JUDGMENT Navin Sinha, J. 1. The appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC to life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/-. In the event of failure to pay fine he would have to undergo further two months rigorous imprisonment. He has also been convicted under Section 450 IPC to five years of rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 500/- failing which he would have to undergo further two months rigorous imprisonment. The conviction is also under Section 380 IPC to three years of rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 500/- failing which he would have to undergo further two months of rigorous imprisonment. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently. The deceased, Champa Bai, was the mother of the appellant. She is stated to have been done to death in her house in the night of 23.4.2007 and 24.4.2007 while sleeping alone. The Dehatinalishi, Exhibit P1, was lodged on 24.4.2007 at 8.30 a.m. by her son Usatram, PW 1 against unknown. It stated that his mother lived alone. His daughter, Santoshi Bai, PW 2, gave her food the previous evening at 7.30 p.m., locked the front door of the house and came home. In the morning she went and unlocked the door at 7.00 a.m. The necklace of the deceased had been stolen and injuries had been caused by a sharp cutting weapon on the left cheek, left ear and left eye. The unknown thief had jumped into the house after climbing the roof of the neighboring house. 2. The postmortem of the deceased, Exhibit P5, was conducted by Dr. Mahaveer Agrawal, PW 13, at 3.30 p.m. on 24.4.2007. Incised wounds were found on the left cheek, in front of the left ear and fracture of the temporal parietal bone 7 x 4 c.m. incised, missing piece of bone 9.1 x 3 to 2 c.ms. with brain surface tinged congested. Death was opined as a result of injury to vital organs and hemorrhage. She was assessed to be 62 years of age. 3. F.I.R. No. 109/2007 was registered under Sections 459, 380 IPC on 25.4.2007 on the basis of Exhibit P1 by the Officer In-charge. Section 302was added subsequently after the deceased expired. 4. with brain surface tinged congested. Death was opined as a result of injury to vital organs and hemorrhage. She was assessed to be 62 years of age. 3. F.I.R. No. 109/2007 was registered under Sections 459, 380 IPC on 25.4.2007 on the basis of Exhibit P1 by the Officer In-charge. Section 302was added subsequently after the deceased expired. 4. The crime detail form, Exhibit P19, prepared by the Investigating Officer, PW 14, Punaram describing the place of occurrence stated that the intruder had jumped into the house through the roof of the adjacent house. The earthen stove was broken by the jumping in of the intruder. 5. The appellant is the son of the deceased. He was taken into custody on 26.4.2007 and his confession recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, Exhibit P8, witnessed by PW 4, Ramratan and PW 10, Devanand Nayak. A knife with blood stain is stated to have been recovered on his confession as also a necklace, apart from, a loongi as also a shirt with blood on it. The seized items were marked Exhibits P9, P10 & P11. The presence of blood stain on the knife, loongi and shirt was confirmed in the forensic report, Exhibit P21. 6. PW 1 stated that the deceased was hard of hearing. The door of the house was unlocked in the morning by his daughter PW 2. The blood on the person of the appellant had come in course of lifting the deceased and putting her in the vehicle for taking to the hospital. PW 2, daughter of PW 1 reiterated that she had locked the front door at night and unlocked the door in the morning. PW 3, Kumari Bai wife of PW 1 also stated that the appellant and his wife had also assisted in lifting the deceased and putting her in the vehicle for going to the hospital and blood had come on the clothes of the appellant and others in handling the body. PWs 4 & 10 turned hostile denying that any confession was recorded in their presence or recovery made pursuant to the same. PW 13 stated that the injury was caused due to fracture of bone on the head caused by hard & blunt substance. PWs 4 & 10 turned hostile denying that any confession was recorded in their presence or recovery made pursuant to the same. PW 13 stated that the injury was caused due to fracture of bone on the head caused by hard & blunt substance. The Investigating Officer, Punaram PW 14 stated that when he reached the spot, the deceased was alive, but unable to speak after which she was sent for treatment. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no evidence whatsoever against the appellant to implicate him on basis of circumstantial evidence. No one had seen him either going to the house of the deceased who lived alone or even near it. Neither has anything been stated about any past utterance or conduct to connect him with the crime. The Dehatinalishi, the F.I.R. were both registered against unknown. Exhibit P19 regarding the place of occurrence makes it evident that an intruder had jumped into the house at night where the deceased stayed alone and the earthen stove was found broken also. The intruder had obviously entered clandestinely by jumping in with the intention to commit theft of her ornaments leading to assault and death. The deceased aged 62 years lived alone and which is why the intruder came to commit theft. Mere recovery of the knife as an alleged weapon of assault and blood stained loongi and shirt from him cannot be sufficient evidence beyond reasonable doubt in a case of circumstantial evidence to sustain conviction under 302 IPC. PWs 4 & 10 witnesses to the memorandum of confession and seizure list have both turned hostile. Even otherwise there is no recovery of any hard & blunt substance on the appellant's confession to connect him with the occurrence given fact the death has been caused by assault on the head causing fracture of the bone also. PW 1 and PW 3 stated that the blood had come on the clothes of the appellant while putting the deceased in the vehicle for taking her to the hospital. There has been no test identification parade of the necklace and neither have PW 1, 2 and 3 stated that the necklace allegedly recovered from the appellant was the same as worn by the deceased. The appellant had contended that the necklace revered from him house belonged to his wife and was different from that worn by the deceased. There has been no test identification parade of the necklace and neither have PW 1, 2 and 3 stated that the necklace allegedly recovered from the appellant was the same as worn by the deceased. The appellant had contended that the necklace revered from him house belonged to his wife and was different from that worn by the deceased. The appellant is therefore entitled to acquittal. 8. Counsel for the State has opposed the appeal submitting that on his confession the knife has been recovered with blood on it. Blood has also been found on shirt and loongi for which he offers no explanation. These were incriminating circumstances against the appellant raising serious suspicion against him in a case of circumstantial evidence. 9. We have considered the submission on behalf of the parties and also perused the evidence on record. 10. The deceased was aged 62 years and lived alone. She wore ornaments. PW 2 stated that she had given food to the deceased in the evening and locked the door. The next morning she unlocked the door. Dehatinalishi and F.I.R. were both lodged against unknown. An unknown person was alleged to have intruded at night by jumping from the roof of the adjacent house. The earthen stove was found broken by the jumping in of the intruder. PW 1 and 3 stated that the blood on the clothes of the appellant had come when he was helping along with his wife in putting the deceased in the vehicle for going to the hospital. 11. In a case of circumstantial evidence, there must be a sequence or chain of events in continuity, with one link joined to the other making it incompatible with the innocence of the accused leaving the only hypothesis of guilt against the person. If even any one link is missing, a possibility of intervening circumstance exists, the benefit of the doubt must be given to the accused. 12. In the present case, no one has seen the occurrence, much less seen the appellant jumping into the house. There is no evidence that he was having any dispute for property or otherwise in which the mother was an obstruction or he had earlier shown interest in the jewelry of his mother and that he committed the crime out of that lure. There is not an iota of evidence regarding any past utterances or conduct of the appellant. There is no evidence that he was having any dispute for property or otherwise in which the mother was an obstruction or he had earlier shown interest in the jewelry of his mother and that he committed the crime out of that lure. There is not an iota of evidence regarding any past utterances or conduct of the appellant. The blood on his clothes have been explained by PW 1 and PW 3. No question was put to the appellant with regard to the same under Section 313Cr.P.C. The only question put was that the Doctor had said, there was blood on his shirt and recommended forensic examination. 13. The confession under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and any recovery of the knife consequent to the same is not substantive piece of evidence on which conviction can be based in a case of circumstantial evidence to conclude that he was the assailant. It can be looked at as an incriminating circumstance provided it is corroborated by other surrounding evidence and circumstances as observed in Gagan Kanojia Vs. State of Punjab (2006) 13 SCC 516. In the present case, there is absolutely no surrounding circumstance or evidence which can be said to be corroborated by the confession and consequent recovery of the knife. PW 4 and PW 10, the seizure list witnesses have turned hostile. No question has again been asked to the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with regard to the knife and blood stain. In Geejaganda Somaiah Vs. State of Karnataka (2007) 9 SCC 315 it was cautioned that:-- "22. As the section is alleged to be frequently misused by the police, the courts are required to be vigilant about its application. The court must ensure the credibility of evidence by police because this provision is vulnerable to abuse. It does not, however, mean that any statement made in terms of the aforesaid section should be seen with suspicion and it cannot be discarded only on the ground that it was made to a police officer during investigation. The court has to be cautious that no effort is made by the prosecution to make out a statement of the accused with a simple case of recovery as a case of discovery of fact in order to attract the provisions of Section 27 of the Evidence Act." 14. The court has to be cautious that no effort is made by the prosecution to make out a statement of the accused with a simple case of recovery as a case of discovery of fact in order to attract the provisions of Section 27 of the Evidence Act." 14. There is no positive evidence that the necklace recovered on the confession is the very necklace worn by the deceased. The appellant had stated that the necklace recovered from him belonged to his wife. No T.I.P. of the necklace was held for identification. PW 1 and PW 3 stated that the recovered necklace was different from that worn by the deceased. It was never produced as an exhibit before PW 1 and PW 3. The Court called for the necklace from the nazarat and on basis of a photo comparison concluded for itself that it was the same necklace and that whether it was an "Aamkali" or Charfokli" necklace and the difference in weight of the necklace worn by the deceased and that recovered on confession by the appellant were irrelevant factors. The theory of proof beyond reasonable doubt and the onus being on the prosecution was reversed. 15. In a case based on circumstantial evidence like the present, the Court has to be circumspect that not only all the evidence in the chain of links are complete but also that they are compatible only with the guilt of the accused and wholly incompatible with his innocence. The absence of any recovery of the hard & blunt substance with which scalp bone of the deceased was fractured leading to death on any alleged confession of the appellant is a very vital break in the chain of circumstances against him. In absence for recovery of the hard & blunt weapon of assault it cannot be said that he is the assailant. Normally a report with regard to the blood group is not considered very relevant. But in the given facts of the case, like one presently, in our opinion serologist report could have been a concluding factor. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 explaining circumstantial evidence it was observed:-- "153. Normally a report with regard to the blood group is not considered very relevant. But in the given facts of the case, like one presently, in our opinion serologist report could have been a concluding factor. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 explaining circumstantial evidence it was observed:-- "153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established: (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.... (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. 154. These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence." 16. The Sessions Judge appears to have been overwhelmed by the story for recovery of knife, loongi and shirt with blood stain on confession. There is complete misappreciation of evidence with regard to the blood on the shirt and loongi of the appellant. The evidence of PW 1 And PW 3 in this regard has been ignored. There has been no recovery of any hard and blunt substance on the confession with which the deceased was assaulted according to the post mortem report. The onus with regard to the necklace was wrongly shifted to the appellant when it was the duty of the prosecution to prove the same. The broken earthen stove from where the intruder had jumped in has also been completely overlooked. 17. The charge against the appellant cannot be said to have been proved with certainty on basis of circumstantial evidence only compatible with his guilt and wholly incompatible with his innocence. The judgment under appeal is set aside and the appellant is acquitted. The broken earthen stove from where the intruder had jumped in has also been completely overlooked. 17. The charge against the appellant cannot be said to have been proved with certainty on basis of circumstantial evidence only compatible with his guilt and wholly incompatible with his innocence. The judgment under appeal is set aside and the appellant is acquitted. He is directed to be set at liberty forthwith if not wanted in any other case. The appeal is allowed. Appeal allowed