Per S.K. Gupta, J: 1. We have heard Mr. J.A. Qazmi, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Ashok Parihar, learned Addl. Advocate General for respondents-State. 2. This criminal appeal is by the husband of deceased, who has been convicted for committing her murder and sentenced imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 500/- for offence under Section 302 Ranbir Penal Code, Svt. 1989 (1932 A.D.) by Sessions Judge, Jammu vide his judgment dated: 19-10-1994. The prosecution case as standing out of the record depicted in narration is that accused, Sharief-ul-Hassan, who happens to come from Utter Pradesh, was residing with his wife at Gujjar Nagar, Jammu. The appellant, though was married to the deceased forever 16 year ago, but they had no issue. The deceased, though a house-wife, also used to stitch cloths for others. The appellant has been borrowing a table fan from Shamim Hyder during night, who happened to live in the same locality with his wife. Fatima Parveen, and returned in the morning. On the fateful day, when the fan was not returned in the morning, Shamim Hyder himself went to the house of the accused to collect the fan, but returned as the doors of the room were still closed After sometime, he went again alongwith his wife Fatima Parveen and saw the deceased was lying on the cot and the accused was not seen there According to the prosecution, both the accused and the deceased were together in the room during night. On a verbal report lodged by Shamim Hyder at 9.30 A.M. on 16-05-1991 with Police Post Pirmitha, a case under Section 302 Ranbir Penal Code, Svt. 1989 (1932 A.D.) was registered with Police Station, City, Jammu against the accused-appellant. The autopsy report discloses that the deceased, Nasim Fatima, died of strangulation. The accused was apprehended by the police while making an attempt to escape from Jammu. On the conclusion of investigation, it was found that at least accused had caused the murder of his wife by throttling. He was finally sent up to stand his trial for alleged offence under Section 302 Ranbir Penal Code, Svt. 1989 (1932 A.D.) and the leaned Trial Court found him guilty under Section 302 Ranbir Penal Code, Svt. 1989 (1932 A.D.) and the appellant was sentenced for this offence accordingly. 3. Mr. He was finally sent up to stand his trial for alleged offence under Section 302 Ranbir Penal Code, Svt. 1989 (1932 A.D.) and the leaned Trial Court found him guilty under Section 302 Ranbir Penal Code, Svt. 1989 (1932 A.D.) and the appellant was sentenced for this offence accordingly. 3. Mr. J.A. Qazmi, learned counsel for the appellant, argued that there being no direct evidence, the circumstantial evidence relied upon by the Trial Court does not warrant conviction His further submission is that in cases depending largely on circumstantial evidence, there is always a danger of the conjecture of suspicion may take the place of legal proof and such suspicion, however, so strong cannot be allowed to be watchful and ensure that conjecture and suspicion do not take the place of legal proof. But before relying upon circumstantial evidence, it must be established that it forms a complete chain so as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused. Lastly, it was submitted that when the main clank in the circumstantial evidence gave away, no conviction could be sustainable. 4. Mr. Ashok Parihar, learned AAG, on the other hand, argued that the circumstantial evidence depended upon by the prosecution is consistent, cogent and conclusively points towards the guilt of the accused that it was accused alone who had killed his wife. 5. To base the conviction of the ace--used, the circumstantial evidence relied upon by the Trial Court is: i) The accused and the deceased had been living together as husband and wife at the place of occurrence; ii) They were together at night; iii) Medical evidence relating to the cause of death of the deceased; and iv) Conduct of the accused. 6. The evidence relied upon by the prosecution in order to prove that the accused and the deceased have been together in the room during night, where the occurrence took place, consisted of the statements of Shamim Hyder and his wife Mst. Parveen Akhter, PWs. Shamim Hyder is the brother of the deceased, Nasim Fatima. The evidence provided by this witness to the effect that the deceased was married to the accused over 16 years ago. That no child was born out of this wedlock and the accused used to scold and hold her responsible for this. Parveen Akhter, PWs. Shamim Hyder is the brother of the deceased, Nasim Fatima. The evidence provided by this witness to the effect that the deceased was married to the accused over 16 years ago. That no child was born out of this wedlock and the accused used to scold and hold her responsible for this. The accused every evening used to borrow table fan from PW Shamim Hyder during night, which was returned every morning. The accused had collected the fan from his house in the evening as usual and when it was late in the morning to return the fan, the witness himself went to the house of the accused to collect the fan, but when found the door closed, returned. This witness alongwith his wife after about half an hour again went to get back the fan and were surprised to see that their sister was lying on a cot and the accused was not seen in the room. The evidence of the PW Shamim Hyder has fully confirmed the testimony of his wife. Their evidence remained uncontroverted in cross-examination. It has, therefore, been consistently and cogently proved from the testimony of both these witnesses that the deceased and the accused had been residing in the room together as husband and wife, where the occurrence took place and were also together at night where the dead body of the deceased was found in the morning of 16-05-1999. Both these witnesses, however, denied when suggested by the prosecution that they had not seen the accused to have strangulated the deceased to death and further refuted to make such statement under Section 161 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, Svt. 1989 (1933 A.D.) to the police during investigation. Prosecution, however, declared both these witnesses as hostile and subjected to cross-examination on their specific denial of offence seeing the occurrence. The prosecution, however, could not succeed on eliciting anything from the pungent, cross-examination to dis-credit their testimony or cast any speck of doubt on their veracity. As regards the evidential value of the hostile witnesses, it is now well settled that by giving permission to cross-examination his own witness, nothing adverse to the credit of witness is decided. The witness does not become unreliable by declaring him hostile as to exclude his evidence from consideration altogether. As regards the evidential value of the hostile witnesses, it is now well settled that by giving permission to cross-examination his own witness, nothing adverse to the credit of witness is decided. The witness does not become unreliable by declaring him hostile as to exclude his evidence from consideration altogether. In this context, case Rabinder Kumar Dey vs. State of Orissa, AIR 1977 SC 170, may be noticed. 7. In this case, the fact that the Court gave permission to the prosecutor to cross-examination his own witnesses, thus, characterizing them as what is described as hostile witnesses, does not completely efface their evidence. The evidence remains admissible in the trial and there is no legal bar to base a conviction upon there testimony if found reliable, credible, acceptable and corroborating by other reliable evidence and attenuating circumstances. So the evidence provided by Shamim Hyder and his wife, Mst. Parveen Akhter, PWs, that the accused had been borrowing table fan every night from them and will return to them next morning is a natural statement and remain uncontroverted and unchallenged both in their cross-examination as well as in the statement of the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Svt. 1989 (1933 A.D.). The accused also admitted that he and deceased were residing together as husband and wife and were together on the alleged night of occurrence in his statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Svt. 1989 (1933 A.D.). The prosecution, therefore, succeeded to prove conclusively that they, the accused and the deceased, were living in the same room and were together at the night of occurrence where the dead body of the accused was found in the morning and the accused not seen in that room when PW Shamim Hyder and PW Parveen Akhter had gone there to collect the fan and found Nazim Fatima, wife of the accused, lying dead on the cot. 8. The next circumstance relied upon by the prosecution in the chain of circumstances to prove the guilt of the accused is the cause of death. Dr. Anayatullah conduct autopsy on the dead body of the deceased, Nazim Fatima, and found the injuries on the neck and right shoulder recorded in the post mortem report. He also found that the stomach contained semi-digested ricy food material half eaten. Dr. Anayatullah conduct autopsy on the dead body of the deceased, Nazim Fatima, and found the injuries on the neck and right shoulder recorded in the post mortem report. He also found that the stomach contained semi-digested ricy food material half eaten. He had given the cause of death due to asphyxia, a manual strangulation. He, however, ruled out self-strangulation when suggested by the defence and reiterated emphatically that manual strangulation, which causes compression on neck cannot be suicidal. According to him, the deceased was manually strangulated by the assailant to death and gave homicidal strangulation as cause of death. 9. The accused was not seen in the room when P Ws Shamim Hyder and Mst. Parveen Akhter went there to collect their fan in the morning and found Nasim Fatima lying dead in the said room. It is also found in the evidence that the accused did not return till his arrest from the Railway Station at 11.00 P.M. The accused, however, explained the circumstances in his statement under Section 342 Code of Criminal Procedure, Svt. 1989 (1933 A.D.). in stating that he had gone to pay the call of nature when his wife was still asleep. He had not denied to have been with his wife together in the room during night. The explanation tendered by the accused in his statement under Section 342 Code of Criminal Procedure, Svt. 1989 (1933 A.D.). that he left the room between 4.00/5.00 A.M. when his wife as asleep stands belied by the autopsy report that semi-digested food was found in her stomach, which shows that the death of the deceased much before 5.00A.M. Further statement of the accused that he had gone to answer the call of nature also stands falsified by the fact that in that event, he was expected to return home. The accused, however, did not return till his arrest at the Railway Station, wherefrom he would leave Jammu as was suspected by Investigating Officer, Mumtaz. 10. Therefore, the entire conduct of the accused in this case from the time he left the deceased in the house, did not come back whole day and arrested at the Railway Station wherefrom in making an attempt to leave Jammu by train, when taken together in its cumulative are incriminating to destroy the presumption of his innocence. 10. Therefore, the entire conduct of the accused in this case from the time he left the deceased in the house, did not come back whole day and arrested at the Railway Station wherefrom in making an attempt to leave Jammu by train, when taken together in its cumulative are incriminating to destroy the presumption of his innocence. It was for the accused to put forth explanation with regard to the death of his wife since he alone was with her during night in the said room. It was also further for the accused to show how she died and why did he abscond. All these facts when taken together point a accusing finger towards the accused that he alone took the advantage and strangulated his wife when she was in asleep. 11. However, the conduct of the accused is relevant under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. His normal conduct should have been to return home when, according to the accused, he had gone to answer the call of nature in the morning between 4.00 to 5.00 A.M. when his wife was asleep. Secondly, it was also for the accused to explain how his wife had died when the accused and his wife were both together during night in the said room. It was also for the accused to explain why did he disappeared and did not return till his arrest. It is, thus, clear that the accused ran away from the place of occurrence after killing the deceased. The explanation tendered by the accused that he returned in the home in the evening and PW Shamim Hyder took him to the Police Station is rendered untrue and false in the absence of any such suggestion neither made to the witness during cross-examination nor put to the Investigating Officer, Mumtaz, who stated to have arrested the accused from the Railway Station. Their evidence in this effect, therefore, remained uncontroverted. According to Mr. J.A. Qazmi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the prosecution has not succeeded to established the guilt of the accused beyond any pale of doubt i he absence of the accused from the room, the place of occurrence, and other circumstances assembled by the prosecution only create a suspicion against the accused which does not take the place of a proof so as to hold him guilty of killing his wife. His further submission is that the accused, in such circumstances, is entitled to benefit of doubt. Mr. Qazmi, learned counsel, rightly stressed that there is no force in the prosecution circumstantial evidence since no one had seen the accused killing his wife, Mst. Nasim Fatima, by strangulation. 12. The critical rule of proof by circumstantial evidence, counsel remind us, is that such testimony can be the probative basis for conviction only if one rigorous test is satisfied. The circumstances must make so strong a mesh that the innocence of the accused is wholly excluded and on every reasonable hypothesis the guilt of the accused must be the only inference. 13. The question then is, whether the cumulative effect of the guilt pointing circumstances, in the present case is such, that the Court can conclude, not that the accused may be guilty, but he must be guilty. We must here offer a word of caution about this mental sense of must lest it should be confused with the conclusion of every contrary possibility. In the case of S.S. Bobade Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC 2622, the Apex Court explained that proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot be distorted into a doctrine of acquittal when any delicate or remote doubt flits past a feeble mind. It was further pointed out by the Apex Court that the rule of benefit of reasonable doubt does not imply a frail willow bending to every whiff of hesitancy. We must take a practical view of legitimate inference flowing from evidence, circumstantial or direct. The Apex Court, at the same time, also held in Kali Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1973 SC 2773, that if a reasonable doubt arises regarding the guilt of the accused, the benefit of that cannot be withheld from him. To form a strong chain of sure guilt pointing the accused, link after link must be forged firmly by credible testimony of the witnesses. Each link taken separately may just suggest but when hooked on to the next and on again may manacle the accused inescapably. It is only then can a concatenation of incriminating facts suffice to convict a man. 14. The contention raised by Mr. Qazmi, therefore, is devoid of substance to merit consideration. Coming to the case in hand, here are certain incontrovertible facts. It is only then can a concatenation of incriminating facts suffice to convict a man. 14. The contention raised by Mr. Qazmi, therefore, is devoid of substance to merit consideration. Coming to the case in hand, here are certain incontrovertible facts. The accused and the deceased resided as husband and wife in the room and were together during night. The accused was found absconded until his arrest at 11 O™clock at night from the Railway Station while attempting to leave Jammu. The plea of the accused he had come back in the evening wherefrom he was taken by Shamim Hyder to the Police Station is belied by the statements of Investigating Officer and Shamim Hyder. All these incriminating circumstances including the conduct of the accused coupled with the medical testimony conclusively establish the guilt of the accused beyond hilt particularly when natural likelihoods were brought on record or elicited on the evidence of the witnesses to neutralize the incrimination available from these circumstances. No reasonable inference but theoretically possible. The accused has killed his wife by strangulation in conclusion reached by the Trial Court, as rightly held him guilty. The sentence, in our view, does not call for interference either. 15. In the result, we are, therefore, in agreement with the finding of the Trial Court and confirm the finding of awarded sentence. This appeal, therefore, is dismissed and the conviction made and sentence awarded by the Trial Court is confirmed. Both the appeal as well as Reference made by the Trial Court are disposed of accordingly.