JUDGMENT P.V. Hardas, J. 1. The Appellant who stands convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default of which to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month, by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur, by judgment dated 2 February 2006 in Sessions Case No.180 of 2004, by this Appeal questions the correctness of his conviction and sentence. 2. Facts in brief as are necessary for the decision of this Appeal may briefly be stated thus: P.W.7 P.S.I. Ananda Devudkar who was attached to Laxmipuri Police Station and was on duty on 30 July 20014, recorded the report of P.W.3 Usha at 7 to 7.15 a.m. at Exhibit 19. On the basis of the said report of P.W.3 Usha, an offence vide Crime No.68 of 2004 was registered for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The investigation of the said crime was then entrusted to P.W.8 P.I. Vinod Satav. 3. P.W.8 Vinod Satav who was also attached to the Laxmipuri Police Station was entrusted with the investigation of Crime No.68 of 2004 and accordingly proceeded to the scene of incident. He noticed the dead body of the deceased Dipali lying on the first floor of the house in a room. In the presence of the punch witness an inquest panchanama of the dead body of deceased Dipali was drawn at Exhibit 11. Photographs of the dead body and the scene of incident were also taken. The said photographs are at Exhibits 31 to 40. The scene of the offence panchanama was thereafter drawn at Exhibit 14. From the scene of incident one bloodstained knife, a mobile handset, two bloodstained bed sheets came to be seized. The bloodstained clothes on the person of the accused viz. a sweater and his clothes were seized under the arrest panchanama at Exhibit 17. The accused/appellant had sustained injury between the thumb and index finger and accordingly he was referred for examination to the Medical Officer. P.W.6 Dr. Mahindra Falke examined the Appellant and noticed abrasions between the right thumb and right index finger. The Medical Certificate is at Exhibit 28. The clothes of the deceased were seized under seizure panchanama at Exhibit 12. The seized property was thereafter referred to the Chemical Analyzer under acquisition at Exhibit 43. P.W.6 Dr. Mahindra Falke examined the Appellant and noticed abrasions between the right thumb and right index finger. The Medical Certificate is at Exhibit 28. The clothes of the deceased were seized under seizure panchanama at Exhibit 12. The seized property was thereafter referred to the Chemical Analyzer under acquisition at Exhibit 43. Statements of witnesses were recorded and further to the completion of investigation, a charge-sheet against the Appellant was submitted. 4. Postmortem on the dead body of deceased Dipali was conducted by P.W.5 Dr. Dattatray Pawale. P.W.5 Dr. Pawale noticed the following external injuries: “i. Stab injury left anterior axillary fold, spindle shaped, directing inwards and upwards, 2.5 x 1 x 3.5 cm ii. Stab wound on left side of chest near lateral border of sternum in 6th ICS (inter costal space) oblique, spindle shaped, 2.5 x 1.5 cm cavity deep iii. Stab wound right side of chest, 3 cm from riphisternum, oblique, spindle shaped, 2.5 x ½ cm cavity deep iv. Stab wound on right hypochondriac region, 4 cm lateral to injury No.3, horizontal, spindle shaped, 2.5 x 1 cm x cavity deep. v. Stab wound right hypochondriac region, 2.5 cm below injury No.3, little oblique, spindle shaped, 3 x 2.5 cm x cavity deep. vi. Stab wound right hypochondriac region, 5 cm from injury No.5, horizontal, spindle shaped, 2 x 1x4 cm cavity deep. vii. Three abraded wounds just below & medial to injury Nos.5 and 6, ranging between 0.3 to 0.8 cm, superficial red coloured viii. Stab wound on left axillary region in 3rd I.C.S. oblique, spindle shaped, 2.5 x 1.5 cm x cavity deep. ix. Stab wound left axillary region, 2 cm behind injury No.8, oblique, spindle shaped, 1.5 x ½ cm x cavity deep. x. Stab wound left lateral chest, lower and lateral aspect of breast, in 7th I.C.S. oblique, spindle shaped, 2.5 x 1.5 cm x cavity deep. xi. Incised wound left lateral of arm middle 1/3rd oblique, 3 x 1.5 x ½ cm xii. Incised wound left arm, posteriorly, 10 cm above elbow, oblique, 5 x 2.5 x 1.5 cm xiii. Incised wound left arm, posterior medial aspect, 8 cm above elbow, oblique, 2 x 1.5 x 1 cm xiv. Incised wound left lateral of lower chest at 11th rib level, 1 x ½ x ½ cm xv. Incised wound left arm, posteriorly, 10 cm above elbow, oblique, 5 x 2.5 x 1.5 cm xiii. Incised wound left arm, posterior medial aspect, 8 cm above elbow, oblique, 2 x 1.5 x 1 cm xiv. Incised wound left lateral of lower chest at 11th rib level, 1 x ½ x ½ cm xv. Stab wound left lateral of vertebral column (3cm), infra scapular region, oblique, 3 x 2 cm x cavity deep xvi. Stab wound left lateral of vertebral column. lateral to injury No.15 (3 cm) oblique, 2.5 x 1 cm x cavity deep xvii. Stab wound medial and below to injury No.16, 2.5 x 1 cm x cavity deep, oblique xviii. Stab wound left posterior axillary line, in 6th ICS, 2.5 x 2 cm x cavity deep, oblique, spindle shaped xix. Incised wound left to buttock, outer and lateral upper part, horizontal, 3 x 1.5 x 1 cm xx. Abrasion at base of left little finger, laterally 1 x ½ cm superficial xxi. Stab wound with wound of entry & exit on right forearm, near wrist joint, wound of entry on dorsum forearm, ulnar aspect, vertically oblique 2.5 x 1 cm, margins inverted and clean cut. Wound of exit on plater aspect, inner side, 1 x ½ cm with margin averted xxii. Incised wound on left upper end of tibia, just below knee joint, 2 x ½ x ½ cm, horizontal” 5. On internal examination, he noticed that external injuries 1 to 8, 10, 15 to 18 and 19 corresponding to the injuries to valves, ribs, cartilages. There was evidence of hemothorax of 300 ml on the left side. The lower lobe of the left lung showed evidence of three puncture wounds. The pericardium also showed the evidence of puncture wound. The heart showed evidence of perforating wound. There was blood of 300 ml in the abdominal cavity. In stomach 20 ml digested food mixed with blood was seen. Lever showed evidence of three penetrating wounds. 6. P.W. 5 Dr. Pawale therefore opined that injuries sustained by Dipali were ante mortem in nature and the cause of death was hemorrhagic shock due to multiple stab injuries. The postmortem report is at Exhibit 25. 7. On committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, the Trial Court vide Exhibit 3 framed charge against the Appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The postmortem report is at Exhibit 25. 7. On committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, the Trial Court vide Exhibit 3 framed charge against the Appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The Appellant denied his guilt and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in support of its case examined eight witnesses. The Trial Court upon appreciation of the evidence convicted and sentenced the Appellant as aforestated. 8. In order to effectively deal with the submissions advanced before us by counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, it would be useful to refer to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. 9. P.W.3 Usha, mother of deceased Dipali, states that Dipali was married to the Appellant approximately ten years prior to the incident. She further deposes that Dipali had given birth to two children and was residing happily with the Appellant. The Appellant was working as a compounder in the dispensary of a Medical Officer. Usha further deposes that there was some dispute between the Appellant and deceased Dipali as the Appellant was suspecting that Dipali had illicit relation with someone else. She further deposes that on the day of the incident she was informed about a quarrel at the house of the Appellant and therefore with her daughter she had gone to the house of the Appellant. She had seen the Appellant on the road going away from the house. She states that on going to the room of Dipali, she had noticed the dead body of Dipali. Thereafter she was taken to the police station where she lodged her report. 10. In cross examination P.W.3 Usha admitted that she did not know the reason of quarrel between the Appellant and Dipali. She has admitted that till the date of the incident, the relations between the Appellant and Dipali were good. She has admitted that there was only one quarrel between the Appellant and Dipali. 11. Prosecution has examined P.W.4 Ananda Bagane a Police Constable. P.W.4 Ananda Bagane states that at 6.30 a.m. he had received an anonymous telephone call informing about the incident. He states that he had gone to the house of the Appellant and had noticed P.W. 3 Usha there. He also deposes that he had noticed the dead body of deceased Dipali. Prosecution has examined P.W.4 Ananda Bagane a Police Constable. P.W.4 Ananda Bagane states that at 6.30 a.m. he had received an anonymous telephone call informing about the incident. He states that he had gone to the house of the Appellant and had noticed P.W. 3 Usha there. He also deposes that he had noticed the dead body of deceased Dipali. He states that he had taken P.W.3 Usha to the police Station where she had lodged her report. 12. P.W. 7 P.S.I. Devudkar states about registration of the offence and recording the statement of P.W.3 Usha. P.W.8 P.I. Vinod Satav admits that he had learnt that the Appellant had come to the police station and therefore he had gone to the police station and thereafter the Appellant was arrested and his clothes were seized. 13. Thus this is a case which is based on circumstantial evidence as there are no eye witnesses to the incident. The circumstances against the Appellant are ; (i) P.W. 3 Usha has seen the Appellant going away from his house when Usha had gone to the house of the Appellant; (ii) Seizure of bloodstained clothes of the Appellant and the finding of the Chemical Analyzer that the clothes were stained with blood group matching that of the deceased; (iii) Strained relations between the Appellant and deceased Dipali as the Appellant was suspecting the character of Dipali. 14. In respect of the first circumstance, it is obvious to us that since P.W.8 P.I Vinod Satav has admitted that the Appellant had come to the police station, P.W. 3 Usha had seen the Appellant and obviously the Appellant was then proceeding to the police station. The evidence of P.W. 3 Usha therefore in no manner establishes that the Appellant was present in the house at about the time when the incident was committed. In respect of the second circumstance, we find that there is no evidence that the clothes of the Appellant were sealed and remained in sealed condition till they were examined by the Chemical Analyzer. In the absence of the requisite evidence of sealing, no reliance can be placed on the report of the Chemical Analyzer. In respect of the third circumstance, about the strained relationship, we find that there is practically no evidence in respect of the strained relations. P.W.3 Usha admitted that there was only one quarrel. In the absence of the requisite evidence of sealing, no reliance can be placed on the report of the Chemical Analyzer. In respect of the third circumstance, about the strained relationship, we find that there is practically no evidence in respect of the strained relations. P.W.3 Usha admitted that there was only one quarrel. P.W. 3 Usha also does not know the reason for the quarrel. The strained relationship which would give rise to the Appellant to commit the offence, especially murder of his wife, has not been established. 15. Thus, upon appreciation of the evidence of the prosecution, the submission of counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The Appellant therefore, in our opinion is entitled to be give the benefit of doubt. 16. Accordingly Criminal Appeal 335 of 2006 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 any, 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.