Order : MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgement of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FT) No.1, Beawar, District Ajmer whereby the accused-appellant Bhagwana Ram has been convicted for offence u/s.302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000, in default whereof, he was to further undergo simple imprisonment of one year. 2. Facts of the case are that the informant Vinod Kumar (PW2) submitted a written report to SHO Police Station Sadar, Beawar at 7.30 AM on 15.7.2008 stating that he was resident of village Andheri Devri. His sister Santosh aged 27 years was married to the accused-appellant Bhagwana Ram S/o Dhula Ram, R/o Nundri Maldev in 2000. They used to reside in their own house near Udaipur Octroi Outpost. His sister was working as a labour with Shree Cement. She came to her parental house after working in the factory premises of Shree Cement in the evening of 14.7.2008. She told the informant that her husband used to beat her and used to pressurise her to bring money from her parents and when she failed to satisfy his demand, he used to frequently beat her. The informant assured her that they will arrange some money for him. Santosh then went to her house at 5.30 PM on that date. Ajit Ram S/o Ganesh Ram, R/o village Nundri Maldev informed the informant at 7.00 AM in the morning on the following day i.e. 15th July that Ramlal S/o Heera Ram resident of Village Nundri Maldev has informed him on telephone that Santosh has been murdered. On coming to know about this, the informant along with his younger brother Rakesh went to the house of Santosh. Large number of people assembled there. The informant and Rakesh climbed the roof of the house by steps. They saw dead body of Santosh lying in a pool of blood. There were injuries by sharp edged weapon on the face, neck and chest of the deceased. The blood was spread on the roof. Husband of Santosh Bhagwana Ram and his elder brother Ganesh were sitting outside the room of their house. Those present there informed him that Bhagwana Ram has put his wife (Santosh) to death by use of kulhari on the previous night. When he (informant) inquired from Ganesh, the elder brother of accused-appellant about the murder of his sister, he (Ganesh) started quarreling with him (informant). Those present there informed him that Bhagwana Ram has put his wife (Santosh) to death by use of kulhari on the previous night. When he (informant) inquired from Ganesh, the elder brother of accused-appellant about the murder of his sister, he (Ganesh) started quarreling with him (informant). Action be taken against the culprit. 3. On receipt of the aforesaid information, police lodged regular First Information Report no.310/2008 for offence under Section 302 IPC and commenced the investigation. During the course of investigation, the accused-appellant was arrested. On conclusion of the investigation, the police filed charge sheet against him for offence u/s.302 IPC. The prosecution produced 14 witnesses and exhibited 42 documents, whereas the defence produced one witness Ganesh Ram and exhibited two documents. The learned trial court on conclusion of the trial, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant in the manner as indicated above. Hence this appeal. 4. Shri Deepak Goyal, learned counsel for the accused appellant has argued that accused-appellant has been illegally convicted in a case where there is no evidence against him. Even otherwise, the present case is founded wholly on the circumstantial evidence, there being no eye witness of the incident. The learned trial court has mechanically recorded finding of conviction against the accused-appellant taking into consideration the five factors elaborated in para 27 of the impugned judgement namely; (i) that the deceased was found dead in her own house, (ii) the appellant and deceased were last seen together in the previous night, (iii) recovery of kulhari, weapon of offence and piece of wood (lakri ka phanta) from the place of occurrence, (iv) recovery of blood stain mattress (gudri) and pillow and (v) demand of money by the accused from deceased before the incident constituted a motive of offence. Learned counsel has argued that the appellant’s defence was that he used to earn his livelihood by plying the tempo in the night on hire. This is proved by evidence of not only Ganesh Ram (DW1), but also of other prosecution witnesses. 5. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submits that Norat (PW5) was a star witness of the prosecution, who has been produced to prove the evidence of last seen against the appellant. This is proved by evidence of not only Ganesh Ram (DW1), but also of other prosecution witnesses. 5. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submits that Norat (PW5) was a star witness of the prosecution, who has been produced to prove the evidence of last seen against the appellant. This witness according to him has not only stated that accused was lastly seen with the deceased in the previous night, but has also admitted that the deceased used to earn his livelihood by plying tempo during night and used to leave the house for plying tempo at about 8-9 pm. On the previous night of the incident, he left with his tempo at 9.00 PM and did not return back to his house. Learned counsel submitted that this witness further stated that the deceased used to work as a labour with Shree Cement company through the contractor Balu and that the contractor Balu had come to the house of the accused-appellant. A fierce quarrel took place between him, on one side and the deceased as well as accused-appellant on the other. He even threatened to kill them. He has also been provided to prove recovery of vest (baniyan) shown at the instance of accused-appellant vide Ex.P1. He stated that in fact the vest (baniyan) of read colour was lying near the dead body apart from kulhari and piece of wood. Learned counsel submitted that the recovery of vest (baniyan) at the instance of accused-appellant thus becomes highly doubtful even from the testimony of its attesting witness Mohan Lal (PW1) and Aatma Ram (PW10). While Mohan Lal (PW1) has stated that when police had taken him to the house of the deceased at 11.00 Am and the accused took out a vest (baniyan) from a metal box in his house, the colour of vest was red, which had blood stains. But in cross examination, he has stated that when they reached the house of the accused, it was locked and this fact he informed to the police and he cannot explain why it has not been mentioned so. But Aatma Ram (PW10), who is none other than the Police Constable working in the same Police Station where the FIR was lodged, has on the contrary stated that when they reached there though it was bolted, but was not locked. But Aatma Ram (PW10), who is none other than the Police Constable working in the same Police Station where the FIR was lodged, has on the contrary stated that when they reached there though it was bolted, but was not locked. He admitted that in recovery memo, there was overwriting in respect of colour of vest (baniyan). Originally, it was mentioned as green, but by overwriting, it was made as red and also stated that iron box in which the vest (baniyan) was found was brought I.O. and the recovery was not made in the room but from outside. There is thus material contradictions between the testimony of these two important witnesses. 6. Learned counsel submitted that even though informant Vinod Kumar (PW2) has stated that he got the information about the incident from Ajit Ram and Ram Lal, but neither Ajit Ram, nor Ram Lal were produced. The most significant aspect according to learned counsel for the appellant is that Vinod Kumar (PW2), brother of the deceased and Norat (PW5), nephew of the deceased and Sajjan Singh (PW11) have admitted that the stair case leading to the roof was accessible from outside the house, therefore, anybody could have access to the roof. Even then, the learned trial court has taken a perverse approach when it observed in para 33 of the impugned judgement that while the accused may have gone away with his tempo to earn his livelihood in the night outside, but possibility of his coming back to his house and going to the roof from the stair case from outside and committing murder of his wife Santosh, could not be ruled out. It is submitted that the whole approach of the learned trial court is erroneous because in a case of circumstantial evidence, the accused-appellant can be convicted of the charge of murder only when each of the circumstances are proved by clinching evidence and when joined together, they form a chain of circumstances so complete as to rule out every hypothesis that may be compatible with his innocence. The evidence of last seen against the petitioner is again a weak evidence because even the defence witness Ganesh Ram (DW1), who in his statement admits that both deceased and appellant had dinner and the accused left the house at about 9.00 PM, which fact is corroborated from the testimony of prosecution witnesses and, therefore, it was quite natural for him to have gone to the octroi outpost (chungi naka) wherefrom he was ultimately brought to his house by the neighbours when they found the body of the deceased lying on the roof top. 7. Shri R.S. Raghav, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the appeal and supported the judgement of the learned trial court. He argued that circumstances against the appellant are very many and they constitute a complete chain of circumstances against him to point the finger of doubt against him and none else and, therefore, his conviction cannot be faulted. Learned Public Prosecutor in this connection has referred to the five circumstances enumerated in para 27 of the judgement and also the circumstances of recovery of red colour vest (baniyan) containing blood stains. He has also referred to the statement of Dr. Hemant Kumar Chouhan (PW14), who has proved postmortem report (Ex.P42) and the fact that the deceased was having 17 injuries, most of which were by incised wounds. In cross examination, he submitted that presence of semi digested food was found in the stomach of the deceased, which is possible only when the food is consumed by her within 4 to 6 hours before the death. It was therefore quite possible for the accused-appellant, who left the house at 9.00 pm after taking meal with his wife, to have come back to the roof top from outside stair case and commit her murder. 8. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 9. We are indeed surprised at the approach taken by the learned trial court when it has observed in para 30 of the judgement that the evidence of last seen against the accused appellant was an important circumstance against him and the own brother of the appellant Ganesh Ram (DW1) stated that deceased and the appellant had food together on the previous night and then he left the house by the tempo for earning his livelihood. This witness further stated that till 12.00 in the midnight, appellant did not return back home till that time and was on the following morning called to the house from the octroi outpost (chungi naka). The learned trial court then observed that this witness (DW1) is not denying the possibility of the fact that accused may have returned back to his house sometime in the night and commit his murder. It was further observed that the accused had gone to octroi outpost (chungi naka), which was not a far away place and there is no evidence produced by the defence that he was plying the tempo whole night and, therefore, it was highly possible that the accused might have come back home in the night and commit murder of his wife. This was also possible because the place of incident i.e. the roof of the house was accessible through the stair case from outside the house i.e. which were opening out of the house and, therefore, the plea of alibi set up by the defence cannot be held to have been proved. The learned trial court then went on to observe that since the deceased and the accused were together on the previous night and since the dead body of the deceased was found in her own house, the accused stands connected with the crime. The whole approach of the learned trial court appears to be contrary to the settled principles of law that an accused has to be presumed innocent until proven guilty and the guilt of the accused has to be proved by the required degree of proof, which is beyond reasonable doubt. Here in this para, however, the learned trial court appears to be belaboring under the impression as if the accused has to prove himself innocent, rather than the prosecution proving him guilty. Apparently, finding aforementioned are based on mere surmises and own conjectures without there being an iota of evidence. 10. Here in this para, however, the learned trial court appears to be belaboring under the impression as if the accused has to prove himself innocent, rather than the prosecution proving him guilty. Apparently, finding aforementioned are based on mere surmises and own conjectures without there being an iota of evidence. 10. When the defence of the accused as stated by Ganesh Ram (DW1) and in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is that he after having meal with his wife had gone to earn livelihood by tempo at 9.00 pm in the night at octroi outpost (chungi naka), the trial court could not begin with doubting that it must have been the accused-appellant alone and none else, who could have access to the roof of the house and commit murder of his wife. This defence of the accused is corroborated by prosecution witnesses also, who have also stated that accused used to generally leave the house with his tempo around 9.00 PM and come the following morning because the tempo was available on hire basis at cheaper rates during night than in day time. If that was the case, there was nothing unusual in his being found in octroi outpost (chungi naka) wherefrom he was called after the dead body of Santosh was noticed by the neighbours on the roof of the house. In this connection, reference is made to the statement of Norat (PW5), whose house is situated adjoining the place of incident, has stated that his house and house of appellant were situated adjoining each other. When the milkman came early in the morning on 15.7.2008 and called the appellant’s name for supplying milk, there was no response from the house of the appellant. The milkman asked this witness for help. Thereupon, this witness went to the roof top of the house and saw the dead body of Santosh lying there in the pool of blood. This witness then makes the whole case of prosecution doubtful because he further corroborates the defence version by stating that the accused normally leaves his house around 9 PM with tempo for earning his livelihood and as usual, on the previous night also, he had gone at 9.00 PM. He was found at octroi outpost (chungi naka) in the morning after the dead body of Santosh was found. He was found at octroi outpost (chungi naka) in the morning after the dead body of Santosh was found. This witness has gone to the extent of even stating that the deceased was working as a labourer at Shree Cement company through the contractor Balu and that Balu had come to the house of appellant and fierce quarrel took place between them and Balu had threatened to kill the appellant and his wife. It even makes the recovery of red vest (baniyan) doubtful when he states that such vest (baniyan) was found lying near the dead body of Santosh and has even stated that police had reached the house of appellant even before the appellant came there. Obviously, the appellant was called to his house from the octroi outpost (chungi naka) where he was found with his tempo. 11. The fact that he on being called immediately came to his house learning about the death of his wife is a factor which shows that he was not guilty or else his natural conduct would be otherwise. According to Norat (PW5), not only the vest (baniyan), but piece of wood and kulhari were also found near the dead body. 12. The manner in which the investigation in the present case has been conducted by the police leaves much to be desired. Investigating Officer Sajjan Singh (PW11) has gone to the extent of saying that even though the piece of wood and kulhari were seen by him near the dead body, but he showed there recovery only after the arrest of the accused-appellant was shown by him vide Ex.P7. Investigating Officer has admitted that the stair case leading to the roof where the dead body of Santosh was found, has its opening in the open land outside the house and anybody could have access to such roof from the stair case. He even stated that he did not record statement of Laxman, Rampal and Mitthu. He even has stated that he did not even make any investigation or interrogation of Balu Thekedar and yet he denies that any quarrel had taken place between Balu Singh and the accused-appellant and his wife Santosh. He also admits that weapon of offence i.e. kulhari and piece of wood and even the recovered vest (baniyan) were not produced before the Court. The weapon of offence was not even shown the doctor to elicit his opinion thereabout. He also admits that weapon of offence i.e. kulhari and piece of wood and even the recovered vest (baniyan) were not produced before the Court. The weapon of offence was not even shown the doctor to elicit his opinion thereabout. He further admitted in his cross examination that when the deceased was arrested, there were no blood marks on his body, clothes or any mark of struggle on his person. His investigation did not prove that deceased had taken bath after the incident. He was very prompt in denying the fact that the deceased did not give any information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act as to the recovery of kulhari and piece of wood. Though else where in the same statement, he admits that those articles were seized by him immediately after he reached the roof of the house of the appellant near the dead body and then his admission that at the time when the information was recorded at the instance of accused-appellant under Section 27 as to the factum of recovery of kulhari and piece of wood, no further information was given by the accused-appellant with regard to recovery of vest (baniyan) and that the recovery memo thereof does not indicate the time when such information was given. All these factors evidently shows that the investigation of the case has been conducted in a very slip shod and lackadaisical manner. Not only the individual circumstances against the accused-appellants are not proved by convincing or clinching evidence, such circumstances when joined together do not at all form a chain of circumstances so complete against him as to rule out every hypothesis that may be compatible with his innocence. The conviction of the accused appellant therefore cannot be justified. 13. The Supreme Court in State (Delhi Administration) Vs. 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. 14. 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. It is also well settled that the accused can be convicted on circumstances are wholly inconsistent with the innocence of the accused. 14. 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. 15. 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. 16. 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. 17. In Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu Vs. John David – (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. 17. In Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu Vs. John David – (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. 18. In totality of circumstances, the finger of doubt cannot be said to point towards the appellant alone and none else, who could have committed murder of Santosh. We, are, therefore, persuaded to allow this appeal and acquit the accused-appellant as his guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. 19. In the result, the present appeal deserves to be succeed and is accordingly allowed. We, are, therefore, persuaded to allow this appeal and acquit the accused-appellant as his guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. 19. In the result, the present appeal deserves to be succeed and is accordingly allowed. The impugned judgement dated 2.7.2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (FT) No.1, Beawar, District Ajmer in Sessions Case No.48/2008 is set aside. The accused appellant is acquitted from all the charges. The accused-appellant Bhagwana Ram is in jail. He shall be released forthwith, if not required to be detained in relation to any other case. 20. Keeping, however, in view the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, appellant is directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- each, and a surety bond in the like amount, before the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, which shall be effective for a period of six months, undertaking that in the event of Special Leave Petition being filed against this judgment or on grant of leave, the appellant aforesaid, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court.