JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal appeal has been filed under section 374 Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 21.2.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FT) No. 4, Jhalawar In Sessions Case No. 154/2003 whereby the accused - appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Under section 302 IPC : Imprisonment of life with fine of Rs. 2,000/ -, In default of payment of fine to further undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment. 2. The brief facts giving rise to the instant appeal are that the accused appellant himself submitted a written report Ex.P/21 at Police Station - Sarola Kalan on 30.6.2003 at 9.15 AM with the averments that on the last night at about 10.00 PM, after taking his meal, he went to his floor mill and slept there and his wife and two children were sleeping at home. In the morning at about 5.30 AM, he went to Roop Singh for tractor at Akawat Khurd and he returned back to his house at about 6.30 AM, he saw that the gates of the house were opened and locks were broken and belongings were scattered. He went at the terrace and found that both the children were sleeping. On enquiry, both the children started weeping. He left his children at Jagdish Gurjar's house and went to Police Station to inform about the facts that locks are broken and his wife is missing. He lodged missing report and when he returned to his village, Mangi Lal son of Ratna Bairwa informed him that the dead body of his wife is lying in the Kalam Wali Khal. Then, accused appellant with other villagers went at the spot and found that the dead body of his wife Suresh Kanwar was lying there having sharp edged injuries on her head, neck and abdomen etc. Further contention was that he was having dispute with his brothers regarding the land as they are not allowing him to cultivate the land and due to this enmity, Bhanwar Singh, Govind Singh, Banti and Gokul Singh have murdered his wife. On this report, FIR No. 123/2003 has been registered for the offence u/s 302/34 IPC. Further contention was that he was having dispute with his brothers regarding the land as they are not allowing him to cultivate the land and due to this enmity, Bhanwar Singh, Govind Singh, Banti and Gokul Singh have murdered his wife. On this report, FIR No. 123/2003 has been registered for the offence u/s 302/34 IPC. During the investigation, the accused appellant who was the complainant in the case was arrested and after the completion of investigation, charge - sheet has been filed against the present appellant and the case was committed to the Sessions Judge, Jhalawar and was transferred to the Additional Sessions Judge (FT) No. 4, Jhalawar. The Court below framed the charge against the accused appellant u/s 302 IPC. He pleaded innocence and claimed for trial. 3. To prove its case, prosecution has examined PW/1, Dr. Satyaveer Singh Rajawat, PW/2 Rekha Kanwar, PW/3 Lad Kanwar, PW/4 Bhanwar Lal, PW/5 Babu, PW/6 Sardar Singh PW/7 Jagdish, PW/8 Sobhag Singh, PW/9 Jagdish Singh, PW/10 Mangi Lal, PW/11 Mahendra, PW/12 Chhitar Singh, PW/13 Gopal, PW/14 Roop Singh, PW/15 Bhanwar Singh, PW/16 Gulab Chand, PW/17 Radha Kishan, PW/18 Shabbir Mohammad, PW/19 Janaki Lal, PW/20 Rajaram, PW/21 Pratap, PW/22 Bhojraj, PW/23 Bal Kishan, PW/24 Kalu Lal, PW/25 Kaushal Kumar, PW/26 Prem Kanwar, PW/27 Akhe Raj Singh and PW/28 Bajrang Lal and also relied on Ex. P/1 to Ex. P/31. Statement of accused appellant ha - been recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. No documentary or oral evidence in defence has been produced. After conclusion of the trial, the present appellant has been convicted and sentenced as stated above. Hence this appeal. 4. Contention of the appellant Is that the court below has not appreciated the fact that most of the witnesses have not supported the prosecution story and turned hostile and they have not stated anything to Implicate the present appellant. There Is no motive with the appellant to murder his wife. Recovery Is doubtful. Witnesses have stated that the Kulharl was lying with the dead body and to implicate the appellant, false recovery has been shown from the river. Only on the strength of Forensic Science Laboratory Report, he has been convicted as blood stains have been found on Kulhari and clothes of the appellant. Admittedly, the dead body was given to the appellant and he has performed last rituals of his wife in which he sustained blood stains on his clothes. Only on the strength of Forensic Science Laboratory Report, he has been convicted as blood stains have been found on Kulhari and clothes of the appellant. Admittedly, the dead body was given to the appellant and he has performed last rituals of his wife in which he sustained blood stains on his clothes. Axe was not having any blood stains at the time of seizure. It was not possible to have blood stains as admittedly, it was recovered from water. Malkhana Incharge has not been produced. There is all possibility that axe has been planted by the investigating agency. Hence present appellant be acquitted from the charge. 5. Per contra, contention of the learned Public Prosecutor is that axe has been recovered at the instance of the appellant. There is evidence that the present appellant and deceased were having strained relations. Blood stains were found on the clothes which are matching with the blood group of deceased. The court below has rightly relied upon the circumstantial evidence. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor and perused the impugned judgment and the original record of the case. 7. The case of the prosecution rests on the circumstantial evidence. The first circumstance which has been used against the appellant is that he was having illicit relation with other girl and relations between the appellant and the deceased were strained and in this regard, the prosecution has examined PW/26 Prem Kanwar, mother of deceased, she has not stated anything against the present appellant and she has been turned hostile. PW/27 Akheraj Singh brother of the deceased has also been declared hostile and has not stated anything against the appellant. PW/6, Bhanwar Lal father of the deceased has also not stated anything against the appellant. He has also denied the fact that relations between appellant and his wife were strained. Hence this fact has not been proved against the present appellant that he was having strained relations with his wife. 8. In FIR, the present appellant has implicated Bhanwarlal, Govind Singh, and Gokul Singh who have also been examined as prosecution witnesses. PW/8 Sobhag Singh has stated nothing in favour of the prosecution. He has been declared hostile and his contention is that relations were strained between appellant and his wife. The present appellant was not having any relation with any girl. PW/8 Sobhag Singh has stated nothing in favour of the prosecution. He has been declared hostile and his contention is that relations were strained between appellant and his wife. The present appellant was not having any relation with any girl. PW/9 Jagdish Singh has also been declared hostile thus no ocular (oral ?) evidence has supported the prosecution story. 9. The other evidence against the present appellant which has been relied for his conviction is recovery of axe (Ex.P/6).PW/23 Bal Kishan, investigating officer has stated that on the information and instance of appellant, axe has been recovered. PW/17 Radhakishan is the witness of the recovery, he has not corroborated the fact of recovery. PW/18 Shabbir Mohammad and PW/19 Jankilal have also turned hostile but their contention is that axe has been recovered from Parwan River. 10. Per contra, PW/10 Mangllal and PW/16 Gulabchand have stated that axe was lying with the dead body, hence there is infirmity as regard to recovery of axe but for the sake of argument, we presume that an axe has been recovered at the Instance of the accused. The case of prosecution Is at axe has blood stains which are matching with the cloths of the deceased. Ex, P/6 is the recovery of axe which does not contain the fact that axe having any blood stain and at the same time the admitted case of the prosecution is that axe has been recovered from river and when the axe was recovered from the water it could not have blood stains and this fact casts serious shadow on the veracity of the prosecution and recovery of axe could not connect the present appellant with the crime. 11. The other circumstance which has been used for the conviction of the appellant is that his clothes have been seized vide Ex.P/20 and clothes of the deceased vide Ex.P/15 and FSL report (Ex.P/31) suggests that on clothes of the accused, same blood group has been found which Is found on the clothes of the deceased. The very plausible and natural explanation has been given by the appellant that dead body of the deceased was given to him for cremation and there is no dispute about the fact that clothes of the deceased have also been given to the police by the appellant. The very plausible and natural explanation has been given by the appellant that dead body of the deceased was given to him for cremation and there is no dispute about the fact that clothes of the deceased have also been given to the police by the appellant. Possibility can not be ruled out that when dead body and clothes of the deceased have been handled by the appellant, he received the blood on his clothes. 12. Other evidence which has been produced by the prosecution Is extra - judicial confession of the accused. Witness as regard Ex.P/28 has not supported the prosecution story and his contention is that accused has never confessed anything before him, hence there is no chain of circumstances to connect the appellant with the crime. There is no motive to connect the appellant with the crime. None of the prosecution witness has stated that he was having strained relations with the deceased. Admittedly, there is no eye - witness to the incident. Recovery of axe is doubtful and furthermore, the presence of blood marks on it is also a blow to the prosecution case. Presence of blood marks on the clothes of appellant have been reasonably and plausibly explained. Prosecution has failed to prove the evidence of extra - judicial confession and the court below has wrongly relied upon the doubtful evidence and reasonings and findings of the court below are perverse and could not be sustained. It is very unfortunate that the present appellant has suffered more than 10 years of imprisonment. 13. In view of above discussion, we are not persuaded to uphold the conviction of the accused-appellant, which is found entirely on circumstantial evidence. The chain of circumstances against the accused - appellant has got several missing links. Neither individual circumstances are established against the accused-appellant beyond any reasonable doubt nor do they form a chain of circumstances so complete as to rule out every reasonable hypothesis that may be incompatible with his innocence. The circumstances do not conclusively prove that it was only the accused - appellant and none-else, who could have committed the murder of deceased - Smt. Suresh Kanwar, 14. We are therefore, persuaded to set-aside the conviction of the accused-appellant Giriraj Singh S/o Sardar Singh Rajput for offence under section 302 IPC and acquit him of the charge for the said offence. 15. We are therefore, persuaded to set-aside the conviction of the accused-appellant Giriraj Singh S/o Sardar Singh Rajput for offence under section 302 IPC and acquit him of the charge for the said offence. 15. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The judgment dated 21.02.2004 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 4, Jhalawar in Sessions Case No. 154/2003 is set-aside. Accused - appellant Girraj Singh S/o Sardar Singh Rajput is acquitted for the charge for offence under section 302 IPC. The accused-appellant who is in jail for last ten years & six months, if not required to be detained in connection with any other offence, may be released forthwith. 16. Keeping in view, however, the provisions of Section 437A of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973, accused - appellant is directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/ - and a surety bond in the like amount, before the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, which shall be effective for a period of six months to the effect that in the event of filing of special Leave Petition against this judgment or on grant of leave, the said appellant, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court.Appeal allowed. *******