JUDGMENT : NAVIN SINHA, J. 1. The appellant stands convicted under Section 302/34 IPC with fine by the Sessions Judge, Jaipur dated 24/11/1983 in Sessions Case No.3/1983. The separate appeal of co-accused Ganga Singh stands abated due to his demise during the pendency of his appeal. 2. The dead body of Fateh Singh was found hanging from a tree. PW-11, Dinesh Sharma, SHO deposed that on information he registered Rojnamcha no.1615 dated 26/09/1982 and handed it over for enquiry under Section 174 Cr.P.C. to PW-1, Bhola Ram the constable. The latter registered FIR Exhibit P/12 that the deceased had a deformity in the left leg because of which he needed a lathi to walk. Therefore he was incapable of hanging himself. His lathi was also not to be found near the body concluding that the deceased had been killed and hanged. 3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that case of the prosecution is based wholly on circumstantial evidence alone. The prosecution has completely failed to establish any link of chain of circumstances pointing out to the complicity of the Appellant much less that the chain was complete. There is no evidence that the deceased was last seen with the Appellant. The post-mortem report is clearly suggestive of death by hanging. There is no warrant for the presumption that the deceased was incapable of hanging himself due to physical deformity in his left leg so as to reach a presumptive conclusion of having been killed and hanged. It is purely a speculative and opiniated view of PW-1, Bhola Ram without any basis for the same. The post-mortem report is clearly suggestive of death by hanging and the opinion of the doctor that the deceased had been killed and hanged is merely an expression of opinion contrary to the medical evidence. If the deceased had been killed and then hanged there had to be commensurate injuries on his person noticed in the post mortem report. Likewise if he was hanged forcibly by two persons surely there would have been a struggle by him when again there would have been injuries on his person. The tongue was also caught between teeth short of protrusion which clearly suggest death by hanging. The onus lay on the prosecution to establish beyond all reasonable doubt that the deceased had been killed and hanged or hanged to death while alive. The tongue was also caught between teeth short of protrusion which clearly suggest death by hanging. The onus lay on the prosecution to establish beyond all reasonable doubt that the deceased had been killed and hanged or hanged to death while alive. The prosecution has failed to discharge that burden. If the possibility that the deceased may have committed suicide cannot be ruled out the benefit of doubt has to be given to the Appellant. The fancy story of the pug marks of the Appellant having been found near the place of occurrence cannot be accepted as the prosecution has admitted that several villagers had assembled at the place of occurrence and there is no forensic basis for alleged identification of the pug marks. 4. Counsel for the State submitted that the Trial Judge has narrated the sequence of events on basis of which the conclusion was arrived at with regard to availability of circumstances involving the appellant and his complicity. In a case of circumstantial evidence, there will never be direct evidence available which has to be discerned from all surrounding factors cumulatively to arrive at a finding of guilt. On 25/09/1982 the deceased had lodged a report with the officer-in-charge of the police station that the Appellant and co-accused Ganga Singh had made false accusations that he was attempting to malign the daughter of Ganga Singh. They had come at 8.00 p.m. and threatened to kill him. Death has taken place the next day which was the reasonable basis for suspecting him. The doctor had opined that the deceased had been killed and his body then hanged. It was lastly submitted that the pug marks of the Appellant had been found at the place of occurrence. 5. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties. 6. The entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence alone. The last seen theory is not relied upon by the prosecution. The onus lies on the prosecution in a case of circumstantial evidence to establish all the links in the chain of circumstances which must inevitably lead to the only conclusion that the accused was the assailant of the deceased ruling out any possibility or hypothesis for his innocence. The last seen theory is not relied upon by the prosecution. The onus lies on the prosecution in a case of circumstantial evidence to establish all the links in the chain of circumstances which must inevitably lead to the only conclusion that the accused was the assailant of the deceased ruling out any possibility or hypothesis for his innocence. If the links in the chain of circumstances is not complete and there exists even a remote possibility for the hypothesis of the innocence of the accused, the benefit of doubt has to be given followed by acquittal. 7. The fact that the appellant along with another may have threatened the deceased the previous day may raise suspicion which howsoever strong cannot take the place of proof. It was for the prosecution to establish the links in the chain of circumstances leading to the inevitable conclusion that the Appellant had killed or hanged the deceased. There is no such evidence on record. 8. The report under Section 174 Cr.P.C by PW-1, Bhola Ram on which basis the FIR was lodged is purely speculative in nature that the deceased had a deformity in his left leg and needed a stick to walk and therefore could not have hanged himself. The prosecution admitted that the deceased did not need crutches to walk. The fact that his lathi may not have been found near the body is considered irrelevant. It is difficult on basis of the aforesaid to hold positively that the deceased was incapable of hanging himself. There are no injury marks on the body to opine that the deceased may have been assaulted before being hanged. Similarly there is no material to hold that the deceased was hanged by the Appellant till life ebbed out of him. In that event also the deceased would have put up resistance which would have been reflected by injuries on his person. The post-mortem report reads as follows:- "Ligature Mark: Present at the time of P.M. Examination is as follows:- Ligature mark measuring 26 cm x 2cm placed obliquely transverse high up in the neck, both sides the ligature mark is obliquely in direction & going upwards. The ligature mark is 6cm below the mastoid region on right side and 2cm below the left lobule of ear. The ligature mark absent on nape (Neck back portion). The ligature mark is 6cm below the mastoid region on right side and 2cm below the left lobule of ear. The ligature mark absent on nape (Neck back portion). The ligature mark on right side is going up and back wards. On dissection of ligature mark found parchment like, dry and underneath tissues found extra vasated (congested) blood. -Hyoid Bone is health -The above injury is anti mortem in nature." 9. We have no hesitation in concluding that the upward nature of the ligature mark, the absence of any external injuries, that the deceased capable of carrying on his daily life and worked as a godown watchman coupled with the opinion of the doctor that the injuries were anti mortem in nature inescapably lead to the conclusion that the deceased may have committed suicide. If there is any conflict between the opinion of the doctor and the medical evidence, the latter will prevail. There is absolutely no material in support of the opinion of the doctor that the deceased had been killed and then his body hanged. It is merely an expression of an opinion not supported by medical jurisprudence. There are certain vital distinctions in case of death as a result of hanging by suicide and killing of a person and the body then hanged as noticed in Modi's Medical Jurisprudence as follows :- Hanging Strangulation 7. Ligature mark-Oblique, non-continuous placed high up in the neck between the chin and the larynx, the base of the groove or furrow being hard, yellow and parchment-like. 7. Ligature mark-Horizontal or transverse continuous, round the neck, low down in the neck below the thyroid, the base of the groove or furrow being soft and reddish. 9. Subcutaneous tissues under the mark-White, hard and glistening. 9. Subcutaneous tissues under the mark-Ecchymosed. 14. Scratches, abrasions and bruises on the face, neck and other parts of the body-Usually not present. 14. Scratches, abrasions fingernail marks and bruises on the face, neck and other parts of the body-Usually present. 9. Subcutaneous tissues under the mark-White, hard and glistening. 9. Subcutaneous tissues under the mark-Ecchymosed. 14. Scratches, abrasions and bruises on the face, neck and other parts of the body-Usually not present. 14. Scratches, abrasions fingernail marks and bruises on the face, neck and other parts of the body-Usually present. 10. 9. Subcutaneous tissues under the mark-White, hard and glistening. 9. Subcutaneous tissues under the mark-Ecchymosed. 14. Scratches, abrasions and bruises on the face, neck and other parts of the body-Usually not present. 14. Scratches, abrasions fingernail marks and bruises on the face, neck and other parts of the body-Usually present. 10. The second ground urged by the prosecution with regard to pug marks has to be stated to be rejected. There had to be a scientific basis for the same by way of forensic evidence which is completely wanting. The ipse dixit of the police cannot be accepted. The evidence is that several villagers had collected at the spot. The pug marks could therefore have belonged to any one of them also. There is no valid verification report available with regard to the manner, method and mode by which the prosecution arrived at the conclusion that the "pug marks" were of the Appellant alone. 11. In the entirety of the evidence it is not possible to uphold the conviction of the Appellant and he is held entitled to the benefit of doubt. The appeal is allowed. 12. The Appellant shall within four weeks execute bail bonds of the value of Rs.20,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court as required under Section 437A Cr.P.C.