JUDGMENT By the Court.—The arguments of this case concluded on 11.8.2016. We then made the following order : “Heard Shri Amar Nath Tiwari learned counsel for the appellant and Shri J.K. Upadhyay, Kumari Meena as well as Ms. Manju Thakur, learned A.G.As. for the State. We will given reasons later but we make the operative order now. The appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 3.2.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, (F.T.C.) Sonebhadra, in Session Trial No. 81 of 2002 (State v. Shanti Devi) convicting the appellant under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C. is hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all the charges framed against her. Appellant is in jail. She shall be released forthwith unless and until she is wanted in any other case. There shall be no order as to cost.” Here are the reasons : 2. The present criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant Shanti Devi against the judgment and order of conviction dated 3.2.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Sonebhadra, in Sessions Trial No. 81 of 2002 arising out of Case Crime No. 16 of 2002 (State v. Shanti Devi) under Sections 302, 201 IPC, Police Station Pannuganj, District Sonbhadra, whereby she has been convicted under Sections 302, 201 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment coupled with fine of Rs. 2000/- on the first count and five years rigorous imprisonment coupled with fine of Rs. 1000/- on the second count, in default of payment of fine, she will have to suffer additional imprisonment for two years and one year, respectively. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. 3. Heard Sri Amar Nath Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri J.K. Upadhyay, Kumari Meena as well as Ms. Manju Thathur, learned AGAs for the State and perused the record. 4. The facts of this case as discernible from record appear to be; that in this case, the first informant Sangeeta wife of Paras Kushwaha, resident of Village Lauvari, Police Station Pannuganj, District Sonbhadra, lodged written report on 5.2.2002 regarding death of Santosh, husband of the appellant with the allegation that yesternight, she was sleeping at her home when she heard some noise from the house of Prasad Bhatt situated to the southern side of her house at a distance of 100 yards, where Santosh, Ashok and Shanti Devi (accused-appellant) wife of Santosh usually resided. Prasad Bhatt had gone somewhere to meet his son. It was around 8:00 to 9:00 p.m., Santosh was screaming loudly “uncle save me”,-whereupon she came out of her house and went to the backyard of house of Prasad Bhatt and heard some thumping noise as if someone is digging the earth. She waited for a while when digging sound continued, she got scared of digging/thumping sound, therefore, she came back to home and slept. Next day morning, she woke up around 7:00 am and the sun had risen. She told about this incident to one Chandra Shekhar (of the village) that there was some hue and cry in the house of Santosh at night. Santosh shrieked two or three times. Today, whereabouts of Santosh are not known. Raja Ram son of Chandra Shekhar asked the wife of Santosh about his (Santosh) whereabouts, whereupon she informed that Santosh had gone to take care of her mother and from there he will move to ‘Nanihal’ where he will drive tractor. In the meanwhile, co-villagers Lallu, Ram Chander, Narayan, Bachcha and Mangaru etc. arrived on the spot. They also enquired from the appellant whereupon the appellant said whether they have come for committing dacoity in her house. The villagers saw fresh cow dung paste in Osari (Courtyard) of the house, one blood stained ‘Gamchha’ partially burnt and blood stained ashes thrown outside the house which generated apprehension regarding death of Santosh. The appellant in connivance with her Devar (brother-in-law) Ashok has murdered Santosh and they have caused disappearance of the dead body. Ashok was sighted at his house in the morning but he absconded after seeing the villagers. Report be lodged and appropriate action be taken. This written report is Ext. Ka-1. 5. Relevant entries regarding contents of the first informantion report was made in the Check FIR at Crime No. 16 of 2002 under Sections 302, 201 IPC, Police Station Pannuganj, District Sonebhadra on 5.2.2002 at 11:05 a.m. Check FIR is Ext. Ka-12 6. Thereafter investigation ensued. Investigation was taken over by the Investigating Officer who inspected the place of the occurrence and made inquiry from the appellant Shanti Devi who told him that she in connivance with her Devar (brother-in-law) Ashok have murdered Santosh and have buried his body inside the room of the house. Ka-12 6. Thereafter investigation ensued. Investigation was taken over by the Investigating Officer who inspected the place of the occurrence and made inquiry from the appellant Shanti Devi who told him that she in connivance with her Devar (brother-in-law) Ashok have murdered Santosh and have buried his body inside the room of the house. Thereafter, dead body of the deceased Santosh was recovered at the pointing out of the appellant from southern side room of the house. After recovery of the dead body, recovery memo was prepared on the spot and it was signed by the appellant and the witnesses namely Ramji Yadav and Sangeeta. This recovery memo is Ext. Ka-4 7. The Investigating Officer also took simple and blood stained soil from the place of the recovery of the dead body and also blood stained ashes and blood stained piece of ‘Gamchha’. Recovery memo was prepared which is Ext Ka-10 Thereafter, inquest report of the deceased Santosh was prepared by the Investigating Officer. Inquest report reveals that process commenced around 1:15 p.m. and ended at 2:30 p.m. on 5.2.2002. Inquest report is Ext. Ka-5. In the opinion of-inquest witnesses-it was thought proper to send the dead body for post-mortem examination so that cause of death could be ascertained properly. 8. Thereafter relevant papers were prepared for sending the dead body for post-mortem examination which paper are; Police Form 13 Challan of dead body Ext. Ka-6, Challan Nash Ext. Ka-7, Specimen Seal Ext. Ka-8, letter to Chief Medical Superintendent, District Hospital Sonebhadra Ext. Ka-9. Post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Santosh was conducted by Dr. R.C. Yadav, at District Hospital Sonebhadra on 6.2.2002 at 1:45 p.m. wherein following ante-mortem injuries were noted: 1. Incised wound 7 ½ cm x brain deep on right side of head, 5 cm post to ear, obliquely towards upper part of neck. Margins are regular and clean. 2. Incised wound 6 cm x .5 cm x brain deep just below injury No. 1. Margins same. 3. Incised wound 6 cm x ½ cm x brain deep just below the injury No. 2. Margins same. 4. Incised wound 7 cm x .5 cm x bone deep 1 cm below injury No. 3 towards lower part of neck. Margins same. 5. Incised wound 4 cm x ½ cm x muscle deep on upper part of neck, 4 cm below right ear of bone. Margins same. 4. Incised wound 7 cm x .5 cm x bone deep 1 cm below injury No. 3 towards lower part of neck. Margins same. 5. Incised wound 4 cm x ½ cm x muscle deep on upper part of neck, 4 cm below right ear of bone. Margins clean and regular. 6. Incised wound 12 cm x ½ cm x trachea and carotid and jugular and vessel deep on right side of neck. Transversely placed 2 cm below the injury No. 5. Margins are same. 7. Peeling off skin on area of 7 cm x 6 cm on right shoulder. 8. Abrasion and contusion on back of right shoulder. 9. Incised wound 10 cm x ½ on right side on face of muscle deep from right angle of mouth towards right ear. Margins are clean and regular. 10. Incised wound 7 cm x ½ x tendon deep front of wrist towards outward right palm. Margins regular and clean. 11. Incised wound of 4 cm x ½ cm x tendon deep of left palm. Margins same. 12. Amputation of left index finger from its base except some skin tags. 13. Incised wound 6 cm x ½ cm x muscle deep on right side of back 10 cm above illiac waist. Margins same. 14. Incised wound 4 cm x ½ cm x skin deep on upper and between both buttock. Margins same. 15. Incised wound 5 cm x ½ cm x muscle deep on left wrist on front side. Margins same. 16. Peeling off skin of front of left ring finger. 17. Incised wound 6 cm x ½ cm x muscle deep on outer side of right knee joint. Margins same. 18. Incised wound 5 cm x ½ cm x bone deep on outer of right leg, 3 cm below the right knee joint. Margins same. 19. Incised wound 3 cm x ½ x tendon deep on upper right foot 6 cm away to right ankle. Margins regular and clean. 20. Partial amputation of 4th toe of right foot. 21. Contusion depressed 7 cm x 1 cm in front of neck, 1 cm below injury No. 6. Circumference of neck is 34 cm. 9. Cause of death was opined to be shock and haemorrhage due to ante-mortem injuries. Duration of death was said to be one and half day. This post-mortem examination report is Ext. Ka-14. 10. 21. Contusion depressed 7 cm x 1 cm in front of neck, 1 cm below injury No. 6. Circumference of neck is 34 cm. 9. Cause of death was opined to be shock and haemorrhage due to ante-mortem injuries. Duration of death was said to be one and half day. This post-mortem examination report is Ext. Ka-14. 10. The Investigating Officer also sent the aforesaid blood stained soil and piece of Gamchha, simple soil, red pant, shirt, underwear etc. for chemical examination, report whereof dated 25.9.2002 was obtained and placed on record, which is Ext. Ka-16. The Investigating Officer also prepared site plan of place of occurrence which is Ext. Ka-11. After completing investigation, Investigating Officer PW-7, S.S.I. Umesh Pratap filed charge-sheet against the appellant at Case Crime No. 16 of 2002 under Sections 302, 201 IPC. Charge-sheet is Ext. Ka-15. 11. Thereafter the case of the appellant was committed to the Court of Sessions from where it was made over for trial to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonebhadra who heard the appellant on point of charge and after recording his satisfaction regarding prima facie case for framing charge under Section 302, 201 IPC, framed charge under the aforesaid sections of IPC. Charges were read over and explained to the appellant who denied charges and opted for trial. 12. Consequently, the prosecution was asked to adduce its testimony, whereupon the prosecution produced in all seven witnesses. Brief reference of the same is as hereunder: 13. Smt. Sangeeta PW-1 has lodged the First Information Report. Ram Chander PW-2, Lallu Prasad PW-3, Ram Raj PW-4. They are witnesses of fact. Hari Murti Singh PW-5 is Investigating Officer. He has detailed various steps which he took in completing the investigation. He has also proved Check FIR and entries made in the relevant GD as Ext. Ka-12 and Ext. Ka-13, respectively. Dr. R.C. Yadav PW-6 has conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Santosh on 6.2.2002 and he has proved the same Ext. Ka-14. Umesh Pratap Singh PW-7 is subsequent Investigating Officer. He has also detailed steps taken during investigation. He filed charge-sheet against the appellant. 14. Ka-12 and Ext. Ka-13, respectively. Dr. R.C. Yadav PW-6 has conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Santosh on 6.2.2002 and he has proved the same Ext. Ka-14. Umesh Pratap Singh PW-7 is subsequent Investigating Officer. He has also detailed steps taken during investigation. He filed charge-sheet against the appellant. 14. Thereafter, evidence for the prosecution was closed and statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein she has termed her implication in this case falsely and stated that at the time of the occurrence, she was not present at her home but she had gone to the house of her ‘Chachiya’ father-in-law at Laxmanpur where villagers informed her about murder of her husband whereupon she came to the village then she was arrested by the police and taken to the police station. 15. Learned trial Court after hearing both the sides on merit and considering the material on record passed the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction and sentence. 16. Consequently, this appeal. 17. Sri A.N. Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that this is a case purely based on circumstantial evidence and chain of circumstances is grossly incomplete and various vital links of the incident are missing. It is settled principle of law that in the case of circumstantial evidence, motive has got to be proved satisfactorily and all hypothesis of innocence of the accused should be excluded and the chain of circumstances or various links of evidence should be so complete as to rule out involvement of any other person in the commission of the offence other than the accused. 18. Learned counsel for the appellant has further claimed that there is no evidence on record regarding presence of the appellant inside her house on the day of the occurrence. For the sake of argument, if it is admitted that the first informant arrived at the backyard of the house of the deceased Santosh even then she heard screaming sound of the deceased Santosh only. She had no occasion to take extra interest in lodging of the First Information Report and she has not made it clear as to how she alone was interested in getting the First Information Report lodged. The whole prosecution story is full of loophole and contradiction which does not inspire confidence. The appellant had no motive to commit murder of her own husband. The whole prosecution story is full of loophole and contradiction which does not inspire confidence. The appellant had no motive to commit murder of her own husband. The hypothesis of guilt of the appellant is not established to the exclusion of others. The motive of illicit relationship between the deceased Santosh and the appellant has not been established by cogent evidence. Not a single prosecution witness has established the presence of the appellant inside the house at the time of the occurrence. In such a view, the trial Court was not justified in acting on bald assumption and presumption and particularly, presumption of presence of the appellant inside the house at the time of the occurrence. The trial Court erroneously based conclusion of guilt which is outcome of misreading of evidence and circumstances. 19. Learned AGA while refuting the aforesaid arguments has submitted that no doubt, it is a case of circumstantial evidence but all the relevant facts and vital links of chain and circumstances have been satisfactorily proved and chain of circumstances is so complete as to leave aside every hypothesis of innocence of the appellant. It was the appellant alone who committed crime. It was upon the appellant to have established her plea of ‘alibi’ which she grossly failed. There is evidence of fact that some screaming sound was heard by the first informant. She informed about the incident the very next day morning to co-villager Chandra Shekhar who sent his son Ram Raj to the house of Shanti Devi (accused-appellant) and he enquired about whereabouts of Santosh (deceased). Shanti Devi gave evasive reply and some fresh cow dung paste was seen in ‘Osari’ (Courtyard) of the house which gave apprehension of death of husband of the appellant that he has been murdered and his dead body buried inside the house. In fact hypothesis of this case/fact is deeply rooted in the confessing oral statement of the appellant when the appellant herself confessed to have committed the crime. The dead body of the deceased Santosh was recovered from southern side room of her house at her pointing out by the Investigating Officer Hari Murti Singh, PW-5. Therefore, charge has been rightly proved against the appellant and conviction against the appellant recorded by the trial Court is justified. Motive for committing crime has been proved as illicit relationship between brother-in-law (Devar) of the appellant and the appellant herself. 20. Therefore, charge has been rightly proved against the appellant and conviction against the appellant recorded by the trial Court is justified. Motive for committing crime has been proved as illicit relationship between brother-in-law (Devar) of the appellant and the appellant herself. 20. Before we proceed further and scrutinize evidence, facts and circumstances of the case, we may record with ample ease that it is a case based on circumstantial evidence. There is no eye-witness account testimony of fact of murder. The very foundation of this case is rooted in the First Information Report lodged by Sangeeta PW-1 wherein allegations have been made regarding fact that yesternight on 4/5.2.2002, it was around 8:00 to 9:00 p.m. when she was asleep in her house situated at a distance of 100 yard from the house of the appellant, she heard some screaming sound of the deceased Santosh urging for protection, whereupon the first informant went towards backyard of Santosh’s house where she heard some repeated thumping sound which lasted for quite some time and it appeared that someone was digging the soil. At this, the first informant got scared, came back home and slept. 21. Next morning, on 5.2.2002 when she woke up, she informed about yesternight episode to one co-villager Chandra Shekhar at 7:00 a.m. whereupon Chandra Shekhar sent his son Ram Raj to the house of the appellant Shanti Devi where he enquired about whereabouts of Santosh but the appellant Shanti Devi gave evasive reply. In the meanwhile, a few villagers also arrived at the house of the appellant where they sighted fresh cleanliness done in the southern side room of ‘Osari’ (Courtyard) whereupon they became apprehensive that Santosh has been killed. Thereafter the First Information Report was lodged at 11.05 a.m. at Police Station Pannuganj, District Sonbhadra. 22. Obviously, there are certain circumstances in the form of vital facts and links of this case. Firstly-screaming sound of deceased Santosh, secondly-presence of the deceased inside the house around 8:00 to 9:00 p.m. in the night of 4.2.2002 alongwith the appellant, thirdly-digging of soil inside the house, fourthly-illicit relationship between the appellant and Ashok-Dever-(brother-in-law) of the appellant during night of 4.2.2002 inside the house, fifthly-recovery of dead body of Santosh at the pointing out of the appellant Shanti Devi. 23.We have carefully scanned testimony of witnesses of fact namely Sangeeta PW-1, Ram Chander PW-2, Lallu Prasad PW-3 and Ram Raj PW-4 and we are constrained to observe that none of them have stated anything in their testimony which may even whisper about presence of the appellant at the relevant point of time of the occurrence inside the house when screaming sound of the deceased was repeatedly heard by Sangeeta PW-1. 24. We may record our appreciation regarding testimony of this witness-Sangeeta PW-1-wife of Paras Kushwaha who is witness of fact of hearing of screaming sound voice of deceased Santosh from the house-the place of occrrence. After hearing the screaming sound of Santosh, she rushed to the house of the appellant and she heard repeated thumping sound from backyard of the house of the appellant which looked as if someone was digging the earth. On the point of occurrence, there is no other reflection except as above. In so far as the fact of presence of the appellant Shanti Devi at the time of the occurrence is concerned that it synchronized with screaming sound of Santosh is altogether missing. In this view of the matter, presence of the appellant Shanti Devi at the relevant point of time inside the house has not been proved by any cogent testimony of the prosecution witnesses of fact. Even no circumstance fair or otherwise has been brought forth that may lead us to infer her presence at that point of time inside her house. 25. At this stage, we may also record our satisfaction regarding testimony of the other prosecution witnesses. In this context, Ram Chander PW-2 has been produced who is witness to fact of recovery of dead body of the deceased from inside house of the deceased. 26. Lallu Prasad PW-3 has been produced to establish fact of illicit relationship between the appellant and Ashok and also presence of the appellant inside the house at the time of occurrence but he himself has stated in examination-in-chief that some altercation used to take place among the deceased Santosh, Ashok and the appellant Shanti Devi but he could not assign any cause for such quarrel. However, he has testified that the deceased Santosh was telling him that Ashok is interested in keeping his wife with him. However, he has testified that the deceased Santosh was telling him that Ashok is interested in keeping his wife with him. This much will not itself establish the fact of existence of illicit relationship between the appellant Shanti Devi and Ashok. In his cross-examination, this witness has testified that he did guess work while he stated that the appellant was present in her house at the time of the occurrence. In this regard, he is improving his testimony for the first time in Court, he has made such statement before the Court first time which fact he has accepted in his cross-examination. He has not given any such type of statement to the Investigating Officer. In this view of the matter, PW-3 loses credibility and is not worthy of credence as his testimony is embellished and found to be improving, for the reason best known to the prosecution. 27. Ram Raj PW-4 as discussed above is witness of fact that he went to the house of the appellant on 5.2.2002 and enquired about the deceased Santosh from his wife (the appellant). He also sighted, in the presence of co-villagers, some newly done cleanliness work-in Osari (Courtyard) of the house of the appellant and blood stained ashes thrown outside the house, which gave rise to apprehension that Santosh has been murdered. Apart from that particular factual aspect of the case, he has not testified on any other material aspect of the case. 28. We have also discussed the role of Investigating Officer, Hari Murti Singh PW-5. Dr. R.C. Yadav PW-6 who conducted post-mortem examination on the cadaver of the deceased Santosh on 6.2.2002. He discovered as many as twenty one ante-mortem injuries on various parts of the body of the deceased. Cause of death has been shown to be shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries. Duration of death was stated to be one and half day. He has also opined that death of the deceased might have been caused around 8:00 to 9:00 p.m. on 4/5.2.2002. Thus time of death ranges between 8:00 to 9:00 p.m. on 4/5.2.2002. Thus presence of appellant at that point of time inside her house is the most vital link of the chain of circumstances. 29. He has also opined that death of the deceased might have been caused around 8:00 to 9:00 p.m. on 4/5.2.2002. Thus time of death ranges between 8:00 to 9:00 p.m. on 4/5.2.2002. Thus presence of appellant at that point of time inside her house is the most vital link of the chain of circumstances. 29. However, one aspect of the case is quite relevant which appeared in cross-examination of doctor witness (PW-6) that partially digested food was present in the stomach of the deceased Santosh but it has not been made clear as to how and when the deceased took meal, although this aspect of the case has got not much relevance in assessing veracity of this case. Therefore, no further discussion need be made on this point by us. 30. The overall outcome of testimony of the prosecution witnesses of fact on record cumulatively fails to establish presence of the appellant on the spot. Even circumstances neither point out presence of the appellant on the spot nor is the same inferable from facts proved by the prosecution. We may conveniently record that principles involved in the matter of cases based on circumstantial evidence have been elaborated in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sardar v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 16, wherein Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down certain principles regarding the case based on circumstantial evidence which are enumerated hereinbelow: 1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must or should be and not merely “may be” fully established. 2. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. 3. The circumstances should be conclusive nature and tendency. 4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved and, 5. 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 have been done by the accused. 31. 4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved and, 5. 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 have been done by the accused. 31. Thus circumstances pointed out that facts established should be consistent only with hypothesis of guilt of the accused should exclude every hypothesis except one said to be proved and the chain of evidence should be so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability, the accused committed crime. Only when all links in chain of circumstances/evidence are complete in themselves then false plea or false defence may be called into aid. 32. Here in this case, plea of alibi has been taken in the statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that she was away from her house and was at the relevant point of time at the house of her “Chachiya” father-in-law. This aspect of the case is required to be dealt with at this stage by us, particularly on fact of presence of the appellant inside the house (place of occurrence) at the relevant point of time of the occurrence. Obviously, the prosecution evidence regarding presence of the appellant at the relevant point of time inside the house is woefully wanting that the accused was present at that time inside the house. Here links of chain in form of circumstances/evidence in the absence of presence of the appellant inside the house are miserably incomplete and this is center point of entire controversy as to who committed murder and in absence of establishment of fact of presence of the appellant inside the house, the vital factual link regarding presence of appellant at the time of incident is missing. When this is legal and factual position in respect of missing of vital link of evidence (presence) regarding the appellant then answer supplied under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and statement given by the appellant that she was “elsewhere” is sufficient to generate doubt, particularly on the fact that she and she alone was perpetrator of crime. When this is legal and factual position in respect of missing of vital link of evidence (presence) regarding the appellant then answer supplied under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and statement given by the appellant that she was “elsewhere” is sufficient to generate doubt, particularly on the fact that she and she alone was perpetrator of crime. Meaning thereby that in the absence of establishment of presence of appellant on the spot (inside) no criminality can be fastened upon her. 33. We may also conveniently record that possibility of some other person committing the offence in the absence of the appellant cannot be ruled out. The presence of another person, the appellant at the relevant point of time of the occurrence around 8:00 to 9:00 p.m. on 4.2.2002 can be reasonably drawn. Thus the factual link of chain is grossly incomplete. Obviously in this case there is break in chain of circumstances-and the break is vital. In such type of cases law is well-settled that benefit of doubt shall be given to the accused. In this regard, pertinent reference may be made of the case of State of Maharashtra v. Annappa Bandu Kavatage, (1979) 4 SCC 715 , wherein Hon’ble Apex Court has held that in circumstantial evidence case whenever there is a break in the chain of circumstances, the accused is and will be entitled to the benefit of doubt. There is a snap in the chain of circumstances, therefore, the present appellant is legally entitled to benefit so created in her favour. If the prosecution established fact of presence of the appellant inside the house at the relevant point of time then the plea of “alibi” taken by the appellant would have been required to have been proved reasonably on her behalf, but in this case the prosecution has failed to establish fact of her presence inside the house then the presumption of presence of the appellant inside the house will be imaginary and legally not conceivable. The plea of alibi may look false but because of failure of prosecution to establish fact of her presence it has got relevance, for the reasons aforesaid and will always be read in favour of the appellant under facts and attendant circumstances of this case. We know that man may tell a lie but circumstances do not. The plea of alibi may look false but because of failure of prosecution to establish fact of her presence it has got relevance, for the reasons aforesaid and will always be read in favour of the appellant under facts and attendant circumstances of this case. We know that man may tell a lie but circumstances do not. Here in absence of missing links of chain and circumstances, we are of the firm opinion that benefit of doubt arises in this case in favour of the appellant. 34. Learned trial Court while appreciating evidence, facts and circumstances of the case on record probably misread the same and erroneously recorded finding of conviction and awarded sentence against the appellant which is legally not sustainable. 35. These are the reasons upon which we set aside the impugned judgment and order of conviction dated 3.2.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Sonebhadra, in Sessions Trial No. 81 of 2002 arising out of Case Crime No. 16 of 2002 (State v. Shanti Devi) under Sections 302, 201 IPC, Police Station Pannuganj, District Sonebhadra. 36. Let a copy of this judgment/order be certified to the Court concerned for its information and necessary follow up action. ———————