JUDGMENT Biplab Kumar Sharma, J. 1. The challenge in this appeal is the judgment of conviction dated 29.01.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Udalguri in Sessions Case No. 15(D-U)/2012 convicting the accused/appellant u/s. 302 IPC and sentencing her to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life with further sentence of fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- in default, further Simple Imprisonment for 02(two) years. The prosecution story in brief is that one Md. Taibur Rahman had married the accused/appellant. But during the subsistence of the said marriage, he married the deceased Jabeda Khatun. Jabeda and Monowara often had quarrels and to avoid the same, Taibur kept Jabeda in her father's house. However, Jabeda used to visit her husband Taibur. In one such visit on 26.08.2003, she stayed back with Taibur and Monowara and the quarrels between the two wives started to take place. On 28.08.2003 at about 8/9 A.M., during such a quarrel and in a fit of rage, the accused Monowara along with her husband Taibur hit the deceased Jabeda with a piece of wood inflicting injury and thereafter administered some insecticide. Thereafter, the deceased was taken to nearby hospital at Rowta, but she died on her way. 2. On the basis of the FIR lodged by the police (ASI of Police-PW-8), Udalguri P.S. Case No. 96/2003 was registered u/s. 306/302/34 IPC. The FIR was lodged on 01.09.2003. Prior to the said FIR, another FIR was lodged on 28.08.2003 by the brother of the deceased (PW-10) with the Rowta police station with the intimation that his married sister Jabeda aged about 20 years died of taking poison as was informed by her husband Taibur Rahman. 3. On the basis of the said FIR, Rowta O.P. GD Entry was made and forwarded the same to Udalguri Police Station for registering an unnatural Death Case and consequently Udalguri P.S. UD Case No. 21/2003 dated 30.08.2003 was registered. 4. On the day of occurrence, the inquest was done and the dead body was sent to the hospital for post-mortem examination, which was done on 29.08.2003. The inquest report (Ext. 2) prepared by the Executive Magistrate, who was not examined as witness, reveals that no injury mark was seen on the dead body of the deceased. 4. On the day of occurrence, the inquest was done and the dead body was sent to the hospital for post-mortem examination, which was done on 29.08.2003. The inquest report (Ext. 2) prepared by the Executive Magistrate, who was not examined as witness, reveals that no injury mark was seen on the dead body of the deceased. On the other hand, the Doctor (PW-3), who had conducted the postmortem examination recorded that the death of the deceased was due to shock and intracranial haemorrhage as a result of the injuries sustained. The Doctor found the scalp and the skull of the deceased intact. But there was collection of blood present between scalp and the skull over the right parietal region and over the brain on the right parietal lobe. The Doctor also found abrasion and ecchymosis of different types over different parts of the body of the deceased. 5. The police carried out investigation and in due course submitted charge sheet. Thereafter, charge having been framed u/s. 302 IPC against both the accused i.e. the present appellant and her husband Taibur Rahman, trial started, during which the prosecution examined altogether 11 witnesses including the doctor, first informant of the FIR dated 28.08.2003 and also the Investigating Officer, who conducted the investigation (PW-9). 6. On the basis of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court having convicted the accused/appellant on the basis of the circumstantial evidence, she has preferred the present appeal. 7. We have heard Mr. K. Sarma, learned counsel for the accused/appellant and have also heard Ms. S. Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. We have also very carefully considered the entire evidence on record. Out conclusions and findings are as follows. 8. The point for determination as was framed by the learned Trial Court was as to whether the accused/appellant along with her husband, in furtherance of a common intention, committed murder by causing death of the deceased. Appreciating the evidence on record the learned Trial Court has convicted the accused/appellant on the basis of circumstantial evidence holding that there are no missing links in the chain of circumstances. For a ready reference, the findings recorded in this regard are quoted below:- "(a) There is clear evidence in this case that deceased Jabeda Khatoon was present in the house of Taibur Rahman on the day of occurrence. For a ready reference, the findings recorded in this regard are quoted below:- "(a) There is clear evidence in this case that deceased Jabeda Khatoon was present in the house of Taibur Rahman on the day of occurrence. (b) There is also evidence available in the record that Monowara Begum also present in the house of Taibur Rahman at the time of occurrence. (c) There is no dispute that both Monowara and Jabeda were not in good terms and they regularly quarrelled with each other. (d) There is no dispute that the deceased Jabeda Khatoon died because of the injuries sustained on her head at the relevant time of occurrence while she was in the company of accused Monowara Begum. (e) There is no explanation given by the accused Monowara Begum as to how the deceased Jabeda Khatoon sustained injuries on the head and other parts of her body. (f) Jabeda Khatoon died in the presence of Monowara Begum." 9. When the accused/appellant was examined u/s. 313 Cr. P.C., replying to the question put to her as to how the deceased sustained injuries on the head and the upper part of the body, she stated that the head of the deceased hit a wooden part of the house after consuming poison sustaining head injury. As regards the injury sustained on her face, the accused/appellant stated that the injury was sustained by the deceased while taken to hospital on a push cart. 10. Mr. K. Sarma, learned counsel for the accused/appellant in his persuasive pursuit submitted that there could not have been conviction of the accused/appellant on the basis of the statement recorded u/s. 161 Cr. P.C. as the same is not a substantive piece of evidence and can be used only for the purpose of contradiction and for corroboration. On the other hand, Ms. S. Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam submitted that having regard to the evidence on record, the learned Trial Court has rightly held the accused/appellant guilty of the offence, which requires no interference of this Court. 11. There is no eye witness to the offence allegedly committed by the accused/appellant. The learned trial Court appreciating the evidence on record, while holding that accused Taibur Rahman is not guilty has held the accused/appellant guilty of the offence. 11. There is no eye witness to the offence allegedly committed by the accused/appellant. The learned trial Court appreciating the evidence on record, while holding that accused Taibur Rahman is not guilty has held the accused/appellant guilty of the offence. To appreciate the correctness or otherwise of the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court, let us briefly refer to the evidence on record. 12. PW-1 in her deposition stated that on the day of occurrence, she had gone to the residence of Taibur upon hearing "Hullah" and found the deceased vomiting. She also found the accused/appellant pouring water on her head. On being asked, the deceased told her that she had taken poison. Thereafter, she was taken to the hospital where she died. In her cross examination, she stated that while the deceased was taken to hospital on a push cart, the accused/appellant also accompanied her. As regards the relationship between the accused/appellant and the deceased, she in her deposition stated that their relationship was no so bad, but the deceased was a bit uncouth and often was not in her senses when became angry. 13. PW-2, PW-6 and PW-7 were declared hostile in reference to their statements made u/s. 161 Cr. P.C. PW-2 in her deposition also stated seeing the deceased vomiting and pouring of water on her head. As per her deposition, the deceased died in the hospital. PW-6 also in her statement stated the same thing and so also by the PW-7. However, all of them were declared hostile in reference to their statements made u/s. 161 Cr. P.C. They denied having made such statement u/s. 161 Cr. P.C. As per the said statements, on the day of occurrence, there were quarrel between the deceased and the appellant and the deceased was hit by the accused with a piece of wood. 14. PW-3 is the Doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination of the deceased. He in his deposition stated about the injuries sustained by the deceased, which has already been referred to above. 15. PW-4 and PW-5 in their depositions stated about examination of the dead body of the deceased in their presence and preparation of the inquest report. 16. PW-8 is the ASI, who had submitted the 2nd FIR. He in his deposition referred to the 1st FIR that was filed by the brother of the deceased and as to what revealed during investigation. 16. PW-8 is the ASI, who had submitted the 2nd FIR. He in his deposition referred to the 1st FIR that was filed by the brother of the deceased and as to what revealed during investigation. He in his cross examination admitted that in the FIR lodged by the brother of the deceased, there was no mention of the names of the accused persons and that the case was referred to as a case of suicide. 17. PW-9 is the Investigating Officer, who conducted the investigation. He in his deposition stated about arresting Taibur Rahman and as to how the investigation was carried out. He also referred to the statements made by PW-2 U/s. 161 Cr. P.C. about which mention has been made above. 18. PW-10 is the brother of the deceased. He in his deposition stated as to how hearing the news of death of his sister he had rushed to the house of Taibur. He was informed by the neighbours that the deceased was taken to the hospital. Thereafter, he also rushed to the hospital and found her death. 19. PW-11 is S.I. of police who had arrested the accused/appellant and submitted charge sheet. 20. Above are the evidence on record on the basis of which while acquitting Taibur Rahman, his wife i.e. the accused/appellant has been convicted by the learned Trial Court. As noted above, the conviction is primarily on the basis of the statement made by PW-2, PW-6 and PW-7 u/s. 161Cr. P.C. Such statements have been relied upon in reference to the circumstances referred in the impugned judgment of conviction including the testimony of the Investigating Officer (PW-9), who in his deposition referred to such statement made by PW-2. 21. It has been held by the learned Trial Court that the fact that at the time of occurrence the deceased and the accused/appellant were present in the house of the other accused Taibur Rahman on the date of occurrence required the explanation of the accused as to how the deceased sustained the injuries on her head and other parts of the body. It has also been held by the learned Trial Court that there is no explanation on the part of the accused/appellant. However, as noted above, in her statement u/s. 313 Cr. P.C., the accused/appellant stated the reasons for sustaining the injuries by the deceased. It has also been held by the learned Trial Court that there is no explanation on the part of the accused/appellant. However, as noted above, in her statement u/s. 313 Cr. P.C., the accused/appellant stated the reasons for sustaining the injuries by the deceased. The same will have to be considered in reference to the evidence of PW-1, who in her deposition categorically stated that the deceased on being asked told her that she had taken poison. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of this witness. 22. Although the prosecution has heavily relied on the statement of the PW-2, PW-6 and Pw-7 nude u/s. 161 Cr. P.C. towards de-daring them hostile and contended that it was the accused/appellant who had inflicted the head injury on the deceased by a piece of wood, but no effort was made by the Investigating Officer to recover the same. According to the prosecution, since the deceased and the accused/appellant were together on the day of occurrence and the PW-2, PW-6 and PW-7 had stated in their statements u/s. 161 Cr. P.C. about hitting on the head of the deceased by the accused/appellant by a piece of wood, it was the accused/appellant who was to explain the circumstances leading to death of the deceased, which she fails to discharge. When she was asked to explain the circumstances putting question to her u/s. 313 Cr. P.C., the accused/appellant explained the circumstances leading to the injuries on the head and body of the deceased. As noted above, in the inquest report, there was no record of any injury mark on the body of the deceased. 23. Referring to the aforesaid evidence on record, it is the finding of the learned Trial Court that there is circumstantial evidence to conclude that it is the accused/appellant who had committed the offence u/s. 302 IPC. As has been held by the Apex Court in Sat Paul vs. Delhi Administration, reported in AIR 1976 SC 294 , when the witnesses contradicted their previous statements in cross examination, it would not be safe to convict the accused on the basis of statement of such witness. In the instant case, the accused/appellant has been convicted primarily on the basis of the statement of PW-2 made u/s. 161 Cr. P.C. in reference to her alleged hostility. In the instant case, the accused/appellant has been convicted primarily on the basis of the statement of PW-2 made u/s. 161 Cr. P.C. in reference to her alleged hostility. However, in the cross examination of PW-2, PW-6 and PW-7, they categorically denied having made the statements u/s. 161 Cr. P.C. 24. The doctrine of circumstantial evidence is brought into aid where there are no eye witnesses to the occurrence and it is for the prosecution to establish complete chain of circumstances leading to definite conclusion pointing towards guilt of the accused. There should not be any missing links. In case of circumstantial evidence, burden on prosecution is always greater. Suspicion however, strong cannot take place of legal proof. As has been held by the Apex Court in Judgendra Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012) 6 SCC 297 , it is the duty of Court to sift chaff from grain and find the truth from testimony of witness. Such testimony of witness must inspire confidence and must be credit worthy. Statements of witnesses are required to be read as a whole. The Court cannot pick up evidence in isolation from the entire statement and use it ignoring its proper reference and context. 25. Circumstances on which the prosecution relies must be capable of giving rise to an inference which is inconsistent with any other hypothesis except guilt of the accused. To secure a conviction on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove its case by cogent, reliable and admissible evidence. Circumstances must be proved like any other fact and upon a composite reading thereof. It must lead to a high degree of probability that it is only the accused and none other who has committed the alleged offence. As has been held by the Apex Court in Sujit Biswas vs. State of Assam, (2013) 12 SCC 406 , adverse inference can be drawn against the accused only and only if incriminating materials stands fully established and the accused is not able to furnish any explanation for the same. 26. Suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot take the place of proof, and there is a large difference between something that "may be" proved, and something that "will be proved". As has been held in Sujit Biswas (Supra), in a criminal trial, suspicion no matter how strong, cannot and must not be permitted to take place of proof. 26. Suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot take the place of proof, and there is a large difference between something that "may be" proved, and something that "will be proved". As has been held in Sujit Biswas (Supra), in a criminal trial, suspicion no matter how strong, cannot and must not be permitted to take place of proof. This is for the reason that the mental distance between "may be" and "must be" is quite large, and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. In a criminal case, the court has a duty to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take the place of legal proof. The large distance between "may be" true and "must be" true, must be covered by way of clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence produced by the prosecution, before an accused is condemned as a convict, and the basic and golden rule must be applied. In such cases, while keeping in mind the distance between "may be" true and "must be" true, the court must maintain the vital distance between mere conjectures and sure conclusions to be arrived at, on the touchstone of dispassionate judicial scrutiny, based upon a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all features of the case, as well as the quality and credibility of the evidence brought on record. The Court must ensure, that miscarriage of justice is avoided, and if the facts and circumstances of a case so demand, then the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused, keeping in mind that a reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely probable doubt, but a fair doubt that is based upon reason and common sense. 27. In Kali Ram vs. State of H.P., (1973) 2 SCC 808 , the Apex Court observed thus:- "25. Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in cases wherein the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence." 28. In a case of circumstantial evidence, the judgment remains essentially inferential. Inferences are drawn from established facts, as the circumstances lead to particular inferences. This principle has a special relevance in cases wherein the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence." 28. In a case of circumstantial evidence, the judgment remains essentially inferential. Inferences are drawn from established facts, as the circumstances lead to particular inferences. The court must draw an inference with respect to whether the chain of circumstances is complete, and when the circumstances therein are collectively considered, the same must lead only to the irresistible conclusion, that the accused alone is perpetrator of the crime in question. All the circumstances so established must be of a conclusive nature, and consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. 29. Dealing with the purpose of examining the accused person u/s. 313 Cr. P.C. the Apex Court in Sujit Biswas (Supra) observed thus:- "It is a settled legal proposition that in a criminal trial, the purpose of examining the accused person under Section 313 Cr. P.C., is to meet the requirement of the principles of natural justice i.e. audi alteram partem. This means that the accused may be asked to furnish some explanation as regards the incriminating circumstances associated with him, and the court must take note of such explanation. In a case of circumstantial evidence, the same is essential to decide whether or not the chain of circumstances is complete. No matter how weak the evidence of the prosecution may be, it is the duty of the court to examine the accused, and to seek his explanation as regards the incriminating material that has surfaced against him. The circumstances which are not put to the accused in his examination under Section 313 Cr. P.C., cannot be used against him and must be excluded from consideration. The said statement cannot be treated as evidence within the meaning of Section 3 of the Evidence Act, as the accused cannot be cross-examined with reference to such statement." 30. In the instant case, there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW-1, who in her deposition categorically stated about taking of poison by the deceased. She could not be dislodged from what she had stated in her examination-in-chief when prosecution cross-examined her. The question necessarily will arise as to why the testimony of PW-1 should be disbelieved while accepting the statement made by the PW-2 before the police u/s. 161 Cr. She could not be dislodged from what she had stated in her examination-in-chief when prosecution cross-examined her. The question necessarily will arise as to why the testimony of PW-1 should be disbelieved while accepting the statement made by the PW-2 before the police u/s. 161 Cr. P.C. The utility of the previous statement of a prosecution is settled by a catena of judicial decision. A statement recorded u/s.161 Cr. P.C. is not a substantive piece of evidence and the same can be used only for the purpose of contradiction and not for corroboration. 31. In the instant case, except the purported statement of the PW-2 u/s. 161 Cr. P.C. in reference to which she was declared hostile, there is no credible evidence to hold the accused/appellant guilty of the offence u/s. 302 IPC. In the totality of the circumstance, such as lodging of the 1st and 2nd FIR, testimony of PW-1 and PW-2, PW-6, PW-7 (declared hostile) and the explanation furnished by the accused/appellant u/s. 313 Cr. P.C., it will be unsafe to hold that it is the accused/appellant who had committed the offence u/s. 302 IPC. 32. For all the aforesaid reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the accused/appellant is entitled to get benefit of doubt. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned judgment of conviction dated 29.01.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Udalguri, Assam, in Sessions Case No. 15(D-U)/12. 33. The accused/appellant shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case. Let the Lower Case Record be sent down along with the copy of this judgment and order.