JUDGMENT : The appellant in Criminal Appeal No.3510/2011 is the accused challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Fast Track Court at Bijapur in S.C.No.136/2009, dated 19.11.2010. Wherein the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Section 498(A), 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code. However, sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and also to undergo simple imprisonment for two years for the offence punishable under Section 201 of Indian Penal Code. 2. In Criminal Appeal No.3592/2011, the State has come up in appeal challenging the same judgment of conviction and sentence on the ground that though the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 498(A) of Indian Penal Code but not awarded any sentence upon the accused for the above said provision and also for enhancement of the sentence under Section 201 of Indian Penal Code. 3. Both the appeals are heard together. 4. The brief factual matrix which led to passing of the judgment of conviction and sentence, by the trial judge are that, the appellant/accused is a married man, who married a lady by name Sharada, about 7-8 years prior to the incident. It is the allegation of the prosecution that the accused was always physically and mentally torturing his wife the deceased-Sharada and demanding an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from her parents and in this regard, persistently subjected her to cruelty. In this background, the accused has committed the murder of his wife on 24.03.2009 by taking her to his land situated in Toravi Village in Bijapur Taluk and while returning to home, he took her to a path way situated by the side of pool of Lakkawwan halla situated on the outskirts of Toravi Village and took up a bundle of sun flower sticks, assaulted her on various parts of her body including the vital parts like head and caused severe injuries knowing fully well that his act would definitely cause the death of the deceased and intentionally caused the death of the deceased. 5. 5. It is further case of the prosecution that in order to suppress the real incident being taken place in the above said manner, the accused with an intention to make it disappear the real story of the offence being committed by him, he took the dead body of the deceased from the place where he committed the murder and kept it on the roadside, so as to pose to the whole word that she met with an accident and died. It is also the case of the prosecution that the accused himself gone to the police station and lodged a complaint projecting that a white color jeep came at that, time when himself and his wife were coming towards the village from their land and the said jeep dashed against his wife and due to which, she sustained severe injuries. He lodged the complaint against the unknown jeep driver and accordingly, the police have initially registered a case earlier in Crime No.86/2009, for the offences punishable under Section 279, 304(A) and 134 read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is further case of the prosecution that the police have visited the spot and also conducted the inquest panchanama. At the time of inquest proceedings, the parents of the deceased Sharada, have disclosed that the accused was ill-treating and harassing the deceased and they suspected that the accused must have committed the murder of the deceased, by assaulting her mercilessly and in order to suppress the said act of the accused, he himself has lodged a concocted complaint to show that the said incident as if an accident. Thereafter, it appears the dead body was shifted to the hospital and the post mortem examination appears to have been conducted and the Investigating Officer has also on looking to the spot and considering the statement of the parents of the deceased, has come to the conclusion that it is not an accidental death of the deceased Sharada, but it is a homicidal death. The suspecting finger of the Investigating Officer pointed towards the accused. The suspecting finger of the Investigating Officer pointed towards the accused. Therefore, as per Ex.P.16 the Investigating Officer on 26.03.2009 has suo-moto reported to the Jurisdictional Magistrate, stating that it is not a case of accident, but it is a case of murder and requested the court to convert the said offences under Section 279 and 304(A) of Indian Penal Code to that of Sections 302, 201 and 498(A) of Indian Penal Code. 6. It is further case of the prosecution that the Investigation Officer has throughout while conducting the investigation, recorded the statement of the neighbors and other witnesses. He also recorded the voluntary statement of the accused, after his arrest and said to have recovered the incriminating articles at the instance of the accused, like, a blood stained cloths from him. The police have also seized some incriminating articles like blood stained mud and unstained mud and a stick from the spot and other articles belonging to the deceased and subsequently after post mortem, the blood stained cloths of the deceased, those articles were also sent to Forensic Science Laboratory and the Forensic Science Laboratory report also came positive in favour of prosecution. Therefore, for all these reasons the Investigating Officer was ensured that the accused was the perpetrator. Therefore, a charge sheet came to be laid for the offences under Section 498(A), 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code. 7. The accused was secured before the court. After the committal proceedings, charges were framed against the accused for the above said offences. 8. The prosecution in order to establish the case beyond all reasonable doubt, examined as many as twenty two witnesses and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.31(a) and also material objects M.O.Nos.1 to 23. 9. The accused was also examined under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code. It appears except denial of the prosecution case, he has not taken any specific defence except the one he has already disclosed while filing the complaint before the police as per Ex.P.31. The accused did not choose to lead any defence evidence. 9. The accused was also examined under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code. It appears except denial of the prosecution case, he has not taken any specific defence except the one he has already disclosed while filing the complaint before the police as per Ex.P.31. The accused did not choose to lead any defence evidence. As such, the learned Sessions Judge after hearing both parties, analyzing the oral and documentary evidence mainly relied upon certain circumstances with reference to the homicidal death of the deceased, recovery of the incriminating articles at the instance of the accused at the spot and also relied upon the Forensic Science Laboratory Report and as well as the evidence of the Investigating Officers, has convicted the accused for the above said offences. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant while arguing the matter before this court strenuously contends that virtually there is zero evidence in this particular case. Because of the star witnesses to the prosecution i.e., so called witnesses, the uncle, father and mother of the deceased have turned hostile to the prosecution. The recovery panch witnesses have also turned hostile to the prosecution. There are serious doubtful circumstances available with regard to the recovery of blood stained stick from the spot and as well as blood stained cloths of the deceased. Only on the basis of suspicion, the court has convicted the accused person. He further contends that any amount of suspicion is sufficient to take the place of proof. Hence, the court should have given benefit of those doubtful circumstances in favour of the accused. 11. Per contra, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor contends before us that there is no reason as to why the Investigating Officers has to be disbelieved they are public servants while discharging their duty as public servants, they have recovered the incriminating articles at the instance of the accused. Further the Doctor who is also a public servant gave the opinion that the death of Sharada cannot be an accidental death but it is a homicidal death. Further added to that the conduct of the accused has been very well analyzed by the court and also the Investigating Officer during the course of the investigation. The accused has not explained as to how actually the incident happened, because he was alone present along with his wife at that particular point of time. Further added to that the conduct of the accused has been very well analyzed by the court and also the Investigating Officer during the course of the investigation. The accused has not explained as to how actually the incident happened, because he was alone present along with his wife at that particular point of time. Therefore, taking into consideration all the surrounding circumstances with reference to the death of the deceased, the trial court has rightly convicted the accused. 12. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor also contends that, though the trial court has convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 498(A) of Indian Penal Code, but did not sentence him under the above said provision. He also contends that the conduct of the accused clearly indicates that, though he has committed the homicidal death of the deceased but he totally taken ‘U’ turn and wanted to make the entire case to be believed as if an accident. Therefore, the said conduct of the accused has to be very seriously viewed and the punishment for the offence under Section 201 of Indian Penal Code, requires to be enhanced. 13. After hearing the above said arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant/accused and as well as the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor, it is just necessary for us to have brief cursory look at the evidence of the prosecution, to ascertain what are the circumstances available to the prosecution to prove the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, we formulate the following questions for our consideration : 1. Whether the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.3510/2011 has made out any reasonable or substantial ground to interfere with the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court ? 2. Whether the State has made out any reasonable or substantial grounds to impose any the sentence on the accused under Section 498(A) of Indian Penal Code and enhance sentence passed for the offence under Section 201 of Indian Penal Code ? 14. The evidence recorded by the learned Sessions Judge clearly discloses that, almost all the witnesses examined on the side of the prosecution have not whole heatedly supported the case of the prosecution, but some of them have halfheartedly supported the case in respect of the spot panchanama and other things. In this background, we have to analyze the prosecution evidence. 15. In this background, we have to analyze the prosecution evidence. 15. P.W.1 Ganapati Khemu Rathod and P.W.2 Danu Limbu Jadhav, are the panch witnesses to Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3. P.W.1 though they turned hostile, they say that, the police have taken their thumb impression on 45 papers. P.W.1 was examined to establish that he was panch witness to Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3. Ex.P.1 is the panchanama under which a blood stained stick was seized at the spot, said to have been used by the accused to assault the deceased. Ex.P.2 is another supplementary panchanama in support of Ex.P.1. Ex.P.3 is the recovery panchanama under which some incriminating articles like lungi, underwear and banian of the accused, were recovered in the police station, in the presence of panch witnesses i.e., P.Ws.1 and 2. For all these things, these two witnesses have turned total hostile to the case of the prosecution. 16. P.W.3 – Shantabai Gangappa Pujar is the neighbor of the accused. She was examined for the purpose of establishing that the accused and deceased were residing together, and that she came to know that the accused was ill-treating and harassing the deceased in his house and this lady often advising the accused not to ill-treat his wife. To that extent the motive projected by the prosecution has not been supported by this witness as this witness also turned hostile to the prosecution. Further, this witness says that on 24.03.2009, she came to know about the accident met by the deceased, but she did not go to the spot and saw the dead body. 17. P.W.4 – Sunanda Malappa Pujar and P.W.5 Yallawwa, are the neighbors of the accused, examined by the prosecution to prove the above said motive but the said P.W.4 and P.W.5 and also did not support the case of the prosecution. 18. P.W.6 – Hanamanth Patted was examined before the court to show that, he is the person who immediately after the incident, went to the spot and saw the dead body of the deceased and he saw the accused was also present near the dead body at that particular point of time. He also turned totally hostile to the prosecution, his statement was read over to the witness who denied the same and same has been marked as Ex.P.7. 19. He also turned totally hostile to the prosecution, his statement was read over to the witness who denied the same and same has been marked as Ex.P.7. 19. P.W.7 – Malappa, Police Constable, who took a sniffer dog to the spot at the request of the jurisdictional police. He deposed that, there were some slippers found near the scene of offence and the sniffer dog which was with him has actually sniffed the said chappels and went near the house of the accused and stopped there. This is also one of the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution to implicate the accused. It is not elicited in the examination in chief as to how many persons living in the house of the accused and who are all visiting the house of the accused, so as to ascertain that the accused person was only the person who was residing in the said house, so as to draw any inference with all certainty that, the accused is the perpetrator of the crime. Though the dog went and stopped near the house of the accused, it is very remote and distorted circumstance to connect the accused to the crime. 20. P.W.8 – Muthappa and P.W.9 – Hanmanth, they are the witnesses to the spot mahazar Ex.P.8 and also another panchanama Ex.P.9. It is the case of the prosecution that under Ex.P.8 the police have recovered sunflower sticks on the spot and also the articles belonging to the deceased like broken bangles pieces, stone pieces, blood stained mud and unstained mud etc., from the spot. Under Ex.P.9 the police have recovered the other articles of the deceased like Golden mala, silver ring and golden articles as per M.O.Nos.18 to 20. P.W.8 initially turned hostile to the prosecution, but during the course of cross examination he admitted his signature and also seizure of those articles from the spot and also subsequently under Ex.P.9, seizure of some cloths of the deceased in the police station as per M.O.Nos.13 to 17. These articles were shown to have been seized by the police relied upon by the prosecution coupled with the evidence of the Investigating Officer. These articles were shown to have been seized by the police relied upon by the prosecution coupled with the evidence of the Investigating Officer. It is the case that, some of these articles were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, which contains the blood stains of the deceased in order to match the blood stains with the cloths of the accused and the stick seized from the spot to implicate the accused. Though these witnesses did not directly implicate the accused but only P.W.8 support the case with regard to the seizure of these articles. No other specific incriminating evidence available particularly against the accused. 21. P.W.10 – Sharanakka and P.W.11 – Siddappa, are the important star witnesses to the prosecution. According to the prosecution as we have already narrated, these two witnesses are the mother and father of the deceased, have strongly suspected the hands of the accused in the death of the deceased Sharada. They initially at the time of inquest and also while the police recording their statements under Section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code, appears to have stated implicating the accused. But once they deposed before the Court their evidence becomes substantive evidence for consideration by the Court. The statement even if they have given before the police cannot be used in any manner except for the purpose of contradicting the witnesses under Section 145 of Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, whatever they have stated before the Court becomes the substantive evidence. P.W.10 and P.W.11 have also totally turned hostile to the prosecution they infact supported the version stated by the accused under Ex.P.31. These witnesses have stated that they received information on the date of the incident at about 9.30 p.m. that Sharada met with an accident. Therefore, they went to the place on the next date, but they did not able to locate the vehicle, which caused the accident to their daughter. But they have specifically stated that they did not given any complaint against the accused and they did not know whether the accused has committed the murder of their daughter or ill-treated her at any point of time. 22. But they have specifically stated that they did not given any complaint against the accused and they did not know whether the accused has committed the murder of their daughter or ill-treated her at any point of time. 22. Even during the course of cross examination the entire case of the prosecution with regard to the allegations for the offences under Sections 498(A), 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code, all the factual aspects were put to the mouth of these witnesses with reference to their statement earlier made during the course of investigation and also during the course of recording of 161 statement. But they totally denied those statements being made to the police. Virtually P.W.10 and P.W.11, have given a deathblow to the prosecution case by breaking the spinal cord of the prosecution. 23. P.W.12 – Kalakappa is the Junior Engineer who visited the spot and drew up the sketch as per Ex.P.15. In our opinion, this evidence is of no significance, because neither the accused nor the Investigating Agency have any dispute with regard to the spot where exactly the dead body was found. 24. P.W.13 – Shankar is the Investigating Officer who conducted part of the investigation. He is the person who actually recorded the voluntary statement of the accused as per Ex.P.17 and also got the photographs snapped on the spot as per Ex.P.18 to Ex.P.22. He also recorded the statements of some of the witnesses. It is the case of this witness that the accused after his arrest as per his voluntary statement took this witness and the panch witnesses to the spot and took out a club from the horn bush which was seized under Ex.P.1 at the instance of the accused. The said stick is marked as M.O.No.21. As we have already noted that the panch witnesses so far as this aspect is concerned have not supported the case of the prosecution. However, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor strenuously contended that the Investigating Officers evidence cannot be simply brush aside and in fact the same has been believed by the trial Court. We will discuss this aspect little later after concluding the evidence of other formal witnesses. 25. However, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor strenuously contended that the Investigating Officers evidence cannot be simply brush aside and in fact the same has been believed by the trial Court. We will discuss this aspect little later after concluding the evidence of other formal witnesses. 25. P.W.14–Vishnu is the photographer who snapped the photographs at the spot and also at the time of spot panchanama and recovery of incriminating articles at the instance of the accused etc., who has supported the case of the prosecution. 26. P.W.15 – Ajay, Police Constable who is the personnel who shifted the dead body after the inquest to the hospital, and after post mortem examination he brought the cloths of the deceased to the police station so as to enable the Investigating Officer to seize the cloths of the deceased, which are marked at M.O.Nos.14, 15, 18 to 20. 27. P.W.16 – Dr.Shanthappa, who has conducted the autopsy and gave the post mortem examination report as per Ex.P.24. Of-course the evidence of the Doctor also play a dominant role in this particular case, in order to ascertain the death of the deceased as to whether is a homicidal or an accidental. Of-course the Doctor has stated in his evidence that the deceased has sustained as many as six injuries on different parts of the head. He gave the opinion that the death might have occurred 18-20 hours prior to the post mortem examination. He also examined M.O.No.21 sent for his examination and he gave the opinion that the injuries found on the deceased could be caused by assaulting a person with the help of such club M.O.No.21. Specifically in the course of cross-examination he denied that such injuries could be caused if a person met with an accident. In view of the above evidence there arises serious doubt as to how the death of the deceased happened whether, it is due to the accident or due to the assault by any person particularly by the accused. Of-course when the Doctors says that it is not an accidental death but there must be sufficient other proof to show before the Court that it is a homicidal death and accused is the perpetrator. Of-course when the Doctors says that it is not an accidental death but there must be sufficient other proof to show before the Court that it is a homicidal death and accused is the perpetrator. Merely because Doctor says that those injuries could not be occurred due to any accident, that itself is not sufficient to come to a definite and certain conclusion that, it is only due to the assault by the accused the death of the deceased had occurred. There must be some believable evidence on record to draw such an inference. The evidence of the Doctor would specifically say as to how those injuries could be caused. It is only on the basis of the questions put him by the prosecution, he has given such an opinion but what exactly happened how the deceased sustained injuries is a mystery not been cracked by the prosecution by sufficient acceptable evidence. Of-course it creates a suspicion as to who has to explain the injuries on the dead body of the deceased. Admittedly, the accused himself has given the complaint before the police that the injuries sustained by his wife was due to the accident. Therefore, it is the accused alone who was the person with the deceased at that particular point of time he can explain as to how the deceased sustained injuries. According to him, the deceased sustained injuries due to accident. According the prosecution she sustained injuries due to the assault, no witnesses have stated in any manner as to how the incident has happened. It is the burden on the prosecution to prove that the incident has happened only due to the assault by the accused. There is no reason as to why the case of the prosecution has to be accepted even without there being any other positive evidence. It is also on the other hand can be visualized that, the deceased died due to sustaining injuries, due to accident. 28. The prosecution has not placed any material that it is a clear homicidal death. Though Doctor in one sentence stated that these injuries could be caused by assault but it is only an opinion of the Doctor which cannot be accepted without any other corroborative material. 28. The prosecution has not placed any material that it is a clear homicidal death. Though Doctor in one sentence stated that these injuries could be caused by assault but it is only an opinion of the Doctor which cannot be accepted without any other corroborative material. It is only an opinion evidence and in the absence of other evidence as to how the injured sustained injuries, the sole evidence that too once sentence of the Doctor cannot be made use of for the purpose of drawing a specific and certain inference that, the deceased died a homicidal death. In our opinion it is still a doubt that has not been properly explained by the prosecution. Hence, we are of the opinion that the prosecution with all certainty and clarity not established that the deceased died a homicidal death. Though we cannot specifically say that the deceased died due to an accidental death but still the gray area not established before the Court, creates a serious doubt which should be beneficial to the accused. 29. P.W.17 – M.S.Poornachandra is the another police constable who assisted the investigation and has visited the spot and collected some incriminating articles at the time of conducing the spot panchanama, and he filed the charge sheet after completion of the investigation. 30. P.W.18 – Prakash is the Police Constable who carried the articles M.O.Nos.1 to 12 to the Forensic Science Laboratory. 31. P.W.19 – Prakash is the another circumstantial witness who had been to the spot immediately after the incident and the prosecution has examined this witness for the purpose of showing that the accused is the person who committed the murder of his wife. But this witness also turned total hostile to the prosecution. According to the prosecution this witness went to the spot immediately after the incident and saw the accused crying by the side of the deceased and this witness has poured some water to the mouth of the deceased and thereafter she died. But all these suggestions made during the course of cross examination have been emphatically denied by this witness. 32. P.W.20 – Lakkawwa is the relative of the deceased, she was examined to establish that the police have seized the cloths of the deceased in presence of this witness under Ex.P.10. But all these suggestions made during the course of cross examination have been emphatically denied by this witness. 32. P.W.20 – Lakkawwa is the relative of the deceased, she was examined to establish that the police have seized the cloths of the deceased in presence of this witness under Ex.P.10. It is suggested to this witness that she knew that the accused is the person who committed the murder of the deceased but she did not support the case of the prosecution to any extent. 33. P.W.21 – Mangalabai is the another neighbour of the accused examined to establish the motive and also the ill-treatment and harassment meted out by the accused on the deceased, but she also turned hostile to the prosecution. 34. P.W.22 – Erasangappa is the person who partly conducted the investigation. 35. Having re-looked the evidence, we would like to discuss the incriminating materials. Now coming to the evidence of P.W.13 – Shankar, with reference to the recovery of some articles on the spot and also of the deceased and as well as recovery of a club at the instance of the accused. As per the voluntary statement of the accused the mahazar was drawn by the Investigating Officer as per Ex.P.3 under which the police i.e., P.W.13 said to have recovered a blood stained shirt, baniyan and one white lungi and underwear from the accused, which were stained with blood. 36. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused was arrested on 27.03.2009 and at that time he was wearing the above said cloths and they were recovered at the instance of the accused as per Ex.P.3. The panch witness have already referred to have not supported the case of prosecution. The trial Court only relied upon the evidence of the Investigating Officer. If he carefully perused Ex.P.3, the document itself creates a serious doubt because of the simple reason that, immediately after the incident, according to the prosecution the accused went to the police station and lodged the complaint under Section 279 and 304(A) of Indian Penal Code. There is no material to show that, which were the cloths, the accused was wearing at that particular point of time. But subsequently on 27.03.2009, it is the case of prosecution that, the accused was wearing those cloths and he was arrested and seized the said cloths. There is no material to show that, which were the cloths, the accused was wearing at that particular point of time. But subsequently on 27.03.2009, it is the case of prosecution that, the accused was wearing those cloths and he was arrested and seized the said cloths. The futile imagination of the Additional State Public Prosecutor is that the accused after committing the murder must have gone to his house, changed his cloths and then he went to the police station for the purpose of lodging the complaint. If that imagination is accepted if the accused is so intelligent, so that he can change the cloths after the incident, he should have definitely kept those articles in a secret place, so that he can avoid any person to recover those articles or he would have destroy the same. Even otherwise, it could be hardly believed that, father and mother of the deceased at the time of inquest mahazar when they suspected the conduct of the accused that he might be the perpetrator of the crime whether he could wear those cloths once again so as to enable the police to arrest him along with those cloths and recover the same. This strong suspicion in the mind of the Court has not been properly clarified by the learned State Public Prosecutor. On the other hand he still requested us to rely upon the decision of the Apex Court reported in 2013 SAR (Criminal) 1004 between Gian Chand & Ors. vs. State of Haryana, wherein at Paragraph No.25 the Apex Court has observed that – “Thus, a witness is normally considered to be independent, unless he springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and this usually means that the said witness has cause, to bear such enmity against the accused, so as to implicate him falsely.” He also submits that, the police officers are the natural witnesses. Court should presume the evidence of public servants as truthful version of their action unless there are any strong reasons to suspect such evidence of the police officers. 37. We are unable to accede to the arguments of learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor and to rely on this decision it is with reference to the factual aspects of that particular case. 37. We are unable to accede to the arguments of learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor and to rely on this decision it is with reference to the factual aspects of that particular case. Of-course we are not in any manner deviate from the principles laid down but whether those principles are exactly applicable to the facts of this case is the relevant aspect to be taken into consideration. 38. As we have noted above the police appears to have seized the stick from the accused near by the place of incident and also recovered the cloths of the deceased in the police, which were alleged to have contained the blood stains of the deceased. Lungi, underwear and a chocolate color banian, which were worn by the accused were also recovered from the body of the accused nearby the place of incident i.e., near Lakkawwanahally near the land of one Mallangouda Dyvappagouda Shivagond. This recovery is also to our mind creates a serious doubt for the simple reason that whether the accused if at all he has committed the murder of his wife, goes to the police station lodges the complaint under Section 229 and 304(A) of Indian Penal Code and requested the police to take action, to visit the spot and search for incriminating articles in connection with the said case by keeping the said stick nearby the place of incident so as to enable the police to recover the same from the accused. Further it is also doubtful, as we have expressed, whether the accused could still wear the said cloths till 27.03.2009, knowing fully well that, those cloths contained the bloodstains of the deceased. There is no explanation anywhere in the evidence of the Investigating Officer or elicited from the mouth of any of the witnesses that the accused immediately after the incident went to his house, changed his cloths and then came to the police station and lodged the complaint. In the absence of such elucidation of facts from any of the witnesses including Investigating Officer, we are of the opinion that this Court has got very good reason to suspect the truthfulness of the evidence of the police. 39. In the absence of such elucidation of facts from any of the witnesses including Investigating Officer, we are of the opinion that this Court has got very good reason to suspect the truthfulness of the evidence of the police. 39. Therefore, we are of the opinion that this sole recovery though it established in the Forensic Science Laboratory that club and all the recovered cloths of the deceased and accused contains similar group of blood but the mystery remained unexplained, that how, in what manner these materials can be made use of to connect the accused. In view of the above said doubtful circumstances, the Court cannot convict the accused person. It is well recognized principle of criminal jurisprudence, in circumstantial evidence cases the prosecution must prove the circumstances beyond all reasonable doubt and the proven circumstance should complete the link so as to enable the Court with all certainty to come to a conclusion that the accused is the perpetrator. But here in this case two circumstances, one is the homicidal death of the deceased and another one is the recovery of the incriminating articles, at the instance of the accused. These are the two strong circumstances relied upon by the prosecution, have not been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. The trial Court has merely persuaded itself to draw the inferences on the basis of the evidence of the hostile witnesses for the purpose of elucidating the motive factor and also drawing of inference of recovery on the sole testimony of the Investigating Officer. In our opinion the said exercise of the trial Court is unwarranted because of the reason that the important witnesses to the prosecution have turned hostile to the prosecution. On the sole testimony of the Investigating Officer, the above said circumstances should not have been believed by the trial Court to convict him for the above said offences. For the instance, we refer to one of the observation made by the trial Court in this case at Paragraph No.27 while referring the evidence of P.W.11 i.e., father of the deceased. The trial Court has extracted the cross-examination portion, that too the suggestions made to the witness by the public prosecutor. For the instance, we refer to one of the observation made by the trial Court in this case at Paragraph No.27 while referring the evidence of P.W.11 i.e., father of the deceased. The trial Court has extracted the cross-examination portion, that too the suggestions made to the witness by the public prosecutor. The suggestions that the accused has demanded an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the deceased for the purpose of purchasing a land and also this witness has told he cannot pay the said money and thereafter he also told his daughter that he would discuss the factor later. These suggestions were emphatically denied. But very next sentence the witness stated that after hearing the said advise of the witness, deceased-Sharada kept quite. The learned Sessions Judge has interpreted the words that “Sharada kept quite” in such manner, because his father has told that he would discuss about payment of the money to the accused later. Here the learned Sessions Judge has not dislinkged the suggestion portion but styled it as an admitted fact of the witness. He interpreted the evidence that, the P.W.1 has admitted the fact with regard to the ill-treatment, harassment and demand of Rs.2,00,000/- and the deceased kept quite on the assurance that the matter will be discussed by her father later. This is the way in which the evidence of some of the witnesses have been interpreted by the learned Sessions Judge in various places. The learned Sessions Judge has discussed the hostile witness evidence in almost similar passion so as to bend and suit the evidence of the prosecution to convict the accused person by drawing inferences. We do not accept such type of appreciation of the evidence of the hostile witnesses. 40. On the basis of the above said reasons, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the offences alleged against the accused punishable under Section 302, 498(A) and as well as 201 of Indian Penal Code. Hence, we answer the points formulated by us i.e., Point No.1 in the affirmative and Point No.2 in the negative and proceed to pass the following : ORDER The appeal filed by the appellant/accused in Criminal Appeal No.3510/2011, is hereby allowed. Hence, we answer the points formulated by us i.e., Point No.1 in the affirmative and Point No.2 in the negative and proceed to pass the following : ORDER The appeal filed by the appellant/accused in Criminal Appeal No.3510/2011, is hereby allowed. Consequently, the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court in S.C.No.136/2009 dated 19.11.2010, convicting and sentencing the appellant/accused for the offences punishable under Section 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code, is hereby set-aside. Appellant/accused is acquitted for the above said charges and he is ordered to be set at liberty forth with, if he is not required in any other case. Consequent to the allowing of the above said appeal, the appeal filed by the State also does not survive for consideration. Therefore, the said appeal filed by the State in Criminal Appeal No.3592/2011, is hereby dismissed. Registry is hereby directed to intimate the operative portion of the judgment to the concerned Jail Authorities to release the accused forthwith, if he is not required in any other case.