JUDGMENT I.A. Ansari, J. 1. We have heard Mr. S.K.N. Mohammad, Learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Appellants, and Mr. K.C. Mahanta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. 2. By judgment and order, dated 13.11.2002, passed, in Sessions Case No. 158(K)/2000, learned Additional Sessions Judge (Ad-hoc) No. 1, Kamrup, has convicted the three accused-Appellants under Section 302, read with Section 34, IPC, and sentenced, each of them, to suffer imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months. 3. The case of the prosecution may, in brief, be described thus: The house of accused Difang Rabha is situated near the house of Malati Rabha. On the night of 25.8.1998, the three accused-Appellants and Sidheswar (since deceased) were singing and dancing at the courtyard of accused-Difang's house. After the singing and dancing were over, Malati Rabha heard a quarrel taking place among the three accused and Sidheswar. She also heard Sidheswar saying, "Would you all kill me?" Out of fear, Malati Rabha did not venture to go out of her house and find out as to what was happening at the house of accused Difang Rabha. Malati remained at her house and, on the following morning, she saw Sidheswar's dead-body, with injuries on his body, lying by the side of village road. On coming to know that his brother, Sidheswar's dead-body, had been found, and, on coming to know from Malati as to what had happened, at the previous night, at accused Difang's house, Dharanidhar Rabha lodged a written Ejahar (Exhibit 1) at Boko Police Station. Treating the said Ejahar as FIR, police registered a case against the three accused-Appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC. During investigation, police visited the place, where the dead-body was found lying, inquest was held over the dead-body and, on completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was Laid against all the three Appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC. 4. During trial, on a charge being framed against the accused-Appellants under Section 302 , read with Section 34, IPC, all the accused-appellants pleaded not guilty. 5. In support of their case, prosecution examined altogether eight witnesses. 4. During trial, on a charge being framed against the accused-Appellants under Section 302 , read with Section 34, IPC, all the accused-appellants pleaded not guilty. 5. In support of their case, prosecution examined altogether eight witnesses. The Appellants were, then, examined under Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure and, in their examination, they denied that they had committed the offence alleged to have been committed by them, the case of the defence being that of total denial. The trial ended, as already indicated above, with the conviction of the accused-Appellants. Aggrieved by their conviction and the sentence passed against them, the accused have preferred this appeal. 6. While considering the present appeal, what needs to be pointed out, at the very outset, is that according to the evidence of the doctor (PW 6), who admittedly performed post-mortem examination on the dead-body of Sidheswar Rabha on 26.8.1998, following injuries were found: 1. One lacerated wound about 3 cm × 0.3 cm, with surrounding abrasion 4 cm x 2 cm, bone deep on right forehead 4 cm from the midline. 2. One stab wound-2 cm × 3 cm × 3 cm (deep) over the right side of the neck below the Rigormarks. 3. One stab wound-2 cm × 0.3 cm × 3 cm (deep) in right side neck just below the neck of the mandible. 4. One stab wound-2 cm × 3 cm × 3 cm (deep) just below the injury No. 3 (on the right side of neck) righority face are found incised. 5. One incise wound-5 cm × 5 cm × 1 cm (bone deep) on right tempro occipital area behind the right ear. No. 6 Abrasion-1/2 × 0.5 cm, 10 × 0.5 cm on the right side of the neck and shoulder. No. 7 Abrasion-20 × 0.5 cm, then 4 cm × 0.5 cm and then 8 cm × 0.5 cm again 6 cm × 0.5 cm on back of right shoulder and chest. No. 8 Abrasion-6 cm × 4 cm, 3 cm × 1.05 cm on right side of pelvis and iliac crest. The natural organs-All internal organs are found healthy, stomach was empty. 7. It is in the evidence of the doctor that the injuries were ante-mortem and the death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage resulting from the injuries sustained by the said deceased. The natural organs-All internal organs are found healthy, stomach was empty. 7. It is in the evidence of the doctor that the injuries were ante-mortem and the death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage resulting from the injuries sustained by the said deceased. It is also in the evidence of PW 6 that while injury No. 1, 6, 7 and 8 were caused by blunt object, the remaining injuries, namely, injury Nos. 2 to 5, were caused by sharp-cutting pointed weapon. 8. We have carefully considered the evidence given by PW 6 during his cross-examination by the defence; but we do not find that the evidence given by PW 6 as regard the nature of the injuries found on the said dead-body and/or his opinion with regard the nature of weapons used and/or the cause of death, are unbelievable. From the evidence, so adduced by PW 6, what becomes clear is that on the dead-body of Sidheswar, as many as eight injuries were found and, out of these eight injuries, injury Nos. 2 to 5 were caused by sharp-cutting weapon; whereas the remaining four injuries were caused by blunt object. 9. Bearing in mind the medical evidence on record, when we turn to the remaining evidence adduced by the prosecution, what we notice is that there is no eye-witness to the alleged occurrence of assault on Sidheswar by the three accused-Appellants. There are, in fact, only two witnesses, who have testified to the effect that the three accused-Appellants were the ones, who were responsible for Sidheswar's death, these two witnesses being Malati (PW 3) and Budheswar (PW 5). 10. Let us, first, consider the evidence of PW 3. According to her evidence, her house and the house of accused Difang are situated on the same village road facing each other. As regards the occurrence, PW 3 has deposed that she had seen Sidheswar and the three accused going to the house of accused Difang, they had liquor there and they had been seen singing and dancing at the courtyard of the said house. As regards the occurrence, PW 3 has deposed that she had seen Sidheswar and the three accused going to the house of accused Difang, they had liquor there and they had been seen singing and dancing at the courtyard of the said house. PW 3 has also deposed that after the singing and dancing were over, a quarrel took place among the three accused and Sidheswar and she heard Sidheswar kept saying "Would you all kill me?" PW 3 has further deposed that the quarrel continued and when she was preparing her bed, she heard sounds like 'dhop' 'dhop', and, hearing the sounds, though she' went out of her house, she did not go, out of fear, to the house of accused Difang and, thereafter, she fell asleep. It is in the evidence of PW 3 that on the following day, in the morning, she saw the dead-body of Sidheswar lying by the side of their village road and she informed Sidheswar's brother, Dharani, about the quarrel between Sidheswar and the three accused-Appellants, which she had heard. 11. Though PW 3 was cross-examined, at length, by the defence, we do not find that her evidence, in material particulars, were shaken by the defence. PW 3 is not shown to have any enmity against the accused-Appellants nor is there any evidence on record to show that she had any reason to falsely implicate the accused-Appellants. Her husband is, admittedly, dumb and though he was present at the house at the time of the quarrel, she did not inform her husband that she had been hearing sound of the quarrel taking place at the house of Difang. This is not unnatural, for, PW 3 had, at that stage, no reason to suspect that Sidheswar would be killed. Situated thus, we express our inability to discard or disbelieve the evidence of PW 3. 12. Close on the heels of the evidence of PW 3 is the evidence of PW 5, who, too, has deposed that the three accused, along with Sidheswar were merry making at the house of Difang and he heard their voice, but next morning, he came to know that dead-body of Sidheswar was lying by the side of the road and, later on, he saw injuries on Sidheswar's dead-body. In his cross-examination by the defence, PW 5 has deposed that his house is situated at a distance of about half-a-kilometer from the house of accused Difang and there are several houses between his house and Difang's house. 13. While considering the evidence of PW 3, what is of great significance to note is that when his house is situated at a distance of about half-a-kilometer away from the house of accused Difang, it is very difficult to believe that he would have known, while remaining at his house, as to what had been happening at the house of accused Difang. 14. As far as the remaining witnesses, such as, PW-1, PW-2 and PW-4, are concerned, they, admittedly, did not know how Sidheswar had been killed. Their evidence do not/therefore, help the case of the prosecution except the fact that PW 3 had reported to the informant (PW 1) as to what she had witnessed and heard at the house of the accused Difang. 15. It is, now, on the evidence of PW 3, that the present appeal, substantially, rests. While considering the case against the accused-Appellant, it is necessary to bear in mind that there is no direct evidence, in the present case, involving the accused-Appellants as none has been the killing of the said deceased by the accused-Appellants inasmuch as none has witnessed any of the accused assaulting Sidheswar. There is, as a matter of fact, no cogent, far less concrete, evidence showing that Sidheswar was killed at accused Difang's courtyard. In fact, prosecution has adduced no evidence to show that any bloodstain was found at the house of the accused Difang. Though Sidheswar's dead-body was found lying by the side of the road, there is really no clear evidence as to whether he had been killed on the road or his body was thrown there after having killed him somewhere else. No weapon of assault has been recovered by the Investigating Officer. There is also no clear evidence as to whether all the accused had assaulted and killed Sidheswar or only one or some of them was involved in the killing of Sidheswar. There is, we must make it clear, no cogent evidence to show that all the three Appellants shared any common intention to cause Sidheswar's death. There is also no clear evidence as to whether all the accused had assaulted and killed Sidheswar or only one or some of them was involved in the killing of Sidheswar. There is, we must make it clear, no cogent evidence to show that all the three Appellants shared any common intention to cause Sidheswar's death. In fact, there is no evidence to show that Sidheswar had been injured and killed by all the three accused persons and/or any one of them at Difang's house and/or at some place other than Difang's house. Even if the evidence of PW 3 is believed in its entirety, as we apparently do, what her evidence, at best, shows, is that a quarrel had taken place between the deceased, on the one hand, and the three Appellants, on the other, and, following the quarrel, Sidheswar was heard asking the three accused if they would kill him. What happened, thereafter, is not known to PW 3 and could not, therefore, be deposed before the learned trial Court. 16. Situated thus, it is clear that though there are suspicious circumstances involving the accused-Appellants in the killing of Sidheswar and while it is possible that Sidheswar had been killed by all or one, or some of the accused-Appellants, yet conviction of an accused can not be founded on the possibility of the accused being guilty. What needs to be proved by prosecution, in a case of present nature, is that none, but the accused-Appellants were the ones, who had caused Sidheswar's death in furtherance of their common intention. This has, in the present case, not been proved. It is trite that in a case, which depends on circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstance must be complete and such circumstances must unerringly point towards the person, charged with the offence, as the guilty person and that the evidence must not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused, but must also be inconsistent with any hypothesis of innocence of the accused. In the case at hand, apart from the fact that there is no cogent evidence fastening each of the accused with the responsibility of having causing Sidheswar's death, the possibility of all the accused, or some of the accused being not involved in the killing, cannot be completely ruled out. 17. In the case at hand, apart from the fact that there is no cogent evidence fastening each of the accused with the responsibility of having causing Sidheswar's death, the possibility of all the accused, or some of the accused being not involved in the killing, cannot be completely ruled out. 17. Because of that have been discussed and pointed out above, we do find that the prosecution could not have been held to have proved the case against the accused-Appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The accused-Appellants ought to have, therefore, been accorded, at least, benefit of doubt. 18. In the result and for the reasons discussed above, this appeal succeeds. The accused-Appellants are held not guilty of the charge framed against them and they are acquitted of the same under Benefit of doubt. The conviction of the accused-Appellants is hereby set aside. The bail-bonds of the accused-Appellants shall stand cancelled and the sureties shall accordingly stand discharged. 19. Send back the LCRs.