JUDGMENT : VIMLA JAIN, J. 1. Appellant Karan preferred this appeal under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved by the judgment dated 8-6-2002 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Betul in Sessions Trial No. 31/2002, whereby he had been convicted and sentenced with the direction to run all the sentences concurrently as under:- Provision Sentence Under Section 302, Indian Penal Code Imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for three months. Under Section 201, Indian Penal Code Rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for one month. Under Section 404, Indian Penal Code Rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for one month. 2. Allegation against appellant/accused Karan is that on 27-11-2001 at about 6 p.m. he intentionally committed murder of Kalabai, wife of Ashok Dubey in the field of Ganesh Chawla, caused disappearance of evidence by hanging her dead-body on a tree and dishonestly misappropriated her property i.e. can of kerosene oil and Rs. 500/- which were in her possession at the time of her death. 3. Brief facts of the case are that complainant Kunjbihari Nandulkar submitted a marg intimation on 28-11-2001 at Police Chowki Ghodadongri that yesterday (27-11-2001) in the evening, his sister Kalabai was returning from market along with his son Durgesh. On the way, she saw a man carrying her can and she started going towards him. When she did not turn up in the night, a search was made and her dead-body was found hanging on a tree with her own SARI, tied around her neck. 4. On the basis of the report, Sub-Inspector S.N. Pandey (PW-8) registered the Marg Intimation (Ex.P/1). The police party reached the spot and started the investigation. After due notice, witnesses were called and Inquest Panchnama (Ex.P/3) and Spot Map (Ex.P/4) were prepared in their presence. Bloodstained earth, plain earth, pieces of bangles, earring, ladies Kajiya, Chappal, purse were recovered from the spot and their Seizure Memo (Ex.P/14) was prepared. The dead-body of Kalabai was sent for post-mortem wherein it was opined that she died as a result of asphyxia due to strangulation. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Bloodstained earth, plain earth, pieces of bangles, earring, ladies Kajiya, Chappal, purse were recovered from the spot and their Seizure Memo (Ex.P/14) was prepared. The dead-body of Kalabai was sent for post-mortem wherein it was opined that she died as a result of asphyxia due to strangulation. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Crime No. 442/2001 for the offences under sections 302, 201 and 404 of Indian Penal Code was registered against accused Karan. He was arrested on 1-12-2001. On the basis of memorandum of accused, pair of chappal, Rs. 400/- GAMCHHA, blue can with 17/18 litres of kerosene were recovered and seizure memo was prepared. Seized articles were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Gwalior. 5. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed under sections 302, 201 and 404 of Indian Penal Code against accused Karan before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Betul, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions and ultimately it was transferred to the Court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Betul for trial. On being charged with the offences under the said sections, the accused/appellant pleaded not guilty, complete innocence and claimed to be tried with the prayer that he had been falsely implicated in the case. 6. In order to bring home the charges against the appellant, the prosecution examined twelve witnesses and proved twenty five documents (Ex.P/1 to P/25). The appellant did not examine any witness in support of his defence. 7. The learned Court below after scanning the evidence found the charges proved against appellant Karan. Therefore, it convicted and sentenced him as stated hereinabove. 8. This appeal has been filed by the appellant assailing the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Court below has committed an error of law in holding the appellant/accused guilty for the offences under sections 302, 201 and 404 of Indian Penal Code. He also submitted that the parameters laid down by the Apex Court in deciding such a case based on circumstantial evidence had not been applied. He has prayed that the appeal deserves to be allowed by setting aside the finding of conviction and order of sentence. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has supported the finding of the trial Court. 11. We have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 12. He has prayed that the appeal deserves to be allowed by setting aside the finding of conviction and order of sentence. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has supported the finding of the trial Court. 11. We have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 12. The prosecution version essentially rested on circumstances. The trial Court found that the circumstances were sufficient to hold the accused/appellant guilty. 13. The Apex Court in C. Chenga Reddy and Others vs. State of A.P. (1996) 10 SCC 193 , observed thus:- “In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence.......” 14. PW-12 Dr. Mohit Tawar conducted the post-mortem (Ex.P/23) of deceased Kalabai and found following injuries on her dead-body:- “(1) Abrasion over right breast, interrupted semicircular 6 cm x 1 cm, individual marks 1 x 1 cm. (2) 3 cm below (1) is similar semicircular area of redness 4 x 2 cm. (3) Single abrasion over left parietal region 1 x 1 cm. (4) Abrasions over right shoulder anteriorly 1 x 0.5 cm and 1 x 1 cm, 2 cm apart. (5) Abrasion over left shoulder 1 x 1 cm. (6) Multiple abrasions over right elbow. (7) Multiple abrasions over left elbow. (8) Multiple linear abrasions of varying sizes over back, both scapular region, B/L paraspinal region, lumbar region in midline. (9) Abrasions over limbosacral region 8 x 6 cm in midline with paraspinal region. (10) Abrasions over medial aspect of right knee 1 x 1 cm. (11) Abrasion over right foot dorsally 1 x 1 cm. (12) Superficial lacerated wound 1 x 0.25 cm at the base of left fist metacarpal laterally. (9) Abrasions over limbosacral region 8 x 6 cm in midline with paraspinal region. (10) Abrasions over medial aspect of right knee 1 x 1 cm. (11) Abrasion over right foot dorsally 1 x 1 cm. (12) Superficial lacerated wound 1 x 0.25 cm at the base of left fist metacarpal laterally. Ligature marks:- Two marks parallel to each other observed: (i) In upper part of neck extending from right mastoid process obliquely downwards and passing above the thyroid cartilage in midline then running obliquely upwards towards the left mastoid process as a deep groove 2.5 cm wide with multiple abrasions at side of right neck and multiple vesicular eruptions on left side of neck below the ligature mark. (ii) About 2.5 cm below (i) mark, encircling whole neck darker on sides and falling over thyroid region 3.5 cm wide anteriorly running obliquely upwards posteriorly, narrowing to 2 cm width. Opinion - Mode of death is asphyxia due to strangulation. Final opinion about rape can be made only after the examination of slide. No signs of rape on post-mortem examination. Time passed since death is within 24 hours at the commencement of post-mortem examination.” 15. According to Dr. Mohit Tawar (PW-12), the cause of her death was asphyxia due to strangulation. Therefore, it is apparent that injuries caused on her person were fatal in nature and sufficient to cause her death in due course. Looking to the nature of injuries, death of Kalabai appears to be homicidal. 16. In the matter of Jaharlal Das vs. State of Orissa, AIR 1991 SC 1388 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:- “In cases depending largely upon circumstantial evidence there is always a danger that the conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof and such suspicion however so strong cannot be allowed to take the place of proof. The Court has to be watchful and ensure that conjectures and suspicions do not take the place of legal proof. The Court must satisfy itself that the various circumstances in the chain of evidence 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. Bearing these principles in mind we shall now consider the reasoning of the Courts below in coming to the conclusion that the accused alone has committed the offence. Bearing these principles in mind we shall now consider the reasoning of the Courts below in coming to the conclusion that the accused alone has committed the offence. In view of the aforesaid principle, we are examining the case at hand.” 17. Durgesh (PW-3), a minor of 12 years of age and son of deceased Kalabai, stated that on 27-11-2001, he had gone to Ghodadongri Bazar along with his mother and two sisters. He was returning home along with his mother and elder sister Kalpana after bazar. On the way, his mother started talking with his maternal uncle Ashok. His elder sister Kalpana proceeded towards the home and he remained with his mother. On the way, accused Karan met them. Accused had a can of kerosene oil. His mother questioned the accused that where was he carrying the can? The accused answered that such can did not belong to her and he had brought this can from the house of Pinky. Accused also told her to come to his home, he would show more such cans in his house. This witness also stated that thereafter his mother went to the house of accused to find out the can. He further stated that he had gone to his home to search the can of kerosene oil. After search, his sister Kalpana replied that can was not at home. However, this witness Durgesh (PW-3) did not tell her sister Kalpana (PW-2) that his mother went to the house of accused Karan to see the can. 18. Kalpana (PW-2), daughter of deceased Kalabai, stated that on 27-11-2001 at about 2 p.m. she had gone to Ghodadongri Bazar along with her mother and brother. Thereafter, they had also gone to the house of her maternal uncle Kunjbihari. When they were returning to their home, they met Ashok (maternal uncle) and he started conversation with her mother Kalabai and she (Kalpana) had returned to her home. After sometime, her brother Durgesh came to home and enquired her about the can of kerosene oil. She made a search but could not find the can. Durgesh returned to join her mother. Durgesh returned back to home and told that he could not find his mother. Her mother did not return to the home. After sometime, her brother Durgesh came to home and enquired her about the can of kerosene oil. She made a search but could not find the can. Durgesh returned to join her mother. Durgesh returned back to home and told that he could not find his mother. Her mother did not return to the home. This witness stated that her mother had sent her brother Durgesh to home to find out that whether can of kerosene oil was at home or not. 19. Kunjbihari Nandulkar (PW-1), younger brother of deceased Kalabai, stated in Paragraph 2 of his deposition that on 27-11-2001, Kalabai had gone to Ghodadongri Bazar along with her son Durgesh and daughter Kalpana. In the evening at 6 p.m. when they were returning from market, his sister Kalabai and nephew Durgesh stopped on the way for talking to somebody and his niece Kalpana reached her home along with some other lady of her village. Niece Sunaina had come and told him that somebody had stolen kerosene can of deceased and she followed him to get back her can. He also went to see the deceased but he could not find her. On return, he met his nephew. He (Kunjbihari) returned to his home thinking that deceased would return after sometime. In paragraph 3 of his deposition, this witness stated that in the morning of the next day, when he was walking near Behadidhana, he saw dead-body of Kalabai hanging on a Mango Tree and her belongings-bag, pieces of bangles, Chappal were lying on the spot. He immediately rushed towards his home and narrated the incident to his cousin Murli and Ashok. He also narrated the incident to Police Chowki Ghodadongri. In paragraph 7 of his deposition, this witness stated that he knew accused Karan before the incident. His nephew Durgesh told him that accused Karan had carried can of kerosene oil and deceased had followed him. But he did not report in the Marg Intimation (Ex.P/1) that accused/appellant Karan had carried can of kerosene oil and deceased had followed him. He only reported that..........Therefore, his statement could not be corroborated from Marg Intimation (Ex.P/1). 20. After a close and careful analysis of the evidence of above-said witness, the circumstance that was relied on by prosecution namely that accused and deceased were last seen together was not proved beyond doubt. He only reported that..........Therefore, his statement could not be corroborated from Marg Intimation (Ex.P/1). 20. After a close and careful analysis of the evidence of above-said witness, the circumstance that was relied on by prosecution namely that accused and deceased were last seen together was not proved beyond doubt. No doubt the offence is a shocking one but the gravity of the offence needs legal proof. Invariably in such cases, a person last seen with the victim, unless otherwise there are circumstances prima facie exonerating him, would be the prime suspect but in the ultimate judicial adjudication suspicion, however strong, cannot be allowed to take the place of proof. 21. Keeping in view the said discussion, there is no satisfactory proof of the guilt. Therefore, we are of the opinion that it would not be safe to uphold the judgment of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant. We have no other option but to give the benefit of doubt to the appellant and we are constrained to do so in this case. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence of appellant/accused are set aside and he shall be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case. Appeal is allowed.