JUDGMENT : Ajit Singh, J. Appellant Mohammad Samir Ali has been convicted under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulation. 2. The victim of the incident was Mukut Ali, aged 45 years. 3. The facts in short are these – The appellant is paternal uncle of Mukut Ali. Both of them lived in the same village Kanikuchi and were also neighbours. On 28.5.1998, Mukut Ali was sleeping on a bench in front of his house. The bench was also near to the house of Ranu Bibi (PW 1) At that time, Ranu Bibi saw the appellant going near that bench with a dao concealed under his armpit. She also saw the appellant waiting near Mukut Ali. Ranu Bibi, then, left for her house and when after some time, she returned, she found Mukut Ali lying on the ground with his neck cut. Ranu Bibi noticed profuse bleeding from the neck and that a dao was lying nearby. She also saw the appellant going away slowly from the place of occurrence. Harmor Rasid (PW 5) lived in the same village. He lodged the ejahar Exhibit 2 at Police Station Rangia. The police came to the place of occurrence and seized “dao” vide Exhibit 5. The police also prepared Inquest Report Exhibit 1 of the dead body. According to the post mortem examination report exhibit 3 prepared by Dr. H.K.Mahanta (PW 6) cause of death of Mukut Ali was due to cut injury on the neck. The police, however, could not trace the whereabouts of appellant. After many years from the date of incident, appellant was produced by his relative at the Police Station, whereupon he was arrested. 4. During the trial, the appellant abjured his guilt and stated that he had been falsely implicated by his relatives. He also stated during his examination as an accused that all these years he had been working in a Tea Stall at Rangia whereafter, he went to Guwahati and stayed with his brother-in-law. The appellant further stated that he worked as Handyman in the City Bus as well as in the Truck of ONGC. According to the appellant, he even worked as Rickshaw Puller for his livelihood and while pulling Rickshaw at Lakhimpur, his nephew Mojibur Rahman met him and alleged that he had killed Mukut Ali. The appellant further stated that he worked as Handyman in the City Bus as well as in the Truck of ONGC. According to the appellant, he even worked as Rickshaw Puller for his livelihood and while pulling Rickshaw at Lakhimpur, his nephew Mojibur Rahman met him and alleged that he had killed Mukut Ali. The appellant was then handed over to the police by the companion of Mojibur Rahman. 5. As there is no direct evidence, the entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence and the trial court convicted the appellant on the following circumstances:- i) The accused was seen at the relevant time on the fateful day with a ‘dao’ concealing under his armpit standing near the deceased who was sleeping on a bench in front of his home; ii) After a short while deceased found lying on the floor with severe cut injury on his neck with profuse bleeding where accused was found in proceeding away slowly from the place of occurrence; iii) A ‘dao’ was found lying nearby the deceased; iv) The body of deceased contained severe cut injury on his neck with profuse bleeding; v) The medical evidence shows that due to severe deep spindle shaped horizontal cut injuries on the neck caused by heavy sharp cutting weapon caused the death of deceased; vi) The accused was not seen in his house or the village after the incident. In fact, he was absconded even after investigation and filing charge sheet vii) The accused had no explanation for his long absence viii) Being the close relative i.e. paternal uncle of the deceased, accused gave no explanation as to how deceased sustained such type of severe deadly cut injury. 6. It is well settled that in a case of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish all the circumstances by independent evidence and the circumstances so established must form a complete chain in proof of guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. The circumstances so proved must also be consistent only with the guilt of accused. 7. According to the evidence of Ranu Bibi, she saw Mukut sleeping on a bench in front of his house and the appellant going towards him hiding a dao under his armpit. The circumstances so proved must also be consistent only with the guilt of accused. 7. According to the evidence of Ranu Bibi, she saw Mukut sleeping on a bench in front of his house and the appellant going towards him hiding a dao under his armpit. This witness also says that she then left for her house and when returned after a while, she saw Mukut lying on the ground with a cut injury on his neck and dao lying nearby. According to her evidence, she even saw the appellant going away slowly from the place of occurrence. In the cross examination, Ranu Bibi has admitted that she did not actually see the appellant killing Mukut and only suspected him as an assailant because he was waiting near Mukut with a dao. Ranu Bibi has also admitted that on the date of incident, she had seen the appellant erecting a bamboo fence with the help of dao at the backyard of his house and that he and Mukut used the same common approach road to reach the main road of village. In this part of country, every worker carries a dao specially for cutting bamboo and making fence. As seen above, Ranu Bibi has admitted that appellant and Mukut used the same common approach road to reach the main road of village and that appellant had erected a bamboo fence with a dao. She has also admitted that the bench on which Mukut was sleeping was in front of his house. Ranu Bibi has further admitted that the house of appellant is behind the house of Mukut. It was, therefore, not unusual on the part of appellant if he was seen near the bench on which Mukut was sleeping with a dao. And merely because appellant was seen there, it cannot be held with certainty that he alone had committed the murder of Mukut. Ranu Bibi has essentially attributed suspicion against the appellant but it is well settled that in a criminal case, mere suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof. 8. On scanning the evidence brought on record, we have doubts that Ranu Bibi had seen appellant with a dao waiting near Mukut just before the incident and even leaving the place of occurrence after committing the crime. This we say so because ejahar was lodged by Harmor Rasid (PW 5). 8. On scanning the evidence brought on record, we have doubts that Ranu Bibi had seen appellant with a dao waiting near Mukut just before the incident and even leaving the place of occurrence after committing the crime. This we say so because ejahar was lodged by Harmor Rasid (PW 5). Harmor Rasid has admitted in his evidence that he had lodged the ejahar only after hearing from people about the incident. There is no eye witness to the incident. And in the ejahar, it is nowhere mentioned that Ranu Bibi had seen the appellant with a dao near Mukut waiting for him before the incident and leaving the place of occurrence after committing the crime. In the entire ejahar, there is no mention of Ranu Bibi. Had Ranu Bibi actually saw the appellant, as claimed by her, we find no good reason why this important fact was not mentioned in the ejahar. Other witnesses, namely, Bahar Ali (PW 2), Tamij Ali (PW 3), Rafiquddin Ahmed (PW 7), Rafijan Bibi (PW 8) and Rupjan Bibi (PW 9) have also testified that they too learnt from people that appellant had killed Mukut. None of these witnesses have said that they learnt from Ranu Bibi that appellant had killed Mukut. 9. As seen above, the police had seized the dao by which offence was committed from the place of occurrence. Ranu Bibi does not say that appellant was carrying the same dao or that it belonged to him. The seizure of dao from the place of occurrence, therefore, does not connect the appellant with the commission of the crime. 10. The last circumstance, which has been relied upon by the trial court, is that appellant had absconded and was arrested after many years. According to the trial court, the appellant could not give proper explanation of his long absence and how Mukut sustained the deadly cut injury. It is well settled that mere abscondnce of an accused does not lead to a firm conclusion of his guilty mind and an innocent man may also abscond in order to evade arrest. In the case at hand, the appellant may have thought it proper to abscond in order to evade arrest apprehending false implication merely on suspicion at the instance of Ranu Bibi. In the case at hand, the appellant may have thought it proper to abscond in order to evade arrest apprehending false implication merely on suspicion at the instance of Ranu Bibi. Also since the appellant does not say that he either saw Mukut or he is the author of crime, it is not expected from him to explain the cut injury on the neck of Mukut. 11. For these reasons, we are of the view that the evidence relied upon by the prosecution does not inspire confidence to warrant the conviction of appellant. We accordingly set aside the conviction and sentence of appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and acquit him of the charge. The appellant is in Jail. He be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. 12. The appeal is allowed.