JUDGMENT A.C. Upadhyay, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Hojai, Nagaon, in Sessions Case No. 61(N)/03, whereby the accused, Sikandar Ali, was convicted under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for another three months. 2. We have heard Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned senior Counsel assisted by Mrs. A. Begum, learned Counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Z. Kamar, learned Public Prosecutor, State of Assam. 3. Facts in brief, leading to the filing of this appeal, may be narrated in brief, as follows: Md. Abdul Kadir (PW1), a resident of village No. 5 Udali under Lanka Police Station, lodged an Ejahar on 10.5.2000 in Lanka PS stating that on 9.5.2000 at about 10 a.m. in the morning his brother Md. Shahab Uddin left his residence for Garampani to work. After he had gone/passed about 500 meters from his residence, the accused persons, namely, Md. Sikandar Ali, Md. Joynal Uddin, Mr. Jalal Uddin, Md. Dilwar Hussain and Md. Zakir Hussain, armed with deadly weapons, way laid and assaulted him and, thus, caused severe injuries on his person. Severely injured Md. Shahab Uddin was rushed to the Hazi Abdul Masjid Memorial Hospital (HAMMH), Hojai for treatment in a critical condition. Md. Abdul Kadir (PW1) also alleged in the Ejahar aforesaid that accused persons were very wicked characters and had attacked his brother to kill him. 4. The Officer In-charge, Lanka Police Station, on receiving the Ejahar filed by Md. Abdul Kadir (PW1), registered a case under Sections 147/148/149/341/325/326, IPC, and launched investigation. 5. In the meantime, since the condition of the injured Md. Shahab Uddin deteriorated, he was shifted from Hazi Abdul Masjid Memorial Hospital (HAMMH), Hojai to Guwahati Medical College Hospital (GMCH), for better treatment. However, on 24.5.2000, Md. Shahab Uddin succumbed to his injuries. Accordingly, on the prayer of the Investigating Officer (I.O.), Section 302, IPC, was allowed to be added in the police case. 6. During the course of investigation, inquest over the dead body of the deceased Md. Shahab Uddin was carried out at the Guwahati Medical College Hospital (GMCH), thereafter, post mortem of the dead body was also performed by PW10, Dr. Kalichran Basumatry. 6. During the course of investigation, inquest over the dead body of the deceased Md. Shahab Uddin was carried out at the Guwahati Medical College Hospital (GMCH), thereafter, post mortem of the dead body was also performed by PW10, Dr. Kalichran Basumatry. The investigating officer also visited the place of occurrence and recorded the testimony of the witnesses. 7. On completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet against the sole accused/appellant, alleging Commission of offence under Section 302, IPC, against the sole appellant. 8. Upon submission of the charge sheet by the police, learned court below committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Nogaon for trial. The learned Sessions Judge, Nogaon, by an order dated 1.4.2003, transferred the Sessions case to the court of learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Hojai for trial. 9. During trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, after hearing the learned Counsel for the State as well as the accused, finding sufficient materials against the accused, framed formal charge under Section 302 of IPC. On reading over and explaining the charge, the accused/appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 10. During the course of hearing, the prosecution side examined in all 10 witnesses, out of which 5 of them were unofficial and the remaining 5 were official witnesses. Out of 5 unofficial witnesses, Md. Abdul Kadir (PW3), Md. Hussain Ahmed (PW4) and Md. Suraj Ali (PW6) were declared hostile by the prosecution, as they resiled from their statements given under Section 161, Cr.PC. In fact, two un-official witnesses adduced by the prosecution side, namely, Abdul Kadir (PW1), the first informant cum brother of the deceased, and Smt. Ajufa Begum (PW2), who happened to be very near relative of the first informant, were the two witnesses on whom the prosecution wholly relied upon to establish the circumstances leading to the injury caused to the deceased, which ultimately resulted in the death of the deceased. On completion of the recording of the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, the learned Sessions Judge recorded the defence statement of the accused as per provision of Section 313 of Cr.PC. The accused in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.PC. took the stand of total denial and also declined to produce any defence witness. 11. On completion of the recording of the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, the learned Sessions Judge recorded the defence statement of the accused as per provision of Section 313 of Cr.PC. The accused in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.PC. took the stand of total denial and also declined to produce any defence witness. 11. The learned Ad Hoc Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Hojai, after hearing the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the accused/appellant as well as the learned Public Prosecutor, representing the State, convicted the accused/appellant under Section 302, IPC, and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment as stated above giving rise to this appeal. 12. Since the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence, in order to appreciate the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the accused/appellant as well as the State respondent, it would be pertinent to discuss the evidences laid by the prosecution in the instant case. 13. PW1, Md. Abdul Kadir, who is the first informant of the case is not an eye witness to the occurrence. Shahab Uddin (deceased) was the elder brother of PW1 and accused was his own paternal uncle. Both PW1 and Shahab Uddin (deceased) used to live together in the same house during the time of occurrence. Describing the sequence of events prior to the occurrence, Md. Abdul Kadir (PW1) stated that the occurrence took place around 10 a.m. in the morning in the month of May 2000. On that day, both PW1 and his brother Shahab Uddin (deceased) were supposed to leave for Gorampani area for doing work, since at that time their father was already working at Gorampani. However, PW1 came to know that census operation would be carried out by census officials on that day. Therefore, PW1 told his brother Shahab Uddin (deceased) to inform the co-villagers so that their house is not excluded from census operation, since there would be nobody at their residence. Accordingly, Shahab Uddin (deceased) went out inform co-villagers for the aforesaid purpose and PW1 came to his own courtyard. After some time, PW1 heard Ajufa Begum (PW2) shouting come soon, come soon, he is almost finished'. On hearing such 'hulla', PW1 went towards the place from where the 'hulla' was emerging out. On his way, PW1 saw Md. Accordingly, Shahab Uddin (deceased) went out inform co-villagers for the aforesaid purpose and PW1 came to his own courtyard. After some time, PW1 heard Ajufa Begum (PW2) shouting come soon, come soon, he is almost finished'. On hearing such 'hulla', PW1 went towards the place from where the 'hulla' was emerging out. On his way, PW1 saw Md. Sikandar Ali (accused) running with a 'naga dao' in his hand, at a distance of 2-3 nals towards the opposite direction from the place of occurrence. On reaching the place of occurrence, PW1 found Shahab Uddin (deceased) was lying on the ground in injured condition. Immediately thereafter, many other people of the locality gathered at the place of occurrence. PW1 further confirmed that the injured Shahab Uddin (deceased) was taken to Lanka PS in a rickshaw from where he was taken to Lanka Hospital for treatment. Finding the condition of the injured very serious, he was taken to HAMM Hospital, Hojai, for better treatment from where he was again referred to GMC Hospital, where finally he succumbed to his injuries. PW1 further confirmed that he saw about 11 cut injuries in the person of the deceased, out of which 8 (eight) were head injuries, two on the hands and one injury on the back side. 14. PW1 lodged Ejahar in the police station on the next day. PW1, categorically asserted existence of dispute with the accused and his family in his evidence and admitted that the occurrence took place due to some land disputes and further stated that a portion of land belonging to his father was sold by the accused behind his back and the dispute arose due to the sale of the said land. PW1 clarified that Smt. Ajufa Begum (PW2) is his aunt's daughter (father's sister's daughter). In his cross examination. PW1 further stated that he had seen the accused running with a 'naga dao' at a distance of 2/3 nals. PW1 reached the place of occurrence which was 300 yards from his house and found Smt. Ajufa Begum (PW2), at the place of occurrence. However, the injured deceased remained senseless and was unable to speak. 15. Smt. Ajufa Begum (PW2) is a close relative of the accused as well as of the deceased. Her house is situated at the distance of about 2/3 nals from the place of occurrence. However, the injured deceased remained senseless and was unable to speak. 15. Smt. Ajufa Begum (PW2) is a close relative of the accused as well as of the deceased. Her house is situated at the distance of about 2/3 nals from the place of occurrence. Describing the incident, PW2 stated that at the time of occurrence, Md. Hussain Ahmed (PW4), a hired labour of Md. Abdul Kadir (PW3) came to her house when she was taking meal and requested for a glass of drinking water. When she offered him a glass of water, Md. Hussain Ahmed (PW4), instead of drinking water, threw away the water and told her that Md. Shahab Uddin was finished. On being asked by her, PW4 told her that Sikandar had killed Md. Shahab Uddin. After that, PW2 saw accused Sikandar was running towards his house with a 'dao' in his hand and thereafter she shouted to call Md. Abdul Kadir (PW1), i.e., the brother of Md. Shahab Uddin (deceased). Thereafter, people gathered around the place of occurrence where Md. Shahab Uddin (deceased) was lying injured on the ground. During her cross-examination, PW2 denied the suggestion that she did not tell the police during investigation that Hussain Ahmed (PW4) had come to her house for drinking water and when she offered water to him, he had thrown it away instead of drinking it and told her that Shahab Uddin had been finished. Contradicting her own testimony in examination-in-chief, PW2 stated in her cross-examination that she had seen Sikandar at a distance of 2/3 nals, walking towards his home with a "naga dao" in his hand while during her examination-in-chief PW2 saw accused Sikandar running away from the place of occurrence. PW2 further confirmed that she called the inmates of deceased Shahab Uddin's house by raising hue and cry from the place of occurrence and did not go personally to inform them regarding the incident. 16. Md. Abdul Kadir (PW3) is a co-villager known to both the deceased and the accused. PW3 was constructing a new house in the plot of land by hiring Md. Hussain Ahmed (PW4) as a day labourer. Affirming the topography of the place of occurrence, PW3 stated in his deposition that the house of Smt. Ajufa Khatoon was adjacent to that plot of land, where he was constructing his house. PW3 was constructing a new house in the plot of land by hiring Md. Hussain Ahmed (PW4) as a day labourer. Affirming the topography of the place of occurrence, PW3 stated in his deposition that the house of Smt. Ajufa Khatoon was adjacent to that plot of land, where he was constructing his house. On the date of occurrence, at the relevant time, after giving instructions about the construction work to Hussain Ahmed (PW4), he had gone to his old house. The place of occurrence was about 800 nals away from his old house. When Md. Abdul Kadir (PW3) was at his own old house, he heard a hue and cry form the place where he was constructing his new house. When PW3 went towards the place of occurrence, he saw his hired labour, Md. Hussain Ahmed (PW4) proceeding towards his house. When PW3 enquired PW4 as to why he was running away leaving his work, PW4, however, did not answer rather he ran towards his house. When PW3 reached near the place of occurrence, he saw Shahab Uddin (deceased) was lying in injured condition, having cut injuries on his head, left check touching left ear and in the left hand. PW3 saw the Md. Abdul Kadir (PW1), the elder brother of Shahab Uddin, standing beside the injured. 17. PW3 was declared hostile by the prosecution and was thoroughly cross-examined. PW3 denied to have stated anything about witnessing the incident to the police. The cross-examination of PW3 by the prosecution could not extract anything material to support the prosecution story. 18. Md. Hussain Ahmed (PW4) is related to both the accused and the deceased. He was declared hostile by the prosecution. PW4 stated that he was working as a hired laborer of Md. Abdul Kadir (PW3) for construction of a house. PW4 stated that after giving him instructions regarding the construction of the house, PW3 had gone to his house. A little later Suraj Ali, Yakub Ali and accused Sikandar Ali came near the place of occurrence and started talking among themselves. PW4 stated that after finishing their discussions, they left the place of occurrence and he also went to his house for taking food. At about 8.30 a.m., PW4 returned to find deceased Sahabuddin in an injured condition and accused Sikandar running away towards his house from that place. PW4 stated that after finishing their discussions, they left the place of occurrence and he also went to his house for taking food. At about 8.30 a.m., PW4 returned to find deceased Sahabuddin in an injured condition and accused Sikandar running away towards his house from that place. However, he did not notice whether the accused was carrying anything in his hand. PW4 deposed in his evidence that the occurrence took place around 10 a.m. and he had gone to his residence for taking food at about 8.30 a.m. in the morning and on returning from his residence after having food he found injured Shahab Uddin (deceased) lying on the ground, where PW3 had constructed his house. PW4, thereafter, working for one and half hours to two hours, felt thirsty and he went to Ajufa Begum (PW2) residence situated nearby the place of occurrence. By seeing Shahab Uddin lying injured, he felt scared and called upon Ajufa Begum (PW2) and told her that Shahab Uddin was lying injured. PW4 confirmed that he had not met any person on his way to the residence of Ajufa Begum (PW2). PW4 further confirmed that when he visited the residence of Ajufa Begum (PW2), she was having her meal. Very interestingly PW4, however, did not state the fact of seeing accused Sikander running away from the pace of occurrence to Ajufa Begam, PW2. However, PW2 contradicted the statement of PW4 to state that PW4 had stated before her that the deceased was killed by the accused. 19. This witness was declared hostile by the prosecution and he was thoroughly cross-examined by the prosecution confronting him the statement he had made before the police during investigation. In his cross-examination by the defence, PW4 stated that he did not see the occurrence as he was in the residence of Smt. Ajufa Begum (PW2), and he had seen the injured Shahab Uddin lying on the ground from a distance about 10 nals. To a question by the court for the purpose of clarification, PW4 confirmed that after seeing Shahab Uddin lying in injured condition on the ground he did not go near him instead informed Ajufa Begum (PW2) and left for his residence out of fear. 20. Since the prosecution case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence, it would be necessary to analyse the testimony of P Ws. 20. Since the prosecution case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence, it would be necessary to analyse the testimony of P Ws. 1, 2 and 4, who happens to be very important witnesses, who claimed to have seen accused's running away from the place of occurrence. All the three witnesses, i.e., P Ws 1, 2 and 4, were located at different situations at the time of occurrence. PW1 was at his residence, which was about 300 yards away from the place of occurrence. PW1 at first heard the shouting of PW2 saying "come soon, come soon". On hearing such 'hullah', PW1 had gone towards the place of occurrence. On his way to the place of occurrence, PW1 stated to have seen accused Sikandar Ali running in an opposite direction from the place of occurrence. Therefore, PW1 could not have seen the face of the accused. PW1 also did not state that he covered the distance of 300 yards by running. 21. On the other hand, PW2 was taking her food at the time of occurrence at about 11.00 a.m. as stated by her. At that time PW4 came to her house and asked for a glass of water. When she came out and offered him a glass of water, he instead of drinking it threw the water away and told her that Shahab Uddin was finished. When she asked it was told by PW4 that Sikandar had killed Shahab Uddin. PW2 stated that at that time she saw Sikandar running towards her house with a dao and thereafter she called PW1. 22. From the sequence of events narrated by the witness, apparently PW2, who was taking her meal at the time of occurrence, came out to offer a glass of water to PW4. PW4 at first saw the accused running away from the place of occurrence and then he came to the residence of the PW2. PW4 in his statement categorically stated that he did not see the occurrence; he only saw the deceased lying on the ground. Therefore, PW1 and PW2, in our opinion, should have seen the accused after having been informed by PW4. At the same time, PW1, who came to the place of occurrence after having covered the distance of about 300 yards also, could not have seen the accused fleeing away from the place of occurrence. Therefore, PW1 and PW2, in our opinion, should have seen the accused after having been informed by PW4. At the same time, PW1, who came to the place of occurrence after having covered the distance of about 300 yards also, could not have seen the accused fleeing away from the place of occurrence. The time of gap of witnessing the accused running away from the place of occurrence by the PW1 and PW2 and the sequence of events described by the witnesses do not match each other. PW4, who happened to be near the place of occurrence claimed to have seen the accused running away towards his house from the place of occurrence. However, fact remains that the PW4 immediately after having seen the accused running away from the place of occurrence came to the residence of PW2. If PW1 and PW2 are to be believed then the sequence of running away must have continued for more than five minutes. That too all the witnesses would witness the accused running away from the place of occurrence after a considerable time gap do not seem to be probable. Now the question, which arises for consideration is, whether the accused ran away from the place of occurrence after having committed the offence or not? The flight of the accused from the scene of the occurrence could not have remained static for all the witnesses to view it at their convenience. 23. PW4 in his testimony has stated that while he was walking near the place of occurrence, Suraj, Yakub and accused Sikandar Uddin came there and started talking among themselves and after finishing their discussion, they left the place and after which PW4 also had gone home for taking food. PW4 returned to the place of occurrence after taking his food and after having worked for about one and half hours to two hours he felt thirsty and went to the residence of Ajufa Begam to have a glass of water. At that time PW4 stated to have seen the deceased Shahab Uddin lying injured and Sikandar running away towards his house from that place. PW4 was declared hostile by the prosecution and from the cross-examination made by the prosecution as well as the defence, it is clearly evident that this witness is not at all telling the truth. PW4 is also a very close relation of the deceased. PW4 was declared hostile by the prosecution and from the cross-examination made by the prosecution as well as the defence, it is clearly evident that this witness is not at all telling the truth. PW4 is also a very close relation of the deceased. PW4 must have reached the place of occurrence much after the occurrence had taken place, otherwise there was no reason that he would not have witnessed the occurrence. 24. From the testimony of PW4 it appears that he witnessed the accused and two others near the place of occurrence talking something with each other. But PW4 could not clarify as to when the occurrence had taken place. Whether the occurrence took place soon after his departure for taking food or just before his arrival near the place of occurrence is not clear. On careful analysis of the testimony of PW4, it transpires that PW4 might have made a guess work after seeing the injured deceased by relating it with the presence of the accused in the place of occurrence before the incident. Therefore, the testimony of PW4 alone would not be sufficient to secure a conviction of the accused in the present case. 25. PW5, Shri Upen Mohan, Sub-Inspector of police of Nagaon P.S. joined in the investigation when the investigation had almost completed. PW5 in his deposition stated that he collected the post mortem examination report from the Guwahati Medical College Hospital and the Inquest Report (Exbt. 2) submitted by ASI, Sri Paniram Das, Guwahati Medical College Hospital police outpost. PW5 also arrested the accused on 22.7.2000 and on completion of investigation submitted the charge sheet against the accused appellant under Section 302, IPC. Though the accused was arrested on 22.7.2000 after about two months from the date of occurrence, nothing can be attributed to such belated arrest since PW5 clarified that neither he visited the house of the accused nor he had made any attempt to arrest the accused. PW5 also denied the suggestion that the accused evaded arrest. 26. PW6, Md. Suraj Ali was declared hostile by the prosecution and was thoroughly cross-examined by the prosecution. During his cross-examination the prosecution could not extract anything substantial to rely on his testimony. PW6 categorically stated in his evidence that he did not witness the occurrence. 27. PW5 also denied the suggestion that the accused evaded arrest. 26. PW6, Md. Suraj Ali was declared hostile by the prosecution and was thoroughly cross-examined by the prosecution. During his cross-examination the prosecution could not extract anything substantial to rely on his testimony. PW6 categorically stated in his evidence that he did not witness the occurrence. 27. PW7, Sri Arabinda Das, ASI of police, stated that he was asked to take preliminary steps for the investigation of the case and, accordingly, he had gone to the place of occurrence and recorded the statement of the witnesses. After having carried out the preliminary investigation of the case, PW7 had handed over the case diary to the then officer in-charge of Lanka Police Station. In his cross-examination he fairly conceded the fact that he at the time of taking up the investigation was not empowered to submit charge sheet in the case and also recorded the statement of the witnesses in the absence of any police officer of the rank of Sub-Inspector. PW7 also clarified that the incident had occurred on 9.5.2000 at 10 a.m. and the FIR was lodged on 10.5.2000 at 5 p.m. However, there is no explanation whatsoever from the side of the prosecution as to why there was a delay of more than a day in filing the FIR. PW7 also proved the contradictions in the statement of PW2 by proving her statement made before him during investigation. PW7 clarified that PW2, Ajufa Begam, did not state before him during investigation that Hussian Ahmed had gone to her house for a glass of water and when she had offered water to Hussain Ahmed, PW4, he did not drink it rather threw it away and uttered Shahab Uddin was finished. 28. PW8, Dr. Abani Kalita, was a Medical Officer at HAMM Hospital, Hojai on 9.5.2000 and on that day he examined Shahab Uddin in the casualty department of the hospital and found multiple cut injuries over the head with fracture of left parietal bone and comminuted fracture of left temporal bone (mastoid region) fracture of lesser wing of sphenoid, cut injury of left auricle, right forearm and back. The injuries were fresh and grievous caused by both blunt and sharp weapon. Thereafter, PW8 referred the patient to Gauhati Medical College Hospital, Guwahati for urgent management and treatment. The injuries were fresh and grievous caused by both blunt and sharp weapon. Thereafter, PW8 referred the patient to Gauhati Medical College Hospital, Guwahati for urgent management and treatment. PW8, however, opined that multiple cut injuries could have been caused by blunt and sharp weapon as well. The fracture injury may have been caused by blunt weapon or may be by sharp weapon. Further, PW8 confirmed the injuries on the left auricle and right forearm and the back were definitely caused by sharp weapon. 29. PW9, Asstt. Sub-Inspector of police of Latasil P.S., stated in his deposition that on 24.5.2000 he was working at Guwahati Medical College Hospital police outpost and on receiving an information regarding the death of Sahab Uddin at Guwahati Medical College Hospital, he was deputed to carry out the inquest over the dead body. Accordingly, he made inquest over the dead body of Sahab Uddin and prepared inquest report, Ext. 2. PW9 also proved his signature in the inquest report. This witness also confirmed that the dead body was identified by the brother of the deceased Sahab Uddin, i.e., PW1, Md. Abdul Kadir. 30. Though the death of the deceased is not disputed, however, the statement of the doctor, i.e., PW10, Dr. Kalicharan Basumatary, who carried out the post mortem examination over the dead body, reveals as follows: Rigor mortis present all over the body. 1. One incised would partly healed in both ends 4 cm x 0.2 cm muscle deep in the medial side of the fight forearm 13.5 cm below the below joint. 2. One incised would partly healed 3.2 cm x 0.2 cm muscle deep in the medial side of the right forearm 6.5 cm above the wrist joint. 3. One partly healed incised would 11.3 cm x 0.2 cm x muscle deep placed in the vertical plane in the middle of the left parietal area middle part covered with unhealthy granular tissue. 4. One incised wound partly healed 6 cm x 0.2 cm x muscle deep in the middle of the occipital area, placed in vertical plane. Skull -- Left partial bone missing from the area 8 cm x 4.5 cm underneath injury No. 3 Linear fracture present in the right parietal bone. Congested epidural and subdural hemorrhage present in the membrane. Left partial lobe of the brain was found lacerated. All the other organ were found healthy. Injury Nos. Skull -- Left partial bone missing from the area 8 cm x 4.5 cm underneath injury No. 3 Linear fracture present in the right parietal bone. Congested epidural and subdural hemorrhage present in the membrane. Left partial lobe of the brain was found lacerated. All the other organ were found healthy. Injury Nos. 3 and 4 individually and collectively are sufficient to cause the death of a person in its ordinary course. 31. The prosecution witnesses, who were declared hostile, were thoroughly cross-examined by the prosecution by putting all such previous statement made by them before the Investigation Officer during investigation. However, there is no scope for the court to rely upon the statements made by such hostile witnesses before the police during investigation. The learned Sessions Judge by linking up the evidences of the hostile witnesses recorded in the cross-examination, relied on it, which is not acceptable evidence. Linking up and relying on the testimony of hostile witnesses in respect of their statement made before the police during investigation are not admissible in law. As a matter of fact, as submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant, that the number of injuries sustained by the deceased Sahab Uddin is suggestive of the fact that assault on the deceased was not made by one individual. The learned Counsel for the appellant by drawing our attention submitted that the injuries caused on the person of the deceased by blunt weapon could not have been caused by the accused only. 32. Both the PW1 and PW2 omitting to state during investigation that they had seen the accused fleeing from the scene, of occurrence is a serious omission. Non-stating of such a fact to the investigating officer cannot be brushed aside as minor omission. Testimony of PW1 and PW2, who are very close relation of the deceased and also admitted to have been having disputes and dissention with the accused regarding family properly cannot be accepted as gospel truth in the facts and circumstances of the case. 33. PW4, who turned hostile, testified against the accused to link up the chain of circumstances of seeing the flight of the accused going away from the place of occurrence. 33. PW4, who turned hostile, testified against the accused to link up the chain of circumstances of seeing the flight of the accused going away from the place of occurrence. From the cross-examination of PW4 by the prosecution, it appears that PW4 denied the suggestion that he had stated before the police that at the time of occurrence, Abdul Kadir, Suraj Ali, Sikandar Ali and Yakub Ali were talking to each other and by leaving them there PW4 had gone to the house of Ajufa Begam, PW2. Again PW4 admitted in his cross-examination that he did not witness who in fact injured deceased Sahab Uddin, since he was at that time at the residence of PW2. PW4 further clarified that he had seen the injured deceased in the place of occurrence from a distance of 10 nals away from the house of PW2. PW4 did not go near the injured deceased Sahab Uddin rather he left for his house by informing Ajufa Begam, PW2. 34. The prosecution case is fully based on the circumstantial evidence. The law relating to circumstantial evidence is well settled by several judgments of the Supreme Court. It is fairly well settled that when a case rests on circumstantial evidence, a complete chain of circumstances, which rule out every other possibility except guilt of the accused, has to be established. The essential ingredients to prove guilt of an accused person by circumstantial evidence are: (1) The circumstances from which the conclusion is drawn should be fully proved; (2) the circumstances should be conclusive in nature; (3) all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt and inconsistent with innocence; (4) the circumstances should, to a moral certainty, exclude the possibility of guilt of any person other than the accused. [See State of U.P. v. Ravindra Prakash Mittal (Dr.) AIR 1992 SC 2045 ]. The Supreme Court has cautioned about the danger that conjecture and suspicion may take the place of legal proof in cases depending largely on circumstantial evidence. In Jaharlal Das v. State of Orissa AIR 1991 SC 1388 , hon'ble Supreme Court observed that in cases depending largely upon circumstantial evidence there is always a danger that conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof. In Jaharlal Das v. State of Orissa AIR 1991 SC 1388 , hon'ble Supreme Court observed that in cases depending largely upon circumstantial evidence there is always a danger that conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof. The court must satisfy itself that the various circumstances in the chain of events should be established clearly and that the completed chain must be such, as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused. When the main link goes, the chain of circumstances gets snapped and the other circumstances cannot in any manner establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. It is at this juncture the court has to be watchful and avoid the danger of allowing the suspicion to take the place of legal proof for sometimes unconsciously it may happen to be a short step between moral certainty and legal proof. At times it can be a case of 'may be true'. 'But there is a long mental distance between 'may be true' and 'must be true' and the same divides conjectures from sure conclusions. In this case at least there is a reasonable doubt about the guilt of the accused and the benefit of the same should go to him. 35. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 , the Supreme Court, on consideration of all its earlier judgments on the point has called out the following five principles relating to circumstantial evidence, which may be reproduced here as follows: 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 Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra 919 where the observations were made: [SCC para 19, p. 807: SCC (Cri) p. 1047] 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. 36. Though the witness, PW4 claimed to have seen the accused running away without holding any weapon in his hand. These circumstances at their face value even if taken to be true are not consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt and inconsistent with innocence of the accused. There was no eye witness to prove that the appellant had inflicted multiple knife blows on the deceased. In Jagdish Prashad v. State (1980) 1 SCC 609 , at p. 610, hon'ble Supreme Court in a similar situation took the following view: ...Bishan the deceased was assaulted by a knife and the appellant was seen running away by a crowd collected, and so the members of the crowd including the members of the police arrested him and snatched a knife from his hand which contained no bloodstains. The High Court appears to have relied on the following three circumstances (i) that the appellant was seen by the three witnesses with a chhuri in his hand; (ii) that he was waving the chhuri at that time and the witnesses warded off some of the blows with the dandas which they had; and (iii) that the appellant was caught and taken to the police station. 2. Even if we take these circumstances at their face value they do not exclude the possibility of guilt of the accused. There was no eye witness to prove that the appellant had inflicted any knife blow on Bishan, and in the absence of such evidence coupled with the fact that the knife which was snatched from the appellant did not contain any bloodstains, it cannot be held that the circumstances proved in the case are incompatible with the innocence of the accused. It is possible that the accused may have been coming from some other locality with a knife and since he was chased by some persons he waved the knife in order to protect him or to scare away the crowd. 37. Mere suspicion or suspicious circumstances cannot ease the prosecution of its main duty of proving its case against an accused person beyond reasonable doubt. Courts cannot be influenced by emotion or sentiment against a person accused of brutally killing the deceased by inflicting a number of injuries. Unless the offence alleged is proved by satisfactory evidence on record this Court cannot even act on some confidence that an accused person has committed a crime. If the evidence on which the prosecution chooses to rely its case is so weak that they tumble over when subjected to close and critical examination, it would not be safe to convict the accused merely on proof of some incriminating circumstances, which might have given support to defective evidence. 38. After giving our thoughtful consideration on the evidence on record, we have come to the conclusion that the foundation of the prosecution case is based on the testimony of three witnesses, i.e., P Ws 1, 2 and 3, whose evidence do not establish circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt of the accused can be drawn. 38. After giving our thoughtful consideration on the evidence on record, we have come to the conclusion that the foundation of the prosecution case is based on the testimony of three witnesses, i.e., P Ws 1, 2 and 3, whose evidence do not establish circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt of the accused can be drawn. Further, circumstances relied on by the prosecution to secure conviction of the accused are not conclusive in nature, and all the facts so established are not consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt and inconsistent with innocence. It seems to us to be quite unsafe to convict the appellant on their testimony despite some circumstances, which raise grave suspicion against the appellant. Suspicion, however, grave, cannot be a satisfactory basis for convicting an accused person. We are conscious that a grave and heinous crime has been committed, but when there is no satisfactory proof of the guilt we have no other option but to give the benefit of doubt to the accused. 39. In these circumstances, therefore, we are satisfied that the learned Sessions Judge was not justified in convicting the appellant without there being any sufficient legal evidence to support the conviction of the conviction. For these reasons the appeal is allowed, the appellant is acquitted of the charge under Section 302, IPC, and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant are set aside. The appellant be set at liberty forth with, if he is not wanted in any other case. Appeal allowed