JUDGMENT : Patherya J. In this appeal the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 21st February 2006 and 22nd February 2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Hooghly in Sessions Trial No.24 of 2003 arising out of G.R. Case No.187/1999 is under challenge. By the said judgment and order of conviction and sentence the appellant was convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. and directed to suffer imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to suffer further imprisonment for six months. The case of the prosecution is that the victim lady was married to the accused appellant for about 18 years. They had a 17 year old son, Santu (P.W.1). She along with the accused appellant was the owner of a half share in the residential house. She was desirous of selling a part of her share in the said house which resulted in a dispute between the accused appellant and the victim lady. On 25th March, 1999 at about 9:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. the victim lady and the accused appellant had an altercation over the bicycle and about 10:00 to 10:30 a.m. the victim lady was found dead. At 11:15 hours on the same day a telephonic call was received by the Officer-in-Charge, Chandannagore P.S. about the murder of a woman at Surerpukur, Bishoharitala, Chandannagore, Hooghly. The said information was recorded in a G.D. Book and immediately thereafter with the available force, the Officer-in-Charge left for the place of occurrence. On arrival an inquest was made and inquest report prepared. At the time of inquest the body of the victim lady was identified to be that of Kalyani Bairagi and fatal injuries were noted. Thereafter through constable C/2752 Dhananjoy Mondal the body of the victim lady was sent to the hospital for postmortem. Postmortem was conducted and a report prepared. On arrival an inquest was made and inquest report prepared. At the time of inquest the body of the victim lady was identified to be that of Kalyani Bairagi and fatal injuries were noted. Thereafter through constable C/2752 Dhananjoy Mondal the body of the victim lady was sent to the hospital for postmortem. Postmortem was conducted and a report prepared. On 25th March, 1999 at 11:35 hours a written complaint was handed by P.W.2 (brother) to Constable C/2752 Dhananjoy Mondal which was received by the Officer-in-Charge Chandannagore P.S. at the camp at Surerpukur, and the S.I. Chandannagore at 12:25 hours on 25th March, 1999, and on basis thereof Chandannagore P.S. Case No.33/1999 was started under Section 302 I.P.C. Investigation started and on completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted under Section 302 I.P.C. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions wherefrom it was transferred to the Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Hooghly for disposal. Charge was framed under Section 302 I.P.C. and the same was read over and explained to the accused appellant who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In all, prosecution examined 23 witnesses and exhibited documents. The defence did not adduce any evidence. On an appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court passed the order of conviction and sentence. Being aggrieved by the said order this appeal has been filed and order sought. Counsel for the accused appellant submits that P.W.2 is the F.I.R maker and brother of the victim lady. The F.I.R is the basis of any investigation and it is doubtful whether such F.I.R was filed by P.W.2 at 11:45 hours on 25th March, 1999. According to the prosecution a telephonic call was received by the Police Station at 11:15 a.m. and a G.D. entry made. On the basis of the G.D. entry the police visited the place of occurrence and made inquest. But the inquest has been made in Chandannagore P.S. Case No.33/1999. Therefore, it was on the basis of the complaint and not in the UD case that investigation was initiated and inquest made. According to the police report the complaint was received at 11:45 hours. But the inquest has been made in Chandannagore P.S. Case No.33/1999. Therefore, it was on the basis of the complaint and not in the UD case that investigation was initiated and inquest made. According to the police report the complaint was received at 11:45 hours. This is unbelievable in view of the evidence of P.W.2 who has in his evidence stated that he works in Calcutta and it was at his place of work that he received the information over telephone at 12:45/1:00 p.m. Thereafter, he left for Chandannagore and reached the morgue at about 14:00/14:15 hours. Therefore, there was no complaint filed at 11:45 hours by P.W.2 (brother) the F.I.R maker and filing of such complaint at 11:45 hours cannot be accepted. The complaint was filed at the instance of the police and this also emerges from the evidence of P.W.2 (brother). P.W.2 has not been declared hostile, therefore, his evidence mustbe accepted as correct. The F.I.R. filed by P.W.2 and the evidence given by him varies and in view of the aforesaid, the benefit of doubt be given to the accused appellant. F.I.R. is the basic foundation of a case and if it goes the entire case falls. P.W.1 (Son), P.W.3 (Neighbour), P.W.4 (Neighbour), P.W.5 (Neighbour), P.W.6 (Neighbour) have been declared hostile. P.W.7, P.W.8, P.W.10, P.W.11, P.W.14 and P.W.16 were tendered for cross-examination but the same wasdeclined. P.W.12, P.W.15 and P.W.20 are formal witnesses. P.W.9 saw the victim lady’s body lying in the Verandah from outside but he has been declared hostile. The victim lady had cut injuries with bleeding on the neck, arms and other parts of the body. P.W.13 is the sister-in-law of the victim and she has stated that the son of the victim came to her house at about 10:00 a.m. and reported to her that his father, the accused appellant had cut his mother, but this is not corroborated by the evidence of P.W.1 (Santu). Although P.W.17 and P.W.19 the partner and co-worker respectively of the place where the accused appellant worked have stated about the half day taken by him. None has seen the accused appellant kill the victim. Therefore, the guilt cannot be fixed to the accused appellant. In the instant case there is no eyewitness. The chain of circumstance is not complete. Nothing happened at 11:15 hours, all happened thereafter. The prosecution witness are neither trustworthy nor creditworthy. None has seen the accused appellant kill the victim. Therefore, the guilt cannot be fixed to the accused appellant. In the instant case there is no eyewitness. The chain of circumstance is not complete. Nothing happened at 11:15 hours, all happened thereafter. The prosecution witness are neither trustworthy nor creditworthy. It is doubtful if the F.I.R. was filed at 11:15 hours on 25th March, 1999 as P.W.2 (brother) saw the dead body at the morgue. The accused appellant was not seen by anyone. Santu (P.W.1) has also not said that he saw the accused appellant. The F.I.R. and inquest report has fixed the time of offence to 10:30 a.m. whereas the F.I.R. was filed at 11:45 hours. It is to P.W.13 that P.W.1 reported the death of his mother by his father but this is not corroborated by the evidence of P.W.1. The G.D. entry is also at 11:15 hours on the basis of which investigation was made and on a cumulative reading of the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.13 and P.W.23 the guilt of the accused appellant cannot be fixed. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove its case and without proving the case to seek the accused appellant to prove his alibi is not the requirement of law. The prosecution has not been able to link the chain therefore the order of conviction be set aside. Counsel for the State respondent submits that P.W.23 (I.O.) received a written complaint and there was no suggestion put to him in cross-examination that no such written complaint was made to him. Similarly, it is P.W.2 who wrote the complaint. Time of the written complaint so also handwriting and signature has been accepted and although a doubt was sought to be raised in cross-examination, the same has been demolished in the evidence of I.O. (P.W.23) in chief and cross-examination. F.I.R. as whole has been admitted in evidence and has been marked as Exhibit-5 as a whole without any objection being raised. Therefore, it cannot be said that the initiation of the investigation was bad or that there is no F.I.R. in the eye of law. While examining the accused appellant under Section 313, Cr.P.C. a question was put to him. Question 21 is of relevance so also the answer given thereto. The offending weapon was seized from the house and shown to the postmortem doctor. While examining the accused appellant under Section 313, Cr.P.C. a question was put to him. Question 21 is of relevance so also the answer given thereto. The offending weapon was seized from the house and shown to the postmortem doctor. The distance between the house and the factory was 5 to 10 minutes. It cannot be said that there was no G.D. entry made, in fact, there was a G.D. entry bearing no.1031 at 11.15 hours. The evidence of P.W.13, P.W.17, P.W.19, P.W.21, P.W.22 and P.W.23 ought to be considered and in view of 2014 (4) SCC 9 the order of conviction be upheld. Having considered the submission of the parties the victim lady was married to the accused appellant for 18 years and they had a 17 years old son (P.W.1). The victim lady was found dead on 25th March, 1999 and the time was fixed between 10:00 and 10:30 a.m. Counsel for the accused appellant has tried to raise a doubt in respect of the time of filing of the F.I.R. The F.I.R. was filed by P.W.2, brother of the victim lady and in his examination-in-chief he has proved the written complaint which was in his hand writing and was also signed by him. It is only after he proved his hand writing and signature that the written complaint was marked as Exhibit-5 as a whole. There was no cross-examination on the complaint filed by him nor was it suggested to him in cross-examination that he did not file the complaint. The I.O. (P.W.23) has also categorically stated that he received one written complaint from P.W.2 on the spot and no attempt was made to demolish the evidence by the defence in cross-examination. The I.O. (P.W.23) has also stated in his evidence that an anonymous telephone call was received at 11:15 hours about the murder of a lady at Surerpukur, Bisoharitala, Chandannagore. He said, information was diarised and G.D. entry 1031 was made. The said G.D. entry was also marked as exhibit. Therefore, it was on the basis of the said G.D. entry that investigation was initiated. At the time of inquest the body of the victim lady was found lying across the threshold of the door which extended to the verandah. He said, information was diarised and G.D. entry 1031 was made. The said G.D. entry was also marked as exhibit. Therefore, it was on the basis of the said G.D. entry that investigation was initiated. At the time of inquest the body of the victim lady was found lying across the threshold of the door which extended to the verandah. External fatal injuries were found at the time of inquest, but postmortem doctor found the following injuries:- “2) Deep sitted circular sharp injury – 8'' long in right side of the neck, heavy bleeding. Injury including neck, arteries and veins (including carotid vessels). 7'' deep seated cut injury at the posterior aspect of the neck (1'' deep with heavy bleeding) Also subcutaneous injury (4'' long and ¼'' deep) at lower levels of neck. No ligature mark. Membrane healthy. No injury was found within brain material. No fracture in rib and cartilege. Heart – right and left both are empty. Pharynx and Oesophagus cut. Stomach – xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 1) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 3) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 4) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Right loin deep-seated 3'' cut (Sharp – intestine came out).” The injuries found on the neck, according to the postmortem doctor were vital and sufficient to cause death of the victim lady. The victim lady died cannot be disputed but who caused the death is what is to be ascertained. This case is not based on any ocular evidence but is based on circumstantial evidence and in a case of circumstantial evidence each event is to be linked. The victim lady and the accused appellant were married for the last 18 years and had a 17 year old son. In the house in which the accused appellant and the victim lady lived, the victim lady had a share which she was desirous of selling. This was the main cause for quarrel between the accused appellant and the victim lady. This is borne out from the evidence of P.W.1 (son). P.W.13 (sister-in-law of the victim lady) has also stated about the bitter relationship between the victim lady and her husband, which resulted in quarrel and the reason was that the accused appellant was suspicious of his wife who worked outside. P.W.13 has categorically stated that the victim lady was good looking and the accused appellant would not tolerate use of cosmetic by her. P.W.13 has categorically stated that the victim lady was good looking and the accused appellant would not tolerate use of cosmetic by her. In fact, the bitter relationship will be further borne out from the evidence of P.W.21 the advocate who had filed the petition under Section 107/116(3) Cr.P.C. on the instruction of the victim lady, in which the accused appellant was the opposite party. P.W.22 has also proved G.D. entry no.720 dated 17th March, 1999 made at 16:15 hours. According to P.W.22 the said complaint was filed by the victim lady. Therefore, the bitter relationship between the accused appellant and the victim lady stands proved. It is borne out from the F.I.R. that the victim lady was desirous of selling her share and had got prospective purchasers too. According to P.W.1 the accused appellant left for his work place at 6:00 a.m. in the morning of the fated day. P.W.17 partner of the company for which the accused appellant worked deposed that the accused appellant was an employee of the company on 25th March, 1999, that is the fated day, so also prior and subsequent thereto. He deposed this on the basis of the rough attendance register wherein the name of the accused appellant was mentioned. According to the rough attendance register the accused appellant had worked for half a day that is up to tiffin hour which was 9 a.m. According to P.W.17 the tiffin hour starts from 9 a.m. and ends at 10 a.m. and sometimes at 10:30 a.m. He has also deposed that prior to 25th March, 1999 the attendance of the accused appellant was full and regular and subsequent to 25th March, 1999 the accused appellant was absent for a long period. The factum of the accused appellant working for half day is also corroborated by the evidence of P.W.19, who has categorically stated that the accused appellant worked for half a day. He has also corroborated that the work starts at 6 a.m. and continues till 9 a.m. when staff leave for tiffin. After tiffin according to P.W.19 the accused appellant did not return on the fated day. The evidence in this regard of P.W.17 and P.W.19 remains unshaken as cross-examination of P.W.19 was declined and no cross-examination was conducted in respect of P.W.17. Therefore, admittedly, the accused appellant worked till 9 a.m. and thereafter left his work place. After tiffin according to P.W.19 the accused appellant did not return on the fated day. The evidence in this regard of P.W.17 and P.W.19 remains unshaken as cross-examination of P.W.19 was declined and no cross-examination was conducted in respect of P.W.17. Therefore, admittedly, the accused appellant worked till 9 a.m. and thereafter left his work place. To reach his home from his work place it would take the accused appellant 5 to 10 minutes as per the evidence of P.W.1. The offending weapon was also found at the P.O. smeared with blood. The said offending weapon was seized from the verandah attached to the bedroom of the victim lady. The accused appellant was arrested on 25th March, 1999 and at the time of arrest the wearing apparel of the accused appellant was smeared with blood stain. This wearing apparel was also seized as will appear from the seizure list dated 25th March, 1999 in the presence of the appellant and P.W.1 as both have signed it. Although the offending weapon and wearing apparels were sent for FSL but yielded no result as the blood was insufficient and had disintegrated. The offending weapon was seized from the P.O. The Postmortem doctor (P.W.18) has also stated that the injuries may be caused by a sharp sickle like the sickle shown to him. Therefore, death was caused due to the injuries inflicted by the hesua. That the injuries was caused by the accused appellant cannot be ruled out and will be evident from the surrounding circumstance, namely, the accused appellant working half time on the fated day and leaving the work place at 9 a.m. The defacto complainant stated in the F.I.R. that the victim lady brought a prospective purchaser for her share, quarrel on this issue between the victim lady and the accused appellant so also heated exchange over a ladies cycle owned by the victim lady and concealed by the accused appellant occurred. Therefore motive is clear and has been proved by the prosecution. The whole F.I.R. was marked as Exhibit-5 and P.W.2 (brother) has not been declared hostile. Although the defence sought to raise a doubt with regard to the time of filing of the F.I.R. but P.W.23 (I.O.) has accepted filing of the F.I.R. and receipt thereof. Therefore motive is clear and has been proved by the prosecution. The whole F.I.R. was marked as Exhibit-5 and P.W.2 (brother) has not been declared hostile. Although the defence sought to raise a doubt with regard to the time of filing of the F.I.R. but P.W.23 (I.O.) has accepted filing of the F.I.R. and receipt thereof. The signature, handwriting of P.W.2 has also been accepted and although in cross-examination a doubt has sought to be raised but such doubt has been demolished by P.W.23 (I.O.) in his evidence. From the aforesaid, therefore, it can be concluded that it was the accused appellant who killed the victim lady and that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. While being examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. each of the incriminating circumstance was put to the accused appellant and the answer given to Question-21 does not reflect the natural conduct of a husband. Even if the accused appellant found the victim lady dead, as a husband he ought to have filed a complaint, which he did not in spite of going to the Thana. His answer to Question 93 is also false in view of the deposition of P.W.13 and P.W.1, the F.I.R. maker. The question put was as follows:- “Q.No.93. It is revealed from the evidence that the relationship in between you and Kalyani was bitter and you suspected her, what is your answer? Ans. I don’t know.” The answer given is not only false but an incriminating circumstance against the accused appellant. For all the said reasons, therefore, the order of conviction and sentence calls for no interference and the appeal is accordingly dismissed. Let the LCR be sent to the Court below and the articles kept in alamat be destroyed after the period of appeal. Let a photostat copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis upon compliance of all formalities.