M. F. SALDANHA, J. ( 1 ) THE facts of this case are rather unusual and interesting and in our considered view, had there been a sincere professional and in-depth investigation, the outcome of the trial could have been different. Accused No. 2 Siddagangamma is the wife of the deceased Chittaiah. Accused No. 1 Chikkanna is a distant relation of Chittaiah and the admitted position is that he used to visit the house of the couple quite often. Incidentally, the record also indicates that Chittaiah and his wife were living with their family members and they were not the sole occupants of the dwelling place. On the morning of 20-6-1991, Chittaiah was found dead. According to the prosecution, on the previous night, the other occupants of the house had gone to different places for different reasons and the deceased and his wife, Accused No. 2 were the only persons in the house. The prosecution further alleges that Accused No. 1 had developed an illicit intimacy with Accused No. 2, that this continued for quite some time and that the couple left the village and went to stay at Nelamangala. This created a lot of problems in the family and finally, steps were taken to bring the wife Accused No. 2 and the children back to the village and undoubtedly there was a lot of intervention from family members, Panchayatdars etc. , and Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were made to publicly take a vow before the Venkataramana Swamy Temple in the village, that they would not continue the illicit affair any longer. It appears that after this, Accused No. 2 and the children were residing with the husband Chittaiah along with other family members and that this was the position as on the night of 19-6-1991. ( 2 ) PW-1 Thimmaiah is the younger brother of the deceased Chittaiah and he states that on the previous night when he came to the house, he was told by Accused No. 2 that his brother Chittaiah was sleeping. She further stated that he had been ill for two days and that he had been suffering from symptoms of vomiting and loose motions, that he had taken some medicine and that he had only consumed a little rice ganji and gone to sleep. Thimmaiah believed this story and left the house. She further stated that he had been ill for two days and that he had been suffering from symptoms of vomiting and loose motions, that he had taken some medicine and that he had only consumed a little rice ganji and gone to sleep. Thimmaiah believed this story and left the house. He spent the night in the house at Master Veeranna's house (PW-2) and he states that early in the morning he was informed that Chittaiah had died. He came to the house and according to him, on looking at the neck of the deceased, there were distinct impressions of strangulation insofar as the finger imprints were quite prominent and there were some minor injuries such as nail marks. He then realised that Chittaiah had been murdered and the case was reported to the police. The police sent the body for post-mortem examination and it was confirmed that the death was of asphyxia due to strangulation. The police arrested the Accused Nos. 1 and 2 principally on the ground that it was obvious that Chittaiah was an obstacle to their love affair and that, therefore, they had a strong animus against him because he was instrumental in bringing Accused No. 2 and the children back to the house and taking all the subsequent action and furthermore that, if he was eliminated from the picture, that the affair could continue unabated. ( 3 ) THE defence has proposed the parallel theory that there were some disputes with regard to the partition of the property and that this could have been one of the reasons why Chittaiah was murdered or that there could have been several other reasons. The learned Trial Judge after evaluating the evidence acquitted the accused on the ground that the charges were not established and it is against this order of acquittal the present appeal has been preferred. ( 4 ) THE appellant's learned Counsel submitted that almost all the facts in the present case are undisputed. He has taken us through the evidence very elaborately which conclusively establishes that there was a long-standing illicit relationship between Accused Nos. 1 and 2, that this was so strong and so serious, that Accused No. 2 left her husband and went to reside with Accused No. 1 at Nelamangala and that she had also taken the children with her. He has taken us through the evidence very elaborately which conclusively establishes that there was a long-standing illicit relationship between Accused Nos. 1 and 2, that this was so strong and so serious, that Accused No. 2 left her husband and went to reside with Accused No. 1 at Nelamangala and that she had also taken the children with her. What is further pointed out to us is that it was because of the insistence of the deceased-Chittaiah that the couple were brought back to the village, they were publicly humiliated and were made to take a vow in the temple, that the affair would not continue any longer and the learned Counsel submits that all of this evidence which is not disputed will clearly and conclusively establish that Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were obviously enraged with the deceased for having interfered with their long-standing relationship and that having regard to the intensity and duration of that relationship, that even after Accused No. 2 was made to come back and reside with the deceased who was her husband, that there is hundred per cent ground to hold that the wife Accused No. 2 and the paramour Accused No. 1 would both have been looking for an opportunity to eliminate the deceased-husband from the picture so that their affair could be restored and could continue without any obstruction. ( 5 ) AT this stage, we need to point out that the evidence is not as one-sided as the learned Government Pleader makes it out to be because the Respondent's learned Counsel points out to us that if the intention of the couple was to continue with the affair that they would never have come back from Nelamangala and that since they did return and since they did take the pledge before the temple, that it was very clear that the entire affair had been terminated and he relies on the fact that Accused No. 2 the wife did go back with the children to her husband and that she was living there. He also relies heavily on the fact that the prosecution has not produced any evidence to show that after the return of Accused No. 2 to her house, that Accused No. 1 continued to either visit her or that the relationship had been revived or was continuing. He also relies heavily on the fact that the prosecution has not produced any evidence to show that after the return of Accused No. 2 to her house, that Accused No. 1 continued to either visit her or that the relationship had been revived or was continuing. This is an important aspect of the case because, this would equally establish that the motive which the prosecution alleges and it is sought to be used as the strongest circumstance against Accused Nos. 1 and 2 is not as conclusive as the prosecution makes it out to be and all that this Court can hold is that it could be a possible motive but, that even this circumstance is not a strong circumstance or a conclusive circumstance. ( 6 ) THE learned Government Pleader then came to what he described as the strongest circumstance against the accused. He points out that according to the prosecution evidence, deceased and the Accused No. 2 were alone in the house on the night of 19-6-1991, when the murder has taken place. From the medical evidence he points out that this is not a case of suicide as the defence has sought to suggest because admittedly no rope or any other means of hanging was forthcoming, the body was on the bed and there is nothing to indicate that the deceased had hanged himself and she thereafter had the body taken down and furthermore from the medical evidence which establishes finger marks and nail marks, the learned counsel points out to us that this is a clear case of homicidal death. We accept this submission on the basis of the aforesaid material. ( 7 ) THE learned counsel then proceeds to point out to us that on the night in question, the couple were alone in the house and if the deceased-husband was found dead first thing in the morning that Accused No. 2 who admittedly was there all the time cannot feign ignorance of how he was strangulated and if this was the hand of any outsider or third party, then it is quite obvious that the act could not have been done without her knowledge. From the silence of Accused No. 2 and the fact that she has not put forward any explanation for the homicidal death, he submits that the death has taken place at her instance. From the silence of Accused No. 2 and the fact that she has not put forward any explanation for the homicidal death, he submits that the death has taken place at her instance. His further submission is that having regard to the earlier affair in which Accused No. 2 was involved, that there is full and sufficient ground for her wanting to kill the deceased and that even assuming that it was physically difficult for her to strangulate the husband of her own, that she had a ready accomplice in Accused No. 1 who also shared the same animus against the deceased. The learned Counsel submits that these circumstances taken cumulatively and conclusively are sufficient to establish the guilt of both the accused but, if for any reason the Court, holds that there is nothing to indicate the presence of Accused No. 1, that the Court must view the physical probabilities of the fact that it would normally not have been easy or possible for Accused No. 2 who was a young woman to have strangulated the deceased even if he was sleeping, on her own and that therefore, the Court can draw the legitimate inference that Accused No. 1 was the accomplice. ( 8 ) AGAIN, the defence points out that the mere presence of Accused No. 2 in the house at night which is admitted cannot lead to the inference that she was the assailant or that she was one of the assailants. The submission is that the accused is entitled to maintain silence if for instance she really did not know as to who had done what during the night and it is further contended that the entire argument put forward by the learned Government Counsel is very highly speculative and is not based on any hard or concrete evidence. The fact that any third party could have been responsible for the crime, according to the learned counsel cannot be ruled out totally. The fact that any third party could have been responsible for the crime, according to the learned counsel cannot be ruled out totally. ( 9 ) THE sum total of the evidence against the accused gets reduced to this set of circumstances and all that we need to point out is that since the motive aspect itself is considerably diluted, that when it comes to the commission of the offence, it would be wrong for the Court to jump to such conclusions in the absence of further and better facts and evidence which the prosecution has not produced. We do not for a moment dispute the fact that strong or rather grave suspicion is cast on Accused No. 2 and by association it would also transmit to accused No. 1 but, beyond this, it would be incorrect and improper to hold that on the basis of this suspicion, in the total absence of any other better evidence, that the Court would draw an inference of guilt. ( 10 ) IN this regard, we are guided by the well settled law on the point relating to circumstantial evidence which postulates that in such cases, the chain of circumstance or the web of circumstances, must estasblish one and only one conclusion which is in consonance with the guilt of the accused. The law is also to the effect that the chain must consist of sufficient proof of links and that even one or for that matter two strong links still do not make up a chain as pointed out by the Apex Court. Also, what could have happened on that night and what did happen on that night are a grey area. The brother PW-1 who was a normal resident of that house for no valid reason or rather for some strange reason, states that he had gone to visit Master Veeranna PW-2 but, there is hardly any justification for his having spent the night in that person's house as alleged and secondly, the reasons given for the absence of his wife are also not very convincing. It is in this background, that the Court cannot rule out the possibility of someone else doing away with the husband and it was, therefore, incumbent on the part of the investigating authorities if accused Nos. It is in this background, that the Court cannot rule out the possibility of someone else doing away with the husband and it was, therefore, incumbent on the part of the investigating authorities if accused Nos. 1 and 2 according to them were the real assailants, to have investigated with a level of depth and sincerity and to have produced better evidence before the trial Court or in other words, to have established the case through circumstantial evidence of the manner and of the type that the law requires. We have at the most, two or three circumstances none of which are conclusive which are in themselves relatively weak and which could hardly constitute a chain that could conclusively establish the nexus between the crime and the accused. ( 11 ) HAVING analysed the evidence on record very carefully, having done a review of the material before us and having heard the learned counsel on both sides at length both on facts and in law, in our considered view, this is not a case in which a conviction is possible. We, therefore, confirm the order of acquittal recorded by the trial Court. The appeal fails on merits and stands dismissed. The bail bonds of the accused to stand cancelled. Appeal dismissed. --- *** --- .