JUDGMENT M. R. Verma, J.: - In this appeal the appellant-accused (hereafter referred to as the accused1) has assailed the judgment dated 27.12.2000 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in.. Sessions Trial No. 5 of 2000 whereby the accused has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two years. 2. The case of the prosecution against the accused, in brief, is that on 3.12.1999 at about 9.30 p.m. the accused went to the compound of the house of one Kirpa Ram in village Solag and enquired about his presence. Ravinder Kumar (PW-1), son of Kirpa Ram, informed the accused that Kirpa Ram was inside the house. Shyam Lai v. State of H.P. 299 Thereafter the accused told PW-1 and is mother Kamla Devi (PW-2) that he had murdered Bhandari Ram of village Solag and his dead body was lying in a nearby field and they should go there and bring the dead body of Bhandari Ram to their house. The accused then ran away. PW-1 followed the accused and then went to the field and found that Bhandari Ram was lying in injured condition in the field of Pohlo Ram and was crying with pain. He informed PW-1 that the accused had injured him. PW-2 and Shakti Chand (PW-3) also came there. It was noticed that there were stab injuries on the back and chest of Bhandari Ram which were bleeding. Bhandari Ram asked for water and when the water was given to him, he could not drink it and succumbed to the injuries. His dead body was taken on a cot to a nearby rain shelter on the road side. Sukh Ram (PW-19), a Compounder, was called to the train shelter who on examination of Bhandari Ram informed that he was dead. The occurrence was telephonically reported to the police which reached on the spot at 2.30 a.m. On the night intervening 3rd and 4th of December, 1999. Statement of PW-1 under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Ext. PA) was recorded by the police on the basis of which formal FIR under Section 302 (Ext. PY) was registered at Police Station Barmana. Statement of PW-1 under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Ext. PA) was recorded by the police on the basis of which formal FIR under Section 302 (Ext. PY) was registered at Police Station Barmana. Blood lying in the rain shelter was taken in possession with the help of cotton Ext. P-2 vide memo. Ext. PC. Blood stained articles, i.e. one dry branch of tree, dry leaves and two stones were taken in possession vide memo. Ext. PF. A blood strained stone lying at a distance of 25 feet from the place where the dead body of Bhandari Ram was lying, was extracted and taken in possession vide memo. Ext. PD. The Investigating Officer, SI Puran Chand (PW-24) took photographs of the dead body and prepared, inquest report Ext. PT and PT/1. Post mortem of the dead body was conducted by Dr. Chander Kanta Gupta (PW-7) and Dr. Jagdish Gupta (PW-8) who found the following injuries on the person of the deceased "1. In the left groin, there was 2.5 x 0.5 cms. clean incised wound which could be seen after removing the clotted blood from the wound and the wound was subcutaneous tissue deep. 2. There was another clean incised wound which was placed 2 cms below the wound no. (1) and was seen after cleaning the blood. Size of the wound was 2x0.5 cms. This wound was corresponding to the tear on the pant, under trousers and underwear. 3. On the left anterior chest wall, there was clean incised wound in the let and 7th intercostal space which was 2.2 cms. x 0.5 cms subcustanous tissue deep. (Depth seen after opening the chest wall and thoracic cavity). In the 7th I.C. space on left side there was clotted blood and small haematoma in the subcutaneous tissue and intercostal muscles were not pierced. The wound was placed obliquely lateromedially and was 11 cms away from the midline. 4. On turning the body on to right lateral position, blood was oozing from left posterior 7th intercostal space and on cleaning, there was seen an obliquely placed mediolaterally running clean incised wound which was 2.2 cms. x 0.5 cms and depth assessed after opening the thoracic cavity. 4. On turning the body on to right lateral position, blood was oozing from left posterior 7th intercostal space and on cleaning, there was seen an obliquely placed mediolaterally running clean incised wound which was 2.2 cms. x 0.5 cms and depth assessed after opening the thoracic cavity. The wound had lierced the full thickness of post chest wall and the same wound had penetrated through the pleura and parenchyma of left lung in the middle of lower lobe (There was 2.2 cms tear in the lung parenchyma in this portion and the same wound had further extended and punctured the thoracic Aorta through and through which easily admitted one finger (middle finger). This wound could be examined in detail after draining the collected blood from the horacic cavity (which was full enemal Basinx approximately 3 to 3.5 literas including 4 big clots). There was a hamaetoma in the thoracic Aorta wall around the tear. The tear on the back side of left chest and tear on the left side back of the jacket, shirt and Buniyan was corresponding. This wound on the skin was placed 9 cms away from the midline. Tears/cuts on clothes were encircled and signed with black sketch pen. Rigor mortis was present in all the joints. Liver mortis was faintly present Brain matter pale and pliable. Neck no ligature mark found." 3. The post mortem report is Ext. PK/1. As per the medical opinion, the deceased had died of hypovolumic shock resulting from injury No. (4) above. 4. During the investigation the accused made a disclosure statement Ext. PJ about having kept concealed a knife in his residential house and pursuant to this statement, knife Ext. P- was recovered and taken in possession vide memo. Ext. PE. The wearing apparels of the accused were also taken in possession. The viscera was preserved and at a later stage the preserved viscera and the blood, strained articles aforesaid were sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory Junga and the reports received from the said laboratory are Exts.PL and PP. 5. Ext. PE. The wearing apparels of the accused were also taken in possession. The viscera was preserved and at a later stage the preserved viscera and the blood, strained articles aforesaid were sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory Junga and the reports received from the said laboratory are Exts.PL and PP. 5. On being satisfied of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by the accused, the concerned Station House Officer submitted charge-sheet against the accused who was tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur on a charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to which the accused pleaded not guilty. 6. To prove the charge against the accused, the prosecution examined a many as 24 witnesses. The accused in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has denied the prosecution case and has claimed that he had been falsely implicated and has set up a plea of alibi. However, the accused did not lead any defence evidence. 4. On turning the body on to right lateral position, blood was oozing from left posterior 7th intercostal space and on cleaning, there was seen an obliquely placed mediolateraily running clean incised wound which was 2.2 cms. x 0.5 cms and depth assessed after opening the thoracic cavity. The wound had lierced the full thickness of post chest wall and the same wound had penetrated through the pleura and parenchyma of left lung in the middle of lower lobe (There was 2.2 cms tear in the lung. parenchyma in this portion and the same wound had further extended and punctured the thoracic Aorta through and through which easily admitted one finger (middle finger). This wound could be examined in detail after draining the collected blood from the horacic cavity (which was full enemal Basinx approximately 3 to 3.5 literas including 4 big clots). There was a hamaetoma in the thoracic Aorta wall around the tear. The tear on the back side of left chest and tear on the left side back of the jacket, shirt and Buniyan was corresponding. This wound on the skin was placed 9 cms away from the midline. Tears/cuts on clothes were encircled and signed with black sketch pen. Rigor mortis was present in all the joints. Liver mortis was faintly present Brain matter pale and pliable. Neck no ligature mark found." 3. This wound on the skin was placed 9 cms away from the midline. Tears/cuts on clothes were encircled and signed with black sketch pen. Rigor mortis was present in all the joints. Liver mortis was faintly present Brain matter pale and pliable. Neck no ligature mark found." 3. The post mortem report is Ext. PK/1. As per the medical opinion, the deceased had died of hypovolumic shock resulting from injury No. (4) above. 4. During the investigation the accused made a disclosure statement Ext. PJ about having kept concealed a knife in his residential house and pursuant to this statement, knife Ext. P- was recovered and taken in possession vide memo. Ext. PE. The wearing apparels of the accused were also taken in possession. The viscera was preserved and at a later stage the preserved viscera and the blood, strained articles aforesaid were sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory Junga and the reports received from the said laboratory are Exts.PL and PP. 5. On being satisfied of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by the accused, the concerned Station House Officer submitted charge-sheet against the accused who was tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur on a charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to which the accused pleaded not guilty. 6. To prove the charge against the accused, the prosecution examined a many as 24 witnesses. The accused in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has denied the prosecution case and has claimed that he had been falsely implicated and has set up a plea of alibi. However, the accused did not lead any defence evidence. 7. On the basis of the material on record, the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the accused was guilty of the commission of the offence of murder and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. Hence this appeal. 8. We have heard the learned Counsel for the accused and the learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent State and have also gone through the records. 9. It may be pointed out at the very outset that to prove the charge: against the accused the prosecution has relied on circumstantial evidence. Hence this appeal. 8. We have heard the learned Counsel for the accused and the learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent State and have also gone through the records. 9. It may be pointed out at the very outset that to prove the charge: against the accused the prosecution has relied on circumstantial evidence. It is well settled that when the inference of guilt of the accused is to be drawn from circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be firmly established and must be exclusive and conclusive. Jt must exclude the hypothesis of the innocence of the accused and must prove his guilt conclusively. Circumstantial evidence must be consistent with the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocence. The chain of circumstances relied upon to prove the guilt of the accused must be complete so as to be a definite pointer towards the guilt of the accused. 10. The Honble Supreme Court in Jahartal Das v. State of Orissa, 1991 Cr. L.J. 1809 while dealing with a case of rape and murder based on circumstantial evidence, has held as under :- "It is well settled that the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must satisfy three conditions : (i) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; (ii) those circumstances, should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; (iii) the circumstances taken cumulatively, should form 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 it should also) be incapable of explanation on any other hypothesis than part of the guilt of the accused." 11. The Honble Supreme Court further contended a note of caution that in cases depending largely upon circumstantial evidence there is always a danger that the conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof and such suspicion howsoever strong cannot be allowed to take the place of legal proof. The Court has to be watchful and ensure that conjectures and suspicions do not take the place of legal proof. The Court must satisfy that the various circumstances in the chain of evidence should be established clearly and that the completed chain must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of innocence of the accused. The Court has to be watchful and ensure that conjectures and suspicions do not take the place of legal proof. The Court must satisfy that the various circumstances in the chain of evidence should be established clearly and that the completed chain must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of innocence of the accused. 12. In Akhilesh Hajam v. State of Bihar, 1995 Supp.(3) SCC 357, it has further been held that from the evidence it may appear that in all probability the accused may be the culprit but probabilities and moral convictions have no place or any role to play to convict a person in the absence of legal evidence. There is a long distance to be travelled between the expression "may be" and "must be". However, strong the; emotional considerations may be, but the same cannot take place of proof. 13. In Gurpreet Singh v. State of Haryana, 2003 SCC (Cri.) 186, the Honble Apex Court held as under: "21. Admittedly there is no eye-witnesses available in the matter under consideration and the prosecution case is sought to be established from the circumstantial evidence and it is in this sphere the settled law as noticed above is that circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be proved and thus circumstances must be conclusive in nature. The established circumstances should also be complete and there should not be any missing link in the chain of evidence. The court ought thus to scrutinise the evidence and deal with each circumstance and thereafter find the chain of the established circumstances being complete, in the event, the answer is in, the affirmative, there should not be any hesitation in the matter of return of a verdict of guilt on the; basis of circumstantial evidence. In the event, however, there is a snap in the chain and the conclusion may not steadfastly point or reach the accused, the latter is entitled to a benefit of doubt. In this context the observations of this Court in Kundula Bala Subrahmanyam v. State of A. P., 1993(2) SCC 684: 1993 SCC (Cri.) 655 lend credence to the view expressed above." 14. Similar view has been taken by this Court in Rajesh Sharma and another v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2000(1) Shim. L.C. 11, Vyas Dev @ Bittu v. State of H.P., 1999(2) Shim. Similar view has been taken by this Court in Rajesh Sharma and another v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2000(1) Shim. L.C. 11, Vyas Dev @ Bittu v. State of H.P., 1999(2) Shim. L.C. 480, Suresh Kumar v. State of H.P., 2000(2) Shim. L.C. 275, Budhi Singh and others v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2001(1) Shim. L.C. 428: 2001(1) Cur.L.J. (H.P,) 519, Bir Bahadur and another V State of H.P., 2002(1) S. L.J. 366, Tarun Kumar v. State of H.P., 2002(1) S.L.J. 553. 15. It is in view of the above settled position in law that the circum-stantial evidence led by the prosecution in this case has to be appropriated. 16. It is not in dispute that the deceased died of injuries found on. his person. The dispute is that according to the prosecution, the fatal injuries were caused to the deceased by the accused whereas according to the defence, the accused had not caused such injury. The learned Sessions Judge held the accused guilty on the basis of the following circumstances: (1) The extra-judicial confession made by the accused in the presence of Ravinder Kumar (PW-1) and Kamla Devi (PW- 2); (2) The dying declaration made by the deceased in the presence of PW-1; (3) The finding of injuries on the person of the deceased; (4) The disclosure statement of the accused leading to recovery of weapon of offence; (5) The motive of the accused to kill the deceased; and (6) The conduct of the accused after the commission of the offence. Circumstance No. (1) 17. According to the prosecution, the accused after causing injuries to the deceased went to the compound of the house of Kirpa Ram, father of PW-1 at about 9.30 p.m. and made inquiries about the. presence of Kirpa Ram and confessed in the presence of PW-1 and PW-2 that he had murdered Bhandari Ram and his dead body was lying in a nearby field and they should bring his dead body from there. PW-1 and PW-2 have supported this version. However, there statements are not above suspicion. PW-1 has neither in the FIR, nor in his statement stated that the confession was made by the accused within the hearing or in the immediate presence of his mother (PW-2). PW-1 and PW-2 have supported this version. However, there statements are not above suspicion. PW-1 has neither in the FIR, nor in his statement stated that the confession was made by the accused within the hearing or in the immediate presence of his mother (PW-2). This raises suspicion about the statement of PW-2 who has stated that when accused called her husband she came out of the house and the accused then made the confession. What renders this version more suspicious is that according to PW-1 and PW-2, accused informed that he had murdered the deceased, and his dead body was tying in the, field whereas the deceased was not lead at the time of alleged confession but both these witnesses spoke to him thereafter. The confession therefore, cannot be said to be true. It is admitted case of the prosecution that the accused, who belongs to a Schedule Caste, is not related to PW-1, PW-2 and Kirpa Ram and are Rajputs by Caste.. No explanation is forth coming as to why the accused chose them to make the confession. Therefore, the alleged confession does not pass the requisite test to be a reliable piece of evidence. 18. In Heramba Brahma and another v. State of Assam, AIR 1982 SC 1595, the Honble Supreme Court held as follows :- "18. We are at a loss to understand how the High Court accepted the evidence on this extra-judicial confession without examining the credentials of PW-2 Bistiram; without ascertaining the words used; without referring to the decision of this Court to be presently mentioned wherein it is succinctly stated that extra-judicial confession to afford a piece of reliable evidence must pass the test of reproduction of exact words, the reason or motive for confession and person selected in whom confidence is reposed. In Rahim Beg v. State of H.P., 1972(3) SCC 759: AIR 1973 SC 343, this Court while examining the evidence as to extra-judicial confession made by two accused to Mohmed Nasim Khan (PW-4) observed that : "There was no history of previous association between the witness and the two accused as may justify the inference that the accused could repose confidence in him. In the circumstances, it seems highly improbable that the two: accused would go to Mohmed Nasim Khan and blurt out a confession." 19. So saying, the Court rejected the evidence as to extra-judicial confession. In the circumstances, it seems highly improbable that the two: accused would go to Mohmed Nasim Khan and blurt out a confession." 19. So saying, the Court rejected the evidence as to extra-judicial confession. Position in this case is more deplorable. If the High Court has examined the decision of this Court, there would have been no difficulty in rejecting, the evidence of extra-judicial confession. It fails to pass all the tests. We reject this evidence of extra-judicial confession/ as unworthy of belief. We, therefore, find it difficult to subscribe to the reasoning of the High Court that the evidence of Dilip Kumar against the present appellants is corroborated by the evidence in the form of extra-judicial confession." 20. In State of Haryana v. Rajinder Singh, 1996(8) SCC 77, the Honble Supreme Court held as under: "4. insofar as the acquittal under Sections 302/34 and 498-A are concerned, we find that the High Court disbelieved the making of the extra-judicial confession because the same had been allegedly made even to the father of the deceased and that too in the presence of two co-villagers. The High Court has, therefore, observed, and rightly, that it is not acceptable that the respondent would make a confession of such a. heinous crime in the presence of so many persons. The" statement recorded by the learned Magistrate which has been characterised as judicial confession is really not so because a perusal of the same shows that the appellant had not admitted-his guilt in terms inasmuch as the statement as recorded states about the assault on the deceased by mistake. It may, however, be that the statement is not true. Now, if a statement is not true, that cannot be used even if the same were to be confessional in nature because the settled law is that for a confession to be used against the maker in a criminal trial the same has to be both true and voluntary." 21. In Tarun Kumar v. State of H.P. 2002(1) S.L.J. 553, this Court held as under: "15. An extra-judicial confession, generally speaking, is a very week kind of evidence and capable of being fabricated easily. Therefore, to be a reliable piece of evidence, it must pass the test of reproduction of the words spoken by the maker, the reason for confession and the person selected in whom the confidence is reposed. An extra-judicial confession, generally speaking, is a very week kind of evidence and capable of being fabricated easily. Therefore, to be a reliable piece of evidence, it must pass the test of reproduction of the words spoken by the maker, the reason for confession and the person selected in whom the confidence is reposed. In the case in hand, as already stated, there is no reason which could persuade no such relation between him and PW-11 which could lead the accused to make the confession. Therefore, this circumstance is also not fully and firmly established. 22. Similar is the view taken by this Court in Jai Ram v. State of H.P., Criminal Appeal No. 313 of 1999, decided on 1.6.2001, State of H.P. v. Sohan Lal, Cr. M.P. (M) No. 572 of 2002, decided on 16.5.2002 and State of H.P. v. Surinder Mohan and others, Criminal Appeal No. 460 of 1990, decided on 10.1.2003: 2003(2) Cur. L.J. (H.P.) 1. 23. When examined in view of the above settled position in law, the alleged confession is highly untrustworthy and liable to be rejected. Therefore, it has wrongly been held as established by the learned trial Judge. Circumstance No. (2) 24. According to the prosecution, the deceased told PW-1 that he was injured by the accused. PW-1 has supported even this version. However, the statement of PW-1 is not confidence inspiring and trustworthy. As per his version, after making the alleged confession, the accused ran away and he followed the accused who want to his home. PW-1 then came to the field in the dark night admittedly without any light and without his enquiries the deceased told him that he was injured by the accused. PW-2 has stated that after making the confession the accused went away and her son (PW-1) followed him and she went to the field of Pohlo Ram where the deceased was lying. She called the deceased and enquired as to what had happened to him but he did not respond. Though PW-1 has stated that he called his mother (PW-2) to the place where the deceased was lying, yet it is not so stated by PW-2 who claims that her son followed the accused and she went to the field. In these circumstances, it appears improbable that PW-1 reached in the field after following the accused, before PW-2 who had gone straight to the field. In these circumstances, it appears improbable that PW-1 reached in the field after following the accused, before PW-2 who had gone straight to the field. On her query deceased did not say anything. In the given circumstances, if the deceased had said anything, it ought to be in the knowledge of PW-2.lt may be pointed out that trustworthiness of PW-1 about the alleged extra-judicial confession by the accused has already been disbelieved. It also seems doubtful that PW-1 was present at one place to hear the accused making a confession and then he was present at another place to hear the deceased making a dying declaration. 25. Shakti Chand (PW-3) had admittedly come to the spot where the deceased was lying. !t is not his case that either of PW-1 and PW-2 at that time informed those who had come there about the alleged extra-judicial confession or dying declaration. Dhian Singh (PW-4) had admittedly gone to the rain-shelter where the deceased was taken. None informed him of the cause of death of the deceased. PW-10 and PW-13 have stated that at the rain-shelter they were informed by PW-1 that the deceased was injured by the accused and also stated about extra-judicial confession but not about the dying declaration. Had the deceased made any dying declaration, PW-1 must have informed them but it is not so. It is admitted case that Shakti Chand (PW-3) and Sukh Ram (PW-20) were also present at that time. However, they do not support this version. Therefore, making of the dying declaration by the deceased is a highly unreliable version. 26. It is true that dying declaration even if oral, can form basis for conviction of the accused. However, it will be as only if the dying declaration is free from blemishes, trustworthy and confidence inspiring. In case it is found doubtful, it cannot be acted upon. As already pointed out hereinabove, the alleged dying declaration in this are is highly doubtful and unreliable. The learned trial Judge without noticing the flaws in the evidence led to prove the dying declaration, has erred in holding this circumstance as proved. Circumstance No. (3) 27. There is no challenge to and rebuttal of the evidence on record that the deceased had sustained the injuries resulting in his death. This circumstance is thus fully and firmly proved. Circumstance No. (4) 28. Circumstance No. (3) 27. There is no challenge to and rebuttal of the evidence on record that the deceased had sustained the injuries resulting in his death. This circumstance is thus fully and firmly proved. Circumstance No. (4) 28. According to the prosecution, the accused made disclosure statement Ext. PJ about the weapon of offence in the presence of Narendra Sakhyan and Kanshi Ram (PW-6). PW-6 supports the version about making of statement by the accused. As per his version, the police asked the accused as to where he had keot the knife and the accused told that he had kept it in his house. Statement of this witness is not reliable for more than one reason. He is not an independent witness summoned to witness the process of interrogation and consequential disclosure. In fact he had work at the Police Station, therefore, he had come there. It is admitted by SI Puran Chand (PW-24) who interrogated the accused that Ext. PJ was written by HC Rajinder Kumar whereas according to PW-6, it was written by SHO Narendra Sankhyan. The other witness of Ext. PJ has not been produced. Thus, making of the statement Ext. PJ by the accused is highly doubtful. The consequential recovery of the knife is thus rendered a farce. There is yet other reason to hold that the alleged recovery of the knife does not connect the accused with the commission of the offence. Firstly, this recovery has been made from a room in the house having other inhabitants. There is no evidence to prove that the room from which the recovery was made is in possession much less exclusive possession of the accused. Even according to medical opinion, it is doubtful that the injuries to the deceased were caused with the recovered knife Ext. P-6 which is admittedly a single edge sharp weapon. PW-7 has in her cross-examination and on court questions replied that it was difficult to say whether the injuries found on the person of the deceased were caused by a single edged sharp weapon or by a double edged sharp weapon. In view of this opinion, it is doubtful that Ext. P-6 is the weapon of offence. 29. For the reason stated herein above, this circumstance is not proved and the contrary conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Judge is simply wrong. Circumstance No. (5) 30. In view of this opinion, it is doubtful that Ext. P-6 is the weapon of offence. 29. For the reason stated herein above, this circumstance is not proved and the contrary conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Judge is simply wrong. Circumstance No. (5) 30. To hold that the deceased had illicit relations with Bohri Devi (PW-21), the learned trial Judge relied on the statements of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-21. A perusal of the statements of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 reveals that they have no personal knowledge of illicit relations between the deceased and PW-21. Admittedly, they had just heard about it in the village but they could not state as to from whom they learnt about such relations. Evidently, their version is hearsay and thus inadmissible in evidence. PW-21 in her statement has specifically denied illicit relations with the deceased. Though she admits forcible entry by the deceased in her room and attempt to rape her but that does not prove illicit relationship. The husband of PW-21 is admittedly alive and resides with her though works in a cement factory. Thus, even if it is assumed that illicit relationship as alleged existed, the aggrieved party would be the husband of PW-21 and not the accused. Thus, this circumstance is also not proved. Circumstance No. (6) 31. There is no evidence to prove that the accused had absconded after the commission of the offence and to infer any guilty conscious on his part. The learned trial Judge has just accepted the allegations made by the prosecution without proof. The course adopted by the learned trial Judge to hold this circumstance proved is unwarranted, illegal and contrary to the accepted norms of administration of criminal justice. 32. For the reason stated and conclusions arrived at herein above, the charge against the accused is not proved and the impugned conviction and sentence are, therefore, liable to be set aside. 33. As a result, this appeal is allowed. The impugned conviction and sentence are set aside and the accused is acquitted of the charge against him. The appellant/accused who is in jail undergoing the sentence, be set at liberty forthwith. Fine, if recovered, be refunded to him. -