Indira Shah, J.:-- This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 19.6.2015 passed by learned Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.211 (T) of 2014 convicting the appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentencing him thereby to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment for one month. 2. This is a case of matricide and the appellant was charged for committing murder of his own mother. On 9.4.2014 at around 8 p.m. the accused inflicted beer bottle blows on the head and legs of his mother Manju Mura felling her on the ground. She was immediately taken to Tinsukia Civil Hospital but she succumbed to injuries at around 11 p.m. on the same day while undergoing treatment. V.D.P. President Ajay Kumar Tasha lodged the FIR on 12.4.2014 and on the basis of the his FIR, Tinsukia P.S. Case No.292/2014 under Section 302 I.P.C. was registered. The inquest on the dead body was conducted on 9.4.2014 on the basis of Tinsukia P.S. Civil Hospital P.Post GDE No.94 dated 9.4.2014 and was subjected to post mortem examination on 9.4.2014 itself. On completion of investigation charge-sheet u/s 302 I.P.C. was submitted against the accused. 3. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him u/s 302 I.P.C. and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined 8 witnesses in all. The accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. stated that he threw the beer bottle towards a crowd and he did not know who sustained injury. He declined to adduce any defence evidence. 4. Learned Sessions Judge on conclusion of trial convicted and sentenced the accused as aforementioned. 5. Heard Mr. J Hussain, learned amicus curiae for the appellant and Ms. S. Jahan, learned Addl. PP, Assam appearing on behalf of the respondent State. 6. The prosecution case rests solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence. It was contended by the learned amicus curiae that in the absence of direct evidence, the slightest of a discrepancy depicting the possibility of two view would exculpate the accused of guilt, on the basis of benefit of doubt. 7. 6. The prosecution case rests solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence. It was contended by the learned amicus curiae that in the absence of direct evidence, the slightest of a discrepancy depicting the possibility of two view would exculpate the accused of guilt, on the basis of benefit of doubt. 7. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116 , proof required for recording a conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence was elaborately considered and the golden principles of standard of proof required in a case sought to be established on the basis of circumstantial evidence was laid down as follows :- (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established, (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. That is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (4) they should exclude every hypothesis except the one to be proved and (5) there must be chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. 8. The relevant and material circumstances heavily relied on by the prosecution are - (i) there was none except the accused in the house when the deceased was assaulted. (ii) the deceased made oral dying declaration before her husband i.e. father of the accused. (iii) death of the deceased as per medical evidence was homicidal. (iv) the accused who was involved in another rape case was apprehended by the people and he in his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. admitted that he threw bottle on crowd. 9. We have scrutinised the entire evidence on record. 10. The evidence of first witness namely Sri Joyprakash Mahato is hearsay evidence. He stated that he came to know about the incident on the next day. 11. The next witness is Dr. 9. We have scrutinised the entire evidence on record. 10. The evidence of first witness namely Sri Joyprakash Mahato is hearsay evidence. He stated that he came to know about the incident on the next day. 11. The next witness is Dr. Prasant Borgohain who held post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 9.4.2014 and his findings are as follows : Injuries : (1) Abrasion and contusion of size 1.5 cm x 1.5 cm was found on the right knee joint anteriorly, which was bandaged by white bandage cloth. On dissection, sub-antaneous haemorrhage present. (2) On dissection of the head scalp found congested on right parieto-temporal region and haemotoma of size 2.5 cm x 2.5 cm found on the right temporalis muscle. Skull bone was intact. Dura found congested. Intra-cerebral haemorrhage found on the right side of cerebrum. Lungs congested. Stomach contents partial digested food material along with fluid which smells like country liquor. Scalp and skull as described. Vertebrae healthy. Brain as described. Spinal Cord healthy. Liver, spleen and kidneys are congested. Uterus - normal size and shape. In the opinion of doctor, death was due to coma, as a result of intra-cerebral hemorrhage. The doctor could not give positive opinion as to whether the hemorrhage was due to accident or suicidal or homicidal. The injury was caused by blunt force impact and was sufficient to cause death of a person in ordinary course of nature.” 12. P.W. 3, Ajoy Kr. Tasha is the informant. He turned hostile to the prosecution and stated that the incident was reported to him. He further stated that 3/4 days prior to this incident, he was informed that the accused had attempted to commit rape on a girl and he was apprehended by the people and was handed over to the police. 13. P.W. 4, Bharat Gorh also turned hostile to the prosecution and denied that he had seen the accused assaulting his mother. He also stated that the accused had committed rape on a girl and was apprehended by the public and handed over to police. 14. Similarly, P.W. 5, Biki Bawri was also declared hostile by the prosecution. His evidence is in the similar line as that of P.W. 4. 15. P.W. 6, Budhua Mura, is father of the accused. He also stated that the accused had committed rape on a girl and was apprehended by the public and handed over to police. 14. Similarly, P.W. 5, Biki Bawri was also declared hostile by the prosecution. His evidence is in the similar line as that of P.W. 4. 15. P.W. 6, Budhua Mura, is father of the accused. He in his evidence deposed that on the date of occurrence at around 8 p.m., after serving meal to the accused and deceased, he went out of his house to the house of his aunt and a little later when he was returning to his house, he met his wife on the way, who told him that she was assaulted by the accused with a beer bottle. P.W. 6 took her to Garden Hospital, wherefrom she was shifted to Civil Hospital at Tinsukia where she succumbed to her injuries. 16. In his cross-examination he (P.W. 6) admitted that he did not see the occurrence. He did not state before the police as confirmed by the Investigating Officer (P.W. 8) that he went out of his house to the house of his aunt and while he was returning, his wife (deceased) told him that she was assaulted by the accused. 17. P.W. 7, Sri Lakhan Mura is the brother of the accused. He stated that he came to know from the daughter of the accused that the accused assaulted his mother with a bottle. He saw the injuries sustained by his mother. He did not state before the police that daughter of the accused told him about the incident or he saw the injuries sustained by his mother. 18. P.W. 8 is the Investigating Officer. He stated that the FIR in this case was lodged on 12.4.2014 whereas the occurrence took place on 9.4.14. During the investigation he drew sketch map of the site of occurrence. He seized a beer bottle as shown by the informant. According to him when he came back to police station he found the accused was detained in the police station in connection with another case. On his transfer S.I. Rajen Saikia collected the post-mortem report in respect of death of the deceased and submitted the charge-sheet. 19. The doctor held autopsy on the dead body of the deceased on 9.4.2014 at 2.45 p.m. Approximate time since death as per the post mortem report was 12.24 hours. On his transfer S.I. Rajen Saikia collected the post-mortem report in respect of death of the deceased and submitted the charge-sheet. 19. The doctor held autopsy on the dead body of the deceased on 9.4.2014 at 2.45 p.m. Approximate time since death as per the post mortem report was 12.24 hours. As per the FIR, the occurrence took place at 8 p.m. on 9.4.2014 and the deceased succumbed to her injuries at around 11 p.m. on the same day. As per GDE No.94, the deceased Manju Mura was brought dead to the Civil Hospital on 8.4.2014 at 11.05 p.m. and the information was given by Dr. G. Mahota. The said information was entered on general dairy and inquest on the dead body was held on 9.4.2014 at 10.45 a.m. Therefore, the subsequent FIR lodged by Ajay Kr. Tasha is hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C. 20. The G.E. Entry and the subsequent ejahar lodged by Ajoy Kr. Tasha are contradictory with regard the time of occurrence. G.D. Entry says that the deceased was brought dead on 8.4.2014 whereas the ejahar says that victim was assaulted on 9.4.2014. 21. It also appears that the accused was apprehended in connection with a rape case and was handed over to police on 14.4.2014. The accused stated that while he was apprehended by the public he threw a beer bottle towards the crowd. The medical evidence does not speak clearly that the death of the accused might be attributed to the assault by means of a bottle. 22. The evidence of P.W. 6, the father of the accused does not inspire confidence, since he did not state before the police that the deceased made any dying declaration. No other witnesses saw the occurrence. 23. In the light of aforesaid discussion, we hold that the prosecution has failed to establish all the circumstances by cogent and acceptable evidence which can lead to the conclusion that it was the accused appellant who committed murder of his mother. We, therefore, set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court. 24. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The accused-appellant be acquitted and set at liberty forthwith if he is not wanted in any other case. 25. Before parting, we appreciate the valuable assistance rendered by Mr. J. Hussain, learned amicus curiae and direct the State to pay an amount of Rs. 7,000 to the learned amicus curiae. -----------