JUDGMENT: Harsha Devani, J. 1. This appeal under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 11th January, 2012 passed by the learned Second Sessions Judge, Jamnagar in Sessions Case No. 6 of 2009, whereby the appellant-convict has been convicted of the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous life imprisonment as well as fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of one year. 2. The charge against the accused was that the accused was unmarried and had illicit relations with deceased Roshanben, wife of Mehboob Kasam Darjada, due to which, when for the first time the accused had got engaged to a girl from Memana, deceased Roshanben, under a false name, had made a telephone call to the father of the girl and had got his engagement broken and the deceased used to tell the accused that she will not allow his engagement take place, on account of which the accused bore a grudge against the deceased. On 05.10.2008, guests had come to the house of the accused for the purpose of his betrothal and deceased Roshanben came to know about it. Hence, she made a phone call to Rajendrasinh, the brother of the accused, on his mobile and told him not to get the accused betrothed. Upon the accused coming to know about the same, he, with the intention of causing the death of the deceased, took an axe and went in a rickshaw and made a phone call to the deceased and after the deceased sat in the rickshaw, went to the area of Mangaldham Society, near Maru Kanyara Foundation at Ranjitsagar Road and with the aid of an axe kept in the rickshaw, knowing well that such injuries would cause the death of the deceased and with the intention of causing the death of the deceased, inflicted fatal injuries on the deceased, on account of which, deceased Roshanben died on the spot. Thereafter, the accused had fled from the spot and washed the bloodstained clothes which he had worn at the time of the incident and had separated the handle from the axe and had thrown the axe and destroyed the evidence and thereby, committed the offence under sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code as well as the offence under section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act. 3. In connection with the above offence, a first information report came to be registered with the Jamnagar City "A" Division Police Station, pursuant to which, a charge-sheet came to be submitted in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jamnagar and came to be registered as Criminal Case No. 9585 of 2008. Since the learned Judicial Magistrate did not have the jurisdiction to conduct the trial, the case came to be committed to the Sessions Court, Jamnagar where, it came to be registered as Sessions Case No. 6 of 2009. 4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 39 witnesses and also produced documentary evidence on record. Upon conclusion of the trial, the trial court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has established the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and convicted the appellant-accused for the offences under section 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act and sentenced him to life imprisonment as referred to hereinabove. No separate sentence was awarded in relation to the offence under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act. 5. Mr. B.M. Mangukiya, learned advocate for the appellant submitted that this is a case based upon circumstantial evidence and that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the chain of circumstances so as to establish the guilt of the appellant. It was argued that all that the prosecution has done is that it has tried to prove the motive. Reference was made to the testimonies of the witnesses to submit that on all material aspects, either there is an improvement or exaggeration, all of which has been proved to be major contradictions which render the witnesses unreliable. It was argued that all that the prosecution has done is that it has tried to prove the motive. Reference was made to the testimonies of the witnesses to submit that on all material aspects, either there is an improvement or exaggeration, all of which has been proved to be major contradictions which render the witnesses unreliable. It was submitted that the nature of the evidence against the accused is that the accused was having an illicit affairs with the deceased and that as the deceased was trying to break the betrothal of the accused, he had done her to death. It was submitted that no evidence worth the name has been brought on record to establish that the accused had made a phone call to the deceased, as is alleged, or that the deceased had accompanied the accused in the rickshaw and that the entire case of the prosecution is based on conjectures and surmises. It was pointed out that majority of the witnesses, namely, panch witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and have been declared hostile and therefore, the panchnamas drawn by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation have not duly been proved. Referring to the testimonies of the witnesses, it was pointed out that the son-in-law of the deceased had an axe to grind against the appellant and therefore, the appellant has been falsely implicated in the offence in question. Referring to the discovery panchnama drawn by the Investigating Officer under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, it was pointed out that the axe is stated to have been discovered from an open space. It was submitted that such discovery is no discovery in the eyes of law and more particularly, considering the fact that the panch witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. It was, accordingly, urged that this being a case of no evidence, the trial court was not justified in convicting the appellant and sentencing him to life imprisonment. The appeal therefore, deserves to be allowed by acquitting the appellant. 6. Opposing the appeal, Ms. Hansa Punani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted that the prosecution by leading cogent and credible evidence, has duly established the chain of circumstances against the appellant-accused. The appeal therefore, deserves to be allowed by acquitting the appellant. 6. Opposing the appeal, Ms. Hansa Punani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted that the prosecution by leading cogent and credible evidence, has duly established the chain of circumstances against the appellant-accused. It was pointed out that through the testimonies of Mehboobbhai Kasambhai Darjada Makrani, the husband of the deceased, Husainaben Mohammadhussein Ismail Harjada, mother of the deceased, Reshmaben Shakruddin Abdul Shaikh, daughter of the deceased and Shakruddin Abdul Shaikh, son-in-law of the deceased, the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had an illicit affair with the deceased and that a few days prior to the incident, when the deceased and her daughter had visited Shakruddin's snack stall, the accused had come there and insisted upon the deceased coming with him in his rickshaw and upon the deceased refusing to do so, he had threatened that he would see how henceforth she comes out of her house. It was submitted that through the testimony of Hanubha Togaji Jadeja, the prosecution has duly established that on account of the telephone calls made by the deceased to the said witness, the engagement of the accused with his daughter Nikitaba was broken. That subsequently also, when on the date of the incident, witness Yogendrasinh Deepsinh Chavda had come to the residence of the accused for the purpose of betrothal of his daughter Nikita with the accused, the deceased had given a phone call to Rajendrasinh. It was submitted that therefore, the motive behind the incident has duly been established by the prosecution. It was submitted that additionally, the Investigating Officer, during the course of investigation, had drawn a panchnama under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act in the presence of the panchas, whereby, the weapon used for commission of the offence as well as the clothes of the accused had been discovered at the instance of the accused. It was submitted that though the panch witnesses had been declared hostile to the prosecution case, the Investigating Officer had duly supported and proved the discovery panchnama. Therefore, the chain of circumstances had duly been established by the prosecution and hence, no case has been made out so as to warrant intervention. 7. This court has considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties and has minutely perused the record and proceedings of the case. 8. Therefore, the chain of circumstances had duly been established by the prosecution and hence, no case has been made out so as to warrant intervention. 7. This court has considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties and has minutely perused the record and proceedings of the case. 8. As noted hereinabove, the prosecution has examined as many as 39 witnesses, many of whom are panch witnesses. The panch witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and have been declared hostile. Under the circumstances, it is not necessary to refer to the testimonies of the said witnesses in detail. PW-12 - Nalinkant Narshibhai Vyas is the Scientific Officer, who was also a party to the scene of offence panchnama. He has proved Exhibit-32 which is the site inspection carried out by the Scientific Officer. PW-13 - Dr. Rahul Anilkumar Mehta has been examined at Exhibit-33. He is the Medical Officer who carried out the autopsy of deceased Roshanben. He has testified that in all, there were thirteen injuries on the person of the deceased, out of which, injuries No. 8 and 10 could be caused with a weapon like an axe. He has deposed that the cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage on account of cumulative effect of multiple body injury. In the cross-examination of the said witness, the defence has succeeded in eliciting that injuries No. 1 to 5, 11 and 12 reflected in column No. 17 of the postmortem report cannot be caused by a weapon like an axe. He has also deposed that such injuries cannot be caused by the handle of an axe. He has also deposed that injuries No. 1 and 2, 8 and 10 are sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 9. The prosecution has also examined as PW-15, Dr. Dhiren Jentilal Pithadiya, at Exhibit-44, who has deposed that the accused was brought before him by the police and upon asking him, he had said that on 05.10.2008, a person named Roshanben had scratched him with her nails at Ranjit Sagar Road, near Subhash Park. Upon examining him, there was a small hairline abrasion in the back of his right hand. He has proved the medical case papers at Exhibit-46 as well as the yadi at Exhibit-45. The first informant - Bodubhai Oshmanbhai Piparvadiya has been examined as PW-17. Upon examining him, there was a small hairline abrasion in the back of his right hand. He has proved the medical case papers at Exhibit-46 as well as the yadi at Exhibit-45. The first informant - Bodubhai Oshmanbhai Piparvadiya has been examined as PW-17. He, however, has not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile. 10. PW-19, Mehboob Kasambhai Darjada Makrani, husband of the deceased Roshanben, has been examined at Exhibit-65. He has deposed that his married life was of twenty years and that his mother-in-law was residing in the same locality. That he was working as a driver of a city bus managed by Ex-Army Society. That his working hours were from 6 O'clock in the morning to 9 O'clock in the evening and that he used to return home at around 10:00 to 10:15 hours at night. That in the afternoon, his wife Roshanben used to deliver his tiffin. He has identified the dead body of the deceased. He has further deposed that the police had taken him for questioning and that he had informed them that he suspected the accused Krushnasinh as he was having an illicit affair with his wife. He has further deposed that the reason behind the incident is that he used to get a salary of Rs. 6,000/- to Rs. 6,500/- which was not seen at home as his wife used to give it away to the accused and if she did not give him the money, he would beat up his wife then and there. He further deposed that on the day of Eid, in the evening, at about 7 O'clock, his daughter, son-in-law and his wife were standing near the lake when the accused had told his wife to go with him but his son-in-law told her not to go with him, whereupon, there was an altercation between his son-in-law and the accused, and the accused had beaten up his son-in-law and had caused damage to his cabin. That in connection with the said incident, his son-in-law had lodged a first information report. He has further deposed that about three months prior to the incident, the accused used to meet his wife, beat her and take away the money and that he used to go for his service and hence how much could he take care. That in connection with the said incident, his son-in-law had lodged a first information report. He has further deposed that about three months prior to the incident, the accused used to meet his wife, beat her and take away the money and that he used to go for his service and hence how much could he take care. That he came to know about the illicit relations between the accused and his wife because he had seen such illicit relations and that upon seeing him, the accused had run away and that everyone in the locality knows about it. He has further deposed that his wife used to go to work at Kisan Chowk in which area the accused used to go in his rickshaw for the purpose of dropping children at school and that during that time, an illicit relationship had developed between his wife and the accused. In his cross-examination at the instance of the learned advocate for the accused, he has admitted that his wife had lodged a complaint against him. He has further deposed that on the date of the incident, his wife had not come to deliver the tiffin and that he has not inquired as to why she had not come. That when he returned home at around 10 O'clock at night, he inquired about his wife from his relatives and other nearby places. When he was at home at night, his daughter Suraiya and son Navaz were at home and he has inquired about his wife, however, they were not aware of her whereabouts. He has stated that at around 10:30 hours at night, a boy named Shiraz came on a Honda and he dropped him up till Sumra Chali and from there, another person named Osaman Sumra took him to the scene of offence on his Honda. In his cross-examination, it has further come out that he knew the accused since about a year prior to the incident and that he had never asked the accused to stop the illicit relations with his wife. He has admitted that cross complaints had been lodged by his son-in-law and the accused against each other before the police. He has also admitted that his wife had lodged a complaint against him before the police regarding his beating her. He has admitted that cross complaints had been lodged by his son-in-law and the accused against each other before the police. He has also admitted that his wife had lodged a complaint against him before the police regarding his beating her. That the deceased had lodged one complaint against him whereas, the accused had not lodged any complaint against him. He has denied the suggestion that because there were quarrels between his son-in-law Shakruddin and the accused, he has falsely implicated the appellant Krushnasinh in the offence. 11. PW-20, Husainaben Mohammadhussein Ismail Harjada, mother of the deceased, has been examined at Exhibit 68. The said witness has inter alia deposed that she came to know about the illicit relations between the deceased and the accused after the incident when Reshma (deceased's eldest married daughter) told her about the same. She has also admitted that she does not know the accused. However, subsequently she has stated that everyone in the locality knew about the illicit relations. In her cross-examination, she has stated that she was aware of the illicit relations between the deceased and the accused, and that the entire village knew about it. She has admitted that she had never talked to her daughter or son-in-law about it. She has further admitted that the deceased had lodged a complaint regarding beating against her husband and that the police had arrested her son-in-law. She has also admitted that quarrels used to take place between Shakruddin, son-in-law of the deceased and the accused. 12. The prosecution has examined PW-21 Reshma, wife of Shakruddin Abdul Shaikh and daughter of the deceased at Exhibit-70. This witness has deposed that on two to three occasions, she had gone with the accused to meet her husband in jail and thereafter, she used to go alone and her mother also used to go with the accused to meet her husband in jail. The accused and her mother used to have fun with each other and used to sit together and enjoy each other's company. She has deposed that about four days prior to the incident, the accused had come to the house of the deceased and asked her to go out with him and upon her mother refusing to do so, he had threatened her that he would see how she comes out of her house. She has deposed that about four days prior to the incident, the accused had come to the house of the deceased and asked her to go out with him and upon her mother refusing to do so, he had threatened her that he would see how she comes out of her house. She has deposed that she does not know the reason behind the incident. At this stage, the witness has been declared hostile to the prosecution case and the learned Public Prosecutor requested permission to cross-examine the said witness. In her cross-examination at the instance of the learned advocate for the accused, she has stated that she and her mother had gone to meet her husband in jail on two to three occasions in the accused's rickshaw. The accused used to keep his rickshaw at the rickshaw stand at Kisan Chowk and, she and her mother used to walk from their house and used to board the rickshaw at Kishan Chowk. The accused did not take any fare from them. That when she went in the rickshaw, there was no conversation with the accused. The accused did not take his rickshaw and go away from the jail, but used to wait, however, he did not come inside the jail. That she never had any talk with her mother as regards the nature of her relations with the accused. She has stated that there was a fight between the accused and her husband at the lake, at which point of time she was present. 13. PW-24, Shakruddin Abdul Shaikh, Reshma's husband and son-in-law of the deceased has been examined at Exhibit-78. In paragraph-4 of his testimony, he has stated that two to three days prior to the incident, it was the day of Vaasi Eid and at that time, the accused had come to his house and had shown a knife to his mother-in-law and asked her as to why she was not coming to meet him. Thereafter, his mother-in-law had gone to meet the accused and he had killed her. Thereafter, his mother-in-law had gone to meet the accused and he had killed her. In paragraph-7 of his testimony, he has stated that his mother-in-law and his wife had come with him at the lake wall as it was Eid and when the accused had an altercation with him, his wife and her mother-in-law were with him and the accused was telling his mother-in-law to come with him and sit in the chhakada rickshaw and that he (the witness) had told him "No" and hence, the accused and four to five of his friends had assaulted him, in connection with which, he had lodged a complaint against him. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that he had lodged a complaint against the accused. He has admitted that the fight at his stall went on for about half an hour and that he had called the police. He has admitted that his mother-in-law and father-in-law used to quarrel about several issues and that his mother-in-law, time and again, used to lodge complaints against his father-in-law. He has admitted that the police had arrested his father-in-law on the ground that he must have committed murder of his mother-in-law. 14. The prosecution has also examined Imdaad Abdul Lokhandvala as PW-30 (Exhibit-94), who is stated to have sold an axe and produced the bill at Exhibit-95 wherein, the name of the purchaser is shown as Krushnasinh. The said witness was not, however, in a position to identify the accused. He has deposed that he had sold the axe for Rs. 60/- and that since a long time has passed, he was not in a position to identify the person who has purchased the axe. That when the person who purchased the axe had obtained a bill from him, he had informed that his name was Krushnasinh and hence, he had written that name on the bill. PW-36 Hanubha Togaji Jadeja has been examined at Exhibit-102. He has deposed that he knows the accused because his second daughter Manishaba was engaged to the accused. After the engagement, he had received a phone call from a woman who used to tell him that he should not fix Manishaba's betrothal with Krushnasinh. He has deposed that the woman did not give her name, but after he received four such calls, he became suspicious and broke off the engagement. PW-37, Yogendrasinh Deepsinh Chavda has been examined at Exhibit-104. He has deposed that the woman did not give her name, but after he received four such calls, he became suspicious and broke off the engagement. PW-37, Yogendrasinh Deepsinh Chavda has been examined at Exhibit-104. He has deposed that as the wives of Rajendrasinh Jaydevsinh Chudasama, brother of the accused and his brother Ajitsinh, were sisters, he knew the accused. Talks were going on for the engagement of his daughter Nikita with the accused and the accused and his relatives had come to see his daughter. On 05.10.2000, he and his wife and his mother had gone to the house of the accused in connection with the betrothal in the Harshad Mill's chali and at about 10 O'clock in the morning, the accused and his brother etc. were present and at about 12:30, they had lunch and while they were having lunch, upon Rajendrasinh's mobile ringing, the accused Krushnasinh got up and had gone out and the elders had got to discuss furtherance of their relations. After reaching Kalavad, Rajendrasinh called his brother Ajitsinh and they came to know that Krushnasinh had murdered some woman and later on, they came to know that Krushnasinh had illicit relations with a woman named Roshanben and that, as she was an obstacle in his engagement, he had killed her. After learning about the incident, they had not got their daughter betrothed to him. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that he had no personal knowledge about the incident and that he had learnt about it from the newspapers. 15. PW-39, Sardarsinh Hanubha Zala has been examined at Exhibit-117. He is the Investigating Officer. He has, inter alia, deposed that after his arrest, upon interrogation, the accused had said that he wanted to say something. Two panchas were called at the police station and a panchnama was drawn between 18:30 to 18:45 hours and as shown by the accused, they had gone in a Government vehicle where, the accused had taken out a bloodstained axe and a pant and a shirt from a pit of the lake near Summer Club and had taken possession thereof. Thereafter, they had proceeded further to a lane beyond MES Colony where, the accused had taken out a bloodstained axe handle from his house, the possession of which was taken over. A Bajaj rickshaw was also taken possession of which had bloodstains on its left fan. Thereafter, they had proceeded further to a lane beyond MES Colony where, the accused had taken out a bloodstained axe handle from his house, the possession of which was taken over. A Bajaj rickshaw was also taken possession of which had bloodstains on its left fan. He has deposed that during the course of investigation, he has not come across any eye witnesses and no witness has informed him about there being any eye witness. In his cross-examination, various contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses are brought out. He has stated that Mehboob Kasam, in his police statement, had not stated that one and half month ago, he had seen the accused flee from his house. He has further deposed that the said witness had not stated before him that the reason behind the incident was that he used to get a salary of Rs. 6,000/- and the same was not seen at home and that his wife used to give the money to the accused and if she did not give him the money, the accused used to beat her there and then. He has further admitted that in his police statement, the witness has not stated that three months prior to the incident, the accused used to meet his wife, beat her and take away the money and that since he used to go for service, he was not in a position to take care. He has admitted that he has not obtained any supporting evidence to establish the ownership of the mobile phones of the deceased or the accused. He has further deposed that the said witness, in his statement before the police, has not stated that when his wife used to go to work at Kisan Chowk and the accused used to take the children in his rickshaw, illicit relations had developed between his wife and the accused. He has admitted that during the course of his investigation, it is revealed that Mehboob Kasam had given an application before the police against his wife and the accused to the effect that they would murder him. He has also stated that Reshmaben, in her statement before the police, had not revealed that the accused and her mother used to laugh and joke with each other sitting together. He has also stated that Reshmaben, in her statement before the police, had not revealed that the accused and her mother used to laugh and joke with each other sitting together. She has further deposed that the said witness has not stated that the accused used to sit on the bed and tell her to bring cold drinks or pan and by saying so, the accused used to send her out of the house and if she refused to do so, he would force her to go. Various other contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses have been brought out in the testimony of this witness. Most of the other witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and have been declared hostile. Since nothing substantially turns upon their testimonies, it is not necessary to refer to the same in detail. 16. As held by the Supreme Court in the most celebrated case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 , whenever the case is based on circumstantial evidence, the following features are required to be complied with: "(i) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must or should be and not merely 'may be' fully established, (ii) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of Crl. A. No. 1327 of 2008 17(sic) the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (iii) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (iv) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (v) There must be a 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 that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused." 17. The facts of the present case are required to be examined in the light of the above principles. In the present case, the body of the deceased was found from the bushes in the area of the plot of Subhash Park Society on Ranjitnagar Road. There is no eye witness to the said incident. The facts of the present case are required to be examined in the light of the above principles. In the present case, the body of the deceased was found from the bushes in the area of the plot of Subhash Park Society on Ranjitnagar Road. There is no eye witness to the said incident. The appellant-accused is sought to be implicated in the offence in question on the ground that he had illicit affair with the deceased and that the deceased was a hindrance to his getting engaged and therefore, the appellant had murdered the deceased with a view to get rid of her. In support of the said allegation, the testimonies of the husband, mother, daughter and son-in-law of the deceased have been relied upon. On a perusal of the depositions of the said witnesses, all that can be culled out is that the accused had illicit relations with the deceased; however, other than that, there is nothing in the statements to directly link the appellant with the offence in question. 18. The prosecution has placed reliance upon the testimony of witness Yogendrasinh Deepsinh Chavda, who has stated that Rajendrasinh's mobile phone was ringing at about 12:30 in the afternoon, at which point of time, the appellant Krushnasinh had got up and went out. The testimony of the witness Imdad Abdul Lokhandwala is also sought to be relied upon for the purpose of contending that the appellant had purchased an axe which had been used in the commission of the offence from the said witness. The testimony of Hanubha Togaji Jadeja is sought to be relied upon for the purpose of establishing that the deceased had made phone calls to the said witness on account of which, he had broken off the engagement between the appellant and his daughter Manishaba. Thus, the motive for commission of the offence is sought to be established on the basis of the testimonies of these witnesses. 19. In this regard, it may be noted that insofar as the testimony of witness Hanubha Togaji Jadeja is concerned, he has stated that an unknown woman had made phone calls to him asking him to refrain from getting his daughter Manishaba betrothed to the accused. However, the prosecution has not collected any material to establish that it was, in fact, the deceased who had made such phone calls. However, the prosecution has not collected any material to establish that it was, in fact, the deceased who had made such phone calls. Therefore, the identity of the woman who made such phone calls to the said witness has not been established. Insofar as the testimony of witness Yogendrasinh Deepsinh Chavda is concerned, though he has stated that Rajendrasinh had received a phone call at about 12:30 hours, which according to the prosecution was made by the deceased whereby she had told Rajendrasinh not to let the appellant get betrothed to Nikita, no material has been brought on record to establish that in fact, any such phone call was received by Rajendrasinh from the deceased. The data of the phone calls received by Rajendrasinh on that day do not appear to have been collected by the Investigating Officer. 20. On a perusal of the evidence on record in its entirety, there is no material to show that on the date of the incident, the accused had made any phone calls to the deceased or that he had, in fact, taken her in his rickshaw. There is no evidence to show that the deceased was last seen in the company of the appellant. At best, from the evidence which has come on record, the prosecution can be stated to have proved the motive. However, insofar as establishing the offence of murder is concerned, no other supporting evidence has been adduced. The prosecution has placed reliance upon the discovery panchnama made under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act which is stated to have been drawn in the presence of two panchas viz. Ayubkhan Ajiz Mogal and Nilesh Ratilal Davda. A perusal of the list of witnesses who have been examined shows that neither of the two witnesses has been examined by the prosecution. The panchnama under section 27 of the Evidence Act, therefore, has not been proved. A perusal of the judgment of the trial court shows that there is no discussion in this regard and it has been generally observed in paragraph 32 thereof that in this case the panch witnesses and some other witnesses have turned hostile but the Investigating Officer has stated all the facts regarding the action taken by him and hence there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the Investigating Officer. In this regard it would be necessary to refer to the testimony of the Investigating Officer as regards what he has stated about the discovery panchnama. A perusal of the testimony of the Investigating Officer shows that he has merely stated that after his arrest, upon interrogation, the accused had said that he wanted to say something. Two panchas were called at the police station and a panchnama was drawn between 18:30 to 18:45 hours and as shown by the accused, they had gone in a Government vehicle, where the accused had taken out a bloodstained axe and a pant and a shirt from a pit of the lake near Sumer Club and they had taken possession thereof. Thereafter, they had proceeded further to a lane beyond MES Colony where, the accused had taken out a bloodstained axe handle from his house, the possession of which was taken over. 21. At this juncture, it may be germane to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Damu s/of Gopinath Shinde and others, (2000) 6 SCC 269 , wherein the court, in the context of section 27 of the Evidence Act, has held thus: "The basic idea embedded in Section 27 of the Evidence Act is the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events. The doctrine is founded on the principle that if any fact is discovered in a search made on the strength of any information obtained from a prisoner, such a discovery is a guarantee that the information supplied by the prisoner is true. The information might be confessional or non-inculpatory in nature, but if it results in discovery of a fact it becomes a reliable information. Hence the legislature permitted such information to be used as evidence by restricting the admissible portion to the minimum. It is now well-settled that recovery of an object is not discovery of a fact as envisaged in the Section. The decision of Privy Council in Pullukurri Kottayya v. Emperor AIR 1947 PC 67 is the most quoted authority for supporting the interpretation that the "fact discovered" envisaged in the Section embraces the place from which the object was produced, the knowledge of the accused as to it, but the information given must relate distinctly to that effect. The decision of Privy Council in Pullukurri Kottayya v. Emperor AIR 1947 PC 67 is the most quoted authority for supporting the interpretation that the "fact discovered" envisaged in the Section embraces the place from which the object was produced, the knowledge of the accused as to it, but the information given must relate distinctly to that effect. No doubt, the information permitted to be admitted in evidence is confined to that portion of the information which "distinctly relates to the fact thereby discovered". Thus, the doctrine is founded on the principle that if any fact is discovered in a search made on the strength of any information obtained from a prisoner, such a discovery is a guarantee that the information supplied by the prisoner is true. The information might be confessional or non-inculpatory in nature, but if it results in discovery of a fact, it becomes a reliable information. In the facts of the present case, from the testimony of the Investigating Officer, there is nothing to suggest that the accused had divulged any information which had led to the discovery of any fact. At best, even if the prosecution case is taken at its face value, the accused had taken out bloodstained axe and a pant and a shirt from a pit of the lake near Sumer Club and thereafter, bloodstained axe handle from his house and a Bajaj rickshaw. However, that by itself would be merely a recovery of articles and not a fact discovered on the basis of strength of any information obtained from the accused. Moreover, such disclosure alone would not automatically lead to the conclusion that the offence was committed by the accused. In fact, thereafter, the burden lies on the prosecution to establish a close link between the discovery of the material object and its use in the commission of the offence. It is by now well settled that discovery is a weak kind of evidence and cannot be wholly relied upon and conviction in such a serious matter cannot be based upon such discovery. It is by now well settled that discovery is a weak kind of evidence and cannot be wholly relied upon and conviction in such a serious matter cannot be based upon such discovery. In the present case, except for the fact that the prosecution has tried to establish a motive and there is the so-called discovery under section 27 of the Evidence Act of bloodstained axe, the handle of an axe, a pant and a shirt and a rickshaw bearing bloodstains which were found to match with the blood group of the deceased, there is no other evidence on record to connect the appellant-accused with the offence in question. 22. Another aspect of the matter is that in the present case, the defence has been successful in establishing that there were consistent fights between the deceased and her husband and that the deceased had lodged complaints against her husband and her husband had also lodged a complaint against the deceased and the accused stating that they were likely to kill him. The defence has also brought on record that there were serious disputes between the son-in-law and the deceased and the appellant-accused. Therefore, the husband of the deceased also had a motive for killing the deceased and both the husband of the deceased and son-in-law of the deceased had a motive for falsely implicating the appellant herein. Therefore, the court has to be circumspect while evaluating their testimonies. 23. It is well settled that based upon the circumstantial evidence, the prosecution is required to establish a chain of evidence so complete so as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. In the present case, there is no evidence to show that the deceased had accompanied the accused at any point of time prior to the incident or even on the day of the incident. There is no evidence on record to establish that the accused had made any phone calls to the deceased and asked her to meet him. The case of the prosecution that the deceased was acting as a hindrance in the appellant getting engaged is also not established as the identity of the woman who made phone calls to witness Hanubha Togaji Jadeja is not established. The case of the prosecution that the deceased was acting as a hindrance in the appellant getting engaged is also not established as the identity of the woman who made phone calls to witness Hanubha Togaji Jadeja is not established. Under the circumstances, the chain of circumstances has not been duly established so as to lead to the conclusion that it is the accused alone who has committed the offence. 24. A perusal of the impugned judgement and order of conviction shows that the trial court has placed reliance upon the testimony of Mehboob Kasambhai to the effect that three months prior to the incident, he had come home early and upon seeing him, the accused had run away and that since three months prior to the incident, the accused used to meet his wife and take away the money ignoring the fact that in the testimony of the Investigating Officer, material contradictions have been brought out to the effect that no such facts have been stated in his statement before the police. The trial court has further placed reliance upon the testimony of Reshmaben Shakruddin Abdul Shaikh, daughter of the deceased, observing that four days prior to the incident when the witness was present at home, at about 7 O'clock in the evening, the accused had come and asked her mother to go out with him and when her mother refused, he had threatened her that he would see how she comes out now and thereafter, the present incident had taken place, and therefore, a link in the chain that the accused had caused injury to the deceased which resulted in her death, has been proved. The trial court has also relied upon the testimony of Shakruddin Abdul Shaikh, son-in-law of the deceased, by holding that when the case is based on circumstantial evidence and it is established that there were illicit relations between her mother-in-law and the accused, and because of that, the accused had come to his cart and told his mother-in-law to sit in his rickshaw, a link in the chain of circumstantial evidence is proved. The trial court has also placed reliance upon the testimony of Imdad Abdul Lokhandwala by holding that when the prosecution case is based upon an axe and prior to the incident, one Krushnasinh has purchased an axe, then, in the chain of circumstantial evidence, there is one link, viz., that the accused intended to kill the deceased and hence, it can be believed that he had purchased the axe from the shop of the witness. It may be noted that the concerned witness has categorically stated that he is not in a position to identify the accused. In his cross examination he has admitted that he cannot definitely say that the muddamal axe had been purchased from his shop. Therefore, without there being any reliable evidence, the trial court has proceeded on the basis of an assumption that since some Krushnasinh has purchased the axe, it is the appellant who has done so. The trial court has also placed reliance upon the testimony of Hanubha Togaji Jadeja for the purpose of holding that from the testimony of this witness, it can be inferred that the deceased upon learning about the engagement between the accused and the witness's daughter, had made phone calls to this witness. Thus, a link in the chain is proved. The trial court has also placed reliance upon the testimony of Yogendrasinh Deepsinh Chavda and found that upon considering the evidence of this witness, on the day of the incident, he had gone to the house of the accused for the purpose of fixing his daughter's engagement and the respective relatives had come to see each other. At that time, when they were having lunch in the afternoon, upon Rajendrasinh's mobile ringing, the accused got up and went out and thereafter, they had lunch and left. When they reached Kalavad, Rajendrasinh had made a phone call to his brother Ajitsinh and they came to know that Krushnasinh had murdered some woman and later on, they came to know that Krushnasinh had illicit relations with a woman named Roshanben. When they reached Kalavad, Rajendrasinh had made a phone call to his brother Ajitsinh and they came to know that Krushnasinh had murdered some woman and later on, they came to know that Krushnasinh had illicit relations with a woman named Roshanben. The trial court has come to the conclusion that when the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence and on the day of the incident, the witness and his family members have gone to the house of the accused for fixing the engagement and upon the union being acceptable to them, the elders had decided to take the relations forward and thereafter, they left and when they reached Kalavad, the brother of the accused informed them that the accused had committed murder of a woman by the name of Roshanben, this is a strong link in the chain of evidence and it can be said that the brother of the accused has informed the witness which fact has been proved by the prosecution. This finding of the trial court is clearly presumptuous as the trial court has considered totally hearsay evidence to be a link in the chain of evidence. The trial court has further held that the blood group of the deceased is AB and that the muddamal axe which has been discovered at the instance of the accused also had human blood of AB group, so also the shirt of the accused had blood stains of AB group and the accused has not given any explanation in this regard. In this regard a perusal of the statement of the accused recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 shows that none of these incriminating circumstances regarding the blood stains of the deceased having been found on the axe, shirt etc., have been put to the accused. In this regard it may be germane to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam, (2013) 12 SCC 406 , wherein it has been held thus: "20. It is a settled legal proposition that in a criminal trial, the purpose of examining the accused person under Section 313 Cr.P.C., is to meet the requirement of the principles of natural justice i.e. audi alteram partem. It is a settled legal proposition that in a criminal trial, the purpose of examining the accused person under Section 313 Cr.P.C., is to meet the requirement of the principles of natural justice i.e. audi alteram partem. This means that the accused may be asked to furnish some explanation as regards the incriminating circumstances associated with him, and the court must take note of such explanation. In a case of circumstantial evidence, the same is essential to decide whether or not the chain of circumstances is complete. No matter how weak the evidence of the prosecution may be, it is the duty of the court to examine the accused, and to seek his explanation as regards the incriminating material that has surfaced against him. The circumstances which are not put to the accused in his examination under Section 313 CrPC, cannot be used against him and must be excluded from consideration. The said statement cannot be treated as evidence within the meaning of Section 3 of the Evidence Act, as the accused cannot be cross-examined with reference to such statement." Thus, the incriminating circumstances which had not been put to the appellant in his examination under section 313 of the Code cannot be used against him and must be excluded from consideration, whereas the trial court, without having put the incriminating circumstances to the accused has held against the accused on the ground that he has not offered any explanation in that regard. A perusal of the examination of the accused under section 313 of the Code, shows that even the incriminating substance regarding discovery under section 27 of the Evidence Act has not been put to him in a proper manner. The only reference thereto is in relation to the testimony of the Investigating Officer in connection with which what is put to the accused is that he had arrested the accused and the accused had shown willingness to produce the muddamal axe whereupon in the presence of panchas as detailed in the panchnama it had been recovered. Possession of the mobile used in this case came to be taken. The muddamal was sent to FSL. Possession of the mobile used in this case came to be taken. The muddamal was sent to FSL. Nothing as regards the contents of the panchnama under section 27 of the Evidence Act, including recovery of shirt, pant, axe, etc., was put to the accused, nor was the fact regarding the same having been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory and the contents of the report of the FSL were put the accused. Therefore, the said evidence could not have been taken into consideration by the trial court. Nonetheless, based upon the above findings, the trial court has held the appellant-accused guilty of the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 25. Moreover, as discussed hereinabove, even if the circumstances brought on record by the prosecution are taken on face value, at best, what has been established is that the appellant-accused had a motive for killing the deceased, which at best would give rise to suspicion against the accused. It is a settled position of law that suspicion, however strong, cannot take a character of proof. 26. In the present case, as discussed hereinabove the prosecution except for establishing a motive, has miserably failed to establish the charge against the accused. This being a case of circumstantial evidence, in the opinion of this court, the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the chain of circumstances, leave alone a chain of circumstances consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Under the circumstances, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence against the appellant cannot be sustained. 27. In view of the above discussion, this appeal succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Second Sessions Judge, Jamnagar by judgment and order dated 11th January, 2012 rendered in Sessions Case No. 6 of 2009 convicting and sentencing the appellant - accused, is hereby set aside. The appellant- accused, viz., Krushnasinh Jaydevsinh Chudasama is set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. His bail bonds stand cancelled and surety stands discharged. Fine paid, if any, by the accused is ordered to be refunded to him. Record and proceedings be forthwith sent back to the trial court.