B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.:- Appellant/accused has challenged the judgment dated 1809-1996 delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha in Sessions Trial No.175/1995, holding her guilty of an offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing her to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.300/- or to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months in default. 2. The prosecution alleges that the husband of present appellant namely - Sanjay a victim of alleged murder was working as domestic servant with one Nanaji Parve 'and was taking care of his cattles and was also residing in a part of his house separated by a temporary partition. Marriage of appellant with deceased Sanjay was performed on 30-05-1991. After some time they could not cohabit together. After Sanjay started working with Nanaji Parve, Sanjay and Nanaji went to bring her to her matrimonial house and just 8 or 9 days prior to the incident she came to Selsura and started cohabiting with Sanjay. On 18-06-1995 after taking food and chitchatting with wife of Nanaji, the couple went to sleep. In the early hours of morning the appellant poured kerosene on Sanjay, who was sleeping on cot and set him on fire, came out of house and latched/closed the door from outside. She was then sitting or waiting in the bathroom outside the house. Landlady - Zingubai (P.W.6) and her son Raju @ Rajendra (P.W.5) were sleeping in the room adjacent to partition and flames awoke Rajendra, who in turn told his mother about it. Zingubai and Rajendra came out, but could not open the door of the house of Sanjay and then called neighnour by name Nanibai and they opened the door by giving push. In the meanwhile villagers had also gathered there. They found Sanjay in naked condition extinguishing fire from his person. They gave lungi to him. At that time appellant was waiting near bathroom outside the door of her house. Then neighbours and the appellant took Sanjay to hospital at Wardha. On enquiry by witnesses Sanjay told that he was set on fire by the appellant. Police recorded his dying declaration and then Executive Magistrate also recorded his dying declaration. On the basis of this, offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code came to be registered. The police prepared spot panchanama and seized various articles. Subsequently on 20-06-1995 Sanjay died. On enquiry by witnesses Sanjay told that he was set on fire by the appellant. Police recorded his dying declaration and then Executive Magistrate also recorded his dying declaration. On the basis of this, offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code came to be registered. The police prepared spot panchanama and seized various articles. Subsequently on 20-06-1995 Sanjay died. Post mortem was conducted and it was found that the death was due to septicemic shock on account of burn injuries. The offence registered was converted to one under section 302 of Indian Penal Code. Police completed the investigation. Appellant was already arrested on 18-06-1995. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Wardha by his order dated 28-09-1995 committed the case to the Court of Sessions and it was ultimately transferred to Additional Sessions Court. Charge (Exh.8) was framed for offence punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code and it was explained to the appellant, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, trial was proceeded further. After recording statement of appellant under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code and also after perusal of his Written Statement (Exh.67), the Additional, Sessions Judge convicted the appellant as mentioned above. 3. In this background, we have heard Advocate Shri. R.M. Daga, for appellant/ accused and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri. S.S. Doifode, for respondent State of Maharashtra. As the conviction is based on circumstantial evidence, circumstances relied upon by the prosecution need to be mentioned here for proper appreciation of arguments and evidence. Those are:- A. Nalu/appellant was not willing to cohabit with Sanjay. Therefore she had motive. B. She was the last person with deceased Sanjay. C. She was a passive spectator to the entire incident. D. Her story of going to answer nature's call was unacceptable. E. She latched i.e. closed the door from outside. F. Lamp could not have been at place from where it could have accidentally fallen on cot on which Sanjay was sleeping. G. Burn injuries suffered by Sanjay were too extensive to be caused by kerosene from lamp. H. Finding of matchstick and lid of kerosene can near cot support the pouring of kerosene by accused Nalu. I. Oral dying declaration by Sanjay to PW-6-Zingubai, PW-I- Kusum and PW-2Naresh. 4. Death of Sanjay on account of 80% to 85% bum injuries is not in dispute before us. H. Finding of matchstick and lid of kerosene can near cot support the pouring of kerosene by accused Nalu. I. Oral dying declaration by Sanjay to PW-6-Zingubai, PW-I- Kusum and PW-2Naresh. 4. Death of Sanjay on account of 80% to 85% bum injuries is not in dispute before us. Advocate Shri. Daga, has contended that nobody has seen the appellant pouring kerosene or setting Sanjay on fire. He points out that all the neighbours have stated that the relations between husband and wife were cordial and according to him no reason whatsoever has been pointed out for prompting the appellant to commit murder of her husband and wife were cordial and according to him no reason whatsoever has been pointed out for prompting the appellant to commit murder of her husband. He further states that the evidence relied upon distance of 11/2 feet from the said partition and the match box bearing name "Thumps-up" was lying between the said partition and the cot with its cover partly burnt and match sticks in it were burnt. In kitchen room fire wood was found stored and in shelves utensils were also found. One partly burnt gents underwear and baniyan were found lying on the ground of the kitchen room. A room adjacent to the said kitchen ad-measuring 5 x 5 feet and on the northern side of this kitchen, was being used as his kitchen by the landlord. One soiled plastic container of capacity of one litre and emitting smell of kerosene also containing some kerosene was found below trestle and another container with 50 ml. of kerosene was found in kitchen room. All these articles were seized by the police authorities. 7. The persons who first reached the spot were - Rajendra son of landlord and his mother Zingubai. Rajendra (P.W.5) at the time of recording of his evidence was about 15 years old. He stated that in the midnight they saw flames coming out from the side where they were sleeping and they went to the room of Sanjay and started pushing the door. The door could not be opened as it was locked from outside. He then went to the house of Nanibai. Nanibai, her husband and one Shrawan Bansod came there and they gave push with force to the door and chain was broken. The accused was outside the room near bath room when door was opened. The door could not be opened as it was locked from outside. He then went to the house of Nanibai. Nanibai, her husband and one Shrawan Bansod came there and they gave push with force to the door and chain was broken. The accused was outside the room near bath room when door was opened. Then Sanjay came out. He stated that Sanjay was not having any clothes on his person and he was taken to the hospital. As cot was partly burning they extinguished the fire. In cross-examination, he denied that he was awakened due to cries of the accused Nalu, that there was fire. His police statement contained a sentence that they heard hue and cry of Nalu to the effect that house was on fire. When it was put to him, he stated that said portion recorded by police was not correct. However, PW-13 Dhanaji, P.S.O. who was cross-examined accepted that the said portion was recorded as stated by witness Rajendra. The said portion is at Exh.65. Zingubai - P.W.6, on the other hand stated that her son Rajendra started shouting and awoke her. They found door of Sanjay' s house latched from outside and accused Nalu was near bath room outside the door. They called persons from the neighbourhood. She removed the chain of the door and opened it. She further told that they got Sanjay admitted in the hospital and Sanjay told her that Nalu poured kerosene on his person. She further stated in cross-examination that when Sanjay was being removed to hospital many villagers gathered there and they asked Sanjay as to what happened, but Sanjay did not tell anything to any body. 8. Nanibai, the neighbour has been examined as PW-3 and she stated that the incident took place in the morning at about 4.00 to 5.00 a.m. Wife of Nana Parve i.e. PW-6 Zingubai came to her and informed her about the fire and she went to find out what happened. She found room of Sanjay on fire and Nalu was outside the house. Wife of Nanaji gave call to Sanjay but there was no response from inside. The door was latched from outside. Wife of Parve removed the latch and Sanjay came out. She threw Lungi on his person and he was then carried to hospital. She found room of Sanjay on fire and Nalu was outside the house. Wife of Nanaji gave call to Sanjay but there was no response from inside. The door was latched from outside. Wife of Parve removed the latch and Sanjay came out. She threw Lungi on his person and he was then carried to hospital. She further stated that she did not notice any quarrel between Sanjay and his wife and further that when she enquired from Sanjay as to what had happened, he refused to tell anything. P.W.4 - Shrawan Bansod is the other neighbour. He was examined to prove seizure Panchanama (Exh.36) and Panchanama of Spot (Exh.37). In cross-examination he stated that bottle found on spot was being used as lamp and he did not notice where that lamp was lying. He further stated that he did not see any quarrel between Sanjay and his wife. He further stated that on hearing commotion he went to the spot and saw that many people had gathered there. He asked Sanjay as to what happened and Sanjay told him that he did not know as he was sleeping. Evidence of Zingubai (P.W.6), about opening of door shows that after rushing towards house of Sanjay, she found door latched from outside. She then called other persons from the vicinity to open the door and she herself removed chain of the door and opened it. The evidence of her son - Rajendra, shows that door could not be opened as it was latched from outside, and he called Nanibai and her husband. Shrawan also came there and they gave push with force to the door and chain was broken. Shrawan has not stated anything about giving push or opening of the door by breaking the chain and Nanibai (PW -3) has stated that wife of Nanaji Parve came to call her and said wife removed the latch from outside. Thus, all witnesses state that said door was latched from outside, however, the question is why it could not be opened by Zingubai immediately or why any push with force was required. Neither Nanibai nor Zingubai or Rajendra say that they heard any shouts from Sanjay for help. 9. The oral dying declaration first in point of time is to PW-6 - Zingubai. Neither Nanibai nor Zingubai or Rajendra say that they heard any shouts from Sanjay for help. 9. The oral dying declaration first in point of time is to PW-6 - Zingubai. She has stated that Sanjay told her about Nalu pouring kerosene on his person and setting him on fire with match stick, in the hospital. However, in the cross-examination she stated that when people who had gathered in the morning at the house of Sanjay, asked him as to how the incident happened, he did not tell anything to any body. Her son Rajendra does not speak of any oral drying declaration and P.W.3 - Nanibai also stated that Sanjay did not disclose anything to those people. PW-l - Kusum i.e. mother of the deceased, has stated that 12 O'clock in the afternoon Sanjay told her that when she was sleeping, his wife set him on fire. It is to be noted that she got message about the incident of hospitalization of Sanjay after 12 O'clock and before that Sanjay had given two written dying declaration i.e. Exh.46 and 59. PW-2 Naresh - brother of the deceased, is the other person who disclosed that Sanjay told him about accused setting him on fire. It is obvious that he came to hospital along with his mother after 12 O'clock and he further admitted in cross-examination that he did not disclose to police about the said statement by Sanjay. PW-4 Shrawan disclosed that when he asked Sanjay as to what happened, Sanjay told him that he did not know as he was sleeping. Such type of evidence cannot be used against the accused at all. Thus, the story about alleged oral dying declaration has not been substantiated by prosecution at all. Circumstance no.1 mentioned above is, therefore, non-existent. 10. This brings us to consideration of three dying declarations, two recorded immediately after hospitalization and Exh.64 recorded on the next day i.e. on 19-06-1995. The consideration of dying declarations at length is not necessary because in paragraph nos.28 and 29 of its judgment the Sessions Court has in-fact chosen not to rely upon these dying declarations. 10. This brings us to consideration of three dying declarations, two recorded immediately after hospitalization and Exh.64 recorded on the next day i.e. on 19-06-1995. The consideration of dying declarations at length is not necessary because in paragraph nos.28 and 29 of its judgment the Sessions Court has in-fact chosen not to rely upon these dying declarations. It is apparent that therefore only questions in detail in relation to statement made by the deceased therein are not put to the appellant/accused while recording her statement u/s.313 Cr.P.C. The court below has found that the statement has not much weigh and in Exh.64 deceased stated that he was not aware as to what happened, as he was asleep. It has recorded that the statements i.e. dying declarations made by Sanjay to A.S.1. Shiopuri and Executive Magistrate Dhoble were entirely based on his inference. It is apparent that he was asleep and he woke only after he caught fire and he did not find his wife Nalu in the room. It is clear that when dying declarations recorded in writing could not have been acted upon, the oral dying declarations also needed to be discarded. 11. Thus facts on record show that deceased caught fire while he was alone in the room and he extinguished himself. Accused, was not the person found with him at that time. The other people opened the door from outside and thereafter he came out. The broken kerosene lamp made up of glass bottle with a rope put in it for using as wick was found on bed and also his undergarments in partly burnt conditions were found in another room. The first person to notice fire is PW-5 Rajendra who stated that he noticed smoke and awoke his mother who was sleeping by his side. He stated to police that the appellant - Nalu was also shouting about fire and he as also his mother heard those shouts. However, he did not depose accordingly before the Trial Court. There is no evidence that deceased Sanjay made any hue and cry about the fire, on the contrary evidence on record demonstrate that he did not disclose his so called inference about involvement of appellant/accused to any body. Sanjay was sleeping in room separated by gunny bag i.e. jute-cloth partition and had he shouted both Rajendra and Zingubai would have heard him immediately. Sanjay was sleeping in room separated by gunny bag i.e. jute-cloth partition and had he shouted both Rajendra and Zingubai would have heard him immediately. The first disclosure of his impression of Sanjay, as per record, is in the hospital and that too, to landlady PW -6 Zingubai. The evidence ofPW-6 Zingubai and PW-3 Nanibai is already discussed above. The appellant/accused has not accepted that door was closed or latched from outside. The dying declaration first recorded at 8.50 a.m. vide Exh.46 discloses that the deceased stated that he raised hue and cry and thereupon his wife opened the door. People gathered there and his wife brought him to general hospital, Wardha by auto rickshaw and admitted him in the hospital. Thus in this first dying declaration Sanjay does not support evidence of PW-6 Zingubai that she opened the door. In second dying declaration recorded on the same day at about 10.25 a:m. (Exh.59), he states that his wife was present in the hospital, but later on she went away to Deoli. He has not stated anything about the person who opened the door or about hue and cry raised by him. In Exh.64, he states that he woke up only when clothes on his person and matters and wooden cot caught fire. He further stated that he shouted and tried to come out of the room, but the door was closed from outside and his wife Nalu was not inside the room. No witness has supported the alleged hue and cry by Sanjay. He further states therein that his landlady - PW -6 rushed there, after seeing the smoke, pushed the door from outside and opened the door. He further stated that he extinguished the fire by rolling and rubbing him with the mattress. He further stated that his wife who was outside the room did not come inside and his landlady gave him lungi and some persons including his wife brought him to General Hospital. It is therefore apparent that this type of evidence does not conclusively establish that it was the appellant/accused who set the deceased on fire and thereafter she closed the door from outside. In-fact there is no clinching evidence on record to show that the door was latched from outside. The evidence only shows that Sanjay caught fire when appellant Nalu was not in the room. In-fact there is no clinching evidence on record to show that the door was latched from outside. The evidence only shows that Sanjay caught fire when appellant Nalu was not in the room. It is not sufficient to invoke and apply "last seen together" theory. Circumstance B is therefore not determinative at all in present facts. 12. Though it was argued before us that the Trial Court has not framed issue to find out whether death was homicidal or not. We find that in paragraph no.14 the Trial Court noticed that unnatural death of Sanjay was admitted and defence was that Sanjay sustained bum injuries due to falling of burning lamp on his body when he was asleep. In paragraph no.40, is also noticed that accused did not come with theory that incident was of suicide by Sanjay. Thus the Additional Sessions Court has proceeded as if the burden was upon the appellant/accused to come out with some defence when admittedly she was not present in the room at the time when the incident occurred. In paragraph no.16 it concluded that relations between the deceased and the appellant were not cordial and it further found that the story of demand of Rs.20,000/- by deceased or about ill treatment at the hands of deceased could not be accepted. It found that the story of prosecution was that appellant was not interested in cohabiting with the deceased and said contention of the prosecution is found to be probable and acceptable. One of the reasons given by the said Court is use of words in her written statement that "she was liking Sanjay". From this statement the Additional Sessions Court has inferred that there was something which was being suppressed by her and therefore there was some motive for her conduct to commit offence. This application of mind is not logical and not only perverse but also contrary to presumption of innocence of the appellant. In this backdrop, the lower Court has considered the evidence on record. In paragraph no.20 it has found that there was no direct evidence and prosecution story was entirely based on circumstantial evidence. It has then noticed evidence of PW-l - Kusum, mother of the deceased and his brother and found that they had no reason to lie about oral dying declaration made by the deceased to them. In paragraph no.20 it has found that there was no direct evidence and prosecution story was entirely based on circumstantial evidence. It has then noticed evidence of PW-l - Kusum, mother of the deceased and his brother and found that they had no reason to lie about oral dying declaration made by the deceased to them. It further found that mother was not aware till her visit to hospital that the appellant was residing with deceased. In relation to evidence ofPW-3 - Nanibai, PW-5 - Rajendra and PW-6 - Zingubai, the lower Court has commented that these witnesses had also no reason to tell lie and in-fact they were speaking truth because they accepted that there was no quarrel between the appellant and the deceased. In these circumstances, it found that the story of oral dying declaration given by the deceased to Zingubai carried weight. It found that the appellant latched door from outside and did not take any steps to come to the rescue of the deceased and the deceased was provided clothes by other witnesses and not by the appellant. This conduct as spectator has been interpreted to mean that the appellant/accused was involved in the commission of offence. The evidence on record does not conclusively establish these facts. Rajendra (PW-5), has heard Nallu shouting and deceased himself at one time stated that Nalu opened the door. He further stated that his wife brought him to General Hospital. Thus this part of evidence has not been properly appreciated by the Trial Court. Similarly, it cannot be understood that if door was only latched from outside why PW-6 - Zingubai or PW -5 - Rajendra could not open it and why neighbour was required to be called. It is not conclusively proved whether the said door was opened by breaking chain or by opening the latch i.e. by refueling chain from hook. The Trial Court has drawn adverse inference against appellant Nallu because of her alleged silence noticed by it. However, the said fact of silence itself is not established. Spot inspection note (Ex.3?) does not even mention this door. Circumstances C and E above are, therefore, not established by clinching evidence. 13. The Trial Court has drawn adverse inference against appellant Nallu because of her alleged silence noticed by it. However, the said fact of silence itself is not established. Spot inspection note (Ex.3?) does not even mention this door. Circumstances C and E above are, therefore, not established by clinching evidence. 13. It is also surprising that when portion of house in possession of the landlord and in possession of the deceased was separated by partition of gunny bags (made of jute), why deceased could not remove those gunny bags or why Zingubai could not remove those gunny bags. The situation and discussion above creates serious doubts on deposition of Rajendra and Zingubai in the matter. The Trial Court has also considered the aspect of extent of burns suffered by the deceased. It has observed that merely because of falling of lamp on bed such type of injuries could not have been suffered by the deceased, however, there is no such evidence brought on record through any medical officer or other expert. The cot was of wood and woven with strings. The strings are generally of coconut or nylon rope. There was a cotton mattress on it. Cotton itself is inflammable and the dried rope of coconut husk or nylon can also catch fire easily. The Trial Court however has observed that lamp could not have been broken by its fall on bed. The circumstances in which the lamp may break or got broken are not brought on record. The application of mind by the trial court in this respect is merely on the basis of certain presumptions drawn of its own and one does not know exactly what transpired in the room. Circumstance G is therefore not supported by record. The Trial Court has also found that lid of plastic can or match box could not have been found in the said room if fire was on account of fall of lamp. Again this is only hypothetical. It cannot be forgotten that undergarments of the deceased found containing kerosene residue were not in the room where the incident occurred, but were found in the kitchen. The Trial Court has also noticed that it was not the case of the appellant that Sanjay tried to commit suicide. It has also held that Sanjay did not disclose involvement of his wife to any body to avoid inconvenience. The Trial Court has also noticed that it was not the case of the appellant that Sanjay tried to commit suicide. It has also held that Sanjay did not disclose involvement of his wife to any body to avoid inconvenience. However, these presumptions and assumptions are without any basis and there ought to have been concrete evidence of the appellant's participation in commission of offence and for that purpose finding of kerosene residue on her clothes or other similar material evidence should have been brought on record. In cases based upon circumstantial evidence, each link in chain of events need to be separately and conclusively established and the said chain has to lead to the conclusion only of guilt and inference drawn from each fact has to be incompatible with the theory of innocence of the accused. Each link in the chain is required to be established by cogent and consistent evidence. The Trial Court has ignored this cardinal requirement of the matter. It has been carried away by the fact that the appellant did not wish to cohabit with the deceased, as disclosed by PW-6 Zingubai. If evidence of PW -6 - Zingubai in other respect is doubtful, this part also could not have been accepted without any corroboration. It cannot be forgotten that just before 8-9 days accused had come to reside with the deceased at Selsura. The last sentence in examination-in-chief of Zingubai which reads- "She also told me that she was not intending to cohabit with her husband" has come suddenly and appears to be out of context as in earlier sentence Zingubai says - "I asked as to what happened. He told that Nalu poured kerosene on his person, and set on fire him with match stick". Same statement recorded in Marathi language reads Same statement recorded in Marathi language reads - "He told me that she did not want to stay with him". The benefit of doubt, if necessary, will have to be given to the appellant and hence circumstance 'A' mentioned above is also not established on record. Finding of motive reached on its strength by lower court is, therefore, unsustainable. 14. It further seems that the Presiding Officer of the Trial Court visited the spot and found that Kerosene lamp could not have been hanged at such a place from where it could have fallen on bed. Finding of motive reached on its strength by lower court is, therefore, unsustainable. 14. It further seems that the Presiding Officer of the Trial Court visited the spot and found that Kerosene lamp could not have been hanged at such a place from where it could have fallen on bed. He found that said lamp could have been placed only on wall separating sleeping room from kitchen. It appears that the Presiding Officer also perused kerosene lamp while reaching conclusion that kerosene oil coming out there from would not have been sufficient to inflict such burn injunes on deceased and said injuries were possible only by manual pouring of kerosene on his person. The Presiding Officer has visited the spot on 28-06-1996 after hearing the arguments and found that had appellant been really required to answer nature's call, most suitable place for that purpose was portion adjacent to bath room or near about portion near her house. It further found that at such an hour in the night she could not have gone far away for that purpose. All these presumptions are drawn by the Presiding Officer on account of his own impressions and there was no evidence on record for this purpose. No part of spot panchanama contained these details. The prosecution had not verified the story of appellant about proceeding to answer nature's call. Similarly at the time of visit by the Presiding Officer, there was no partition between the room in occupation of Sanjay and the room in occupation of landlord, and the Presiding Officer has noted that kerosene lamp could have been kept on partly constructed wall in between bed room and kitchen and not adjacent to bed or above the cot. Again these observations in paragraph no.34 are his own impressions and could not fill in any lacuna in spot panchanama at Ex.37. It is also important to note that these observations have not been put to appellant/ accused by the Presiding Officer while recording her statement under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code. In paragraph no.36 the Presiding Officer has relied upon the alleged extra judicial confession of accused to witness Zingubai. The said confession as per Trial Court, disclosed that Nalini told Zingubai that she was not intending to cohabit with her husband. We have already pointed out error committed by court in this connection above. In paragraph no.36 the Presiding Officer has relied upon the alleged extra judicial confession of accused to witness Zingubai. The said confession as per Trial Court, disclosed that Nalini told Zingubai that she was not intending to cohabit with her husband. We have already pointed out error committed by court in this connection above. Circumstance D and F above are also therefore not established on record and, in any case there is no legal evidence available on record to support them. 15. The Trial Court, therefore, has based its judgment mostly on certain inferences drawn, because of its finding that the appellant/accused had motive to commit murder of her husband and that she did not shout for help after noticing fire and that door was closed from outside and she did not open it or she did not provide clothes to the deceased. The circumstances like not shouting for help of deceased, his not disclosing any role played by the appellant/accused immediately to the villagers or to any body, finding of his partly burnt undergarments in kitchen are not at all taken into account. We, therefore, find that no chain of circumstance has been brought on record and proved by the prosecution so as to lead one to inevitable conclusion of guilt of appellant/accused. Circumstance H i.e. finding of lid of can and match box by itself in present facts is not sufficient to hold that guilt of appellant is conclusively established. The links necessary to constitute such chain are not individually established. The Trial Court has gathered some knowledge by spot visit and utilised it for the purpose of arriving at conclusion of guilt of the appellant/accused. It appears that trial court first formed its opinion about guilt of the accused and then proceeded further to consolidate it not only on the strength of inconclusive material on record as also by collecting some facts through personal visit. The approach to be adopted should have been to scrutinize entire evidence on record link wise without any prejudice against the accused and by keeping in mind the presumption of her innocence. If each such link was established beyond reasonable doubt then exercise to find out whether these links can be put together to form a chain could have been undertaken. Presumption could have been then drawn about involvement of the appellant if no other view of the matter was possible. If each such link was established beyond reasonable doubt then exercise to find out whether these links can be put together to form a chain could have been undertaken. Presumption could have been then drawn about involvement of the appellant if no other view of the matter was possible. Here the court below has not approached the controversy from right perspective and this error resulted in some predetermination leading to even incorrect appreciation of evidence or attempted filling in of lacunae in investigation. We find the impugned judgment to be unsustainable, and therefore we quash and set aside the same. In the result, the appellant is acquitted of the offence punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code. Her bail bonds stand cancelled. 16. Muddemal property be destroyed after the appeal period is over. Appeal allowed.