JUDGMENT : Ajay Rastogi, J. In this criminal appeal filed under Section 374 Cr.PC., the appellant Gopal Lal S/o Shankar Lal, has challenged the judgment dated 17.11.2015 passed by learned Special Judge, NDPS Act cases, and Additional Sessions Judge, Jhalawar in Sessions Case No. 43/2014 whereby the appellant was convicted for the offences under Section 302 IPC and following sentence was passed against him. 302 IPC Imprisonment for Life along with fine of Rs. 10,000/-. in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 19.3.2014, complainant Devilal filed a written report before the S.H.O. Police Station-Pidawa, Village Gelana alleging therein that his daughter-Rekha Bai got married to Gopallal-present accused. He was informed by one Bagdi Ram that Gopallal killed his daughter by giving axe blow and her dead body was lying in her house. The said information was given by Mangilal S/o Shankar Lal to Bagdi Ram. The complainant along with his wife Radha Bai and one Bhagwan Lal immediately went to village Gelana. The dead body of his daughter was lying in her residential house. 3. Upon the aforesaid written report, F.I.R. No. 69/14 was registered at Police Station Pidawa on 19.3.2014 for the offence under Section 302 IPC. The police after investigation has filed charge-sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC in the court concerned. 4. The Judicial Magistrate, Pidawa committed the matter to the Sessions Judge, Jhalawar and thereafter, the Sessions Judge, Jhalawar sent the matter for trial to the Court of Special Judge, NDPS Cases and Additional Sessions Judge, Jhalawar where charge for the offence under Section 302 IPC has been framed against the accused. 5. To prove the case, the prosecution has examined 14 witnesses and got exhibited 31 documents. The accused has exhibited two documents in support of his case. The statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 wherein has denied the charges levelled against him and claimed trial. 6. After recording evidence of both the sides, arguments were heard. The trial Court convicted the accused appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him for life imprisonment on the basis of recovery of blood stained clothes and axe at the instance of the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 17.11.2015 in sessions case no. 43/2014 and passed sentence aforesaid. After recording evidence of both the sides, arguments were heard. The trial Court convicted the accused appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him for life imprisonment on the basis of recovery of blood stained clothes and axe at the instance of the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 17.11.2015 in sessions case no. 43/2014 and passed sentence aforesaid. In this appeal, the judgment dated 17.11.2015 is under challenge. 7. In this case there is no eye witness of the occurrence. The case was based on circumstantial evidence. 8. Uda (PW-1), Mangi Lal(PW-9) and Bagdi Ram (PW-14) were declared hostile by the learned trial Court. 9. Vikas Kumar (PW-2) who is constable and the witness of recovery of axe and shirt of accused. In his statement he has stated that on the information given by the accused, one blood stained shirt of accused was recovered and recovery memo of Shirt was prepared and the same was marked as (Ex.P3). He further stated that on the same date on the information given by the accused one blood stained axe was also recovered and the same was sealed and marked as Ex.P4. 10. Dr. Kishan Kalyan Sharma (PW-3) conducted postmortem on the dead body and had proved the postmortem report (Ex.P5). 11. Devi Lal (PW-4) in his statement has stated that deceased Rekha Bai was his daughter. About 10-11 months back he received a call from Bagdi Ram who informed him that his daughter has been killed by her husband Gopal Lal with an axe. On receiving this information he along with his wife and Bagdi Ram went to his daughters village Gelana, where he saw his daughter lying dead in her house. On the dead body of the deceased number of injuries were there including injury on her Thigh. He further stated that prior to this incident on the festival of Raksha Bandhan when his daughter was preparing the food (Pakodi) then her husband Gopal Lal had put her hand into hot oil in the (Kadai) on account of which Rekha's hand Burnt. 12. Radha Bai (PW-5) stated that about 8-9 months back when she was at home her husband informed her that he received a call from Bagdi Ram who informed him that Gopal Lal has killed Rekha with axe. 12. Radha Bai (PW-5) stated that about 8-9 months back when she was at home her husband informed her that he received a call from Bagdi Ram who informed him that Gopal Lal has killed Rekha with axe. She further stated that she along with her husband and Bagdi Ram went to village Gelana where dead body of her daughter was lying. She further stated that she saw the injuries on the Thigh and the stomach of the dead body of Rekha. She further stated that prior to this incident on the festival of 'Raksha Bandhan' when her daughter was prepared the food (Pakodi) then her husband Gopal Lal had put her hand into hot oil in the (Kadhai) on account of which Rekha's hand burnt. She also stated that she had heard that accused Gopal Lal had taken liquor in the night and when her daughter stopped him then there was a quarrel between Rekha and Gopal Lal and thereafter, Gopal Lal killed her daughter. 13. Bagdi Ram S/o Seva Ji (PW-6) has stated that 10-11 months back at about 11:00 am he received a telephonic call from Police Station Shyamgarh about the murder of Rekha, who is married in the Village Gelana for providing information to Devilal i.e. the father of the deceased. He further stated that he has informed to Devilal about this fact and he went to village Gelana along with Devilal where they saw the dead body of Rekha and axe was lying there. 14. Bhagwan Lal (PW-7) has stated that his wife is Sarpanch of Berkhera Panchayat and has received a telephonic call from Police Station, Pidawaw about the murder of deceased Rekha. After receiving this information, he went to village Gelana and saw the dead body of Rekha and axe was lying there. He further stated that there are marks of injuries on this stomach and right thigh of deceased Rekha. He also stated that the brother-in-law of accused Gopal Lal told him that accused Gopal Lal has killed his wife Rekha. 15. Ratan Lal (PW-8) has stated that about 10-11 months back at 11:00 am he heard that Gopal Lal has killed his wife. Then, he alongwith Patwari Ji went to the house of Gopal Lal and saw the dead body of Rekha Bai. He further stated that Police has prepared the Panchnama of dead body in his presence. 16. 15. Ratan Lal (PW-8) has stated that about 10-11 months back at 11:00 am he heard that Gopal Lal has killed his wife. Then, he alongwith Patwari Ji went to the house of Gopal Lal and saw the dead body of Rekha Bai. He further stated that Police has prepared the Panchnama of dead body in his presence. 16. Satbir Meena (PW-10) has stated that on 19.03.2014 when he was posted as Station House Officer, at Police Station, Pidawa at about 9:45 am, he received a telephonic information that in village Gelana, accused Gopal Lal ha skilled his wife Rekha Bai and dead body is lying in her residential house. After receiving the said information he went to Village Gelana where Devilal son of Uda has submitted a written report Ex.P6 giving information that her daughter has been killed by her husband Gopal Lal. After receiving the said report Panchnama of dead body Ex.P7 was prepared in the presence of independent witness. He further stated that site plan of the place of incident was also prepared as Ex.P9, during the Postmortem report one Petticoat of deceased was also recovered as Ex.P14. After conducting the postmortem by doctor her dead body was handed over to her father Devi Lal. He further stated that after the arrest of Gopal Lal accused voluntarily informed him that so he has killed his wife Rekha Bal by using axe which he has hidden in his fields. On information the weapon of offence i.e. axe was recovered from the field of Gopal Lal on which there were flood stains and recovery memo was prepared as Ex.P4. He further stated that on information voluntarily supplied by the accused Gopal Lal at about 3:20 pm, he has recovered one Shirt of accused Gopal Lal on which there were blood stains after recovery of the Shirt, recovery memo was prepared as Ex.P3. He further stated that after completing the investigation he has filed the charge-sheet against accused Gopal Lal under Section 302 IPC. He was cross examined by the defence. In cross examination, he clearly denied the suggestion that the axe was not recovered at the instance of the accused. 17. He further stated that after completing the investigation he has filed the charge-sheet against accused Gopal Lal under Section 302 IPC. He was cross examined by the defence. In cross examination, he clearly denied the suggestion that the axe was not recovered at the instance of the accused. 17. Kalyan Singh (PW-13) has stated that about one and half year ago at about 10:00 am Mangi Lal informed him that his brother Gopal Lal has killed his wife, after receiving this information he went to the residence of Gopal Lal and Police also reached there. After about half an hour, the mother and father of the deceased Rekha Bai also came. On the asking of Devi Lal he has written the report marked as Ex.P6. 18. The statement of accused Gopal Lal was also recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC. by the learned trial court in which he has denied all the allegations and stated that he is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case and on the date of incident he was not in the village. He does not know anything about the incident. 19. Counsel for the appellant submits that accused-appellant has been falsely implicated in this case by the Police as he left the home at about 7:00 am in the morning and thereafter his house was open and some other person may killed his wife. Counsel further submits that recovery of weapon i.e. axe is doubtful because witness namely Bagdi Ram (PW-6) and Bhagwan Lal (PW-7) have stated in their statement, that they have seen one axe lying near the dead body, whereas, the Police has wrongly shown the recovery of the axe on the information of the accused from his field. Counsel further submits that as per the recovery memo of axe Ex.P4, two witnesses namely Prahlad Singh and Vikas Kumar were shown, whereas, to prove the recovery only statement of Vikas Kumar was recorded as (PW-2). Counsel further submits that no independent witnesses were called for recovery of the axe. Lastly, counsel argued that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and chain of circumstantial evidence is not complete in this matter, therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed. 20. Counsel further submits that no independent witnesses were called for recovery of the axe. Lastly, counsel argued that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and chain of circumstantial evidence is not complete in this matter, therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed. 20. On the other hand learned Public Prosecutor submits that there is no eye witness or direct evidence in this case but the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, on the basis of circumstantial evidence of recovery of blood stains cloths and axe which is subsequently corroborated by FSL report (Ex.P30), the learned trial court while relying upon recovery of cloths and axe held the accused-appellant guilty on the basis of circumstantial evidence. Counsel further submits that the accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 not stated anything about the incident and the conduct of the accused is also showing his involvement in the offence as he was absconding after committing the murder of his wife, as the police has arrested him after eight days of the incident. Counsel further submits that finding of conviction recorded by the trial court is based upon sound appreciation and proper consideration of evidence, hence this appeal may kindly be dismissed. 21. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record in the instant case. The case in hand is a case of circumstantial evidence. 22. Appellant Gopal Lal was arrested on 27.03.2014 vide arrest memo (Ex.P-16) i.e. 8 days after the incident. As per the prosecution story, the appellant gave an information under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, and accordingly took the police to his field. As per seizure memo (Ex.P-4) a blood stained axe was taken out by the accused from the grass/fodder lying at the boundary of his field. Prahlad Singh and Vikas Kumar (PW-2) were attesting witnesses before whom this recovery was made. However, no independent witness was called during the course of recovery. Prahlad Singh was not produced while Vikas Kumar who was a Police Constable was examined and in cross-examination, admitted that the place from where recovery of axe and shirt was made was an open place and the axe and shirt were not covered by grass. However, no independent witness was called during the course of recovery. Prahlad Singh was not produced while Vikas Kumar who was a Police Constable was examined and in cross-examination, admitted that the place from where recovery of axe and shirt was made was an open place and the axe and shirt were not covered by grass. Thus, recovery of the weapon of the offence at the instance of the accused is not proved, moreover such recovery after eight days of the occurrence from an open place accessible to anybody raises a serious doubt about veracity of the prosecution case. 23. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be proved has to be fully established as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kulvinder Singh and Another v. State of Haryana reported in 2011 (5) SCC 258 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 26 & 27 held as under:- 26. It is a settled legal proposition that conviction of a person in an offence is generally based solely on evidence that is either oral or documentary, but in exceptional circumstances conviction may also be based solely on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution has to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt and cannot derive any strength from the weakness of the defence put up by the accused. However, a false defence may be called into aid only to lend assurance to the Court where various links in the chain of circumstantial evidence are in themselves complete. 27. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The same should be of a conclusive nature and exclude all possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. Facts so established must be consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and the cain of evidence must be so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. (Vide : Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1984 SC 1622 ; and Paramjeet Singh @ Pamma v. State of Uttarakhand). 24. In Mohd. Arif Alias Ashfaq v. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in 2011(13) SCC 621 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 190 held as under :- "190. (Vide : Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1984 SC 1622 ; and Paramjeet Singh @ Pamma v. State of Uttarakhand). 24. In Mohd. Arif Alias Ashfaq v. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in 2011(13) SCC 621 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 190 held as under :- "190. There can be no dispute that in a case entirely dependent on the circumstantial evidence, the responsibility of the prosecution is more as compared to the case where the ocular testimony or the direct evidence, as the case may be, is available. The Court, before relying on the circumstantial evidence and convicting the accused thereby has to so satisfy itself completely that there is no other inference consistent with the innocence of the accused possible nor is there any plausible explanation. The Court must, therefore, make up its mind about the inferences to be drawn from each proved circumstance and should also consider the cumulative effect thereof. In doing this, the Court has to satisfy its conscience that it is not proceeding on the imaginary inferences or its prejudices and that there could be no other inference possible excepting the guilt on the part of the accused. 25. In Sudesh Singh v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2014(3) WLC (Raj.) 421, in which para 16, has held as under "16. The law on the question of circumstantial evidence is well settled that an accused can be convicted in a case of circumstantial evidence only if the chain of circumstances against him is so complete as to rule out every single hypothesis that may be compatible with his innocence. Standard of proof in a criminal matters is always beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the prosecution in every such case is required to prove guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. If there is any scope of reasonable doubt, benefit of such doubt has to be extended to the accused. The rival submissions have to be therefore tested on that yardstick to find out whether alleged offences against the accused appellant have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. 26. The circumstance of recovery of blood stained axe at the instance of accused is doubtful because Bagdi Ram (PW-6) & Bhagwan Lal (PW-7) stated in their examination-in-chief that they saw an axe lying nearby dead body of Rekha. 26. The circumstance of recovery of blood stained axe at the instance of accused is doubtful because Bagdi Ram (PW-6) & Bhagwan Lal (PW-7) stated in their examination-in-chief that they saw an axe lying nearby dead body of Rekha. Bagdi Ram (PW-6) again stated in his cross-examination that the axe was lying near the dead body. Thus, the recovery of axe from the accused is doubtful in view of the statements of these two witnesses. 27. The second circumstance against the accused-appellant is that human blood was detected on axe and clothes recovered at the instance of the accused. This, circumstance by itself cannot be made the basis to determine guilt of the accused-appellant because as per FSL report (Ex.P-30), human blood was found upon the axe and the shirt of the appellant but the blood group of deceased has not been determined. Thus, it cannot be established that this axe was used in the crime and recovery of axe is not sufficient to link the accused with crime. 28. Keeping in view the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the instant case the chain of circumstance in our opinion is not complete. There are missing links leaving room for doubts to creep into, hence it is unsafe to connect the accused with the crime on the basis of circumstance put forth by the prosecution. 29. In the result, the criminal appeal is allowed and accused-appellant Gopal Lal is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The accused-appellant to be released immediately from Jail, if he is not required in any other case. 30. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure the appellant Gopal Lal is directed to forth with furnish a personal bond in a sum of Rs. 20,000/- and surety bond in the like amounts before the trial court. The bonds so furnish shall remain effective for a period of six months. The bonds shall contain undertaking that in the event of filing special leave petition against the judgment or on grant of leave the appellant, on receipt of notice thereof shall appear before the Supreme Court.