JUDGMENT : A.S. Naidu, J. - The judgment and order of conviction dated 23.3.2000 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Khurda-Bhubaneswar convicting the Appellant u/s 302 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for life in S.T. Case No. 88/1999 is assailed in this Criminal Appeal. 2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the prosecution case in short is that: In the year 1998 Global Industries, a contractor under the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. was executing the construction work of Swarna Filling Station at Iginia under Khandagiri Police Station and Jabir Khan was working as its site supervisor. On 5.8.1998, after days work, the deceased left the site in the evening by riding a bicycle and was seen by P.Ws. 2 and 3 at Kolathia Chhak near Khandagiri Petrol Pump at about 9 P.M. While the deceased was about to leave the chhak and was attempting to ride the bicycle the accused, being armed with a Katari (M.0.1), came from behind and dealt a blow on the occipital region of Jabir Khan as a result of which he fell down. Thereafter, the accused clobbered him with Katari blows and ran away towards Khandagairi holding the Katari. The deceased succumbed to the injuries instantaneously. 3. As the deceased did not return home till 9.10 P.M. Sk. Anwarul Hague (P.W.1), a neighbour and colleague of Jabir Khan, went in search of him and found that Jabir Khan was lying dead in a pool of blood on the murram portion of N.H.5 near Khandagiri Petrol Pump. 4. He lodged an F.I.R. (Ext.1) at Khandagiri Police Station setting police action into motion. The Officer-in-charge registered Khandagiri P.S. Case No. 212, conducted investigation, examined witnesses, made inquest, sent the dead body for post mortem, arrested the accused and submitted charge sheet in G.R. Case No. 2384/1998 of the court of learned S.D.J.M, Bhubaneswar. Learned S.D.J.M. after due application of mind and on being satisfied that a prima facie case was made out, took cognizance of the offence and committed the case for trial to the court of Session. The accused took a plea of denial simplicitor. 5. In order to substantiate their case, the prosecution got examined ten witnesses and exhibited twenty one documents apart from eleven material objects. On behalf of the defence two witnesses were examined. 6. The accused took a plea of denial simplicitor. 5. In order to substantiate their case, the prosecution got examined ten witnesses and exhibited twenty one documents apart from eleven material objects. On behalf of the defence two witnesses were examined. 6. Learned Sessions Judge after discussing the evidence more particularly the evidence of P.W.6, the doctor who conducted autopsy, arrived at a conclusion that the death was homicidal in nature. After going through the evidence of P.W.6 and the injury report as well as the post mortem report (Ext.8), this Court is also satisfied that the death was homicidal in nature and confirm the said finding. 7. The only question which remains to be determined is as to who committed the offence. The trial court on the basis of the evidence came to the conclusion that the prosecution was able to establish its case and held that the accused was the author of the crime and that he had intentionally hacked Jabir Khan to death. 8. In this Criminal Appeal learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant assailed the judgment and order of conviction mainly on the grounds that the prosecution having totally failed to show motive to commit the murder, learned Sessions Judge illegally convicted the Appellant. The second contention is that P.Ws. 2 and 3 are not reliable at all and by placing reliance on such witnesses the Sessions Judge committed an error. The 3rd contention of learned Counsel for the Appellant is that the occurrence said to have been taken place at 9 P.M. and by then it was quite dark, thus it was not believable that P.Ws. 2 and 3 could identify the accused person who was a stranger to them. In short according to learned Counsel for the Appellant, learned Sessions Judge had acted illegally and with material irregularity in convicting the Appellant u/s 302 of I.P.C. in absence of any cogent and reliable evidence. 9. The aforesaid submissions are strongly repudiated by learned Counsel for the State. According to learned Addl. Standing Counsel, the Sessions Judge has discussed the evidence in extenso and the reasonings arrived at are based on material evidence and this Court may not interfere with the order of conviction. 10. Heard learned Counsel for the parties at length. Being the final court of facts, this Curt once again went through the F.I.R. and evidence, both oral and documentary, carefully. 10. Heard learned Counsel for the parties at length. Being the final court of facts, this Curt once again went through the F.I.R. and evidence, both oral and documentary, carefully. Admittedly, the occurrence took place between 8.30 to 9 P.M. of 5th August,1995. There are some evidence to reveal that on the given day it was raining heavily and there was cyclonic weather, consequently all the shops in the vicinity were closed at about 7.30 P.M. The prosecution has not explained the said fact. That apart, the prosecution had totally failed, to prove motive. Motive behind a crime is a relevant fact and should be established by adducing cogent evidence. The absence of a motive is also a circumstance which creates a doubt. But then it often happens that only the culprit himself knows what moved him to certain course of action (see Rajinder Kumar and Another Vs. The State of Punjab, ) and as such the courts have to be careful while dealing with such cases. 11. In the case at hand, the prosecution, as would be evident from the perusal of evidence had too many lacunas which remained unexplained. Some of them being: (1) no evidence had been adduced to reveal as to what prompted the accused-Appellant to assault Jabir Khan. According to the prosecution case Jabir Khan was going in a cycle and all of a sudden accused came and dealt a blow with a katari from his behind. No material has been produced to show as to whether Jabir and the accused were known to each other at any time, thus the story appears to be not very much convincing. (2) P.Ws. 2 and 3 are the two shop owners. According to them they saw the accused assaulting Jabir Khan, but then the prosecution has not explained as. to whether the aforesaid two P.Ws. knew the accused earlier and if he was a stranger how they identified him. No T.I. parade was conducted. In the absence of any evidence that P.Ws. 2 and 3 earlier knew the accused-Appellant, a doubt comes to mind as to how they could name the accused. The statement made by them to the effect that they saw the accused assaulting and could name him appears to be little improbable. (3) the Weapon of offence has not been seized from the accused. 2 and 3 earlier knew the accused-Appellant, a doubt comes to mind as to how they could name the accused. The statement made by them to the effect that they saw the accused assaulting and could name him appears to be little improbable. (3) the Weapon of offence has not been seized from the accused. It appears from the evidence that the Police traced out the weapon from a third hand. It is alleged that the accused-Appellant had given the weapon to a conductor of the Bus and he gave the same to somebody else. The weapon did not contain any blood stain nor any witness identifies the said weapon to be the weapon offence. (4) The occurrence took place about 9 P.M. in N.H.5. There is no evidence to reveal that there were any lights. It is also impossible to see and identify an unknown person in darkness.(5) There are some evidence to show that on the given date three was cyclonic weather and all shops were closed at about 7.30 to 8 P.M., thus much reliance cannot be given to the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3, the shop owners, who deposed that they were present in their shops at the relevant time. All these facts throw a cloud of suspicion in our mind with regard to the veracity of the offence. 12. In a criminal proceeding the degree of proof is stricter than what is required in a civil proceeding. In a criminal trial, however intriguing may be facts and circumstances of the case, the charges made against the accused must be proved beyond all reasonable doubts and the requirements of proof cannot lie in the realm of surmises and conjectures. 13. In every criminal case the prosecution usually relies upon number of facts, the chief and primary fact of which leads to the guilt of the accused, where reasonable doubt arises with regard to any one or more of such facts, the proper course is to gather those particular facts against the prosecution. 14. In the case at hand, after going through the entire evidence for the reasons assigned in the preceding paragraph, this Court feels that the chain of circumstances has not been completed so as to lead to an irresistible conclusion that the accused-Appellant alone has committed the offence. That apart, the incident in question took place in the year 1998. 14. In the case at hand, after going through the entire evidence for the reasons assigned in the preceding paragraph, this Court feels that the chain of circumstances has not been completed so as to lead to an irresistible conclusion that the accused-Appellant alone has committed the offence. That apart, the incident in question took place in the year 1998. Eleven years have passed in the meanwhile and he is in custody all these years. In the alternative analysis, we find that it is a fit case where benefit of doubt should be extended in favour of the accused-Appellant and accordingly we hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused-Appellant beyond all reasonable doubts. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence is set aside. The accused-Appellant be released, unless his custody is required in any other case, forthwith. S.C. Parija, J. 15. I agree. Final Result : Allowed