JUDGMENT & ORDER : MANOJIT BHUYAN, J. 1. The appellant Dwipen Ch. Deka @ Dwipen Deka has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life as well as for offence under Section 363 of the IPC and sentenced to one year simple imprisonment, with both sentences running concurrently, together with fine and default stipulations. 2. The charge of murder is for causing death of Beauty Bhuyan, aged about 17 years and daughter of the informant Shri Bipin Ch. Bhuyan (PW-2). According to the prosecution case, an ejahar came to be lodged by Bipin Ch. Bhuyan (PW-2) on 24.06.2001 to the effect that on 23.06.2001 at around 11 P.M., the appellant taking advantage of his absence from home took away his daughter. He came to know about it when he reached home at around 12.30 A.M. He learnt that the appellant had come to his house and asked his wife as to his whereabouts. On the date when the ejahar was filed, he was informed by two persons from his village that the dead body of his daughter was lying at Barghopa near Borolia river. On reaching the place, he found the dead body of his daughter with several cut and stab injuries on her body. Even the intestines had come out from the abdomen. A pen and one broken clip was found near the dead body and the frock and panty were stained with blood. On the basis of the ejahar dated 24.06.2001, a case was registered as Kayan P.S. Case No. 20/2001 under Section 366/302/34 IPC. Investigation commenced, post mortem was performed, necessary memos were drawn and statements of witnesses were recorded. Upon completion of investigation, Charge Sheet was filed against the 4(four) accused persons including the appellant herein. The case was committed to trial. 3. During trial, the prosecution examined as many as 22 witnesses including the Medical Officer (PW-1), the Investigating Officer (PW-22) and the Executive Magistrate (PW-10), who had prepared the Spot Verification Report in the presence of the accused persons. From the defence side, 4(four) witnesses were examined with 2(two) other persons deposing as Court Witnesses. 4. Save and except the appellant, the other 3(three) accused persons were acquitted of the charges and set at liberty. In the absence of any direct witnesses, conviction of the appellant was based on circumstantial evidence. From the defence side, 4(four) witnesses were examined with 2(two) other persons deposing as Court Witnesses. 4. Save and except the appellant, the other 3(three) accused persons were acquitted of the charges and set at liberty. In the absence of any direct witnesses, conviction of the appellant was based on circumstantial evidence. The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution, which found favour in the judgment under appeal is, firstly, that there was a love relations between the appellant and the deceased and she was last seen with the appellant on the night of the incident. Her body was found on the very next day morning at a place about one and half kilometers away from her house. This circumstance of Beauty Bhuyan having been last seen with the appellant is derived from the deposition of Kalpana Bhuyan (PW-4), who is the aunt of the deceased as well as from the deposition of Subhadra Bhuyan (PW-5), who is the grandmother of the deceased. The said testimony of PW-4 and PW-5 is to the extent that they had seen the appellant and the other accused persons taking Beauty Bhuyan away and that one of the accused i.e. Dipu had pointed a dagger at Beauty’s mother and had gagged Beauty with a gamocha. The depositions so made by PW-4 and PW-5 when tested with their statements made before the Police under Section 161 CrPC on 24.06.2001 clearly reveals that their testimony before the Court was by way of improvement. In the statements under Section 161 CrPC, PW-4 and PW-5 did not say that they had witnessed the appellant and the co-accused taking away Beauty Bhuyan, with one of the co-accused pointing a dagger at Beauty’s mother and gagging Beauty with a gamocha. The first circumstance, so relied upon by the prosecution and finding favour with the Court below, did not stand established. The second ground on which conviction was made was with regard to the circumstance that the appellant had led the police to the place where the weapon of offence was thrown and during which time one blue coloured sandal was recovered from an area close to the place of occurrence. Firstly, the Seizure List do not make mention of the sharp cutting weapon being recovered. Recovery of the blue coloured sandal was not proved to have belonged to the appellant. Firstly, the Seizure List do not make mention of the sharp cutting weapon being recovered. Recovery of the blue coloured sandal was not proved to have belonged to the appellant. As such, the second circumstantial evidence was not sufficient to implicate the appellant and connect him to the crime in question. The third circumstance relied upon to convict the appellant was that on the fateful night he had come to the house of Paresh Kalita (PW-20) and that said Paresh Kalita had seen blood in the leg of the appellant. The presence of blood alone on the leg of the appellant is too weak an evidence to connect the appellant as having caused the death of Beauty Bhuyan. The fact that the appellant was not found in his home immediately after the incident was also pressed into service as another circumstantial evidence for implicating the appellant as the perpetrator of the crime. 5. Out of 22(twenty two) prosecution witnesses, incriminating materials against the appellant was sought to be brought in by the Executive Magistrate (PW-10), who in his deposition stated that he had recorded the extra-judicial confessions of the accused persons. Further, that he had visited the place from where Beauty had been kidnapped as well as the place where she had been raped and killed. He also took details of the offence of rape and murder so committed and narrated to him by the accused persons who were brought to Beauty Bhuyan’s house. The Executive Magistrate in his deposition gave a detailed account of the heinous incident as told to him by the accused persons. He also stated that he had recorded the confessions of the accused persons, which was reduced to writing by taking signatures of the accused persons. The confession was exhibited as Ext.7. While making deposition of his visits and the recording of extra-judicial confessions of the accused persons as well as with regard to the recovery of a blue hawai chappal, he stated that same had been done in the company of the Officer-in-Charge of Kayan Police Station. Even in Ext.7, the presence of the Officer-in-Charge of Kayan Police Station finds reflected. This aspect alone goes to erode the evidentiary value of the statements made by the Executive Magistrate (PW-10) and to the legal sanctity of the contents of Ext.7. Even in Ext.7, the presence of the Officer-in-Charge of Kayan Police Station finds reflected. This aspect alone goes to erode the evidentiary value of the statements made by the Executive Magistrate (PW-10) and to the legal sanctity of the contents of Ext.7. In the deposition of the Executive Magistrate, there is yet another piece of information brought on record. He had stated that all the accused persons, including the appellant raped Beauty Bhuyan in turns and thereafter killed her by repeatedly stabbing her with a dagger. According to him, this fact was learnt from the accused persons. The element of rape stated to have been committed by all the accused persons has to be tested against the Post Mortem Report (Ext.1). According to Dr. Amarjyoti Patowary (PW-1), who had carried out the autopsy on the dead body of Beauty Bhuyan, no evidence of recent sexual intercourse was detected. According to him, the vaginal swab taken from around the cervix and posterior fornix of vagina in the glass slide did not reveal any spermatozoa or gonococci under the microscope. The examination of the hymen revealed the presence of old tears at 5 and 7 O’clock position. Having regard to the Post Mortem Report, the deposition of the Executive Magistrate (PW-10) with regard to rape being committed on Beauty Bhuyan by the accused persons do not stand vindicated. This aspect is noticed only to assess the veracity of the testimony of PW-10. 6. Not a single witness could lend support to the prosecution story. Either their evidence is in the realm of hearsay or being improved upon or not legally sustainable, as in the case of the deposition of the Executive Magistrate. Even Achyutananda Das (PW-22), who is the Investigating Officer have deposed that at the time when the Executive Magistrate (PW-10) had made spot verification and had prepared the Report, he too was with the Executive Magistrate. 7. A close scrutiny of the entire materials on record clearly goes to show that the prosecution failed to complete the chain of circumstance and link the appellant to the crime, as being the sole perpetrator of the offence, beyond all reasonable doubt. The evidence on record discloses that the conviction of the appellant and sentence thereof was primarily based on suspicion or on the conscience of the Court of being morally satisfied about the complicity of the appellant. The evidence on record discloses that the conviction of the appellant and sentence thereof was primarily based on suspicion or on the conscience of the Court of being morally satisfied about the complicity of the appellant. As a ready reference, in Rajkumar Singh @ Raju @ Batya vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in (2013) 5 SCC 722 , the Apex Court have held that suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot take the place of legal proof. It was held that the Court has to maintain the vital distance between conjunctures and sure conclusions on the touchstone of dispassionate judicial scrutiny based upon a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all features of the case including the quality and credibility of the evidence brought on record. Indeed, the Court at all times must ensure that miscarriage of justice is avoided and if the facts and circumstances of a case so demand, then benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. 8. In the instant case, the evidence brought on record do not conclusively and consistently bring home the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. The links in the chain of circumstances leading to the guilt of the appellant do not find established. Accordingly, this appeal stands allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant in Sessions Case No. 145/2005 stands set aside. The appellant be released forthwith if not involved or required to be detained in any other case. The case records be sent back forthwith.