JUDGMENT : S. Chandrashekhar, J. 1. Sole appellant in this Criminal (Jail) Appeal has been found guilty of committing murder of his wife. In Sessions Trial No. 64 of 2006 he has been convicted for the offence punishable u/s 302 I.P.C and sentenced to undergo R.I for life. Taking cognizance of letter dated 19.05.2008 of the convict forwarded through the Jailor, Birsa Munda Central Jail, Hotwar, Ranchi, this Criminal (Jail) Appeal was instituted on 01.07.2008. Judgment of conviction dated 24.01.2008 and order of sentence dated 31.01.2008 passed in Sessions Trial No. 64 of 2006 are under challenge in this Jail Appeal. 2. Prosecution of the appellant in Majhgaon (Kumardungi) P.S Case No. 33 of 2005 was initiated on the basis of fardbeyan of Jogna Pingua recorded on 10.11.2005 at about 22:30 hrs. at the house of Dulu Gagrai. The informant alleged that his daughter namely, Sobni Gagrai was married to the accused-Dulu Gagrai about 56 years before the alleged occurrence. From the wedlock they were blessed with one son and one daughter. He claimed that at 7:00 p.m he received an information that his son-in-law-Dulu Gagrai had murdered his daughter. When he arrived at their house at about 9:00 p.m, he found his daughter lying dead inside the house near the oven. His son-in-law, the accused was not present in the house. A First Information Report was lodged on 11.11.2005 u/s 302 I.P.C against the accused-appellant. After cognizance of the offence u/s 302 I.P.C was taken, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions and on the basis of the materials on record, charge for the offence punishable u/s 302 I.P.C was framed, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During the trial altogether 12 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. The defence also examined one witness namely, Babu Ram Bhagat. The informant-Jogna Pingua was examined as P.W 1. The investigating officer-Babu Ram Bhagat is P.W 10 and the doctor who conducted the postmortem examination over the dead body has been examined as P.W 11. He has found the following injuries on the dead body: (i) Lacerated wound left side of skull 2''X1''X bone deep (ii) Lacerated wound on right side of skull 1''X1/2''X bone deep/(left and right ear were missing) (iii) Lacerated wound on back of the skull 3''X1/2''X bone deep (iv) Abrasions on the back. 3. He has found the following injuries on the dead body: (i) Lacerated wound left side of skull 2''X1''X bone deep (ii) Lacerated wound on right side of skull 1''X1/2''X bone deep/(left and right ear were missing) (iii) Lacerated wound on back of the skull 3''X1/2''X bone deep (iv) Abrasions on the back. 3. Holding that the circumstances established by the prosecution point towards the guilt of the accused and therefore, the prosecution has successfully proved the charge of murder framed against the accused, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found the accused-appellant guilty of committing murder of his wife and accordingly, he was convicted for the offence punishable u/s 302 I.P.C. 4. Mr. Mahesh Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that it is not sufficient to convict an accused u/s 302 I.P.C merely because some of the circumstances established by the prosecution may point towards the guilt of the accused rather, it must be found that the circumstances point all the fingers to the accused and the accused only, and no other inference except that it was the accused who has committed the crime can be drawn. Contending that the entire approach of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in appreciating the evidence laid during the sessions trial was patently erroneous, the learned counsel would submit that the judgment and order passed in Sessions Trial No. 64 of 2006 warrants interference by this Court. 5. We have carefully examined the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the material exhibits. None of the prosecution witnesses has claimed that he has seen the appellant committing murder of his wife. The informantP.W1 claims that one Kaptan of Dumaria village informed him about some big occurrence. The informant allegedly accompanied the said Kaptan to the house of his son-in-law, however, Kaptan was not examined by the prosecution during the sessions trial. P.W 2 Shiv Charan Gagrai deposed in the court that when he was returning from the school, Ghan Shyam Gagrai-P.W 3 informed him that the accused-Dulu Gagrai has killed his wife. P.W 3Ghan Shyam Gagrai, however, has stated in the Court that after harvesting the crop when he came back home, Krishna Gagrai (P.W 6) informed him that the accused-Dulu Gagrai has killed his wife. P.W 3Ghan Shyam Gagrai, however, has stated in the Court that after harvesting the crop when he came back home, Krishna Gagrai (P.W 6) informed him that the accused-Dulu Gagrai has killed his wife. The said Krishna Gagrai who has been examined as P.W 6 has, however, deposed that his master namely, Pyari informed him, when he returned home in the evening, that the accused-Dulu Gagrai has killed his wife. Pyari who allegedly informed him about the occurrence was also not examined by the prosecution. Further, P.W 6 admits that during the investigation the police did not enquire about the incident from him. Except the informant, all these witnesses have given hearsay evidence. Other witnesses have also not claimed that they are eye witnesses. They have claimed knowledge about death of the wife of the appellant from some other person. 6. Evidently, the prosecution case is solely based on circumstantial evidence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge in its judgment in Sessions Trial No. 64 of 2006 has found the following circumstances established by the prosecution (para 22): “(i) Dead body of Sobni was found having severe head injuries near the chullah in the house of the accused on 10.11.05 in the evening. (ii) Deceased Sobni was wife of the accused and both were living in the same house in village Dkumaria P.S. Kumardjngi at the time of occurrence. (iii) There was blood on the ground near the dead body as per pw1 pw2 and pw3. (iv) Two pieces of bamboo stick were found having blood mark from the house of the accused. (v) The blood was found on the bamboo sticks as per Ext. 8 the FSL Report of the director of the science laboratory, Ranchi. (vi) The head injuries found upon the dead body by pw11 as per Ext. 7 were sufficient to cause of death in ordinary course of nature. (vii) The accused was absent from the scene of occurrence when the police reached and he was arrested by the I.O from the house of the neighbor. (viii) The accused in his statement gave no explanation about the murder of his wife. Instead of it he stated that his wife is alive.” 7. After scrutinizing the entire prosecution evidence, we are of the opinion that the trial Judge has proceeded in the matter on certain assumptions and presumptions, which are not well founded in law. (viii) The accused in his statement gave no explanation about the murder of his wife. Instead of it he stated that his wife is alive.” 7. After scrutinizing the entire prosecution evidence, we are of the opinion that the trial Judge has proceeded in the matter on certain assumptions and presumptions, which are not well founded in law. Merely on the suspicion raised by the informant, the appellant has been convicted u/s 302 I.P.C. The dead body of the deceased-Sobni with head injuries, both ears chopped off, was found inside the house of the accused and the deceased and the accused both were living in the same house, or that blood was found on the ground and two pieces of bamboo sticks with blood marks were recovered from house of the accused, or that blood found on the bamboo sticks was human blood, are the facts which would only indicate that may be the death was caused on account of assault by the bamboo sticks. These facts in no manner lead to an inference that it was the appellant who has caused death of his wife by assaulting her with the bamboo sticks. Allegation by the informant that the appellant was disturbed for the last few days or that he was found beating his children one day before the occurrence would also not lead to an inference that on account of his disturbed state of mind the appellant has committed murder of his wife. The informant, father-in-law of the appellant, has not alleged any motive nor has he spoken about any ill-treatment of his daughter by the appellant in the past. On the question of abscondence of the appellant from the scene of occurrence, it needs to be mentioned that the appellant was arrested from the house of a neighbor and, infact, one of the witnesses has said that he was found inside his own house. Even accepting for a moment that the appellant was not found inside or near his house when the police visited the place of occurrence, abscondence by itself does not prove the guilt of a person, is a well-settled law. A person may run away due to fear or false implication or arrest [refer, “Sk. Yusuf Vs. State of W.B.” reported in (2011) 11 SCC 754 ]. 8. A person may run away due to fear or false implication or arrest [refer, “Sk. Yusuf Vs. State of W.B.” reported in (2011) 11 SCC 754 ]. 8. Another circumstance which has been taken into consideration by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for convicting the accused-appellant for the offence u/s 302 I.PC, is that the accused has failed to give any explanation about murder of his wife. It would not be out of place to record that there is no evidence led by the prosecution that soon before the death and after the death, the accused was found inside the house. Moreover, by relying on the aforesaid circumstance, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has proceeded contrary to the well-settled principle in criminal jurisprudence that it is for the prosecution to establish its case against an accused beyond all shadows of reasonable doubt, and it is not for the accused, except in cases where burden of proof has shifted on the accused, to prove that he has not committed the offence. In “Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116 , the Supreme Court has held thus; “151. It is well settled that the prosecution must stand or fall on its own legs and it cannot derive any strength from the weakness of the defence. This is trite law and no decision has taken a contrary view”. 9. In the above facts and circumstances, we find that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed serious error in law in convicting the appellant for offence u/s 302 I.PC. Some of the circumstances which have been found proved by the learned Judge were, in-fact, not proved by the prosecution. The prosecution has failed to prove that the injuries found on the dead body of the deceased were caused by the two sticks recovered by the investigating officer. It is more obvious when we notice that both ears of the deceased were found chopped off, which definitely cannot be caused by bamboo sticks. What the prosecution could prove was, that the dead body of the deceased-Sobni was found inside the house of the accused and blood was found on the ground and on the bamboo sticks. It is more obvious when we notice that both ears of the deceased were found chopped off, which definitely cannot be caused by bamboo sticks. What the prosecution could prove was, that the dead body of the deceased-Sobni was found inside the house of the accused and blood was found on the ground and on the bamboo sticks. On the basis of such scanty evidence, in our opinion, the appellant cannot be convicted for the offence u/s 302 I.P.C. The evidences led by the prosecution during the sessions trial do not infuse any confidence in the mind of the Court that it was the appellant and appellant alone who has committed murder of his wife. 10. A serious fault in the approach of the trial Judge is manifest when he records that, “I am convinced that the accused has committed the murder of his wife…....” The conviction of a Judge is not sufficient to convict a person for the offence alleged against him. A Judge must be convinced about the guilt of a person on the basis of the evidences led by the prosecution during the trial. We further find that while concluding that, “since all the established circumstances point towards his guilt therefore, prosecution has succeeded in proving the charge of murder against the accused”, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed another error in law. It has been consistently held by the Supreme Court that in a case founded on circumstantial evidence the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused. It is not sufficient that some of the circumstances proved by the prosecution raised a finger of suspicion to the accused. It must be found that all the incriminating circumstances indicate that it was the accused only who has committed the offence and no other hypothesis except the guilt of the accused, in the facts and circumstances of the case, can be inferred. After all, in our criminal justice system an accused has a right not to be convicted for an offence which the prosecution has failed to prove to the hilt. Merely because the appellant happens to be the husband of the deceased lady who was found dead inside her matrimonial home, no presumption on guilt of the appellant can be drawn. 11. Merely because the appellant happens to be the husband of the deceased lady who was found dead inside her matrimonial home, no presumption on guilt of the appellant can be drawn. 11. In view of the aforesaid facts and having regard to the circumstances proved by the prosecution for bringing home charge of murder u/s 302 I.P.C against the appellant, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge against the appellant. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.CV, Chaibasa has committed serious error in law in convicting the appellant for offence u/s 302 I.P.C and sentencing him to undergo R.I for life. 12. In the result, the judgment of conviction dated 24.01.2008 and order of sentence dated 31.01.2008 passed in Sessions Trial No. 64 of 2006 are set-aside. The appellant shall be released forthwith, in case he is not required in connection to any other criminal case. 13. The instant Criminal (Jail) Appeal No.751 of 2008 stands allowed.