MR. JAYANT PATEL, J. ( 1 ) THE present appeal is directed against the Judgement and Order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, dated 07. 11. 2001 in Sessions Case No. 197/01,. whereby the appellant accused has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC and the sentence is imposed upon him for life imprisonment with the fine of Rs. 500/ -. ( 2 ) AS per the prosecution, on 12. 09. 2000, the complainant Mahmad hasanbhai Vali, had engaged Santu Jina (deceased) and Budha Ishwar (deceased)for agricultural operation in the field and also one Mela Soma Rathod (deceased) (hereinafter they are referred as deceased)at the agricultural field for sowing. The complainant had also gone to the agricultural field at about 9. 00 O Clock at the morning and he came back. At about 12. 00 O Clock noon, he had instructed for sending food for the deceased through hursing @ Sursing Chittubhai (accused appellant herein ). The accused-appellant had gone with the food prepared at the residence of the complainant and when he came back, at about 1. 00 O Clock noon, the accused informed the complainant that the aforesaid two persons viz. Santu Jina and mela Soma had become sick and unconscious, and therefore, he had brought them in the bullock cart of Arjunbhai, therefore, the complainant, since both the aforesaid persons were unconscious, had hired a tempo for giving treatment to the aforesaid two persons. At that time, the third person Budha Ishwar, while coming to the house of the complainant had also fallen down and he was in semi-unconscious condition. He was also taken in the tempo and all the three persons were taken to the hospital. The Doctor declared them as dead. The aforesaid information was provided by the complainant at the first instance. ( 3 ) INITIALLY, entry was recorded as of accidental death. However, it appears that during the investigation, it was found by the police that death of the deceased were due to consumption of poison and therefore, the complaint was registered by Circle Police inspector for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC for causing death of the aforesaid deceased by the accused. However, it appears that during the investigation, it was found by the police that death of the deceased were due to consumption of poison and therefore, the complaint was registered by Circle Police inspector for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC for causing death of the aforesaid deceased by the accused. As stated in the complaint, there was dispute amongst the deceased and the appellant-accused Hursing @ Sursing Chittubhai for the work and therefore, the accused after taking lunch from the residence of Mahmad Hasan Vali had mixed poisonous pesticide (normally used for cotton crop) in the buttermilk. As the said food was consumed by the deceased, they received immediate effect and became unconscious and thereafter, were brought to the Government hospital, where they were declared dead. As stated in the complaint, the complainant had the doubt that because of the dispute of appellant-accused with the deceased, he might have killed them by mixing poisonous pesticide used for cotton crop in the buttermilk to be taken with the food and therefore, the complaint was filed. ( 4 ) IT appears that the police investigated the complaint and ultimately, the charge-sheet was filed against the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC for causing death of the aforesaid deceased. ( 5 ) THE prosecution in support of the charge, has examined the following witnesses: p. W. No. Name exh. 1 doctor Ravishankar Rajendra Jha 6 2 yakubbhai Adambhai Patel-person who prepared the map. ( 5 ) THE prosecution in support of the charge, has examined the following witnesses: p. W. No. Name exh. 1 doctor Ravishankar Rajendra Jha 6 2 yakubbhai Adambhai Patel-person who prepared the map. 12 3 mahmad Hasan Vali Patel 15 4 aysaben Mahmadbhai 17 5 emanben Adambhai Patel 18 6 shantaben Melabhai 19 7 kamlaben Shantubhai Vasava 20 8 savitaben Budhabhai Rathod 21 9 rameshbhai Kashibhai 22 10 ishvarbhai Somabhai Rathod 23 11 arjunbhai Shankarbhai 24 12 bhagabhai Chandubhai 25 13 dhaniben Bhagubhai 26 14 ishwarbhai Motibhai Rathod 27 15 rajubhai Shankarbhai Vasava 28 16 mukeshbhai Jagannath Patil 29 17 isnamul Mahmad Patel 30 18 mangabhai Mohanbhai 31 19 ahmadbhai Yusufbhai Sudiwala 32 20 yunus Kasam 33 21 hanifbhai Ibrahimbhai 34 22 salim Mahmad 35 23 gajanand Chaturdas Mahant 36 24 iqbalbhai Musabhai 38 25 yusufbhai Valibhai 40 26 khushalbhai Dahyabhai Parmar 42 27 illias Ismailbhai Patel 43 28 illias Dawood Patel 45 29 yasim Mahmad 47 30 ramanbhai Bhailalbhai 49 31 chandrakant Govindbhai 51 32 manilal Mansukhbhai 53 33 ahmedkhan Firozkhan Sindhi 55 the prosecution in support of the charge had also produced the following documents. Sr. No. 1 particulars pm Note of deceased Budhabhai Ishwarbhai. Exh. 7 2 pm Note of deceased Melabhai Somabhai. 8 3 pm Note of deceased Santubhai Jinabhai. 9 4 opinion of the Doctor. 10 5 advertisement of the incident by Mahmad Hasan Vali. 16 6 map of the place of offence. 14 7 inquest Panchnama. 37 8 panchnama of the place of incident. 39 9 panchnama of the place of vomitus. 41 10 recovery panchnama of the muddamal. 44 11 recovery panchnama of the muddamal. 46 12 recovery panchnama of the muddamal. 48 13 forwarding note. 57 14 order of the Incharge P. S. O. 52 15 station Diary Entry No. 7/2000. 54 16 c. P. I's complaint on behalf of the Government. 56 17 order of Chandrakantbhai, Incharge Head Constable. 50 18 letter and Certificate of the FSL. 58 19 muddamal receipt of the FSL. 59 ( 6 ) AFTER the evidence was closed, the statement of the accused was also recorded under Section 313 of the CRPC by the learned Sessions Judge, wherein the accused has denied accusation and the evidence against him and in the further statement, he has declared that he is innocent and the police by beating him has got the confession. ( 7 ) THE learned Sessions Judge thereafter, has heard the learned Public prosecutor as well as the defence counsel and has found that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused for the offence under Section 302 of the ipc and has therefore, has convicted the accused. The learned Sessions Judge, thereafter has heard the accused on the aspects of punishment and thereafter, has imposed the sentence upon the accused for life imprisonment with the fine of Rs. 500/-It is under these circumstances, the present appeal before this Court. ( 8 ) WE have heard mr. Buddhbhatti, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Raval, learned APP for the State. ( 9 ) IT is an admitted position that the present case is one based on circumstantial evidence and there is no eyewitness to the incident of adding poisonous pesticides by the accused in the food which was carried by him for consumption by the deceased. ( 10 ) BEFORE we examine the evidence on record, it would be worthwhile to refer to the legal position for the degree of proof as may be required for proving the guilt of the accused in a case where the charge is to be proved based on circumstantial evidence. ( 11 ) THE Apex Court in the case of sliarad Biridhichand Sarda v. State of maharashtra reported at AIR 1984 SC 1622 , had an occasion to consider the condition to be fulfilled before a case against the accused can be said to be fully established. At paras 152 and 153, it was inter alia observed as under: 152. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established : (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 Maharashtra, (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 divides 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. 153. These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence. It was also observed by the Apex Court, which can be considered as a guideline for considering the case of the prosecution based on the circumstantial evidence as under. The observations made by the Apex court at para 158 shows that the following condition would be required to be satisfied: 158. It will be seen that this Court while taking into account the absence of explanation or a false explanation did hold that it will amount to be an additional link to complete the chain but these observations must be read in the light of what this Court said earlier, viz. , before a false explanation can be used as additional link, the following essential conditions must be satisfied : 1. various links in the chain of evidence led by the prosecution have been satisfactorily proved, 2. the said circumstance point to the guilt of the accused with reasonable definiteness, and 3. , before a false explanation can be used as additional link, the following essential conditions must be satisfied : 1. various links in the chain of evidence led by the prosecution have been satisfactorily proved, 2. the said circumstance point to the guilt of the accused with reasonable definiteness, and 3. the circumstance is in proximity to the time and situation. Further, it was inter alia observed by the Apex Court that the Court while considering the case of murder by administration of poison, must carefully scan the evidence and determine four important circumstances which alone can justify a conviction. Such circumstances can be extracted from para 164, which reads as under:164. So far as this matter is concerned, in such cases the Court must carefully scan the evidence and determine the four important circumstances which alone can justify a conviction : 1. there is a clear motive for an accused to administer poison to the deceased. 2. that the deceased died of poison said to have been administered. 3. that the accused had the poison in his possession. 4. that he had an opportunity to: administer the poison to the deceased. In the very decision, it was observed by the Apex Court that Where on evidence two possibilities are available or open, one which goes in favour of the prosecution and. another which benefits an accused, the accused is undoubtedly entitled to the benefit of doubt ( 12 ) THE aforesaid decision of the Apex court was again considered and followed in the subsequent decision of the apex Court in the case of Jaipal v. State of Hariyana reported at (2003)1 SCC 169 and the Apex court had also considered a note of caution as was sounded by the constitutional bench of the Apex Court in the case of Raghav prapcinna Tripathi v. Slate of U. P reported at AIR 1963 SC 74 as under: the mind was apt to take a pleasure in adapting circumstances to one another, and even in straining them a little, if need be, to force them to form pars of one connected whole; and the more ingenious the mind of the individual the more likely was it, considering such matter, to overreach and mislead itself, to supply some little link that is wanting, to take for granted some consistent with its previous theories and necessary to render them complete. " ultimately, in the said decision, the apex Court held that The High Court and the trial court have unwittingly fallen into the same dangerous, trap which the constitution Bench has cautioned to be guarded against. ( 13 ) THIS Court in the case of Naginbliai ambalal Solank v. State of Gujarat repotted at 2008 (1) GLR 534 , after relying upon the earlier decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rajgopal v. State of Maharashtra reported at AIR 1972 SC 652, has followed the principles as observed by the Apex court in the above referred decision of the ramgopal (supra) and observed that it is only when the motive is there, and it is proved, that the deceased died out of poison in question in his possession and he had an opportunity to administer the poison to the deceased, the Court can infer that the accused administered the poison to the deceased resulting into his death. In the facts of that case, this Court found that such facts were missing and therefore, the conviction was set aside. ( 14 ) THE examination of the evidence on record in light of the aforesaid legal position deserves to be considered as stated hereinafter. ( 15 ) DR. RAVISHANKAR Rajendra Jha, p. W. 1 in his deposition has stated that he has performed the Postmortem and has supported the case of the prosecution to the effect that the death of the deceased have been caused due to consumption of poison known as organophosphorous like endosulphun. The PM as well as the other medical evidence shows the death of the deceased were caused due to consumption of poison. ( 16 ) YAKUBBHAI Adambhai Patel, P. W. 2 is the Circle Inspector who had prepared the sketch of the site which shows that the field is surrouded by the other agricultural field where cotton is grown and such field are of Khushal Daya, Ahmed Suleman and ahmed Arvar, Mahmad Hasanvali Patel. ( 17 ) THE complainant-P. W. 3 has admitted the complaint having been filed, but in the first complaint which was registered on 12. 09. 2000 by the said witness, he had no knowledge about any position mixed by the accused Hursing @ sursing Chittubhai nor he has made any statement to that effect. ( 17 ) THE complainant-P. W. 3 has admitted the complaint having been filed, but in the first complaint which was registered on 12. 09. 2000 by the said witness, he had no knowledge about any position mixed by the accused Hursing @ sursing Chittubhai nor he has made any statement to that effect. In his deposition, he has only stated of his visit to the agricultural field in the early morning and having instructed his wife to send the food for the aforesaid deceased labourers. ( 18 ) AYSABEN Mahmadbhai, P. W. 4, has stated of sending the food in the tiffin with the accused. She has only stated that the accused had the knowledge of the place at which the pesticides were being kept. She has stated that such pesticides were kept in katariya (store) at top floor with a view to see that it may not fall in the hands of children. ( 19 ) TMANBEN Adambhai Patel, P. W. 5 who is the wife of the younger brother of the complainant, has supported the say of the Aisaben, P. W. 4 to the extent of preparation of the food and sending the same with the accused and she has identified the utensils in which the food was sent. She has not seen the accused adding the poisonous pesticides in the food or buttermilk. ( 20 ) THE wife of the deceased viz. Shantaben Melabhai (P. W. 6), Kamlaben shantubhai Vasava (P. W. 7), Savitaben budhabhai Rathod (P. W. 8) have not seen the incident, but have supported the case of the prosecution to the extent that the deceased were working as labourer in the field of the complainant on the date of the incident. The pertinent aspect is that as stated by the aforesaid three witnesses (wives of the deceased), the temperament of the deceased were good and they had no dispute with anyone. ( 21 ) RAMESHBHAI Kashibhai, P. W. 9 has stated of having visited to the hospital where the deceased were admitted. ( 22 ) ISHWARBHAI Somabhai Rathod. P. W. 10, is the person who has stated that he had learned that the deceased had become sick and they were carried in tempo to the hospital. ( 23 ) ARJUNBHAI Shankarbhai, P. W. 11. ( 22 ) ISHWARBHAI Somabhai Rathod. P. W. 10, is the person who has stated that he had learned that the deceased had become sick and they were carried in tempo to the hospital. ( 23 ) ARJUNBHAI Shankarbhai, P. W. 11. had seen that the physical condition of the deceased Mela Soma and Shantu Jina was deteriorated and therefore, he had put them in the bullock cart and brought to the complainant. He stated that the deceased santubhai and Melabhai were below the tree and utensils were lying at that place. In the cross-examination of the said witness, he has stated that when he was coming, the accused had called him for help to carry the deceased to the place of their master complainant. ( 24 ) THE other witness viz. Bhagabhai chandubhai (P. W. 12), Dhaniben Bhagubhai (P. W. 13), Ishwarbhai Motibhai Rathod (P. W. 14) and Rajubhai Shankar Vasava (P. W. 15) are only hearsay witnesses and mukeshbhai Jagannath Patil (P. W. 16), isnamul Mahmad Patel (P. W. 17), mangabhai Mohanbhai (P. W. 18), ahmadbhai Yusufbhai Sudiwala (P. W. 19), yunuskhan Kasam (P. W. 20), Hanifbhai ibrahimbhai (P. W. 21) and Salim Mahmad (P. W. 22) are the witness who are not having any personal knowledge, but they have seen the deceased after their condition were deteriorated due to consumption of the food and they had helped the complainant and other persons for carrying the deceased to the hospital. ( 25 ) THE inquest panchnama of the dead body supports the case of the prosecution for proving the medical evidence to the extent that the inquest panchnama was prepared of the dead body and thereafter, was sent for postmortem. ( 26 ) THE panchnama of the field/site where the deceased had taken the food and they had vomited has come on record by the deposition of Iqbalbhai Musabhai, P. W. 24. The samples of black clay were taken and were sent for FSL. The samples were taken of the vomited food and they were also sent for FSL report. ( 27 ) THE panchnama of the place where one of the deceased had fallen down and thereafter, had vomited, has also come on record as per the deposition of one of the panchas Yusuf Valibhai, P. W. 25 and the said samples are sent to FLS for examination. ( 27 ) THE panchnama of the place where one of the deceased had fallen down and thereafter, had vomited, has also come on record as per the deposition of one of the panchas Yusuf Valibhai, P. W. 25 and the said samples are sent to FLS for examination. ( 28 ) THE panchnama of the residence of the complainant wherein as per the case of the prosecution, the poisonous pesticide was preserved has come on record with the deposition of Illias Dawood Patel, P. W. 28, and discovery is made of a bottle of 1 litre of pesticides used for sprinkling in the cotton crop over which it was written as thyodon Endosulphan. ( 29 ) THE pertinent aspect is that the small bottle of glass for eyedrops is discovered as per the panchnama Exh. 44 and it has come on record through the deposition of Illias Ismail Patel, P. W. 27. As per the said panchnama, the same is discovered at the instance of the accused which was lying in the right boundary of the field where the grass and bushes were grown. As per the panchnama, the bottle had smell of poisonous pesticides. The said bottle with the cork were discovered and the bottle had the wrapper Ciplox. After discovery, it has been sent to FSL for analysis. ( 30 ) THE deposition of IO has supported the case of the prosecution to the extent of registration of the information at the initial stage of accidental death and thereafter, for registration of the complaint under Section 302 of the 1pc and the further investigation in this regard. ( 31 ) THE aforesaid evidence as led on behalf of the prosecution to support the guilt of the accused shows that there is no direct evidence available for addition or mixture of the poisonous agricultural pesticide in the buttermilk by the accused appellant. As per the prosecution, accused hursing as was working with the complainant, was aware about the place at which poisonous agricultural pesticides were preserved by the complainant and as the accused had some dispute with the deceased, when the accused had carried the food which were prepared at place of the complainant, on the way, the accused added poisonous pesticides in the buttermilk. It is the further case of the prosecution that poisonous pesticides were taken by the accused from the main bottle which was lying in the storeroom (Katariya) of the house of the complainant and it was poured into a small bottle and from that very small bottle, poisonous pesticide was mixed in the buttermilk which was carried by the accused. It is the further case of the prosecution that the said buttermilk was consumed by the deceased which has resulted into the death of the deceased. ( 32 ) IN this manner, the attempt on the part of the prosecution is to prove the case based on circumstantial evidence. As observed and recorded by us in the earlier paragraph, two aspects will be of vital importance while considering the case of the prosecution based on circumstantial evidence against the accused. One is that the chain must be complete based on reasonable prudence and not based on the temptation of mind to adapt probabilities. The second is that while considering the circumstantial evidence and to contribute the guilt to the accused, there should be strong motive with the accused to done away or to kill the victim/deceased. ( 33 ) THE examination of the facts keeping in view the aforesaid first aspect shows that in the discovery panchnama of the bottle, Exh. 44, it has been specifically stated by the panchas that there is a smell of poisonous pesticides from the bottle and the bottle is discovered with small cork. The said article was marked as C while forwarding the same to FSL. The FSL report which is produced at Exh. 58 shows that the poisonous chemical is not found on the aforesaid article of small bottle of glass (Mark C ). This creates a strong doubt about the involvement of the accused for mixing the poison in the buttermilk which has been consumed by the deceased. If the case of the prosecution is believed as it is. the said small bottle must contain poisonous chemical which is said to have been added in the buttermilk. But such aspects of the prosecution case is expressly contradicted by the expert opinion as per the FSL report. If the case of the prosecution is believed as it is. the said small bottle must contain poisonous chemical which is said to have been added in the buttermilk. But such aspects of the prosecution case is expressly contradicted by the expert opinion as per the FSL report. Further, even if the contention of the learned APP is considered that the accused after pouring the poisonous pesticides in the buttermilk, might have washed the bottle and thereafter, might have thrown the same, then also no evidence in this regard of washing of the bottle and throwing thereafter comes on record. On the contrary, the discovery panchnama shows the smell of poisonous pesticides from the said bottle at the time when the same was discovered by the police and the seals were applied for forwarding the same to the FSL. The fact that in the discovery panchnama, there is reference to the smell coming out of poisonous pesticides from the bottle would create a serious doubt about the contention put forward by the learned APP that the accused might have washed the bottle and thereafter might have thrown away the same. Further, if the accused had taken some quantity of poisonous pesticides into small bottle from the main bottle which was lying at the place of the complainant and thereafter has used the said bottle for pouring, poisonous pesticides in the buttermilk as per the case of the prosecution, then the said bottle must contain the poisonous chemical as per the fsl report. Such poisonous chemical is absent in the said small bottle of glass. Therefore, the chain of circumstantial evidence is not complete and would seriously get paralysed on account of nonavailability of poisonous pesticides in the bottle which is said to have been used by the accused for causing death of the deceased. ( 34 ) IN addition to the aforesaid vacuum in the chain of circumstantial evidence, even as per the documents produced by the prosecution, two circumstances may rise on probabilities; one is that the very bottle has been discovered and the another is that the evidence produced by the prosecution is not genuine of the bottle which is said to have been used by the accused for pouring poisonous pesticides into the buttermilk. Even if the contention of the learned APP is considered of washing of the bottle by the accused and thereafter throwing away the same into the field is considered, in absence of any evidence in that regard, the benefit of doubt would go to the accused. ( 35 ) AS stated above, even if two views are possible based on the material before the Court, the accused would be entitled to the benefit of doubt. ( 36 ) THE aforesaid is coupled with the evidence on record for unavailability of strong motive on the part of the accused to kill the deceased. The wife of all the deceased on the contrary have stated that the deceased had no dispute with anyone. The conduct of the deceased if examined as it was, it appears that the moment the health of the deceased had started deteriorating and there was some vomiting by the deceased, the accused himself had called another person, viz. Arjunbhai, P. W. 11, for the help and thereafter, the said Arjunbhai and the accused had carried two of the deceased in the bullock cart and brought them to the panchayat office. This shows that the prosecution has failed to prove the strong motive attributable to the accused or available with the accused to done away the deceased or to kill the deceased. ( 37 ) EVEN if the evidence is produced by the prosecution for attributing the motive to the accused as considered, it appears that the role of the accused is not in preparation of the food. It is an admitted position that the utensils which were used, including the tiffin for food, can of water and aluminum tin for buttermilk were not belonging to the accused, but were belonging to the complainant. The role of the accused was only as a carrier of the prepared food from the residence of the complainant to the agricultural field, where the deceased had to take the food. No direct evidence has come on the record by way of an eyewitness or otherwise to show that the accused had added pesticides into the buttermilk or otherwise. The prosecution has attempted to prove the chain with the help of small bottle alleged to have been used by the accused for taking the poisonous pesticides from the house of the complainant and adding the same to the buttermilk. The prosecution has attempted to prove the chain with the help of small bottle alleged to have been used by the accused for taking the poisonous pesticides from the house of the complainant and adding the same to the buttermilk. As observed earlier, the poisonous chemical is not found in the said bottle as per the FSL report. ( 38 ) FURTHER, as stated above, not only the circumstantial evidence is not established, but there is also serious lapse on the part of the prosecution to recover the utensils which was used by the deceased while taking food, more particularly when they were already there at the place where the deceased had vomited after taking food. The said aspect had come on record from the deposition of Arjunbhai Shunkarbhai, p. W. 11, who has stated that when the deceased Shantu Jina and Mela Soma were below the trees, the utensils were lying there. Had the prosecution recovered or discovered the same utensils on the same day, in the same position, whether they contained the poisonous pesticides or not could have come on record to help the prosecution to further complete the chain of circumstantial evidence for proving the guilt of the accused. Such has not happened in the present case and the discovery of the utensils is at a stage when they were in clean and in washed condition. Even as per the FSL report, no poisonous chemical is found in such utensils. Such in the opinion of this Court can be said as a serious lapse on the part of the prosecution in proving the guilt of the accused, more particularly, when the case is based on circumstantial evidence. ( 39 ) THEREFORE, it appears that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the case put forward by the prosecution for involvement of the accused to the extent of addition of poison in the buttermilk and thereby killing the deceased is not supported the chain of the circumstantial evidence, which would result into drawing an inescapable conclusion towards the guilt of the accused, more particularly when there is no evidence on record for strong motive against the accused. ( 40 ) IN view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Sessions judge has unfortunately fallen into the same trap as was rightly cautioned by the Apex court in its decision in the case of Raghav prapanna Tripathi (supra ). ( 41 ) THEREFORE, as the prosecution has failed to prove the involvement of the accused for mixing poison in the buttermilk which has been consumed by the accused, the conviction of the accused for the alleged offence deserves to be quashed and set aside. ( 42 ) IN the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned Judgement and Order ot the learned Sessions Judge is quashed and set aside. The accused is hereby acquitted from the charges of the offence under Section 302 of the IPC. He shall be set to liberty forthwith by the concerned Jail Authority, unless he is required in connection with any other offence. (JMB) (Appeal is allowed)