JUDGMENT : BELA M. TRIVEDI, J. The appeal filed by the appellant-original accused under Sec. 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 arises out of the judgment and order dated 22-5-2014 of conviction and sentence passed by the 8th (Ad-hoc) Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar Camp at Mahuva (hereinafter referred to as "the trial Court") in Sessions Case No. 187 of 2013, whereby the appellant-accused has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of I.P.C. and has been sentenced to the life-imprisonment, and further to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default thereof, to undergo a further simple imprisonment of six months. 2. The case of the prosecution before the trial Court, as transpiring from the record was that the deceased Jikuben, daughter of the complainant-Shambhubhai Jayrambhai Dhapa had married the accused-Dharamshibhai Veljibhai Batiya three years prior to the date of the incident in question. On 3-6-2013 a complaint came to be lodged by the said Shambhubhai before the Datha Police Station at Bhavnagar, alleging that the complainant's son Bharatbhai Shambhubhai had received a call from one Premji Ghelabhai Batiya that his daughter (i.e. complainant's daughter) Jikuben was killed by Dharamshibhai Veljibhai Batiya and her dead body was lying in the village hut. It was alleged in the complaint that the accused, who happened to be the son-in-law of the complainant, used to harass his daughter Jikuben, and therefore, she had come to the place of the complainant, however, since last four months, she had gone back to stay with her husband-Dharamshibhai Veljibhai Batiya, but her husband had continued to beat her and torture her. It was further alleged that during the midnight hours of 2-6-2013 and 3-6-2013, his daughter Jikuben was severely beaten by Dharamshibhai Veljibhai Batiya with wooden log, as a result thereof, she died. The said complaint was registered on 3-6-2013 as I-C.R. No. 28 of 2013 for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of I.P.C. and Sec. 135 of G. P. Act, at the Datha Police Station, Bhavnagar. The Investigating Officer, after completion of the investigation, had submitted the charge-sheet in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, which was registered as Criminal Case No. 879 of 2013. The said case was committed to the Court of Sessions at Bhavnagar under Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C., which was registered as Sessions Case No. 187 of 2013. 3. The Investigating Officer, after completion of the investigation, had submitted the charge-sheet in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, which was registered as Criminal Case No. 879 of 2013. The said case was committed to the Court of Sessions at Bhavnagar under Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C., which was registered as Sessions Case No. 187 of 2013. 3. The trial Court framed the charge against the accused at Exh. 8 for the offence under Sec. 302 of I.P.C. and Sec. 135 of G.P. Act, however, the accused denied the charges levelled against him and claimed to be tried. The prosecution, to prove the charges levelled against the accused had examined as many as 20 witnesses and also adduced documentary evidence. After completion of the evidence, the further statement of the appellant-accused was recorded under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C., wherein he denied the allegations made against him and further stated that at the time of incident, he was not present and that the complainant, who happened to be his father-in-law had falsely implicated him in the case. He had also stated that some strange person appears to have committed murder of his wife during the midnight hours. The trial Court, after appreciating the evidence on record convicted and sentenced the accused-Dharamshibhai Veljibhai Batiya as stated hereinabove. 4. The learned Advocate Ms. Shailaja for the appellant-accused, taking the Court to the oral evidence laid by the prosecution before the trial Court, submitted that even if the said evidence is believed to be true, there is hardly any evidence to connect the accused with the alleged crime. According to her, the material witness Premji Ghelabhai Batiya, who had called up the son of the complainant-Bharatbhai Shambhubhai on phone and who had given information about the death to the brother of the deceased-Jikuben, was not examined by the prosecution. She also submitted that there was no eyewitness to the alleged incident and the entire case of prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. Placing heavy reliance on the post-mortem report, as also the evidence of P.W.16-Dr. Kinjal Chauhan, she submitted that the injuries found on the head of the deceased were opined by the doctor to have been inflicted by sharp-edged weapon, whereas as per the case of the prosecution, the deceased was beaten and injured with wooden log. No such sharp-edged weapon was recovered from the accused or produced in the case. Kinjal Chauhan, she submitted that the injuries found on the head of the deceased were opined by the doctor to have been inflicted by sharp-edged weapon, whereas as per the case of the prosecution, the deceased was beaten and injured with wooden log. No such sharp-edged weapon was recovered from the accused or produced in the case. She further submitted that no blood-stains were found on the clothes of the accused as per the biological report at Exh. 68. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the prosecution had proved charges levelled against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 5. However, the learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. Mitesh Amin for the respondent-State, submitted that the trial Court had considered the entire evidence on record in proper perspective and convicted the accused, which judgment being just and proper, this Court should not interfere with the same. Mr. Amin placed heavy reliance on the evidence of the complainant and other witnesses to emphasize that the accused used to harass and torture the deceased-Jikuben, who happened to be his wife and that the accused had remained absconded for few days after the alleged incident. According to him, the blood-stains found on the muddamal wooden log matched with the blood-group of the deceased as per the serological report at Exh. 69, and therefore, also it was proved that the said wooden log was used by the accused while beating and causing injuries to the deceased. 6. In the instant case, it is not disputed that the deceased Jikuben died of the injuries as stated in the post-mortem report (Exh. 44). The Dr. Kinjal Chauhan, who carried out the post-mortem, has been examined as P.W.16 at Exh. 41. It is pertinent to note that he has stated about the injuries in detail, and the cause of death due to the head injuries. As regards the head injuries, he had stated that such injuries were possible by sharp-edged weapon. He had further stated that the incised wounds, punched-out wounds, and cut-wounds were possible with the sharp-edged weapon only, whereas other injuries were possible with blunt substance. He also stated that the injuries found on the head of the deceased were the main cause for her death. He had further stated that the incised wounds, punched-out wounds, and cut-wounds were possible with the sharp-edged weapon only, whereas other injuries were possible with blunt substance. He also stated that the injuries found on the head of the deceased were the main cause for her death. Now, as per the case of the prosecution, the accused had caused injuries with the wooden log, which is a hard and blunt substance and could not be said to be sharp-edged weapon. It is true that the blood-stains found on the said muddamal wooden log matched with the blood-group of the deceased, nonetheless the incised wound injuries and punched-out wound injuries stated in the post-mortem report Exh. 41 on the head of the deceased have remained unexplained by the prosecution. It appears that no attempt was made by the I. O. to discover the sharp-edged weapon used to cause the head injuries to the deceased. This could be said to be material lapse on the part of the prosecution. 7. There is one more lapse which also according to the Court is material and which has remained unanswered. The prosecution had examined the complainant-Shambubhai at Exh. 30 and his son Bharatbhai at Exh. 35, and both of them had stated that they had received a phone call from one Premji Ghelabhai Batiya, giving information about the death of Jikuben, however, for the reasons best known to the prosecution, the said Premji Ghelabhai Batiya has not been examined by the prosecution. Since, there was no eyewitness to the alleged incident, the said Premji Ghelabhai Batiya would have thrown much light as to how he came to know about the alleged incident. Admittedly, neither the complainant-Shambubhai nor his son Bharatbhai nor any other witness was present when the alleged incident took place. Under the circumstances, the evidence of Premjibhai would have become very material. It is also pertinent to note that the incident appears to have taken place during the intervening night of 2-6-2013 and 3-6-2013, and the information was received by the complainant and his son at about 9-30 a.m., on 3-6-2013. Under the circumstances, the evidence of Premjibhai would have become very material. It is also pertinent to note that the incident appears to have taken place during the intervening night of 2-6-2013 and 3-6-2013, and the information was received by the complainant and his son at about 9-30 a.m., on 3-6-2013. Of course, normally the accused would be expected to be at home in the night hours, and information about the death of his wife should have been given by him, however, he remained absconded for few days, after the incident in question, and therefore, such conduct of the accused would be a material factor, which goes against the accused and in favour of the prosecution. However, such suspicious conduct alone would not be sufficient to convict the accused, more particularly when the Court has found other material lapses in the case of the prosecution. Mere allegations of harassment made by the father and brother of the deceased, without any other corroborative evidence also would not be sufficient to conclude that the injuries which caused the death of Jakuben were inflicted by the accused only. 8. As per the settled legal position, suspicion howsoever strong cannot take the place of proof, and the prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Beneficial reference of the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Satish Nirankari v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2017 (8) SCC 497 may be made in this regard. It has been held therein as under : "29. It is now well established, by a catena of judgments of this Court, that circumstantial evidence of the following character needs to be fully established : (i) Circumstances should be fully proved. (ii) Circumstances should be conclusive in nature. (iii) All the facts established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt. (iv) The circumstances should, to a moral certainty, exclude the possibility of guilt of any person other than the accused (See : State of U.P. v. Ravindra Prakash Mittal, 1992 (3) SCC 300 ; Chandrakant Chimanlal Desai v. State of Gujarat, 1992 (1) SCC 473 ). It also needs to be emphasised that what is required is not the quantitative, but qualitative, reliable and probable circumstances to complete the claim connecting the accused with the crime. Suspicion, however grave, cannot take place of legal proof. It also needs to be emphasised that what is required is not the quantitative, but qualitative, reliable and probable circumstances to complete the claim connecting the accused with the crime. Suspicion, however grave, cannot take place of legal proof. In the case of circumstantial evidence, the influence of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be not compatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person." 9. In the instant case, except the suspicious conduct of the accused that he remained absconded for few days, there is as such no evidence to connect the accused with the alleged crime. Hence, in the opinion of the Court, the trial Court had mis-appreciated the evidence on record to convict the appellant-accused. The prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and therefore, the accused deserves to be acquitted, giving him benefit of doubt. 10. The judgment and order dated 22-5-2014 passed by the 8th (Ad-hoc) Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar Camp at Mahuva in Sessions Case No. 187 of 2013 being erroneous, deserves to be quashed and set aside and is hereby quashed and set aside. The appellant-accused Dharamshibhai Veljibhai Batiya is acquitted from the charges levelled against him and is directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. The Criminal Appeal stands allowed. R. & P. be sent back to the trial Court. Appeal allowed.