JUDGMENT : Samapti Chatterjee, J. 1. The appellant preferred the instant appeal assailing the Judgment and Order of conviction passed in Sessions Trial No. 9(8)1999 and Sessions Case No. 4(3)1997 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Bankura on 26th day of February, 2004 and 27th day of February, 2004 convicting the appellant/petitioner under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He is sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- (two thousand) in default to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for two years. 2. The case made out by the prosecution may be summed up thus; On 10.06.1993 at 8 P.M. the deceased Sourindra Majhi while returning on his motor cycle from Malian and k.m. from Dekke Coche More he was attacked by the miscreant and on hearing shouts some people of Dekke Coche village came there and found Sourindra Majhi in dead condition and his motor cycle was by his side and he was murdered and on 11.06.1993. The father of the deceased lodged a complaint before the Officer-in-Charge of Khatra Police Station and on the basis of said written complaint the Officer-in-Charge of Khatra Police Station started Khatra P.S. Case No.24 of 1993 dated 11.06.1993 under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. Investigation was started and on 12.06.1993 the accused was arrested and pursuant to the statement of the accused the offending weapon stained with blood and blood stained ‘genji’ was recovered from the house of the accused. The accused was examined by the Doctor and he admitted before the Doctor that he received the injury in his finger while he was cutting the throat of the deceased. Post mortem of the deceased was held and on completion of investigation the police submitted charge sheet against the accused under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. Subsequently trial started against the accused and after completion of trial the accused was found guilty and convicted as aforesaid. 3. In course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses. (a) P.W.1 Hargovinda Majhi is the father of the deceased and the defacto complainant of this case. (b) P.W.2 Narottam Majhi is a resident of village-Pansa under P.S.- Khatra. (c) P.W.3 Mahadeb Majhi is a resident of village-Pansa under P.S.- Khatra. 3. In course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses. (a) P.W.1 Hargovinda Majhi is the father of the deceased and the defacto complainant of this case. (b) P.W.2 Narottam Majhi is a resident of village-Pansa under P.S.- Khatra. (c) P.W.3 Mahadeb Majhi is a resident of village-Pansa under P.S.- Khatra. (d) P.W.4 Dhirendranath Roy is a Constable of police bearing No.441 who held inquest over the dead body of deceased Sourindranath Majhi on 11.06.1993 and sent it at the Bankura Morgue for post mortem examination. He also prepared the seizure list. (e) P.W.5 Doctor Biswanath Mallick examined the accused Nayan Chandra Sardar on 12.06.1993. (f) P.W.6 Jyotsna Sardar is a resident of Sursingar, under P.S. Bandown, District-Purulia and declared hostile by the prosecution. (g) P.W.7 Swapan Kumar Mahi is the younger brother of the deceased Sourindranath Majhi. (h) P.W.8 Triloka Singh is a resident of Mouza Pialsal under P.S. Manbazar. District-Purulia and declared hostile by the prosecution. (i) P.W.9 Bhaban Hansda is a retired police constable who carried the dead body of deceased Sourindranath Majhi in the morgue for post mortem examination on 11.06.1993. (j) P.W.10 Nitya Nanda Bag is a resident of Mouza Bansa under P.S.-Khatra, District-Bankura. (k) P.W.11 Parimal Kumar Das is a retired S.I of Police who collected F.S.L Report (Exbt.10) in connection with the present case and after completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet against accused Nayan Sardar under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. (l) P.W.12 Biswanath Majhi is a resident at Bansha under P.S.- Khatra. (m) P.W.13 Dr. J.N. De held the post mortem examination of the dead body of deceased Sourindranath Majhi on 11.06.1993. (n) P.W.14 Parimal Das is a retired S.I of police further investigated the case and submitted charge-sheet. (o) P.W.15 Anil Baran Mukherjee is a retired S.I of police and the Investigating Officer of this case. (4). The prosecution is mainly based on the evidence of circumstantial witnesses to prove that the accused committed murder of the deceased. 4. Mr. Mainak Bakshi, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that in the present case there is no eye witness and conviction was based on only circumstantial evidence. He further contended that FIR was lodged on 11th June, 1993 but it was sent to Court on 13th June, 1993. 4. Mr. Mainak Bakshi, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that in the present case there is no eye witness and conviction was based on only circumstantial evidence. He further contended that FIR was lodged on 11th June, 1993 but it was sent to Court on 13th June, 1993. He further contended that P.W.1, father of the deceased in his evidence stated that on 10th June, 1993 his son went to Mallian by motor-cycle. When he was returning home from Mallian via Nada by motor-cycle at about 8 P.M. he was attacked at Dakke Coche More which is about half km away from Mallian and murdered by the accused. After being attacked, he shouted once or twice and the villagers hearing the shout went to the place of occurrence and found that his son was lying dead and his motor-cycle was also lying in a broken condition in the bank of the canal. Having heard the shout the P.W.1 along with villagers came to the place of occurrence where he found the dead body of his son with injury on his neck and also his motor-cycle in a broken condition. He further deposed that he became so perplexed that he returned home and did not go to the police station. P.W.1 further stated that it was a drizzling at night and there was no communication to go to the police station. He got the FIR written by Dhrubalal Bag and said Dhrubalal wrote the same as per his instruction. He further stated that about 1 year back he received one anonymous letter by which he was alerted that his son was mixing with female inmates and he was also instructed to get his son married. He handed over the said letter to the O.C. of Khatra P.S. He further deposed that at that time there was no beat house in their village and the place of occurrence i.e. junction is at a very close distance of their village. He further deposed that on 11th June, 1993 he lodged the FIR. The complaint was written in his house in the morning and after lodging the written complaint O.C. came to his village and he met O.C. and handed over the said anonymous letter to him. He further deposed that in the written complaint he never mentioned that Nayan Sardar murdered his son. The complaint was written in his house in the morning and after lodging the written complaint O.C. came to his village and he met O.C. and handed over the said anonymous letter to him. He further deposed that in the written complaint he never mentioned that Nayan Sardar murdered his son. When O.C. came to their house then also he did not say to the O.C. that Nayan Sardar murdered his son. He further stated that in his written complaint he did not mention that he received an anonymous letter one year back and he was not examined by the O.C after lodging complaint. In his cross-examination he further stated that he could not tell whether moral character of his son was bad. He only stated to I.O that for the past few days his son was involved with some female inmates. 5. Mr. Mainak Bakshi, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant further contended that P.W.2, the villager in his evidence stated that he went to the place of occurrence on the next day. He also found the motor-cycle lying over there and he stated that he also found blood-stain over there. He further stated that on 2nd August, 1993 the P.W.1 handed over the letter to the police. It was a postcard and the police seized the same and he put his signature in the seizure list (Exbt-2) on 2nd August, 1993. He further stated that he had not gone through the content of the seizure list and he also stated that no seizure list was produced in the Court room. Mr. Bakshi further submitted that P.W.3 the villager, in his deposition stated that on 10th day of June, 1993 he went to the place of occurrence at 8 P.M.. He found the motor-cycle and the dead body of the deceased Sourindranath Majhi with his throat cut and on 11th day of June, 1993 police came to their village and he went to the place of occurrence. In his presence police held inquest over the dead body and he put his signature on the Inquest Report (Exbt.3) as well as on the Seizure List (Exbt.4). He further stated that he was not examined by the Investigating Officer. P.W.4 the constable stated in his evidence that he identified the dead body of the deceased at Bankura Morgue. In his presence police held inquest over the dead body and he put his signature on the Inquest Report (Exbt.3) as well as on the Seizure List (Exbt.4). He further stated that he was not examined by the Investigating Officer. P.W.4 the constable stated in his evidence that he identified the dead body of the deceased at Bankura Morgue. He also handed over the wearing apparels of the deceased to the Investigating Officer who received the same and prepared the seizure list. 6. Mr. Bakshi, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant reiterated that there was no eye witness and the prosecution case is only based on circumstantial evidence. Evidence of all these witnesses are full of discrepancies and contradictions. More so, the so called anonymous letter was never produced before the Court. Not only that incident occurred on 10th June, 1993 at about 8 P.M. but the Inquest Report was prepared on 11th June, 1993 at about 8:45 hours. Furthermore, the incident occurred on 10th June, 1993 at about 8 P.M. but on 11th June, 1993 FIR was prepared at the house of P.W.1 and it was sent to the police station on 11th June, 1993 at about 8:45 hours. Mr. Bakshi further contended that the quality of evidence of the aforesaid witnesses is very poor. Therefore, on the basis of such poor evidence conviction cannot be granted by the Court. 7. Mr. Mainak Bakshi, learned Counsel further submitted that P.W.5, the Doctor in his evidence stated that he examined the accused on 12th June, 1993 at 6 P.M. but he failed to recognise that on which hand the accused sustained the injury. P.W.6, in his deposition stated that she was examined by I.O. She was declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.7 is the brother of deceased Sourindranath Majhi who put his signature in the seizure list (Exbt.4/1) of blood-stained earth and motor-cycle. He stated in his cross examination that when police arrived at their village along with them accused Nayan also went there. So long as the police remained there Nayan Sardar also remained there. Thereafter Nayan was arrested from that place of occurrence. Mr. Bakshi submitted that P.W.8 also was declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.9 carried the dead body of the deceased Sourindranath Majhi in the morgue for post mortem examination on 11.06.1993. So long as the police remained there Nayan Sardar also remained there. Thereafter Nayan was arrested from that place of occurrence. Mr. Bakshi submitted that P.W.8 also was declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.9 carried the dead body of the deceased Sourindranath Majhi in the morgue for post mortem examination on 11.06.1993. P.W.10 is a villager and signatory of the seizure list (marked as Exbt.4/2) and he also put his signature in Inquest Report (marked as Exbt.3/1). He stated in his evidence that on 12th June, 1993 police came to their village accompanied by Nayan Sardar and Nayan Sardar (accused) entered the kitchen room of his house and brought a ‘bhojali’ and ‘genji’ from there and handed over the same to the police. P.W.10 identified the said ‘bhojali’ which is marked as Exbt.1 and the ‘Genji’ was maroon in colour and stained with blood. P.W.10 further stated that he was not examined by the police. He further stated that he could not say when the police arrested the accused. He also stated that he did not see any mark of injury on the body of the accused. Mr. Bakshi further submitted that evidence of the aforesaid P.Ws like P.W.5, P.W.6, P.W.7, P.W.8, P.W.9 and P.W.10 are full of discrepancies, lacunae and at the same time contradictory in nature and he argued that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge of conviction against the appellant. 8. Mr. Bakshi further urged that P.W.2, the villager in his evidence stated that police searched the house of the accused and did not get anything. Subsequently, he found that ‘bhojali’ in front of Kali Mela. The police seized that ‘bhojali’ and ‘genji’ in his presence (marked as Mat. Exbt.I and Exbt.II) and he put his signature in the seizure list (marked as Exbt.9/2). He further deposed that there were houses where he found Mat. Exbt.I and II and there were houses in between the house of Nayan and the said place of occurrence and the Exbt. 9/2 was written in his presence. Exbt.I and Exbt.II) and he put his signature in the seizure list (marked as Exbt.9/2). He further deposed that there were houses where he found Mat. Exbt.I and II and there were houses in between the house of Nayan and the said place of occurrence and the Exbt. 9/2 was written in his presence. P.W.13, the autopsy surgeon in his deposition just described the injuries which are as follows : I) One incised wound 4" x 2" x vertibra over mid part of front neck, 2" to the right and 2 " to the left side of front, 1.3" above this turnal notch, 1.5 " below the right angle of lower law (right outer end) 1" below the left angle of lower jaw (left outer end) and on dissection it was seen to have come across the skin, fossa, muscles, vessels (both side of external carotideuttery and jagular vain) larynax, tragca than sidely cut the body of fourth survical vartibra. II) One incised wound 3" x ½" x larynax and trachea over upper part of front neck, 1" to the right side and 2" to the left side with trailing on left side, 4" above the sturnal notcah and ½" below the right and left angles of lower Jaw. On dissection it was seen to have cut across skin, fossa, muscles, vessels of the corresponding part of the larynazx and tragca. III) 3 incised wound ½ " x ¼" x muscles each over upper part on the right thumb, mid part of right index and middle finger. IV) Three incised wound ½" x ¼" x muscles each over mid part of left index, middle and ring fingers. Fair amount of extra vested clotted and liquid blood seen to infiltrate the tissue in and around the injuries. Stomach with its contents : Mucous mandrane congested and haemoragic patches over submucosal layer contents 80 grams of partly digested goods, smell like that of alcohol. P.W.13 in his evidence opined that death was due to the effect of cut throat injury described above anti-mortem and homicidal in nature. P.W.14, retired S.I of police, submitted charge-sheet against the accused. Mr. Bakshi further argued that P.W.15, the I.O of this case in his deposition stated that he examined 2 witnesses namely Jyostna Sardar and Kumari Triloka Singh on 12th June, 1993, but those witnesses said they were not examined by the police. P.W.14, retired S.I of police, submitted charge-sheet against the accused. Mr. Bakshi further argued that P.W.15, the I.O of this case in his deposition stated that he examined 2 witnesses namely Jyostna Sardar and Kumari Triloka Singh on 12th June, 1993, but those witnesses said they were not examined by the police. He further stated that he referred the accused to Primary Health Center for treatment of his finger and he produced the injury report. He further stated that he seized the post-card and prepared seizure list. He further stated that he sent blood-stained ‘bhojali’ and earth and ‘genji’ for chemical examination and he collected the chemical report. He further stated that on 12th June, 1993 at about 14 hours he arrested the accused from village- Bansha. 9. Mr. Bakshi further urged that that P.W.1, father of the deceased stated in his evidence that he handed over the letter written in a post card to the police in connection with the death of his son. But the alleged letter was not sent to the handwriting expert for his report whether the handwriting of the accused and handwriting of the said letter are identical or not. 10. Mr. Bakshi further urged that neither the alleged ‘bhojali’ nor the blood-stained ‘genji’ were ever sent for FSL Report to determine whether the blood group of the deceased and the blood of the seized articles matched or not. 11. Mr. Bakshi also urged that P.W.13 who prepared the post mortem report never opined that injury was done by that alleged ‘bhojali’. He only described the nature of injuries in his post mortem report. 12. Mr. Bakshi further contended that the P.W.12 in his evidence stated that ‘bhojali’ was found in front of Kali Mela but the P.W.10 in his evidence stated that accused accompanied by police entered the kitchen room of his house and brought a ‘bhojali’ and ‘genji’ and handed over the same to the police which is totally contradictory from the evidence of P.W.12. He further contended that there is no corroboration among the evidence of witnesses; therefore on the basis of such evidence punishment like conviction should not be imposed. Mr. Bakshi further contended that the entire evidence of the prosecution is full of discrepancies, contradictions, loosends, absurdity and therefore does not deserve any credence by the Hon’ble court. 13. Mr. He further contended that there is no corroboration among the evidence of witnesses; therefore on the basis of such evidence punishment like conviction should not be imposed. Mr. Bakshi further contended that the entire evidence of the prosecution is full of discrepancies, contradictions, loosends, absurdity and therefore does not deserve any credence by the Hon’ble court. 13. Mr. Bakshi further urged that the incident occurred on 10th June, 1993 at about 8 P.M. The FIR lodged on 11th June, 1993 at about 8:45 A.M. Accused was arrested on 12th June, 1993 from the place of occurrence and on 13th June, 1993 FIR was sent to the Court. None of the witnesses supported the prosecution case and from a bare reading of the evidence of the witnesses it is crystal clear that nothing was seized from the place of occurrence and the entire prosecution case is based only on assumption and on circumstantial evidence. Mr. Bakshi further contended that it was also not proved by the evidence of prosecution witnesses that the appellant murdered the deceased with some motive/intention. 14. Mr. Bakshi further contended that it is very much necessary to establish link with blood group of deceased and the blood stained weapon. The blood stain on the clothes and weapons used may be found to be of human blood but that does not mean the said bloodstains could be linked with the blood of deceased unless it is tested and determined by the FSL. In support of his contention Mr. Bakshi relied on the Apex Court decision reported in (2008) 3 SCC Page 210 (Sattatiya @ Satish Rajanna Kartalla v. State of Maharashtra) Para 6 and 10 as follows:- Para 6- The motive of the crime, as projected by the prosecution, was that the appellant was having illicit relating with Lakshmi, wife of the deceased and Devabhuma Badapatti was having animosity with the latter because of the evidence of ‘last seen’ recovery of bloodstained pants and shirt from Room No.45, "Ganesh Bhuvan" building, bloodstained half blade and handkerchief found near the body of the deceased to prove the appellant’s involvement in the crime. Para-10-We have thoughtfully considered the entire matter. It is settled law that an offence can be proved not only by direct evidence but also by circumstantial evidence where there is no direct evidence. Para-10-We have thoughtfully considered the entire matter. It is settled law that an offence can be proved not only by direct evidence but also by circumstantial evidence where there is no direct evidence. The Court can draw an inference of guilt when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be totally incompatible with the innocence of the accused. Of course, the circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. Mr. Bakshi further relied on the Apex Court decision reported in 2013 SAR (Criminal) 731 (Raj Kumar Singh @ Raju @ Batya v. State of Rajasthan) Para 23 as follows :- Para-23-Thus, in view of the above, the Court must consider a case of circumstantial evidence in light of the aforesaid settled legal propositions. In a case of circumstantial evidence, the judgment remains essentially inferential. The inference is drawn from the established facts as the circumstances lead to particular inferences. The Court has to 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 the 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. 15. Mr. Pawan Kumar Gupta, learned Counsel appearing for the State in support of the prosecution case submitted that it is evident from the evidence of P.W.10 that the accused made extra judicial confession. He further contended that injury sustained by the deceased cannot be denied. He admitted that though P.W.6 and P.W.7 two ladies were examined but they were subsequently declared as hostile witnesses. Mr. Bakshi concluded his argument by submitting that the prosecution measurably failed to prove its’ case therefore, appeal should be allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment and order dated 26th day of February 2004 and 27th day of February, 2004. 16. On the other hand Mr. Mr. Bakshi concluded his argument by submitting that the prosecution measurably failed to prove its’ case therefore, appeal should be allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment and order dated 26th day of February 2004 and 27th day of February, 2004. 16. On the other hand Mr. Pawan Kumar Gupta, learned Counsel appearing for the State in support of his contention that the present circumstances proved in the case to form a complete chain to establish that the accused murdered the deceased, relied on a decision reported in 1988 CRI. L.J 107 Para 45 : AIR 1988 Kerala 1 (State of Kerala v. Ammini and others) as follows : Para 45- "It is thus clear that an admission of a fact however incriminating, but not by itself establishing the guilt of the maker of such admission, would not amount of confession within the meaning of Sections 24 to 26 of the Evidence Act." A Division Bench of this Court in Chandran v. State of Kerala, (1987) 1 Ker LT 391 followed the same principle. When the statements attributed to the second and third accused in Exts. P22 and 36 respectively are judged from the above guidelines, we hold that, though incriminating the statements do not amount to confession and hence they are not hit by S.26 of the Evidence Act. These decisions have no manner of application in the present case. 17. There can be no dispute that the deceased Sourindranath Majhi had died a homicidal death. Now the question is whether the prosecution has been able to connect the present appellant with the alleged crime? 18. On a close and critical analysis of the evidence both oral as well as documentary with meticulous care we find that the whole prosecution edifice is built on the circumstantial evidence which is very difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt against the present appellant. 18. On a close and critical analysis of the evidence both oral as well as documentary with meticulous care we find that the whole prosecution edifice is built on the circumstantial evidence which is very difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt against the present appellant. After critical analysis of the statements of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.5 we find that entire evidence of those PWs are full of contradictions and discrepancies as the P.W.1, father of the deceased stated that after hearing shout he went to the place of occurrence on 19th June 1993 at about 8 P.M. and he found that dead body of the deceased lying over there and having cut on his neck and also saw the motor cycle lying in broken condition over the road, but he did not lodge any complaint to the police station. Not only that on the next day i.e. on 11th June 1993, he instructed one Dhrubalal Bag to write the written complaint and said Dhrubalal Bag submitted the written complaint (Exbt.1) at the police station on 11th June 1993 at 8:45 hours. We also find the P.W.1 stated that he received one anonymous letter by which he was alerted about the son that his son was mixing with female inmates. He stated in his deposition that he handed over the said letter to the officer-in-charge. But at the same time he stated in his deposition that he has not mentioned in his written complaint that accused Nayan Sardar murdered his son. He also did not mention before the Investigating Officer that Nayan Sardar murdered his son. He also did not mention in his written complaint that he received an anonymous letter one year back. He further stated that he was not examined by the Investigating Officer after lodging the written complaint. The evidence of P.W.1 hardly acceptable to support the conviction. 19. We also find from the evidence of P.W.2, resident of that area in his evidence has stated that P.W.1 handed over one post card to the police. We also find the P.W.3, who is the resident of that area and also the signatory of seizure list and inquest report (Exbt.3 and Exbt.4 respectively) was not examined by the Investigating Officer. We further find from the evidence of P.W.5 the Doctor who examined the accused failed to explain on which hand accused sustained injury. We also find the P.W.3, who is the resident of that area and also the signatory of seizure list and inquest report (Exbt.3 and Exbt.4 respectively) was not examined by the Investigating Officer. We further find from the evidence of P.W.5 the Doctor who examined the accused failed to explain on which hand accused sustained injury. From the evidence of above witnesses we find and hold that the same are full of contradictions and discrepancies and cannot be connected with the conviction. Further more, nothing was mentioned in the FIR and after scrutinising the evidence of P.W.6, since declared hostile, it is found she stated in her evidence that on 11th June 1993, the accused was arrested by the police whereas from the evidence of P.W.7 in his cross examination it is evident that when police arrived at the place of occurrence village people arrived there, likewise the accused Nayan also went there. So long police remained Nayan Sardar remained there. Nayan Sardar was arrested from the place of occurrence on 11th June, 1993. Further, we find P.W.8 one of the resident of that area was declared hostile. 20. We find from the evidence of P.W.10, the villager, who is also the signatory of the seizure list (Exbt. 4/2) and the Inquest Report (Exbt.3/1) stated that he found Sourindranath Majhi, the deceased in the place of occurrence with his throat cut. He further deposed that on 12th June, 1993 the police went to their village and called him. The accused Nayan Sardar was with the police. The police entered inside the house of Nayan Sardar and he also accompanied them. Nayan Sardar entered the kitchen room of his house and brought a ‘bhojali’ and ‘genji’ from there and handed over the same to the police. He further stated that accused Nayan confessed before the police in his presence that he used the ‘bhojali’ to murder Sourindranath. He identified the ‘genji’. P.W.10 further stated that he was not examined by the police. He further stated in his cross examination that he could not say when the police arrested the accused. He further stated in his cross examination that he did not see any mark of injury in the body of the accused. From these very weak and feeble evidence we are not inclined to hold that appellant murdered the deceased. 21. He further stated in his cross examination that he could not say when the police arrested the accused. He further stated in his cross examination that he did not see any mark of injury in the body of the accused. From these very weak and feeble evidence we are not inclined to hold that appellant murdered the deceased. 21. We find from the evidence of P.W.12 that the police searched the house of the accused and did not get anything. Subsequently he found that ‘bhojali’ in front of a Kali Mela and the police seized that ‘bhojali’ and ‘genji’ in his presence. 22. We find that the P.W.10 stated in his evidence that accused entered the kitchen room of his house and brought a ‘bhojali’ and ‘genji’ whereas P.W.12 in his evidence stated that police searched the house of the accused and did not get anything. Subsequently P.W.12 found the ‘bhojali’ in fornt of a Kali Mela and the police seized those ‘bhojali’ and ‘genji’ in his presence. 23. We find from the evidence of P.W.13 (Doctor) who prepared post mortem report only described the injuries. But in his opinion Doctor stated that death was due to the effect of the cut throat and injuries described above, was ante mortem and homicidal in nature but he never mentioned that injury was caused by the ‘bhojali’ or other weapons. 24. We also find from the evidence of P.W.15, I.O, that on 11th June, 1993 he examined two witnesses namely Jyostna Sardar and Kumari Triloka Singh but those witnesses said in their evidence that they were not examined by the police and they have been declared hostile. P.W.15 further stated that on 12th June, 1993 he visited the village Bansha and arrested accused Nayan Sardar. But we find that the other witnesses stated that accused was arrested from the place of occurrence on 11th June 1993. P.W.15 in his evidence also stated that the ‘bhojali’ and ‘genji’ were seized and he prepared the Material Exbt.I and Material Exbt.II. He said that he seized a post card but that post card was not produced before the Court and the post card was not sent to the handwriting expert to ascertain whether the handwriting of the letter and the handwriting of the accused at all matched or not. He said that he seized a post card but that post card was not produced before the Court and the post card was not sent to the handwriting expert to ascertain whether the handwriting of the letter and the handwriting of the accused at all matched or not. We further find that alleged ‘bhojali’ and blood stained ‘genji’ were not sent for FSL Examination to determine whether the blood group of deceased and the blood marked in the blood stained articles (bhojali & Genji) are identical. 25. On the basis of above discussions we have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the chain of circumstances which could link the appellant with the crime. Learned Trial Court committed serious error by relying on the circumstantial evidence. The motive for committing the crime has also not been established although it is crucial in a case based on circumstantial evidence. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution failed to prove the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and thus the appellant is entitled for benefit of doubt. 26. Therefore, in the light of the totality of the aforesaid discussions we hold and conclude that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilt of the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. We therefore, allow this appeal on the ground of benefit of doubt and set aside the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed in Sessions Trial No. 9(8) of 1999 arising out of Sessions Case No.4 (3) of 1997 by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bankura on 26th February, 2004 and we acquit the appellant of the said charge. 27. The appellant Nayan Chandra Sardar is in jail and he shall be released forthwith unless wanted in any other case. 28. Let the Lower Court Record be sent to the Court below at once. 29. Urgent certified photocopies of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties upon compliance of all formalities.