JUDGMENT : C.V. BHANDANG, J. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 26/5/2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge at Margao in Sessions Case No.16/2008. By the impugned judgment, the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C, for short) for having caused the death of one Atulkumar Singh. The appellant has been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default to suffer further imprisonment for a period of two months. 2. The prosecution case may be briefly stated thus- That deceased Atulkumar Singh was working as a deck sarang, while the appellant was working as a deck utility on a transhipper of M.V. Priyamwada belonging to M/s. V.S. Dempo and Company Pvt. Ltd.. On 22/3/2008, the transhipper was anchored at Mormugao harbour. P.W.1, Christe Francis D' Silva was working as the Chief Officer while P.W.6, Alok Mani Sharma was working as the captain on the transhipper. The complainant Mr. K.G. Kinjawadekar, who was at the relevant time working in River Fleet Section at Dempo Chambers, Mormugao Harbour received a telephone message from Captain Alokmani Sharma. P.W.6 at about 7.30 p.m. on 22/3/2008 informing that now deceased Atulkumar Singh is shifted to the Goa Medical College hospital for treatment on account of stab injuries on the stomach. Atulkumar Singh had disclosed that it was the appellant (accused), who had assaulted him with a knife at about 3.40 p.m. On the basis of such information, a F.I.R came to be registered with P.S. Mormugao under section 307 of I.P.C. The investigating officer visited the transhipper on 23/3/2008 and drew the spot panchanama of the cabin from where he also collected blood samples from the stains lying on the floor of the cabin. He recorded the statement of P.W.6 Alok Mani Sharma and other witnesses, seized a knife and also control sample, a 'taviz', along with thread produced by Alok Mani Sharma. The appellant was arrested and seizure of his clothes was effected. Atulkumar died on 23/3/2008 at Goa Medical College Bambolim, upon which the offence under section 302 of I.P.C was registered. The samples were sent for report of the chemical analyzer. The inquest panchanama of the dead body of Atulkumar Singh was drawn and it was sent for post portem where P.W.5, Dr. Atulkumar died on 23/3/2008 at Goa Medical College Bambolim, upon which the offence under section 302 of I.P.C was registered. The samples were sent for report of the chemical analyzer. The inquest panchanama of the dead body of Atulkumar Singh was drawn and it was sent for post portem where P.W.5, Dr. Andre V. Fernandes conducted the autopsy and gave his report. On completion of the investigation a charge sheet came to be filed before the learned Magistrate which was eventually committed to the Court of Sessions. 3. The learned Sessions Judge framed charge for the offence punishable under section 302 of I.P.C. to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The defence of the appellant is one of total denial and false implication. 4. At the trial, the prosecution examined in all eight witnesses and produced the record of the investigation. The appellant neither examined himself nor any defence witness. 5. The learned Sessions Judge framed a solitary point as to whether the prosecution proves that the appellant committed murder of Atulkumar Singh on 22/3/2008 and answered it in the affirmative and proceeded to convict and sentence the appellant as aforesaid. Hence this appeal. 6. We have heard Shri Shet, the learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Rivankar, the learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, we have gone through the evidence and the impugned judgment of the learned Sessions Judge. 7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is no eye witness account of the incident on record and the prosecution essentially relies on the circumstantial evidence including the oral dying declaration of the deceased. It is submitted that there are inherent improbabilities and incongruities in the oral dying declarations of Atulkumar Singh and the oral dying declarations do not inspire confidence. The learned counsel submitted that the circumstances which have been held to be established by the learned Sessions Judge in para 40 of the judgment are insufficient to complete the chain as to unerringly point out to the guilt of the appellant. The learned counsel submitted that the circumstances which have been held to be established by the learned Sessions Judge in para 40 of the judgment are insufficient to complete the chain as to unerringly point out to the guilt of the appellant. It is submitted that there are material lapses in the investigation in as much as the investigating officer has not ascertained whether there was any other person by name “Jagdish” among the crew of the transhipper and the possibility of this being a case of a mistaken identity is not ruled out. The learned counsel has taken us through the evidence lead by the prosecution in order to demonstrate that the deceased was found to be sleeping in the cabin shortly before he was found stabbed on the deck of the transhipper. Thus, the prosecution has failed to explain the manner in which the incident had occurred. It is submitted that there is no proof of motive forthcoming in this case, which assumes significance as the prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence. He submits that the investigating officer has failed to get the dying declaration of the deceased recorded from an Executive Magistrate although Jagdish died on the following day of his admission to the hospital. 8. On the contrary, it is submitted by Shri Rivankar, the learned Public Prosecutor that the chain of events and the circumstances completely point to the guilt of the appellant. The learned Public Prosecutor points out that there was no other person by name “Jagdish” amongst the crew of the transhipper and the oral dying declarations are natural and one inspiring confidence. He, therefore, submits that the appeal is without any merit and is liable to be dismissed. 9. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival circumstances and the submissions made. Undoubtedly, there is no eye witness account of the incident on record and the prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence. It is now well settled that in a case of the present nature, the individual circumstances, on which the prosecution relies have to be properly established and all such circumstances taken together should form a complete chain unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused. It is further well settled that inference arising out of the circumstances taken together should not only be consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt but should be inconsistent with the hypothesis of innocence. It is further well settled that inference arising out of the circumstances taken together should not only be consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt but should be inconsistent with the hypothesis of innocence. If not, the accused is entitled to an acquittal in a given case by extending benefit of doubt. 10. The learned Sessions Judge has summed up the circumstances, which according to the learned Sessions Judge are established and are sufficient to hold the appellant guilty as under : (i) The deceased and the accused were working on one and the same transhipper and as such both of them were knowing each other. (ii) It is not a case of mistaken identity. (iii) The incriminating weapon knife was found missing from galley (kitchen) of the transhipper. (iv) It is the same knife by which the deceased is stabbed. (v) The stab injuries are caused by the accused, and (vi) The death of the deceased occurred due to the stab injuries which are fatal in ordinary course of nature. 11. Let us examine whether the circumstances, can be said to be established and whether they are sufficient to, unerringly point to the guilt of the appellant. Before considering the prosecution evidence it is necessary to note that the motive for commission of the offence has neither been alleged nor proved on record. Motive is an important circumstance in a case which rests on circumstantial evidence, although it may not be significant where there is eye witness account of the incident which is found to be acceptable. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the prosecution has not shown any motive whatsoever for the appellant to have assaulted the deceased by means of a knife. 12. The prosecution essentially rests on oral dying declarations made by the deceased to three members of the crew on board of the transhipper, namely, P.W1 Krishti D'Silva, P.W.2 Rockson Gonsalves and P.W.6, Alokmani Sharma. 13. P.W.1, Krisha D'Silva was working as the Chief Officer on the trasnshipper. On 22/3/2008 it was a holiday on account of holi festival. A seaman rushed to his cabin at about 3.45 p.m., saying that “sarang ko koi mara” Incidentally, the deceased was working as a deck sarang. 13. P.W.1, Krisha D'Silva was working as the Chief Officer on the trasnshipper. On 22/3/2008 it was a holiday on account of holi festival. A seaman rushed to his cabin at about 3.45 p.m., saying that “sarang ko koi mara” Incidentally, the deceased was working as a deck sarang. P.W.1 states that he went down on the poop deck outside the crew galley and saw that Atul Kumar Singh was lying on the bench with a knife inserted in the left side of his abdomen. P.W.1 informed this to the captain. Alokmani Sharma. Before doing that P.W.1 asked AtulKuamr Singh as to who did it when he told that “Jagdish”. He then prepared a medical requisition on the say of the captain and the injured was shifted to Salgaonkar Research Centre, Vasco and then to Goa Medical College at Bambolim. P.W1 then came to know that the injured died thereafter. He states that when he first went to the injured there were other staff members who had gathered there. The appellant was not one amongst them. The deceased told him only the name as “Jagdish” and nothing else. He did not give the details as to how and under what circumstances the incident took place. He states that the captain P.W6 did not ask the injured anything in his presence. 14. P.W.2, Rockson Gonsalves is a seaman. He had gone to the cabin of Atul Kumar Singh at about 3.30 p.m. to return his “continuous discharge certificate”. P.W.2 states that Jagdish was sleeping and he did not disturb him. As he received a call, he went on the deck of the transhipper and after a short time Trimal Singh Pal came and told him that “sarang ko kissi-ne chaku mara” (somebody has stabbed sarang by means of a knife). He then went to the cabin of the deceased and saw that there were blood stains on the floor and the deceased was not there. P.W.2 then came back to the poop deck and saw the deceased sitting near the galley and was crying due to pain and was making reference of the name of the accused. When asked, the deceased told that Jagdish assaulted him. This witness has stated that there was nobody on the transhipper by name “Jagdish” except the appellant and he had seen the appellant in the kitchen of the transhipper at 8.p.m on 22/3/2008. When asked, the deceased told that Jagdish assaulted him. This witness has stated that there was nobody on the transhipper by name “Jagdish” except the appellant and he had seen the appellant in the kitchen of the transhipper at 8.p.m on 22/3/2008. It would be significant to note that the police recorded the statement of this witness on 29/3/2008. In cross examination of this witness the statement that he saw the appellant in the kitchen at 8.a.m on the date of the incident has been brought by way of an improvement over the police statement. The statement that there is no other person by name “Jagdish” amongst the crew is also by way of an improvement over the police statement. He further states that he does not know the names of the plant staff members. The total strength of the plant staff members may be more than 40. Besides there are also maintenance workers on the transhipper. The deceased did not give details regarding the happening of the incident. This witness did not personally ask anything to the deceased. However, all that this witness claims is that the deceased, informed him that 'Jagdish' stabbed the deceased in the stomach by means of a knife when he was sleeping in his cabin. This part of the evidence is also an improvement over the police statement. This witness states that there were cordial relations between the appellant and the deceased. Thus, apart from bringing any motive on record the prosecution evidence suggests that the relations between the appellant and the deceased were cordial. 15. We have then the evidence of P.W.6, Alok Mani Sharma, who is the captain of the transhipper. He states that on 22/3/2008 at about 3.40 p.m. the Chief Officer C. E. D'Silva came to his cabin saying that there is an emergency on board. On inquiry, Mr. D'Silva told that the deck sarang Atul Kumar Singh is stabbed. Mr. D'Silva was accompanied by a plant worker by named Sajuram Bind. Both of them, asked P.W6 to go to the poop deck. When this witness went to the poop deck, he noticed that Atul Singh was sitting on the bench behind crew galley and was surrounded by crew workers and plant workers. He saw a knife penetrating over his left stomach. When he asked Atul Kumar Singh, who did it. Atul Kumar Singh told “Jagdish” did it. When this witness went to the poop deck, he noticed that Atul Singh was sitting on the bench behind crew galley and was surrounded by crew workers and plant workers. He saw a knife penetrating over his left stomach. When he asked Atul Kumar Singh, who did it. Atul Kumar Singh told “Jagdish” did it. Atul Kumar Singh was under severe pain and was requesting to take the knife out of his body. After the Chief Officer brought a medical kit, this witness covered the handle of the knife with a soft cloth and slowly removed it. There was minor bleeding from the wound and the other wound. He dressed up both the wounds. P.W.6 then states that he asked Atul Kumar to lie down on a stretcher, however, Atulkumar refused to do so and went towards the ladder, which leads out of the transhipper. He went to the boat which was already waiting near the transhipper and was sent along with two seamen to Salgaonkar Medical Research Centre. This witness was cross examined at length, in which he states that there are in all 37 crew members working on the transhipper in addition to 52 plant workers and 6 engineers and he knows names of all plant workers. The Investigating Officer did not ask him the names of all the plant workers and the crew members. One Agnelo Fernandes was the cabin mate of the appellant. P.W6 says that he recorded statement of Agnelo during an inquiry in which Agnelo told that when he went to the cabin of the appellant after the incident in question, he saw that the appellant was sleeping in his cabin. He did not ask the deceased regarding the manner in which the incident took place. The deceased did not tell him when he was stabbed he, (the deceased) was sleeping. He states that during an inquiry, he found that the appellant was in the cabin of Shashikant Solanki from 1p.m on 22/3/2008. The distance between the cabin of the appellant and that of Shashikant is near about 8 metres. Shashikant Solanki is in charge of the crew galley. The galley is accessible to crew workers during the day time. What is significant to note is that P.W.6 states that the incriminating knife was lastly seen at galley at about 1 p.m. 16. The distance between the cabin of the appellant and that of Shashikant is near about 8 metres. Shashikant Solanki is in charge of the crew galley. The galley is accessible to crew workers during the day time. What is significant to note is that P.W.6 states that the incriminating knife was lastly seen at galley at about 1 p.m. 16. From a careful consideration of the evidence, we find that the oral dying declaration made by the deceased is insufficient to implicate the appellant and no implicit reliance can be placed on the same. There is evidence that the deceased was found sleeping in his cabin after the incident. P.W.1 and P.W.2 state that one Trimal Singh Pal came to them and told that “sarang ko koi chaku mara hai” (somebody has stabbed sarang by means of knife”). Trimal Singh Pal is not examined. In any case, P.W.1 and P.W2 do not state that Trimal Singh Pal named the appellant as the assailant. The deceased had only referred to one Jagdish. It has come in the evidence of P.W.6 that there are 37 crew members apart from 52 plant workers and 6 engineers and there was no investigation on the aspect whether there was any other person by name “Jagdish Kumar” on the deck although P.W.2 states that the appellant was the only person by name “Jagdish Kumar”. This part of the statement is by way of an improvement over the police statement. Thus we find it unsafe to rely on the same. There is evidence to suggest that the deceased after the knife was removed by P.W.6 walked down to the staircase. The evidence of P.W.5 Dr. Andre Fernandes, who has referred to the medical record immediately after the admission of the deceased, show that the deceased was conscious and oriented. It was thus necessary for the investigation officer to have promptly recorded the statement of the deceased including by an Executive Magistrate, which is not forthcoming. On a careful consideration of the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.6, we find that no implicit reliance can be placed on their evidence so as to implicate the appellant and the appellant alone, to be the one responsible for the assault on the deceased. Thus, because the deceased and the appellant were working on the same transhipper and were knowing each other, cannot be a circumstance which can incriminate the appellant. Thus, because the deceased and the appellant were working on the same transhipper and were knowing each other, cannot be a circumstance which can incriminate the appellant. The learned Sessions Judge in our considered view is not right in holding that it is not the case of mistaken identity, because there is no investigation/evidence whether there was any other person by name of “Jagdish” on the deck of the transhipper. At any rate, the benefit of any such doubt has to go to the appellant. The circumstance no.5, namely, the stab injuries are caused by the appellant is entirely based on the oral dying declaration which we do find acceptable. For this reason in our considered view, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt. In the result : (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) The appellant is acquitted of the offence punishable under section 302 of I.P.C. (iii) The appellant be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case. (iv) The order regarding disposal of the property is hereby maintained.