JUDGMENT : - Rajiv Sharma, J. The present appeal is instituted against the judgment dated 6.5.2009 rendered by learned Sessions Judge, Chamba in Sessions Trial No.32 of 2008, whereby the appellant/accused (hereafter referred to as the “accused” for the sake of convenience), who was charged with and tried for offences punishable under Section 302, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The co-accused, Mohinder Singh, was acquitted of the charges framed against him. 2. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that the deceased Lal Chand, husband of PW1 Indru, resident of Village Bairagarh was working as SPO in Police Department. Lal Chand left his house on 16.4.2008 at 2.00 P.M.. He did not come back to home in the evening. PW1 Indru searched for Lal Chand in the village, but she could not locate him. On 17.4.2008, at about 8.00 A.M., Indru went to the house of the accused Surinder Kumar and asked him about her husband. He told her that he did not see Lal Chand. However, Indru noticed wrist watch of her husband on his hand. She again asked the accused how come he was wearing watch of her husband. The accused asked Indru whether Lal Chand had not returned home? He also told her that he had poured two buckets of water on Lal Chand. Thereafter, Indru went to the house of co-accused Mohinder Singh and asked him about her husband. Mohinder Singh told that Lal Chand did not come to his house. Thereafter, Mohinder Singh went towards Nalash jungle. Indru followed him secretly. When Mohinder Singh reached Nalash jungle, on seeing Indru he tried to hide himself. Indru asked Mohinder Singh not to hide and she again asked him about her husband. The accused Surinder Kumar was also with Mohinder Singh. They came downwards and told Indru that she should not come to them as there was none. Indru suspected them and went up to the place. She saw dead body of her husband Lal Chand. Indru suspected that the accused had murdered her husband Lal Chand. The accused Surinder Kumar was also with Mohinder Singh. They came downwards and told Indru that she should not come to them as there was none. Indru suspected them and went up to the place. She saw dead body of her husband Lal Chand. Indru suspected that the accused had murdered her husband Lal Chand. PW2, Khem Singh informed the Police Station, Tissa that the dead body of Lal Chand was lying in Nalash jungle. On receipt of information, SHO R.P. Jaswal visited the spot and recorded statement of Indru under Section 154 Cr.P.C, Ext.PW1/A on the basis of which an FIR under Sections 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. The dead body was sent for post mortem examination to CHC Tissa. The investigation was completed and the challan was put up in the trial court after completing all the codal formalities. 3. The prosecution examined as many as fifteen witnesses in support of its case. The accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.. They denied the case of the prosecution and claimed innocence. Learned trial court convicted and sentenced the accused Surinder Kumar under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code while acquitted the co-accused Mohinder Singh for the charges framed against him vide judgment dated 6.5.2009, as stated hereinabove. Hence, the appeal. 4. Mr. Ashwani Pathak, learned Advocate, has vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused. 5. Mr. Parmod Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, has supported the judgment dated 6.5.2009. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the impugned judgment and record carefully. 7. PW1, Indru, deposed that her husband was working as SPO in the Police Department. In the month of ‘Baisakh’, last year, her husband Lal Chand left the house after taking lunch at about 2.00 P.M.. He did not return home till evening. She went to search him in the house of the accused. She volunteered that she went in search of her husband next morning at about 8.00 A.M. to the house of accused. She asked the accused about her husband. He replied that he did not know about her husband. She noticed wrist watch of her husband on the hand of the accused. She asked the accused that he was having wrist watch of her husband. She asked the accused about her husband. He replied that he did not know about her husband. She noticed wrist watch of her husband on the hand of the accused. She asked the accused that he was having wrist watch of her husband. The accused asked her whether the deceased had not come back to home? Thereafter, she visited the house of Mohinder Singh. She asked him about her husband. He told that he did not see her husband. Thereafter, Mohinder Singh ran away towards Nalash jungle. She also followed Mohinder Kumar by concealing from him. Mohinder Singh went to Nalash Jungle. The accused was also present in the jungle. Thereafter, she appeared before them in the Nalash Jungle. On seeing her, they tried to run away. Mohinder Singh told her not to come up to them, however, she went up to them. She saw dead body of her husband. The police also visited the spot and her statement, Ext.PW1/A was recorded. Wrist watch and pair of chappal were recovered vide memo, Ext.PW1/B. In cross-examination, she deposed that she went alone to the house of the accused Surinder Kumar. Rakesh and Lobhi Ram were also with her when she followed the accused upto Nalash jungle. Rakesh and Lobhi Ram were along with her right from her house. After the dead body was traced by her in the jungle, she remained there till 12.00 noon. After she saw the dead body in the jungle, the accused Surinder Singh and Mohinder Singh tried to run away and she asked Rakesh to stop the accused. Thereafter, Rakesh took both the accused to Khem Raj, who was also below the spot where the dead body was lying. Khem Raj took the accused to the Rest House where the accused were handed over to the police. 8. PW2, Khem Singh, deposed that the accused Surinder Kumar came to his shop and purchased some articles. He again came to his shop at 6.45 P.M. and purchased a country liquor bottle from him and went away. Next day, on 17.4.2008, Surinder Kumar again came to his shop at about 8.00/9.00 A.M. and purchased one nip of liquor. Thereafter, Indru also came to his shop and enquired about her husband. He told her that he did not see her husband. Next day, on 17.4.2008, Surinder Kumar again came to his shop at about 8.00/9.00 A.M. and purchased one nip of liquor. Thereafter, Indru also came to his shop and enquired about her husband. He told her that he did not see her husband. At about 10.30 or 11.00 A.M., Lobhi Ram came to his shop and told him that the dead body of Lal Chand was found lying in Nalash jungle. All the villagers went to Nalash Jungle. When he was going to the spot, Prabhdyal met him, who was bringing accused Surinder Kumar and Mohinder Singh from Nalash jungle. Prabhdyal asked him to take both the accused to Rest House and hand over them to the police. Thereafter, he telephonically informed the Police Station Tissa that dead body of Lal Chand was lying in Nalash jungle. The police visited the spot and conducted investigation. 9. PW3, Shiv Kumar, deposed that he was running a shop at Village Dehgran for the last 7-8 years. Deceased Lal Chand was his cousin. On 17.4.2008 at about 10.30 A.M., Indru telephonically informed him that Lal Chand was missing since previous day. He along with Manohar Lal went on scooter to Bairagarh. Thereafter, they went in search of Lal Chand towards Devi Kothi. They enquired from inhabitants of Devi Kothi about Lal Chand, who told them that they had not seen Lal Chand. When they reached Bairagarh, they came to know that dead body of Lal Chand was lying in Nalash Jungle. He went to Bairagarh and informed Hari Singh father of Lal Chand that dead body of Lal Chand was lying in the jungle. 10. PW4, Rakesh Kumar, deposed that on 16.4.2008 at about 2.30 P.M., he saw the accused Surinder Kumar and the deceased Lal Chand going towards Nalash jungle. On 17.4.2008, dead body of Lal Chand was found in Nalash jungle. In cross-examination, he deposed that Lobhi Ram told him about the dead body. Lobhi Ram was alone at that time. 11. PW5, Jatinder Kumar and PW6, Dhani Ram, are formal witnesses. 12. PW7, Dr. Rishi Tandon, conducted post-mortem on the body of the deceased and noticed following injuries:- External Appearance Sout body, non decomposing, clothing, mustered shawl, red jacket, re T-shirt, grey Pajama, white vest and blue underwear. 1. There was one contused abrasion 10 x 3 cms in size over right side of lower chest ante mortem. 2. 12. PW7, Dr. Rishi Tandon, conducted post-mortem on the body of the deceased and noticed following injuries:- External Appearance Sout body, non decomposing, clothing, mustered shawl, red jacket, re T-shirt, grey Pajama, white vest and blue underwear. 1. There was one contused abrasion 10 x 3 cms in size over right side of lower chest ante mortem. 2. Contused abrasion 5 x 3 cms in size over middle of chest ante mortem. 3. Abrasions multiple vertically placed over buttocks post mortem. 4. Abrasions over back measuring 3 x 1 cms in size post mortem. 5. Bleeding through left eye. 6. Bleeding through nose. 7. Bleeding through right ear. There was no ligature mark over neck. II. Cranium and spinal cord. Evidence of fracture base of skull, evidence of fracture of cervical spine, C2 and C3. III. Thorax There was no evidence of fracture of rib, external injuries as mentioned above over chest wall. Pleura, Larynx, trachea, right lung, left lung, pericardium, heart and large vessels all were normal. IV. Abdomen 1. Walls. Post mortem blisters over abdomen wall on left side. No evidence external injury. 2. Peritoneum, Mouth, larynx and esophagus-normal. Stomach and its contents Haemorrhage over the inner mucosal lining. Contents preserved for chemical analysis. Small intestines and their contents-filled with gas preserved for chemical analysis. Large intestines and their contents – Normal, preserved for chemical examination/analysis. Liver – Orange in colour, preserved for chemical analysis. Spleen- Greenish red in colour, cut section reddish preserved for chemical examination. Kidney- Gerot facea non adherent, right and left kidney- normal is size. Preserved for chemical examination. Bladder- Organs of generation external and internal-normal. V. Muscles, Bones and Joints. There was no evidence of injury to muscle, bone and joints.” According to his opinion, Lal Chand died of head injury with fractures of cervical spine, probably under the influence of some intoxication by alcohol. The external injuries could have led to death. Some of the injuries were ante mortem. Probable time elapsed between injury and death was ½ to 1 hour and between death and post mortem was 12 to 16 hours. After receiving report of the FSL, he gave his opinion that the deceased had consumed alcohol at the time of death. He issued post mortem, Ext.PW7/B. In cross-examination, he admitted that the injuries observed by him on the body of Lal Chand were also possible by fall. 13. After receiving report of the FSL, he gave his opinion that the deceased had consumed alcohol at the time of death. He issued post mortem, Ext.PW7/B. In cross-examination, he admitted that the injuries observed by him on the body of Lal Chand were also possible by fall. 13. PW8, HC Deepak Kumar, PW9 HC Madan Lal, PW10 Constable Ravinder Singh and PW11 ASI Mulkh Raj are also formal witnesses. 14. PW12, Rajinder Singh¸ deposed that on 17.4.2008, he along with Inspector R.P. Jaswal, SHO visited the spot. He filled-in inquest papers, Ext.PW12/A, Ext.PW12/B and Ext.PW12/C. The SHO directed him to get post mortem examination done on the dead body. He took the dead body to Tissa where the Medical Officer conducted autopsy on the dead body on 18.4.2008. He also collected Aks Momi, Ext.PW6/A, Aks Tatima, Sajra Ext.PW5/A and copy of jamabandi, Ext.PW5/B. 15. PW13, LC Uma Kumari is also a formal witness. 16. PW14, Inspector R.P. Jaswal, deposed that on 17.4.2008, Khem Singh telephonically informed that dead body of Lal Chand, SPO was found lying Nalash Jungle. He went to Bairagarh and thereafter to Nalash jungle. He visited the house of Lal Chand. He recorded statement of Indru, under Section 154 Cr.P.C, vide Ext.PW1/A, which was sent to Police Station Tissa for registration of the FIR through Constable Rajinder Singh. Photographs, Mark A-1 to A-7 were got clicked. He also prepared the spot map Ext.PW14/B. He recovered wrist watch and pair of chappal from accused Surinder Kumar at Bairagarh vide memo, Ext.PW1/B Indru Devi identified the wrist watch and pair of chappal to be that of her husband. The wrist watch, Ext.P1 and pair of chappal, Ext.P2 were sealed in parcel. He also took into possession clothes worn by the accused Surinder and Mohinder vide memo, Ext.PW2/A and the same were sealed in separate parcels with seal impression ‘M’. 17. PW15, Vijay Kumar, deposed that he took the photographs, Ext.PW15/A-1 to Ext.PW15/A-2 at the instance of the police. 18. According to PW1, Indru, in the month of ‘Baisakh’, her husband Lal Chand left the house at about 2.00 P.M.. He did not return home till evening. Next morning at about 8.00 A.M, she went to the house of accused to inquire about her husband. Thereafter, she visited the house of Mohinder Singh and asked him whereabouts of her husband. Mohinder Singh ran away towards Nalash jungle. He did not return home till evening. Next morning at about 8.00 A.M, she went to the house of accused to inquire about her husband. Thereafter, she visited the house of Mohinder Singh and asked him whereabouts of her husband. Mohinder Singh ran away towards Nalash jungle. She followed Mohinder Kumar secretly. She also found the accused along with Mohinder Kumar in Nalash Jungle. She confronted them. They told her not to come up. However, she went up and saw dead body of her husband. It is not believable that the persons, who have committed the crime, would run towards the spot where the dead body was lying and a lady would follow them. 19. PW2, Khem Singh, deposed that at about 10.30 or 11.00 A.M., Lobhi Ram came to his shop and told him that the dead body of Lal Chand was found lying in Nalash jungle. All the villagers went to Nalash Jungle. According to PW4, Rakesh Kumar, Lobhi Ram told him about the dead body. PW1 Indru Devi in her cross-examination deposed that Rakesh and Lobhi Ram were also with her when she followed the accused upto Nalash jungle right from her house. However, in her statement, Ext.PW1/A, she stated that she went to the spot all alone. This is a material improvement made by her. Lobhi Ram has not been produced by the prosecution as witness. 20. It has come in the statement of PW1 Indru that when she asked the accused Surinder Kumar about her husband, she noticed wrist watch of her hand on his hand. It is also highly improbable why accused Surinder Kumar would wear the wrist watch of the deceased had he killed the deceased. 21. PW3, Shiv Kumar, is cousin of the deceased Lal Chand. According to him, on 17.4.2008 at about 10.30 A.M., PW1 Indru telephonically informed him that Lal Chand was missing since previous day. However, PW1 Indru has no where stated either in her statement Ext.PW1/A or in his statement recorded in the court that she telephonically informed PW3 Shiv Kumar about the missing of her husband. She has made material improvements and embellishments, thus, her testimony does not appear to be trustworthy. 22. The conduct of wife of the deceased, PW1 Indru is also unnatural. She has made material improvements and embellishments, thus, her testimony does not appear to be trustworthy. 22. The conduct of wife of the deceased, PW1 Indru is also unnatural. It is not understandable why she visited the houses of accused Surinder Kumar and Mohinder Kumar only next morning when her husband did not come back to home previous evening. How did she come to know that her husband might be in the company of Surinder Kumar or Mohinder Kumar? Had she known that her husband might be in the company of accused Surinder Kumar or Mohinder Kumar, what prevented her to go to the houses of the accused to inquire about her husband on the very evening when her husband did not come back to house? PW1 Indru had only seen Mohinder Singh running towards the Nalash jungle. However, in her examination-in-chief, she stated that when she chased Mohinder Singh, she found accused Surinder Singh also on the spot. If PW1 Indru started chasing Mohinder Kumar, there was no possibility of accused Surinder Kumar reaching before her on the spot. 23. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shivasharanappa and others vs State of Karnataka, (2013) 5 SCC 705 have held that the court cannot be oblivious to conduct that is too unnatural even taking into account unpredictability of human conduct and lack of uniformity in human reaction. Court must determine whether in circumstances of case, behaviour of witnesses concerned is acceptably natural allowing for variations and if behaviour is absolutely unnatural, testimony of witness may not deserve credence and acceptable. Their Lordships have held as under: “19. In Gopal Singh and others v. State of Madya Pradesh, this Court did not agree with the High Court which had accepted the statement of an alleged eye witness as his conduct was unnatural and while so holding, it observed as follows: - We also find that the High Court has accepted the statement of Feran Singh, PW 5 as the eye witness of the incident ignoring the fact that his behaviour was unnatural as he claimed to have rushed to the village but had still not conveyed the information about the incident to his parents and others present there and had chosen to disappear for a couple of hours on the specious and unacceptable plea that he feared for his own safety. 22. 22. Thus, the behaviour of witnesses or their reactions would differ from situation to situation and individual to individual. Expectation of uniformity in the reaction of witnesses would be unrealistic but the court cannot be oblivious of the fact that even taking into account the unpredictability of human conduct and lack of uniformity in human reaction, whether in the circumstances of the case, the behaviour is acceptably natural allowing the variations. If the behaviour is absolutely unnatural, the testimony of the witness may not deserve credence and acceptance.” 24. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lahu Kamlakar Patil and another vs. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 6 SCC 417 have held though there cannot be uniformity in human reaction, it is also to be borne in mind that if conduct of witness is so unnatural and is not in accord with acceptable human behaviour even allowing for variations, then his testimony becomes questionable and is likely to be discarded. Their Lordships have held as under: “22. The attack is based on the grounds, namely, that the said witness ran away from the spot; that he did not intimate the police about the incident but, on the contrary, hid himself behind the pipes near a canal till early morning of the next day; that though he claimed to be eye witness, yet he did not come to the spot when the police arrived and was there for more than three hours; that contrary to normal human behaviour he went to Pune without informing about the incident to his wife and stayed for one day; that though the police station was hardly one furlong away yet he did not approach the police; that he chose not even to inform the police on the telephone though he arrived at home; that after he came from Pune and learnt from his wife that the police had come on 21.2.1988, he went to the police station; and that in the backdrop of such conduct, his version does not inspire confidence and deserves to be ignored in toto. 26. From the aforesaid pronouncements, it is vivid that witnesses to certain crimes may run away from the scene and may also leave the place due to fear and if there is any delay in their examination, the testimony should not be discarded. 26. From the aforesaid pronouncements, it is vivid that witnesses to certain crimes may run away from the scene and may also leave the place due to fear and if there is any delay in their examination, the testimony should not be discarded. That apart, a court has to keep in mind that different witnesses react differently under different situations. Some witnesses get a shock, some become perplexed, some start wailing and some run away from the scene and yet some who have the courage and conviction come forward either to lodge an FIR or get themselves examined immediately. Thus, it differs from individuals to individuals. There cannot be uniformity in human reaction. While the said principle has to be kept in mind, it is also to be borne in mind that if the conduct of the witness is so unnatural and is not in accord with acceptable human behaviour allowing of variations, then his testimony becomes questionable and is likely to be discarded. 27. Keeping in mind the aforesaid, we shall proceed to scrutinize the evidence of PW-2. As is evincible from his deposition, on seeing the assault he got scared, ran away from the hotel and hid himself behind the pipes till early morning. He went home, changed his clothes and rushed to Pune. He did not mention about the incident to his family members. He left for Pune and the reason for the same was also not stated to his family members. He did not try to contact the police from his residence which he could have. After his arrival at Pune, he did not mention about the incident in his sister-in-law’s house. After coming back from Pune, on the third day of the occurrence, his wife informed that the police had come and that Bhau, who had accompanied him, was dead. It is interesting to note that in the statement under Section 161 of the Code, he had not stated that he was hiding himself out of fear or he was scared of the police. In the said statement, the fact that he was informed by his wife that Bhau was dead was also not mentioned. One thing is clear from his testimony that seeing the incident, he was scared and frightened and ran away from the hotel. In the said statement, the fact that he was informed by his wife that Bhau was dead was also not mentioned. One thing is clear from his testimony that seeing the incident, he was scared and frightened and ran away from the hotel. He was frightened and hid himself behind the pipes throughout the night and left for home the next morning. But his conduct not to inform his wife or any family member and leaving for Pune and not telling anyone there defies normal human behaviour. He has also not stated anywhere that he was so scared that even after he reached home, he did not go to the police station which was hardly at any distance from his house. There is nothing in his testimony that he was under any kind of fear or shock when he arrived at his house. It is also surprising that he had not told his family members and he went to Pune without disclosing the reason and after he arrived from Pune and on being informed by his wife that his companion Bhau had died, he went to the police station. We are not oblivious of the fact that certain witnesses in certain circumstances may be frightened and behave in a different manner and due to that, they may make themselves available to the police belatedly and their examination gets delayed. But in the case at hand, regard being had to the evidence brought on record and, especially, non-mentioning of any kind of explanation for rushing away to Pune, the said factors make the veracity of his version doubtful. His evidence cannot be treated as so trustworthy and unimpeachable to record a conviction against the appellants. The learned trial court as well as the High Court has made an endeavour to connect the links and inject theories like fear, behavioural pattern, tallying of injuries inflicted on the deceased with the Post Mortem report and convicted the appellants. In the absence of any kind of clinching evidence to connect the appellants with the crime, we are disposed to think that it would not be appropriate to sustain the conviction.” 25. There is no motive attributed to the accused to kill the deceased. There is no eye witness of the incident. In the absence of any kind of clinching evidence to connect the appellants with the crime, we are disposed to think that it would not be appropriate to sustain the conviction.” 25. There is no motive attributed to the accused to kill the deceased. There is no eye witness of the incident. The prosecution has not proved even a single circumstance, which could lead to the conclusion that it was the accused Surinder Kumar and none else, who killed the deceased. 26. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dandu Jaggaraju vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2011) 14 Supreme Court Cases 674 have held that in a case relating to circumstantial evidence, motive is often a very strong circumstance which has to be proved by the prosecution. Their Lordships have held as under:- 9. It has to be noticed that the marriage between P.W. 1 and the deceased had been performed in the year 1996 and that it is the case of the prosecution that an earlier attempt to hurt the deceased had been made and a report to that effect had been lodged by the complainant. There is, however, no documentary evidence to that effect. We, therefore, find it somewhat strange that the family of the deceased had accepted the marriage for about six years more particularly, as even a child had been born to the couple. In this view of the matter, the motive is clearly suspect. In a case relating to circumstantial evidence, motive is often a very strong circumstance which has to be proved by the prosecution and it is this circumstance which often forms the fulcrum of the prosecution story. 27. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pudha Raja and another vs. State, represented by Inspector of Police, (2012) 11 Supreme Court Cases 196 have held that the motive assumes great significance and importance in case of circumstantial evidence and absence of motive puts court on its guard and causes it to scrutinize each piece of evidence very closely in order to ensure that suspicion, emotion or conjecture do not taken the place of proof. Their Lordships have held as under:- 16. Their Lordships have held as under:- 16. Furthermore, in such a case, motive assumes great significance and importance, as the absence of motive puts the court on its guard and causes it to scrutinize each piece of evidence very closely in order to ensure that suspicion, emotion or conjecture do not take the place of proof. The evidence regarding existence of motive which operates in the minds of assailants is very often, not known to any other person. The motive may not even be known, under certain circumstances, to the victim of the crime. It may be known only to the accused and to none other. It is therefore, only the perpetrator of the crime alone, who knows as to what circumstances prompted him to adopt a certain course of action, leading to the commission of the crime. 28. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rishi Pal vs. State of Uttarakhand, (2013) 12 Supreme Court Cases 551 have held that while motive does not have a major role to play in cases based on eye witness account of incident, it assumes importance in cases that rest entirely on circumstantial evidence. Their Lordships have further held that essence of requirements that must be satisfied in cases resting on circumstantial evidence is that not only should circumstances sought to be proved against the accused be established beyond reasonable doubt, but also that such circumstances form so complete a chain, as leaves no option for court, except to hold that accused is guilty of offences with which he is charged. Their Lordships have held as under:- “14. The second aspect to which we must straightaway refer is the absence of any motive for the appellant to commit the alleged murder of Abdul Mabood. It is not the case of the prosecution that there existed any enmity between Abdul Mabood and the appellant nor is there any evidence to prove any such enmity. All that was suggested by learned counsel appearing for the State was that the appellant got rid of Abdul Mabood by killing him because he intended to take away the car which the complainant-Dr. Mohd. Alam had given to him. That argument has not impressed us. All that was suggested by learned counsel appearing for the State was that the appellant got rid of Abdul Mabood by killing him because he intended to take away the car which the complainant-Dr. Mohd. Alam had given to him. That argument has not impressed us. If the motive behind the alleged murder was to somehow take away the car, it was not necessary for the appellant to kill the deceased for the car could be taken away even without physically harming Abdul Mabood. It was not as though Abdul Mabood was driving the car and was in control thereof so that without removing him from the scene it was difficult for the appellant to succeed in his design. The prosecution case on the contrary is that the appellant had induced the complainant to part with the car and a sum of Rs.15,000/-. The appellant has been rightly convicted for that fraudulent act which conviction we have affirmed. Such being the position, the car was already in the possession and control of the appellant and all that he was required to do was to drop Abdul Mabood at any place en route to take away the car which he had ample opportunity to do during all the time the two were together while visiting different places. Suffice it to say that the motive for the alleged murder is as weak as it sounds illogical to us. It is fairly well-settled that while motive does not have a major role to play in cases based on eye-witness account of the incident, it assumes importance in cases that rest entirely on circumstantial evidence. [See Sukhram v. State of Maharashtra (2007) 7 SCC 502 , Sunil Clifford Daniel (Dr.) v. State of Punjab (2012) 8 SCALE 670, Pannayar v. State of Tamil Nadu by Inspector of Police (2009) 9 SCC 152 ]. Absence of strong motive in the present case, therefore, is something that cannot be lightly brushed aside. 19. It is true that the tell-tale circumstances proved on the basis of the evidence on record give rise to a suspicion against the appellant but suspicion howsoever strong is not enough to justify conviction of the appellant for murder. The trial Court has, in our opinion, proceeded more on the basis that the appellant may have murdered the deceased-Abdul Mabood. It is true that the tell-tale circumstances proved on the basis of the evidence on record give rise to a suspicion against the appellant but suspicion howsoever strong is not enough to justify conviction of the appellant for murder. The trial Court has, in our opinion, proceeded more on the basis that the appellant may have murdered the deceased-Abdul Mabood. In doing so the trial Court over looked the fact that there is a long distance between 'may have' and 'must have' which distance must be traversed by the prosecution by producing cogent and reliable evidence. No such evidence is unfortunately forthcoming in the instant case. The legal position on the subject is well settled and does not require any reiteration. The decisions of this Court have on numerous occasions laid down the requirements that must be satisfied in cases resting on circumstantial evidence. The essence of the said requirement is that not only should the circumstances sought to be proved against the accused be established beyond a reasonable doubt but also that such circumstances form so complete a chain as leaves no option for the Court except to hold that the accused is guilty of the offences with which he is charged. The disappearance of deceased-Abdul Mabood in the present case is not explainable as sought to be argued before us by the prosecution only on the hypothesis that the appellant killed him near some canal in a manner that is not known or that the appellant disposed of his body in a fashion about which the prosecution has no evidence except a wild guess that the body may have been dumped into a canal from which it was never recovered.” 29. PW7, Dr. Rishi Tandon, deposed that the deceased Lal Chand died of head injury with fractures of cervical spine, probably under the influence of some intoxication by alcohol. The external injuries could have led to death. Some of the injuries were ante mortem. According to him, probable time elapsed between injury and death was ½ to 1 hour and between death and post mortem was 12 to 16 hours. According to report of the Chemical Examiner, Ext.PW14/F, traces of ethyl alcohol were detected in the contents of Ext.P/1, Ext.P/2 and Ext.P/3 and the quantity of ethyl alcohol in Ext.P/3 (blood) was 259.0 mg%. PW7, Dr. According to report of the Chemical Examiner, Ext.PW14/F, traces of ethyl alcohol were detected in the contents of Ext.P/1, Ext.P/2 and Ext.P/3 and the quantity of ethyl alcohol in Ext.P/3 (blood) was 259.0 mg%. PW7, Dr. Rishi Tandon also deposed after receiving report of the FSL that the deceased had consumed alcohol at the time of death. The deceased was drunk. He issued post mortem report, Ext.PW7/B. In cross-examination, he categorically admitted that the injuries observed by him on the dead body of Lal Chand were also possible by fall. Since the deceased was drunk, the possibility of his receiving the injuries by fall cannot be ruled out. 30. The prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The trial court has convicted the accused on a mere superfluous approach without in-depth analysis of the relevant facts. 31. Accordingly, in view of the discussion and analysis made hereinabove, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment dated 6.5.2009 rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Chamba in Sessions Trial No.32 of 2008 is set aside. The accused is acquitted of the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by giving him benefit of doubt. The fine amount, if any deposited by the accused is ordered to be refunded to him. The accused, who is in jail, be released forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case. 32. The Registry is directed to prepare the release warrant of the accused and send it to the Superintendent of the Jail concerned in conformity with this judgment forthwith. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.