused had worn at the time of the alleged incident or immediately prior to that. In fact, the very presence of the accused at the spot of occurance when the alleged crime was committed, itself is doubtful as it is not brought on record beyond doubt to say that it was the accused, and accused alone, who was in the house of the deceased at that time. We have already pointed out that there is not a single witness who has deposed to the effect that anybody of them saw the accused coming out as the house of the deceased at the relevant time, much less with the blood-stained clothes. We have already pointed out that there is not a single witness who has deposed to the effect that anybody of them saw the accused coming out as the house of the deceased at the relevant time, much less with the blood-stained clothes. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor then vehemently argued that the discovery has been established by P.W. 1, P.W. 17, P.W. 21 and P.W. 3 and the articles attached through this discovery at the instance of the accused cannot be disbelieved. With reluctance, we have to say that it is impossible to agree with the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on this point. In fact, the record does not indicate any memorandum as regards the statement of the accused volunteering to discover the articles which, according to the prosecution, were said to have been concealed by the accused. 44.We very doubt the very recovery panchanama which is Exhibit P.W. 11/A on page 90 of paper-book of this Appeal. In this panchanama it is stated that the accused volunteered that "on 5-3-1997 at about 11 hours he killed 'Mummy' i.e. Lazarina with whom he was working, after killing her with wooden bat". This statement, in our opinion, is not at all a statement which can be considered in evidence for any purpose as it is an inculpatory statement made to the Police Officer. The other portion of this statement also, that he pulled her into the toilet with a cord of mixer by putting the same to her neck, is also to be totally ignored. He further stated that he washed the blood from the floor with cloth pieces and left behind some blood stained clothes on the spot. He had hidden one blood stained cloth piece which he has used in cleaning the floor behind room at Agassaim. All these statements which are made to the police to which a reference is made in this Exhibit P.W. 11/A are of no help whatsoever to the prosecution nor can the same be considered to find out the guilt of the accused. 45.The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor further argued that recovery of the briefcase and the radio therein along with other articles at the instance of the accused, has been established beyond doubt. She further argued that it is also established that these articles belonged to the accused and that the radio belonged to Abraham, the son of the deceased. 45.The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor further argued that recovery of the briefcase and the radio therein along with other articles at the instance of the accused, has been established beyond doubt. She further argued that it is also established that these articles belonged to the accused and that the radio belonged to Abraham, the son of the deceased. She further argued that the recovery of blood-stained cloth at the instance of the accused under the bushes near the wall also has been established beyond doubt. For the sake of argument, though we accept that all these articles were recovered, the question still remains at to whether the cloth which was recovered near the wall under the bushes is it established beyond doubt that it belonged to the accused and accused alone ? There is hardly any convincing evidence on this point on record and so far as regards the recovery of briefcase is concerned, we have no doubt that it would be very unsafe to accept this evidence to connect the accused with the crime, particularly when it is not established by the prosecution as to whom did the hut belong, whether the articles recovered from the hut really belonged to accused or to the person who was the owner of that particular hut. The explanation given by the prosecution that the owner of the hut was not available for evidence inspite of best efforts cannot be accepted. In our opinion, the very recovery of these articles is doubtful and hence we do not want to put the life of the accused at stake on such fragile evidence. 46.Another point which now needs consideration in the present case is as regards the alleged confessional statement, which is said to have been recorded by the Executive Magistrate and to which a reference is made by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor in her arguments. The confessional statement is not proved in accordance with law and hence we reject it outright observing that it has no evidentiary value. 47.The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor vehemently urged that the evidence on the record completes the chain of circumstances which points towards the guilt of the accused alone. She argued strictly on the basis of the recoveries and identification of the articles which were seized on the spot of occurrence. We find it difficult to agree with the learned Advocate for the prosecution. Public Prosecutor vehemently urged that the evidence on the record completes the chain of circumstances which points towards the guilt of the accused alone. She argued strictly on the basis of the recoveries and identification of the articles which were seized on the spot of occurrence. We find it difficult to agree with the learned Advocate for the prosecution. In our opinion, no evidence whatsoever on the record is either worth considering or points towards the guilt of the accused. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor in support of her contentions, since the matter pertains strictly to the circumstantial evidence on this point, relied on the following decisions:- 1995 Cri.L.J. 1789 in the matter of (State and others v. Ashok Kumar and others)1. Relying on this judgment it is argued that the circumstances in the case are so glaring and clinching which turns a pointer towards the accused and accused alone so far as his guilt is concerned. In the case cited by the learned Addl. P.P., there were overwhelming circumstances in which there was hardly any scope to commit any error in holding that the accused therein was not guilty of the offence charged with. In that case, the conduct of the widow of the deceased after committing the murder of her husband Mahabir Singh by the appellant Ashok Kumar and staying with him in very many hotels itself was enough to suggest the culpability of the lady in the alleged crime. The evidence in the present case, in our opinion, falls too short to give any suggestion. Another case on the point of circumstantial evidence to which attention is invited is A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 2138 in the matter of (Vasa Chandrasekhar Rao v. Ponna Satyanarayana and another)2, The evidence in that case and as in the case in hand is absolutely different. The argument of the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor that the circumstantial evidence in the present case also justifies an inference of guilt as the circumstances from which such an inference can be sought is incompatible with the innocence of the accused. If we take cumulative effect of the circumstances in the case in hand, we find that it is difficult for us to negate the innocence of the accused or to bring home the guilt to the accused. Attempt is made by the learned Addl. If we take cumulative effect of the circumstances in the case in hand, we find that it is difficult for us to negate the innocence of the accused or to bring home the guilt to the accused. Attempt is made by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor that no proper and convincing explanation has come from the accused in the instant matter as regards his absence on 4th and 5th of March, 1997 and further his leaving the township without informing the master. According to the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, this itself is sufficient to establish or to suspect the accused as guilty. In our opinion, this argument of the learned Advocate cannot be accepted as it would virtually amount to stretch the principles too far. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2000(5) S.C.C. 197 , in the matter of (Joseph Kooveli Paulo v. State of Kerala)3. Relying on this judgment, the learned Addl.. Public Prosecutor argued that the involvement of the accused in the present crime has been established beyond doubt and the chain of circumstances as brought out on the record without any exception points towards the guilt of the accused. However, after going through the said judgment cited by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, we find that this case also is of no help to the prosecution. The circumstances and the circumstantial evidence in that case were so overwhelming which enabled the prosecution to reach to that conclusion and but for that, no other conclusion would have been possible. It appears that in that case, to find out the missing link in the chain of circumstances, the statement of the accused and his blunt denial was taken help of. However, in our opinion, even that type of assistance is not possible in the case in hand if we go through the statement of the accused. The other two cases cited by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor on this point, i.e. A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 733 in the matter of (Subedar Tewari v. State of U.P.)4 and 1995(5) S.C.C. 518 in the matter of (Karnel Singh v. State of M.P.)5 are also of no assistance to the prosecution. As last attempt, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor also brought to our notice the decision of the case if (Naseem Ahmed v. Delhi Administration)6, reported in A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 691. As last attempt, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor also brought to our notice the decision of the case if (Naseem Ahmed v. Delhi Administration)6, reported in A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 691. Resting the argument on this decision, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor argued that ultimately the conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence has to be decided on the totality of the circumstances and a cogent consideration of such circumstances is an essential ingredient. There cannot be any dispute over this proposition nor there can be any second opinion about the same. However, the question is whether if all circumstances available on the record in hand are taken into consideration, would lead to the irresistible conclusion of the guilt of the accused. We have no hesitation in observing that to draw such an inference as regards the guilt of the accused on the basis of the circumstances in the present case would be nothing but a mistake on the part of this Court. We refuse to draw such an inference in the case in hand on the basis of the evidence available. 48.The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor then invited our attention to another point which relates to the motive of the accused. She invited our attention to a decision of the Supreme Court reported in A.I.R. 1997 Supreme Court Weekly 1158 in the matter of (Nathumi Yadav and others v. State of Bihar and another)7. Relying on this judgment, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor argued that it is always not necessary that the motive for a criminal act should be proportionately grave to do a grave crime. She argued that it is quite possible that emotion impelling to do crime would remain undiscoverable or if the motive is established but may appear to be weak by itself would not be sufficient to lead to an inference adverse to the prosecution. After having gone through the facts of that case, we see that it is clear that in that case wherein the accused were charge-sheeted for the offence of murder under section 302 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code, the sufficiency of the motive in relation to the crime was required to be seen. After having gone through the facts of that case, we see that it is clear that in that case wherein the accused were charge-sheeted for the offence of murder under section 302 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code, the sufficiency of the motive in relation to the crime was required to be seen. While dealing with that matter, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that merely because the motive alleged by the prosecution was not strong enough for others to develop such a degree of grudge, would not mean that the assailant had no serious reason to do this. Comparing the case in hand with the cases cited by the learned Advocate, let apart any type of motive as regards committing any murder or causing any injury to the deceased, we even find that there is no motive whatsoever attributed or could be attributed to the accused even for a paltry theft. In our opinion, therefore, this case also is of no assistance to the prosecution in the present matter. Another judgment brought to our notice on the point of motive by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor is the decision reported in 2000 Cri.L.J. 2457 in the matter of (State of U.P. v. Babu Ram)8. If this judgment is minutely read, it is clear that the motive to which a reference is made in that judgment was so glaring that there hardly remained any doubt about the same. In fact, no special efforts were required to be made to find out if there was any motive in the mind of the accused to commit that crime. In our opinion, this citation also on behalf of the prosecution is of no help to it. 49.The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor Ms. Winnie Coutinho further argued that at least the articles which were discovered at the instance of the accused would definitely connect the accused with the alleged crime. In support of her contentions she invited our attention to the decision reported in A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 483, in the matter of (Mohmed Inayatulla v. The State of Maharashtra)9. On the basis of this judgment she argued that in the present case also on the basis of the statement of the accused the search was conducted and articles were discovered. In support of her contentions she invited our attention to the decision reported in A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 483, in the matter of (Mohmed Inayatulla v. The State of Maharashtra)9. On the basis of this judgment she argued that in the present case also on the basis of the statement of the accused the search was conducted and articles were discovered. Having re-appreciated the evidence from this angle again, we have to reluctantly observe that no such statement is made by the accused which is brought on the record which could be said to have set in motion the investigation for search and discovered the articles at the instance of the accused. In our opinion, the memorandum of any type of investigation does not suggest that factually there was any such statement made by the accused which could be said to have been recorded by the Police into writing. In our opinion, citing of Inayatullah's case in the present matter is of no use to the prosecution. We reiterate that the story of discovery at the instance of the accused we have totally rejected. 50.So far as regards the motive to which much importance is tried to be given by the prosecution, we have to observe that it is no doubt true that it is difficult to gather the motive which must have been there in the mind of the accused at the time of committing the crime. However, it cannot be forgotten that if there is a motive there has to be some type of preparation in furtherance of that motive. In the present case, merely because the accused remained absent for two days from duty, that itself is no evidence to draw the inference that he was preparing for something else towards the achievement of his alleged intention to commit theft and to murder the lady if necessary. If the accused would have absconded with a heavy booty in the nature of gold and money, then it could have been possible to say that his lust for money overpowered him which fixed his mind upon liquidating the deceased. 51.In the present case we see that none of the ornaments of the lady are missing. Even her golden chain and other ornaments which were on her person also remained untouched. 51.In the present case we see that none of the ornaments of the lady are missing. Even her golden chain and other ornaments which were on her person also remained untouched. There is no complaint as regards the theft of the coins and if at all some coins were missing it has not come on the record worth how much were the coins that were missing. The transistor which is said to have been stolen it has come on the record that it was also not in a working condition. In such circumstances, we find it very difficult to accept the story of the prosecution that the accused and the accused alone, was responsible for the alleged crime. 52.A feeble attempt is made by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor to suggest that the accused had asked for enhancement in his wages, but the same were turned down by the employer. According to the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor that must have enraged the accused which prompted him to commit such a heinous crime. In our opinion, this is totally an unfounded argument. No evidence, much less, convincing, is brought on the record nor can it be said to be sufficient to attribute the motive to the accused. In our opinion, if the motive is to be judged from the facts and circumstances on the record, the same fall too short to draw such an inference. In our opinion, his conduct might not show his liege towards his master, however that does not mean, he had an intention to do away with the deceased. 53.In our opinion, the evidence on the record is very scanty to prove the guilt of the accused. It would not be an exaggeration to observe that the prosecution has made out a freak story of murder and the alleged accused is unnecessarily being involved therein. In fact, there were very many other persons who had an axis in the house of the deceased and factually the entries of those persons are established on the record. However, there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that anybody saw the accused going and coming out from the house of the deceased. We, therefore, find it very difficult to accept the case of the prosecution. We see no evidence whatsoever on the record to connect the accused with the alleged crime. However, there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that anybody saw the accused going and coming out from the house of the deceased. We, therefore, find it very difficult to accept the case of the prosecution. We see no evidence whatsoever on the record to connect the accused with the alleged crime. 54.In our view, therefore, the Judgment and Order of conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 18 of 1997 against the accused/appellant convicting him for offence punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code and under section 379 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing him under section 302 to imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- or, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 6 months more, and under section 379 to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- or, in default, to undergo 3 months Simple Imprisonment, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Judge referred to above is hereby quashed and set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the offences he is charged with and he be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case. The amount of fine, if any, paid by the accused be also refunded to him. 55.The Appeal is allowed. Appeal allowed. -----