JUDGMENT : S.C. Parija, J 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 18.08.1997 passed by the Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal, in S.T. Case No. 10-D of 1995, holding the accused guilty u/s 302 IPC and convicting him thereunder. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the accused Himansu Barik was running a hair dressing saloon at Kamakshyanagar, which is situated at a distance of 15 K. Ms. from his village Muktaposhi. While staying at Kamakshayanagar, the accused Himansu got emotionally involved with the deceased Afula, a girl of Chasa caste, to whom he got married. After their marriage, the accused took his wife Afula to his house at Muktaposhi and both of them lived in the house of the accused. The marriage of the accused Himansu with Afula took place about 6 to 7 months prior to the date of incident. On 18.5.1995 accused Himansu had been to village Nuahata to attend the marriage ceremony of his friend and on 19.05.1994 he returned to his house at Muktaposhi and in the night, after taking his food served by his wife Afula, he and deceased Afula slept in the room. On 20.5.1994, the accused Himansu went to Kamakshayanagar P.S. at about 7 A.M. in the morning and submitted a written report to the effect that he slept after taking his night food served by his wife Afula, outside the room and his wife slept inside the room and in the night at about 4 A.M., he got up and went inside the room and when he tried to wake his wife Afula, he found her lying dead. 3. On receiving such report, the OIC, Kamakshyanagar P.S. registered the same as U.D. Case No. 6/94 and directed the S.I. of Kamakshyanagar P.S. to take up enquiry. The S.I. during enquiry examined the accused Himansu, visited the spot, which is the bed room of the accused and found during enquiry that the death of Afula, wife of accused Himansu, took place only within one year of their marriage. Inquest over the dead body was conducted in the presence of the Executive Magistrate and the dead body was despatched for post mortem examination to Kamakshayanagar Hospital. Inquest over the dead body was conducted in the presence of the Executive Magistrate and the dead body was despatched for post mortem examination to Kamakshayanagar Hospital. Post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased Afula was conducted by two doctors of Kamakshayanagar S.D. Hospital and after receipt of the post mortem examination report, which revealed that the death of deceased Afula was due to asphyxia, caused by strangulation, the S.I. of Kamakshayanagar P.S. submitted a written report before the OIC, as the enquiry in the U.D. Case No. 6/94 revealed that it was a case of murder. 4. The OIC, Kamakshayanagar P.S. on receipt of the written report from the S.I. registered the same as an FIR vide Kamakshayanagar P.S. Case No. 57/94 under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and took up investigation. During investigation, the OIC examined witnesses including the informant Himansu and visited the spot, examined other witnesses and arrested the informant Himansu and Rebati Barik and seized one Dhaura lathi (wooden lathi) at the instance of accused Himansu and also seized broken bangles at the instance of female accused Rebati Barik from the homestead premises of the accused. The wearing apparels of the deceased were also seized and after completion of investigation, charge sheet against both the accused Himansu and female accused Rebati Barik was submitted for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. 5. The plea of the defence was one of complete denial. While the female accused Rebati Barik denied her presence at village Muktaposhi, in the house of the accused, on the date of the occurrence, the accused Himansu in his statement recorded u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure reiterated that on the night of 19.5.1994, after taking food, his wife slept inside the room and he slept on a cot outside the room in front of the door of the room and in the said night his wife Afula died, which he came to know at 4 A.M. and he went to Kamakshayanagar P.S. and reported the matter at 7 A.M. in the morning on 20.5.1994. 6. The prosecution examined 8 witnesses in support of the charges out of which P.W.1 is the Executive Magistrate who attended the inquest over the dead body on 20.5.1994. 6. The prosecution examined 8 witnesses in support of the charges out of which P.W.1 is the Executive Magistrate who attended the inquest over the dead body on 20.5.1994. P.W.2 is the doctor of S.D. Hospital, Kamakshayanagar, who along with the other doctor (P.W.3) conducted the post mortem examination over the dead body of deceased Afula and submitted report. P.W.4 is the Constable who escorted the dead body of the deceased from Muktaposhi to Kamakshayanagar for its post mortem examination and received, the wearing apparels of the deceased. P.W.5 is Khulana Barik wife of Ramesh Barik, the elder brother of accused Himansu who lives in the same house complex and had last seen the accused Himansu and deceased Afula in their room in the same house complex. P.W.6 is one Jayakrishna Biswal before whom the accused Himansu had made extra judicial confession, who resiled from his statement made before the I.O. and turned hostile. P.W.7 is the I.O., who on receipt of the F.I.R. from S.I. of Kamakshyanagar P.S. registered the case, investigated and submitted charge sheet against two accused persons. P.W.8 is the S.I. of Kamakshayanagar P.S. who on the direction of the O.I.C., had enquired into the U.D. Case No. 6/94 and after receipt of post mortem examination report, had lodged written report. 7. The entire case of the prosecution hinged on circumstantial evidence, on the basis of the theory of last seen together. The accused admitted in his statement recorded u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure that after his marriage with deceased Afula he and the deceased were living together in his house at Muktaposhi. Khulana Barik (P.W.5) the elder brother's wife of accused Himansu had stated in her evidence that the accused Himansu had married deceased Afula and was living in the same house complex where she (P.W.5) and her husband were residing and they were living in different rooms of the said house complex. P.W.5 stated that about six months after their marriage, deceased Afula died, which she came to know on the early morning of the next day, and that the deceased and accused Himansu were in their house, which is in the same complex where she and her husband are residing. P.W.5 stated that about six months after their marriage, deceased Afula died, which she came to know on the early morning of the next day, and that the deceased and accused Himansu were in their house, which is in the same complex where she and her husband are residing. In absence of any cross examination of P.W.5 and in view of the statement of the accused Himansu recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C, it was established that accused Himansu and his wife Afula were in the house together and were last seen in the night, after taking their food together. 8. Coming to the evidence of the doctor (P.W.2), who along with other doctor of S.D. Hospital, Kamakshayanagar, had conducted the post mortem examination, he has stated that the deceased sustained as many as 7 external injuries on her body. On dissection of the neck of the deceased it was found that the right carotid sheath with arteries was severed, thyroid cartilage and cornu of hyoid bone fractured, larynx (cricord cartilage) fractured, trachea was severed and transected with 1/8" attachment to the muscles posteriorly, blood and frothy mucous came out from the trachea. The doctors conducting the post mortem examination opined that the injuries were ante mortem in nature and the cause of death was due to asphyxia caused by strangulation. 9. P.W.1 the Executive Magistrate on whose presence inquest over the dead body was conducted on 20.5.1994, stated in his evidence that the police conducted inquest and took photographs of the dead body in his presence and prepared inquest report. 10. P.W.4 is the Police Constable, who accompanied the dead body from village Muktaposhi to S.D. Hospital, Kamakshyanagar, for post mortem examination and after the post mortem examination was completed, the doctor handed over the wearing apparels of the deceased which he received and produced the same before "the I.O. P.W.4 identified the saree of the deceased marked M.O. II and the blouse of the deceased marked as M.O.III. 11. P.W.8 is the S.I. of Kamakshayanagar P.S. who enquired into the U.D. Case No. 6/94 and submitted report on the basis of which F.I.R. was registered. He stated in his evidence that on 20.5.1994, the accused Himansu presented a written report before the OIC, Kamakshayanagar P.S. which was registered as U.D. Case No. 6/94 and he (P.W.8) was directed to enquire into the matter. He stated in his evidence that on 20.5.1994, the accused Himansu presented a written report before the OIC, Kamakshayanagar P.S. which was registered as U.D. Case No. 6/94 and he (P.W.8) was directed to enquire into the matter. During enquiry, he examined the accused Himansu, visited the spot, i.e., the dwelling house where the occurrence took place. He further stated that since the death of deceased Afula took place within one year of the marriage, he issued requisition to the Executive Magistrate' (P.W.1), requesting him to remain present at the time of inquest over the dead body and that the inquest was conducted in the presence of P.W.1. He further stated that after receipt of the post mortem examination report on 22.5.1994, which disclosed several injuries on the body of the deceased Afula and that death was due to asphyxia caused due to strangulation, he presented written report before the OIC (P.W.7), which was registered as Kamakshayanagar P.S. Case No. 57/1994. 12. P.W.7 who is the I.O. stated in his evidence that after registration of the case, on the basis of the report of P.W.8 he carried out investigation and during investigation he examined the accused Himansu, visited the spot, examined other witnesses, including Khulana Barik (P.W.5) and on 23.05.1994, he arrested the accused Himansu and his sister Rebati Barik. P.W.7 further stated that after arrest he seized one Dhaura lathi from accused Himansu and identified the said Dhaura lathi as M.O. I. He also stated to have seized broken bangles on production by female accused Rabati Barik and also seized the torn piece of cloth stained with stool on being produced by accused Rebati Barik. P.W.7 also stated that he made seizure of wearing apparels of the deceased. In his cross examination, the I.O. (P.W.7) stated that the Dhaura lathi (M.O.I) was recovered from the fire wood heap within the premises of the accused house. 13. The doctor (P.W.2) had stated that the police had sent to him one Dhaura lathi and had a query in writing, asking his opinion if the said lathi can be used for strangulation of a person and he (P.W.2) had opined that the strangulation as found in the body of the deceased could be possible by the said lathi. P.W.2 had also identified the said dhaura lathi (M.O.I). P.W.2 had also identified the said dhaura lathi (M.O.I). In his cross examination P.W.2 stated that asphyxia can be caused by drowning and can also be caused by suicidal hanging and can also be caused by throttling by hand. He further stated that there was no ligature mark, bruise or ecchymosis on the neck of the deceased. 14. On the basis of the evidence on record, both oral and documentary and the statement of the accused recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C, learned Sessions Judge came to hold that as the accused was last seen with the deceased on the night prior to her death and admittedly the accused and the deceased were living in the same house and the accused was sleeping in the same room, it is the accused Himansu who has committed the offence of murder of his wife Afula. Accordingly learned Sessions Judge found the accused Himansu guilty u/s 302 IPC and convicted him thereunder. In absence of any material to show that the deceased had attempted to cause disappearance of evidence of murder, to save himself from punishment, the accused was acquitted of the charge u/s 201 IPC. As regard the female accused Rebati Barik, in absence of any evidence with regard to her complicity, learned Sessions Judge acquitted her of all charges. 15. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has forcefully submitted that as the entire prosecution case rests only on circumstantial evidence and the only circumstance against the Appellant is that, he being the husband of the deceased Afula was last seen with her and injuries were found on the body of deceased Afula, the same by itself cannot be the basis to conclude that the accused was responsible for the death of deceased Afula. In this regard, it is submitted that though the accused and the deceased were living together as husband and wife in the same house in which death of his wife occurred, the same may be a circumstance but that by alone, in absence of any other corroborating and credible evidence, cannot be held to be conclusive. It is accordingly submitted that mere presence of the accused as the husband in the house cannot be a ground to held him responsible for the death of the wife, especially when there is no evidence to even suggest that there was any reason for any animosity between them. It is accordingly submitted that mere presence of the accused as the husband in the house cannot be a ground to held him responsible for the death of the wife, especially when there is no evidence to even suggest that there was any reason for any animosity between them. Moreover, the accused husband has himself gone to the police on the very next day morning to inform about the death of his wife. In this regard, reliance has been placed upon decision of the apex Court in the case of Subramaniam v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. (2009) 43 OCR (SC) 591, and Dhanajaya Reddy v. State of Karnataka 2001 (I) OLR 699 . 16. On a perusal of the evidence on record, we find there is no clear and corroborating evidence to show that the accused was responsible for the death of his wife Afula. Merely because the accused was last seen with the deceased wife, the same may be a strong circumstance against the accused but that by alone in absence of any other corroborating evidence, cannot be held to be conclusive to show that the accused husband alone was responsible for the death of his wife Afula. There is no evidence to even suggest that the accused and his deceased wife were not having a cordial relationship or there was any dispute or difference between them. No motive or any intention has been attributed to the accused-Appellant for committing such dastardly act. 17. It is now well settled in law that the prosecution in order to establish its case on the basis of circumstantial evidence has to show from such circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn, is fully established. Further the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused and that is to say, they should not be capable of being explained on any other hypothesis, except that the accused is guilty. The circumstances should be conclusive in nature and they should exclude every possible hypothesis, except the one to be proved. 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 of human possibility, the act must have been done by the accused. 18. 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 of human possibility, the act must have been done by the accused. 18. In the present case, the circumstances as brought forth by the prosecution does not conclusively prove that the accused alone is responsible for the death of his wife. A mere suspicion cannot by itself be substituted for hard evidence. In absence of any corroborating evidence to conclusively prove the involvement of accused in the death of his wife, it would not be safe to base his conviction u/s 302 IPC solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence placed by the prosecution in this case and therefore it is a fit case where the benefit of reasonable doubt must be given to the Appellant. 19. Accordingly the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and order of conviction is set aside and the Appellant is found not guilty and is acquitted of the charge. If the accused-Appellant is in custody, he shall be set at liberty forthwith, unless his detention is required in any other case. Final Result : Allowed