Judgment : L. Narasimha Reddy, J. 1. The Court of I Additional Sessions Judge, Khammam, convicted the appellant i.e. the sole accused in S.C. No.298 of 2009 for the offence of committing the murder of one Jayamma. Sentence of imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month was imposed. Hence, this appeal. 2. The information about the death of the deceased reached the police station Paloncha, with the submission of complaint - Ex.P-1 by PW-1, the brother of the deceased on 08.01.2009. He stated that his sister, the deceased, was married about 15 years back to one Mr. N. Ramesh of Manuguru village and after a female child was born out of the wedlock, Ramesh left the sister of PW-1 and went away. The deceased was said to be living in a Church by doing coolie work and that the accused, who was engaged for painting work in the Church, got acquaintance with the deceased and later on married her. They are said to have been blessed with a female child. 3. PW-1 alleged that the accused and the deceased were residing as tenants in the house of PW-5 and since three months prior to the date of submission of the complaint, the accused started harassing the deceased by suspecting her character. PW-1 and his another brother at one point of time, and their mother at another point of time are said to have convinced the accused not to raise any quarrel with the deceased. At 3.00 p.m. on 08.01.2009, the landlord of the deceased and the accused, i.e., PW-5 telephoned PW-1 that the accused beat the deceased with a cylinder on the head and thus she died instantaneously. The accused is said to have escaped from the place. 4. Crime No.9 of 2009 was registered under Sections 498-A and 302 IPC and the investigation was taken up. The scene of offence was visited and a panchanama was prepared. Thereafter, the inquest was conducted in the presence of the Executive Magistrate and Post Mortem was conducted in the Government Hospital. The charge sheet was filed furnishing the gist of the investigation and on the basis of the same, the trial Court framed the charges. 5. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 14 and filed Exs.P-1 to P-8. Mos.1 to 9 were taken on record. No evidence was adduced by the defence. The charge sheet was filed furnishing the gist of the investigation and on the basis of the same, the trial Court framed the charges. 5. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 14 and filed Exs.P-1 to P-8. Mos.1 to 9 were taken on record. No evidence was adduced by the defence. The trial Court through its judgment, dated 07.01.2010, convicted and sentenced the accused. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is neither direct nor circumstantial evidence in this case, to connect the accused to the incident. She submits that the whole basis for submitting the complaint - Ex.P-1 was the information said to have been furnished by PW-5 and even that witness did not state anything on the basis of what was seen by him. She contends that though the medical evidence also revealed that the death of the deceased occurred on account of the injuries received on being hit by a cylinder, the principal question as to who caused the injuries, was not at all answered by the prosecution. She contends that the trial Court rested its conclusions on the alleged past conduct of the accused and that the same cannot be sustained in law. 7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that the accused did not dispute that he married the deceased, and that there was a motive for him to kill the deceased on account of the fact that he suspected her character. She contends that PW-5, an independent witness, has narrated the facts as seen by him and the trial Court has analyzed the evidence on record on correct lines. 8. It has already been mentioned that there is no direct evidence in the instant case. The entire case turns upon hearsay or the circumstantial evidence. The information about the death of the deceased was furnished by PW-5 to PW-1. Things would have been different altogether had PW5 seen the incident by himself. After narrating that the accused and the deceased were residing in his house as tenants and there used to be quarrels between them, what all he is stated is that the deceased died in the month of January 2009 and by that time, he was on duty in Kothagudem Thermal Power Station. The evidence of PW-5, at the most, would account for, to the extent of furnishing of information about the death to PW-1. The evidence of PW-5, at the most, would account for, to the extent of furnishing of information about the death to PW-1. Beyond that, he did not witness the occurrence by himself, nor did he receive any direct information from any quarter. 9. PW-1 has simply repeated the contents of Ex.P-1. He, no doubt, stated that the relationship between the accused and deceased was not cordial for three months prior to the incident. However, no motive as such was suggested to the accused, to kill his wife. It is too difficult to believe that the accused was concerned about the character of the deceased. Reason is that the union between the accused and the deceased is itself, the result of the illicit intimacy. 10. The daughter of the deceased through her first husband deposed as PW-3. Since the girl was minor as on the date of deposition, the trial Court took all the precautions that are stipulated under law. The girl had only furnished a brief background of the relationship between the accused and the deceased. She did not refer to any specific act of harassment or any physical assault on the deceased. 11. The medical evidence, being deposition PW-12 and Ex.P-6 discloses that there were stab injuries on the body of the deceased. There is no evidence on record to indicate that the weapon through which the injuries on the body of the deceased were caused, has been recovered much less, at the instance of the accused. The trial Court was naturally tempted to hold the accused, as guilty on account of the fact that he alone is the person, that was in the company of the deceased and his disappearance from the scene for quite some time naturally, makes the needle of suspicion, to point at him. 12. Howsoever strong, a suspicion may be, it cannot be a substitute for proof. It is well known that proof in a criminal case must be beyond any reasonable doubt. We are of the clear opinion that the evidence on record is not sufficient even to make a beginning in the process of suspecting the role of the accused. This is not even a case where the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. The reason is that existence of doubt itself is doubtful. We are of the clear opinion that the evidence on record is not sufficient even to make a beginning in the process of suspecting the role of the accused. This is not even a case where the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. The reason is that existence of doubt itself is doubtful. We are of the view that the conviction and sentence ordered by the trial Court against the accused cannot be sustained in law. 13. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence ordered in S.C. No. 298 of 2009 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Khammam, dated 07.01.2010, against the appellant-accused, are set aside. The appellant-accused shall be set at liberty forthwith, unless his detention is needed in any other case. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant-accused shall be refunded to him.