JUDGMENT A.S. GADKARI, J. The Appellant / original accused has preferred the present Appeal against the judgment and order dated 5th April 2012 in Sessions Case NO.221 of 2010 thereby convicting the Appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default of payment of fine to suffer further imprisonment for two years. The Appellant has further been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 177 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for twenty days. The Trial Court has directed that both the sentences shall run concurrently. The Appellant has impugned the said judgment and order dated 5th April 2012 in the present Appeal. 2. P.W.10 – Police Constable Mohan Gaikwad was attached to Kurduwadi Police Station on 7th May 2010 as Police Station Officer. On the said day, the Appellant went to the police station and gave information about the death of his brother Bhanudas. P.W.10 – Police Constable Mohan Gaikwad reduced the said information in writing and registered the same as per Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code in the accidental death register. The said information given by the Appellant to Kurduwadi Police Station which came to be treated as an information under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code is at Exhibit 55.The enquiry of the said ADR was handed over to P.W.8 - Police Constable Mundhe. During the course of the enquiry of the said ADR, the brother of deceased Bhanudas viz. P.W.1 – Rama Sambhaji Borade came to police station and lodged the First Information Report. On the basis of the said First Information Report offence was registered as Crime No.80 of 2010 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the investigation was thereafter handed over to PSI Bhosale. 3. P.W.8 – A.S.I. Maharudra Mundhe during the course of the enquiry under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code prepared inquest panchanama of the dead body on the spot and thereafter sent the dead body of deceased Bhanudas for postmortem examination. He then prepared the spot panchanama which is at Exhibit 16. He found a stone which was approximately 3 kgs. He then prepared the spot panchanama which is at Exhibit 16. He found a stone which was approximately 3 kgs. in weight at the spot of the incident. He collected blood mixed sand / mud from the spot. The clothes of the deceased were seized and the same were handed over to the Investigating Officer for examination. The seizure panchanama of the clothes of the deceased is at Exhibit 21. As stated above thereafter the offence was registered bearing C.R. No.80 of 2010 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the investigation was handed over to P.W.9 - PSI Bhosale. 4. P.W.9 – P.S.I. Ramchandra Bhosale was attached to Kurduwadi Police Station on 7th May 2010. After P.W.10 – Police Constable Mohan Gaikwad registered the offence i.e. C.R. No.80 of 2010 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, the papers pertaining to the enquiry which was carried out under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code were also handed over to him. After receipt of the documents, he went to the scene of offence. As P.W.1 – Rama i.e. the brother of Bhanudas had mentioned the name of the Appellant as a suspect, P.W.9 – PSI Bhosale took into custody the Appellant for investigation. The Appellant came to be arrested in presence of two panch witnesses. The Investigating Officer seized the clothes of the Appellant which were on his person in the presence of panch witnesses. During the course of investigation, he recorded the statement of witnesses. P.W.10 – Police Constable Mohan Gaikwad sent the seized articles to the Chemical Analyser at Pune for examination. He received the Chemical Analyser’s reports which are at Exhibits 38 and 39. He also collected the report lodged by the deceased which was treated as non-cognizable complaint in respect of the quarrel that had occurred earlier between the deceased and the Appellant which is at Exhibit 31. The documents in respect of the civil dispute which was pending in the Civil Court between the Appellant, the deceased and P.W.1 – Rama pertaining to the partition of their property were also collected. The said documents are at Exhibit 33. After completion of the investigation P.W.9-PSI Bhosale submitted a charge-sheet against the Appellant in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Madha. 5. The Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Madha thereafter committed the said case to the Court of Sessions for trial. The said documents are at Exhibit 33. After completion of the investigation P.W.9-PSI Bhosale submitted a charge-sheet against the Appellant in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Madha. 5. The Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Madha thereafter committed the said case to the Court of Sessions for trial. After committal of the said case, the Trial Court framed charge below Exhibit 4 against the Appellant under Sections 302 and 177 of the Indian Penal Code for committing murder of Bhanudas and furnishing incorrect information to the police. The said charge was read over and explained to the Appellant in vernacular Marathi language to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The learned Trial Court after recording the evidence and after hearing the parties to the said case was pleased to convict the Appellant by the impugned judgment and order dated 5th April 2012 as stated herein above. 6. We have heard Mr. Arfan Sait, learned counsel appointed by the High Court Legal Services Committee and Smt. V.R. Bhonsale, learned APP for the State. Mr. Sait, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that the present case is based solely on circumstantial evidence. He further submitted that P.W.1 – Rama Bodare i.e. the brother of the Appellant and deceased Bhanudas, had lodged the First Information Report only on the basis of suspicion. He has further submitted that there was no motive for the Appellant to commit the said crime and the prosecution has also failed to substantiate the motive in the present crime. He further submitted that the circumstance about the lodging of the false report dated 7th May 2010 which is at Exhibit 55, reported by the Appellant to the Police has not been put to the Appellant while recording his statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code and therefore the said circumstance cannot be relied upon and has to be excluded from consideration. He therefore submitted that his conviction under Section 177 of the Indian Penal Code is legally not maintainable. Mr. Sait submitted that taking into consideration the fact that there are two views possible in the present case, the benefit of doubt be given to the Appellant by allowing the present Appeal. On the other hand the learned APP in her arguments supported the impugned judgment and order and submitted that the Appellant has been rightly convicted by the Trial Court. On the other hand the learned APP in her arguments supported the impugned judgment and order and submitted that the Appellant has been rightly convicted by the Trial Court. She therefore prayed that the present Appeal may be dismissed. 7. The present case is based on circumstantial evidence and the circumstances which have been put forth by the prosecution are that the dead body of Bhanudas was found in the courtyard where he was residing in the field, the alleged false report given by the Appellant to Kurduwadi Police Station on 7th May 2010 stating therein that when he went to see his brother on 7th May 2010, he found his brother Bhanudas dead near the earthen stove in burnt condition and the clothes of the Appellant found stained with the blood of deceased Bhanudas. 8. It is the settled position of law that in a case of circumstantial evidence the circumstances on which the prosecution relies must be consistent with the sole hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. In case of resting on circumstantial evidence, it is incumbent for the prosecution to prove each and every circumstance on which it proposes to rely. The circumstances so proved should be of conclusive nature i.e. they should have a definite tendency of implicating the accused. The circumstances so established should form a complete chain which should exclude every hypothesis of the innocence of the accused and unquestionably point towards the guilt of the accused. In other words the circumstances should be conclusive i.e. accused and the accused alone has committed the crime. 9. In a case of circumstantial evidence, the judgment remains essentially inferential. Inferences are drawn from established facts, as the circumstances lead to particular inferences. The Court must draw an inference with respect to whether the chain of circumstances is complete, and when the circumstances therein are collectively considered, the same must lead only to the irresistible conclusion, that the accused alone is the perpetrator of the crime in question. All the circumstances so established must be of a conclusive nature, and consistent only with hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. If the circumstances proved in case are consistent either with innocence of accused or with his guilt then the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. All the circumstances so established must be of a conclusive nature, and consistent only with hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. If the circumstances proved in case are consistent either with innocence of accused or with his guilt then the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. When it is held that a certain fact has been proved, then the question that arises is whether such a fact leads to the inference of guilt on the part of the accused person or not, and in dealing with this aspect of the problem, benefit of doubt must be given to the accused, and a final inference of guilt against him must be drawn only if the proved fact is wholly inconsistent with the innocence of the accused, and is entirely consist with his guilt. An adverse inference can be drawn against the accused only and only if the incriminating material stands fully established, and the accused is not able to furnish any explanation for the same. However, the accused has the right to remain silent, as he cannot be forced to become a witness against himself. 10. In the present case, the prosecution has examined in all ten witnesses in support of its case. 11. P.W.1 – Rama Sambhaji Borade is the real brother of deceased Bhanudas and Appellant Hari. P.W.1 in his testimony has stated that he and his brothers resided at Pimple Khute, Taluka Madha near Kurduwadi. That his brother owned 7.5 Acres of agricultural land. It was in the name of Bhanudas i.e. the deceased, his elder brother. Bhanudas had no relatives. That Bhanudas’s wife and daughter had left him and never returned back. He was alone residing in a hut near the agricultural land owned by Sumant Brahman. He has further stated that the Appellant used to always ask the deceased to distribute the land and transfer his share of the land in his name as the deceased has no wife and children. That there used to be constant quarrels between them arising out of the said issue. A civil suit was filed by P.W.1 – Rama and deceased Bhanudas against the Appellant as defendant in the Civil Court at Madha for partition of land and handing over of separate possession. The Appellant used to threaten deceased Bhanudas by questioning him as to why he filed a suit against him. A civil suit was filed by P.W.1 – Rama and deceased Bhanudas against the Appellant as defendant in the Civil Court at Madha for partition of land and handing over of separate possession. The Appellant used to threaten deceased Bhanudas by questioning him as to why he filed a suit against him. There was a fight between Bhanudas, and the Appellant and deceased Bhanudas has lodged a report with Kurduwadi Police Station on 21st July 2009. The said report is at Exhibit 31. That on 7th May 2010 he received a telephonic message from his son Bharat informing him that Bhanudas had expired. He therefore went to the farm where Bhanudas used to reside. He saw Bhanudas lying outside the hut with a big stone lying besides his body. He also noticed that Bhanudas has sustained injuries on his head. The clothes of Bhanudas were drenched with blood. There was an injury on the right parietal region of his head. The Appellant had also informed the police about the incident and when P.W.1 – Rama was at the spot of incident, police came there and prepared the relative panchanamas. The dead body of Bhanudas was sent to hospital for performing the postmortem examination. After postmortem examination the dead body was handed over to him. He has further stated that it was because of his suspicion he stated the name of the Appellant to the police as the culprit because the deceased Bhanudas had no enmity with anyone else. The deceased had strained relations only with the Appellant and the Appellant used to threaten Bhanudas that he would kill him. He has further stated that their farm was in the possession of the Appellant and the Appellant was cultivating it. The Appellant never allowed Bhanudas to enter into the farm and P.W.1 – Rama never used to enter into it. As the Appellant was not allowing the deceased to enter into the farm, the deceased was residing in the farm of one Sumant Brahman. He has further stated that the distance between the farm and the hut of the deceased was near and the shout could be heard. The true copy of RCS No.144 of 2008 which is at Exhibit 33 has been proved by this witness. 12. He has further stated that the distance between the farm and the hut of the deceased was near and the shout could be heard. The true copy of RCS No.144 of 2008 which is at Exhibit 33 has been proved by this witness. 12. In the cross examination this witness has admitted that after the death their parents, he along with his brothers and sisters became the owners of the land. That his sisters had given up or relinquished their rights in those land. The names of deceased Bhanudas, P.W.1 himself and Appellant Hari came to be entered in the revenue records i.e. in the 7/12 extract. He has further admitted that the Appellant used to cultivate their ancestral land and used to take entire income derived from the said agricultural crop. That the Appellant was not paying or giving any output from the said land to them. He has further admitted that the civil suit for partition and separate possession is pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division at Madha. During the cross examination, certain improvements made by this witness in his examination-in-chief have been brought on record by the Appellant. 13. P.W.2 – Bharat Borade is the son of P.W.1 – Rama and nephew of the Appellant and the deceased. This witness in his testimony has also disclosed about the motive behind the crime at the instance of the Appellant. He corroborates the testimony of P.W.1 – Rama on the point of motive. In cross-examination no material which would come to the help of the Appellant has been elicited. 14. P.W.3 – Ankush Ghate a Police Constable is a formal witness. This witness carried the articles seized by the Investigating Officer to the Chemical Analyser at Pune. 15. P.W.4 is Umaji Bodare, the panch witness to the arrest of the Appellant. This witness in his testimony has stated that at the time of the arrest of the Appellant the shirt which was on the person of the Appellant was having bloodstains and the same was handed over by the Appellant to the police. The police seized the said shirt. This witness has proved the arrest panchanama which is at Exhibit 42. In his cross-examination this witness has admitted that the complainant Rama is distantly related to him and the relations between them are cordeal. 16. P.W.5 is Mr. Phulchand Kurmure. The police seized the said shirt. This witness has proved the arrest panchanama which is at Exhibit 42. In his cross-examination this witness has admitted that the complainant Rama is distantly related to him and the relations between them are cordeal. 16. P.W.5 is Mr. Phulchand Kurmure. His farm was adjoining to the farm of the Appellant and the deceased. As this witness did not support the prosecution case, this witness came to be declared as hostile and the learned APP cross examined this witness. Even in the cross examination no material which is of any help to the prosecution was elicited at the behest of this witness. 17. P.W.6 is Dr. Shashikant Trimbake. P.W.6 has conducted the postmortem of the dead body of Bhanudas. P.W.6 in his testimony has stated that on 7th May 2010 he was attached to Rural Hospital, Kurduwadi when the dead body of a male person was brought by P.W.8 - Police Constable Mundhe for performing the postmortem examination. That on 7th May 2010 at about 5.15 p.m. he commenced the postmortem examination and completed it at about 6.45 p.m. On examination he found that the dead body had already developed slight rigor mortis with signs of decomposition. Lividity was present over buttocks, lions, back, thigh except at pressure area and blister formation at later surface of chest and lion. Skin separated over both limbs, shines and inguinal region. Maggots present at the site of C.L.W. Blackish discoloration of face with dependent odema over left cheek. Right side showing depression, eyelids closed and pupil dilated. Upper eyelid swollen in the size of 3.5 cm x 1.5 cm spindle shaped. Mouth – Tongue protruded, in between jaws with formation of small maggots. Nostrils showing oozing of foul smell blackish fluid and blood. Ears – Normal. Genital – Normal. CLW at right temporal region spindle chapped of 5 cm x 2.5 cm wide x 4 cm deep; with depression on small maggots and foul smelling blood discharge. As per the opinion of P.W. 6 – Dr. Trimbake the age of injury was between 48 hours to 72 hours from the time of conducting the postmortem examination. P.W.6 – Dr. Trimbake opined that the said injury was caused by hard and blunt forceful trauma. P.W.6 – Dr. Trimbake further found, clinically fracture below the CLW palpable and the injuries mentioned in column No.17 are ante mortem in nature. P.W.6 – Dr. Trimbake opined that the said injury was caused by hard and blunt forceful trauma. P.W.6 – Dr. Trimbake further found, clinically fracture below the CLW palpable and the injuries mentioned in column No.17 are ante mortem in nature. He also mentioned that the injury mentioned in column No.19 i.e. injury under the scalp : CLW at right temporal as mentioned in Column No.17 with hematoma formation under total scalp. He also observed depression fracture at right temporal extending to right frontal left parietal and vertex with separate of piece at vertex as mentioned in column No.17. He also found hemotama under the scalp and subdural region with laceration of brain of right cerebrum with small maggots formation. He also found stomach and intestine empty. P.W.6 – Dr. Trimbake further stated that the injuries in column Nos.17 and 19 correspond to each other. He has further stated that the death of that person might have occurred prior to 36 hours from the time of postmortem examination. He further stated that the said person was alive for some time after the injuries were caused to him and in his opinion the said person was alive for a period of approximately 12 hours. He opined that the death was caused due to injury mentioned in column No.17 and the said injury was caused by an assault with a hard and blunt object. In the cross examination this witness admitted and in fact reiterated his opinion given in his examination-in-chief that the injury which was caused to the deceased was caused prior to minimum 48 hours and maximum 72 hours from the time of postmortem examination. 18. P.W.7 is Babasaheb Satav. This witness in his testimony has stated that the agricultural farm of Mr. Sumant was adjoining to his farm and the land of the Appellant and his brothers is situated next to it. That deceased Bhanudas was residing in the farm of Sumant. That Bhanudas used to reside alone. He has further stated that Appellant Hari used to reside along with his family in his own house which is beyond the farm of Sumant. That when he was watering the sugarcane crop in his farm, he saw the Appellant, his wife and his children proceeding from their house towards Bhanudas’s house and they were crying. He has further stated that Appellant Hari used to reside along with his family in his own house which is beyond the farm of Sumant. That when he was watering the sugarcane crop in his farm, he saw the Appellant, his wife and his children proceeding from their house towards Bhanudas’s house and they were crying. When he enquired with them as to why they were crying they informed him that Hari's brother Bhanudas has expired. He then proceeded with the watering of the crop of his farm. That as per the custom prevailing in the village, he thereafter went for collecting the ashes of deceased Bhanudas. This witness was cross examined by the Appellant. However, it appears to us that as nothing substantive has been elicited by this witness in his examination-in-chief, the cross examination has proceeded in routine manner by putting general suggestions. 19. P.W.8 – Maharudra Mundhe, is the Police Constable who conducted the enquiry into the accidental death report as contemplated under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code and as has been stated in the foregoing paragraph. 20. P.W.10 is Mohan Gaikwad who has recorded the ADR No.23 of 2010 dated 7th May 2010 on the statement of the Appellant. 21. P.W.9 is PSI Ramchandra Bhosale, the Investigating Officer of C.R.No.80 of 2010 i.e. the present case. The various steps taken by P.W.10, 8 and 9 respectively from the registration of ADR No.23 of 2010 till filing of the charge-sheet before the Court of competent jurisdiction have been mentioned in brief in paragraph Nos.2, 3 and 4. It appears to us that in their cross examination no material has been elicited which would create a doubt about the truthfulness of their testimony in the mind of this Court. 22. As far as the circumstances which pertain to the lodgment of ADR NO.23 of 2010 by the Appellant on 7th May 2010 with P.W.10 Mohan Gaikwad thereby stating about the death of Bhanudas because of an accident of burning is concerned, learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that this particular circumstance was not put to the Appellant by the Trial Court while recording his statement under Section 313 and therefore this circumstance cannot be taken into consideration at all. Learned counsel for the Appellant in support of his contention relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam reported in AIR 2013 SC (Criminal) 1487. The Supreme Court in paragraph 12 of the said judgment has held as under : “12. It is a settled legal proposition that in a criminal trial, the purpose of examining the accused person under Section 313 Cr.P.C., is to meet the requirement of the principles of natural justice, i.e. audi alterum partem. This means that the accused may be asked to furnish some explanation as regards the incriminating circumstances associated with him, and the court must take note of such explanation. In a case of circumstantial evidence, the same is essential to decide whether or not the chain of circumstances is complete. No matter how weak the evidence of the prosecution may be, it is the duty of the court to examine the accused, and to seek his explanation as regards the incriminating material that has surfaced against him. The circumstances which are not put to the accused in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., cannot be used against him and must be excluded from consideration. The said statement cannot be treated as evidence within the meaning of Section 3 of the Evidence Act, as the accused cannot be cross-examined with reference to such statement.” 23. After perusing the record and after going through the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Appellant we find substance in the submission of learned counsel for the Appellant. We find that this particular circumstance of lodging of false report by the Appellant with the police which is at Exhibit 55 was not put to the Appellant during the course of recording of 313 statement and therefore this circumstance has to be excluded from our consideration. 24. Even though P.W.1 – Rama Bodare and P.W.2 – Bharat Bodare have stated about the motive which is involved in the present crime at the behest of the Appellant, that there used to be quarrels between P.W.1 – Rama, deceased and the Appellant about the partition of the property, P.W.1 in his cross examination has admitted that their land was in the possession of the Appellant and he was cultivating it. He has further admitted that the Appellant never allowed the deceased to enter into the farm. He has further admitted that the Appellant never allowed the deceased to enter into the farm. P.W.2 - Bharat has also corroborated the said evidence of P.W.1 - Rama. We therefore find that the motive which was propounded by the prosecution behind the present crime loses its importance as the Appellant himself was in possession of the said land and there was no need for him to have quarrel with Bhanudas over the said property for possession. It has also come in his evidence that deceased Bhanudas was staying in somebody else’s farm by constructing a hut. P.W.1 – Rama and P.W.2 – Bharat have also admitted that a suit for partition was also filed by P.W.1 – Rama and deceased Bhanudas in the Civil Court at Madha wherein the Appellant was the defendant and the said proceedings were going on. It appears to us that as the land was in possession of the Appellant, there was no need for him to seek or get possession of the said land from Bhanudas, who was admittedly not in possession of the said land. We find that the motive as propounded by the prosecution has no merit in it. 25. It is pertinent to note here that the dead body of deceased Bhanudas was noticed by the Appellant in the morning of 7th May 2010 at about 7 a.m. and thereafter he reported the said fact to the police. The panch witness to the arrest and seizure of clothes of the Appellant viz. P.W.4 Umaji in his testimony has stated that on 7th May 2010 the police arrested the Appellant in his presence and the shirt of the Appellant having bloodstains was seized by the police. As per the prosecution case the Appellant himself went to the police station and lodged the accidental death report which is at Exhibit 55. The said report was recorded by P.W. 10 – Mohan Gaikwad who was the Police Station Officer at the relevant time attached to the said police station. P.W.10 – Mohan Gaikwad in his testimony has nowhere stated that the Appellant came to the police station and his clothes were stained with blood. In fact the testimony of P.W.10 is absolutely silent about the clothes which were on the person of the Appellant when he went to the police station for registering the said ADR which is at Exhibit 55. In fact the testimony of P.W.10 is absolutely silent about the clothes which were on the person of the Appellant when he went to the police station for registering the said ADR which is at Exhibit 55. As per the arrest panchanama which is at Exhibit 42, the said panchanama was drawn between 22.45 (10.45 p.m.) to 23.15 (11.15 p.m.). In our view, it is improbable that P.W.10 – Mohan Gaikwad at the first instance and subsequently P.W.8 – Maharudra Mundhe and P.W.9 – Ramchandra Bhosale, the police officers have lost the sight of such bloodstains which were on the clothes of the Appellant till his arrest in the presence of panch witness P.W.4 –Umaji. 26. P.W.6 Dr. Trimbake, who had conducted the postmortem on 7th May 2010 at about 5.15 p.m. in his testimony has given opinion that the age of injury on the deceased was between 48 to 72 hours prior to the conducting of postmortem examination. Therefore, if we go back to 48 hours from 7th May 2010 at 5.15 p.m., the approximate time of causing of the said injury would come as 5.15 p.m. of 5th May 2010. In the cross examination also this witness has in unequivocal terms reiterated his opinion. Therefore as stated above we take the minimum possible period of the age of cause of injury which would come to 5th May 2010 at about 5.15 p.m. and if we assume that the Appellant is the author of the said injury, it is difficult for us to believe that the Appellant would move in the village with the bloodstained clothes for a period of two days. It is further difficult for us to presume that the Appellant would go to the police station for lodging the ADR (Exhibit 55) with bloodstained clothes. The evidence on record only discloses that the Appellant handed over a shirt containing bloodstains to the police in the police station in the presence of P.W.4. The panchanama which is at Exhibit 42 also discloses that the Appellant was wearing the said shirt having bloodstains. As stated earlier, it is very difficult for us to believe the fact that the Appellant would go to the police station with bloodstained clothes for lodging the report of accidental death of his brother, particularly after committing the crime. The panchanama which is at Exhibit 42 also discloses that the Appellant was wearing the said shirt having bloodstains. As stated earlier, it is very difficult for us to believe the fact that the Appellant would go to the police station with bloodstained clothes for lodging the report of accidental death of his brother, particularly after committing the crime. This circumstance of the Appellant having bloodstained clothes on his person and going to the police station for lodging ADR, according to us is a far stretched circumstance which would connect the Appellant with the present crime. Similarly P.W.10 in his testimony has nowhere stated that when the Appellant went to the police station for the first time for lodging of the said ADR which is at Exhibit 55, he found or noticed bloodstains on the clothes of the Appellant. According to us, therefore this circumstance has to be excluded from consideration in its totality. As we have come to the conclusion that the circumstance of finding of bloodstains on the clothes of the Appellant is a far stretched hypothesis, the Chemical Analyser’s report need not be taken into consideration on this count alone. 27. The evidence on record further discloses that there is no evidence at all which would even suggest that the Appellant was seen either near the hut of deceased Bhanudas just prior to the finding of the dead body of deceased or within the proximity of time from the said finding of dead body, or within 48 hours preceding 7.00 a.m. of 7th May 2010. This circumstance has been taken into consideration coupled with the firm opinion given by P.W.6 – Dr. Trimbake, the Medical Officer who had conducted the autopsy of the deceased Bhanudas. In short, the evidence on record is absolutely silent about the Appellant was seen either in the vicinity or near the spot of incident prior to the noticing of the dead body and/or a day prior to it and therefore a benefit of doubt has to be given to the Appellant. 28. After taking into consideration all the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the cumulative effect of the circumstances which were put forth by the prosecution for establishing the guilt of the Appellant are not beyond the shadow of doubt. 28. After taking into consideration all the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the cumulative effect of the circumstances which were put forth by the prosecution for establishing the guilt of the Appellant are not beyond the shadow of doubt. That the test requires the exclusion of other alternative hypothesis that the Appellant only is responsible for the commission of the said crime, cannot be said from the evidence on record, that it complies with the test of proof beyond reasonable doubt. After scrutinizing the entire evidence on record, we are of the opinion that a benefit of doubt must be given to the Appellant. Accordingly we allow the Appeal and quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 5th April 2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur in Sessions Case No.221 of 2010 and acquit the Appellant from all the charges framed against him. The Appellant be released from jail forthwith if not required in any other case. Since the Appellant is in jail, registry is hereby directed to forward a copy of this order to the concerned jail authorities immediately and without any delay. The fees to be paid to Mr. Arfan Sait, learned advocate appointed by the High Court Legal Services Committee are quantified to Rs.5,000/-