JUDGMENT 1. - The discovery of body of Memuna in the Jungles, the allegations of dowry demand, the recovery of blood stained clothes of the accused appellant, and his conviction under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code vide judgment dated 6.11.2001, has brought the appellant before this Court. Vide judgment dated 6.11.2001, the appellant has been convicted of the aforementioned offence and has been sentenced to life imprisonment and has been imposed fined of Rs. 1,000/-, and to further undergo a sentence of three months rigorous imprisonment in default thereof. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 7.3.2000, Khurshid S/o Jormal, lodged a written report (Ex.P-11) at the Police Station Sadar in Alwar wherein he claimed that his sister Memuna was married to Khurshid S/o Jasmal about 14 years ago. (It is pertinent to mention that both the complainant and the accused appellant have the same name, namely Khurshid). After the marriage, Khurshid used to demand a motorcycle and money from his in-laws. Khurshid had abandoned his sister for the last three years. About 7-8 months back Khurshid's family had taken his sister back while promising that she will not be harassed any more. Since then his sister has been staying at her in-laws' place. Today around 9.00 P.M. one Juhru came to his village and informed him that his sister Memuna is missing since 12 O'clock in the afternoon. Thereupon he and one Sapat went by motorcycle to the village Kajakpur where his sister was married. There they were informed that the dead body of Memuna is lying in Jungle. When they went to the Jungle they discovered Memuna's dead body in the mustered fields. Her neck had been cut. When he inquired from the people one Nawab told him that the Memuna had been killed by Khurshid. One Sulli and one Rujdar is also involved in the said murder. On the basis of this report a formal F.I.R., (Ex.P-12) was chalked out for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and the investigation commenced. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet for the said offence was submitted against the appellant. In order to support its case the prosecution examined 15 witnesses and submitted 26 documents. Although the defence did not examine any witness, it submitted a statement of Khurshid, the complainant, as a defence document. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet for the said offence was submitted against the appellant. In order to support its case the prosecution examined 15 witnesses and submitted 26 documents. Although the defence did not examine any witness, it submitted a statement of Khurshid, the complainant, as a defence document. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as aforementioned. Hence this appeal before this Court. 3. Mr. Biri Singh, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that, the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. However, the chain of circumstances has conspicuous gaps. Therefore, the said chain is not complete, which would unerringly point to the guilt to the appellant. The only linking evidence against the appellant is the recovery of the alleged blood-stained clothes of the appellant upon his information and the discovery of human blood of Croup A on the said clothes. However, these links are insufficient to convict the appellant for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. 4. On the other hand Mr. M.L. Goyal, learned Public Prosecutor, has argued that according to the complainant Khurshid, the deceased was subjected to cruelty by the appellant. There was a constant demand of dowry. The appellants clothes were discovered at his instance. The said clothes were bloodstained and according to the FSL report, the blood-stained on the clothes belong to Group A - the blood group of the deceased. Therefore, sufficient evidence exists to convict the appellant. 5. We have heard both the learned counsels and have perused the impugned judgment and examined the material on the record before us. 6. Admittedly, the case is based on circumstantial evidence as merely the dead body of Memuna was discovered in the jungles near the village. The principle regarding circumstantial evidence was stated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as far back as in 1952 in the case of Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of M.P., AIR 1952 SC 343 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under : "It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused." 7. Therefore, according to the Apex Court, the circumstances must form a complete chain which unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused. 8. In the present case Khurshid (PW-8) does tell us that his sister Memuna was married to the appellant about 14 to 15 years ago. During the course of the wedlock, Memuna had two daughters. Immediately after the marriage, the appellant started demanding motorcycle and money by way of dowry. Since his family was not in a position to fulfill his unreasonable demand, the appellant used to assault Memuna and used to throw her out of the house. Memuna had told the family members about the unreasonable demands specially to Shahbuddin, their elder brother and their father. He further claims that since they themselves were poor and they were not in a position to satisfy Khurshid's demands, therefore, for about one and half years Memuna stayed at her parental place. Subsequently, the appellant and his father Jasmal alongwith 2-3 persons came to their house and asked them to let Memuna go to her matrimonial house. They also assured them that in case anything were to happen to Memuna, the responsibility shall be theirs. For about one and half month they kept Memuna. During this period the appellant kept on telling them that he is willing lo keep Memuna only if a motorcycle and some money is given to him. Memuna also informed her family that again the appellant had started beating her up. Therefore, he went to her house and pleaded with the appellant to look after his sister well. However, the appellant did not answer his pleas as he was drunk at that time. Three days later, their Aunt's son Juhru came to their village and told them that Memuna had left the matrimonial home in the morning but has not come back. Therefore, he inquired if she had come to her parental place. However, the appellant did not answer his pleas as he was drunk at that time. Three days later, their Aunt's son Juhru came to their village and told them that Memuna had left the matrimonial home in the morning but has not come back. Therefore, he inquired if she had come to her parental place. Upon this information he and his uncle's son Sapat went to Kajakpur. There they discovered that lot of people had gathered and when they asked the reason, they told him that his sister's body is lying in the Jungle. They also told him that his sister had been killed by her husband, the appellant. He further stated that he went to the Jungle and saw the body and thereupon he went to file the report at the Police Station. In the cross-examination, the omissions made by him in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were pointed out. 9. According to the Kailash Chand (PW-7), the blood-stained clothes were recovered in front of him. However, the said clothes were not sealed at the time of recovery. Moreover, according to him, his signatures were taken on the recovery memo not at the place of recovery but at the Police Station. Despite the fact that PW-7 states that clothes were not sealed before him, he has not been declared as a hostile witness. On the other hand Roop Khan (PW-9), the other recovery witness claims that the clothes were sealed at the place of the recovery. Thus there is a clearcut contradiction between the two witnesses. According to the FSL report (Ex.P-26) blood of Group A was found on the Salwar, Chunni and Kurta worn by the deceased, the Ustara and the Pant and T-shirt recovered from the appellant. However, there is no report with regard to the blood group of the appellant himself. 10. It is, indeed, a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the person by adducing cogent and convincing evidence against him. In the case of circumstantial evidence, as stated above, the circumstances must form complete chain unerringly pointing to the guilt of the accused and incompatible with his innocence. The distance between "may be true" and "must be true" is a distance that the prosecution has to travel. It is also a settled principle of law that suspicion no matter how strong cannot take place of proof. The distance between "may be true" and "must be true" is a distance that the prosecution has to travel. It is also a settled principle of law that suspicion no matter how strong cannot take place of proof. 11. In the present case, the chain of circumstances are not complete to unerringly point towards guilt of the accused. Although Khurshid (PW-8) claims that his sister was harassed and assaulted for dowry demand, but this circumstance by itself does not lead to the conclusion that the appellant is the culprit. Although blood stained clothes of the appellant have been recovered at his instance, although blood group A had been discovered on his clothes but the prosecution has failed to eliminate the possibility that blood group A is not the blood group of the appellant but is the blood group of the deceased. It is not sufficient for the prosecution to merely prove that blood group A exists on the clothes of the appellant. It was most essential for the prosecution to eliminate the possibility that it is not the blood group of the accused. It is only after eliminating this possibility that the prosecution could zero in on the culpability of the appellant. Therefore, we are left with only a suspicion in our minds that the appellant might have been the culprit. But suspicion cannot take the place of proof. A person, in common law, cannot be convicted of a criminal liability on the basis of mere suspicion. 12. For the reasons, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment dated 6.11.2001 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Alwar. We acquit the appellant of the charge under Section 302 I.P.C. The appellant Khurshid @ Khurshed S/o Jasmal who is in jail, shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case.Appeal allowed. *******