JUDGMENT C. V. BHADANG, J.:- Both these Appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated 23rd February, 2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha in Sessions Case No. 176/2009. As such, both these Appeal are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The brief facts are that, in all seven accused including the appellants were put on trial before the learned Sessions Judge, Wardha in Sessions Case No.176/2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 203, 120B and 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that, in the year 1997, now deceased Archana was married with accused-Gangandhar Ninave R/o Seloo. They were blessed with a son and a daughter out of the wedlock. In the year 2005 Gangadhar Ninave developed acquaintance and intimacy with accused Chandrakala Mahure R/o Ghorad, who was said to have a deity in her house, on account of which Gangadhar used to stay in her house intermittently. The accused Chandrakala, Gangadhar and his mother Suman had a suspicion that deceased Archana was practicing black-magic and on account of that Archana was kept away from her children at Butibori. It appears that on 28th July 2005 deceased-Archana lodged a report with Police Station, Seloo on the basis of which an offence was registered against Gangadhar and his mother Suman. Subsequently, now deceased Archana had decided to reside with her parents at Shirsi. It also appears that Archana had filed maintenance proceedings at Umred and she was granted maintenance against Gangadhar. Further, according to the prosecution, accused-Gangadhar Ninave made an attempt to re-conciliate the dispute with the help of a mediator and assured that Archana would be treated properly. On such an assurance, Archana resumed co-habitation in May, 2009. However on 08.09.2009, Archana made a phone call to her father informing that her husband Gangadhar had threatened her with life, if his brother Damodar dies. According to the prosecution, the accused were claiming that Archana had practised black-magic on Damodar, brother of Gangadhar, on account of which, he was ailing. It was in this context that the threat was given, that if Damodar dies, Archana would be done to death. It so happened that Damodar died on 10th September, 2009. According to the prosecution, the accused were claiming that Archana had practised black-magic on Damodar, brother of Gangadhar, on account of which, he was ailing. It was in this context that the threat was given, that if Damodar dies, Archana would be done to death. It so happened that Damodar died on 10th September, 2009. Further, according to the prosecution, at the time of the funeral of Damodar, accused Suman, mother-in-law of the deceased, assaulted Archana by means of chappal attributing the death of Damodar to the alleged witchcraft practised by Archana. It is also alleged that Archana was made to starve. On 15th September, 2009 Gangadhar left Archana at his field at Kolgaon and returned to Seloo where Archana disclosed to the adjoining field owners, about she having made to starve for three days and also expressing of an apprehension that something untoward would happen as 'there is a meeting in Seloo'. On the subsequent day in the morning, Gangadhar had lodged a missing report with Police Station, Seloo informing that since the previous night Archana was missing. An intimation was also given to Chindhu Bhisikar, father of Archana, who came to Seloo and took search of Archana. However she was not traced out. It was on 18th September, 2009 that Chindhu Bhisikar lodged a report with Police Station, Seloo raising suspicion against Gangadhar and his family members, of having committed murder of Archana. It appears that on 19.9.2009 A.P.I. Khobragade took Gangadhar in his custody for interrogation and it was allegedly on a disclosure statement made by him, that dead body of Archana was fished out of the well of Mahadeo Mahure at Kolgaon Shivar. The dead body of Archana was found in a sack. It was tied with stones. The dead body of Archana was sent for post-mortem examination. API Khobragade lodged a report against the accused, on the basis of which an offence at Crime No. 129/2009 was registered with Police Station, Seloo. During the investigation, a spot panchnama of the scene of offence was prepared. Statements of witnesses came to be recorded. The seized muddemal was referred for report of the Chemical Analyser. On completion of investigation, a charge-sheet came to be laid in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Seloo for the offence punishable under sections 302, 201, 203, 120-B, and 498A r/ws. Statements of witnesses came to be recorded. The seized muddemal was referred for report of the Chemical Analyser. On completion of investigation, a charge-sheet came to be laid in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Seloo for the offence punishable under sections 302, 201, 203, 120-B, and 498A r/ws. 34 of the I.P.C. The learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge Wardha framed charge against the accused for the aforesaid offences to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The accused came up with a plea of total denial and false implication. 4. At the trial, the prosecution examined in all eleven witnesses and produced and proved the material documents. The accused neither entered the witness box nor examined any defence witnesses. 5. The learned Sessions Judge convicted accused-Gangadhar for the offence punishable u/s. 302 of I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default, to suffer R.I. for six months. Accused-Gangadhar was also found guilty for the offence punishable u/s. 203 of the I.P.C. and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year. Accused Nos.1 and 2 i.e. Gangadhar and Suman Ninave were also found guilty of offence punishable u/s. 498-A r/ws. 34 of the I.P.C. and were sentenced to suffer R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and, in default, to suffer R.I. for six months. Accused No.1-Gangadhar; accused no.2-Suman; accused no.3 Khushal; accused no.5-Chandrakala Mahure and accused no.6 Suresh Mahure were also found guilty of an offence punishable u/s. 201 r/ws. 34 of the I.P.C. and were sentenced to suffer R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default, to suffer R.I. for six months. Lastly, accused no.2-Suman, accused no.3-Khushal, accused no.5 Chandrakala and accused no.6 Suresh Mahure were also found guilty for an offence punishable u/s. 120-B r/ws. 34 of the I.P.C. and were sentenced to suffer R.I. for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and, in default, to suffer R.I. for six months. Accused no.4 Govindrao and accused no.7- Vijay Ninave were, however, acquitted of the offence punishable u/ss. 302, 201, 120-B, 498-A r/ws. 34 of the I.P.C.. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the original accused nos. 5,000/- each and, in default, to suffer R.I. for six months. Accused no.4 Govindrao and accused no.7- Vijay Ninave were, however, acquitted of the offence punishable u/ss. 302, 201, 120-B, 498-A r/ws. 34 of the I.P.C.. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the original accused nos. 1 to 3 have filed Criminal Appeal No.170/2011, while original accused no.5 Chandrakala Mahure and no.6 Suresh Mahure have field Criminal Appeal No.215/2011. 7. We have heard Shri A.K. Choube, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 170/2011 and Mr. R.M. Daga, learned counsel for the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.215/2011 and Smt. S.S. Jachak, learned A.P.P. for respondent-State. With the assistance of the learned counsel and the learned APP, we have gone through the evidence led and the impugned judgment. 8. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that the case solely rests on circumstantial evidence. It is submitted that the evidence led is not sufficient to support the finding of guilt. It is submitted that there are material discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses and the evidence led does not satisfy the requirement of a case being proved on the basis of circumstantial evidence. It is submitted that even a strong suspicion cannot take the place of proof. Learned counsel on behalf of the appellants have pointed out that individual circumstances cannot be said to be proved nor the link can be said to be complete in order to hold that it is the accused alone who could be said to be the author of the crime. Reliance is placed on the decisions in the case of (1) Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra: AIR 1984 SC 1622 : [2009 ALL SCR (O.C.C.) 281]; (2) Shankarlal Gyarasilal Dixit vs. State of Maharashtra: AIR 1981 SC 765 ; and, (3) State of Goa vs. Sanjay Thakran and another: 2007(2) Crimes 294 (SC) : [2007 ALL SCR 1861], in order to submit that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It was, therefore, submitted that the Appeals be allowed. 9. On the contrary, it is submitted on behalf of respondent State by Smt. S.S. Jachak, learned AddI. P.P that this is a case of strong motive being established which has led to the murder of Archana. It was, therefore, submitted that the Appeals be allowed. 9. On the contrary, it is submitted on behalf of respondent State by Smt. S.S. Jachak, learned AddI. P.P that this is a case of strong motive being established which has led to the murder of Archana. It is submitted that the evidence of PW4 Chindhuji, the father of the deceased; PW 5 Sunil Gudghane, PW 6 - Kothiram Choudhari, PW7 Anusuyabai Irpate; PW 9 Shalikrao is sufficient to connect the accused with the crime. It is submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly convicted the appellants and the Appeals be dismissed being devoid of any merits. 10. Undoubtedly this is a case based on circumstantial evidence. The law relating to a case based on circumstantial evidence, is too well settled, to be restated. Nonetheless, it may be mentioned that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sharad Sarda, [2009 ALLSCR (O.C.C.)281] (supra) has, inter alia, held that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against the accused, based on circumstantial evidence can be said to be fully established; (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' 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. It has also been held that the prosecution cannot derive any strength from the weakness and/or the falsity of the defence. It is only when the various links in the chain are themselves complete then a false plea or a false defence may be called into aid to lend assurance to the Court. To put it otherwise the various links themselves have to be individually established and the chain must be complete so as to unerringly point to the guilt of the accused. To put it otherwise the various links themselves have to be individually established and the chain must be complete so as to unerringly point to the guilt of the accused. If this is so, the falsity of the defence if demonstrated can reinforce/fortify such a conclusion. 11. Turning to the present case, the inter se relationship between the accused may be briefly noticed. Accused no.1 is the husband of the deceased Archana; accused nos. 2 and 4 are his parents; while accused nos, 3 and 7 are the brothers of the accused no.1. The accused no.5 Chandrakala is the alleged paramour of the accused no.1, while accused no. 6 is her husband. 12. The post-mortem report (Exh.106) would show that the deceased died of asphyxia as a result of manual strangulation. The question is whether the evidence is sufficient to connect the accused with the alleged crime. In this case, the accused no.1 had lodged a report with the Police Station on 16.09.2009 that the deceased was missing since the last night. It has come in the evidence of PW4-Chindhuji that on 2nd May 2009 at the intervention of Sophan Kargaonkar and one Chilbule R/o Umred, deceased Archana had resumed cohabitation with accused no.1 Gangadhar. It has come in his evidence that Surekha, the sister of the deceased had informed him that the deceased told her that Damodar, bother of accused no.1 is sick and the deceased was threatened that if Damodar dies, then she will not be left alive. This was allegedly on account of a suspicion and aspersion that Archana was practising black-magic and had done so on Damodar. It has further come in his evidence that it was on 16th that he for the first time came to know about Archana having gone missing. However, he lodged the report only on 19th September, 2009. He has also stated that Archana herself never informed and never made any phone call to him. 13. PW 5-Sunil Gudghane has stated that about 15 to 20 days prior to the incident, the brother of accused-Gangadhar by name, Damodar was sick and was admitted in hospital. The deceased had told that her mother-in-law and the husband were saying that she practised black magic. 13. PW 5-Sunil Gudghane has stated that about 15 to 20 days prior to the incident, the brother of accused-Gangadhar by name, Damodar was sick and was admitted in hospital. The deceased had told that her mother-in-law and the husband were saying that she practised black magic. On 15.09.2009 at about 8.30 to 9.00 a.m. Archana came near his field and told that since last three days no food was provided to her and she was not allowed to meet her children. She also informed that on the day of death of Damodar, her mother-in-law assaulted her by chap pal. This witness had then stated about the alleged incident in which he has stated that on 15.09.2009 at about 11.00 to 11.30 p.m., he was going to his field from Ghorad for watering the crops and while proceeding to Kolgaon from Ghorad via Kotamba Pati had noticed near the field of Shankarrao Deotale that the accused Gangadhar, Suman, Khushal, Chandrakala and Suresh were coming towards Seloo. The statement of this witness was recorded after nine days. Then, the evidence of PW 6 Kotihiram Chaudhari is to the effect that on 15.09.2009 at about 11.00 p.m. he was sitting in front of his house after finishing his dinner. At that time he saw -Khushal, their mother, Suresh and Chandrakala Mahure coming from the side of the field of Gangadhar. He asked Gangadhar as to where he had gone. Gangadhar informed him that he is coming after watering the crops. Even if, we were to consider the combined effect of the evidence of these witnesses, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said to be an evidence of 'last seen together', inasmuch as none of these witnesses were speaking about they having seen the deceased in the company of the accused. Thus, the circumstance, in the nature of last seen together, cannot be called into aid in this case. 14. The next circumstance is about alleged discovery of the dead body made by the accused. From the evidence on record and in particular PW 3-Laxman Parate, it appears that on 19.09.2009 the accused had allegedly shown the shed in his field and then led the police and the Panchas to the well in the field of Mahadeo Mahure from where the dead body of the deceased was taken out. From the evidence on record and in particular PW 3-Laxman Parate, it appears that on 19.09.2009 the accused had allegedly shown the shed in his field and then led the police and the Panchas to the well in the field of Mahadeo Mahure from where the dead body of the deceased was taken out. The evidence in this regard would show that this was in the late evening on 19.09.2009. This witness has stated that the proceedings of the Panchnama were going on at the well upto 11.10 p.m. It was suggested on behalf of the defence that the dead body was not "discovered as such", at the instance of the accused. It would be pertinent to note that the PW 4-Chindhuji had lodged the complaint (Exh. 87) about Archana having gone missing on 18.09.2009. This witness has categorically stated in his evidence that on the same day at about 1.00 a.m. the police informed him that dead body of Archana was found in the well. There is enough evidence on record to show that the dead body in the well was noticed much prior to the alleged discovery made by the accused Gangadhar. If that be so and if dead body was already noticed in the well in the field of Mahadeo Mahure, it cannot be said to be a "discovery", as such at the instance of the accused no.1, so as to reckon it as an incriminating circumstance. 15. This leaves us with the only circumstance about motive, namely, the accused were alleging that the deceased was practising blackmagic and had been responsible for the death of Damodar. In our considered opinion, motive by itself cannot be said to be sufficient to support the finding of guilt. It also cannot be envisaged that the accused no.6 who is the husband of Chandrakala, the alleged paramour of Ganagadhar, would be part of the criminal conspiracy to eliminate Archana. 16. Thus, we find that the circumstantial evidence led against the accused in this case is not sufficient to return the finding of guilt. Consequently, the following order is passed: ORDER Both the Appeals are allowed. The order of conviction and sentence dated 23.02.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha in Sessions Case No. 176/2009 is set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the offences charged with. Consequently, the following order is passed: ORDER Both the Appeals are allowed. The order of conviction and sentence dated 23.02.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha in Sessions Case No. 176/2009 is set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the offences charged with. The appellant No.1 in Criminal Appeal No. 170/2011, namely, Gangadhar Govindrao Ninave, is directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other crime. The bail bonds of rest of the accused shall stand cancelled. Appeals allowed.