ORDER This is a case where the appellant stands convicted under Sections 302 and 376 of the IPC besides some other minor offences. He was sentenced to imprisonment for life on the major count and rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the next serious count. The High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant. 2. The case against him is that he committed rape on a twenty-four years old house wife named Lakshmi during the wee hours of 9-8-1994. Lakshmi was sleeping with her child during that time as her husband was doing duty outside as a watchmen. The appellant is alleged to have entered the house of the deceased and committed rape on her and strangulated her to death. Her husband PW 1 when returned home at 4.30 a.m. he found his wife lying dead on the floor while the child was sleeping on the cot. He reported the matter to the police on the next morning with the help of his brother PW2. The appellant was arrested on the same evening and he was examined by a doctor who noted some abrasions on his person. 3. The case depends entirely on circumstantial evidence. There is no dispute that Lakshmi was strangulated to death on the night in question but there is no evidence of any rape as PW5 the doctor who conducted the autopsy did not come across any feature of forcible sexual intercourse. 4. The only motive suggested against the appellant is that a couple of days prior to this occurrence, the appellant was also invited along with some other friends for a cocktail party and in that party the appellant became inebriated and thereafter he got himself stripped off and fell outside in a nude condition. Lakshmi took her husband to task for inviting such undesirable elements to the house. 5. Regarding the aforesaid motive there is nothing to show that the appellant knew that Lakshmi expressed resentment to her husband. What PW1 said is that after the appellant departed from the house Lakshmi asked her husband why such persons were brought at the behest of her husband. 6. Nobody had seen the appellant at or near the house on the night in question. No recovery had been effected from the appellant of any property which can atleast remotely connect with the murder of Lakshmi. 6. Nobody had seen the appellant at or near the house on the night in question. No recovery had been effected from the appellant of any property which can atleast remotely connect with the murder of Lakshmi. The Sessions Judge and the High Court seemed to have been persuaded by the fact that the appellant had many abrasions on his person. The appellant admitted those abrasions but said that after the police arrested him he was subjected to torture in the police station with canes and lathis. Whether the injuries were inflicted by that or not, the fact remains that those injuries were not in any manner connected with the murder of Lakshmi. 7. This is a case where there is practically total dearth of circumstances for connecting the appellant with the murder of Lakshmi. It is quite unfortunate that the Investigating Officer could not collect scientific evidence for proving the person who committed the murder. We also felt that the public prosecutor in the Trial Court did not bestow sufficient care in eliciting necessary answers when PW 5, the doctor was examined with reference to the injuries sustained by the appellant. 8. We find it extremely difficult to confirm the conviction and sentence in the light of practically nil evidence to connect the appellant with the crime. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence passed on him. We acquit him and order him to be released from jail forthwith unless he is required in any other case. We place on record our gratitude to Ms. Kiran Bhardwaj for ably presenting the cause or the appellant as Amicus Curiae. Appeal allowed. ***************** Parallel Citations of other Journals : Tej Bhadur v. State of Rajasthan, 2001(5) Supreme 357 : 2001 (5) JT 241 : 2001 (3) Crimes 360 : 2001 (3) All.Crl.L.R. 512 00023