Judgment D. D. SINHA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Mr. Morande, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Mrs. Dangre, learned Additional Public prosecutor for the respondent. ( 2 ) CRIMINAL Appeal is directed i against the Judgment and Order, dated 14th i November, 2000, passed by Additional sessions Judge, Gadchiroli, in Sessions Case no. 14 of 1996, whereby the appellant is convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code, and is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for Life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000-00, in default, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two months. The circumstances, which have resulted in the prosecution of appellant, in nutshell, are as follows :- ( 3 ) IT is the case of the prosecution that deceased Kalabai was the wife of appellant - Ramnath, and, at the relevant time, she was staying with her parents at village birjutola. The appellant went to the house of his in-laws for the purpose of bringing his wife Kalabai. The appellant and deceased kalabai left the house of parents of Kalabai and the couple was seen by the witnesses on their way to village Wako. At village Wako, father of the appellant enquired from him about the deceased, since she was not seen in the house. Appellant told his father that she had gone to her aunt's house (mother's sister) at Dalli. There was rumour in the village that the appellant killed his wife Kalabai and eloped with Original Accused No. 2-Jamilabai. Father of the appellant, in order to ascertain this fact, visited the parental house of deceased and came to know that deceased Kalabai left her parental house along with the appellant on Friday. The parents of Kalabai also started search of kalabai. Dead body of deceased Kalabai was noticed on 3rd March, 1995, which was buried in a pit. Inquest Panchanama of the dead body and Spot Panchanama were prepared. Articles like blouse of purple colour, pieces of green glass bangles, one chain of white metal, and one chain of black beads were seized from the spot of incident. Statements of witnesses were recorded. The appellant was arrested and while he was in police custody, he gave a statement on memorandum that he concealed yellow coloured saree of his wife Kalabai. The said saree was discovered as per the procedure contemplated under Section 27 of the evidence Act. Statements of witnesses were recorded. The appellant was arrested and while he was in police custody, he gave a statement on memorandum that he concealed yellow coloured saree of his wife Kalabai. The said saree was discovered as per the procedure contemplated under Section 27 of the evidence Act. Post-mortem examination was conducted by doctor on the dead body of deceased. Since the dead body was decomposed, definite opinion regarding the cause of death could not be given by doctor. The bones of the dead body were collected and sent to Dr. Meena (P. W. 14 ). After completion of investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed against the appellant along with one Jamilabai. Charges for offences under Sections 302 and 201, read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, were framed and explained to the accused. Accused pleaded not guilty to the same and claimed to be tried. Defence of the Appellant is that of denial. Accused No. 2 - Jamilabai was acquitted of all the charges by the Trial Court. State has not preferred any appeal against the said order of acquittal and, therefore, in the present appeal, we are only required to consider the evidence of prosecution and whether it is sufficient to prove the case of the prosecution for the offences charged against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. ( 4 ) MR. Morande, learned Counsel for the Appellant, contended that the prosecution examined Parshuram (P. W. 2) (father of the accused), Madanlal (P. W. 6), shobitram (P. W. 7) and Biharilal (P. W. 8) on the point of 'deceased last seen with the accused. ' It is submitted that so far as parshuram (P. W. 2) is concerned, he has only stated in his testimony that on Friday at about 12-00 noon or 1-00 p. m. , he saw the appellant in his field at Wako. He asked the appellant whether Kaiabai had come along with him to village. Appellant answered in negative and told him that the deceased was going to Dalli with her grand-mother. Counsel for the appellant further contended that Parshuram (P. W. 2) deposed that he met one Sonkuwar, a vegetable vendor, and she told him that deceased Kaiabai had been to her on Friday and she told her that she was going to her place. Counsel for the appellant further contended that Parshuram (P. W. 2) deposed that he met one Sonkuwar, a vegetable vendor, and she told him that deceased Kaiabai had been to her on Friday and she told her that she was going to her place. Counsel for the Appellant submitted that so far as evidence of Madanlal (P. W. 6) is concerned, he has stated in his testimony that the witness along with Shobitram (P. W. 7) was going to his village Guhatola. Near kodewadda, he saw the accused Ramnath and his wife on a bicycle coming from Wako- mohalla Road. The wife of the appellant was wearing a saree of yellow colour. The testimony of Shobitram (P. W. 7) is similar to that the Madanlal (P. W. 6 ). This witness has stated in his testimony that he and Madanlal, at the relevant time, were going to Mohalla bazar and prior to village Kodewadda, he saw the appellant Ramnath and his wife coming from the opposite direction. Wife of appellant was wearing a saree of yellow colour. Lastly, the counsel for the appellant contended that biharilal (P. W. 8) is the last witness examined by the prosecution on the theory of 'deceased last seen with the accused. ' It is submitted that this witness in his testimony has stated that on Thursday, Appellant came to birjutola. He stayed in the night and on the next day at about 10. 00 a. m. , after taking meal, Ramnath and Kaiabai went away. It is further stated by this witness that the appellant had been to Birjutola on bicycle and left Birjutola along with his wife on bicycle on Friday. The learned Counsel for the Appellant vehemently argued that the evidence of the above referred prosecution witnesses does not conclusively establish that the appellant was last seen together with deceased Kaiabai, since their testimonies are inconsistent with each other in regard to the time and place where these witnesses are alleged to have last seen the deceased with the appellant. Consequently, testimonies of parshuram (P. W. 2), Madanlal (P. W. 6), shobitram (P. W. 7) and Biharilal (P. W. 8) are inadequate to prove the circumstances of 'accused last seen with the deceased together' and, therefore, cannot be relied on. Consequently, testimonies of parshuram (P. W. 2), Madanlal (P. W. 6), shobitram (P. W. 7) and Biharilal (P. W. 8) are inadequate to prove the circumstances of 'accused last seen with the deceased together' and, therefore, cannot be relied on. Similar is the case with the testimony of Sukhbati (P. W. 10), who is also examined on the point of 'accused last seen with the deceased. ' This witness has stated that the appellant came to village Birjutola on Thursday on bicycle. He stayed for a night and on Friday, after taking meals, the appellant along with deceased kaiabai left the village. At that time, Kaiabai was wearing a saree of yellow colour. ( 5 ) MR. Morande, learned Counsel for the Appellant, contended that the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence and, therefore, the prosecution must prove the motive for committing crime. It is submitted that in the instant case, the prosecution has not proved any motive against the appellant for commission of crime in question, except that there is passing reference that the appellant had some illicit relations with one Jamila of his village and he eloped with her. It is contended that no substantial evidence is brought on record by the prosecution to establish that there was a love affair between the appellant and Jamila and because of that, the appellant wanted to eliminate his wife Kalabai. In absence of this evidence, prosecution has not proved any motive against the appellant for the crime in question. ( 6 ) IT is submitted that in the instant case, the medical evidence could not prove whether the death of Kalabai was homicidal and in absence thereof, no criminal liability for the offence of murder can be fastened on the appellant. It is submitted that the Trial court, without any positive evidence, only or, the basis of presumption, held that the possibility of Kalabai dying a natural, suicide or accidental death is ruled out and, therefore, further observed that Kalabai could have died of homicidal death. It is contended that the findings recorded in that regard by the Trial court are based on no evidence and, therefore, the same are unsustainable in law. ( 7 ) MR. It is contended that the findings recorded in that regard by the Trial court are based on no evidence and, therefore, the same are unsustainable in law. ( 7 ) MR. Morande, learned Counsel for the Appellant, further submitted that discovery of saree of the deceased by the appellant is of no help to the prosecution, since the Memorandum is not signed by the accused and therefore, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jackran Singh (cited supra), such discovery is required to be discarded. However, the trial Court, without taking into consideration this legal aspect, accepted the evidence of discovery as one of the circumstances proved by the prosecution against the appellant. It is contended that Dr. Meena Meshram (P. W. 14) and Ms. Ratnaprabha (P. W. 17) are the expert witnesses examined by the prosecution for the purpose of determining the identity of Kalabai on the basis of the examination of bones as well as the basis of the method of superimposition. It is contended that so far as P. W. 17 is concerned, she is not a qualified person in the field of method of superimposition and in absence of necessary degree in this regard, conclusion arrived by this witness Mr. Ratnaprabha that the skull belongs to the victim cannot be accepted and this also cannot be a circumstances said to be conclusively proved by the prosecution. ( 8 ) MR. Morande, learned Counsel for the Appellant, contended that in the instant case, prosecution utterly failed to bring on record the circumstances, which could conclusively prove beyond doubt that the appellant is the author of the crime and in absence thereof, the conviction awarded by the Trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 302, Indian Penal Code is unsustainable in law. In order to substantiate the contention, reliance is placed on the judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of (a) Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in A. I. R. 1984 SC 1622, (b) State of Maharashtra Vs. Annappa Bandu Kavatage ( AIR 1979 SC 1410 ), and (c) Jackran Singh Vs. State of punjab ( AIR 1995 SC 2345 ). ( 9 ) MRS. State of Maharashtra reported in A. I. R. 1984 SC 1622, (b) State of Maharashtra Vs. Annappa Bandu Kavatage ( AIR 1979 SC 1410 ), and (c) Jackran Singh Vs. State of punjab ( AIR 1995 SC 2345 ). ( 9 ) MRS. Dangre, learned Additional public Prosecutor, submitted that it is the case of the prosecution that the deceased Kalabai was the wife of the appellant and she had been to village Birjutola for "dukh-bisro". since she had lost her son. She resided there for fifteen days and on 23rd February, 1995, the present Appellant went to Birjutola to fetch her. Both of them left Birjutola on 24th february, 1995. P. Ws. 8 and 10 are the relatives of the deceased, who had last seen the deceased with the appellant on 24th february, 1995. Dead body of deceased was noticed on 3rd March, 1995 and Marg was registered on 4th March, 1995. The dead body was found in a pit near river. The said dead body was identified by P. W. 8, the maternal uncle of the deceased. The Inquest panchanama reveals that the identification of dead body was done on basis of the blouse which was worn by deceased as well as necklace, pieces of green glass bangles, one chain of white metal, one chain of black beads found on the spot of incident. P. W. 2, the father-in-law of the deceased, also identified the dead body. ( 10 ) MRS. Dangre, learned Additional public Prosecutor, contended that though the inquest Panchanama reveals that the dead body of deceased was decomposed and it was eaten by maggots and though the Medical Officer was unable to opine about the cause of death of deceased, that does not affect the prosecution case, since other clinching circumstances, which are brought on record by the prosecution, clearly establish that the appellant alone was the perpetrator of the crime and there could be nobody else who could have killed the deceased Kalabai. ( 11 ) ADDITIONAL Public Prosecutor stated that the deceased was last seen with the appellant on 24th February, 1995 at Birjutola and though the appellant came to his village wako and also met P. W. 2, father of the appellant, in the field at about 12-00 noon or 1 -00 p. m. , and when P. W. 2 specifically asked the appellant about his wife, appellant informed that she had gone to her relative. It is submitted that the appellant with oblique motive gave wrong information in order to mislead his father (P. W. 2 ). It is contended that the appellant was well aware as to what happened to the deceased, who was his wife, after they left village Birjutola together on 24th february, 1995. However, the conduct of the appellant of giving of false information to his father demonstrates guilty mind of the accused. It is submitted that the evidence of 'last seen' in the present case is very clinching and, therefore, is a strong circumstances proved by the prosecution against the accused. It is submitted that it is the case of the prosecution that the Appellant caused death of deceased on 24th February, 1995, and buried the body in a pit near river, which was recovered on 4th March, 1995. It is contended that Dr. Meena (P. W. 14), who examined the bones of the dead body and conducted examination of skull bones and humerus, gave her opinion in respect of the same vide Exh. 57, wherein it is concluded that the bones belong to human being. The probable age of deceased was between 20 and 30 years. Sex of the deceased was female P. W. 14 stated in her evidence that there was a need of undertaking the procedure of superimposition on the photographs of the deceased and, therefore, the case was referred to the Assistant Director of Forensic laboratory - Ratnaprabha (P. W. 17), who conducted comparative superimposition on the skull of the dead body and the photographs, and submitted her report (Exh. 73), wherein it is concluded that the photograph superimposing of the original skull of the victim as shown in the photograph revealed that the skull could be that of the victim kalabai. Mrs. Dangre, learned Additional public Prosecutor, contended that P. W. 17 is an expert and her findings are admissible as per Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. 73), wherein it is concluded that the photograph superimposing of the original skull of the victim as shown in the photograph revealed that the skull could be that of the victim kalabai. Mrs. Dangre, learned Additional public Prosecutor, contended that P. W. 17 is an expert and her findings are admissible as per Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is contended that according to Dr. K. S. N. Reddy in "medical Jurisprudence and toxicology", superimposition is the technique applied to determine the skull of the person in a photograph. Even according to Modi's "medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology", identification can be done by superimposition of life-size photographs of a head of the person of the skull and this is the technique adopted to establish identity. It is, therefore, contended that prosecution has established that the dead body found on 3rd March, 1995 was of deceased Kalabai, who was the wife of the appellant. ( 12 ) ADDITIONAL Public Prosecutor further contended that though medical evidence could not give exact cause of death, the prosecution, for the purpose, has demonstrated the chain of circumstances leading to the conclusion that the said death was homicidal. In order to substantiate this contention, reliance is placed on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rama Nand and others Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in AIR 1981 SC 738 . ( 13 ) MRS. Dangre, learned Additional public Prosecutor, submitted that prosecution has established the following circumstances in the present case :- (A) Deceased last seen with the appellant on 24th February, 1995. (B) Recovery of yellow-coloured saree belonging to deceased as per Recovery panchanama under Section 27 of the evidence Act. (C) Conduct of the accused. (D) Similarly, the Prosecution Witness nos. 6 and 7 had noticed the deceased along with Appellant at Mohalla on 24th February, 1995. Sukhbati (P. W. 10), grand-mother of the deceased, in her evidence stated that deceased left with her husband, i. e. appellant, after taking meal. At that time, she was wearing yellow-coloured saree. ( 14 ) ADDITIONAL Public Prosecutor, therefore, contended that in view of the above referred circumstances, prosecution has proved the chain of circumstances pointing out towards homicidal death of deceased and also establish that the appellant is the perpetrator of crime and, therefore, Judgment and Order of conviction passed by the Trial court needs to be maintained. ( 14 ) ADDITIONAL Public Prosecutor, therefore, contended that in view of the above referred circumstances, prosecution has proved the chain of circumstances pointing out towards homicidal death of deceased and also establish that the appellant is the perpetrator of crime and, therefore, Judgment and Order of conviction passed by the Trial court needs to be maintained. ( 15 ) WE have considered the contentions canvassed by the respective counsel and considered the evidence adduced by the prosecution. ( 16 ) IN the instant case, it is, no doubt, true that the prosecution has examined as many as nineteen witnesses. However, how far the evidence of the prosecution succeeded in proving the case against the appellant for the offence charged needs to be considered by us. The case of the prosecution is entirely based on the circumstantial evidence and it is well settled that the prosecution has to fulfill the following conditions before case against the appellant based on the circumstantial evidence can be said to be fully established :- (A) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. (B) 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. (C) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. (D) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (E) There must be a chain of ecvidence 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. It will be appropriate to scrutinize the evidence of the prosecution on the backdrop of the above referred well settled principles of law. ( 17 ) IN the instant case, the prosecution has examined Parshuram (P. W. 2), Madanlal (P. W. 6), Sobhitram (P. W. 7), and Sikhbati (P. W. 10), on the point of deceased last seen with the appellant on 24th February, 1995' and, therefore, we have scrutinized the testimonies of these witnesses carefully. ( 18 ) PARSHURAM (P. W. 2) is the father of the appellant and in his Examination-in- chief, he has stated that on one Thursday, appellant was not in the house. ( 18 ) PARSHURAM (P. W. 2) is the father of the appellant and in his Examination-in- chief, he has stated that on one Thursday, appellant was not in the house. He had taken with him his bicycle. P. W. 2 came to know from one Geetabai that the appellant had gone to village Birjutola. On Friday, at about 12- 00 noon or 1-00 p. m. , P. W. 2 saw the appellant in their field. P. W. 2 enquired from the appellant about Kalabai. Appellant told him that Kalabai had gone to Dalli with her grand-mother. The testimony of P. W. 2 does not show that this witness has last seen deceased kalabai with the appellant on 24th February, 1995. On the other hand, he only saw accused at about 12-00 noon in the field. ( 19 ) SO far as Madanlal (P. W. 6) is concerned, it has come in his Examination-in-Chief that he knew the appellant and his wife and he saw both the them near kodewadda on bicycle. The Appellant and his wife were going by Wako-Mohalla road and deceased Kalabai was wearing a saree of yellow colour. This witness has not stated the day or date on which he had last seen the deceased with the appellant. He has not mentioned about the month in which he had seen the appellant and his wife coming on bicycle by Wako-Mohalla road. It is, therefore, very difficult on the basis of the evidence of this witness to identify the date, time and month when this witness saw the appellant and deceased together. ( 20 ) SO far as Shobhitram (P. W. 7) is concerned, he has stated in his testimony that on one Friday, he and witness Madanlal were going towards market. At that time, he saw appellant and his wife coming from the opposite direction and deceased Kalabai was wearing yellow-coloured saree. This witness has also not stated about at what point of time he had seen the appellant and his wife together. ( 21 ) THE evidence of Biharilal (P. W. 8) only reveals that he had seen the appellant and his wife returning to his village on bicycle and it was Friday and he identified that dead body of Kalabai, as she was wearing green bangles. ( 22 ) LASTLY, Sukhbati (P. W. 10) stated in her evidence that deceased Kalabai was her grand-daughter. ( 22 ) LASTLY, Sukhbati (P. W. 10) stated in her evidence that deceased Kalabai was her grand-daughter. She was married to the appellant. At the relevant time, Kalabai stayed in her house at Birjutola. Appellant came to birjutola on Thursday to fetch Kalabai and on the next day, appellant and Kalabai left the village Birjutola on bicycle. At that time, kalabai was wearing yellow-coloured saree. This witness came to know about the death of Kalabai after about 9 days after her departure from village Birjutola. ( 23 ) THE close scrutiny of the evidence of above referred witnesses, i. e. , parshuram (P. W. 2), Madanlal (P. W. 6), shobhitram (P. W. 7), Biharilal (P. W. 8) and sukhbati (P. W. 10) only demonstrates that deceased Kalabai was with the Appellant some time on 24th February, 1995. We cannot close our eyes to the fact that deceased kalabai was the wife of the appellant and, therefore, there is nothing unusual about the fact that she was seen with the appellant on 24th February, 1995. We also cannot lose sight of the fact that the dead body of the deceased was recovered on 3rd March, 1995, i. e. after nine days, that too in a remote place, which is near river. The evidence of P. W. 2, father of the accused, does not throw any light on the aspect of 'last seen theory'. The totality of the evidence on the theory of 'last seen', adduced by the prosecution, in our considered view, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, is inadequate to hold that this circumstances is conclusively established by the prosecution. ( 24 ) THE next aspect, which we need to consider in the instant case, is about identification of the dead body of the deceased. The Inquest Panchanama shows that the dead body was completely decomposed and, therefore, Medical Officer was also unable to give any cause of death. The dead body was also eaten by maggots. P. W. 2, the father of the appellant, could not identify the dead body as that of Kalabai. However, he claimed to have identified the same only on the basis of some portion of the blouse found on the dead body. Similarly, biharilal (P. W. 8) could identify the dead body as that of deceased Kalabai only in view of green bangles. However, he claimed to have identified the same only on the basis of some portion of the blouse found on the dead body. Similarly, biharilal (P. W. 8) could identify the dead body as that of deceased Kalabai only in view of green bangles. The prosecution evidence on record shows that the body was highly decomposed and, therefore, identification of the same was virtually impossible. So far as green bangles are concerned, the same are commonly worn by women and there is no special identification mark in this regard and, therefore, identification done only on the basis of green bangles by P. W. 8, in our view, cannot be treated as the proper identification and it cannot be held that the dead body was that of Kalabai. It is no doubt, true that in the instant case, Ratnaprabha (P. W. 17), who was, at the relevant time, Asstt. Director of forensic Laboratory and conducted the comparative superimposition on the skull of the body and the photograph, submitted her report (Exh. 73 ). The evidence of this witness, in our considered view, can be used by the prosecution as a corroborative circumstance. However, it will be unsafe to rely purely on the testimony of this witness, particularly when this witness is not a qualified person for undertaking the procedure of superimposition on the skull of the dead body of deceased. So far as evidence of Dr. Meena (P. W. 14) is concerned, the opinion given by her vide Exh. 57 only shows that the bones were that of a human being and of female and nothing more, which again, in our view, is inadequate to conclusively hold that the dead body was that of Kalabai. In instant case, it is therefore, evident that the prosecution has not conclusively established the identity of the dead body and in absence thereof, the finding recorded by the Trial court in this regard, in our considered view, cannot be accepted. ( 25 ) IN the instant case, there is a discovery of yellow-coloured saree at the instant of the appellant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. ( 25 ) IN the instant case, there is a discovery of yellow-coloured saree at the instant of the appellant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. However, this solitary circumstance, in absence of other clinching circumstances, by itself is totally inadequate to complete the requisite chain, particularly when the case on 'last seen', identity of the dead body, and the fact of homicidal death, in our view, is not conclusively proved by the prosecution and, therefore, it does not improve the case of the prosecution. ( 26 ) SO far as the evidence of other prosecution witnesses is concerned, they are, more or less, of a formal nature and their testimonies do not improve the case of the prosecution and, therefore, their testimonies are not of much help to the prosecution to prove the charge against appellant. ( 27 ) THE other important aspect, which needs our consideration in the present case, is that the dead body of the deceased was recovered on 3rd March, 1995 and it was not only completely decomposed, but was also eaten by maggots. The Post-mortem examination was conducted by Dr. Ingle (P. W. 1) on 5th March, 1995 and because of the decomposed state of the body, the doctor was unable to give exact opinion as to the cause of death. Similarly, the doctor was also unable to opine whether the deceased Kalabai. died a homicidal death. The Trial Court, on the basis of the evidence of Sukhbati (P. W. 10), Madanlal (P. W. 6) and Shobitram (P. W. 7) concluded that the deceased was last seen with the appellant and since the appellant failed to offer any explanation as to what happened to deceased Kalabai thereafter, ruled out the possibility of suicide or accidental death, and concluded that Kalabai might have died homicidal death. It is, no doubt, true that the appellant could have given more rational or logical explanation in his examination under Section 313, Criminal procedure Code, about disappearance of the deceased Kalabai. However, it is well settled that the prosecution must stand or fall on its own legs and it cannot derive any strength from the weakness of the defence. It is, no doubt, true that the appellant could have given more rational or logical explanation in his examination under Section 313, Criminal procedure Code, about disappearance of the deceased Kalabai. However, it is well settled that the prosecution must stand or fall on its own legs and it cannot derive any strength from the weakness of the defence. It is also well settled that if the circumstances brought on record by the prosecution are of such conclusive nature, which enable the Court to draw conclusion of guilt of the accused, in such situation alone, the false plea or defence may amount to additional circumstance in the chain of circumstances, and not otherwise. Merely because the appellant failed to give rational explanation in his statement under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, that by itself, in our considered view, is inadequate to reach to the conclusion that the deceased died homicidal death when the medical evidence is completely silent in this regard. It is, no doubt, true that the Apex Court in case of Rama Nand and others (cited supra) has observed thus :- "discovery of the dead body of the victim bearing physical evidence of violence, has never been considered as the only mode of proving the corpus delicit in murder. Indeed, very many cases are of such a nature where the discovery of the dead body is impossible. A blind adherence to this old "body" doctrine would open to door wide for many a heinous murderer to escape with impunity simply because they were cunning and clever enough to destroy the body of their victim. In the context of our law, Hale's enunciation has to be interpreted no more than emphasising that where the dead body of the victim in a murder case is not found, other cogent and satisfactory proof of homicidal death of the victim must be adduced by the prosecution. Such proof may be by the direct ocular account of an eye-witness, or by circumstantial evidence, or by both. But where the fact of corpus delicit, i. e. , 'homicidal death' is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence alone, the circumstances must be of a clinching and definitive character unerringly leading to the inference that the victim concerned has met a homicidal death. But where the fact of corpus delicit, i. e. , 'homicidal death' is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence alone, the circumstances must be of a clinching and definitive character unerringly leading to the inference that the victim concerned has met a homicidal death. "the above referred observations of the apex Court make it evident that in a case, which is based on circumstantial evidence, circumstances must be of a clinching and definitive character unerringly leading to the inference. that the victim concerned has met homicidal death in absence of finding of dead body of the victim. In the instant case, the circumstances, which are brought on record, such as the theory of 'last seen', discovery of yellow-coloured saree, and conduct of the accused, in our considered view, are not of a clinching nature and, therefore, do not conclusively establish the guilt of the accused and in absence thereof, the conclusion drawn by the Trial Court that the deceased died a homicidal death, in our considered view, is misconceived and cannot be sustained in law. ( 28 ) IT is also important to note that when the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence, motive is the important circumstances expected to be proved by the prosecution. In the instant case, though it is alleged by the prosecution that the appellant had illicit relations with one jamilabai and, therefore, the appellant wanted to get rid of the deceased, however, the prosecution has not examined any witness to prove these facts and in absence thereof, there is absolutely nothing on record to prove the motive behind the crime and, therefore, it is evident that prosecution has failed to establish the motive for commission of the crime in question. Similarly, the prosecution evidence, in our considered view, is also inadequate to prove the offence under Section 201 of Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt. For the reasons stated herein above, we are of the view that the prosecution failed to bring on record and conclusively establish the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt of the appellant can be drawn and hence the finding of conviction recorded by the Trial court cannot be sustained. The Judgment and order, dated 14th November, 2000, is hereby quashed and set aside. The appellant be released forthwith, if not required in any other crime. Appeal is allowed. Appeal allowed.