JUDGMENT : B. Panigrahi, J. - This appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Addt. Sessions Judge, Bargarh u/s 302, IPC in S.T. No. 219/38 of 1994 directing the appellant to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. The bravity of the prosecution case as unravelled in course of trial is as follows : On 1.6.94 at about 11.00 A.M. Jita Bhoi (P.W. 5) of village Tukurla went to his Parwal garden and found his wife Rukmini lying dead with bleeding injuries on her neck and shoulder. He immediately rushed to the village and narrated the incident before the informant Manoranjan Bhoi. Thereafter Manoranjan Bhoi and few other villagers proceeded to Parwal garden and found deceased Rukmini dead having cut injuries on both sides of her neck. So Manoranjan Bhoi along with other villagers went to the police station and verbally reported the matter to the Officer-in-charge of Bhatli Police Station, who reduced the said information to writing and registered a case u/s 302, IPC and immediately swung into action. He proceeded to the spot, examined witnesses, collected clue that the appellant had a quarrel with P.W. 4, son of the deceased, four to five days prior to the occurrence where the accused-appellant gave a threat to the deceased for taking away her life, The Investigating Officer held inquest over the deadbody of the deceased, despatched the same for post-mortem examination, seized the blood stained earth and the sample earth, sent the incriminating materials to the Serologist for chemical examination, arrested the accused-appellant and after closure of the investigation placed the charge-sheet against the appellant. It was further revealed during investigation that the appellant made a disclosure statement to have consealed M.O.I; The Tangi. So the Investigating Officer in presence of witnesses, P.Ws. 7 and 8, seized the Tangi. 3. The plea of the appellant was one of complete denial of the occurrence and had claimed to have been falsely implicated. 4. The prosecution had examined 11 witnesses. P.W. 1 is the informant and the nephew of the deceased. P.W. 2 is a witness to the inquest, P.W. 3 claimed to have accompanied the deceased upto "Mahul tree" on the same way while the deceased was going to her Parwal garden on the date of incident. P.W. 4 is the son of the deceased. P.W. 5 is the husband of the deceased. P.W. 2 is a witness to the inquest, P.W. 3 claimed to have accompanied the deceased upto "Mahul tree" on the same way while the deceased was going to her Parwal garden on the date of incident. P.W. 4 is the son of the deceased. P.W. 5 is the husband of the deceased. P.W. 6 is a cart-man, who claimed to have seen both the deceased and the appellant going towards the Parwal garden of the deceased on the date of occurrence and the appellant was holding a tangi in his hand. P.Ws. 7 and 8 are two witnesses to the seizure of tangi, M.O.I. P.W. 9 is the Investigating Officer in this case. 5. There is no direct evidence placed by the prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the appellant, therefore, the case has been based upon circumstantial evidence. While appreciating the case based on circumstantial evidence it has to be borne in mind that all the circumstances must be satisfactorily, established and must bring home the offence against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. It is, therefore, necessary that each of the circumstances by itself must be conclusive, but cumulatively must from an unbroken chain of events leading to prove the guilt of the accused. If some of the circumstances can be explained with reasonable hypothesis, then the accused must get the benefit of that logical conclusion. In appreciating the circumstantial evidence the Court should be conscious that no conjecture or suspicion shall take the place of legal proof. There should be chain of events so far complete so as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show within all human probability that the act must have been done by the accused alone. 6. On a close reading of the evidence of P.W. 1 it has, however, transpired that on 1.6.94 at about 11.00 A.M., P.W. 5 went to his Parwal garden and on return informed him that somebody had given 4 to 5 blows to his wife Rukmini as a result of which she died and was lying inside the bari. So he proceeded to the Parwal garden and found the deceased lying with cut injuries on her neck. So he proceeded to the Parwal garden and found the deceased lying with cut injuries on her neck. P.W. 2 is a witness to.the inquest and he supports the prosecution story to the extent that deceased Rukmini was lying dead with bleeding injuries on her neck. P.W. 3 had accompanied the deceased upto a "Mahul tree" and the deceased proceeded further on the same way to her Parwal garden. But the prosecution was unable to place material before the court as to what would be the distance between the "Mahul tree" when P.W. 3 stayed and the Parwal garden of the deceased. Therefore, her evidence is no way helpful to the prosecution while deciding the case. It has further appeared that P,W. 3 had also seen the accused going on the same road with a Tangi in his hand, But that evidence is also not clinching so as to connect the appellant with the crime, P.W. 4 is the son of the deceased. Although it has been brought out in cross-examination that the appellant was seen to have been going on that way holding a Tangi, but there has been no evidence to show how much time after the deceased went to her Parwal garden P.W. 3 saw the appellant going with a Tangi. Evening assuming that such statement is accepted, then also there has been no clinching evidence to connect the appellant with the crime. P.W. 4 has not whispered a word with regard to the occurrence, but stated that there was a quarrel between him and Dasarath, brother of the accused, 4 to 5 days prior to the date of occurrence, and during quarrel the deceased came there and the appellant threatened to see her if she goes to her land. On a consideration of the evidence of P.W. 5 it has also come to the fore that his deceased wife on the date of occurrence at about 7.00 A.M. went to her Parwal garden with P.W. 3, but when she did not return till 11.00 A.M., P.W. 5 went to the Parwal garden and found the deceased lying inside the garden with some cut injuries and after seeing the deadbody he narrated the incident to P.W. 1. He corroborated the statement of P.W. 4 to the extent that the appellant picked up a quarrel with his deceased wife 4 to 5 days prior to the incident. He corroborated the statement of P.W. 4 to the extent that the appellant picked up a quarrel with his deceased wife 4 to 5 days prior to the incident. Now turning to the evidence of P.W. 6, it has however appeared that he claimed to have seen the appellant going towards Parwal garden of P.W. 5. He also saw the deceased going towards her Parwal garden. When he saw both of them how he could assume that the accused was going to Parwal garden of the deceased. There has been no clear evidence adduced by the prosecution to establish the distance between the place where P.W. 6 had seen them going and the Parwal garden belonging to P.W. 5 nor the time gap when the deceased reached at the place of occurrence. In the sketch map also nothing has been shown as to the place where P.W. 6 purported to have seen both of them going towards Parwal garden. There has been no clinching evidence to establish that the accused and the deceased were seen together in the Parwal garden of the deceased on the date of occurrence. From the cross-examination of P.W. 6 it has been brought out that "P.W. 6 first saw the appellant near Bandhli of Bhoi Ghara and the deceased was going with P.W. 3. Prosecution has not placed any material to show the distance between the bari of P.W. 3 and the Parwal garden of the deceased. The evidence of P.Ws. 7 and 8 shows that the Tangi (M.O.I.) had been seized from the possession of the appellant. The Tangi (M.O.I.) was sent for chemical examination, but no blood stains appeared in M.O.I. The appellant was arrested on 2.6.94 with the assistance of the Dogs squad. But from the record it appeared that the Dog master has not been examined nor his report had been produced in Court. 7. Learned Addf. Standing Counsel appearing for the State has however strenuously urged that since the appellant was absconding after committing the crime, therefore, necessary inference should-be drawn against him about his conduct. But from record there is no evidence produced that he was absent from the date of incident onwards, therefore, no inference can be drawn that the accused was avoiding arrest. Standing Counsel appearing for the State has however strenuously urged that since the appellant was absconding after committing the crime, therefore, necessary inference should-be drawn against him about his conduct. But from record there is no evidence produced that he was absent from the date of incident onwards, therefore, no inference can be drawn that the accused was avoiding arrest. Therefore, the observation of the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the appellant was absent from the village since 1.6.94 is without any basis as he was arrested on 2.6.94. There has been absolutely no evidence about the proximity of time as to when the appellant went to the Parwal garden of the deceased so as to connect him in the commission of the offence. From the evidence of P.W. 10, the doctor, who conducted the post-mortem examination over the deadbody of the deceased it appeared that he found 10 injuries on the person of the deceased and the cause of death was due to hypo-volumic shock for bleeding from the great vessels of the neck. According to him, the injuries on the person of the deceased might have caused her death in ordinary course of nature and the injuries might have been caused by a weapon of offence like M.O.I. the Tangi. It has been discussed above that the Tangi was sent for chemical examination and it did not contain any blood. Therefore, it cannot be said to be one of the incriminating material against the appellant. Since the prosecution has failed to produce any clear, cogent, trustworthy and credible evidence before the trial court so as to arrive at an irresistible conclusion that it was the appellant who committed such grisly murder of deceased Rukmini, we therefore, hold that the prosecution is unable to prove the case against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt and the benefit of doubt must go in favour of the appellant. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant are set aside and the appellant is hereby acquitted. He be set at liberty forthwith. P.K. Misra, J. 9. I agree. Final Result : Allowed