JUDGMENT A. S. NAIDU, J. — This Jail Criminal Appeal is directed against an order of conviction of the appellant for offences under Secs. 302 and 404, IPC for having committed murder of one Raja Goudani (hereinafter referred as "the deceased") and for misappropriating her golden ornaments on 1.9.93 at Kendudhipa jungle near village Nuagada in the district of Ganjam. 2. Shorn of all the unnecessary details, the short facts are : Rama Gouda, the husband of the deceased used to tend goats. He along with his son used to take goats to different places for grazing and return in late afternoon everyday. The deceased as a matter of course, used to carry food for them at noon. On 1.9.93, the deceased took food for her husband and son to Kendudhipa jungle where they were grazing the goats. Rama and his son took their afternoon meals and thereafter, the deceased returned carrying the utensils and some left-over food. It is stated in the FIR that the deceased was wearing a Khasu mali (gold coins stung with thread), a gold sorisa mali with locket, a pair of gold ear-flowers and a pair of nose ornaments made of gold. Unfortunately, she did not reach her house. In the evening Rama and his son returned home and on query their daughter Gita Goudani informed that the deceased has not returned. Rama thereafter along with some of the villagers went in search of the deceased towards Kendudhipa jungle. They discovered the dead-body of the deceased lying on the side of the road half concealed with stones and earth. There were extensive injuries on the face and head of the deceased. The gold ornaments except one ear-flower were missing. Rama Gouda (P.W.6) lodged an FIR which was scribed by Gopal Krishna Gouda (P.W.7) before the O.I.C. Sorada police station on the next day i.e. on 2.9.93 morning and a case was registered. 3. While the investigation was in progress, P.W.8, Arjun Behera disclosed that on 1.9.1993 while he was gossiping with one Dibakar Behera and Biswanath Behera, the accused approached him and wanted to pledge a gold "Sorisa Mali" for Rs. 500/-. After being satisfied that it was made of gold, P.W.8 sent one Baya Gouda to bring Rs. 500/- from his house which was brought by his son Dillip Kumar Behera. 500/-. After being satisfied that it was made of gold, P.W.8 sent one Baya Gouda to bring Rs. 500/- from his house which was brought by his son Dillip Kumar Behera. P.W.8 wrapped the Sorisa Mali in a paper, wrote the name of the accused, kept it and paid Rs. 500/- to the accused. It is stated that on the said date he heard rumour that Raja Goudani has been murdered and her golden ornaments were stolen. Suspecting that the accused has committed the murder and that the Sorisa Mali which was pledged with him may belong to the deceased, he produced the same before the village meeting held at village Nuagada in the night of 2.9.1993 and disclosed that the deceased has pledged the said "Sorisa Mali" and borrowed a sum of Rs. 500/- from him. The villagers who were attending the meeting sent for Rama Goudo and his daughter Gita Goudani. Both of them identified the said Sorisa Mali to be that of the deceased. The said "Sorisa Mali" was seized by the police on the next day in the house of the Sarpanch. Thereafter, the appellant was arrested and charge-sheet was submitted against him under Secs. 302, 201/404 of IPC. 4. The prosecution, in order to prove their case, examined as many as 11 witnesses out of which Rama Gouda, the informant, is P.W.6, Gita Goudani (P.W.1) and Ganesh Gouda (P.W.2) are their daughter and son of the informant respectively. P.W.3 is a seizure witness and also a witness leading to discovery. P.W.4 is the J.M.F.C. who conducted T.I. parade with regard to Khasu mali. P.W.5 is the doctor who conducted post mortem examination. P.W.7 is the scribe of the FIR, P.W.8 is the person with whom the accused had pledged the Sorisa mali of the deceased, P.W.9 is a witness who saw the accused coming from the side of Kendudhipa jungle on the date of occurrence, P.W.10 is the constable and P.W.11 is the Investigating Officer. 5. The post mortem report as well as the deposition of P.W.5, the doctor who conducted the post mortem, reveal that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature and it was caused due to the assault made with a stone (M.O.III). 5. The post mortem report as well as the deposition of P.W.5, the doctor who conducted the post mortem, reveal that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature and it was caused due to the assault made with a stone (M.O.III). There were a lacerated wound over left temporal area including left ear with scalp flapped, one lacerated wound over vestibular and one incised wound over back of the root of right ear. All the injuries were opined to be ante mortem in nature and that the death was caused due to subdural haematoma. 6. The facts narrated in the FIR and the evidence adduced in Court clearly reveal that there is no direct evidence connecting the accused with the crime and the entire case hinges on circumstantial evidence. Law is well settled that conviction can be based on the basis of circumstantial evidence, if the same is trustworthy and establishes facts and circumstances the combination of which does not admit of any inference other than that of the guilt of the accused. The Apex Court in the case of Hargum Sundar Das v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1970 SC 1514 held that the Court would, of course, be well advised in case of circumstantial evidence to be watchful and to ensure that conjecture or suspicions do not take the place of legal proof. The chain of evidence to sustain a conviction must be complete and admit of no reasonable conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. It has been further held that before conviction, based solely on circumstantial evidence can be sustained, it must be such as to be conclusive of the guilt of the accused and must be incapable of explanation on any hypothesis consistent with the innocence of the accused. The Apex Court in the case of Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 1952 SC 343 , held that the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. 8. The Apex Court in the case reported in AIR 1976 Supreme Court 69 (Mohmood v. State of Uttar Pradesh) observed that when the case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence, such evidence must firmly satisfy three tests. 8. The Apex Court in the case reported in AIR 1976 Supreme Court 69 (Mohmood v. State of Uttar Pradesh) observed that when the case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence, such evidence must firmly satisfy three tests. They are : (a) that the circumstances from which the inference of guilt is to be drawn, have been fully established by unimpeachable evidence beyond a shadow of doubt; (b) that the circumstances are of a determinative tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; and (c) that the circumstances, taken collectively, are incapable of explanation on any reasonable hypothesis save that of the guilt sought to be proved against him. 9. In the present case, the learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of P.W.8 and the admission said to have been made by the accused while in custody, which led to recovery of some other gold ornaments, as well as the evidence of P.W.9 who deposed that on the date of occurrence, he saw the accused coming from the side of Kendudhip jungle in a hurry, came to a conclusion that the accused intentionally committed the murder of the deceased and dishonestly misappropriated the golden ornaments which were in possession of the deceased at the time of her death so that he can pay the amount borrowed by him by pledging his cycle in the Town. The Court below held him guilty under Secs. 302 and 404 of IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Secs. 302 and 2 years for the offence under Sec. 404 of IPC. However, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused appellant from the charge under Sec. 201 of IPC holding that the prosecution has totally failed to establish the said charge. 10. Considering the oral evidence in the light of the dictum of the Apex Court, quoted supra, we find certain missing links in the chain of events which throw a cloud of suspicion to conclusively infer that the appellant is guilty. The facts which raise our suspicion are : (i) P.W.8 is the only witness who has deposed regarding pledging of "Sorisa Mali" by the accused with him. No other witness was examined to corroborate the said fact though as would appear from the evidence of P.W.8 Deepak Behera and Biswanath Behera were present with him when the accused approached. The facts which raise our suspicion are : (i) P.W.8 is the only witness who has deposed regarding pledging of "Sorisa Mali" by the accused with him. No other witness was examined to corroborate the said fact though as would appear from the evidence of P.W.8 Deepak Behera and Biswanath Behera were present with him when the accused approached. Further neither Baya Gouda nor the son of P.W.8 Dillip Behera who brought Rs. 500/- has been examined. Thus, except the sole statement of P.W.8, there is no other evidence connecting the deceased with the "Sorisa Mali". (ii) P.W.8 himself has deposed that he is not a habitual money lender and no evidence is adduced to reveal that in fact P.W.8 used to keep the gold ornaments in mortgage and advance the money. (iii) Though the prosecution allege that the petitioner took Rs. 500/- from P.W.8, out of which he sent Rs. 250/- to get his cycle released, the balance amount has not been seized. To add to it, the person with whom it is alleged that the petitioner sent Rs. 250/- to the town to get his cycle released (Simahchal Bisoi) has not been examined. (iv) The evidence reveals that P.W.8 suo motu appeared and produced the "Sorisa Mali" for the first time, in the meeting of the village which was attended by nearly about 200 villagers. However, no one has been examined to substantiate the case of the prosecution. (v) A lonely middle aged woman walking through a isolated forest in the noon wearing so many gold ornaments is also a strange circumstance. (vi) The sorisa mali was seized on production by P.W.8, in the house of Sarpanch on 3.9.1993. 11. The investigating officer stated that the accused while in custody confessed before him about the crime and disclosed the place where the ornaments were kept and the same were seized in presence of P.W.3, the seizure witness. The said fact was not supported by the seizure witness, who was declared hostile. 12. The only other witness examined to connect the occurrence with the accused-appellant is P.W.9 who is admittedly a man of another village. He has not expressed as to how and why he came to the village on the date of occurrence when he claims to have seen the accused hurriedly coming from the side of Kendudhipa jungle. P.W.9 is a chance witness. 13. He has not expressed as to how and why he came to the village on the date of occurrence when he claims to have seen the accused hurriedly coming from the side of Kendudhipa jungle. P.W.9 is a chance witness. 13. The accused in Court has taken a plea that due to political rivalry, he has been falsely implicated. It is stated that he belongs to Congress party and the Sarpanch of the village belongs to different political party, the Sarpanch taking advantage of the fact that the deceased was murdered in the forest planted the said occurrence upon the accused though the accused is innocent. 14. The specific plea taken by the accused coupled with the circumstances narrated supra, creates a doubt with regard to the involvement of the accused appellant with the crime. 15. It would thus appear that the Court below has failed to appreciate that the circumstantial evidence relied upon by it did not complete the chain of circumstances so as to support the sole hypothesis that the appellant committed the murder of the deceased. The circumstantial evidence on which conviction is based, cannot be said to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the appellant committed the murder. Several links are missing to complete the chain of circumstances and add to it, the circumstances relied upon did not answer the well-established test that where evidence is circumstantial, it must be consistent with the sole hypothesis that the accused is guilty of the crime charged. (See AIR 1977 SC 1120 : Bhagabandas Agarwalla v. Bhagwandas Kanu and others). 16. In the light of the above discussion, we are of the view that the circumstantial evidence basing on which the prosecution have staked their case, is too shaky, suspicious and fragile to furnish a sound foundation for conviction of the appellant. 17. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence are set aside. Since the accused-appellant is in jail from 1993, he be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. P. RAY, J. I agree. Appeal allowed.