JUDGMENT : B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. By this appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the appellant/convict challenges judgment and order dated 31.07.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati in Sessions Trial No. 149/2013 holding him guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life as also imposing fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default thereof, rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. He is also found guilty of offence under Section 315 of Indian Penal Code, but, no separate sentence is awarded because of the larger sentence, punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, already imposed. 2. We have heard Shri Mirza, learned Counsel for the appellant/convict and Shri Thakre, learned A.P.P. for respondent – State. 3. Shri Mirza, learned Counsel submitted that the circumstances from “A” to “J” looked into by the trial Court as constituting chain do not form a chain of implicating circumstances. Evidence of P.W.4 – Sau. Latabai Nimborkar, does not establish presence of the appellant with the deceased in the tenanted room occupied by them just before the incidence. On the contrary, it shows that room was already locked and appellant was outside. He further submits that in this background, alleged events like mere visit to Police Station, production of key of lock before the Constable PW5 Muhekar and reporting murder as alleged, again by itself do not constitute any evidence. He further contents that visit by the Round Officer (P.W.1) to the spot thereafter to verify the position is therefore, inconsequential. 4. Evidence of P.W.5 – Police Constable, Manohar Babaraoji Muhekar does not in any way implicate the appellant, and then the alleged statement in the station diary (Exh.54) cannot be viewed as a statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. It has not been read by the Trial Court as an extra judicial confession. Learned Counsel adds that deposition of PW5 does not inspire any confidence. 5. P.W. 4 was pressurized, tutored and even in her chief, by putting a leading question, a sentence heavily relied upon by the Trial Court, has been brought on record. That statement is not legally admissible and as the defence of appellant in his statement under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code has not been looked into, the trial Court has erroneously reached a finding of guilt. That statement is not legally admissible and as the defence of appellant in his statement under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code has not been looked into, the trial Court has erroneously reached a finding of guilt. He has also raised other contentions and we find it appropriate to refer to the same little later in the judgment. 6. Shri Thakre, learned A.P.P. on the other hand heavily relies on 9 circumstances looked into by the trial Court in paragraph no.18 of its judgment, and submits that those circumstances are proved beyond reasonable doubt. He relies upon evidence of P.W.1 Pawan Ashok Bhingardive, P.W. 2 Prabhudas Bhimrao Jamnik, P.W. 4 Sau. Latabai Dadarao Nimborkar and P.W. 5 Manohar Babaraoji Muhekar to urge that said evidence along with facts on record links the appellant only with the offence and hence, impugned judgment and the sentence needs to be sustained. 7. It is appropriate to mention the 9 circumstances looked into by the trial Court. As per the trial court, those circumstances are – “(A) That accused and deceased were residing as husband and wife in a room let out to him by Latabai (PW 4). (B) That Mukta had died a homicidal death in the said room with injuries on her head and other parts of the body. That on autopsy, deceased Mukta was found pregnant carrying pregnancy of about 22 weeks as revealed to Dr. Shama Shazia. (C) Small Gas Cylinder, Cooker having blood and blood stained clothes of the accused were found in the said room. (D) That the accused was present in the said room along with deceased before the incident in question. (E) The landlady Latabai and other neighbours heard the noise of fall of utensils from the said room just before approaching there. (F) Accused was found putting lock to the door of his room where the dead body of his wife Mukta was lying. (G) That the accused locked the door of his room from outside. He visited police station and produced the key of the lock of his room before Shri Muhekar, Police Head Constable. (H) That Shri Bhingardive who visited the spot to verify the facts on the instructions of Shri Muhekar, found the dead body of Mukta in the said room after opening it with the help of key produced by the accused. He visited police station and produced the key of the lock of his room before Shri Muhekar, Police Head Constable. (H) That Shri Bhingardive who visited the spot to verify the facts on the instructions of Shri Muhekar, found the dead body of Mukta in the said room after opening it with the help of key produced by the accused. (I) That the conduct of the accused since the incident was highly unnatural. (J) That there were strained relations between accused and his wife.” 8. The conviction is thus based only on circumstantial evidence. The material on record therefore has to establish these circumstances beyond the reasonable doubt and together, they must interlink to form a complete chain indicating the appellant only as the accused. Similarly no circumstance inconsistent with the hypothesis of his innocence must be left uninvestigated. 9. Circumstance at “A” above i.e. the fact of residence of husband and wife together, cannot be seen as an incriminating circumstance. Homicidal death of Mukta (deceased wife of the appellant) in said room again by itself does not connect the appellant with it. Circumstance at Sr. No. “C” i.e. finding of blood stained small gas cylinder, cooker or blood stained clothes of accused in that room, cannot be viewed differently. Circumstance at Sr. No. “I” that conduct of accused was highly unnatural, again is of no assistance to prosecution. Strained relations between the deceased and appellant can be a motive, but, motive itself cannot take place of proof. If presence of appellant in the room lastly with the deceased is established, these circumstances may be helpful in view of S.106 of the Evidence Act. This therefore, leaves us with circumstances “D”, “E”, “F”, “G” and “H” which need to be appreciated first. 10. Circumstance at “H” i.e. visit by P.W. 1 – Bhingardive to the room in occupation of the couple to verify facts or then finding of body of Mukta in that room after opening it with the help of key produced by the appellant in the police station, is again not a decisive circumstance. P.W.1 claims that on 22.03.2013 in the night, he was on patrolling duty. In that night at about 1.30 a.m. to 1.40 a.m. (on 23.03.2013), he got a call from Murhekar (P.W. 5) who was on station diary duty. P.W.1 claims that on 22.03.2013 in the night, he was on patrolling duty. In that night at about 1.30 a.m. to 1.40 a.m. (on 23.03.2013), he got a call from Murhekar (P.W. 5) who was on station diary duty. As per information given by Murhekar, he came to police station and he states that he made inquires with the appellant. Appellant told him that he was tenant of P.W. 4 since last about one month, and there used to be quarrel between him and his wife. Relations were strained. He suspected her relations with her aunt's son and she was pregnant carrying since 5 months. During quarrel he inflicted blow of cooker on her head and then three blows of small LPG cylinder. She expired. P.W. 1 states that thereafter he was about the proceed to the spot when P.W.4 – Lata Nimborkar and her husband Dadarao appeared in the police station. He then visited the spot, he found Mukta was lying dead. He closed the door and phoned police. Within 15 minutes, police inspector Jaiswal came there. He was waiting on the spot till then. Shri Jaiswal, instructed him to lodge FIR and therefore, he went back to police station to lodge written report. That written report is Exh.37. Printed FIR is brought by him as Exh.38. He also identified the accused. 11. His cross shows that distance between police station and spot is about 500 meters. He had made inquiries from P.W. 4 Lata and her husband and they gave answers to his questions, however, he did not make record thereof. Similarly, he did not make record of facts narrated by appellant/accused. He reached spot at about 1.50 a.m. He denied that Jaiswal came within 15 minutes thereafter. He was not aware whether Shri Jaiswal immediately prepared Panchnama. He had talk with Shri Jaiswal, about the incident and it was 2 a.m. when he reached police station to lodge report. He denied that accused did not disclose anything to him as alleged. 12. His evidence does not show that he received any key in the police station or then with that key he opened the lock at site. If key and lock were in his possession lastly, he does not point out what happened to it. 13. P.W. 5 – Manohar Muhekar is the head constable on station diary entry. 12. His evidence does not show that he received any key in the police station or then with that key he opened the lock at site. If key and lock were in his possession lastly, he does not point out what happened to it. 13. P.W. 5 – Manohar Muhekar is the head constable on station diary entry. He states that the accused came to police station at about 1.45 a.m. and he was frightened. He told that he had committed murder of his wife, and requested to be arrested. He had locked the door of his room and produced the key of that lock. Head Constable then contacted P.W.1 on phone and P.W.1 came to police station. P.W. 4 and her husband Shri Nimbhokar also came to police station. Nimbhokar, told him about the incident orally. He handed over key given by the accused to P.W.1 and sent him to spot for verification. Nibhorkar couple also went with P.W.1, accordingly he made entry in the station diary. He proved that entry as Exh.54. He also identified the accused. He in cross-examination could not assign any reason why the fact of handing over key by accused to him and its handing over by him to P.W.1 did not figure in police statement. He stated that he had not arrested the accused and also not registered any FIR. He did not record facts disclosed by the accused on plain paper and did not obtain his signature. He denied that the accused had not spoken to him about committing murder of his wife, and station diary entry was prepared after registration of offence on complaint of P.W.1. He denied that the story of handing over key was prepared after lodging of FIR. 14. Thus, fact of handing over key of lock by accused to PW5 in police station or then this witness handing over that key to P.W.1 Bhingardive for opening the lock by visiting the tenanted room, do not figure in his police statement. This fact appears in Exh.54, which is recorded at about 1.45 a.m. Obviously the entry is made after P.W.1 and Nimbhorkar couple proceeded to the spot. There is thus material variance between his police statement and this entry at Exh.54. Importance of lock on room and of its key being with accused who came to police station need not be emphasized. There is thus material variance between his police statement and this entry at Exh.54. Importance of lock on room and of its key being with accused who came to police station need not be emphasized. This omission in police statement of a material fact casts serious doubt on Ex. 54 itself. This evidence of PW5 Muhekar and of PW1 Bhingardive shows that Exh. 54 is not recorded immediately after accused arrived in the police station. It is entered later on i.e., after PW1 left the police station and proceeded to spot for verification after questioning accused and Nimbhokar couple. If till then no entry was made in station diary and spot verification was felt necessary, the submission of defence that station diary was made after recording FIR, may not be wrong. What assumes importance is that appellant/accused was not carried to spot for verification. 15. Other important witness is P.W.4 Latabai Nimbhorkar. She and her husband had gone to police station as deposed by P.W.1 and P.W.5. Appellant and his wife were residing as tenant in one room of their house. In police station, before visiting the spot, they were questioned and information was gathered from them by PW1. However, that information was not reduced into writing. Why no FIR could be registered then is not apparent. 16. P.W.4 Latabai has deposed that in the night hours she, her husband and her daughter were at home. Appellant and his wife were in their room. Witness and her family went to sleep at about 11 p.m., while appellant and his wife also went to sleep in their room. At about 1.30 a.m. she heard noise of falling of utensils from the room of the accused. She got up and opened the door of her house. Room of accused was infront of her entrance door. Through window of accused's room she saw deceased Mukta lying on the ground in pool of blood. There was bleeding from her head. Door of room was locked from outside and people had gathered there. She states that the accused came there and inquired what had happened. He then told that he would go to lodge report. Police came there and prepared panchnama. Thus, till this stage, she does not say that she saw the appellant/accused inside the room in which the body was lying or that then he came out and put lock. She states that the accused came there and inquired what had happened. He then told that he would go to lodge report. Police came there and prepared panchnama. Thus, till this stage, she does not say that she saw the appellant/accused inside the room in which the body was lying or that then he came out and put lock. She places accused out of room which was already locked. Thereafter, her examination-in-chief reads “It did happen that when I came out of the house the accused was locking the door of his house”. Then she deposes that he told her that he was going to police station. After he left, people from locality gathered there. Obviously the portion of her examination-in-chief mentioned supra, is an answer to some leading question. Answer thereto and later answers given by her bring on record the facts inconsistent with her earlier natural normal examination in chief. 17. Her cross-examination reveals that she was not aware whether the accused was present at his room on 22.03.2013 and she stated about his presence because of her belief. She further states that after people gathered at the spot, accused put lock to his room. Her cross reveals that one day before recording her deposition in the Court, she was called in police station and she was there for about 30 to 45 minutes. She was told about her statement to be made before the Court. However, she denied that she deposed as suggested by police or as per say of police that she saw bleeding from head of deceased Mukta, when she peeped from the window. She also denied that her deposition that she saw accused putting lock on room was false. 18. Thus, this witness does not say that she followed accused/appellant to police station, that any inquiry was made from her or from her husband in the police station or that she came back with P.W.1 to the spot of incidence. She does not say that she saw accused in the police station. She also does not state that after coming to the spot, P.W.1 opened the lock with key and entered the room occupied by the appellant and his deceased wife. It is important to note that prosecution has not declared her hostile. She does not say that she saw accused in the police station. She also does not state that after coming to the spot, P.W.1 opened the lock with key and entered the room occupied by the appellant and his deceased wife. It is important to note that prosecution has not declared her hostile. If she woke up due to noise made by fall of the utensils and came out immediately, normally, she should have seen the accused with blood stained clothes or blood spread on his body parts. Accused could not have washed himself clean or changed into different clothes in such short interval of less than a minute. 19. Thus, though P.W.5 claims that he has given key of lock to P.W.1, this fact is omission in his police statement. In any case he has not gone to the spot to find out whether premises were actually locked or not. He does not state how the lock, if any, was opened. Evidence of P.W.4 Latabai does not conclusively establish presence of appellant inside the room with body of his wife, she peeped through window. She while narrating the events initially discloses that the accused came there later on i.e. after she found that room was locked. Thereafter abruptly in response to a suggestive/leading question, she has stated that when she came out of the house, accused was locking the door of his house. This material is insufficient to hold that the accused was inside with the deceased lastly. The cross-examination of P.W.4 creates some doubt about her credibility in the matter. 20. We may at this stage point out answer to last question i.e. Question No.68 given by the appellant in his Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code statement. He has stated that dispute between him and Mukta was taken to Commissioner Office as he was not willing to marry her without the consent of his family members. He has stated that he was behaving properly with Mukta after marriage. Here it needs to be pointed out that the prosecution has not brought on record evidence of any neighbour to show that there used to be any quarrel between the couple. 21. While answering question no.68 (supra), the appellant accused stated that on the day of incidence, at 9 p.m., he had gone to meet his father at Gandhi Ashram. Here it needs to be pointed out that the prosecution has not brought on record evidence of any neighbour to show that there used to be any quarrel between the couple. 21. While answering question no.68 (supra), the appellant accused stated that on the day of incidence, at 9 p.m., he had gone to meet his father at Gandhi Ashram. He returned at about 1.30 to 2 A.M. in the mid night and saw people gathered in front of his house. Nobody was willing to disclose anything to him. He entered the room and saw his wife lying in pool of blood. He came out, inquired from landlady (P.W.4) as to what had happened, but, she also did not tell anything. Hence, he collected the lock which was inside the room and applied in on the door. He told the landlady that he was going to police station. 22. The spot panchnama (Exh.40) does not show that police had seized any lock from the room. Learned A.P.P. has relied upon the seizure of one Lungi and a shirt. However, these clothes were inside the room and not on the person of the appellant. Evidence on record shows that on clothes which the appellant was wearing, there were no blood stains. Mukta was killed by hitting her hard with gas cylinder or pressure cooker. There was extensive bleeding. In this situation, if there are blood stains on some articles in the room, that by itself is not sufficient to connect the appellant with attack in the present matter. Nobody has come forward and deposed that in the night the accused was seen wearing that particular shirt or lungi. Moreover, no blood was noticed either on clothes or hands etc. of the appellant in police station. 23. Learned A.P.P. has submitted that the appellant has taken a plea of alibi, but, he did not examine his father or any other witness to prove his visit at Gandhi Ashram or his return at 1.30 to 2.00 in midnight. We need not to delve on this aspect, as the prosecution has to establish its story and the guilt of the appellant independently. If at the time when utensils fell and made noise, accused was not inside the room, neither this circumstance nor Section 106 of Evidence Act can come to the rescue of the prosecution. 24. We need not to delve on this aspect, as the prosecution has to establish its story and the guilt of the appellant independently. If at the time when utensils fell and made noise, accused was not inside the room, neither this circumstance nor Section 106 of Evidence Act can come to the rescue of the prosecution. 24. We cannot forget that the appellant before us was also a constable working in the police force. If he went to police station and made a statement as recorded in Exh.54, first material piece of evidence was key which he produced. Its' possession should have been taken as per law, and thereafter before opening lock of the room again necessary panchnama ought to have been drawn. The prosecution could have obtained finger prints on key, on lock or then foot prints and finger prints inside the room or on gas cylinder or cooker to demonstrate that except the deceased and appellant, no third person ever entered the room. There is no investigation on these lines. 25. In view of this discussion, we find that circumstances 'D', 'E' and 'H' mentioned supra are insufficient to prove involvement of accused in the crime. Fact that accused was found putting lock to the door of his room when dead body was lying inside, is not conclusively established. Fact that accused produced key of lock in police station before P.W.5 Shri Muhekar, is also not conclusively established. In view of earlier part of examination in chief of PW4 Latabai, involvement of some third person can not be totally ruled out. 26. We are therefore, constrained to give benefit of doubt to the appellant. We find material lacunae in the investigation and the said defects are unacceptable in law. As ordered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court State of Gujarat v. Kishanbhai, (2014) 5 SCC 108 , we direct the respondent State of Maharashtra to hold appropriate enquiry in the mode and manner in which the investigation has been carried out and lacunae therein. This is more necessary since the accused/appellant happened to be the employee of police department and his employment itself may have influenced the same. 27. Though we dispose of the appeal, restoration of faith of citizens in police force is absolutely necessary. This is more necessary since the accused/appellant happened to be the employee of police department and his employment itself may have influenced the same. 27. Though we dispose of the appeal, restoration of faith of citizens in police force is absolutely necessary. Hence we also order that the enquiry into defective investigation be completed within a period of 12 weeks and officers/persons responsible therefor be dealt with as per law. Compliance Report should be submitted to the Registry of this Court by 31.12.2016. Matter be listed for taking on record this compliance on 20.01.2017. 28. With above direction, we proceed to pass the following order : “(i) Criminal Appeal is allowed. (ii) The conviction and sentence of appellant under Sections 302 and 315 of Indian Penal Code, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati on 31.07.2014 in Session Trial No. 149/2013 is hereby quashed and set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the aforesaid offences. He be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. (iii) Fine amount if paid, be refunded to the appellant. (iv) Muddemal property be destroyed after appeal period is over.”