JUDGMENT P.G. Agarwal, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order, dated, 1.3.2001 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jorhat, in Sessions Case No. 92(J-J)/97 (G.R. Case No. 552/97) whereby the accused Appellant Debajyoti Saikia was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/ - in default further imprisonment for six months. 2. Heard Mr. J.M. Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the accused/Appellant and Mr. P.C. Gayan, learned P.P., Assam. 3. This is a case of matricide. The Appellant used to reside along with his parents and he is the son of P.W.-1 Debendra Saikia and Debika Saikia (mother) since deceased). P.W.-4 Raktim Saikia lodged written FIR on 11.6.97 stating inter alia that his elder sister Debika Saikia is found missing and thereafter on the next day, the police was informed that the dead body of Debika has been found lying on the backyard of the house. The inquest was conducted wherein police found marks of violence over the dead body and it was sent for post Mortem Examination. 4. P.W.-7 is Dr. Srimanta Madhab Sharma who held the autopsy over the dead body and found as follows: External appearance: Deadbody of an adult female of average built with mouth and eyes open. Little froth on the left angular mouth. Rigor mortis present. Multiple abrasions on the back and both hands. Multiple ecchymosis on the left forearm found. Cranium and spinal cord: Haematoma in occipital region, size about 2"x2". Depressed fracture of the occipital bone beneath the haematoma Subcepo-reurotic-bleeding present (bleeding was present below the membrane in the brain). Membrane are congested and lacerated beneath the depressed fractures. Brain matter was congested and lacerated beneath fractured occipital bone. Intracranial haemorrhage was present, profuse bleeding. Muscles, bones and joints: As described in external appearance. Fracture: No. 1. Fracture of left rib, 2nd and 3rd rib at pedicular line. Fracture No. 2: Depressed fracture of occipital bone. The injuries were antemortem in nature. 5. In the opinion of the doctor, the death was due to coma resulting from the head injuries which was allegedly caused by blunt weapon. 6. Fracture: No. 1. Fracture of left rib, 2nd and 3rd rib at pedicular line. Fracture No. 2: Depressed fracture of occipital bone. The injuries were antemortem in nature. 5. In the opinion of the doctor, the death was due to coma resulting from the head injuries which was allegedly caused by blunt weapon. 6. In the present case, there is overwhelming oral evidence of P.W. 1 and others as regards the death of the deceased and the learned Counsel for the Appellant was fair enough to submit that the death of the deceased on the date of occurrence as such has not been disputed or challenged. Considering the medical evidence on record, we concur with the finding of the trial court that this is a case of homicide. 7. In this case, there is no direct testimony as regards the involvement of any person including the accused/Appellant in the matter of death of the deceased, in other words, there is no eye witness who had seen the deceased being assaulted. The entire prosecution case rests on the circumstantial evidence. 8. On perusal of the impugned judgment, we find that the trial court has relied on the following circumstances to bring home the charge against the accused/Appellant: (1) The Appellant (son of the deceased) had strained relationship with his mother. (2) The conduct of the Appellant on the night of the incident. (3) The accused/Appellant refused to accompany his neighbour to the Hospital to enquire about the deceased. (4) The accused/Appellant refused to carry the FIR to the Police Station. (5) The accused/Appellant did not grieve over the death. 9. From the evidence on record, we find that the deceased (wife of P.W.-1) was serving as a Professor in a College at Shillong and after retirement from the said job, she used of reside at Jorhat with her husband and the son (accused/Appellant). There was another maid servant in their house named Smt. Sayan Begum (P.W.-2). The deceased was involved in the management of B.Ed. College and a Child Development Training Institute. P.W.-1 has deposed that the deceased Debika and the accused/Appellant were not in talking terms for the last five years. The incident took place on 11.6.97 and according to P.W.-1, the accused/Appellant who is a medical practitioner by profession, had thrown hot water on the face of the deceased some time in the year 1992. P.W.-1 has deposed that the deceased Debika and the accused/Appellant were not in talking terms for the last five years. The incident took place on 11.6.97 and according to P.W.-1, the accused/Appellant who is a medical practitioner by profession, had thrown hot water on the face of the deceased some time in the year 1992. The deceased also alleged that the accused/Appellant wrote threatening letters to his mother, but admittedly, no such letters have been produced or proved and exhibited. P.W.-1 has also stated that the accused has threatened to kill him in the year 1996. 10. As stated above, at the relevant point of time, the deceased used to live in the said house along with her husband (P.W.-1) and maid servant (P.W.-2). The accused who was working at Shillong, came to their house on the previous day and was staying in the said house. The deceased went out from the house at around 9 A.M. and did not return till 9-30 P.M. whereupon P.W.-1 contacted his relation. Both P.W.-1 and the Appellant went to the Hospital to enquire about the missing Debika. As stated by P.W.-3, the accused did not enter into the Hospital. P.W.-1 has further deposed that he wrote information to police regarding missing of his wife and asked his son to go to Police Station; but the latter refused to go to Police Station stating that he may be arrested by police, as it is midnight. 11. The fact that the Appellant had strained relation with his mother has been deposed to by P.W.-2 and P.W.-4. 12. Smt. Sayan Begum (P.W.-2) is the maid servant working in the residence and she has deposed about the deceased leaving the house at 9 A.M. in the morning. She has also deposed about some human excreta lying near the gate and on being asked by P.W.-1, she refused to clear up the same. Thereafter, she went to call one Tankeswari to do the work; but in the meantime, they found that the said excreta has been removed by some one. P.W.-1 has also deposed to that effect. In this case, neither P.W.-1 not P.W.-2 saw the accused clearing the excreta P.W.-1, however, tried to show by implication that this was done by the accused. Although there is no scope for such presumption, but even if we have to accept the same, it does not mean anything. P.W.-1 has also deposed to that effect. In this case, neither P.W.-1 not P.W.-2 saw the accused clearing the excreta P.W.-1, however, tried to show by implication that this was done by the accused. Although there is no scope for such presumption, but even if we have to accept the same, it does not mean anything. If some excreta are lying near the gate and the maid servant refused to clear up the same, the owner's young son might volunteer and do the work and there is nothing unusual about it. P.W.-2 has also deposed that neither the deceased nor P W-1 were in talking terms with the accused/Appellant. 13. P.W.-3 (Abani Kanta Kalita) is the next door neighbour and he was informed about the missing of the deceased and he was requested by P.W.-1 to enquire about her at the local Hospital, namely Mission Hospital and Jorhat Civil Hospital. The accused/Appellant accompanied P.W.-3 to the Hospital but according to P.W.-3, he did not go inside the Hospital to look for his mother. Thereafter P.W.-3 further deposed that he asked the accused to accompany him to Police Station; but the latter declined to go to Police Station as it was late night and they may be apprehended by police as ULFA. P.W.-3 reported the matter to P.W.-1. 14. P.W.-4 Raktim Saikia is the brother of the deceased and he is a reported witness only and this witness has deposed about the strained relationship between the mother and son. P.W.-5 Udoy Sarkar Saikia is the brother of the deceased. 15. Before considering the circumstantial evidence on record, at this stage, it will be appropriate to recapitulate the requirement of law as regards the circumstantial evidence as enunciated by the Apex Court in the case of Hanuman v. State of M.P. : AIR 1952 SC 343 wherein he Apex Court laid down the following guidelines: (1) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between 'may be proved' and 'must be or should be proved' as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade v. State of Maharastra : (1973) 2 SCC 793 : AIR 1973 SC 2622 where the following observations were made: Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a Court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divided vague conjectures from sure conclusions (2) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. (3) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. (4) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved and (5) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. These five golden principles, if we may say so constitute the Panchasheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence. 16. The above principles were reiterated in the case of Sharad v. State of Maharashtra : AIR 1984 SC 1622 and in case of Dhananjay Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal : JT (1994) 1 (SC) 33 and in a recent case of Bodhraj v. J and K : AIR 2002 SC 3164. 17. In the present case, we find that the trial court held that the circumstances as enunciated above have been established. We also find no infirmity in the above finding as these are not seriously challenged. Hence, the requirement of guideline No. 1 stands fulfilled. 18. The next question for consideration is what inference can be drawn from the above circumstances. In the present case, we find that the trial court held that the circumstances as enunciated above have been established. We also find no infirmity in the above finding as these are not seriously challenged. Hence, the requirement of guideline No. 1 stands fulfilled. 18. The next question for consideration is what inference can be drawn from the above circumstances. The evidence reading the strained relationship between the accused and the deceased mother has been deposed to by as many as three witnesses; but merely because the relations were strained, can it be presumed that it was the accused and the accused alone who killed the deceased. The witnesses have deposed about an incident of throwing of hot water on the face of the deceased. That incident took place in the year 1995 whereas the incident of homicide took place in the year 1997. Thus, the incident of throwing of hot water occurred five years back and it was too remote to have any link or connection with the present case. Moreover, although P.W.-1, father, has deposed about the strained relationship, we find that the son was working at Shillong and came to Jorhat for staying in his house and this was not opposed by any one including the father or the deceased. This goes to show that the relationship might be cold, but it was not that hostile as tried to be depicted in the present case. The conduct of the accused/Appellant in the entering into the Hospital to find out his missing mother can also be explained due to the cold relationship. The son, i.e., the Appellant did accompany P.W.-3 to the Hospital to look after his missing mother but he might not have been prepared to confront his mother or see her in the Hospital. 19. As regards the reluctance of the accused/Appellant to go to Police Station at dead of night, the trial court has drawn adverse inference against the Appellant without giving any reason. The conduct of the accused/Appellant must be examined in the light of the prevailing circumstances at the relevant point of time, for not venturing to enter Police Station at dead of night, on the apprehension of assault or misbehaviour by police or Paramilitary forces. The conduct of the accused/Appellant must be examined in the light of the prevailing circumstances at the relevant point of time, for not venturing to enter Police Station at dead of night, on the apprehension of assault or misbehaviour by police or Paramilitary forces. The informant P.W.-1 has also deposed that when he rang up police, he did inform them about missing of his wife and made a request to come, but even police refused to come to his place taking the plea that it was late at night. Hence, on consideration of the circumstance Nos. 2 and 3 as stated above, we find that the conduct of the accused/Appellant does not lead to the inference that he was involved with the killing of his own mother, as we know that different people react in different manner in given circumstances and considering the cold relationship of the accused and the deceased and the manner in which the Appellant has acted, that can not be a circumstance to infer that this accused/Appellant is involved in the killing. Hence, the above, circumstances do not lead to the hypothesis that the accused is guilty. 20. There is another aspect of the matter, which has not been considered by the trial court, and, which in our opinion, is relevant. The trial court has held that the incident of killing took place in the bed room/inside the house and thereafter, the dead body was dragged out, we do not find any evidence to that effect and this seems to be in the realm of conjecture. Surprisingly enough P.W.-1 has deposed that on the date on which his wife was missing, at about 5 P.M., while he was waiting for his wife's return, and he saw her talking to a stranger at a distinct of about two furlongs from their house. But neither this witness nor P.W.-2 has deposed that the deceased was killed inside the house or they saw her inside the house. The person with whom the deceased was talking at about 5 P.M. was also not known or must be a stranger as P.W.-1 could not have failed to recognize or identify his own son. But neither this witness nor P.W.-2 has deposed that the deceased was killed inside the house or they saw her inside the house. The person with whom the deceased was talking at about 5 P.M. was also not known or must be a stranger as P.W.-1 could not have failed to recognize or identify his own son. The question which left unanswered is who was that stranger with whom the deceased was talking and if she had come so near her own house, why she did not enter into the house or if entered, why she did not talk with her own husband or the servant which we generally do when returning back home. 21. P.W.-1 has also deposed that thereafter, they all searched for the deceased inside and outside the house but found no trace. If she was killed in the meantime, where was the dead body lying? Further, if we hold that the accused Appellant had come all the way from Shillong with a plan to kill his mother and staying in the house, why will he commit such act in the evening hours so that suspicion was created in the house. A prudent man will bide his time for opportune time, which is right. The accused Appellant is a qualified Doctor and hence, he is definitely a prudent man, who has allegedly planned the murder. 22. The circumstances which have been brought on record by the prosecution, may cause an imaginary doubt in our mind that the accused may be involved in some manna with the incident. The law is well settled that in order of record an order of conviction, the prosecution must establish that the accused must have been involved in the incident of killing and the accused was the perpetrator of the crime. The distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is required to be travelled by the prosecution itself and it can not be filled up by imaginary or superficial circumstances/evidence. In the instant case, it can not be presumed that there is a complete chain to arrive at a conclusion that it was the accused/Appellant and he alone, who had committed the ghastly act of homicide. In the instant case, it can not be presumed that there is a complete chain to arrive at a conclusion that it was the accused/Appellant and he alone, who had committed the ghastly act of homicide. The innocence of the accused/Appellant Debajyoti Saikia can not be excluded fully and as such we have no hesitation to hold that the trial court erred in law in not extending the benefit of doubt to which the accused/Appellant was entitled to. 23. In the result, we hold that the accused/Appellant was not guilty of the offence charged and acquit him extending the benefit of doubt and he shall be set at liberty forthwith, if he is in jail custody. If he is on bail, he need not surrender to the bail bond. The appeal stands allowed. Send down the records. Appeal allowed