Judgment :- Koshy. J. Appellant in this case along with one Meenakshi, his mother, were charge sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case is that at about 7.30 p.m. on 26.11.1997 the deceased had occasion to witness accused No.1 having illicit connection with PW2 Saffia, in the veranda of his residence bearing Panchayath No.X/104 of Edarikode and that they had a deliberation in between which resulted a scuffle and that accused No.1 with an intention of committing murder of the deceased, snatched a knife from his hands and committed murder by stabbing him on the dorsal side and neck and that accused No.2 being the mother of accused No.1 in furtherance of their common intention of screening the evidence and in order to save accused No.1, destroyed the blood stained cloth worn by accused No.1 at the time of the incident, by setting them on fire and therefore the accused are alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Sec. 34 of I.P.C. Twenty witnesses were examined on the side of the prosecution. Exts. P1 to P13 and MO1 to MO12 were marked. Even though there was no direct evidence, based on circumstantial evidence, mainly based on the depositions of PWs 2 and 3, the Sessions Judge found that the second accused, mother of the appellant was not guilty under Section 201 of I.P.C. But, the appellant was found guilty under Section 302 of I.P.C. and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-. Even though the appellant admitted that he had intimacy with PW2 denied his involvement in the murder. 2. PW1 who gave the F.I. Statement only reported that he found the dead body of the deceased at 8.40.a.m. on 27.11.1997 when he went to the house of the deceased and he immediately reported the matter. He has not connected anybody with the murder of the deceased. PW2 has deposed before the court that she had some illicit relation with the appellant/first accused and they were in love. She deposed that at about 7 p.m. on 26.11.1997 the first accused called her to the house of the deceased. Nobody was there. She went into the veranda(kola). He has not connected anybody with the murder of the deceased. PW2 has deposed before the court that she had some illicit relation with the appellant/first accused and they were in love. She deposed that at about 7 p.m. on 26.11.1997 the first accused called her to the house of the deceased. Nobody was there. She went into the veranda(kola). First accused went inside the house and after above five minutes he came back to the veranda. They talked for five minutes. Then the deceased came. She returned to her house. She was declared hostile. During cross examination she stated that earlier occasions she used to have illicit connection with the first accused and on that day when they were about to have illicit sexual intercourse. The deceased came. Then the first accused told her to go away and she returned to her house. After she went, the first accused and the deceased had altercation and she had seen it standing in the nearby plantation. She further stated that both persons thereafter went inside the house and she was seeing the same in view of the kerosene lamp lit therein. After some time she heard loud cry of the deceased. She went and informed her mother. Her mother advised her not to tell anybody else. She also deposed that the relationship between her and the first accused is known in their place and her mother was against it. She further stated that when she went there, nobody was there. PW3 mother of PW2 also stated that she came to know about the death of the deceased only on the next day morning. There was some programme in the nearby school on the date of the incident. Her daughter was not there in their house at 7.30.p.m. PW3 thought that she must be in the latrine. After 15 minutes she came there and stated that she has gone to the house of the deceased with the first accused and there was scuffle between the first accused and the deceased. PW3 advised PW2 not to tell anybody regarding this. During cross examination she deposed that she was against the first accused as she disliked the relationship between him and PW2. She deposed as follows: PW4. brother-in-law of the appellant confirmed that the appellant came to the nearby school to see the programme. Thereafter he was seen only after five months. PW3 advised PW2 not to tell anybody regarding this. During cross examination she deposed that she was against the first accused as she disliked the relationship between him and PW2. She deposed as follows: PW4. brother-in-law of the appellant confirmed that the appellant came to the nearby school to see the programme. Thereafter he was seen only after five months. On the basis of their evidence the case of the prosecution was that the circumstances points to the guilt of the first accused as (1) he and the deceased were last seen together in the house of the deceased at about 7.30 p.m. (2) his presence in the nearby area is established by his own brother-in-law, PW4 (3) he was absconding as PW4 himself deposed that after the date of incident he was seen only after five months. Believing PWs 2 and 3, according to the Sessions Judge, these circumstances will be enough for convicting the first accused. 3. Ext.P7 is the Postmortem Certificate. It states that postmortem was conducted at 9.40 a.m. on 28.11.1997. Injuries stated in the postmortem certificate are as follows: 1. Incised penetrating wound 5xo.5cm, oblique on left half of back of chest, upper right pointed end 10 cm away from midline,17 cm below shoulder. Lower left rounded end 19 cm below shoulder. The wound entered chest cavity cutting the muscles below 9th rib and entered the lower lobe of left lung (transfixed). The depth was 7 cm and direction directly forwards. Left chest cavity contained 750 ml of blood and blood clots. 2. Incised wound 4.5x1x1.5cm transverse, on left half of back of neck 1 cm away from midline back, 6cm above root of neck (muscle deep). 3. Incised penetrating wound 3x0.5x2.5 cm transverse on left side of neck. 4cm below ear lobule. Front end rounded and back end pointed. The muscles underneath were cut and cut the left side of body of 4th neck vertebra (2.5x1x0.5cm). The wound was directed toward right horizontally. 4. Incised wound 1.5x0.5x1.5x cm, transverse on right half of back of neck, 4 cm to the (right) of injury No.2. 5. Superficial incised wound 0.5x0.1cm vertical on front of (right) palm,4cm above little finger. 6. Incised wound 1.5x0.1x1cm, transverse on outer aspect of right middle finger 2 cm above tip. 7. Incised wound 1x0.1x3cm, transverse, on front of right little finger, 1cm below root. 8. 5. Superficial incised wound 0.5x0.1cm vertical on front of (right) palm,4cm above little finger. 6. Incised wound 1.5x0.1x1cm, transverse on outer aspect of right middle finger 2 cm above tip. 7. Incised wound 1x0.1x3cm, transverse, on front of right little finger, 1cm below root. 8. Abrasion 2x0.3cm, transverse on front of right chest, 2.5cm to the left of nipple. 9. Abrasion 0.5x0.5cm on back of right elbow. 10. Abrasion 1.5x1cm on back of (right) wrist. 11. Confused abrasion 0.6x0.6cm on inner aspect of right leg, 14cm above ankle. 12. Contused abrasion 0.5x0.5cm on back of right chest 3cm away from midline. 10cm below shoulder blade.” The opinion as to cause of death was the deceased died due to incised penetrating injury to chest. In the postmortem certificate probable time of death is not mentioned. However, it is stated that rigor mortis feebley present in the lower limbs, passed off from upper limbs and jaws. The doctor who conducted the postmortem was examined as PW11. He has not stated the probable time of death during examination also. It is stated that rigor mortis started to disappear at the time of postmortem. It will start to disappear from 18 hours to 24 hours. It will take six hours for setting rigor mortis. The postmortem certificate would show that at the maximum the death would have happened 24 hours before the time of examination. 4. Another important document to be considered is the Scene Mahazar and the evidence of PW19. MO12 dagger which caused the injuries was found out from the adjacent room to the kitchen where the body was found. From Ext.P2 scene mahazar it can be seen that in the adjacent room the lock of a wooden box was found in broken stage and another wooden box was found in an opened position. PW19 has also deposed that the lid of the box was found open after removing its lock with force. He deposed as follows: He also found out the knife cover from the body of the deceased. As per Ext.P2, wet rice was seen spread all over the kitchen where the body was found. In the ‘Aduppu’ (fire hearth) an Aluminium vessel with water was also seen. Remainings of firewood were also seen near the aduppu. It is stated in Ext.P2 as follows: Rotten fish was also seen in an aluminium vessel. As per Ext.P2, wet rice was seen spread all over the kitchen where the body was found. In the ‘Aduppu’ (fire hearth) an Aluminium vessel with water was also seen. Remainings of firewood were also seen near the aduppu. It is stated in Ext.P2 as follows: Rotten fish was also seen in an aluminium vessel. Scene Mahazar and evidence of PW19 would show that at the time of the incident, the deceased was cleaning the rice for cooking and not in the manner as narrated by the prosecution. Nature of the injuries would show that the deceased was stabbed from back as all injuries were on the back side of the body. As already pointed out, there is no direct evidence in this case. 5. Prosecution mainly relied on circumstantial evidence. It is settled law that in the absence of direct evidence, to convict a person the chain of circumstances must be so complete without any missing link or reasonable doubt, as held by the Supreme Court in Prem Thakur v. State of Punjab (AIR 1983 SC 61). For convicting the accused guilty on the basis of circumstantial evidence, court should be satisfied that all the links in the chain are complete and only hypothesis possible on the basis of the evidence adduced is that accused and accused alone is guilty of the offence (See C.K. Raveendran v. State of Kerala (JT 1999 (9) SC 408) and Jaswant Singh v. State (Delhi Administration) (AIR 1979 SC 190). It is said that circumstantial evidence should be like spiders web leaving no exit for the accused to step away. It should not only consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence as held by the Supreme Court in Mangleshwari Prasad v. State of Bihar (AIR 1954 SC 715). In a case of circumstantial evidence, the court has to be on its guard to avoid damages of being swayed by emotional considerations as held by the Supreme Court in Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1996 SC 607). It has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court that the distinction between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is long and divides vague conjectures from sure considerations and each must be covered by clear and unobjecting evidence by the prosecution before the accused is condemned as a culprit. 6. It has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court that the distinction between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is long and divides vague conjectures from sure considerations and each must be covered by clear and unobjecting evidence by the prosecution before the accused is condemned as a culprit. 6. The court below mainly relied on the evidence of PWs.2. Learned counsel for appellant points out that there is lot of contradictions in the evidence of PW.2. She was declared hostile. Merely because a witness is hostile and cross examined, her evidence cannot be discarded (Gurpreeth Singh v. State of Haryana (AIR 2002 SC 3217). But, she is a village witness, not a literate lady. She was examined in court after five years of the incident. There may be contradictions. As rightly pointed out by the prosecution the maxim ‘Falsus in Uno Falsus in Omnibus’ does not apply to Criminal case and it is the duty of the court to separate the grain from the chief instead of rejecting the same on the ground of contradiction as held by the Supreme Court in Bhe Ram v. State of Haryana (AIR 1980 957). But, the question is that even if PWs2 and 3 are believed, is there any circumstance to come to the conclusion that the first accused alone is guilty or nobody else. As held by the Supreme Court in Lakhanpal v. State of MP (AIR 1979 SC 1620) mere fact that the accused and the deceased were seen together on the date of the incident cannot lead to the irresistible conclusion that the accused must have murdered him. Last-seen theory comes into play where the time-gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were seen last alive and when the deceased is found dead is so short that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible as held by the Supreme Court in Bodhraj v. State of Jammu and Kashmir (2002) 8 SCC 45). In this case, the body was seen only in the morning at 8.30 a.m. on 27.11.1997 and the first accused and the deceased were last seen only on the previous day at about 7.30 p.m. (If PW2 alone seen them together and if she is believed) and there is no exact evidence to show the time of death. 7. In this case, the body was seen only in the morning at 8.30 a.m. on 27.11.1997 and the first accused and the deceased were last seen only on the previous day at about 7.30 p.m. (If PW2 alone seen them together and if she is believed) and there is no exact evidence to show the time of death. 7. Apart from the above, according to the prosecution story, the deceased was living alone in that house and usually he goes out for his business during day time. The attempt of the prosecution was to establish that the accused and PW2 had frequent intercourse in his house on various occasions, that on this day also deceased was not there and when the deceased came back after work, he saw the accused and PW2 together and that there was scuffle between them and the incident occurred. If that be so, there is no occasion to lit kerosene lamp and presence of wet rice in the scene of occurrence. Scene Mahazer would indicate that deceased was attacked when he was about to cook rice. Admittedly, he was living alone in the house. According to the prosecution, when the deceased came, PW2 ran away. Scuffle between the first accused and the deceased started from veranda and both of them went inside kitchen. There is no chance of kerosene lamp being lit there in between and making preparations for cooking rice. Presence of rotten fish was also not explained. Therefore, it is more probable that somebody might have entered the house of the deceased at the time when the deceased was making preparations for cooking rice. The fact that two boxes were found open, that too by using force and the evidence of PW19 show that there may be a chance that somebody might have entered for theft or for some other purpose. Anyway, it cannot be stated that guilt is pointing towards the first accused alone. 8. Even PWs2 and 3 were questioned after eight months of the incident. PW2 also stated that PW3 was inimical towards the first accused as he had illicit connection with PW2. Evidence of PW3 confirm this. According to the counsel for the first accused, after months of incident first accused was falsely implication by PW3. 9. We may now consider the circumstance with regard to absconding. PW2 also stated that PW3 was inimical towards the first accused as he had illicit connection with PW2. Evidence of PW3 confirm this. According to the counsel for the first accused, after months of incident first accused was falsely implication by PW3. 9. We may now consider the circumstance with regard to absconding. It is true that the flight of the accused from justice after the occurrence is a relevant circumstance involving the conduct of the accused. But, conclusion of guilty mind cannot be drawn from that circumstances alone as held by the Supreme Court in Rahman v. State of UP (AIR 1972 SC 110). Mere absconding itself does not necessarily lead to a firm conclusion of guilty mind. It is not a determining link in circumstantial evidence. But, that act is a relevant piece of evidence to be considered along with other evidence and its evidential value will depend upon the circumstance of the case (see Kundula Bala Subrahmanyam v. State of Andhra Pradesh ((1993) 2 SCC 684). It is true that PW4 who is the brother-in-law of the appellant stated that after that day the first accused was seen only after five months. The brother of the first accused was examined as PW7 by the prosecution and he deposed that the accused was a mason working along with him. He goes for work whenever work is available. Prosecution witnesses including PW2 stated so. During those days when A1 was said to be absconding, he was working with PW7 as usual. Mere absence from a place is not absconding. Absence from the locality cannot be equated to absconding. It must be to avoid arrest or escape from process of law. In the F.I. Statement nobody was suspected. First accused was not made as an accused at that time. The date of death is 26.11.1997. First accused was apprehended on 13.6.1998 after seven and a half months. Before his arrest nobody has suspected him with the incident. Even PW2 stated to the police regarding the alleged presence of the first accused in the house of the deceased only after his arrest. It evokes suspicion of prosecution case. Prosecution also did not explain how they suspected first accused after seven months of the incident. Before his arrest nobody has suspected him with the incident. Even PW2 stated to the police regarding the alleged presence of the first accused in the house of the deceased only after his arrest. It evokes suspicion of prosecution case. Prosecution also did not explain how they suspected first accused after seven months of the incident. Even questioning of PWs2 and 3 was done only after eight months and therefore merely because he was not present for five months in that place and working elsewhere, it cannot say that he was absconding. No evidence was adduced by the investigating officer regarding this. PW2 stated that she did not tell anything about the first accused to anybody till police questioning her after arresting the first accused. She also deposed that police questioning them immediately after the incident and they (PW2 & PW3) said that they knew nothing about it. In the absence circumstances. Investigating Officer should have informed the court how police suspected the first accused. In Subhas Chand v. State of Rajasthan ((2002) 1 SCC 702) Apex Court held that Investigating Officer should adduce evidence in court explaining step by step how investigation proceeded especially in the case of circumstantial evidence. 10. From the totality of evidence it cannot be stated that the first accused alone could have murdered the deceased and chain of circumstances are not complete. Prosecution failed to prove that the first accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of the circumstantial evidence placed before the court. 11. In the above circumstances, we set aside the judgment of the Sessions Court and acquit the appellant/first accused. He should be released from the prison forthwith if he is not otherwise required to be kept in the jail. The Crl. Appeal is allowed.