JUDGMENT (Per A.S. GADKARI, J.): 1. The appellant, original accused, has questioned the correctness of his conviction and sentence by the present appeal, challenging the judgment and order dated 20th December 2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palghar, in Sessions Case No. 69 of 2010 thereby convicting the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/, in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. 2. The facts which can be enumerated from the record, may briefly be stated thus: (i) PW-6 Shri Hemantkumar Patil, the Police Sub-Inspector, on 20.6.2010 was attached to Boisar Police Station, District-Thane. On 20.6.2010, PW-2 Sakubai Ghatal came to the police station and informed PW6 P.S.I. Shri Patil about the death of her daughter. PW2 Sakubai informed the police officer that Smt. Rasu was her daughter. That Smt. Rasu was married to the appellant and had one son out of the said wedlock. Smt. Rasu was residing in the neitghbourhood of PW2 Sakubai. PW2 Sakubai informed PW6, the Investigating Officer, that when she went at the house of her daughter to bring the pot, Smt. Rasu was found sleeping. When PW2 Sakubai touched her, she found her to be dead. She also found that there were no clothes on her person and therefore Sakubai put a knicker on the person of Smt. Rasu. PW2 Sakubai started weeping and therefore people gathered there. PW2 Sakubai found a rope lying beneath the dead body of Smt. Rasu. (ii) PW6 P.S.I. Shri Hemantkumar Patil recorded the complaint of PW2 Sakubai and took her thumb impression on the same. The said complaint i.e. first information report is at Exhibit 13. PW6 Police Sub Inspector Shri Patil thereafter started investigation. PW6 Police Sub Inspector Shri Patil visited the spot and prepared the inquest panchanama and spot panchanama which are at Exhibits 9 and 10 respectively. Shri Patil also seized nylon rope which was lying at the spot. He sent the dead body for conducting postmortem examination. Investigating Officer Shri Patil, during the course of investigation, recorded the statements of the witnesses. He arrested the Appellant after effecting the arrest panchanama which is at Exhibit 21. The seized articles were sent to the Chemical Analyzer with a covering letter. He sent the dead body for conducting postmortem examination. Investigating Officer Shri Patil, during the course of investigation, recorded the statements of the witnesses. He arrested the Appellant after effecting the arrest panchanama which is at Exhibit 21. The seized articles were sent to the Chemical Analyzer with a covering letter. The said covering letter is at Exhibit 22. Shri Patil thereafter collected the postmortem report and Chemical Analyzer's reports. The Chemical Analyzer's reports are at Exhibits. (iii) After completion of the investigation, PW6 Police Sub Inspector Shri Patil submitted chargesheet in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Palghar. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Palghar committed the case, to the Court of Sessions, as the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. After committal of the said case, the learned Trial Court framed charge below Exhibit 5. The said charge was read over and explained to the appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The defence of the appellant is of total denial. (iv) The learned Trial Court, after recording the evidence and after hearing the parties to the said Sessions Case, has convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by the impugned judgment and order dated 20th December 2011, as stated herein above. 3. Heard Ms. Rohini M. Dandekar, learned Counsel appointed for the appellant and Mrs. A.S. Pai, learned APP for the respondent-State. We have carefully scrutinized the record and also the impugned judgment and order passed by the Trial Court. The learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted before us that there is no evidence at all which would connect the appellant with the present crime. She has further submitted that when PW2 Sakubai went to the house of the appellant, the door of the said house was open. It was not locked either from inside or from outside and the probability of anybody else committing the crime, in view of the facts of the present case, cannot be ruled out. She has further submitted that in view of inadequate and weak legal evidence, the appellant is entitled for benefit of doubt. It was not locked either from inside or from outside and the probability of anybody else committing the crime, in view of the facts of the present case, cannot be ruled out. She has further submitted that in view of inadequate and weak legal evidence, the appellant is entitled for benefit of doubt. Per contra, the learned APP has supported the impugned judgment and order and submitted that there is a strong motive for the appellant for committing the present crime and therefore the appellant only had committed the present crime. The learned APP has submitted that the learned Trial Court has passed the impugned judgment and order, correctly and prayed that the present appeal may be dismissed. 4. In order to effectively deal with the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel appointed for the appellant and the learned APP for the respondent-State, it would be useful to refer to the evidence, in brief, of the prosecution witnesses. 5. PW1 Sudhakar Kathya is a panchwitness to the inquest panchanama of deceased Smt. Rasu and the spot panchanama i.e. scene of offence panchanama. The inquest panchanama and spot panchanama are at Exhibits 9 and 10 on record respectively. In his cross-examination, this witness has admitted that Vangaon road is near the spot. He has further admitted that there are houses on both side of Vangaon road. He has also admitted that the company employees are also using the said road. 6. PW2 Smt. Saku Risha Ghatal is the mother of deceased Smt. Rasu. PW2 in her testimony has stated that deceased Smt. Rasu was her daughter. That Smt. Rasu was married with the appellant Kamlesh. That Smt. Rasu was having one son out of the said wedlock. Smt. Rasu was residing with her husband in the neighbourhood of PW2. This witness has further stated that the appellant was suspecting about the character of Smt. Rasu and was assaulting her. That whenever PW2 Smt. Saku Ghatal was present at the spot, she was intervening in their quarrel. PW2 has further stated that one year before, when she went at the house of her daughter Smt. Rasu to bring the pot, Smt. Rasu was found sleeping and when she touched her, PW2 found her to be dead. PW2 has further stated that there were no clothes on the person of Smt. Rasu. PW2 put knicker on her person and started weeping. PW2 has further stated that there were no clothes on the person of Smt. Rasu. PW2 put knicker on her person and started weeping. PW2 has further stated that there was nobody in the house. That Smt. Sakubai's husband and son were not in the house and people gathered at the spot. PW2 Smt. Sakubai found a rope which was lying below the dead body of Smt. Rasu. She thereafter lodged a complaint with the police station. The said complaint is at Exhibit 13. This witness was cross-examined at length by the appellant. In the cross-examination, this witness has admitted that there are houses surrounding the house of Smt. Rasu. This witness has further admitted that Smt. Rasu and her husband i.e. the appellant were working on a brick kiln in other village. She has admitted that Smt. Rasu was coming alone to see her. She has admitted that sometimes Smt. Rasu was going alone for work and was returning from work after 12 months. She has admitted that the father of the appellant was residing in the field and sometimes appellant was also residing at the house of his father. She has further admitted that when the appellant was residing at the house of his father in the field, at that time Smt. Rasu was residing in the house alone. PW2 has further admitted in her cross-examination that, Smt. Rasu was drinking liquor for some time. She has further admitted in unequivocal words that, as the appellant was not present at the spot, she took doubt about him. 7. PW3 is Risha Kalya Ghatal, the father of deceased Smt. Rasu. PW3 in his testimony has stated that Smt. Rasu was his daughter. That Smt. Rasu was married with the appellant. Smt. Rasu got one son out of the said wedlock. That the appellant was assaulting Smt. Rasu after drinking liquor. He has further stated that before one year, his wife i.e. PW2 went at the house of Smt. Rasu. His wife started shouting, therefore he went to the house of Smt. Rasu. He found Smt. Rasu was lying naked, her bangles were broken. Police thereafter recorded his statement. In the cross-examination, an omission has been brought on record to the effect that, this witness has not stated in his police statement that the appellant was assaulting Smt. Rasu after drinking liquor. 8. He found Smt. Rasu was lying naked, her bangles were broken. Police thereafter recorded his statement. In the cross-examination, an omission has been brought on record to the effect that, this witness has not stated in his police statement that the appellant was assaulting Smt. Rasu after drinking liquor. 8. PW4 is Nilesh Kamlesh Mahalodha, aged 7 years. This witness is son of deceased Smt. Rasu and Appellant. This witness has stated that his father did not assault his mother. As this witness did not support the prosecution case, he was declared hostile and the APP had cross-examined this witness. In the cross-examination, this witness stuck to his version that his father did not assault his mother. He also denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely to save his father. 9. PW5 is Manoj Balkrushna Shinde, the Medical Officer attached to the Public Health Center, Tarapur. PW5 in his testimony has stated that on 20.6.2010, the dead body of Smt. Rasubai Kamlesh Mahalodha was brought by Head Constable No.238 from Boisar Police station for postmortem. That he conducted the postmortem on 21.6.2010 between 10.30 a.m. to 11.30 a.m. That he found ligature mark around neck, about 33 cm x 1 cm extending anterior aspect of neck. He did not find any other external injury. On internal examination, PW5 found fracture tracheal ring. He therefore opined that the cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation. The postmortem report is at Exhibit 19. PW5 has further stated that the strangulation was possible by the rope which is Article no.1 before the Court. This witness was cross-examined at length by the appellant. However, no fruitful material has been elicited at the instance of this witness, which would come to the help of the appellant. 10. PW6 is Shri Hemantkumar Patil. This witness has stated in his testimony that on 20.6.2010, he was attached to Boisar Police Station as Police Sub-Inspector. He has stated that on 20.6.2010 PW2 Sakubai came to the police station and informed him about the incident. He recorded her complaint and took her thumb impression on the same. The said complaint is at Exhibit 13. He thereafter started investigation. During the course of investigation, he prepared inquest panchanama, drew spot panchanama which are at Exhibits 9 and 10 respectively. He arrested the appellant after effecting the arrest panchanama which is at Exhibit 21. He recorded her complaint and took her thumb impression on the same. The said complaint is at Exhibit 13. He thereafter started investigation. During the course of investigation, he prepared inquest panchanama, drew spot panchanama which are at Exhibits 9 and 10 respectively. He arrested the appellant after effecting the arrest panchanama which is at Exhibit 21. After completion of the investigation, he submitted chargesheet before the competent Court having jurisdiction, as stated herein above. In the cross-examination of this witness, nothing has been brought on record by the appellant which would discredit the testimony of this witness. 11. Thus, it is found from the testimonies of PW2 Smt. Saku Risha Ghatal and PW3 Risha Ghatal that the appellant was having motive to commit the murder of deceased Smt. Rasu as the appellant was suspicious about the character of deceased Smt. Rasu. It is the settled position of law that mere motive, however strong it may be, in the absence of any other surrounding and corroborative evidence brought on record by the prosecution, is insufficient to base the conviction of the accused. In the present case, except motive there is no other material at all which would connect the appellant with the present crime. 12. It appears from the record that the rope which was found beneath the dead body of deceased Smt. Rasu was sent to the Chemical Analyzer, and that piece of evidence which would primarily prove that strangulation of Smt. Rasu was caused by use of the said rope is missing. The next circumstance that the dead body of Smt Rasu was found in the house of the appellant itself is insufficient to connect the appellant in the present crime. There is no witness to point the finger towards the appellant that the appellant was either seen in the company of deceased Smt. Rasu lastly or somebody saw the appellant on the particular day either coming or going to the house or saw the appellant with bloodstained clothes or moving in the village in suspicious condition. The record discloses that the appellant was arrested on 23.6.2010 from the said village. PW2 in her testimony has nowhere stated that the house of the appellant was either closed from outside or inside, as a matter of fact she has stated that when she went to the house of Smt. Rasu, she went directly inside the house. The record discloses that the appellant was arrested on 23.6.2010 from the said village. PW2 in her testimony has nowhere stated that the house of the appellant was either closed from outside or inside, as a matter of fact she has stated that when she went to the house of Smt. Rasu, she went directly inside the house. Thus, in our opinion, taking into consideration the evidence of PW2 and PW3, there is probability that somebody else also might have committed the offence. We are expressing this probability in view of the fact that the finding of dead body of Smt. Rasu in her house without there being any clothes on her person and also taking into consideration the admissions given by PW2 and PW3 about the closeness of the main road from the spot of the incident. 13. The evidence on record is too scanty to complete the chain of circumstances, which would lead us to accept the sole hypothesis that the appellant is guilty of offence in the present case and to sustain his conviction. After scrutinizing the entire evidence available on record minutely, according to us there is no evidence at all which would connect the appellant with the present crime. We are therefore of the considered opinion that the appellant is entitled for benefit of doubt. Hence, we extend the benefit of doubt to the appellant in the present case. 14. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed thereby quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment and order dated 20th December 2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palghar, District Thane in Sessions Case No. 69 of 2010, and we acquit the Appellant from the charges levelled against him. Since the appellant is in jail, he be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. Fine, if any paid, same be refunded to the appellant immediately. 15. We quantify the total legal fees to be paid to Ms. Rohini M. Dandekar, the learned Advocate appointed by the Legal Services Committee to represent the appellant in this appeal, at Rs.5000/. 16. Since the appellant is in jail, the Registry is directed to communicate this order to the concerned jail authority forthwith and without any delay.