JUDGMENT - KAKADE P.V., J.: - The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 4-12-1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharpur, in Sessions Case No. 5 of 1999 wherein the appellant was convicted for commission of the offence punishable under section 302 of the I.P.C. and was sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to suffer R.I. for one year. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is thus:- The accused was residing with his wife Savita at village Velapur, Tal. Malshiras. The marriage between accused and Savita had taken place about 3 to 4 months prior to the incident. P.W. 1 Pandit Pawar i.e. the complainant is father of deceased Savita and is mason by profession and is resident of village Warwade, Tal. Madha. Whenever Savita used to visit her parental home, she used to make complaints to her parents about ill-treatment by the accused under the influence of liquor. Parents of Savita also had told the accused to behave properly. The incident took place on 4-11-1998. Complainant was present in his house. Four to five persons of village Velapur came in the jeep and informed that Savita died in her house at Velapur. The complainant alongwith P.W. 2 Balu Pawar and wife of complainant and other relatives went to Velapur in the same jeep. The dead body of Savita was lying in the house of the accused with her bangles broken. There were marks around the neck of Savita. There was also swelling over the left eye and left cheek and linear abrasion marks around the neck of Savita. Sarees of Savita was hanging from roof of the house. In the meantime, Shankar father of accused had informed Velapur Police Station that dead body of Savita was lying in the house and her bangles were broken and there was marking over her neck and saree was hanging from the roof of the house. Police registered an accidental death and investigation was proceeded with. P.S.I. Aspat visited the spot, prepared panchnama of scene of incident and attached pieces of bangles and sarees which was hanging from roof of the house. He also prepared inquest panchnama of dead body and sent it for post-mortem. Police registered an accidental death and investigation was proceeded with. P.S.I. Aspat visited the spot, prepared panchnama of scene of incident and attached pieces of bangles and sarees which was hanging from roof of the house. He also prepared inquest panchnama of dead body and sent it for post-mortem. On 5-11-1998 i.e. on the next day of the incident, Savitas father lodged complaint with the police at 4.15 p.m. against the accused alleging that he had killed Savita. Accordingly, C.R. No. 55 of 1998 was registered against the accused for offence punishable under section 302 of the I.P.C. P.S.I. Aspat took over the investigation and recorded the statement of witnesses. Accused was arrested on 7-11-1998. In the course of his police custody, the accused volunteered to show the place where he had kept the saree of his wife and led the police wherefrom the saree was discovered with which he allegedly had strangulated Savita. Statements of witness Oswal and Rajurkar also were recorded. The incriminating articles were sent to C.A. for examination whose report was received and is part of the record. Post-mortem reports were also received spelling out the cause of death of Savita. On completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was sent to the Court of law. The learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions. 3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charges for the offence under section 302 of the I.P.C. to which the accused pleaded not guilty. The defence of the accused is that of total denial of any criminal liability. According to the defence, Savita was not happy with her marriage and committed suicide by hanging herself to the roof of the house by means of saree. The prosecution led its evidence at length, on which basis the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that it was sufficient to bring home the guilt and, therefore, proceeded to convict and sentence the accused in aforesaid manner. Hence the appeal. 4. We have heard Shri T.E. Mane, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Kejariwal, learned A.P.P. for the State, at length, We have also perused the entire evidence on record. As can be seen from the record, it is a case solely based upon circumstantial evidence. Hence the appeal. 4. We have heard Shri T.E. Mane, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Kejariwal, learned A.P.P. for the State, at length, We have also perused the entire evidence on record. As can be seen from the record, it is a case solely based upon circumstantial evidence. Those circumstances being (i) deceased Savita was staying with the accused in his house at the time of the incident which took place in the house itself: (ii) the accused was absconding after funeral of Savita till he was arrested on 7-11-1998; (iii) discovery of Savitas saree, at the instance of the accused from the place, which was hidden, the saree with which the accused had allegedly strangulated Savita; and (iv) the fact that accused had sold Savitas ornaments to witness Oswal and Rajurkar three weeks prior to the incident. These are the circumstances on which the prosecution case is balanced and, therefore, it would be necessary to take into account those circumstances in order to appreciate whether the accused is the culprit in the case or not. It is the prosecution case that Savita and accused were not on happy terms and accused used to quarrel with Savita under the influence of alcohol. For this purpose, the prosecution has examined P.W. 1 Pandit father of deceased Savita. However, perusal of the entire evidence of Pandit definitely shows that he is not supporting the prosecution case at all on any count and, therefore, his total evidence is liable to be discarded so far as allegations against the accused are concerned. No doubt he has stated how he came to know about the death of his daughter and the fact that he attended the funeral. He has accepted the fact that he has signed the complaint filed by him vide Exh. 9, however, he has denied the version spelt out in the complaint to the effect that he suspected it was the accused who had killed Savita. This aspect has weekend the prosecution case to the great extent and left it only with two or three fragile incriminating circumstances for our consideration. No doubt that Savita died in the house of the accused and during the said relevant period they were living together and there used to be quarrels between them. This aspect has weekend the prosecution case to the great extent and left it only with two or three fragile incriminating circumstances for our consideration. No doubt that Savita died in the house of the accused and during the said relevant period they were living together and there used to be quarrels between them. It is significant to note that the prosecution has heavily relied upon the fact that the accused had sold ornaments of Savita to witnesses Oswal and Rajurkar about three weeks prior to the incident and obtained an amount of Rs. 2132/- apparently for the purpose of spending it for addiction of liquor. It is the prosecution version that there were severe quarrels between husband and wife and as the learned trial Judge has put it, possibility cannot be ruled out that deceased Savita might have opposed the accused in this regard. Even assuming for a moment that Savita opposed the act of the accused when he sold her ornaments to fulfil his addiction to drink liquor, still that cannot be one of the circumstance to from link to the evidential chain against the accused as it had taken place prior to Savitas death and not subsequent. 5. Similarly, it is submitted on behalf of the prosecution that the accused was found absconding after death of Savita. However, it must be noted that it is evident that after death of Savita, the accused was present in the house and also attended funeral and thereafter he went away and was found on 7-11-1998. The incident having taken place on 4-11-1998, the body of Savita was hanging to the roof of the house. On 5-11-1998 and after attending the funeral, the accused went away and was found on 7-11-1998. Therefore, absence of few days can hardly be said to be "abscondance" on the part of the accused. In other words, if the accused had guilty mind and wanted to run away, he would not have attended the funeral of his wife and would have gone away immediately after body of Savita was found. Therefore, in our view, this aspect also cannot be of any significance. 6. Similar is the position with regard to the discovery panchnama. It is the prosecution case that Savitas saree was seized at the instance of the accused when he led the police to the place where the saree was hidden. Therefore, in our view, this aspect also cannot be of any significance. 6. Similar is the position with regard to the discovery panchnama. It is the prosecution case that Savitas saree was seized at the instance of the accused when he led the police to the place where the saree was hidden. According to the prosecution, it was the same saree with which Savita was strangulated. It was found from under the heap of stones infront of house of the accused. In our considered view, this so called memorandum of panchnama and discovery of saree under section 27 of the Evidence Act can hardly be sufficient to show the direct nexus between the accused and death of Savita, especially when another saree was found hanging from the roof of house of the accused near the body of deceased Savita. The prosecution has tried to propound a theory that Savita was strangulated with saree with fine texture as per the medical evidence and, therefore, it appears, effort is being made to show that another saree was involved in commission of the said alleged offence. However, it is not on record, at all whether the saree which was found hanging from the roof was either with coarse fabric or was that of fine texture. At any rate, nothing would turn on discovery panchnama evidence for want of direct nexus between death of Savita and finding of saree at the instance of the accused. 7. The medical evidence on record shows that Savita died due to asphyxia due to strangulation. If we peruse the medical evidence vis a vis the post-mortem report on record, there is no doubt about the cause of death of Savita, however, at the same time, the possibility cannot be ruled out of suicidal death in which case the ligature marks around the neck would be of similar nature. It appears that there were other injuries, such as, contusion diffuse and swelling over left eye and bruised. The face appeared bluish discolouration and blood was oozing from the mouth and both the nostrils and the tongue was beaten by the teeth. These injuries apparently prompted the learned trial Judge, as it appears from the judgment, weighed heavily against the accused, in order to come to the conclusion that it would be indicative of scuffle prior to death of Savita. These injuries apparently prompted the learned trial Judge, as it appears from the judgment, weighed heavily against the accused, in order to come to the conclusion that it would be indicative of scuffle prior to death of Savita. In our considered view, in absence of any other substantial evidence on record to hold that the accused and Savita had quarrel immediately prior to the incident, it is not possible to jump to the conclusion that those injuries were due to scuffle prior to the death. In fact those injuries are also suggestive of suicidal death. In any case, mere appearance of those injuries would not be sufficient to saddle the accused with the alleged crime. 8. While dealing with the case involving the circumstantial evidence, certain guidelines are required to be observed. It must be found that (i) the circumstances from which inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be firmly and cogently established; (ii) these circumstances must be of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the quilt of the accused; and (iii) circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that with all human probabilities, crime was committed by the accused and none else. Therefore, if we test the entire evidence involved in this case on these guidelines, it is seen that the chain of evidence against the accused is not at all complete and is based particularly an conjuncture and surmises than hard facts duly proved on record. 9. For reason recorded above, we hold that we are unable to agree with the reasoning adopted and findings recorded by the learned trial Judge and are of the view that appeal deserves to be allowed. 10. Hence, the appeal is hereby allowed. The judgment and order dated 4-12-1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharpur in Sessions Case No. 5 of 1999 convicting and sentencing the appellant for life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to suffer R.I. for one year, is hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the offence with which he was charged and shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. Appeal allowed. -----