T. SURYA RAO, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal filed by the appellant-accused No. 2 against his conviction and sentence passed in Sessions case No. 254 of 1996 by the learned sessions Judge, Chittoor, by his judgment dated 5-3-1997. ( 2 ) THE appellant stands convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 304- part II and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (the ipc for brevity) and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years under Section 304-Part-II of the ipc and rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 201 of the IPC and further sentenced to pay a fine of rs. 1,000/- and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. ( 3 ) THE gravamen of the charge against the appellant, who is A2 in this case, and two others was that A1 being the husband, a2 and A3 being the in-laws of the deceased- chinnakka subjected her to cruelty by harassing her physically and mentally in order to secure more dowry from her parents threatened to get A1 married for the second time if the demand of dowry was not fulfilled, and that on 12-7-1995 at 5. p. m. , a2 the appellant herein did commit murder by intentionally or knowingly causing death of the said Chinnakka by squeezing her neck at a well situate to Baipareddlapplle village and thereby A2 committed the offence punishable under Section 302 of the ipc; A1 to A3 committed the offences punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition act. ( 4 ) AS all the accused abjured the guilt and denied of having committed any offence when the charges were read over to them, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses. ( 5 ) THE case of the prosecution as unfolded by the testimony of the witnesses, in brief, may be stated thus: pw1 is the father; and PWs. 2 and 3 are the brother and sister of the deceased. A1 is the husband; and A2 and A3 are the in-laws of the deceased. The marriage of the deceased was performed with A1 about three years prior to her death. After the marriage, the deceased joined A1 and lived with him happily. 2 and 3 are the brother and sister of the deceased. A1 is the husband; and A2 and A3 are the in-laws of the deceased. The marriage of the deceased was performed with A1 about three years prior to her death. After the marriage, the deceased joined A1 and lived with him happily. Two months after the marriage, the deceased came back to her parents house having been brought by A1 demanding some more dowry to be paid. A1, who demanded payment of dowry, did not specify the amount. However, PW1-the father of the deceased paid an amount of Rs. 2,000/- to A1 through one Shaik Basheer a village elder. Therefore, the deceased was taken back by A1 to his house. ( 6 ) ABOUT six months thereafter, again A1 brought the deceased to her parents house and the deceased informed PW2 that a2 and A3 also used to beat her for not bringing dowry. PW1, therefore, paid an amount of Rs. 1,000/- to A1 in the presence of the said Basheer. Again A-1 took the deceased alongwith him to his house. ( 7 ) ABOUT one year thereafter, A1 brought the deceased back to her parents house demanding payment of some more amount as dowry. PW1 then paid an amount of Rs. 5,000/- in the presence of one Beejan bee - a social worker. Again the deceased was taken by A1 and PW2 accompanied them. ( 8 ) WHILE the deceased was in the house of A1, A1 sent one Nagaraju to the house of PWs. 1 to 3, who informed them that the accused had already seen another girl to be married by A1 for the second time. By then, the deceased was six months pregnant. When PW2 questioned A1 about the said proposal for the second marriage, a2 replied that as they were in need of money, they wanted to perform the marriage of A1 for the second time. When the deceased was seven months pregnant, she was brought to the house of her parents but a1 took her away saying that his wife should not be in their house. The marriage of PW2 was performed some time later. A1 who had attended that marriage raised a dispute for extra dowry amount and went away without attending the marriage. When the deceased was seven months pregnant, she was brought to the house of her parents but a1 took her away saying that his wife should not be in their house. The marriage of PW2 was performed some time later. A1 who had attended that marriage raised a dispute for extra dowry amount and went away without attending the marriage. ( 9 ) ON the day of occurrence at about 4-00 p. m. , while the deceased was washing clothes near a well, A2 came there and there ensued a quarrel between them. PW6, who was by then working in the nearby fields, saw A2 closing the mouth of the deceased with his hand. Then he went near them but a2 asked him to go away. Therefore, PW6 went away. On the same day, A2 came and asked PW5 to follow him to the well. When pw5 enquired him about the reason, without disclosing the same, he was asked to follow alongwith four or five others. A2 informed all of them that his daughter-in-law (deceased) fell into the well and died. PW5 arid another immediately brought pathalaberi as to take out the dead body, from the hut of A2, which is by the side of the well. Thereafter, A2 asked PW4, who was present there, to inform the same to pw1. Accordingly, PW4 informed PWs. 1 to 3 about the death of the deceased. All of them went and saw the dead body of the deceased. By then, the blood was coming from the ear of the deceased. It is the further case of the prosecution that the deceased knew swimming. Suspecting the foul play, PW1 went to the Police Station and lodged a report with PW13 the Sub- inspector of Police on 13-7-1995 at about 1-00 p. m. , under Ex. P1. PW13 registered the case as Crime No. 56 of 1995 and issued ex. P7 FIR. PW14 the Sub-Divisional Police officer took up investigation in this case. On the requisition given by him to PW12 the Mandal Revenue Officer, he held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of PW10 and others and exp6 Inquest Report was drafted there. The dead body was then sent through PW11 constable to the Doctor-PW9 for conducting autopsy. On the requisition given by him to PW12 the Mandal Revenue Officer, he held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of PW10 and others and exp6 Inquest Report was drafted there. The dead body was then sent through PW11 constable to the Doctor-PW9 for conducting autopsy. Accordingly, PW9 conducted postmortem examination and found the following external injuries on the person of the dead body of the deceased:"1. An abrasion of size 1 cm. x 1 cm. over the right lower eye lid. Red in colour. 2. Contusion over the left elbow joint extending upto the lower 3rd of upperarm and upper 3rd of forearm. 3. Contusion over the right elbow joint extending upto the lower 3rd of upper- arm and upper third of forearm on the front side. "on internal examination, the Doctor-PW9 found fracture of right horn of hyoid bone. The Doctor ultimately opined that the deceased would appear to have died due to cardio pulmaranary arrest due to asphyxia due to smothering about 1 to 2 days prior to the post-mortem examination and issued ex. P5 post-mortem certificate. PW14 after completing investigation eventually laid the charge-sheet. ( 10 ) THE plea of the accused is one of total denial. ( 11 ) AS aforesaid, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses and exs. Pl to P8 and MOs. 1 to 4 were not marked. None was examined on the side of the accused and no documents were got marked. ( 12 ) CONSIDERING the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, and after having heard on either side, the learned sessions Judge, Chittoor, acquitted all the accused of the charges under Section 498-A of the IPC and under Section 4 of the dowry Prohibition Act. However, the learned Judge convicted A2 alone for the offence punishable under Sections 304, part II and 201 of the IPC. Having been aggrieved by the conviction and sentence passed against him, the accused No. 2 filed the present criminal appeal. ( 13 ) THE apparent cause of death of the deceased in this case is that she died due to drowning in the well. Having been aggrieved by the conviction and sentence passed against him, the accused No. 2 filed the present criminal appeal. ( 13 ) THE apparent cause of death of the deceased in this case is that she died due to drowning in the well. The medical evidence let in by the prosecution through the Doctor-PW9 who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, on the other hand, shows that the deceased died asphyxial death due to smothering due to cardio pulmaranary arrest associated with some external injuries like abrasions and two contusions. The Doctor-PW9 ruled out in his evidence that the death of the deceased was due to drowning into the well. This evidence of the medical witness has not been shaken in any way in the cross- examination and there are no compelling reasons for this Court to disbelieve the clear and cogent evidence of the Doctor. It is obvious that the deceased in this case died a homicidal death and it is not a case of suicidal or accidental death. The question, therefore, crops up for determination is as to who are responsible for the death of the deceased. ( 14 ) AS afore discussed, in view of the order of acquittal of all the accused for the charges under Section 498a of the IPC and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition act as there is no State Appeal, the volume of evidence that has been sought to be placed before the Court on the point of harassment and cruelty demanding dowry by A1 to A3 is not germane for consideration. So as to bring home the guilt to the accused No. 2 on the charge of murder, the prosecution is relying upon the testimony of PW6 the main witness in this case. The prosecution is further relying upon the evidence of PWs. 3 to 4 so as to show the circumstances about the conduct of A2 in taking them to well for taking over the body of the deceased without disclosing them till they reached the well about the death of the deceased and then sending a word to PWs. 1 to 3 that the deceased died by falling into the well knowing pretty well that the deceased died a homicidal death. Therefore, the evidence of these witnesses PWs. 4 to 6 are now got to be appreciated. 1 to 3 that the deceased died by falling into the well knowing pretty well that the deceased died a homicidal death. Therefore, the evidence of these witnesses PWs. 4 to 6 are now got to be appreciated. ( 15 ) PW6 is the main witness for the prosecution. According to this witness, while he was working in his fields near the well, he saw A2 and the deceased quarrelling each other near the well and he could see A2 closing the mouth of the deceased by his hand. His evidence further shows that when he went near A2, he (A2) asked him to go away. This is the only piece of evidence available on record through this witness-PW6. In the cross-examination, this witness stated that he had not protested when A2 wanted him to go away and he simply went away. Further, in his cross- examination he stated that on the day of occurrence, when he was examined, the police also examined five more persons and before the police when the five witnesses pleaded that they did not know anything about the offence, the police beat them and that later he (PW6) was examined by the police in the village in the first instance and he was again examined in the police Station on Sunday evening. On the crucial aspect of the evidence, this witness omitted to state in his previous statement before the police, namely, that he saw A2 closing the mouth of the deceased. This omission has been duly proved through the evidence of PW14 the Investigating Officer. With the type of evidence available on record, which does not inspire the confidence of the Court, it is difficult to place any implicit reliance upon the testimony of this witness PW6. Furthermore, this witness was not examined immediately, but on the next day. There has been no cogent explanation coming forth from the side of the prosecution as to the delay in the examination of this witness, which further casts an impregnable mist of doubt upon the testimony of this witness. ( 16 ) COMING to the evidence of PW4 and PW5 deposed that A2 came to him and asked him to follow to the well without disclosing the reason and on the other hand informed him that there was an important work. ( 16 ) COMING to the evidence of PW4 and PW5 deposed that A2 came to him and asked him to follow to the well without disclosing the reason and on the other hand informed him that there was an important work. His evidence further shows that when he followed A2 to the well along with four or five others, at the well he was informed that his daughter-in-law fell into a well and died. Thereafter, his evidence further shows that the attempts have been made to bail out the body and then to bring out of the well on to the ground. The evidence of PW4, on the other hand, shows that after bringing out the body from out of the well, A2 asked him to immediately go to the house of pws. 1 to 3 so as to inform them that the deceased died by falling into the well. Even assuming for a moment that the evidence of this witness can be taken on its face value, two circumstances are emerging from out of this evidence, namely, (1) that A2 knew that the dead body of the deceased was in the well and without informing the same, took pws. 4 and 5 to the well; and (2) that A2 sent the false information to PWs. 1 to 3 through PW. 4 that the deceased died by falling into the well. Whether these two circumstances coupled with the evidence of PW6, which shows that there was a quarrel between A2 and the deceased at the well are sufficient enough to establish the case of the prosecution or not, is the moot question. ( 17 ) AS afore discussed, the deceased in this case died homicidal death. Even taking into consideration the other circumstances enumerated above, as having been established, it arouses a suspicion as to how A2 came to know about the death of the deceased and the presence of the dead body of the deceased in the well. The well obviously is situate in a public place, to which place according to the evidence on record the deceased went so as to wash the clothes. I can understand that the deceased died homicidal death in the house where there was no access for others except the inmates. The well obviously is situate in a public place, to which place according to the evidence on record the deceased went so as to wash the clothes. I can understand that the deceased died homicidal death in the house where there was no access for others except the inmates. From out of the circumstances enumerated supra, a legitimate inference can be drawn that there is a case where the deceased died at a well were the public has every access. Therefore, exclusive knowledge on the part of A2 cannot be attributed. Under the circumstances, the other circumstances discussed supra would only raise a strong suspicion about the knowledge of the death of the deceased on the part of A2. ( 18 ) THE suspicion, however strong it might be, cannot take the place of proof. A2 has been charged with the offence of murder which is the heinous of all other crimes and, therefore, it requires a greater degree of proof. The graver the offence, the stronger the proof that is required, is the cardinal principle. The suspicion, as discussed by me supra, is not sufficient enough to bring home the guilt to A2 beyond all reasonable doubt. Like any other public, a2 must have also been known about the death of the deceased and the offence cannot be attributed to him. The Court below after having drawn several surmises and conjectures without there being any valid basis from out of the circumstances has ultimately come to the conclusion that it is a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, punishable under Section 304, Part II of the IPC. That takes away the intention on the part of the accused to kill the deceased. For the foregoing reasons, it is not safe to place reliance upon these circumstances to draw the necessary interference, which can unerringly point out the guilt towards the appellant-accused and the appellant-accused alone. That takes away the intention on the part of the accused to kill the deceased. For the foregoing reasons, it is not safe to place reliance upon these circumstances to draw the necessary interference, which can unerringly point out the guilt towards the appellant-accused and the appellant-accused alone. ( 19 ) IT is well settled by a catena of decisions by now that where the prosecution relies upon the circumstantial evidence, the circumstances shall be proved to the hilt beyond all reasonable doubt in the first instance and the proved circumstances shall not give rise any other interference than the one which is consistent with the guilt of the accused and that there shall be a chain of events that shall be placed before the Court from the beginning to the end and there shall not be any missing of link in between and the proved circumstances should point out the guilt of the appellant- accused and the appellant-accused alone. Applying these tests, if the evidence of pws. 4 to 6 is appreciated coupled with the medical evidence, which clearly shows that the deceased died a homicidal death, it is not possible to complete the chain and the circumstances are such that they are not giving rise the one and one inference, which is compatible with the guilt of the accused. Therefore, the appellant-accused, in my considered view, is entitled to every benefit of doubt. ( 20 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the criminal appeal is allowed and the conviction and the sentence passed against the appellant-accused are hereby set aside. The appellant-accused shall be set at liberty if he is not required in any other case. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled and the fine amount, if any, paid by him shall be refunded to him.