JUDGMENT : S.K. Sahoo, J. 1. It is a case of Uxoricide. The Appellant Surya Chandra Pradhan faced trial in the Court of Sessions Judge, Phulbani being charged under Section 302 I.P.C. in S.T. Case No. 30 of 2003 for committing murder of his wife Nirupama @ Babita Pradhan (hereafter "the deceased") during the intervening night of 31.6.2002 & 1.7.2002 inside a room of LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOURS CHILDREN HOME (hereinafter "the Hostel") situated at Masedikia. The Appellant was found guilty by the Trial Court vide impugned Judgment & Order Dated 15.7.2004 & sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The prosecution case as per the First Information Report lodged by one Elias Nayak (P.W. 11) of Christian Sahi on 1.7.2002 at about 8.00 a.m. before the Officer-in-Charge, Raikia Police Station is that the informant was the Superintendent of the Hostel where poor Adivasi & Harijan students were staying & prosecuting their studies free of cost. After the annual examination, the students had been to their respective villages due to vacation. The Appellant was working as a watchman of the hostel & he was provided with a small room in the hostel where he was staying with the deceased. On 30.6.2002 at about 8.30 p.m. Madisha Pradhan (P.W. 13) along with his two younger brothers came to P.W. 11 for the purpose of leaving his brothers in the hostel. P.W. 11 accompanies P.W. 13 & his two brothers to the hostel & left them there. At that time the Appellant & the deceased were present in the hostel. On the next day i.e., on 1.7.2002 at about 6.30 a.m. P.W. 13 along with his two brothers came back to P.W. 11 & handed over a letter to him purported to have been written by the Appellant. It was written in the letter in Kui language Agnya Juhari Anu Dosa Githe" which means in Oriya "Agnya Namaskar Mu Dosa Karichhi" actual translation of which is "Agnya Namaskar I have committed crime". P.W. 13 & his two brothers told P.W. 11 that they had also noticed blood stains at the hands of the Appellant. Suspecting some foul play, P.W. 11 immediately rushed to the hostel & found that Nirupama @ Babita Pradhan (deceased) was lying dead with bleeding injuries in the room where she was staying with the Appellant. P.W. 13 & his two brothers told P.W. 11 that they had also noticed blood stains at the hands of the Appellant. Suspecting some foul play, P.W. 11 immediately rushed to the hostel & found that Nirupama @ Babita Pradhan (deceased) was lying dead with bleeding injuries in the room where she was staying with the Appellant. P.W. 11 suspected that the Appellant had committed the murder of the deceased & accordingly he lodged the F.I.R. Basing on such information of P.W. 11, the Officer-in-charge of Raikia Police Station namely Harihar Swain (P.W. 15) registered Raikia P.S. Case No. 71 of 20.02 under Section 302 I.P.C. against the Appellant & he himself took up investigation of the case. During investigation, the I.O. (P.W. 15) examined the informant (P.W. 11), sent requisition to S.D.M., Baliguda for deputation of an Executive Magistrate to remain present at the time of inquest. P.W. 15 visited the spot & prepared the spot map (Ext. 24). On the very day the Appellant voluntarily surrendered before police & he was arrested & basing on his statement recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, one blood stained Kati (M.O. XI) & one blood stained Lungi (M.O. XII) were recovered from one corner of a room of the hostel wrapped in a mat & seized under seizure list (Ext. 17). P.W. 15 also seized the letter (Ext. 11) stated to have been written by the Appellant on being produced by P.W. 11 & prepared seizure list (Ext. 10). P.W. 15 conducted inquest over the dead body in presence of the Executive Magistrate in the hostel & prepared inquest report (Ext. 18). He also sent the dead body for post mortem examination. P.W. 12 Dr. Rammohan Panda who was the Medical Officer attached to Raikia C.H.C. conducted post mortem examination & noticed number of incised wounds on the person of the deceased & opined the cause of death due to shock & hemorrhage primarily due to injuries on the neck & the head which were opined to be sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. P.W. 15 seized blood stained cemented pieces & sample pieces from the spot & prepared seizure list (Ext. 12). The Appellant was sent to Raikia Hospital for collection of nail clippings & the nail clippings were seized under seizure list (Ext. 2). P.W. 15 seized blood stained cemented pieces & sample pieces from the spot & prepared seizure list (Ext. 12). The Appellant was sent to Raikia Hospital for collection of nail clippings & the nail clippings were seized under seizure list (Ext. 2). The wearing apparels of the deceased were also seized after post mortem examination on being produced by the Constable under Seizure list (Ext. 1). After receipt of post mortem report, P.W. 15 made a query to the Medical Officer for his opinion regarding the possibility of the injuries sustained by the deceased by the weapon of offence. P.W. 12, the Medical Officer on examination of the weapon of offence i.e., Kati (M.O. XI) opined that the injuries described in the Post mortem report are possible by the said weapon. On 15.7.2002 P.W. 15 dispatched the exhibits to S.F.S.L. Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar through J.M.F.C., G. Udayagiri. P.W. 15 also seized some admitted handwritings of the Appellant & after collecting specimen handwritings of the Appellant sent the specimen handwritings & admitted handwritings of the Appellant to S.F.S.L. Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar for comparison with the disputed document. The attendance register of the hostel was seized & given in the zima of the Presidents finally on completion of investigation. P.W. 15 submitted charge sheet against the Appellant. 2. The defence plea is one of denial & it is pleaded that no letter had been handed over by the Appellant to P.W. 13 & that the Appellant was suffering from madness. 3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses. P.W. 1 Subash Chandra Behera & P.W. 3 Sisir Kumar Pradhan were working as constables in Raikia police Station & they carried the dead body of the deceased from the spot to Raikia C.H.C. for post mortem examination & after post mortem examination, they brought the wearing apparels of the deceased to the police station & produced before P.W. 15 who seized the same under seizure list Ext. 1. P.W. 2 Krushna Chandra Pradhan was working as a Gramarakhi (village watchman) under Raikia Police Station who produced the nail clippings of hand, leg fingers, nail scrapings & clotted blood collected from the body of the Appellant by the Medical Officer of Raikia C.H.C. before P W. 15 which were under seizure list Ext. 2. 1. P.W. 2 Krushna Chandra Pradhan was working as a Gramarakhi (village watchman) under Raikia Police Station who produced the nail clippings of hand, leg fingers, nail scrapings & clotted blood collected from the body of the Appellant by the Medical Officer of Raikia C.H.C. before P W. 15 which were under seizure list Ext. 2. He is also a witness to the seizure of wearing apparels & other articles belonging to the deceased under seizure list Ext. 1. P.W. 4 Karunakar Choudhury is the owner of a photo studio, who on being called by P.W. 15, took photographs of the deceased at the spot & subsequently handed over the photographs along with negatives to P.W. 15 which were seized under seizure list Ext. 4. P.W. 5 Bipin Bihari Nayak is a witness to the seizure of the letter stated to have been written by the Appellant which was produced by P.W. 11 before police & seized under seizure list Ext. 10. He is also a witness to the seizure of blood stained cemented floor & sample cemented floor from the spot under seizure list Ext. 12. He is also a witness to the seizure of two prescriptions of the Appellant under seizure list Ext. 13 so also the seizure of photographs along with negatives under seizure list Ext. 4. P.W. 6 Ramapati Pradhan was working as a Grama Rakhi (village watchman) under Raikia police station & he is a witness to the seizure of a letter purported to have been written by the Appellant under seizure list Ext. 14. The letter has been marked as Ext. 15. P.W. 7 Kamardhan Nayak is a witness to the seizure of blood stained Kati & Lungi at the instance of the Appellant on the basis of his statement recorded under Ext. 16. The articles were seized under seizure list Ext. 17. P.W. 8 Umakanta Dalbehera is the father-in-law of the Appellant who stated regarding the torture of the Appellant on the deceased on her refusal to go to the Church. P.W. 9 Udit Kumar Nayak is the uncle of the deceased & he is a witness to the inquest over the dead body. P.W. 10 Sanjeeb Kumar Nayak is the cousin brother of the deceased & he also stated about the disclosure made by the deceased regarding torture on her by the Appellant for not going to Church. P.W. 9 Udit Kumar Nayak is the uncle of the deceased & he is a witness to the inquest over the dead body. P.W. 10 Sanjeeb Kumar Nayak is the cousin brother of the deceased & he also stated about the disclosure made by the deceased regarding torture on her by the Appellant for not going to Church. P.W. 11 Elias Nayak is the informant in this case & he proved the letter Ext. 11 stated to have been written by the Appellant which was produced before him by P.W. 13. He is also a witness to the inquest. P.W. 12 Dr. Rammohan Panda was the Medical Officer, Raikia C.H.C. who conducted post mortem examination over the dead body & proved the post mortem report Ext. 20. He also gave reply to the query made by the I.O. regarding possibility of the injuries on the deceased by the Kati (M.O. XI). P.W. 13 Madisa Pradhan stated regarding the presence of the Appellant & the deceased in the hostel during the night of occurrence & he further stated regarding the letter which was given to him by the Appellant. He also noticed blood stains on the hands, legs & on the wearing apparels on the Appellant. He is stated to have handed over the letter given by the Appellant to P.W. 11. He also noticed the dead body lying at the spot with cut injuries on different parts of the body including neck & head. P.W. 14 Pradeep Kumar Nayak was the Tahasildar-cum-Executive Magistrate who was present at the time of inquest. P.W. 15 Harihar Swain is the Investigating Officer. No witness was examined on behalf of the defence but two prescriptions have been proved & marked as Ext. A & Ext. B to show that the Appellant was being treated for his mental unsoundness. The handwriting expert's opinion has been proved & marked as Ext. C. 4. Let us first examine as to whether the prosecution has proved that the deceased met a homicidal death or not? Apart from the inquest report Ext. A & Ext. B to show that the Appellant was being treated for his mental unsoundness. The handwriting expert's opinion has been proved & marked as Ext. C. 4. Let us first examine as to whether the prosecution has proved that the deceased met a homicidal death or not? Apart from the inquest report Ext. 18 prepared by the I.O. (P.W. 15) in presence of the Executive Magistrate (P.W. 14), the prosecution relies upon the evidence of P.W. 12, the Medical Officer of Raikia C.H.C. who conducted post mortem examination on 1.7.2002 & he noticed the following injuries: (1) Incised wound present horizontally on the nape of the neck, deep & forceful enough to fracture the underneath the survical vertebral column exposing the shivered spinal cord. Length 12 c.ms. X breadth 2 c.ms. & deep injuring the spinal cord of the neck. The, muscles of the nape of the neck cut across. (2) Incised wound high up on the left occipital bone of the head horizontally with a length of 5 c.m. X breadth 1 c.m. & bone deep forceful enough causing fracture of left occipital bone. (3) Incised injury horizontally across on the left cheek with length 5 c.m. X breadth 3 c.m. at its middle with skin deep & spindle shaped. (4) Incised injury on base of terminal phalanx of right index finger with length of 2 c.ms. X breadth 1 c.m. & bone deep. (5) Linear thread like injury of 3 c.m. & 2 c.m. length (2 in number) on extensor aspect of right middle finger. (6) Incised injury on postero-middle aspect of left thumb with length 1 c.m. breadth 0.5 c.m. & skin deep". The doctor opined that the injuries were ante mortem in nature & cause of death is due to shock & haemorrhage primarily due to the injuries on the neck & head. He further opined that the death was homicidal & injury Nos. 1 & 2 are sufficient to cause death of the deceased in ordinary course of nature. The post mortem report has been marked as Ext. 20. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant does not dispute about the homicidal death of the deceased. In view of the evidence of P.W. 12 coupled with the post mortem report (Ext. 20), we are of the view that the deceased met with a homicidal death. 5. The post mortem report has been marked as Ext. 20. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant does not dispute about the homicidal death of the deceased. In view of the evidence of P.W. 12 coupled with the post mortem report (Ext. 20), we are of the view that the deceased met with a homicidal death. 5. Admittedly in this case there is no direct evidence as to who committed the crime, when it was committed or how it was committed. The case rests upon circumstantial evidence. The law relating to circumstantial evidence no longer remains res integra. Circumstantial evidence means the evidence afforded not by the direct testimony of an eye witness to the fact to be proved, but by the bearing upon that fact or other subsidiary facts which are relied upon as inconsistent with any result other than truth of the principal fact & from which, one can, by process of intuitive reasoning, infer about the existence of facts in issue or factum probandum. The law relating to proof of a criminal charge by means of circumstantial evidence is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The facts so established should not only be consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence & such circumstances should be of a conclusive nature & tendency & they should exclude any other possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. The facts should not be explainable on any other hypothesis. Whether the accused has explained it or not is not very material. If the circumstances or some of them can be explained by any of the reasonable hypothesis then the accused must have the benefit of that hypothesis. It does not mean that any extravagant hypothesis would be sufficient to sustain the principle, but the hypothesis suggested must be reasonable. Prosecution is not required to meet any & every hypothesis put forward by the accused however farfetched & fanciful it might be. The chain of evidence must be so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent to the innocence of the accused & it must show that in all human probability the act must have done by the accused. The chain of evidence must be so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent to the innocence of the accused & it must show that in all human probability the act must have done by the accused. Circumstantial evidence must be a combination of facts creating a net work through which there is no escape for the accused because the facts taken as a whole do not admit any inference but of his guilt. While it is true that there should be no missing links in the prosecution case, it is not the law that every one of the links must appear on the surface of the evidence adduced. Some of these links may have to be inferred from the proved facts. While appreciating such cases, there is always a danger that conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof & as such the Court must be watchful & ensure that conjecture & suspicion do not take the place of legal proof. Circumstances of strong suspicion without more conclusive evidence are not sufficient to justify conviction, even though the party offers no explanation of them. Great care must be taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence & if the evidence relied on is reasonably capable of two inferences; the one in favour of the accused must be accepted. Thus if the combined effect of all the proved facts taken together is clear, conclusive & unimpeachable in nature in establishing guilt of the accused, conviction would be justified even though anyone or more of those facts by itself is not decisive (Ref.: AIR 1952 SC 343 (Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh), AIR 1960 SC 29 (Govinda Reddy v. State of Mysore), AIR 1967 SC 520 (Charan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh), AIR 1979 SC 826 (S.P. Bhatnagar v. State of Maharashtra), AIR 1984 SC 1622 (Sharad Bridhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra), AIR 1991 SC 1388 (Jaharlal Das v. State of Orissa), AIR 1992 SC 840 (State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava), (2013) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Criminal) 727 (Budhuram v. State of Chhattisgarh), (2014) 58 OCR (SC) 121 : (2014) 2 Supreme Court Cases (Criminal) 413 (Kanhaiya Lal v. State of Rajasthan). 6. 6. The prosecution case rests upon the following circumstances: (i) The Appellant was assaulting the deceased on her refusal to go to the church; (ii) The Appellant & the deceased were there in the Varandah room of the hostel in the night of occurrence & the dead body of the deceased was found lying with bleeding cut injuries in that room on the next day morning; (iii) The Appellant handed over a letter to P.W. 13 on the next day morning of occurrence wherein it was mentioned that he had committed a sin; (iv) One blood stained Kati & blood stained Lungi were recovered in a room of the hostel being wrapped with a mat at the instance of the Appellant; (v) The nail clippings of the Appellant was found to contain human blood of group "B" which was also the blood group of the deceased. First Circumstance: 7. P.W. 8 who is the father of the deceased stated that the deceased told him that the Appellant was pressurizing her to go to Church & on her refusal, the Appellant was assaulting her. P.W. 8 admits in his cross examination that he had not reported either to the police or to the Bhadraloks (gentlemen) of the area regarding the assault on her daughter by the Appellant on her refusal to go to Church. P.W. 10 who is the cousin brother of the deceased has stated that when he asked the deceased as to how she was, she told him that the Appellant was compelling her to go to Church & was assaulting her on her refusal. He stated in his cross-examination that he did not know if the Appellant had converted to Christianity & was going to Church. P.W. 11 on the other hand has stated that the Appellant was a Hindu & he had never gone to the Church & had never converted to Christianity. Thus the reason which has been attributed by the prosecution as motive on the part of the Appellant to commit the crime is not established clearly or in other words such a motive appears to be very weak in nature. Motive assumes pertinent significance in a case which is based on circumstantial evidence as existence of the motive is an enlightening factor in a process of presumptive reasoning & absence of motive is a plus point for the accused. Motive assumes pertinent significance in a case which is based on circumstantial evidence as existence of the motive is an enlightening factor in a process of presumptive reasoning & absence of motive is a plus point for the accused. It is true that one cannot normally see in to the mind of another & therefore it is quite possible that the impelling factor for a man to do a particular act sometimes remains undiscoverable. Motive being a psychological phenomenon, where the prosecution fails to translate the mental disposition of the accused into evidence, it cannot be said that no such mental condition ever existed in the mind of the accused. How the mind of the accused worked in a particular situation, it is not possible to disinter the mental transaction of the accused which would have impelled him to act. "Unfathomable mind: now beacon, now sea." (Courtesy-Samuel Beckett). Absence of clear proof of any known or prominent motive does not necessarily disproves the prosecution case if it is otherwise established by means of clear, conclusive & unimpeachable evidence. Coming to the case in hand, we find it difficult to believe that the Appellant who was a Hindu & had never converted to Christianity & who himself had never gone to the Church would compel the deceased to go to Church & on her refusal to oblige would assault her. As it appears, such a nascent story has been introduced by the prosecution for the purpose of establishing the motive part. Second Circumstance: 8. This circumstance is the most vital one. According to the prosecution the Appellant & the deceased were there in the Varandah room of the hostel in the night of occurrence & on the next day morning, the dead body of the deceased was found lying with bleeding cut injuries. Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 states that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. This Section is an exception to Section 101 which lays down the general rule that in a criminal case, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. Section 106 certainly not intended to relieve the prosecution of its burden of proof. This Section is an exception to Section 101 which lays down the general rule that in a criminal case, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. Section 106 certainly not intended to relieve the prosecution of its burden of proof. It is designed to meet certain exceptional cases in which it would be impossible or at any rate disproportionately difficult for the prosecution to establish facts which are especially within the knowledge of the accused & which he could prove without difficulty or inconvenience. The word 'especially' stresses the facts that are pre-eminently or exceptionally within his knowledge ( AIR 1956 SC 404 , Shambhu Nath v. State of Ajmer). In case of Vikramjeet Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (2007) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Criminal) 732, it is held as follows: "14. Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not relieve the prosecution to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Only when the prosecution case has been proved, the burden in regard to such facts which was within the special knowledge of the accused may be shifted to the accused for explaining the same. Of course, there are certain exceptions to the said rule i.e., where burden of proof may be imposed upon the accused by reason of a statute. 15. It may be that in a situation of this nature where the Court legitimately may raise a strong suspicion that in all probabilities the accused was guilty of commission of heinous offence but applying the well settled principle of law that suspicion, however, grave may be, cannot be a substitute for proof, the same would lead to the only conclusion herein that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt." In case of State of Rajasthan v. Kasiram reported in AIR 2007 SC 144, it is held as follows: "23. The provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act itself are unambiguous & categoric in laying down that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of a person, the burden of the proving that fact is upon him. Thus if a person is last seen with the deceased, he must offer an explanation as to how he parted company. He must furnish an explanation which appears to the Court to be probable & satisfactory. If he does so, he must be held to have discharged his burden. Thus if a person is last seen with the deceased, he must offer an explanation as to how he parted company. He must furnish an explanation which appears to the Court to be probable & satisfactory. If he does so, he must be held to have discharged his burden. If he fails to offer an explanation on the basis of facts within his special knowledge, he fails to discharge the burden case upon his by Section 106 of the Evidence Act. In a case resting on circumstantial evidence if the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of the burden placed on him, that itself provide an additional link in the chain of circumstances proved against him. Section 106 does not shift the burden of proof in a criminal trial, which is always upon the prosecution. It lays down the rule that when the accused does not throw any light upon facts which are specially within his knowledge & which could not support any theory or hypothesis compatible with his innocence, the Court can consider his failure to adduce any explanation as additional link which completes the chain." Let us analyse the evidence on the second circumstance. The two witnesses who are material on this point are P.W. 11 & P.W. 13. P.W. 11 has stated that the Appellant was staying in the hostel along with the deceased & the Appellant was working as a Watchman in the hostel. He has further stated that on 30.6.2002 when P.W. 13 approached him to leave his two younger brothers in the hostel, he accompanied them to the hostel in the night & left them & all those three persons stayed in the hostel during the night. He further stated that the Appellant & the deceased were in one of the rooms of that hostel & the Appellant had seen him in the night of occurrence when he had been to the hostel & had paid respect to him. P.W. 13 has stated that when he along with his two brothers & P.W. 11 arrived in the hostel at 8.30 p.m., they had seen the Appellant & the deceased in the Varandah room of the hostel & he & his two brothers slept in the bigger room of that hostel. P.W. 13 has stated that when he along with his two brothers & P.W. 11 arrived in the hostel at 8.30 p.m., they had seen the Appellant & the deceased in the Varandah room of the hostel & he & his two brothers slept in the bigger room of that hostel. He has further stated that during the night at about 3.00 a.m., he heard a groaning sound of a woman & thought that it was a sound of a ghost & out of fear he did not come out of that room. P.W. 13 admits that he had not called the Appellant after hearing the groaning sound in the night. He further stated that there was no electricity in the hostel. He further admits that he had not stated before the Magistrate that he heard the groaning sound of a woman. The two brothers of P.W. 13 have not been examined in this case to corroborate his evidence. It appears from the evidence of P.W. 11 that the hostel is situated in a lonely place & surrounded by bushes & it consists of four rooms. The spot map (Ext. 24) indicates that out of the four rooms, one room was used as store room & another as a kitchen room. P.W. 7 has stated that in one room the Appellant was staying & in the other room, the students were staying & that there is a passage to the other room from the room where the Appellant was staying. It is the prosecution case that in the night of occurrence, apart from the deceased & the Appellant, three other persons i.e., P.W. 13 & his two brothers also stayed in the hostel in the students' room which is adjacent to the room of the Appellant. There is absolutely no evidence on record that there was any quarrel between the Appellant & the deceased in the night of occurrence. The evidence on record further indicates that the accused was suffering from madness. P.W. 5 who is a co-villager of the Appellant has stated that while the Appellant was reading in the college, he was becoming mad at intervals & during the period of madness, the Appellant used to move in naked condition in the public place. The evidence on record further indicates that the accused was suffering from madness. P.W. 5 who is a co-villager of the Appellant has stated that while the Appellant was reading in the college, he was becoming mad at intervals & during the period of madness, the Appellant used to move in naked condition in the public place. He has further stated that the Appellant was suffering from the madness prior to the death of the deceased & by the time of occurrence, the Appellant was in a state of madness. P.W. 7 has stated that two years prior to the occurrence, the Appellant had gone mad & his parents had taken him to Berhampur for treatment & he was cured. P.W. 11 has stated that 6 to 7 months prior to this occurrence, the Appellant had become mad & their institution had made arrangement for his treatment at Berhampur. He has further stated that the Appellant was not accepted by his parents as he was going mad at times & moving here & there due to insanity. From the side of the defence, two prescriptions i.e. Ext. A & Ext. B have been proved to substantiate the madness of the Appellant. The conduct of P.W. 13 appears to be very suspicious. According to him, he heard the groaning sound of a woman during the night but he did not call the Appellant. He could have called his two brothers who were sleeping with him but he did not do that. If P.W. 13 had come to the hostel with his two brothers to leave them in the hostel, why did he took them back with him in the morning even though he was not aware that any murder had taken place in the hostel. Nobody knew what happened in the hostel in that night & around what time the murder was committed. Merely because at about 8.30 p.m. the Appellant & the deceased were there in the Varandah room & on the next day morning the deceased was found dead with bleeding cut injuries, it cannot be said that the Appellant had committed the murder. There was access to the room of the Appellant from the other room where P.W. 13 & his two brothers were sleeping. There was access to the room of the Appellant from the other room where P.W. 13 & his two brothers were sleeping. When the Appellant was suffering from madness, the commission of murder of the deceased by some other persons who were staying in the hostel in the adjacent room for some reason or other cannot be brushed aside. Taking advantage of the madness of the Appellant, the chance of his false implication cannot be ruled out. In case of Dhanjaya Reddy v. State of Karnataka reported in 2001 Supreme Court Cases (Criminal) 652, it is held as follows: "15. The circumstance of A-1 being last seen with the deceased, though proved, yet cannot lead to the irresistible inference of or being guilty of the crime, because being legally-wedded wife of the deceased, she was supposed to be with him in his house where the crime was committed. This circumstance can be used against her only if there is any other circumstantial evidence linking her with the ghastly action committed in murdering the deceased." The prosecution has not come up with a clear picture regarding the proximate time when the murder had taken place in the hostel. Apart from the Appellant & the deceased, three other persons i.e. P.W. 13 & his two younger brothers also stayed in the hostel in the adjacent room. There was access to the room of the Appellant from the other room. The two brothers of P.W. 13 have been withheld by the prosecution. When the Appellant was suffering from madness, it cannot be said that it was none else but the Appellant who had committed the crime. The Appellant had not tried to abscond from the spot. The presence of the Appellant on the next day morning in the hostel when P.W. 13 & his two brothers left the hostel goes against normal human conduct rather it proves his innocence & creates doubt that he is the perpetrator of the crime. Third Circumstance: 9. The next circumstance upon which the prosecution relies is that the Appellant handed over a letter to P.W. 13 on the next day morning of occurrence wherein it is mentioned that he has committed a sin. Such letter has been marked as Ext. 11. The handwriting expert's report marked as Ext. Third Circumstance: 9. The next circumstance upon which the prosecution relies is that the Appellant handed over a letter to P.W. 13 on the next day morning of occurrence wherein it is mentioned that he has committed a sin. Such letter has been marked as Ext. 11. The handwriting expert's report marked as Ext. C clearly indicates that the standard writing marked as "B to B/5", "C to C/5" & "D" supplied for comparison did not correspond to the disputed writings marked as "A". It is the case of P.W. 13 that the Appellant gave him a letter (Ext. 11) to hand it over to one Prakash Nayak of Raikia & he further stated that he came to Raikia to hand over that letter to Prakash Nayak but as Prakash was absent, he handed over that letter to P.W. 11. In the cross examination he has stated that he has not read the letter which was given to him by the Appellant & he himself with his two brothers went to the house of P.W. 11 to handover that letter given by the Appellant. There is no evidence as to who that Prakash Nayak was & how the Appellant had acquaintance with him. There is also no evidence as to why the Appellant would repose confidence on Prakash Nayak & confess his guilt in writing. There was also no reason for P.W. 13 to handover the letter to P.W. 11 though the same was not meant for him. The Learned Trial Court was not justified in observing that the Appellant had made extra judicial confession through Ext. 11 regarding commission of a crime. Ext. 11 was neither in the handwriting of the Appellant nor was it addressed to anybody. The date & time has not been mentioned in it. Merely because it is mentioned in Ext. 11 that the writer of that document had committed a sin, it cannot be inferred & stretched to the extent that what it meant was that the Appellant had killed his wife. Thus, in our considered opinion the letter appears to have been fabricated by the prosecution just to entangle the Appellant in the crime & it was never written by the Appellant. Fourth Circumstance: 10. The recovery of the blood stained Kati & blood stained Lungi from a room of the Hostel at the instance of the Appellant is also shrouded in mystery. Fourth Circumstance: 10. The recovery of the blood stained Kati & blood stained Lungi from a room of the Hostel at the instance of the Appellant is also shrouded in mystery. According to the prosecution case, the room marked "B" in the spot map is the residence of the students where P.W. 13 & his brothers were staying in the night of occurrence & from that room the I.O. seized the weapon of offence & blood stained Lungi. P.W. 13 has stated that they had locked the room where they stayed in the night while leaving the hostel & handed over the key to P.W. 11 who has stated that when there was no student in the hostel, the rooms of the hostel used to be locked & he used to keep the keys. In the spot map, it is clearly mentioned that "A" is the spot room where the deceased was found lying dead. When P.W. 13 & his brothers were staying in room "B" in the night & before leaving the hostel in the morning they had locked the room "B", there was no scope for the Appellant to enter into that room & keep the weapon of offence & Lungi there wrapped in a mat rather such recovery from room 'B' raises accusing finger against P.W. 13 as he was staying in that room with his brothers. On chemical examination, though human blood was found on Kati but the group of blood could not be ascertained. In case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Nisar reported in AIR 2007 SC 2316 , it is held that when the chemical examiner found that the axe was stained with human blood but the blood group was not ascertained, it is therefore not possible to conclude that axe was used for killing the deceased. Similarly there is no evidence that the Lungi which was seized from room 'B' belonged to the Appellant. It was also not kept in sealed cover after seizure before being sent for chemical examination. Thus, in our considered view, the recovery of Kati & Lungi from room 'B' of the hostel is of a doubtful feature. The Trial Court has also rightly not placed any reliance on the same. Fifth Circumstance: 11. It was also not kept in sealed cover after seizure before being sent for chemical examination. Thus, in our considered view, the recovery of Kati & Lungi from room 'B' of the hostel is of a doubtful feature. The Trial Court has also rightly not placed any reliance on the same. Fifth Circumstance: 11. Even though the nail clippings of the Appellant collected by the Medical Officer (P.W. 12) found to contain "B" group of human blood on chemical examination which tallied with the blood group of the deceased but it cannot be ruled out that the Appellant might have come in close contact with the deceased. Availability of the blood-stain on the nail-clippings in such circumstances is very natural. It cannot be said that such circumstance cannot be explained by any reasonable hypothesis or that it points to the guilt of the Appellant. Thus, we find that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove any of the five circumstances against the Appellant & the chain of circumstances was broken at every stage without connecting the Appellant to the commission of the alleged crime. The Trial Court has also failed in its duty to properly assess the evidence keeping in view the settled principles of appreciation of a case based on circumstantial evidence. It seems that the Trial Court has proceeded pedantically without making an in-depth analysis of facts & circumstances & the evidence led in the trial & the impugned verdict is based neither upon facts nor upon law but it is a sheer moral conviction. Therefore, the Appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt. In the result, the appeal is allowed & the impugned Judgment & order of conviction & sentence of the Appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC as assailed in this appeal is hereby set aside. The Appellant is in jail custody since the date of his arrest. He shall be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in any other case.