Vide order dated 16.12.2011 passed by this Court, in view of the fact that no one appeared for the petitioner as well as for the opposite parties, this Court had appointed Sri U. Dutta, learned counsel as Amicus Curiae in this case. When this case was taken up Mr. U. Dutta, learned Amicus Curiae was heard. 2. This criminal revision petitioner has been preferred by the complainant Sri Ramesh Bharali against the judgment and order dated 8.4.2004 passed by the Adhoc Addl. Session Judge No.2, Kamrup, Guwahati in Session Case No.121(K)/2002 arising out of G.R. Case No. 184/2000 acquitting the accused person from the charge under Section 302 IPC. 3. Before we deal with the revision petition, we may briefly refer to the facts of the case as per the prosecution, as follows. 4. According to the prosecution, the persons who were accused in the said case, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and indulged in rioting and with the common intention committed murder of one Bhupen Das and also caused damage to the property of the complainant, Ramesh Bharali. 5. According to the prosecution, the occurrence took place on 14.8.2000 at village Bangaltola under Hajo police station. It seems on the previous day, there was a quarrel between the son of the complainant and the son of one of the accused persons, Bhupen Deka. Thereafter, a meeting of the village was convened to discuss about the aforesaid quarrel on 14.8.2000 where the complainant i.e. Sri Ramesh Bharali was invited. However, apprehending violence on the part of the accused, he did not attend the meeting. This refusal of the complainant to attend the meeting apparently infuriated the accused persons who came in a group to his house to assault him. However, because of the presence of the some other villagers, the accused persons could not assault the informant. However, the accused persons caused damage to the materials and house of the informant as well as trees and left the place. It is the case of the prosecution that before arrival of the accused persons as stated above, the deceased who was the brother-in-law of the informant who was sitting in the house was called by one Mina Deka, wife one of the accused. After their departure, the accused came to the house of the informant and tried to assault the informant. 6. After their departure, the accused came to the house of the informant and tried to assault the informant. 6. The wife of the deceased came looking for her husband as he did not return home. Accordingly, a search was made for deceased in the village. As the deceased had gone with Mina Deka, she was asked about the whereabouts of the deceased person. The said Mina Deka told the search party that the deceased had gone towards the southern side. As the search party came near the village pond, they saw the accused persons near the pond. On seeing the search party the accused run away. Suspecting foul play, the search party with the help of torch light searched the pond and ultimately, the dead body of the deceased was recovered from the pond. 7. The prosecution examined as many as witnesses. The accused had pleaded innocence. We may now refer to the evidence on record. 8. As regards the medical evidence, the Doctor who had conducted postmortem opined that the cause of death of the deceased was Asphyxia as a result of manual strangulation of the neck which is ante-mortem and homicidal in nature. Even though no finger marks on both side of the neck were found, he stated that on dissection, contusions were found on the soft tissues of both sides of thyroid cartiledge and according to him sometimes external injury is not found in case of strangulation by fingers. Even though the death of the deceased can be said to have been proved to be caused by strangulation, the main issues remains as to who caused the said death. 9. Admittedly, there was no eye witness of the incident in which the said Bhupen Das was killed. The learned trial court on appreciation of the evidence on record of the witnesses produced on behalf of the prosecution found that none of the witnesses examined by the prosecution had deposed that the accused persons took away or assaulted the deceased or that the deceased was seen along with the accused immediately before his death or his dead body was found on the pond. 10. Even though the PW-1, the complainant had stated that one Mina Deka w/o of one of the accused Ramesh Deka called the deceased from the house, the said Mina Deka was never examined as a witness. 10. Even though the PW-1, the complainant had stated that one Mina Deka w/o of one of the accused Ramesh Deka called the deceased from the house, the said Mina Deka was never examined as a witness. The trial court also observed that the PW 4 who was the wife of the deceased had deposed before the court that one Mukul Bharali told her that Ranjit Deka (who is one of the accused) along with some other persons had forcibly taken her husband towards the pond and these people were talking to each other and within a short period, the deceased man had expired. The said Mukul Bharali was also said to have told PW 4 that the deceased was forcibly taken towards the pond near the house of Harkanta Deka. However, the aforesaid crucial witness i.e. Mukul Bharali who apparently saw the deceased being taken away forcibly by the accused persons was not examined and as such the evidence of PW 4 in that regard is a mere hearsay and as such it is inadmissible in law. Therefore, the only evidence which has emerged against the accused was that they were seen near the pond on which the dead body of Bhupen Das was recovered by the search party. Accordingly, the learned trial court held that there was no evidence at all to show that the accused had forcibly taken away Bhupen Das or assaulted him or died of strangulation by the accused. Therefore, mere evidence of the accused of being seen near the pond where the deceased has died will not be sufficient to convict the accused persons. The learned trial court also held that even if the cause of death was by strangulation, since there were as many as 8 persons who were the accused of the said crime, it is difficult to hold that they were jointly responsible for the death of deceased. In view of above findings, the learned trial court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charge under Section 302 IPC against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 11. This court has also gone through the evidence on record. In view of above findings, the learned trial court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charge under Section 302 IPC against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 11. This court has also gone through the evidence on record. Having gone through the deposition of the prosecution witnesses, this court also finds that there is no eye witness of the incident of the death of Bhupen Das or to any kind of association of the deceased with the accused persons in any manner prior to his death. There is no evidence to the effect that the deceased was taken away by the accused persons or that the deceased was assaulted by the accused persons or that any of the accused persons had strangulated the deceased persons. The material witness who apparently saw the deceased being taken away forcibly was Mukul Bharali, who however, for reasons not known to this Court was not examined by the prosecution. Therefore, even if PW 4, the wife of the deceased had deposed about this fact of the deceased being taken away by the accused forcibly as stated by Mukul Bharali, the same will be clearly inadmissible and same cannot be acted upon for the purpose of fastening guilt upon the accused persons. The evidence as appreciated by the trial court that prior to the death of the deceased, the accused persons were involved in various acts of violence including attempt to assault the informant who is the brother-in-law of the deceased and also the fact that the accused were seen near the pond and they fled away when they were spotted by the village party who were in search of the deceased persons, and also the fact that they had taken the stand of total denial, cannot lead to any inference that they were responsible for the death of deceased person. Even though this Court is of the opinion that there is strong possibility and suspicion of involvement of the aforesaid accused persons, in the death of the deceased, however, such a suspicion cannot replace for any admissible evidence, which unfortunately, is missing in the present case. 12. It may be noted that while dealing circumstantial evidence, the principle laid down in Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in AIR 1952 SC 343 may be kept in mind. 12. It may be noted that while dealing circumstantial evidence, the principle laid down in Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in AIR 1952 SC 343 may be kept in mind. In the aforesaid case of Hanumant (supra) it was held that: “10. ……………………………. It is well to remember that in cases where the 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, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a 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……..” The aforesaid judgment had been subsequently also relied in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622 : (1984) 4 SCC 116 . 13. It is seen from the evidence on record that there are crucial missing links in the chain of evidence. As stated above, there is no evidence at all that the accused were last seen with the deceased immediately before the death of Bhupen Das. Though it had been urged that PW 4 had deposed that one Mukul Bharali had seen the deceased being forcibly taken away, yet in absence of examination of the said Mukul Bharali, it is of no evidenciary value, it being a mere hearsay. The deceased was last seen with Mina Deka. However, there is no evidence of what had happened after the deceased had parted way from her. There is also nothing to implicate the said Mina Das. 14. Considering all the facts and the evidence on record, this Court is also of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the findings by learned trial court in holding that there is no sufficient evidence to convict any of the accused persons under Section 302 IPC. 15. In view of above, the present revision petition is devoid of merit and accordingly stands dismissed. 16. Mr. 15. In view of above, the present revision petition is devoid of merit and accordingly stands dismissed. 16. Mr. Dutta, learned Amicus Curiae, who has assisted this court, is entitled to the fees as fixed by High Court. _____________