JUDGMENT : P. V. HARDAS, J. The appellant, who stands convicted for an offence punishable under Sections 376 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- in default of which to undergo RI for one month and imprisonment for life and to pay a fine ofRs.200/- in default of which to undergo RI for one month, by the III Additional Sessions Judge. Thane, by judgment dated 5/8/2005, in Sessions Case No. 354 of 2004, by this appeal questions the correctness of his conviction and sentence. 2. Facts, as are necessary for the decision of this appeal, may briefly be stated thus:- PW 10 - PI Bajirao Bhosale, who, in April 2004, was attached to the Kashmira Police Station, was entrusted with the investigation of Crime No. 68 of 2004, which had been registered under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC by PSI Dhamdhare on the basis of the report of one Mohammad Chaudhari. PW 10-PI Bhosale, on being entrusted with the investigation, proceeded to the scene of the incident and in the presence of panchas drew the scene of the incident panchanama at Exh.12. An inquest panchanama at Exh.10 had also been drawn. Statements of witnesses were recorded and the clothes of deceased were seized under seizure memo at Exh.13. Statement of PW 4 - Shaikh Mobin Ahmed, father of deceased Heena was recorded. Statements of other witnesses were also recoded and on 12/4/2004, the accused was arrested under arrest panchanama at Exh.28. Certain injuries were noticed on the person of the accused and the accused was, therefore, referred for medical examination. The appellant/accused was examined by PW 7 -- Dr. Ramchand Dhotre, who noticed the following external injuries:- (1) Scratch mark seen over sternal notch with reddish black scab formed. (2) Scratch mark seen on right knee joint lateral aspect of size 3 cm. length with reddish black scab formed. He had accordingly issued the certificate which is at Exh.38. The clothes on the person of the accused were also seized at the time of his arrest under arrest panchanama. During custodial interrogation, on 15/11/2004, the accused expressed his willingness to point out the place where the purse and the mobile hand-set of deceased had been concealed. A memorandum to that effect was drawn in the presence of panchas at Exh.26. During custodial interrogation, on 15/11/2004, the accused expressed his willingness to point out the place where the purse and the mobile hand-set of deceased had been concealed. A memorandum to that effect was drawn in the presence of panchas at Exh.26. The appellant led the police and the panchas to Trivedi Complex and pointed out an auto-rickshaw bearing registration No.MH-04-AE-4725. From the auto-rickshaw, the appellant produced a white coloured purse which had been kept near the driver seat in the auto-rickshaw. The appellant also produced a mobile hand-set of Nokia Company from behind the rear seat of the auto-rickshaw. The purse and the mobile hand-set were accordingly seized in the presence of panch as at Exh.27. Statements of witnesses were recorded and viscera of deceased was referred to Chemical Analyzer on 22/4/2004 under requisition at Exh.48. On the same day, the seized property was referred to the C.A. under requisition at Exh.49. The report of the C.A. is at Exh.50. Further to the completion of investigation, a charge-sheet against the appellant was filed. Postmortem on the dead body of deceased Heena was performed by PW 7 - Dr. Dhotre, who noticed the following injuries: (1) Injuries to external genitals, vagina congested, blood stains seen in vagina. (2) Hymen ruptured and edges seen irregular. (3) Ligature mark seen over right side of neck from thyroid cartilage directed backward behind ear up to left side of occipital fossa of size 26 x 3 cm. and underlying skin contused and seen chocolate brown coloured. (4.) Multiple chocolate brown coloured marks seen chin downward over neck of size (1) 6 x 3 cms. (2) 3 x 1 cm. (3) 1 x 1 cm (4) 4 x 1 cms. (5) Multiple small abrasions seen on left side of neck below ear and one linear abrasion over left side of occipital region of 4 cms. length. (6) Multiple scratch marks seen on right side of face and both forearms. (7) Reddish black contusion mark seen on right thigh upper 1/3 rd anteriorly of size 16 x 6 cms. (8) C. L. W. above occipital fossa of size 3 x 1 x 1/2 cms. (9) Fractured both shoulder joints. (10) Fractured neck of both femoral bone. (11) Fractured dislocation of cervical vertical. (12) Fractured base of skull vault. (7) Reddish black contusion mark seen on right thigh upper 1/3 rd anteriorly of size 16 x 6 cms. (8) C. L. W. above occipital fossa of size 3 x 1 x 1/2 cms. (9) Fractured both shoulder joints. (10) Fractured neck of both femoral bone. (11) Fractured dislocation of cervical vertical. (12) Fractured base of skull vault. On internal examination, haemotoma was seen on right parietal and occipital region and fracture on the base of skull vault was noticed. The Medical Officer opined that all the injuries were ante-mortem and according to PW 7 - Dr. Dhotre, the cause of death was cardio-respiratory arrest due to neck constriction and multiple fractures. The postmortem report is at Exh.35. According to Dr. Dhotre, deceased Heena had been ravished before she was killed. 3. On committal of case to Court of Sessions, trial court vide Exh.2, framed charge against the appellant for offence punishable under Sections 376, 302, 201 and 404 of the IPC. The appellant denied his guilt and claimed to be tried. Prosecution, in support of its case, examined 10 witnesses. 4. The case against the appellant rests on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution, in order to succeed on the basis of circumstantial evidence, has to prove each and every circumstance on which it proposes to rely. The circumstances so proved should be of a conclusive nature i.e. they should have a definite tendency of implicating the accused. The circumstances so proved should form a complete chain which should exclude every hypothesis of the innocence of the accused, except the hypothesis sought to be proved by the prosecution. The circumstances so proved should be capable of one hypothesis and that is that the accused and the accused alone has committed the offence. 5. Prosecution has examined PW 1 -- Mohd. Niyaz, who deposes that he knew the accused, who was an auto-rickshaw driver. Mohd. Niyaz further deposes that he and the accused were residing in Flat No. 703, Trivedi Complex, Mira Road. He further deposes that on 10/4/2004 the appellant had gone to ply his auto-rickshaw as usual and met the appellant on the night of 11/4/2004. He had noticed that the accused was quiet and did not talk with PW 1- Mohd. Niyaz and others. On an inquiry being made by PW 1- Mohd. Niyaz, the appellant disclosed that he was under tension and was unhappy. He had noticed that the accused was quiet and did not talk with PW 1- Mohd. Niyaz and others. On an inquiry being made by PW 1- Mohd. Niyaz, the appellant disclosed that he was under tension and was unhappy. In cross-examination, an omission has been elicited that Mohd. Niyaz had not stated in his previous statement that the accused used to ply the rickshaw for the entire night and used to return in the morning. Omission is also elicited that he had not disclosed to the police that on 11/4/2004 at about 1 a.m. he had met the accused and the accused had disclosed that he was under tension. 6. Prosecution has examined PW 4 - Shaikh Mobin Ahmed, father of deceased Heena. PW 4 - Shaikh Ahmed deposes that Heena was his eldest daughter who was working in the Holiday Home. The office of Holiday Home was situated at Andheri (East) and Heena used to attend the offence from 4 p.m. to 11.45 p.m. Heena used to return either by Bus or by Rickshaw. On 10/4/2004, Heena had attended the office as usual and was wearing a black coloured salvar with a black coloured top and was also wearing a dupatta. Heena was carrying a white coloured purse and was possessing a mobile hand-set of Nokia Company, which was bluish in colour. According to him, he waited for Heena till about 12 O'Clock and since Heena did not return, at about 3 a.m. he had gone to the public call office to telephone Heena. He had telephoned her mobile, but could not establish contact. According to PW 4 - Shaikh Ahmed, his other daughter had disclosed to him that two days prior to the incident, one motorcyclist had teased Heena. On 12/4/2004 PW 4 - Shaikh Ahmed lodged his report at the police station. He was informed about finding of the dead body of Heena which was kept in the morgue at the Civil Hospital. He has identified the purse and the mobile hand-set as well as the clothes as belonging to his daughter Heena. 7. In cross-examination, an omission has been elicited that he had not disclosed that the mobile was bluish in colour. An omission is also elicited that he had not disclosed in his previous statement about hearing the noise of a vehicle when he had tried to contact his daughter Heena on her mobile. 7. In cross-examination, an omission has been elicited that he had not disclosed that the mobile was bluish in colour. An omission is also elicited that he had not disclosed in his previous statement about hearing the noise of a vehicle when he had tried to contact his daughter Heena on her mobile. He has reiterated that his daughter Zahina had disclosed to him that two days prior to the incident, Heena had informed Zahina about two persons, who had come 01) motorcycle and had teased Heena. 8. Prosecution has also examined PW 6 -- Anne Abdulla Almeri, first cousin of deceased Heena. She has also deposed about Heena attending the office till 11.55 to 12 midnight and about Heena returning either by train and from the railway station by Bus or Auto-rickshaw. She has identified the appellant as the auto-rickshaw driver in whose auto-rickshaw she had seen Hena traveling on several occasions. PW 6 - Anne then deposes about Heena informing her on 8/4/2004 about two motorcyclists teasing and passing comments. On 10/4/2004 Heena had left the house as usual, but did not return till about midnight. Since she did not return at about 2 a.m., father of Heena i.e. PW 4 - Shaikh Ahmed was awakened and was informed. PW 6 -- Anne then went to the railway station to inquiry if Heena had been injured in any railway accident. She got it confirmed in the morning that there was no railway accident. She also inquired from the office, where Heena was working, if Heena had left the office. She then deposes that father of Hena had gone to the police station and had lodged his report. She has identified the mobile (Article 4) and the purse (Article 15) as belonging to Heena. She has also identified the contents of the purse of Heena. In cross-examination, an omission is elicited that she had not stated that Heena used to travel in the auto-rickshaw of the appellant. Omission is also elicited that she had not stated about Heena traveling in the auto-rickshaw on several occasions. 9. Prosecution has examined PW 3 - Nitin Kene, a panch to the seizure of the cloths of the appellant. PW 3 -- Nitin deposes about being called at the Kashmira Police Station on 12/4/2004 and about seizure of shirt, trouser and underwear of the accused. 9. Prosecution has examined PW 3 - Nitin Kene, a panch to the seizure of the cloths of the appellant. PW 3 -- Nitin deposes about being called at the Kashmira Police Station on 12/4/2004 and about seizure of shirt, trouser and underwear of the accused. According to him, the shirt was stained with blood. He has identified his signature on the panchanama at Exh.28. Incidentally, we may state that the CA. report at Exh.50 does not disclose that the shirt was stained with blood. The trouser of the appellant was found to be stained with blood. The result of the analysis, however, was inconclusive. The Investigating Officer- PW 10- PI Bhosale has also deposed about seizure of the clothes of the appellant. The appellant is alleged to have committed the offence on 10/4/2004. We find it inconceivable that the appellant would be wearing the same blood stained clothes. In any event, since the blood group has not been determined, according to us, the seizure of the blood stained clothes of the appellant cannot be said to be a circumstance, which would implicate the appellant in the said crime. Moreover, there is no evidence about sealing of the articles on their seizure and the articles remained in that sealed condition till they were ultimately examined by the C.A. Thus, in the absence of evidence regarding sealing, the report of the C.A. loses it significance. 10. Prosecution has examined PW 2 -Ismail Mulla and PW 5 -- Mulla Sayyad as the panchas to the recovery of the mobile hand-set and the purse from the auto-rickshaw of the appellant. PW 2 - Ismail Mulla deposes that he was called to the Kashmira Police Station on 15/4/2004. The appellant had made a statement that he would point out the spot and the auto-rickshaw. PW 5 - Mulla Sayyad, the other panch, deposes that the appellant had made a statement that he would point out the spot of the incident. According to the Investigating Officer, the purse and the mobile hand-set were found in the auto-rickshaw of the appellant and which were seized on the appellant producing the same. 11. The prosecution heavily relied upon this circumstance to connect the accused with the commission of the offence. According to the Investigating Officer, the purse and the mobile hand-set were found in the auto-rickshaw of the appellant and which were seized on the appellant producing the same. 11. The prosecution heavily relied upon this circumstance to connect the accused with the commission of the offence. As pointed out by us above, the purse has been identified by PW 4 -- Shaikh Ahmed, father of deceased Heena and PW 6 - Anne, cousin of deceased Heena. None of these witnesses have deposes about any peculiar identifying mark, on the basis of which they had identified the articles. The evidence of PW 10 - PI Bhosale indicates that certain articles were found in the purse, which was found in the auto-rickshaw. No efforts have been made to establish the identity of the owner of the purse on the basis of the contents of the purse. The identification of the purse as well as the mobile hand-set, which is only on the basis of its colour, according to us, is not a circumstance which would implicate the appellant in the commission of the crime. 12. The other circumstance, on which the prosecution has relied, is the evidence of PW 8 - Dr. Anil kumar Yadav, who had examined the appellant. As pointed out by us above, he had noticed two external injuries. Unfortunately, PW 8 - Dr. Yadav does not depose about the age of the injuries. The prosecution has thus not been able to establish that the accused had sustained the injuries at about the time when the offence was committed. In the absence of such evidence, mere finding of two injuries on the person of the accused cannot be said to be a circumstance which would establish that it was the appellant who had committed the crime. 13. Thus, having considered the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, according to us, the prosecution has miserably failed in proving the offence against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. It is unfortunate that Heena, a girl of 23 years was ravished and was killed on the night of 10/4/ 2001. However, the prosecution has not proved the offence against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant, therefore, in our opinion, would be entitled to be given the benefit of doubt. 14. It is unfortunate that Heena, a girl of 23 years was ravished and was killed on the night of 10/4/ 2001. However, the prosecution has not proved the offence against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant, therefore, in our opinion, would be entitled to be given the benefit of doubt. 14. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence of the appellant is hereby quashed and set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the offence with which he was charged and convicted. Fine, if paid by the appellant, be refunded to him. Since the appellant is in jail, he be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. Appeal allowed.