JUDGMENT : L. Mohapatra, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepur in Sessions Case No. 7/16 of 1999 convicting both the Appellants for commission of offence u/s 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'I.P.C.') and sentencing each one of them to undergo imprisonment for life for commission of offence u/s 302 of the I.P.C, three years imprisonment for conviction u/s 201 of the I.P.C. and fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default, to further undergo R.I. for six months each. However, both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The case of the prosecution as revealed from the F.I.R. is that on 20.3.1998 at about 10 A.M. the deceased had left for Haradakhol High School where he was working as Headmaster. He had kept his cycle in a shop two kilometers away from Tarava at a place called Bairasar Chhak. When the deceased did not return home on that day, his family members got worried. On the next day, they went in search of the deceased but did not find him. Accordingly, a missing report was submitted not only at Bolangir but also at Tarava and Sonepur. In spite of search made by police, the whereabouts of the deceased could not be known. On 2.4.1998 P.W.1, the wife of the deceased, received an anonymous letter wherein it was mentioned that the deceased had been murdered by both the Appellants and one Debarchan Chaulia. It was also written in the said letter that both the Appellants had taken the deceased in a scooter to Gurupalli via-Sonepur-Burda Road and killed him. On the basis of the said letter, again search was conducted and on 4.4.1998 P.W.24, the A.S.I. of Tarava Police Station, seized five numbers of small and big stones stained with blood, some sand mixed with oil and one open match box. Apart from the above, two torn pieces of coffee colour pant which were burnt and three pieces of burnt bones, one plastic jerrican with "Samantaray" written in red on it were seized. On 5.4.1998 some further seizures were made. Apart from the above, two torn pieces of coffee colour pant which were burnt and three pieces of burnt bones, one plastic jerrican with "Samantaray" written in red on it were seized. On 5.4.1998 some further seizures were made. P.W. 26, who was then C.I. of Police, Sonepur took up investigation and on 8.4.1998 he seized one sky cement colour full shirt with pocket stained with blood, one deep blue colour full pant and Bajaj Super Scooter from the house of the Appellant Brundaban Sahu. On the very same day he also seized one deep blue colour full pant along with one blue cement colour full shirt stained with blood from the house of other Appellant Bisikesan Bag. On the basis of these materials collected in course of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted for commission of offence under Sections 302/201/34 of the I.P.C. against both the Appellants. 3. Prosecution in order to prove the charges, examined as many as 26 witnesses and only one witness examined on behalf of the Appellants. The trial court on the basis of the circumstantial evidence available from the evidence of the witnesses found both the Appellants guilty of the charges and convicted them thereunder. 4. Shri N.C. Pati, the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that there is no material whatsoever to convict the Appellants. To substantiate his submission, the learned Counsel drew attention of the Court to the evidence of the witnesses examined in course of trial. The learned Counsel Sri Pati appearing for the Appellants submitted that there is no evidence to show that the deceased was last seen with the Appellants or the Appellants had any reason to commit murder of the deceased. Even the dead body of the deceased had not been identified and only on the basis of an anonymous letter written by someone, the charge-sheet was submitted and the trial court also in absence of any evidence found the Appellants guilty of the charges only on suspicion. Learned Counsel for the State on the other hand, relied upon the evidence of P. Ws. 1, 3, 4 and 13 to support the impugned judgment. 5. Undisputedly the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. Learned Counsel for the State on the other hand, relied upon the evidence of P. Ws. 1, 3, 4 and 13 to support the impugned judgment. 5. Undisputedly the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. Law is well settled that in a case of such nature, the circumstances leading to the guilt of the accused should be of such nature that it completes a chain leaving no room to entertain doubt with regard to involvement of the accused in commission of offence. In the light of the said settled law, we proceed to examine the evidence adduced before the trial court by the prosecution. P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased. She in her deposition has stated that on 20.3.1998 on a Friday the deceased after taking lunch at 10 A.M. left for the School where he was working as a Headmaster. He kept his cycle at Bairasar and went to Hardakhol by a bus. Though he was expected to return at 12 noon, he did not come till evening. Thereafter, she sent information to P.W.3, a teacher working in the said School to find out the whereabouts of the deceased. P.W.3 informed her that he had not gone to School on that day since he was on invigilation duty in a College. Next morning P.W.1 sent information to her father at Bolangir. They tried to find out the whereabouts of the deceased till 2.4.1998, when she received an anonymous letter wherein it was written that the deceased was killed by both the Appellants and one Debarchan Chaulia. It was also stated in the letter that both the Appellants had taken the deceased in a Scooter to Gurupalli via Sonepur-Burda Road where they killed him. The said letter was produced in Bolangir Police Station and further search was conducted. Thereafter as it appears from the evidence of the Police officers examined in course of the trial, some seizures were made from the spot including three pieces of human bone. The said human bones seized from the spot were sent to P.W.15 for examination and he could only opine that the said bones are of a male human being. Thereafter as it appears from the evidence of the Police officers examined in course of the trial, some seizures were made from the spot including three pieces of human bone. The said human bones seized from the spot were sent to P.W.15 for examination and he could only opine that the said bones are of a male human being. P.W.2 is the brother of the deceased and he has only stated in his deposition that he lodged a report at Tarava Police Station regarding missing of his brother but the same was not accepted on the ground of jurisdiction and thereafter the father of P.W.1 reported at Bolangir Police Station regarding missing of the deceased. He has also stated about receipt of letter by P.W.1. Apart from the above, there is nothing more in the evidence of P.W.2.P. Ws.3, 4 and 5 are teachers working in the said school whose evidence do not help the prosecution in any way.P. Ws.6 to 12, P. Ws.14, 18 and 19 turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. P.W.13 is the father of the deceased, who has only stated that he suspected the Appellants to have killed the deceased. P.W.15, the Doctor, who examined the bones concluded that the bones are of a male human being. P.W.16 accompanied the police in search of the dead body and P.W.17 is the brother-in-law of the deceased whose evidence also does not help the prosecution in any way. P.W.20 is the Judicial Magistrate, who recorded the statements of some witnesses u/s 164 Code of Criminal Procedure and rest of the witnesses, i.e., P. Ws. 21 to 26 are the police officers, who participated in the investigation. On analysis of the entire evidence as stated above, we find that an anonymous letter was received by P.W.1 implicating both the Appellants in commission of the alleged offences. The other evidence on which much reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel for the State as well as by the trial court is enmity between the deceased and the Appellants. P.W.1 in her deposition has stated that a post of Science teacher was lying vacant in the School where the deceased was working as Headmaster. The Appellant Brundaban Sahu was interested for posting one of his persons as a Science teacher in the School. P.W.1 in her deposition has stated that a post of Science teacher was lying vacant in the School where the deceased was working as Headmaster. The Appellant Brundaban Sahu was interested for posting one of his persons as a Science teacher in the School. The deceased with the consent of the members of the Management of the School appointed one Ganesh Meher against the said post. Such conduct of the deceased enraged the Appellant Brundaban and he along with others killed the deceased in order to take revenge. She has further stated that the deceased as Headmaster of the School had also warned the other Appellant Bisikesan for his misbehaviour towards girl students. Even if such evidence of P.W.1 is accepted, it only creates a suspicion regarding involvement of the Appellants in commission of the alleged offences. Law is well settled that suspicion however strong it may be cannot take the place of proof. Therefore, no conviction can lie only on the basis of such statement made by P.W.1 in absence of any other material to connect the Appellants with commission of the alleged offences. The prosecution, therefore, has not only failed to prove that the dead body is that of the deceased but also failed to bring any material on record to connect the Appellants with commission of the alleged offences. The other materials relied upon by the prosecution is the statement made by the Appellants u/s 27 of the Evidence Act at the time of seizure of some articles from their respective houses. On perusal of the said two documents vide Exts. 32 to 33, we find nothing to connect the Appellants with commission of the alleged offences since only the statement leading to discovery is admissible in evidence and not the so called confession. For the reasons stated above, we are unable to sustain the impugned judgment convicting the Appellants for commission of the aforesaid offences. 6. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned judgment and order of the trial court is set aside. Final Result : Allowed