M. F. SALDANHA, J. ( 1 ) WE have heard the learned Government Pleader and we have reviewed the record of this case thoroughly. The allegation against the accused is that on the morning of 28-9-1996 at about 6 a. m. he is alleged to have assaulted the deceased Hiragappa with a sickle and caused fatal injuries to him. According to the prosecution, the deceased was a labourer and he and the accused used to often work in the fields together. The wife of the accused by the name of renawwa was also one of the workers and she had brought to the notice of p. W. 7-Thippanna for whom all these persons used to work, that the deceased had misbehaved with her. Thippanna is turn had warned the deceased not to indulge in such activities. The prosecution case is that because of the misconduct on the part of the deceased that the accused had assaulted him obviously in order to settle scores. The learned Trial Judge faced an obvious handicap at the time of the trial because P. W. 1-Durgawwa was the only witness who has not turned hostile apart from the P. W. 7-Thippanna who again, has been responsible for changing his version before the Court and has virtually ended up with 3 versions. The sickle was recovered from the manure pit of his field and this was not recovered at the instance of the accused. Even the clothes of the accused which were taken charge of by the police did not appear to have been sent for any analysis as there is nothing on record to indicate that these clothes were stained with the blood of the deceased. The panchas have turned hostile and consequently, the Trial Court was left with no option except to acquit the accused. It is that order which has been assailed in the present case. ( 2 ) ON behalf of the State the learned Government Pleader has vehemently submitted that P. W. 1-Durgawwa has in turn deposed to the effect that on the date of the incident the accused and the deceased had left her house in the company of each other and that shortly thereafter she heard the cries of her husband, that she rushed there and she found that he had sustained serious injuries and that he died shortly thereafter. Durgawwa does not anywhere indicate that it was the accused who inflicted the injuries on the deceased and she has in terms admitted in cross-examination that she has not seen the person who inflicted the injuries. Her evidence has therefore established, at the highest the circumstance of last seen together. That circumstance is again not 100% conclusive because there was a time-lag between the departure of the accused and the deceased and the incident though it is relatively small. The prosecution has not been able to indicate that the two persons who left the house together continued in each others company until the incident took place. ( 3 ) THE learned Government Pleader vehemently submitted that the evidence of P. W. is sufficient to corroborate the evidence of P. W. 1 and that this evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction. The reason for this is because P. W. 7 like 4 of the other witnesses was cited as an eye-witness but unfortunately, at the trial he turned hostile and stated that he does not know as to who inflicted injuries on the deceased. In the cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor this witness has admitted that he saw the accused running away from the scene of offence. Assuming that this evidence is good evidence which assumption itself is not very sound, we need to hold that this bald statement that the accused was running away from the scene of offence would only be weakly incriminating, the reason being that this statement is not qualified to the extent of pointing out that the accused had the weapon with him or that his clothes were bloodstained or any other better evidence that could link the accused with the offence. The reason why we have pointed this out is because has admitted that he had warned the deceased not to misbehave with other labourers which fully supports the version of P. W. 1, that he was in the habit of doing this. That being the position, if one or the other offended or aggrieved parties had assaulted him there would have been every reason for the accused to run away from that spot. The circumstance that is relied on by the learned Government Pleader is therefore not a strong or conclusive circumstance. ( 4 ) THE rest of the prosecution evidence is virtually useless. The circumstance that is relied on by the learned Government Pleader is therefore not a strong or conclusive circumstance. ( 4 ) THE rest of the prosecution evidence is virtually useless. On the question as to whether the conviction is sustainable on the basis of the aforesaid two circumstances, we need to answer the question in the negative because the law postulates that in a case of circumstantial evidence the prosecution must establish a chain or a web of circumstances, each circumstance being conclusive and taken cumulatively that they all point to one and only one conclusion that is consistent with the guilt of the accused. The Apex Court itself has been quick to point out in several decisions that a chain of circumstance presupposes several links and not just one link or two links but more importantly that each of the circumstances must be independently established and conclusive in their own right. The circumstantial evidence relied upon by the learned Government Pleader in this case falls short of this legal requirement. In this view of the matter a conviction becomes virtually impossible. The order of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court is accordingly confirmed. The appeal fails and stands dismissed. Bail bond of the accused to stand cancelled. It is not very clear from the record as to whether the accused is in custody. If the accused is in custody, we direct that he shall be released forthwith, if not required in connection with any other offence. --- *** --- .