JUDGMENT : Mohammad Rafiq, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 22.01.2011 passed by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Jhalawar, in Sessions Case No. 116/2009, whereby accused-appellant Soram Bai was convicted for offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2,000/-; in default of payment of fine, she has to further undergo three months additional simple imprisonment. 2. Brief and relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that complainant Chauthmal (PW-1) submitted a written report (Exhibit D-1) to the Station House Officer, Police Station Bakani, District Jhalawar, on 22.08.2009 regarding an incident which took place on that day. Therein it was stated that Shankar Lal, aged 22 years, was his only son and apart from him, the informant had a daughter Santosh Bai, aged 13 years. Shankarlal was married to Soram Bai D/o Madanlal Tanwar, resident of Khoria, about eight years ago. After marriage, she came to his house only last Tuesday from the house of maternal uncle in village Dewari Mandir. In the morning around 6:00 AM, the informant had mulched the cow and put certain quantity of milk in a jug and placed the jug filled of the milk in the almirah and told his daughter-in-law Soram Bai that both (she herself and her husband) should consume the raw milk, which they generally did in the morning. The informant then took his cattle to jungle for grazing. His wife had gone to answer the call of nature. After sometime, his niece Radha Bai came crying that Shankarlal was vomiting after consuming milk. The informant rushed back to his house and found Shankarlal vomiting. He was not in a position to talk. Chander Singh, Prakash, Gulab Singh and Anar Singh, all residents of the same village, also came there. They took Shankarlal on the motorcycle of Motilal to hospital at village Bakani, where he was declared brought dead by the doctors. When they brought his dead body back to the house, Santosh Bai told him that Soram Bai had given milk in a glass to deceased, who after consuming that milk, started vomiting. They took Shankarlal on the motorcycle of Motilal to hospital at village Bakani, where he was declared brought dead by the doctors. When they brought his dead body back to the house, Santosh Bai told him that Soram Bai had given milk in a glass to deceased, who after consuming that milk, started vomiting. The deceased told her (Santosh Bai) that milk had a bad smell and when Santosh Bai started drinking milk, Soram Bai snatched the glass of milk and poured the milk into 'koondi' (stone pot), saying that she might also start vomiting after consuming the same if she consumed the milk. Thereafter when Santosh Bai smelled the milk in the jug, it was still stinking. The informant alleged that his son has been put to death after administering some poison. 3. On the basis of aforesaid written report, the police registered a 'mrig' report and initiated proceedings and enquiry report under section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was submitted on 24.8.2009. The police thereupon registered regular F.I.R. No. 242/2009 for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused-appellant and commenced investigation. After completion of investigation, challan was submitted against the accused-appellant for offence under Section 302 IPC. The said court having taken cognizance, committed the same to the court of Sessions in view of the fact that it was triable by the Court of Sessions, Jhalawar. Trial of the case was then made over to the court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Jhalawar, Charge against the accused-appellant was framed for offence under Section 302 IPC. Accused denied the charge and claimed to be tried. Prosecution examined 12 witnesses in support of its case. Accused in her statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 denied the allegations deceased and that there was no evidence to connect her with the crime. The trial court on conclusion of trial, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant in the manner indicated above. 4. Mr. Pankaj Gupta, learned amicus curiae, argued that neither the jug nor glass, which was allegedly used by the deceased while consuming milk, has been seized/recovered by the Investigating Officer and obviously therefore they could not be sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination. The FSL report (Exhibit P-24), which was exhibited by the court on its own on 21.12.2010, was received by the court belatedly on 18.06.2010. The FSL report (Exhibit P-24), which was exhibited by the court on its own on 21.12.2010, was received by the court belatedly on 18.06.2010. It merely indicates presence of what was sent to FSL for chemical examination, which includes the viscera of the deceased, piece of liver, spleen and liquid allegedly obtained from the 'koondi' (stone pot) and jug. It shows that on chemical examination, portions of viscera gave positive tests for the presence of Organo Chloro insecticide and gave negative tests for metallic poisons, ethyl and methyl alcohol cyanide, alkaloids, barbiturates and tranquilizers. 5. Mr. Pankaj Gupta, learned amicus curiae, argued that the FSL report (Exhibit P-24) cannot be taken as evidence unless its author is produced. No witness has come forward to prove this document, which was belatedly received on 18.06.2010, exhibited by the court on its own on 21.12.2010, and reliance on such document is absolutely illegal. Learned amnicus curiae, in support of this argument, has relied on a division bench judgment of this court in Lekha Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 2004 WLC (Raj.) UC 662. 6. It is argued by learned amicus curiae that Chauthmal (PW-1), Ghisi Bai (PW-2) and Radha Bai (PW-3), all have stated that relationships between the accused and her husband were quite cordial and normal. There are contradictions in the statement of Chauthmal (PW-1). In court statement, he has stated that he put raw milk in the jug for consumption by deceased and his wife. Radha Bai (PW-3), in her statement, has stated the jug was placed in the almirah. Jasraj (PW-8), the Investigating Officer, has stated that though the information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was given by the accused-appellant that she could get the box ('dibba') recovered from the residence of her matrimonial uncle Kanwar Lal, resident of Dewari Mandir. The information memo (Exhibit P-19) was prepared but no such recovery was ever made. In cross-examination, the Investigating Officer admitted that no poison was recovered from the place of occurrence. 7. Mr. Pankaj Gupta, learned amicus curiae, argued that in the arrest memo (Exhibit P-18), the age of the accused was originally mentioned as 16 years but by overwriting it was made 18. According to this, she should have been treated as a juvenile. In cross-examination, the Investigating Officer admitted that no poison was recovered from the place of occurrence. 7. Mr. Pankaj Gupta, learned amicus curiae, argued that in the arrest memo (Exhibit P-18), the age of the accused was originally mentioned as 16 years but by overwriting it was made 18. According to this, she should have been treated as a juvenile. In any case, learned amicus curiae submitted that for the sake of argument even if age of the accused is accepted to be 18 years, then also, for a girl of this age, it would be highly impossible to procure poison and administer it to her husband as the evidence of all the material prosecution witnesses proved that their relations were quite cordial. 8. Mr. Sudesh Saini, learned Public Prosecutor, opposed the appeal and supported the impugned judgment and order of learned trial court and argued that the learned trial court has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant on the basis of material available on record. 9. We have given our anxious consideration to rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and minutely scanned the material available on record. 10. Chauthmal (PW-1) in his statement before the court, has deposed that after mulching the cow, he put the jug full of raw milk in the almirah of his house and told the appellant that she herself and her husband both should consume the milk. He took the cattle to the agriculture field for grazing. His niece Radha Bai (PW-3) came to him crying that Shankarlal was vomiting. When he returned back to his house, Shankarlal was lying on the ground and was not in a position to speak. When Shankarlal was taken hospital at Bakani on motorcycle of Motilal, the doctors declared him brought dead. It was when they returned back to their house, his daughter Santosh Bai (PW-4) told him that Soram Bai had given the milk to Shankarlal in a glass. The deceased, after consuming some milk, told her (Santosh Bai) that it was giving bad smell and gave the milk to Santosh Bai to drink. Suddenly, Soram Bais snatched the glass from Santosh Bai and poured the milk into 'koondi' (stone pot), meant for keeping drinking water of cattle and did not allow Santosh Bai to consume the milk. The deceased, after consuming some milk, told her (Santosh Bai) that it was giving bad smell and gave the milk to Santosh Bai to drink. Suddenly, Soram Bais snatched the glass from Santosh Bai and poured the milk into 'koondi' (stone pot), meant for keeping drinking water of cattle and did not allow Santosh Bai to consume the milk. This witness then stated that the appellant Soram Bhai has put his son to death by giving poison. In cross-examination, this witness has stated that Soram Bai had stayed in their house only for one day after the marriage. He further deposed that both, Soram Bai and deceased Shankarlal, were happy with each other. Even Santosh Bai never complained against Soram Bai. He further stated that his wife Ghisi Bai (PW-2) never made any complaint against Soram Bai. Radha Bai (PW-3), her niece had come to say with them a day before the incident. In cross-examination, this witness has further admitted that Soram Bai did not allow his daughter Santosh Bai to consumer the milk and snatched the glass and poured the milk into 'koondi' (stone pot). 11. Ghisi Bai (PW-2) has stated that when she returned the home after answering the call of nature, her son was lying on the ground and was not in a position to speak. She raised hue and cry. Motilal and Prakash came to their house and thereafter her husband also reached there. They took Shankarlal to hospital at Bakani. Thereafter Santosh Bai told her that colour of the jug and 'koondi' (stone pot), in which remaining milk was poured, was bluish, and when Shankar Lal gave the milk to Santosh Bai to drink, Soram Bai snatched the milk from her. In cross-examination, she has also admitted that relations between Soram Bai and deceased Shankarlal were quite cordial. Radha Bai (PW-3) stated that after Shankar Lal was taken to hospital, she saw the jug as also the milk lying in 'koondi' (stone pot), and found its colour bluish. All those present there stated that the smell was like that of endosulfan. Soram Bai had given the milk to Shankar Lal. In cross-examination, she stated that earlier to this incident, Soram Bai and deceased Shankar Lai stayed together happily. Shankar Lal had never made any complaint against Soram Bai nor her maternal uncle Chauthmal had any complaint against her. All those present there stated that the smell was like that of endosulfan. Soram Bai had given the milk to Shankar Lal. In cross-examination, she stated that earlier to this incident, Soram Bai and deceased Shankar Lai stayed together happily. Shankar Lal had never made any complaint against Soram Bai nor her maternal uncle Chauthmal had any complaint against her. The entire house work was used to be done by Soram Bai. In cross-examination, she stated that her uncle Chauthmal and aunt used to give milk to drink to Shankar Lal and Soram Bai. When she placed the jug filled with milk on the hearth, it was not giving any bad smell. In cross-examination, this witness contrary to what has been stated by Chauthmal (PW-1) stated that it is wrong to suggest that her uncle Chauthmal had put the jug filled with milk in the outside almirah. She further stated that in fact her uncle gave the jug of milk to Soram Bai. 12. Santosh Bai, aged 13 years, is the younger sister of deceased and sister-in-law of appellant Soram Bai. She stated that when Soram Bai gave the milk to her brother Shankar Lal, he did not like it and came out of room. He asked Santosh Bai to taste the milk as it was giving very bad taste. When she was about to consume the milk, Soram Bai, who was sitting near the hearth, quickly snatched the glass of milk from her hands and poured the same into 'koondi' (stone pot). While in earlier part of her statement, she stated that the milk was given to the deceased by the appellant inside the room, but in later part of her statement, she stated that appellant gave the milk to deceased in her presence outside the room where after he started vomiting. When her father brought the dead body of Shankar Lal from the hospital, she told him that it was the appellant, who had murdered Shankar Lal after giving him poison. 13. It is indeed surprising as to when the jug, which originally contained the milk, and the glass, in which milk was allecradlyi served by the appellant to her deceased husband Shankar Lal, were having bluish colour from inside, why neither of these articles were seized and why were they not sent to FSL for chemical examination. 13. It is indeed surprising as to when the jug, which originally contained the milk, and the glass, in which milk was allecradlyi served by the appellant to her deceased husband Shankar Lal, were having bluish colour from inside, why neither of these articles were seized and why were they not sent to FSL for chemical examination. The Investigating Officer has admitted in cross-examination that the accused, while in custody, gave the information vide Exhibit P-19 that she could get the box of endosulfan recovered from the house of her maternal uncle Kanwar Lal, resident of Dewari Mandir, but could not give any explanation why then it was not recovered. In fact, Jasraj, the Investigating Officer (PW-8), prepared the site plan of the house of maternal uncle of the appellant, where the box of endosulfan was shown lying at a particular place indicated as 'X', even then it is quite surprising that recovery of no such box of endosulfan was not made. Still more surprising is the fact that Jasraj (PW-8), the Investigating Officer, in cross-examination, has stated that in the site plan (Exhibit P-1) of the place of incident, 'koondi' (stone pot) was lying at 'X' place, but he stated that no poison was recovered from the place of occurrence by him. Not only therefore the jug and glass were not recovered but no poison was recovered from the place of occurrence as per the admission of Jasraj (PW-8), the Investigating Officer. When he was specifically asked the question in the cross-examination as to when the information was given by the accused (vide Exhibit P-19) about the box of endosulfan, an insecticide, lying in the house of her maternal uncle, and when the Investigating Officer prepared the site plan of the house of her maternal uncle why the box of endosulfan was not recovered, the Investigating Officer admitted that he has not recovered the box of endosulfan shown at place 'X' in the site plan, because such box was actually not found there. 14. The manner in which the investigation has been conducted leaves much to be desired. 14. The manner in which the investigation has been conducted leaves much to be desired. Mere fact that after seeing the condition of her husband Shankar Lal, appellant Soram Bai did not permit his younger sister Santosh Bai to consume the milk for the fear that she might also meet the same fate, cannot be a circumstance against her to hold that it must be she and none else, who would have mixed the poison in the milk, which was admittedly placed in a almirah ('adgalia') outside the room of deceased, by none other than Chauthmal (PW-1), who had asked the appellant that they should consume the milk. In fact, a specific question was put to Dr. Anil Kaushik (PW-12) that if in a jug, in which insecticide mixed with the water is kept for sprinkling the same on the crop and the same is not properly cleaned, if water or milk consumed by some one by such jug, whether contents of insecticide can go in the stomach of that person and whether that would be sufficient to cause his death, the answer given by this witness was in positive, I who stated that in such actuation, it is quite possible that contents of insecticide may enter the stomach of someone consuming water/milk leading to his death. 15. When all the prosecution witnesses, namely, Chauthmal (PW-1), Ghisi Bai (PW-2), Radha Bai (PW-3) and Santosh Bai (PW-4), are consistent about the fact that deceased and the accused had cordial relations and that no family member including mother, father and sister of the deceased had never complained against the behaviour of the appellant, how possibly the appellant could be held guilty of committing murder of her own husband, in absence of any cogent and reliance evidence, cannot be understood. There is no motive why would she commit murder of her own young husband in this tender age. In the arrest memo (Exhibit P-18), her age has been indicated to be 16 years but by way of overwriting it was made 18 years. There is no motive why would she commit murder of her own young husband in this tender age. In the arrest memo (Exhibit P-18), her age has been indicated to be 16 years but by way of overwriting it was made 18 years. Even if what is contended by learned amicus curiae is not accepted and it is assumed that her age was 18 years, what should be some strong circumstances indicating her role in administering poison to the deceased other than the one, which is relied by the prosecution, namely, on the basis of statement of Santosh Bai (PW-4), sister of the deceased, that when she was about to consume the milk, the appellant snatched the glass from her hands and poured the milk into 'koondi' (stone pot). Her intention also could be to prevent Santosh from consuming the milk effect of which had been so bad on the health of her husband. 16. It has not at all been suggested that the accused either had a restraint relations with the deceased or had any illicit relations with anyone else. There was thus no apparent motive for her to commit the murder of her husband. The Supreme Court in State (Delhi Administration) v. Gulzarilal Tandon, AIR 1979 SC 1382 , held that in a matter where the case of the prosecution rests purely on circumstantial evidence, motive undoubtedly plays an important part in order to tilt the scale against the accused. It is also well settled that the accused can be convicted on circumstances are wholly inconsistent with the innocence of the accused. 17. It is trite that in a case of circumstantial evidence there must be complete chain of evidence which should lead to conclusion that the accused was the only person, who could have committed offence and none else. Each of circumstances that is proved against the accused should form a chain so complete so as to rule out every other hypothesis, which may be compatible with innocence of the accused. Prosecution in the present case has not been able to prove any of these circumstances independently beyond reasonable doubt, let alone forming a chain of circumstance. Each of circumstances that is proved against the accused should form a chain so complete so as to rule out every other hypothesis, which may be compatible with innocence of the accused. Prosecution in the present case has not been able to prove any of these circumstances independently beyond reasonable doubt, let alone forming a chain of circumstance. Analysis of the evidence that we have made above, makes it evident that there are several missing links in the chain of circumstances, which cannot be accepted to be so complete as to point the finger of doubt towards the accused-appellant and none else and when every single possibility of accused being innocent and not the real culprit, cannot be ruled out. 18. In Mohd. Arif v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2011(13) SCC 621 , the Supreme Court held that each of the circumstances has to be assessed on its own merits. Quality rather than quantity of evidence is crucial factor in a case of circumstantial evidence. The court has to be cautious against imaginary inferences or its prejudices, which may unwittingly creep in. Its verdict must be based on clear and irrefutable logic. Responsibility of the prosecution in a case of circumstantial evidence is more as compared to the cases where ocular testimony or the direct evidence is available. 19. In Kulvinder Singh v. State of Haryana, 2011(5) SCC 258 , also it was held by the Supreme Court that in exceptional cases, conviction of accused can be based solely on circumstantial evidence but in that case the prosecution has to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt and cannot derive any strength from weakness of defence put up by accused. Circumstances from which guilt is to be drawn should be fully established and should be of a conclusive nature and exclude all possible hypotheses except the one to be proved. Facts so established must be consistent with hypothesis of guilt of accused and chain of evidence must be so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with innocence of accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by accused and none else. 20. In Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu v. John David, 2011(2) WLC (SC) Cri. 20. In Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu v. John David, 2011(2) WLC (SC) Cri. 680 : 2011(5) SCC 509 , also the Supreme Court sounded a word of caution that the court must be cautious against conjectures and surmises taking place of proof. Circumstances so proved must form a chain of events pointing to guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt without there being possibility of any other hypothesis. Each and every incriminating circumstance must be clearly established by reliable and clinching evidence, and the circumstances so proved must form chain of proof from which natural and irresistible conclusion could be drawn as to the guilt of accused and no other hypothesis against guilt is possible. It was further observed by their Lordships that in a case depending largely upon circumstantial evidence, there is always a danger that conjectures and surmises may take place a legal proof. The court must satisfy itself that various circumstances in the chain of events have been established clearly and such complete chain of events must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of innocence of the accused. The court has to be watchful and avoid the danger of allowing the suspicion to take the place of legal proof. There is a long mental distance between 'may be true' and 'must be true' and the same divides conjectures from sure conclusions. It was further observed that when important link goes, the chain of circumstances gets snapped. This is what has happened in the present case because of failure of the prosecution to connect the recovered handle of the sword from the place of incident with the sword recovered at the instance of the accused, and also the evidence of last seen and recovery against the accused stands on shaky ground. In our considered opinion, therefore, it would be highly unsafe to sustain conviction of the accused-appellant on the kind of evidence that has been adduced in this case. 21. In the result, the appeal deserves to succeed and is accordingly allowed. The impugned judgment dated 22.01.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Jhalawar (Raj.) in Sessions Case No. 116/2009, is set aside. 21. In the result, the appeal deserves to succeed and is accordingly allowed. The impugned judgment dated 22.01.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Jhalawar (Raj.) in Sessions Case No. 116/2009, is set aside. Accused-appellant Soram Bai wife of Shankar Lal, D/o Shri Madan Ji, by caste Tanwar, Resident of Lalpura, Police Station Bakani, District Jhalawar (Rajasthan), presently confined in Central Jail, Jaipur is acquitted of the charge of offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. She is in jail and be set at liberty forthwith if not required to be detained in connection with any other case. 22. Keeping, however, in view the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, accused-appellant Soram Bai is directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount, each, before the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, which shall be effective for a period of six months, with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against this judgment or on grant of leave, she, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court.