JUDGMENT PRADIP MOHANTY, J 1. From Jail the Appellant has preferred this appeal questioning his conviction and sentence imposed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhanjanagar-Aska, Bhanjanagar in Sessions Case No.63/1999 (377/99 GDC). 2. The allegation against the Appellant as per the F.I.R. lodged by P.W.2, the son-in-law of the deceased, is that on 28.05.1999 the Appellant and his mother (deceased) were alone in their house. The Appellant assaulted to the head of the deceased by means of a wooden plank, while the deceased was sleeping on a cot, for which the deceased become unconscious. P.W.2 on getting information came to the spot and with the help of the villagers shifted the deceased to the Jagannathprasad hospital for treatment. He lodged a written report (Ext. 1) at Jagannathprasad Outpost. On receipt of Ext. 1, P.W.17, the S.I. in-charge of Jagannathprasad Outpost made a station diary entry and sent the same to Buguda police station for registration and accordingly a case under Section 307 of the I.P.C. was registered. As the deceased succumbed to the injury-while undergoing treatment, the case was converted to one under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and on completion of investigation final form was filed against the Appellant under Section 302 of the I.P.C. 3. The plea of the Appellant is one of complete denial of the allegation. His further plea is that on the date of occurrence he had gone to village Dhimiripalli at about 8 A.M. and returned at 8 P.M. and heard his mother died. 4. The prosecution, in order to prove the charge examined as many as 18 witnesses including the I.O. and the doctor and exhibited 16 documents. Defence has examined none. 5. Tile Trial Court on conclusion of the trial convicted the Appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.5000 in default to undergo R.I. for one year. 6. This Court heard Learned Counsel for the parties and considered the evidence on record. Admittedly, the whole case rests on circumstantial evidence. The law relating to circumstantial evidence is well settled in Aftab Ahmad Anasari Vrs State of Uttrarnchal; (2010) 2 SCC 583 that while dealing with circumstantial evidence, there is always a danger that conjecture or suspicion lingering on mind may take place of proof. Admittedly, the whole case rests on circumstantial evidence. The law relating to circumstantial evidence is well settled in Aftab Ahmad Anasari Vrs State of Uttrarnchal; (2010) 2 SCC 583 that while dealing with circumstantial evidence, there is always a danger that conjecture or suspicion lingering on mind may take place of proof. Suspicion howsoever strong cannot be allowed to take place of proof and therefore, the Court has to judge watchfully and ensure that the conjectures and suspicions do not take place of legal proof. However, it is no derogation of evidence to say that it is circumstantial. Human agency may be faulty in expressing picturisation of actual incident but the circumstances cannot fail. Therefore, many a times, it is aptly said that "men may tell lies, but circumstances do not". In cases where evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should, in the first instance, be fully established. Each fact must be proved individually and only thereafter the Court should consider the total cumulative effect of all the proved facts, each one of which reinforces the conclusion of the guilt. If the combined effect of all the facts taken together is conclusive in establishing the guilt of the accused, the conviction would be justified even though it may be that one or more of these facts, by itself/themselves, is/are not decisive. The circumstances proved should be such as to exclude every hypothesis except the one sought to be proved. But this does not mean that before the prosecution case succeeds in a case of circumstantial evidence alone, it must exclude each and every hypothesis suggested by the accused, howsoever extravagant and fanciful it might be. There must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability, the act must have been done by the accused. Where the various links in a chain are in themselves complete, then a false plea or a false defence may be called into aid only to lend assurance to the Court. If the circumstances proved are, consistent with the innocence of the accused, then the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. Where the various links in a chain are in themselves complete, then a false plea or a false defence may be called into aid only to lend assurance to the Court. If the circumstances proved are, consistent with the innocence of the accused, then the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. However, in applying this principle, distinction must be made between facts called primary or basic on the one hand and inference of facts to be drawn from them on the other. In regard to the proof of basic or primary facts, the Court has to judge the evidence and decide whether that evidence proves a particular fact or not and if that fact is proved, the question arises whether that fact leads to the inference of guilt of the accused person or not. In dealing with this aspect of the problem, the doctrine of benefit of doubt applies. Although there should be no missing links in the case, yet it is not essential that every one of the links must appear on the surface of the evidence adduced and some of these links may have to be inferred from the proved facts. In drawing these inferences or presumptions, the Court must have regard to the common course of natural events, and to human conduct and their relations to the facts of the particular case. 7. The above being the position of law settled in Aftab Ahmad Anasari (supra) in respect of cases wholly based on circumstantial evidence, let us examine the evidence on record with the touchstone of the said ratio. P.W. 1 is the nephew of the deceased and cousin of the accused. He stated that during summer holidays he had come to village and one day at about 2 P.M. he heard somebody had assaulted his aunt (deceased), i.e., the mother of the accused. He went to the house of the accused, but by that time the deceased had been shifted to Jagannathprasad hospital. Then, he went to the hospital where the deceased expired four hours after. The prosecution declared him hostile and cross-examined him, but nothing has been elicited by the prosecution in cross-examination. P.W.2 is the son-in-law of the deceased and brother-in-law of the accused. He deposed that on 28.05.99 at about 2 P.M. he got information that the deceased had sustained severe injury on her head. The prosecution declared him hostile and cross-examined him, but nothing has been elicited by the prosecution in cross-examination. P.W.2 is the son-in-law of the deceased and brother-in-law of the accused. He deposed that on 28.05.99 at about 2 P.M. he got information that the deceased had sustained severe injury on her head. He went to her house and found that she was lying in a cot and blood was flowing from her head. With the help of villagers he took her to Jagannathprasad hospital for treatment. On the advice of the doctor, he lodged the written report before Jagannathprasad Out-post. He proved the F.I.R. (Ext. 1). On the date of incident, none was staying with the deceased except the accused for the last two days before the incident. After death of the deceased police came and made inquest over the dead body in his presence. He also proved his signature in the inquest report. In cross-examination, he stated that the doors of all the rooms were open when he arrived. There was an open bari in the backside of the house. The house of the accused is in the middle of Paikasahi and situated beside the road. P.W.2 corroborated the F.I.R. story. P.W.4 is the son of the deceased and brother of the accused. He specifically deposed that on 28.5.99 while he was at Gangapur got a telephonic message that his mother was murdered. He came back and found his mother was lying dead in Jagannathprasad hospital. He further deposed that on 27.5.99 he along with his brother (P.W.9) had left for Gangapur leaving the accused and deceased and none else was present. P.W.5 is a co-villager, who deposed that his house is about half furlong away from the house of the accused. Water comes through public tap between 2 to 3 P.M. everyday. One day prior to the incident, the deceased had requested him to inform her when water comes. On the next day, when he went to inform the deceased that water had come, he found the deceased was lying almost dead in a pool of blood and out of fear he returned back and informed P.W.2. In cross-examination, he admitted that when he went to the house of deceased, he found the door ajar and none-else was present. From his evidence it is crystal clear that he first detected the injured and informed P.W.2. In cross-examination, he admitted that when he went to the house of deceased, he found the door ajar and none-else was present. From his evidence it is crystal clear that he first detected the injured and informed P.W.2. P.W.6 is a witness to the inquest and proved the inquest report (Ext.2). P.W.7 is a co-villager, who specifically stated that he had gone to the Nala for bathing which is about 1 k.m. away from the house of the accused. He found the accused was proceeding towards the hillock beside the Nala. He returned home and at 4 P.M. and heard that the deceased was killed. In cross-examination, he admitted that he saw the accused proceeding towards the hillock. P.W.8 is another co-villager, who turned hostile. He was cross-examined by the prosecution and admitted that he had stated before the police that prior to the occurrence the accused was quarrelling with the deceased over giving him money and also assaulting her. P.W.9 is another son of the deceased and brother of the accused. He deposed that on the date of incident P.W.2 telephoned him that the deceased had sustained serious injuries on her head. He along with his brother (P.W.4) came to Jagannathprasad hospital at 6 P.M. by which time the deceased had expired. He specifically stated that the accused was deranged and at times used to assault the deceased whenever she took exception to any of his mistakes. In cross-examination, he admitted that he had not remembered the day, date and time on which the accused had assaulted the deceased. He had not complained against the accused before anybody of his Sahi that the accused assaulted the deceased. P.W.10 is another co-villager who stated that while he was bathing in the Nala about 1 k.m. away from the Sahi found the accused was proceeding beside the Nala towards the hillock. At 4 P.M., he heard that mother of the accused was taken to hospital for treatment of head injury. P.W.7 corroborated the evidence of P.W.10 to the extent that he found the accused beside the Nala, but in cross-examination he stated that he saw the accused at a distance of about 50 cubits from the Nala whereas P.W.10 in cross-examination stated that he saw the accused at a distance of 60 to 70 cubits from the Nala. P.W.11 did not support the prosecution case. P.W.11 did not support the prosecution case. P.W.12 is another co-villager who stated that while he was bathing in the Nala he found the accused was proceeding beside the Nala towards the jungle. He corroborated the evidence of P.Ws.7 and 10. In cross examination, he admitted that P.Ws.10 and 11 were bathing along with him. P.W.13 is the witness to the seizure of cot and quilt and he proved the seizure list (Ext.6). P.W.14 is the witness to the inquest and proved the inquest report Ext.2 P.W.15 is the Gram Rakhi who proved seizure of photographs vide Ext.7. P.W.16 is the doctor, who on police requisition treated the deceased on 25.8.1999 and found the following injuries. "(i) One lacerated injury of 3 x 1/2" x 1/4" over left parietal bone and frontal bone of skull below the injury there is a depressed fracture and it was bleeding. (ii) One lacerated injury 2" x 1/2" x 1/2" over occipital bone of skull above the left pina and it was bleeding. (iii) One lacerated injury 1/2" x 1/2" over occipital bone and it was bleeding." He opined that injury No.1 was grievous in nature and other injuries were simple in nature caused by hard and blunt weapon within three to six hours. He also deposed that the patient was in delirium with chyne stroke breathing (gasping). On that date at about 6.15 P.M., the patient expired. He intimated the fact to the O.I.C. Jagannathprasad Out-post immediately. He also opined that the injuries might have been caused by hard and blunt weapon like a wooden bar used to close the door from inside (Geda). P.W.3 is the doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and found the following external injuries: "(i) One lacerated wound of 3 x 1/2" x 1/4" over left fronto parietal area with a stitch. (ii) Lacerated wound 2" x 1/2" x 1/2" over occipital bone above left ear pina. (iii) Lacerated wound 1/2" x 1/2" x 1/2" over occipital bone." On dissection, he found the following internal injuries: "(i) Blood clots present beneth the scalp of left side. (ii) Fracture of left parietal bone and depressed fracture of left temporal bone and there was separation of fronto parietal suture. (iii) Lacerated wound 1/2" x 1/2" x 1/2" over occipital bone." On dissection, he found the following internal injuries: "(i) Blood clots present beneth the scalp of left side. (ii) Fracture of left parietal bone and depressed fracture of left temporal bone and there was separation of fronto parietal suture. The fracture line was continuous." He opined that all the above injuries were antemortem in nature and might have been caused by hard and blunt weapon and the cause of death was due to head injury. In cross-examination, he deposed that to the query made by the I.O. he had opined that the injuries found on the deceased could have been caused by the wooden plank. P.W.17 at the relevant time was the S.I in-charge of Jagannathprasad Out-post. He deposed that he received the written report from P.W.2, made station diary entry under Section 307 I.P.C, and sent the F.I.R. to Buguda P.S. for registration. He went to the hospital and issued medical requisition. He visited the house of the deceased at 3.35 P.M., seized scrapings of blood stains from the floor of the house and prepared seizure list (Ext. 9) in presence of witnesses. On the same day at about 6.30 P.M., he received information that the deceased expired. On the next date, i.e., 29.5.1999 he proceeded to the hospital and held inquest over the dead body. On 29.05.99, he handed over the charge of investigation to O.I.C. Buguda P.S. P.W.18 at the relevant time was the O.I.C., Buguda P.S., who took charge of investigation from P.W.17 on 29.05.99, arrested the accused on the same day at 2.00 P.M. and seized the wooden plank used to close the door (Geda), which the accused brought-out from the ceiling of his house. He also seized an old check lungi with suspected-bloodstains and an old blue and white napkin (Gamucha) with suspected bloodstains which the accused wore in presence of witnesses. He also seized the wearing apparels of the deceased. He proved the seizure lists Exts.14 to 16. 8. On scrutinizing the evidence it reveals that P.Ws.4 and 9, the sons of the deceased, on 27.05.1999 had left for Gangapur leaving the accused and the deceased and none else was in their house. On the date of incident, they got telephonic message that their mother had expired, for which they came back. 8. On scrutinizing the evidence it reveals that P.Ws.4 and 9, the sons of the deceased, on 27.05.1999 had left for Gangapur leaving the accused and the deceased and none else was in their house. On the date of incident, they got telephonic message that their mother had expired, for which they came back. From their evidence it is not clear that the accused was present in the house at the time of occurrence. P.W.2, the son-in-law of the deceased and brother-in-law of the accused, has not whispered a single word that he was present at the place of occurrence either at the time of occurrence or before the occurrence. He saw the injured at about 3 P.M. when she was lying on a cot. P.Ws.7, 10 and 12 had seen the accused proceeding towards the hillock, beside the Nala in which they were taking bath at about 11.00 A.M. P.W.5, stated that he went to the house of the deceased at about 3 P.M. and found her lying almost dead in a pool of blood and none else was present. P. W.18 proved Ext. 13 which reveals that two independent witnesses were present at the time of recording the statement. But, prosecution failed to examine them. He specifically stated that he arrested the accused and seized a wooden piece used to close the door (Geda). None of the independent witnesses has been examined by the prosecution to prove the seizure and recording of the statement of the accused with regard to leading to discovery. There is no material that the accused led the police to the place where he had concealed the weapon of offence. Moreover, the chemical report has not been produced by the prosecution. The chain of circumstantial evidence is not completed so as to establish that the accused and the accused alone is the author of crime. 9. In the result therefore, the appeal is allowed. The Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 12.4.2002 passed by the Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhanjanagar-Aska, Bhanjanagar in S.C. No.63/99 (377/99 GDC) is set aside. The Appellant be set at liberty forthwith, if his detention is not required in connection with any other case. I agree.