JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 7.1.2013 passed by the leaned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Solan in Sessions Trial No. 15 FTC/7 of 2011 whereby the appellant-accused, who was charged with and tried for offences punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code has been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo imprisonment for one year under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on the intervening night of 16/17.6.2011 at village Rohat (Chanaradi) Bhararighat, accused was sleeping in the verandah of his house, whereas his wife Smt. Sukh Dei (since deceased) was sleeping with her daughter Roshani on the first floor in a room. Daughter-in-law of accused Smt. Lata was sleeping with her son on the ground floor in the adjoining room. In the early hours on 17.6.2011 at about 6.30 A.M., Sukh Dei got up for milking the cow when her daughter-in-law heard noise of utensils coming from kitchen. Roshani, who was sister in law of Smt. Lata and daughter-in-law of accused, also came out and noticed that Sukh Dei was profusely bleeding from her neck and head. She said that she would die and also told that accused has inflicted injuries on her person. The clothes of deceased were soaked with blood. Smt. Lata and Roshani on noticing injuries, cried for help followed by arrival of neighbourers. Accused did not move out from the room. He bolted the room for about one hour and then he ran towards fields. Telephonic information was received at Police Station, Darlaghat that accused has given beatings to his wife and she has been taken to Bilaspur for treatment. The information was entered in daily station diary at 9.15 A.M. The police reached the spot. Accused was found sitting in rain shelter, Shalaghat at about 4.45 P.M. on 17.6.2011. Accused was arrested. The matter was also reported to the police by Shankar Lal, brother of deceased Sukh Dei. His statement was recorded under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. FIR No. 56/2011 was registered at Police Station, Darlaghat. The investigation was completed and the challan was put up in the court after completing all the codal formalities. 3. The matter was also reported to the police by Shankar Lal, brother of deceased Sukh Dei. His statement was recorded under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. FIR No. 56/2011 was registered at Police Station, Darlaghat. The investigation was completed and the challan was put up in the court after completing all the codal formalities. 3. Prosecution examined as many as 21 witnesses in all to prove its case against the accused. Statement of accused was also recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He pleaded innocence. Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Solan convicted and sentenced the accused, as noticed hereinabove. 4. Mr. Malay Kaushal has vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused. 5. Mr. R.P. Singh, learned Assistant Advocate General has supported the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully. 7. Statement of PW-2 Shankar Lal was recorded vide Ex.PW-2/C under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to the contents of Ex.PW- 2/C, his sister was married with accused 28-29 years back. Relations with his sister and his brother-in-law were not cordial. Accused was not available for 9-10 years. His sister has four children, two girls and two boys. Marriages of two girls and one boy were already solemnized. His brother-in-law had come back 8-10 back to his house. On 16.6.2011, his sister and brotherin- law were sleeping on the first storey of the house. His sister’s daughter-in-law and son were on the lower floor of the house. He received a telephonic call from his village Chanaradi stating that accused has beaten up his sister. She was not speaking. Villagers took her to the hospital, Namhol. He also reached in the hospital at Namhol. His sister was serious. Doctor referred her from Namhol to Bilaspur. She died. He noticed injuries on the body of his sister. 8. PW-1 Smt. Lata is the daughter-in-law of accused. According to her, on 16.6.2011, her sister-inlaw Roshani Devi came to their house. Her husband and brother-in-law were not at home. Her father-in-law was in the house. He came to house few days back. House of accused was two storeyed Kucha house having 3-3 rooms in each storey and each storey having gallery. According to her, on 16.6.2011, her sister-inlaw Roshani Devi came to their house. Her husband and brother-in-law were not at home. Her father-in-law was in the house. He came to house few days back. House of accused was two storeyed Kucha house having 3-3 rooms in each storey and each storey having gallery. She alongwith her son slept in a separate room on the ground floor. Her mother-in-law and Roshani Devi slept in a separate room adjoining to her room. Accused slept in the room of upper storey alone. In the morning between 5.30 P.M. to 6.0 A.M. (17.6.2011), her mother-in-law Sukh Dei came down. She saw that she was bleeding profusely from her neck. She told that she will die. She revealed that accused has inflicted injures upon her person. Her clothes were soaked with blood. She and her sister-in-law Roshani cried for help. Neighbourers came on the spot. Her mother-in-law was lying on the cot when the neighbourers came to their house. She was taken to hospital on cot. Accused remained in his room after bolting the door from inside. He came out after about one hour of his room and ran away towards fields. Thereafter, she did not saw him. Police recovered Behla (carpenter instrument). It was stained with blood. No other person came to their house on that night. In her cross-examination, she has admitted that there are stairs for going to upper storey. She has also admitted that accused Baldev remained away from the home for about 8-10 years previously. She has also admitted that she did not see the accused at home since she got married. Volunteered that she has seen the accused few days prior to the occurrence. She came to know that her mother-in-law had gone to cow-shed for milking when she opened the door. She also admitted that there was no conversation between her and Roshani on the alleged date of incident. 9. PW-2 Shankar Lal is brother of deceased Sukh Dei. According to him, accused and her sister-inlaw used to remain peacefully for 8-9 years. Thereafter, he went outside the State. He did not know where he was residing. Accused came back after about 10-12 years in the village. Deceased had four children, out of which one son and two daughters were married. On 17.6.2011, he received a telephone message from village of accused that accused has killed Sukh Dei. Thereafter, he went outside the State. He did not know where he was residing. Accused came back after about 10-12 years in the village. Deceased had four children, out of which one son and two daughters were married. On 17.6.2011, he received a telephone message from village of accused that accused has killed Sukh Dei. He went to the hospital alongwith some villagers. He noticed that his sister has sustained deep cut on back side of neck and blood was profusely coming out. A Behla was recovered from the upper storey of the house from the verandah where the fire wood was kept. It was stained with blood. Seizure memo Ex.PW-2/A was prepared. He signed the same. Witness Bhoop Singh also put his signature in his presence. Police took photographs. Accused used to quarrel with his sister as he was suspecting her chastity. He has admitted his signatures on Ex.PW-2/B. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that his sister and brother-in-law never quarrelled in his presence. He has also admitted that accused did not reside in the village for the last 8-10 years as he was residing away. 10. PW-3 Bhoop Singh has deposed that he is Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Daseran since 2011. Accused was away from the village. He came back few days prior to occurrence. On 17.6.2011, Ward Member Ram Dass informed him that accused has murdered his wife Sukh Dei at his house. She was taken to hospital where she breathed her last on the way. A Behla was recovered from the gallery of upper storey which was hidden in the fuel wood kept near the window. This was taken into possession. Police prepared sketch of Behla Ex.PW-3/A. Seizure memo Ex.PW-2/A was prepared. Police went in side the kitchen. He noticed drops of blood on floor and Dupatta. These were also taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW-3/B. Blood stained soil was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW- 3/C. Police also took into possession clothes of the accused, i.e. Payjama and Kurta, vide seizure memo Ex.PW-3/F. He recognized behla Ex.P-2. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that he never received any written complaint from deceased Sukh Dei regarding any dispute or quarrel between husband and wife. He has further admitted that there was no blood stain present on the Behla Ex.P-2 when it was produced in the court. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that he never received any written complaint from deceased Sukh Dei regarding any dispute or quarrel between husband and wife. He has further admitted that there was no blood stain present on the Behla Ex.P-2 when it was produced in the court. He has also admitted that there was no blood stain on the wooden handle of Behla Ex.P-2 when produced in the court. He could not tell the names of the persons, who disclosed that accused was suspecting the chastity of deceased. Volunteered that Ward Member Ram Dass disclosed this fact to him after the occurrence. He had no personal knowledge about suspicion of accused on the chastity of deceased. 11. PW-4 Ram Dass has deposed that on 17.6.2011 at about 7.00 A.M., daughter of accused, namely, Roshani Devi came to his house and told that a quarrel has taken place between her mother and father. Her mother was in injured condition. He accompanied daughter of accused and saw that 6-7 persons, namely, Deep Ram, Hem Raj, Sher Singh, Prem Chand etc. were present in their house. It was raining. He went in the verandah of Sukh Dei and found that she was lying on the cot in injured condition having injuries on her head and neck. Blood was oozing out from the injuries profusely. They took out her from verandah to the road. He tried to contact 108 ambulance, but ambulance could not come. Therefore, they hired a private taxi. She was taken to P.H.C. Namhol. She was referred to R.H. Bilaspur. She died near Nauni while being taken to Bilaspur. A Behla was recovered from the gallery of upper storey. It was taken into possession by the police. It was stained with blood and the wooden handle was also stained with blood. Police took photograph of the spot. According to him, accused killed his wife since he was suspecting her chastity. In his cross-examination, he has denied the suggestion that he was not personally conversant with accused suspecting deceased about the character. Volunteered that deceased had visited his residence about 8 days prior to the date of incident and requested him to intervene as accused invariably suspected her character and used to quarrel with her. 12. PWs Shyam Lal and Roshani Devi were given up being repetitive in nature. Statement of PW-5 L.C. Godawai is formal in nature. 13. Volunteered that deceased had visited his residence about 8 days prior to the date of incident and requested him to intervene as accused invariably suspected her character and used to quarrel with her. 12. PWs Shyam Lal and Roshani Devi were given up being repetitive in nature. Statement of PW-5 L.C. Godawai is formal in nature. 13. PW-6 Baldev Raj has deposed that he was present in his house at about 6.45 A.M. on 17.6.2011 when Roshani Devi, daughter of accused, came to his house. She told that her parents were quarrelling and she told that her father has inflicted injuries on her mother’s head and neck. She requested to come to her house and save her mother. He alongwith Khem Raj went to the house of accused. They waited there for Ward Member Ram Dass. They saw that deceased Sukh Dei was lying injured on the cot and the blood was oozing out from the injuries of neck and head. They lifted Sukh Dei in the same cot and brought her to the courtyard of her house. They went to the upper storey. They noticed that accused had bolted the door from inside and was peeping from the window of the room. Ward Member Ram Dass inquired from accused as to what he has done. He replied that whatever was to be done he has done and now they can take her where they want to take. Sukh Dei was taken to hospital. She died near Nauni. 14. PW-7 Prem Lal has deposed that he was posted at Government Senior Secondary School, Namhol in the year 2011. On 17.6.2011, he noticed that there were number of people gathered at P.H.C. Namhol, which was adjoining to school. He went inside the hospital and met Roshani Devi daughter of Sukh Dei. She was his grand-daughter. On his inquiry, she disclosed that her mother has been inflicted injuries by her father in the morning. Her condition was very critical. She was referred to Z.H. Bilaspur. She breathed her last near Nauni. He heard from locality that accused used to suspect her chastity and he used to quarrel with her over this issue. Accused remained away from his house for the last 10-12 years. Accused came to his house before 15-20 days prior to murder of his wife. 15. PW-8 Krishan Lal Patwari has only prepared tatima on 27.7.2011. 16. He heard from locality that accused used to suspect her chastity and he used to quarrel with her over this issue. Accused remained away from his house for the last 10-12 years. Accused came to his house before 15-20 days prior to murder of his wife. 15. PW-8 Krishan Lal Patwari has only prepared tatima on 27.7.2011. 16. PW-9 S.I. Ram Pal has apprehended the accused from Shalaghat Chowk. 17. PW-10 Deep Chand has deposed that in the morning hours, Ward Member Ram Dass called him and informed that quarrel has taken place in the house of Baldev Raj. He and his brother Prem Chand went to the house of accused alongwith Ward Member Ram Dass. 18. Statements of PW-11 HHC Ved Parkash and PW-12 HC Yashpal Singh are formal in nature. 19. PW-13 constable Mast Ram has deposed that S.H.O./ASI Deva Nand handed over to him statement of Shankar Lal recorded under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for registration of FIR at Police Station, Darlaghat. He handed over the statement Ex.PW-2/C to MHC Brij Lal. 20. According to PW-14 Pankaj Gupta, police handed over to him a Government Video camera for preparation of C.D. and developing photos from the video camera on 4.9.2011. 21. PW-15 Dr. Rakesh Dhiman has conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of Sukh Dei. According to his final opinion, deceased died due to hemorrhagic shock as a result of cut injury of large vessels of neck alongwith head injury. He issued report Ex.PW-15/D. 22. PW-16 Geeta Ram has prepared site plan Ex.PW-16/B. 23. PW-17 Head Constable Brij Lal has deposed that rukka Ex.PW-2/C was received through constable Mast Ram at Police Station Darlaghat on 17.6.2011. He recorded FIR Ex.PW-17/A. On 17.6.2011 SI/SHO Deva Nand deposited four sealed parcels sealed with seal impressions “S”, i.e. parcels were sealed with nine seals, five seals, five seals and eleven seals, respectively alongwith sample seal “S”. He deposited the articles in Malkhana and made entry in Malkhana Register at Sr. No. 189/11 vide Ex.PW-17/C. On 18.6.2011, L.C. Godawari deposited six sealed parcels, out of which one parcel was sealed with six seal impressions “ZH”, one vial sealed with seal of impressions “ZH”, one parcel sealed with three seal impressions “ZH” and two jars sealed with two seal impressions “ZH” each, and one envelope sealed with seal impression “ZH”. No. 189/11 vide Ex.PW-17/C. On 18.6.2011, L.C. Godawari deposited six sealed parcels, out of which one parcel was sealed with six seal impressions “ZH”, one vial sealed with seal of impressions “ZH”, one parcel sealed with three seal impressions “ZH” and two jars sealed with two seal impressions “ZH” each, and one envelope sealed with seal impression “ZH”. He deposited these articles in Malkhana and made entry to this effect at Sr. No. 191/11 of Malkhana Register. These articles were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga through L.C. Godawari vide R.C. No. 15/11-12 alongwith sample seals. 24. PW-18 ASI Prabhat Chand has deposed that on the instruction of SHO/SI Deva Nand, he proceeded to Z.H. Bilaspur where deceased Sukh Dei was taken for medical treatment by the villagers. He filled necessary forms Ex.PW-15/B and Ex.PW-15/C and filed an application Ex.PW-15/A for conducting post mortem of deceased Sukh Dei. Photographs Ex.PW-14/A-6 to Ex.PW-14/A-10 were clicked by him with the help of Government camera and the same were got developed from PW-14. These were handed over to SHO/SI Deva Nand, Police Station, Darlaghat. 25. PW-19 S.I. Deva Nand has deposed that on 17.6.2011, information was received at Police Station, Darlaghat regarding quarrel in village Chanarari. He directed ASI Prabhat Chand to visit Z.H. Bilaspur. He alongwith ASI Jagdish and other police officials visited village Chanarari. He recorded the statement of Shankar Lal under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Ex.PW-2/C. He prepared spot map Ex.PW-19/A. Photographs of the spot were taken by him with the help of Government video camera. Mats (plastic) Ex.P-4, blood stained Dupatta Ex.P-5 were taken into possession by him. These were sealed in a sealed parcel Ex.P-3 with nine seal impression “S”. These were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW-3/B. Blood stained earth Ex.P-9 and control sample Ex.P-7 were also taken from the kitchen. These were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW-3/C. Behla Ex.P-1 was recovered from the upper verandah of the house, which was kept between the fire wood. It was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW-2/A. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Case property was deposited in the Malkhana with MHC Brij Lal at Police Station, Darlaghat. Accused on 18.6.2011 handed over his clothes, i.e. shirt P-11 and Pajama Ex.P-12. It was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW-2/A. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Case property was deposited in the Malkhana with MHC Brij Lal at Police Station, Darlaghat. Accused on 18.6.2011 handed over his clothes, i.e. shirt P-11 and Pajama Ex.P-12. These were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW-3/F. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that Shnakar Lal has got recorded in his statement that husband of Hem Lata was also present in the house of accused. Volunteered that occurrence took place on 17.6.2011. 26. PW-20 Nasib Singh has proved his report Ex.Pw-19/D. 27. PW-21 Nand Lal has deposed that on 17.6.2011 he took Sukh Dei from Mahunag temple in injured condition to P.H.C. Namhol at about 7.00/7.30 A.M. and from there she was referred to R.H. Bilaspur. 28. According to rukka Ex.PW-2/C, PW-2 Shankar Lal reported that Sukh Dei and accused were sleeping in the upper room and his sister‘s daughter-inlaw and son were in the lower room. However, PW-1 Lata has deposed that she alongwith her son slept in a separate room in the ground floor and her mother-in-law and Roshani Devi slept in a separate room adjoining to her room. Accused slept in the room of upper storey alone. According to PW-1 Lata, Roshani Devi was also in the house at the time of accident. Roshani Devi has not been examined by the prosecution. Rather, she was given up being repetitive in nature. She was material witness and should not have been withheld by the prosecution. Relevance of Roshani Devi becomes more prominent since according to PW-4 Ram Dass and PW-6 Baldev Raj, Roshani Devi went to their houses and told that a quarrel has taken place between accused and deceased and they should come to their house. The case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence. There is no eye witness to the incident. 29. The prosecution has attributed unchastity of Sukh Dei as motive of murder by the accused. It has come in the evidence that accused was not present in the village for number of years. He had come to the village few days back. PW-2 Shankar Lal has not deposed that Sukh Dei has ever told that accused was suspecting her fidelity. Moreover, normally no sister would ever tell to her brother that her husband was suspecting her fidelity. He had come to the village few days back. PW-2 Shankar Lal has not deposed that Sukh Dei has ever told that accused was suspecting her fidelity. Moreover, normally no sister would ever tell to her brother that her husband was suspecting her fidelity. PW-2 Shankar Lal has not deposed that his brother-in-law has ever told about this aspect as well. The marriage was solemnized even as per rukka Ex.PW-2/C, 28-29 years back. PW-2 Shankar Lal in his examination-inchief has testified that accused used to quarrel with his sister as he was suspecting her chastity. But in his cross-examination, he has admitted that his brother-in-law and sister never quarrelled in his presence. PW-3 Bhoop Singh in his examination-in-chief has deposed that accused has murdered his wife suspecting her chastity. He has admitted in his cross-examination that he could not tell the names of persons, who disclosed to him that accused was suspecting chastity of deceased. Volunteered that Ward Member Ram Dass disclosed this fact to him after the occurrence. This is merely hearsay. PW-3 Bhoop Singh has admitted that he has never received any written complaint regarding quarrel between accused and deceased. He has also admitted that he has not found any blood stain on Behla Ex.P-2 and there was no blood stain on the wooden handle. He has not produced seal in the court. 30. PW-4 Ram Dass has deposed that accused has killed his wife since he was suspecting her chastity. Accused was away for number of years and there was no occasion for Ram Dass to know that accused was suspecting chastity of his wife. In his cross-examination, he has denied the suggestion that he was not personally conversant with accused suspecting deceased about the character. Volunteered that deceased had visited his residence about 8 days prior to incident and requested her to intervene as accused invariably suspected her character and used to quarrel with her. This version of PW-4 Ram Dass cannot be believed. No woman would ever go to a person complaining that her husband was suspecting her character. Moreover, the accused has come back to his home only few days back. PW-6 Baldev Raj in his examination-in-chief has deposed that accused used to suspect her chastity and due to this reason he used to quarrel with the deceased. How he came to know about this fact has not been explained by him. Moreover, the accused has come back to his home only few days back. PW-6 Baldev Raj in his examination-in-chief has deposed that accused used to suspect her chastity and due to this reason he used to quarrel with the deceased. How he came to know about this fact has not been explained by him. Who told him about this fact has not come on record. 31. According to PW-1 Lata, in the morning between 5.30 to 6.00 A.M. on 17.6.2011, her mother-inlaw went to cowshed for milking the cow. She was sleeping with her son. She heard sound of utensils from their kitchen. She got up and came to the courtyard and subsequently her sister-in-law also came to the courtyard. She was confronted with portion ‘A’ to ‘A’ of her statement mark D-1. She has stated in her statement recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that her sister-in-law woke up and told that her mother has received various injuries and blood was oozing out. She asked her mother-in-law how she has received the injuries. Then her mother-in-law told that her father-in-law has hit her with Behla, PW-3. 32. PW-3 Bhoop Singh has not noticed any blood on the Behla as well as on the wooden handle. According to Ex.PW-9/E, human blood was detected on Ex.11, however, the same was found insufficient for further examination. 33. The evidence led by the prosecution to prove motive is very weak. The prosecution has failed to prove the motive. Accused was married 28-29 years back. He was away from his home. He came only few days back. Though all the witnesses have stated about the motive, however, no one had occasion to come to know about the accused suspecting the character of his wife. PW-3 Bhoop Singh has deposed that Ward Member Ram Dass disclosed this fact to him after the occurrence and PW-4 Ram Dass has deposed that deceased had visited his house about 8 days prior to the date of incident and requested him to intervene as accused invariably suspected her character and used to quarrel with her. We have already noticed that no self-respecting woman would disclose to third party that her husband was suspecting her character. The statement cannot be believed for the simple reason that accused had only come to the village few days back. We have already noticed that no self-respecting woman would disclose to third party that her husband was suspecting her character. The statement cannot be believed for the simple reason that accused had only come to the village few days back. PW-6 Baldev Raj though has deposed that accused used to suspect the chastity of his wife, but how he came to know about this fact is not borne out from the record. The prosecution has withheld most material witness, i.e. Roshani Devi, daughter of the accused. 34. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Habeeb Mohammad vs. State of Hyderabad, AIR 1954 SC 51 have held that it is bounden duty of the prosecution to examine a material witness, particularly when no allegation has been made that, if produced, he would not speak the truth. Not only does an adverse inference arise against the prosecution case from his non-production as a witness in view of illustration (g) to section 114 of the Evidence Act, but the circumstances of his being withheld from the court casts a serious reflection on the fairness of the trial. Their Lordships have held as under: “In this situation it seems to us that Biabani who was a top ranking police officer present at the scene was a material witness in the case and it was the bounden duty of the prosecution to examine him, particularly when no allegation was made that if produced, he would not speak the truth; and, in any case, the court would have been well advised to exercise its discretionary powers to examine that witness. The witness was at the time of the trial in charge of the Police Training School and was certainly available. In our opinion, not only does an adverse inference arise against the prosecution case from his non- production as a witness in view of illustration (g) to section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, but the circumstance of his being withheld from the court casts a serious reflection on the fairness of the trial. It seems to us that the appellant was considerably prejudiced in his defence by reason of this omission on the part of the prosecution and on the part of the court.” 35. The case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence. Prosecution has failed to prove the entire chain. 36. It seems to us that the appellant was considerably prejudiced in his defence by reason of this omission on the part of the prosecution and on the part of the court.” 35. The case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence. Prosecution has failed to prove the entire chain. 36. 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. 37. 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. 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 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. 38. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.” 39. Consequently, in view of analysis and discussion made hereinabove, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed murder of deceased Sukh Dei. The circumstances noticed by us hereinabove creates reasonable doubt in the version of prosecution. 40. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 7.1.2013 rendered in Sessions Trial No.15 FTC/7 of 2011 is set aside. Accused is acquitted of the charge framed against him by giving him benefit of doubt. Since the accused is in jail, he be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 41. The Registry is directed to prepare the release warrant of accused and send the same to the Superintendent of Jail concerned in conformity with this judgment forthwith.