( 1 ) APPELLANT Harsan bai stands convicted under Section 302 of the ipc with sentence of imprisonment for life vide impugned judgment dated 10/08/1990, passed by the Additional Sessions judge, Balaghat, in S. T. No. 64/90. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case in brief is that p. W. 3 Dhani Ram, P. W. 4 Smt. Chandrakala bai, and P. W. 2 Rameshwari are the father, mother and sister respectively of deceased hemendra, a child aged about 3 years. P. W. 13 Gyanaji, P. W. 5, Bistan Bai and P. W. 1. Daulat are the father, mother and brother of Dhaniram. Smt. Bijna Bai P. W. 8 and Smt. Sheela P. W. 6 are the daughters-in-law of gyanaji. ( 3 ) ON 14-6-1989, i. e. about 4 months before the date of incident, Dhaniram P. W. 3 brought the appellant Harsan Bai to live with him as his concubine and it was natural for Chandrakala who was legally wedded wife of Dhaniram to protest this: act of dhaniram. She immediately left for parental home and called a panchayat. In panchayat she proposed that half of the property of Dhaniram should be transferred in the name of her son deceased Hemendra. Panchayat accepted this demand of chandrakala. ( 4 ) CHANDRAKALA had three daughters and one son from Dhaniram. After the birth of fourth child Chandra Kala underwent T. T. operation. Occasionally Chandrakala and deceased (sic) used to quarrel with each other. Sometimes appellant used to give threat to Chandrakala that she will finish her son so that the clan may not continue further. ( 5 ) ON the date of incident Chandrakala, appellant Harsan Bai, Bijna and Sheela were engaged in white-washing the house on the occasion of Diwali festival. Deceased hemendra and other children namely Sashi, jageshwari, Someshwari, and Raneshwari p. W. 2 were playing under a guava tree. While other members of the family were busy in white-washing, appellant, on pretext to answer the call of nature came outside the house with some water in a lota, picked up Hemendra in her lap and in order to finish the child threw him in a well situated near the house on the bank of Nala. ( 6 ) IT was in practice in the family to serve the food to the children at about 4. 00 pm. All the children except Hemendra gathered to take the food. ( 6 ) IT was in practice in the family to serve the food to the children at about 4. 00 pm. All the children except Hemendra gathered to take the food. As Hemendra was playing with Rameshwari, Dhaniram%enquired from her whereabouts of Hemendra. Rameshwari informed her father Dhaniram that hemendra was taken away by appellant in her lap, while she was going to answer the call of nature. When Dhaniram enquired from the appellant about the child she expressed her ignorance. Dhaniram went towards Nala in search of Hemendra but he could not trace him. Then he went to the well situated near the house, and, when he peeped into the well, he found the body of hemendra in the well. ( 7 ) ON the information of Daulatram P. W. 1, a Marg was registered at P. S. Malajkharid, as per Ex. P-1. On 29-10-1989 Shiv Naresh kumar A. S. I. , Police Station Malajkhand reached the- spot at 9. 30 a. m. and commenced investigation. He prepared a spot map as per Ex. P. 5 and recorded statements of witnesses Dhaniram, Gyanaji, Chandrakala and Sheela Devi. Thereafter the dead body was taken out of the well and inquest panchama Ex. P. 6 was prepared. The dead body was sent for post mortem examination. Dr. C. S. Shiv P. W. 14 who conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Hemendra and opined that the cause of death is asphyxia resulting due to drowning. Ex. P. 12 is the report of Dr. Shiv. On 4-11-1989 S. H. O. of Police Station Malajkhand, sudhir Kumar Shrivastava, took, the investigati on in his hands and recorded statements of witnesses leeshram, Daulatram, bijna Bai, Roop Singh and Bistan Bai. After recording the statements of all these witnesses the Investigating Officer came to the conclusion that it was appellant who caused the death of the child and recorded a Dehati nalsi Ex. P. 10. On the basis of Dehati Nalsi, offence was registered at police station malajkhand as Ex. P. 11. ( 8 ) APPELLANT was arrested on 5-11-1989. Spot map was prepared by Patwaf i on 11 -11-1989. On completion of the investigation, challan was filed against the appellant for the alleged commission of murder of Hemendra. The case was committed to the Court of Session. P. 11. ( 8 ) APPELLANT was arrested on 5-11-1989. Spot map was prepared by Patwaf i on 11 -11-1989. On completion of the investigation, challan was filed against the appellant for the alleged commission of murder of Hemendra. The case was committed to the Court of Session. ( 9 ) LEARNED Additional Sessions Judge framed a charge against the appellant for the aforesaid offence. Appellant abjured her guilt and pleaded that she is innocent and has been falsely implicated due to misplaced suspicion. After concluding the trial, learned sessions Judge found the appellant guilty for committing the murder of Hemendra and as such convicted arid sentenced her as indicated above. It is against this conviction and sentence, the appellant has filed this appeal. ( 10 ) WE have heard Shri Ashish Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri G. S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate for the State. ( 11 ) SHRI Mishra learned counsel appearing for the appellant has led us through the record and contended that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has erred in holding the appellant guilty for committing the murder of deceased Hemendra. He further submitted that there is no eye-witness account in this case and the conviction is based only on the circumstantial evidence and the circumstances alleged by the prosecution are neither proved nor they are clinching. ( 12 ) AS against this, learned counsel for the State supported the judgment impugned and submitted that the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant by the trial court is perfectly justified. ( 13 ) IT is true that there is no eye-wimess account in the case and conviction is based on circumstantial evidence. The circumstances on which the prosecution has relied, are as follows : (A) Deceased Hemendra was last seen with the appellant when she was going towards the well to answer the call of nature. (B) Appellant used to give threat to the mother of the deceased Smt. Chandrakala that she will not allow her clan to continue further meaning thereby that she will kill her only son. (C) Appellant had strong motive to finish hemendra. ( 14 ) TO prove the first circumstance, prosecution examined Rameshwari Devi, P. W. 2, roop Singh, P. W. 7, and leeshram, P. W. 9. (C) Appellant had strong motive to finish hemendra. ( 14 ) TO prove the first circumstance, prosecution examined Rameshwari Devi, P. W. 2, roop Singh, P. W. 7, and leeshram, P. W. 9. It is alleged that these witnesses saw the appellant going with the deceased Hemendra immediately before his death towards the well wherein the dead body of Hemendra was found. ( 15 ) ROOP Singh P. W. 7, has stated that a day before Diwali i. e. on the date of the incident, he had been to village Bhandarpur to bring his sister Smt. Rupiiidra, on the occasion of Diwali festival. On his way to bhandarpur he saw appellant Harsan Bai taking Hemendra in her lap and also having a Lota with her. ( 16 ) IT is difficult to rely the evidence of this witness. The witness has stated that when he was at Bhandarpur, he found that his sister has gone to perform some agricultural operation and as he was in hurry, he came back without taking his sister with him. It is difficult to believe that a person who had gone to bring his sister on the occasion of Deepawali festival was in such a hurry that he returned without taking his sister. What was the reason for hurry has not been explained by the witness. If really he was in hurry he could have gone to the place where his sister was engaged in agricultural operation, therefore, the explanation of the witness that he was in hurry is not acceptable. ( 17 ) SECONDLY, the witness is a servant of gyanaji, the grand-father of the deceased who was uphappy due to the arrival of appellant in the family. It cannot be ruled out that he has given the evidence under the influence of his master Gyanaji. ( 18 ) LEARNED counsel for the State submitted that Roop Singh was not a permanent servant of Gyanaji and only occasionally he used to work for Gyanaji but in his cross-examination, Roop Singh has clearly admitted that he has very good relations with Gyanaji. P. W. 8 Bijna Bai daughter-in-law of Gyanaji has also in the last sentence of her cross-examination admitted that the witness was their regular employee and they had very good relations with him. Because of his interestedness, the evidence of Roop singh becomes doubtful. P. W. 8 Bijna Bai daughter-in-law of Gyanaji has also in the last sentence of her cross-examination admitted that the witness was their regular employee and they had very good relations with him. Because of his interestedness, the evidence of Roop singh becomes doubtful. ( 19 ) THIRDLY the witness has stated that the age of the boy whom the appellant was carrying in her lap was between 6 to 7 years while admittedly the age of the deceased was three years at the time of incident. ( 20 ) FOURTHLY, the witness is a chance witness. The testimony of a chance witness though not necessarily false is probably unsafe to base the conviction. If such a chance witness happens to be servant of the complainant party, then he is viewed with suspicion. The possibility of he being a cooked up witness cannot be ruled out. ( 21 ) FIFTHLY, Roop Singh has admitted that there are two routes between his village and bhandarpur and while returning he came from the other route. Preference given to particular route also makes his evidence doubtful. ( 22 ) THUS if we look to the evidence of roop Singh cautiously, it appears to be doubtful and does not inspire confidence. The trial Court also disbelieved his evidence. The trial Court had an opportunity to see the demeanour of the witness and when the trial Court had disbelieved his evidence, we are not inclined to take a different view for the reasons stated above. ( 23 ) P. W. 9 Eeshram has stated that he is resident of village Bishatwahi but on the date of occurrence, he was at Janpur for the purpose of harvesting the crop. Even while staying at Janpur, he used to come to bishatwahi almost daily, there being a small distance of 2 kms. On the date of occurrence he left Janpur for Bishatwahi at about 2. 00 p. m. On way, he saw the appellant going towards nala carrying Hemendra in her lap. She was also carrying a lota with her. He stayed at Bishatwahi for 10 minutes and thereafter returned back. According to the witness he went to Bishwatwahi only to enquire from his brother Gyanaji as to where he will celebrate Deepawali festival, either at Janpur or at Bishwatwahi. His brother informed him that he will celebrate deepawali festival at Bishwatwahi. She was also carrying a lota with her. He stayed at Bishatwahi for 10 minutes and thereafter returned back. According to the witness he went to Bishwatwahi only to enquire from his brother Gyanaji as to where he will celebrate Deepawali festival, either at Janpur or at Bishwatwahi. His brother informed him that he will celebrate deepawali festival at Bishwatwahi. ( 24 ) THIS witness also appears to be a chance witness. When he was at Janpur for a particular work of harvesting, there was no reason for him to leave the work and go to Bishwatwahi just to enquire from his brother as to where he will celebrate deepawali festival. He was at the place of occurrence by coincidence or chance. If such a person happens to be a relative of the family which had some grudge against the appellant , his evidence should be viewed with suspicion and requires cautious and close scrutiny. The reason assigned by him for being at the place of occurrence did not appear to be true to the trial Court and the trial Court has distrusted his evidence. We are also not inclined to interfere with the finding of the trial Court which had the occasion to see the demeanour of the witness. ( 25 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution case eeshram, visited Bishwatwahi to negotiate with the labourers for the purpose of harvesting the crop while in his evidence he has given a different reason for going to bishwatwahi. Where the witness has improved his case at the trial over stage which he put forward at investigation stage it is not safe to rely on his evidence. ( 26 ) GYANAJI was a permanent resident of village Bishwatwahi. His son Dhaniram, and his wife and children also reached bishwatwahi and there was no reason for gyanaji to celebrate Deepawali festival at janpur, therefore, the reason assigned by eeshram for going to Bishwatwahi appears to be unnatural. The witness has admitted that he was informed about the incident by chamrulal, on the next date of the incident. Being a near relation of the deceased, his natural conduct would have been to inform dhaniram, Gyanaji and other persons that he had seen the appellant carrying deceased hemendra in her lap without any delay but he kept silence for a long time. Being a near relation of the deceased, his natural conduct would have been to inform dhaniram, Gyanaji and other persons that he had seen the appellant carrying deceased hemendra in her lap without any delay but he kept silence for a long time. The statement of this witness was recorded after 5 days of the incident and therefore, he appears to be a cooked up witness and thus, his evidence does not inspire confidence. Gyanaji P. W. 13 does not say that Eeshram came to Bishwatwahi to enquire from him that as to where he will celebrate Deepawali festival. ( 27 ) RAMESHWARI P. W. 2 has stated that on the date of incident when she was playing under a tree near her house along with her brother Hemendra and sisters Shashi and Someshwari, appellant came with some water in a lota, picked up Hemendra in her lap and went towards the nala. When her grand-father called the children to take their food, Hemendra did not come. She informed her father that the appellant took Hemendra in her lap while going to answer the call of nature. ( 28 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the trial Court erred in relying on the evidence of rameshwari. After hearing both the parties and on perusal of the judgment of trial Court we are in complete agreement with the learned counsel for the appellant for the following reasons : (1) Firstly Rameshwari is a child witness. Her statement was recorded without giving her oath due to her tender age. Though the learned trial Judge put certain questions to the witness to judge her capacity to understand the question and give rational answer and recorded a finding that the witness is capable of giving rational answer but added a rider to the effect that she does not understand the sanctity of oath and the evidence recorded unsworn. In case of child witness the Court has to carefully consider as to whether the child was under the influence of any tutoring. Testimony of a child witness should be accepted after great caution and circumspection reason for this being that it is common experience that child witness is susceptible to tutoring and on account of fear a child witness can be made to depose about the things which he/she has not seen. Testimony of a child witness should be accepted after great caution and circumspection reason for this being that it is common experience that child witness is susceptible to tutoring and on account of fear a child witness can be made to depose about the things which he/she has not seen. Once having tutored a child witness goes on repeating like a parrot. Such witnesses are most dangerous witnesses. The mind of a innocent child is like a blank paper on which anything can be written. Therefore, where the case rests only on uncorroborated testimony of a young girl, it is difficult to sustain conviction. It is true that the evidence of child witness is not required to be rejected per se but the Court, as a rule of prudence, considers such evidence with close scrutiny and only on being convinced about the quality of such evidence and its reliability the conviction can be based by accepting the deposition of child witness. Secondly, the trial Court failed to focus attention to certain crucial aspects which have undoubted bearing on the reliability of evidence of Rameshwari. The fore-most aspect which deserves attention is that the evidence of child witness Rameshwari is uncorroborated. It is true that there is no rule that the evidence of such witness must be corroborated by some other evidence, however, as a rule of prudence the Court always finds it desirable to have the corrobo-ratipn'of such evidence from other admissible evidence. The third point of doubt which makes the version of Rameshwari vulnerable to criticism is that according to the witness other children Sashi. Jageshwari and his elder sistersomeshwari were also playing with her but none of them has been examined by the prosecution, though Someshwari, being eldestsister was expected to have better wisdom. The fourth circumstance which deserves notice is that in answer to question No. 26 witness has stated that when her grand-father asked her to call Hemendra to take food, she told her grand-father that hemendra had gone towards well. This suggests that on his own accord he went towards the well and he was not taken away by the appellant. The fifth infirmity in the evidence of rameshwari is that the fact of her seeing the appellant taking away the child does not find place in the Marg intimation which is first available version of the incident re corded in writing. The fifth infirmity in the evidence of rameshwari is that the fact of her seeing the appellant taking away the child does not find place in the Marg intimation which is first available version of the incident re corded in writing. The first part of Marg intimation Ex. P. 1 is not on record but the same has been reproduced in Dehati Nalsi ex. P. 10. A perusal of Ex. P. 10 reveals that daulatram did not state in the marg intimation specifically that it was Rameshwari who informed that appellant had taken the child with her while going to answer the call of nature. Daulatram P. W. 1 has admitted that before he went to lodge this report, he learnt from-Rameshwari and other persons that the appellant had taken away the child with her. If really Rameshwari would have seen the appellant taking away the child, her name would have certainly been found place in the Marg intimation. It was contended by learned Govt. Advocate that Daulatram is a rustic villager. He could not give details and failed to specifically mention the name of Rameshwari but the fact that the appellant had taken away the child towards the well does find place in the Marg intimation. This explanation given by the learned counsel for the State is his own imagination and the same does not exist in the statement of Daulatram. That apart, in the inquest panchnama ex. P. 6 also, the fact that Rameshwari saw the appellant taking away the child has not been recorded. Though the inquest report contains that the statements of Daulatram, dhaniram, Gyanji, Rameshwari, Sheela Bai and Chandrakala were recorded, who only stated that in the afternoon the child suddenly disappeared and his dead body was subsequently found in the well. In the inquest panchanama in portion B to B (sic) it is specifically mentioned that witnesses only express suspicion and nobody had seen. (Keval Shak Jahir Karte Hal Dekha Kisi Ne bhi Nahi ). The attention of Investigating officer was invited towards this fact but he could not give any explanation regarding the same and admitted that Shiv Naresh Kumar has also admitted that while recording Marg intimation Daulatram did not disclose either the name of Rameshwari or the fact that it was Rameshwari who saw the appellant taking the child with her. The attention of Investigating officer was invited towards this fact but he could not give any explanation regarding the same and admitted that Shiv Naresh Kumar has also admitted that while recording Marg intimation Daulatram did not disclose either the name of Rameshwari or the fact that it was Rameshwari who saw the appellant taking the child with her. Thus, it is clear that in the first two documents the fact does not find place that Rameshwari saw the- appellant taking away the child in her lap towards the well and the development is an afterthought. The appreciation of evidence by trial Court is highly unsatisfactory. We are not only entitled but bound to give effect to our independent conclusion on evidence coming out of the circumstances which have normally to be kept in view in case of this kind. Where the appreciation of evidence against the appellant is replete with infirmities affecting very quality of appreciation, this court will have to undertake a thorough xamination of the evidence and all the circumstances o satisfy itself about the guilt of the appellant. This Court will not deny protection when there is a pervading sense of judicial unsafety for relying upon the evidence for the purpose of conviction. The case of the prosecution becomes doubtful-when the version given by witnesses in the Court is different from that in the marg intimation and inquest panchnama. In view of these doubtful features and other infirmities in the evidence of Rameshwari, we are of the view that it is unsafe to rely on the statement of rameshwari. ( 29 ) THE circumstance that appellant gave threat to Chandrakala Bai that she will finish her son is also not acceptable. Smt. Chandrakala has not stated in her evidence that such threat was given by the appellant. On the contrary she states that the appellant was in talking terms with the children. In para 7 of her statement she has stated that whenever she used to go to her parental house she used to leave her children in the custody of the appellant. If any such threat would have been given, her natural conduct would have been to take children with her. ( 30 ) SO far as the motive is concerned due to the arrival of appellant in the house of Dhaniram it was Chandrakala wife of dhaniram who was aggrieved. If any such threat would have been given, her natural conduct would have been to take children with her. ( 30 ) SO far as the motive is concerned due to the arrival of appellant in the house of Dhaniram it was Chandrakala wife of dhaniram who was aggrieved. If the appellant had any motive to finish the boy she had ample opportunity. Chandrakala lived at her parental house for a long time and during that period children of Chandrakala were looked after by the appellant. If she had any motive to kill Hemendra, she would not have missed that opportunity. ( 31 ) THERE are many other circumstances in the case which make the prosecution case doubtful. The incident took place on 28-10-1989 at 5. 00 P. M. The statements of the witnesses were recorded before the preparation of inquest panchnama but the dehati nalsi was recorded on 4-11 -1989, after about 7 days of the incident. If witnesses would have disclosed about the role of the appellant, the offence would have been immediately registered. Delay in recording dehati nalsi suggests that no evidence was available against the appellant till 4-11-1989. The witnesses have also admitted that from the date till the date of her arrest. On 5-11 -1989 the appellant was living at Bishatwahi in the house of her father-in-law. Daulatram pw. 1 and Dhaniram PW. 3 have stated that appellant was given in superdigi of her husband by the police with the instructions that she should not run away but the investigating officer has denied this fact. The investi gating officer could not collect the material to connect the appellant with the offence till 4-11-1989. ( 32 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that Dhaniram and other members of the family wanted to get rid of the appellant as in their view she was a woman of easy virtue and with that object she has been falsely implicated. ( 33 ) PW. 3 Dhaniram in para 10 of his statement in answer to question No. 4 has admitted that he used to go to Malajkhand daily between 7 to 9 A. M. for the purpose of selling the milk. One Chain Singh was knowing this fact because he was in service at malajkhand. In his absence Chain Singh used to visit Harsan Bai. One day he returned from Malajkhand one hour earlier at about 8. One Chain Singh was knowing this fact because he was in service at malajkhand. In his absence Chain Singh used to visit Harsan Bai. One day he returned from Malajkhand one hour earlier at about 8. 00 A. M. and saw the appellant with chain Singh in compromising position. In this connection, document Ex. P. 3 was also executed by the appellant. ( 34 ) APPELLANT was brought by Dhaniram to enjoy sex with her and when she changed her loyalty, it was quite natural for Dhaniram to get rid of her. ( 35 ) FROM the material on record it is well established that appellant was an eyesore for the family of Dhaniram, particularly for chandrakala. Chandrakala PW. 4 has stated that appellant was quarrelsome from the day one she came to her house and she had been opposing her arrival. Gaynaji PW. 13 has stated that appellant used to quarrel with chandrakala. She used to give threat to chandrakala that she will see that her clan does not continue further. Bistan Bai PW. 5 has also admitted that other members of the family were not in talking terms with- the appellant. Gyanaji PW. 13 has also stated that the appellant used to give threat to set the house at fire. In para 18 of his statement, Gyanaji has stated that he had many complaints against appellant which he did not disclose to others because she was the member of the family. In this background possibility that the appellant has been falsely implicated in order to get rid of her cannot be ruled out. ( 36 ) THERE is one more important circumstance which makes the whole prosecution case doubtful. When Dhaniram first found the dead body of the child in the well his natural conduct would have been to call the villagers and take the child outside the well hoping against the hope that child might be surviving but no such attempt was made. This unnatural conduct gives rise to a suspicion that child was not seen in the well in the evening and he was seen after the arrival of the police and the marg intimation and other documents were prepared afterwards and were not prepared on the date and time on which they purport to have been prepared. This unnatural conduct gives rise to a suspicion that child was not seen in the well in the evening and he was seen after the arrival of the police and the marg intimation and other documents were prepared afterwards and were not prepared on the date and time on which they purport to have been prepared. ( 37 ) IN the present case, possibility cannot be ruled out that Hemendra might have died an accidental death. The trial Court ruled out the accident for two reasons : (1) that the height of the parapet wall around the well was about 4 feet and a child of 3-4 years cannot cross that wall; and (2) that the distance between the house and the well could not have been travelled by a child of 3l/2 years moreso when the ground was uneven. ( 38 ) PW. 3 has stated that parapet wall is 3 feet high but from the evidence of Kunjilal ramtakey PW. 10 it is clear that height of parapet wall at some places is only 1 1/2 feet. In para 3 of his statement investigating officer Shri Shiv Naresh Kumar has admitted that at some places height of parapet wall is one foot. It is not impossible for a boy of 31/2 years to cross the height of one foot. PW. 3 dhaniram has admitted that on the date of occurrence the age of Hemendra was 3 years and he was able to walk (Chalta Firta Tha ). Kunjilal PW. 10, a Patwari who has prepared the spot map has stated that the well has been shown by figure 1 and place where the children were playing has been shown as no. 2. In the note No. 2 of the map, the distance between place Nos. 1 and 2 is only 280-'/2 feet. It was not difficult for a child of 3-4 years to cover such a distance. He does not say that the ground was uneven, therefore, the possibility that child himself went towards the well and accidentally crossed the wall and fell in the well cannot be ruled out. 1 and 2 is only 280-'/2 feet. It was not difficult for a child of 3-4 years to cover such a distance. He does not say that the ground was uneven, therefore, the possibility that child himself went towards the well and accidentally crossed the wall and fell in the well cannot be ruled out. ( 39 ) IT is trite law that when the evidence against an accused, particularly when he/ she is charged with a grave offence like murder, consists of circumstances and not ocular evidence, it must be qualitatively such that on every reasonable hypothesis the conclusion must be that the accused is guilty; not fantastic possibilities nor freak inferences but rational deductions which reasonable minds make from probative force of facts and circumstances should be seen. ( 40 ) IT is impossible to escape the conclusion, that the circumstantial evidence in this case is compatible with the guilt of the accused. The evidence which has been adduced in this case is far from satisfactory and it suffers from number of infirmities. In gambhirv. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1982 sc 1157 : (1982 Cri LJ 1243), it has been held that when a case rests on circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the 2317 following tests : (1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; (2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; (3) the circumstances taken cumulatively, should from a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else;and (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that by the guilt of the accused. (5) the circumstantial evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. The circumstances proved in this case are not of such a nature as to capable of supporting the exclusive hypothesis that the appellant is guilty of the crime of which she is charged. The circumstances relied upon to establish the involvement of the accused in the crime are neither proved nor do they clinch the issue of guilt. The circumstances proved in this case are not of such a nature as to capable of supporting the exclusive hypothesis that the appellant is guilty of the crime of which she is charged. The circumstances relied upon to establish the involvement of the accused in the crime are neither proved nor do they clinch the issue of guilt. Although there may be a grave suspicion against the appellant, still prosecution is bound to establish the facts from which the Court can reasonably arrive at a conclusion that the offence was committed by the accused. Suspicion howsoever grave cannot take the place of legal proof. The Court has to be watchful and avoid the danger of allowing the suspicion to take the place of legal proof or some time uncautiously it may happen to be a short step between moral certainty and legal proof. There is a long mental distance between may be true and must be true. We accordingly accept the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302 IPC and acquit her. Appellant is on bail. Her bail bonds are discharged. Appeal allowed. .