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.500/-, in default of which to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months by the Sessions Judge, Sindhudurg, Oros, dated 9 October 2007 in Sessions Case No.10 of 2007 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 Kashiram Sawant a Police Patil of village Danoli and holding charge of the post of Police Patil of village Kesari, was informed by the Sarpanch of village Kesari on 14 November 2006 at about 10.00 a.m. about the death of the wife of the Appellant. P.W.7 Kashiram Sawant, accompanied by the Sarpanch of village Kesari went to the house of the Appellant and thereafter lodged his report at the police station. 3. P.W.11 Head Constable Santosh Gosavi who on 14 November 2006 was attached to Police Station, Sawantwadi, recorded the report of one Raghoji Bhagwan Sawant that wife of the Appellant had died. The said report was reduced into writing at Exhibit-17. On the basis of the said report, unnatural death of the deceased was registered. The unnatural death of the deceased was accordingly intimated to the Tahasildar, Sawantwadi and the Out-post at Amboli was directed to visit the scene of the incident i.e. the house of the Appellant. 4. P.W.12 Head Constable Laxman Naik who was on duty at the Outpost, Amboli received instructions from P.W.11 Head Constable Gosavi to visit the scene of the incident and to enquire into the unnatural death of wife of the Appellant. P.W.12 Head Constable Naik accordingly visited the scene of the incident and drew the scene of the incident Panchanama. In the middle room of the house, he noticed bloodstains on the wall and on the floor of the house of the accused. Pieces of bangles were also found in the kitchen and also at the rear portion of the house of the Appellant. A Panchanama was accordingly drawn in the presence of panchas at Exhibit-14. The pieces of bangles and sample of the bloodstains accordingly were seized under the said Panchanama. Samples of ordinary mud and blood mixed mud were also drawn and seized under the said Panchanama. A Panchanama was accordingly drawn in the presence of panchas at Exhibit-14. The pieces of bangles and sample of the bloodstains accordingly were seized under the said Panchanama. Samples of ordinary mud and blood mixed mud were also drawn and seized under the said Panchanama. Thereafter an inquest Panchanama of the dead body of the deceased was drawn at Exhibit-19. The dead body of the deceased Sarita was referred for postmortem examination. The Medical Officer performed postmortem and submitted the cause of death certificate. P.W.12 Head Constable Naik upon perusal of the documents came to the conclusion that deceased Sarita had died an homicidal death and accordingly lodged his report at Police Station, Sawantwadi at Exhibit-31. 5. P.W.17 Head Constable Mohan Chavan who on 15 November 2006 was attached to Police Station, Sawantwadi, scribed the report of Head Constable Naik at Exhibit-31. On the basis of the said report, he registered an offence vide Crime No.92 of 2006 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the Appellant. On the same day Police Constable Karpe produced the clothes of the deceased which came to be seized under seizure memo at Exhibit-10. Further investigation was thereafter handed over to P.W.19 P.I. Shantaram Rawlae. 6. P.W.19 P.I. Rawale who was attached to Sawantwadi Police Station was entrusted with the investigation of Crime No.92 of 2006. He arrested the Appellant under arrest Panchanama at Exhibit-12. Under the said Panchanama the clothes of the Appellant found on his person were seized. The said clothes are shirt–article 15 and pant–article 16. On the next day i.e. on 16 November 2006 he recorded the statements of witnesses. On 20 November 2006 the house of the Appellant was searched and two pieces of sticks found in the kitchen of the house of the Appellant were seized along with a piece of earing as well as silver toe ring. The said articles came to be seized under seizure memo at Exhibit-25. On 5 December 2006 the seized property was referred to the Chemical Analyzer at Pune under requisition at Exhibit-42. The reports of the Chemical Analyzer are at Exhibits-43 to 45. During the investigation a certified copy of the criminal case pending against the accused was obtained at Exhibit- 46. Exhibit-47 is the certified coy of the printed FIR. Further investigation was thereafter handed over to P.W.20 P.I. Anant Ketkar. 7. The reports of the Chemical Analyzer are at Exhibits-43 to 45. During the investigation a certified copy of the criminal case pending against the accused was obtained at Exhibit- 46. Exhibit-47 is the certified coy of the printed FIR. Further investigation was thereafter handed over to P.W.20 P.I. Anant Ketkar. 7. P.W.20 P.I. Ketkar who was entrusted with the investigation of Crime No.92 of 2006 deputed Head Constable Fale to Pune for recording the statement of P.W.13 Usha Patil. Thereafter further to the completion of investigation a charge-sheet was filed against the Appellant. 8. The postmortem on the dead body of deceased Sarita was performed by P.W.15 Dr. Kiran Vatkar. P.W.15 Dr. Vatkar noticed the following external injuries on the dead body of deceased Sarita : “1. The teeth were pierced into the lower and upper lips. 2. The abrasions and contusions were found around the lips, neck region and nose. 3. Cut lacerated wound over right wrist joint and over dorsal aspect of size 2 cm x ½ cm. 4. Contusion over chest region. 5. Contusion cum-blunt trauma was found on the right thigh and leg of size 4.5 cm x 1 cm. 6. Abrasion over both legs over sheen and calf region 7. Abrasion over back of chest.” 9. On internal examination he noticed fracture of second, third, fourth and fifth rib on the right side. He also noticed that the ribs had pierced into the lung on the right side. The second and third rib on the left side were also fractured and they had pierced into the lung on the left side. According to him the cause of death of deceased Sarita was traumatic asphyxial death. The postmortem report is at Exhibit-37. 10. On committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, the Trial Court vide Exhibit-4 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 20 witnesses. The Appellant in his defence claimed that on the day of the incident, he had returned home at about 8.00 p.m. and thereafter he and his wife were sitting outside the house and at that time his wife i.e. deceased Sarita had complained of giddiness and was going inside the house. The Appellant in his defence claimed that on the day of the incident, he had returned home at about 8.00 p.m. and thereafter he and his wife were sitting outside the house and at that time his wife i.e. deceased Sarita had complained of giddiness and was going inside the house. While going inside the house, she dashed against the table and fell down. Thereafter the Appellant and his sons had brought her in the first room where she sat for some time and was then taken outside for answering the call of nature. Deceased Sarita fell down on stone while answering the call of nature. The Appellant further states that at about 5.00 a.m. he awoke and had noticed that his wife had died. According to him his wife was suffering from T.B. since 1992 and was also suffering from epilepsy. The Trial Court negatived the defence of the Appellant and convicted and sentenced the Appellant as afore-stated. 11. The prosecution initially relied upon the testimony of the two eye witnesses viz. P.W.8 Sagar and P.W.9 Sandip. P.W.8 Sagar and P.W.9 Sandip sons of the Appellant and the deceased deposed that deceased Sarita had suffered an attack of epilepsy and therefore fell from the staircase. P.W.8 Sagar deposes that the Appellant had lifted her and brought her inside. He was specifically asked in the examination-in- chief as to whether his mother deceased Sarita has said anything to him and he has answered in the negative. At this juncture P.W.8 Sagar was cross examined by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor after declaring him hostile. In the cross examination of the Additional Public Prosecutor nothing of substance has been elicited which would in any manner affect the evidence of P.W.8 Sagar that deceased Sarita had fallen from the staircase because of epilepsy. 12. Prosecution has also examined P.W.9 Sandip, another son of deceased Sarita and the Appellant. P.W.9 Sandip also states that deceased Sarita had fallen from the staircase as she had an attack of epilepsy. In examination in chief on behalf of the prosecution he has admitted that deceased Sarita has asked him to take his bath. Thereafter since P.W. 9 Sandip did not heed to the instructions of deceased Sarita, Sarita was annoyed. Since Sarita had addressed P.W.9 Sandip derisively, the Appellant was annoyed and gave a fist blow to Sarita. In examination in chief on behalf of the prosecution he has admitted that deceased Sarita has asked him to take his bath. Thereafter since P.W. 9 Sandip did not heed to the instructions of deceased Sarita, Sarita was annoyed. Since Sarita had addressed P.W.9 Sandip derisively, the Appellant was annoyed and gave a fist blow to Sarita. He was specifically asked if the Appellant had assaulted deceased Sarita by a stick to which he replied in the negative. He was also asked whether deceased Sarita had fallen from the staircase because of the blow given by the Appellant to which also he has replied in the negative. 13. Thus the two eye witnesses examined by the prosecution did not support the prosecution and therefore the case against the Appellant rested on circumstantial evidence. The Trial Court has held that the prosecution had proved that deceased Sarita had died in the house of the Appellant where she was residing with the Appellant. Secondly, the presence of the broken pieces of bangles in the kitchen also lent support to the theory that there was a scuffle and that deceased Sarita was assaulted. The third circumstance on which the Trial Court placed reliance was the circumstance that the relations between the Appellant and deceased Sarita were strained. The Trial Court further held that the prosecution had proved that the Appellant had taken a false defence and that he had not lodged any report about the incident. The Trial Court on the basis of the said findings convicted and sentenced the Appellant as afore-stated. 14. In cases resting on circumstantial evidence, it is incumbent for the prosecution to establish and prove each and every circumstance on which the prosecution proposes to rely. The circumstances so proved should of conclusive nature i.e. they should have a definite tendency of implicating the accused. The circumstances thus proved should form a complete chain which excludes every hypothesis of the innocence of the accused and should unerringly point to the guilt of the accused. In other words, the circumstances should be capable of only one inference and i.e. that the accused and accused alone has committed the offence. Reference may usefully be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in HanumantGovind Nargundkar and Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh ( AIR 1952 SC 343 )and SharadBirdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra ( AIR 1984 SC 1622 .). Reference may usefully be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in HanumantGovind Nargundkar and Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh ( AIR 1952 SC 343 )and SharadBirdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra ( AIR 1984 SC 1622 .). 15. Mr. Khandeparkar, counsel for the Appellant has urged before us that merely because the deceased was residing with the Appellant and that she had died an homicidal death would not be a circumstance which can be said to be an incriminating circumstance. Mr. Khandeparkar, counsel for the Appellant has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in SohelMehaboob Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra (2009) 12 SCC 588 .). In the said judgment the Supreme Court had found that three circumstances had been relied upon by the High Court for sustaining the conviction. With regard to the first circumstance that the deceased had died an homicidal death and that the accused had not offered any explanation for the death of the deceased, the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the said circumstances could not be said to be incriminating circumstances. Counsel appearing for the Appellant has further urged before us that there is no evidence that the relations between the Appellant and his wife Sarita were so strained as would impel the accused to commit the murder of deceased Sarita. The quarrel which was witnessed by P.W.9 Sandip between the Appellant and deceased Sarita was a quarrel which was on account of the normal wear and tear of married life. Counsel for the Appellant has further urged before us that the false defence of the Appellant could not be used as a circumstance against the accused. Falsity of the defence would not prop the prosecution case nor would it reduce the burden on the prosecution to prove the offence against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Failure to report or lodge a report about the demise of his wife is not an incriminating circumstance which would indicate that it was the Appellant who had committed the crime. The sum and substance of the submission of counsel for the Appellant therefore is that the circumstances if proved by the prosecution did not form a complete chain which excludes every hypothesis of the innocence of the accused and the prosecution cannot be said to have proved the case against the Appellant. The sum and substance of the submission of counsel for the Appellant therefore is that the circumstances if proved by the prosecution did not form a complete chain which excludes every hypothesis of the innocence of the accused and the prosecution cannot be said to have proved the case against the Appellant. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor had supported the findings arrived at by the Trial Court and has urged for dismissal of the Appeal. 16. In the foregoing paragraph we have adverted to the deposition of the witnesses. It must at the outset be said that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove that it was the Appellant who had assaulted the deceased. Both the eye witnesses who were children of the Appellant and deceased Sarita did not support the prosecution in respect of the case of the prosecution that the Appellant assaulted deceased Sarita by a stick. The medical evidence of P.W.15 Dr. Kiran Vatkar indicates that the injuries sustained by deceased Sarita were ante mortem injuries and were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. In cross examination he has clearly admitted that the fracture of the ribs which he had noticed could not have been caused by the stick article-17. Thus the assault by the stick is completely ruled out by the medical evidence. There is no other evidence available which would indicate the manner of the assault. There is no evidence to indicate that it was the Appellant who had assaulted deceased Sarita. He has admitted that during an attack of epilepsy the fingers of both the hands are flexed. According to him it may be due to rigor mortis also. According to the medical officer the injuries on the chest could have been caused by giving fist blow and kicks. None of the prosecution witnesses have attributed an assault to the deceased by fist and kick blows. 17. We thus find that the prosecution at the most can be said to have established that deceased Sarita may have died a homicidal death. It is equally possible that deceased Sarita while suffering an attack of epilepsy may have fallen from the staircase. In any event, at this juncture we would be surmising regarding the manner of death. The prosecution is completely silent in respect of the manner of death of the deceased. It is equally possible that deceased Sarita while suffering an attack of epilepsy may have fallen from the staircase. In any event, at this juncture we would be surmising regarding the manner of death. The prosecution is completely silent in respect of the manner of death of the deceased. Merely because deceased Sarita had died in the house of the Appellant and the Appellant had not informed anyone about the incident, would be no ground for sustaining the conviction of the Appellant. The Supreme Court in MulakRaj v. State Haryana (1996) 7 SCC 308 .)has held that merely because the deceased had died an homicidal death and her body was found in the kitchen with postmortem burns, it could not be said that this circumstance by itself would connect all the accused or anyone of them with the crime. In the said judgment the Supreme Court has also observed that failure of the in-laws of the deceased to immediately inform the father of the deceased about the incident was of no consequence. 18. We therefore find that there is absolutely no evidence which proves the offence against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Various links in the chain of circumstances sought to be forged by the prosecution are missing. The missing links leave a large gaping hole and thus the prosecution evidence is wholly insufficient for arriving at the finding about the guilt of the Appellant. 19. Thus, having considered the submissions advanced before us by the learned counsel for the parties, according to us, the Appellant is certainly entitled to be given the benefit of doubt. Accordingly Criminal Appeal 1167 of 2007 is allowed and the conviction and sentence of the Appellant is hereby quashed and set aside and the Appellant is acquitted of the offences 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.