JUDGMENT (Per B. Seshasayana Reddy, J.) Sole accused Govindu in S.C. No. 425 of 2005 on the file of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Chittoor, calls in question in this criminal appeal his conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 302 IPC. The charge against him is that on the night on 27-06-2005, he did commit murder by intentionally and knowingly causing death of Geethamma, wife of Venkatesu by stabbing her with a pen knife on her throat by the side of cart track near Konamakulapalle, Damarabandagutta of Santhipuram MandaI. 2. Prosecution case as set out in Ex. P-1 report is as follows:- P.W. 1 Venkatesu is the husband of Geethamma. Since a week prior to the occurrence, he was watching the mango garden of Chakali Chengappa, Thukallu Village, Bangarupet, Karnataka State. He married Geethamma five years prior to the date of occurrence. He along with his wife Geethamma, his uncle Sreenivasulu, wife of his paternal uncle- Kannamma and one Mani were residing in a tent put up in the mango garden. On 26-06-2005 at about 7 p.m. Geethamma went to Kuppam and she did not return home. P.W. 1 went to Kuppam on the evening of 27 -06-2005 and made enquiries and learnt that Geethamma did not visit Kuppam. On 28-06-2005, at about 3.00 p.m. he came to know that Gethamma was lying dead in a fallow land of Bodeppa beside the Dhamarabandagutta near Kenamakanapalle. He went there and saw the dead body and thereafter, presented a report before the Station House Officer. L.W. 16 B. Jayachandra Reddy, H.C. 391, received the report presented by P .W. 1 and registered a case in Crime No. 31 of 2005 under Section 302 IPC and issued Ex. P-9 FIR. P.W. 12 K. Baba Fakruddin, Inspector of Police, Kuppam took up investigation, inspected the scene and held inquest over the dead body on 29-06-2005 at8.00 a.m. in the presence of P.W. 8 E. Venjugopal and P.W. 10 S.E.J. Amarnath. He effected seizure of M.Os. 4 to 14 (Terricoton Blouse, Blood stained Petty coat, Blood stained polyestersaree, Metal Bangles, Steel Toe rings, Yellow thread, Blood stained earth -and controlled earth, Black Beeds chain, Red colour ribbon and Cotton Towel). After the inquest, the dead body was sent for postmortem examination. P.W. 9 held autopsy on the dead body of the deceased on 29-06-2005 at 2.15 p.m. and issued Ex. After the inquest, the dead body was sent for postmortem examination. P.W. 9 held autopsy on the dead body of the deceased on 29-06-2005 at 2.15 p.m. and issued Ex. P-6 post-mortem report opining that the deceased died due to shock and haemorrhage. P.W. 12 arrested the accused on 04-07-2005 at 9.30 p.m. and seized a pen knife and his wearing apparels, which have been marked as M.Os. 1 to 3, in pursuance of his disclosure statement under the cover of Ex. P-8 panchanama. He sent the incriminating material to F.S.L. Ex. P-11 is the F.S.L. report. After completing investigation, he laid charge sheet in the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kuppam. The learned Magistrate took the charge sheet on file in P.R.C.No. 23 of 2005 and committed the case of the sessions division, Chittoor as the offence under Section 3021PC is exclusively triable by a Court of sessions. The learned Sessions Judge took the case on file as S.C. No. 425 of 2005 and made over the same to the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Chittoor for disposal according to law. The learned I Additional Sessions Judge, on hearing the prosecution and the accused, framed a charge under Section 3021 PC, read over and explained the same to the accused, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC, prosecution examined 12 witnesses and proved11 documents and exhibited 14 material objects. 3. P.W. 1 is the husband of the deceased. P.W. 2 is the relation of P.W. 1. P.W. 3 is the resident of Kenamakulpalle. He does not speak of any circumstances relating to the incident and, therefore, his evidence is not of much use to further the prosecution case. p.w. 4 is the witness to speak of the accused and one woman going together towards Settiballa Village. P.W. 5 did not support the prosecution and the prosecution declared him as hostile and marked his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as Ex. P-2. P.Ws. 6 and 7 did not support the prosecution and the prosecution declared them as hostile and marked their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as Exs. P-3 and P-4. P .W. 8 is the panch witness for the inquest held on the dead body of the deceased. P-2. P.Ws. 6 and 7 did not support the prosecution and the prosecution declared them as hostile and marked their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as Exs. P-3 and P-4. P .W. 8 is the panch witness for the inquest held on the dead body of the deceased. He did not support the prosecution and the prosecution declared him hostile. P.W. 9 is the doctor who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex. P-6 post-mortem report. PW. 10 is the panch witness for the inquest. The inquest report is marked as Ex. P-5. P.W. 11 is the panch witness forthe confession and recovery of M.Os. 1 to 3 in pursuance of disclosure statement of the accused. M.O. 1 is the knife and M .Os. 2 and 3 are the wearing apparels of the accused. P.W. 12 is the Investigating Officer. 4. Heard the legal aid counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant - accused and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State. 5. Learned legal aid counsel submits that the recovery of the weapon allegedly used in the commission of offence alone is not sufficient to draw an irresistible conclusion that the appellant - accused is responsible for the death of the deceased. Further submission has been made that there is long gap between the deceased finding in the company of accused and her death and therefore it cannot be said that the deceased was lost seen alive in the company of the accused. In support of her submissions, reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Rambilas v. State of M.P. Bodhraj v. State of J&K , Bhupan v. State of Madhya Pradesh and the decision of this Court in Gotte Peddulu v. State of A.P.4. 6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor supported the judgment under appeal. 7. Undisputedly, none of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution claimed to have seen the accused assaulting the deceased. Therefore, the entire case again9t the appellant -accused rests on circumstantial evidence. 8. It is now well settled that in a case where the offence is said to have been established on circumstantial evidence alone, indisputable all the links in the chain must be found to be complete as has been held in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra5. Therefore, the entire case again9t the appellant -accused rests on circumstantial evidence. 8. It is now well settled that in a case where the offence is said to have been established on circumstantial evidence alone, indisputable all the links in the chain must be found to be complete as has been held in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra5. The following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an acquittal can be said to be fully established: (i) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established; (ii) The fact so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of t1e accused, that is to say, there should be no explanation of any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; (iii) The circumstances should, be of conclusive,nature and tendency; (iv) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; (v) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for 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. 9. The prosecution relied on two circumstances to bring home the guilt of the accused. The first circumstance is that the deceased was last seen alive in the company of the accused. The second circumstance is recovery of M.O. 1 knife in the commission of the offence. 10. p, W. 4 is the sole witness to prove that the deceased was last seen alive in the company of the accused. He testifies that while he was coming from garden he saw Govindu (accused) and one lady going together towards Settiballa Village. On the next day at about 4.00 p.m. he came to know that a dead body of woman was lying in the field of P. W. 3 and he went and found the dead body of the woman. By close reading of the evidence of the witness, what we understand is that he saw a woman in the company of the accused a day prior to his finding the dead body of the woman. At this juncture, we may refer Ex. P-1 report presented by P. W. 1. The contents of the report indicate that the deceased left the house on 26-06-2005 and she was found dead on 28-06-2005. At this juncture, we may refer Ex. P-1 report presented by P. W. 1. The contents of the report indicate that the deceased left the house on 26-06-2005 and she was found dead on 28-06-2005. The evidence of P.W. 4 is not certain as to on what date he saw the deceased in the company of the accused. Therefore, it cannot be said with certainty that the deceased was seen last alive in the company of the accused. The other circumstance is recovery of M.O. 1 weapon used in the commission of the offence in pursuance of the disclosure statement of the accused. 11. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the blood group found on M.O. 1 matched with the blood group of the deceased and it leads to an irresistible conclusion that the appellant - accused was the assailant of the deceased. The question whether recovery of the weapon of offence alone is sufficient to find accused guilty came up f or consideration before the Supreme Court in Bhupan v. State of M. P. (3 supra:) whe~ein it has been held that when almost all other evidence produced by the prosecution is disbelieved, the mere fact of recovery of sword at the instance of the accused I is not sufficient to convict him. 12. In view of the settled proposition of law that recovery of the weapon allegedly used in the commission of the offence alone is not sufficient to draw an irresistible conclusion that the appellant - accused is the assailant of the deceased, the conviction of the appellant - accused is not legal and proper and the same is liable to be set aside. 13. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed against appellant - accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC is set aside and he shall be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not otherwise required in any other crime.