JUDGMENT : V. Shircy, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 6th December 2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ottappalam in S.C.No.376/2012 convicting and sentencing the accused/appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC). The appellant was charge sheeted by Sholayur Police in Crime No. 135/2011 for having committed offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC. He was tried and convicted under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced for life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/- and in default to undergo three months imprisonment and acquitted under Section 201 IPC. Assailing the said judgment, this appeal has been preferred by the accused/appellant. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that the deceased who was having slight mental problem used to enter into the house of the appellant under construction and cook food after taking provisions from the residence of PW1, his son-in-law. Though, the appellant objected it and warned the deceased from entering into the house and cooking food in his house under construction, it was ignored by the deceased. On 8.10.2011, the deceased was seen lolling in the house by the appellant. Though the appellant requested him to leave the place, he did not pay any heed to his request and remained there. Infuriated by the same, the appellant with the intention to murder him had beaten him to death with MO.1, the handle of a pick axe and thus committed murder of Nagan, the deceased between 20.00 hours on 8.10.2011 and 8.30 hours on 10.10.2011. 3. On 10.10.2011 at 8.30 a.m, the dead body of Nagan was found with head injuries in an uninhabited place at Chinnakkallakara, Agali in Palakad District. PW1, who got the information from one Ravi, the Panchayat President, has given Ext.P1 F.I. Statement at 9.15 a.m on 10.10.2011 before PW14, the S.I. of Police and Ext.P12 F.I.R No135/2011 was registered under Section 302 IPC. PW14, after recording the F.I. statement rushed to the spot where the body was found and prepared Ext.P2 Inquest Report as the body was identified by PW2 and another witness and forwarded the same for postmortem examination. PW3, the Doctor attached to the Forensic Department of Medical College, Thrissur had conducted autopsy and prepared Ext.P3 postmortem certificate and certified that it was a case of homicide. PW3, the Doctor attached to the Forensic Department of Medical College, Thrissur had conducted autopsy and prepared Ext.P3 postmortem certificate and certified that it was a case of homicide. The investigation was taken up by PW14 and subsequently by PW15, the C.I. of Police on 17.10.2001. PW14 arrested the appellant on 10.10.2011 as per Ext.P14 Arrest Memo after giving Ext.P13 Intimation of Arrest. MO1 weapon was recovered on the basis of the information furnished by the appellant. After conclusion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed under the above referred provisions of law. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions after completion of all procedural formalities and transferred to the Court of the Additional Sessions Court, Ottappalam. The appellant was defended by a counsel appointed by the State. When charge was framed and read over to the appellant he denied the prosecution allegations and claimed to be tried. In order to support its' case, the prosecution examined 16 witnesses and exhibited 33 documents. The prosecution also identified 13 Material Objects. 4. The defence taken by the appellant is one of total denial and he did not adduce any evidence. Though, he admitted that he was constructing a building by availing financial assistance from the Panchayat, he had vehemently denied the allegation of the prosecution that the deceased used to enter into his newly constructed house or cook food ignoring his objection or warning and because of that enmity he had intentionally caused injuries leading to the death of the victim. In conclusion of trial, by the Judgment under challenge the appellant was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant has emphatically urged that there is no legal evidence to connect the appellant with the incident alleged and the conviction of the appellant is absolutely illegal and is liable to be set aside and he is entitled to be acquitted from the charge levelled against him. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has asserted that there is cogent and reliable evidence against the appellant and the evidence of the witnesses is fully complemented by medical evidence and the prosecution having been able to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt, the conviction and sentence passed against him does not merit interference and in fact the appeal filed by him is only to be dismissed. 6. 6. To appreciate the rival contentions it is expedient to evaluate the medical evidence mentioning the cause of death of the deceased. Ext.P10 is the Postmortem Certificate issued by PW3, the Forensic Expert, who conducted autopsy on 11.10.2011. The injuries found and recorded by him in Ext.P3 Certificate are as follows: “B. INJURIES (ANTEMORTEM) 1. Lacerated wound 4x2 cm, transverse, bone deep over the left parietal prominence. Lacerated wound 6x3.5 cm transverse, bone deep over the left mastoid process. Lacerated wound 1x1 cm bone deep over the outer end of left eyebrow. Scalp contusion seen over the left tempero parietal area. A depressed comminuted fracture of skull 7x7x1 cm over the left tempero parietal region. The dura matter underneath was dirty gray in colour and the fractured fragments of bones were seen pressing over it. Fracture fragmentation of left half of anterior cranial fossa. Hinge fracture seen extending from the left mastoid process to the right mastoid process through the floor of the left and right middle cranial fossa and pituitary fossa. Brain gray and putty in consistency; subarchnoid bleeding seen over the left half of the cerebrum. 2. Multiple abrasions seen over the front aspect of right leg.” The autopsy was performed on 11.10.2011 at 12 noon by PW3 the doctor and he has opined that the death of the deceased was due to the head injury (injury No.1) sustained by him. Ext.P3 Certificate was proved through PW3 and he had specifically deposed before the court while answering the suggestion put to him by the defence counsel, that it was not possible to cause injury No.1 in a fall from height. It is pertinent to note that nothing was brought out in evidence to disbelieve the version of the doctor or to discard the postmortem certificate that the death was due to injury No.1, which he sustained on his head and the injury sustained was not because of any fall as suggested by the defence. Therefore, it is proved that it is a homicidal death. 7. At the outset, it is to be noted that there is no direct evidence of eye witnesses to the alleged incident. The prosecution is relying on the circumstantial evidence to substantiate its' case. Therefore, it is proved that it is a homicidal death. 7. At the outset, it is to be noted that there is no direct evidence of eye witnesses to the alleged incident. The prosecution is relying on the circumstantial evidence to substantiate its' case. When a case solely rests on circumstantial evidence it is well settled that each and every incriminating circumstance must be clearly established by reliable and clinching evidence and circumstances so proved must form a chain of events from which the only irresistible conclusion which could be drawn is the guilt of the accused and no other hypothesis against the guilt is possible. Therefore, to establish the guilt of the appellant, the chain of evidence must be complete without any missing links. It is the duty of the court to scan carefully the evidence to arrive at a conclusion that the crime in all human probabilities was committed by the accused and none else. Law on the subject is well-settled. 8. In Gambhir v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1982 SUPREME COURT 1157) it is held that when a case rests upon the circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy three tests: “(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established (2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; (3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else. The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused. The circumstantial evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.” 9. In State of U.P. vs. Ashok Kumar Srivastava (AIR 1992 SUPREME COURT 840) the Apex Court has held that ''While appreciating circumstantial evidence the Court must adopt a very cautious approach and should record a conviction only if all the links in the chain are complete pointing to the guilt of the accused and every hypothesis of innocence is capable of being negatived on evidence. Great care must be taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied on is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour of the accused must be accepted. The circumstance relied upon must be found to have been fully established and the cumulative effect of all the facts so established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt. But this is not to say that the prosecution must meet any and every hypothesis put forward by the accused however farfetched and fanciful it might be. Nor does it mean that prosecution evidence must be rejected on the slightest doubt because the law permits rejection if the doubt is reasonable and not otherwise.'' 10. In Vijay Shankar v. State of Haryana (2015 Cri L J 4774 SC) it is observed that the circumstances taken cumulatively should form the chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and should be incapable of explanation of any hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocence. To verify whether the various circumstances projected by the prosecution have completed the chain of events to lead to the only conclusion of the guilt of the appellant, the evidence have to be scanned carefully and meticulously. 11. The case of the prosecution is based mainly on the following circumstances, to connect the appellant with the crime. (1) Motive (2) Recovery of Blood stained MO1 (3) Last seen the deceased in the new house of the appellant under construction. (4) Recovery of Blood stained articles from the new house of the appellant under construction. 12. PW1 is the son-in-law of the deceased who gave Ext.P1 FI Statement to PW14. He deposed on oath that he is residing along with his wife, the daughter of the deceased in a colony at Vattalaki and he is a member of Scheduled Tribe and is a coolie worker. The witness further deposed that after the death of the wife of the deceased, the deceased was having mild mental problem and he was residing at Chinnakkallakkara a place which is about 5 Kilo Meters away from his residence. The witness further deposed that after the death of the wife of the deceased, the deceased was having mild mental problem and he was residing at Chinnakkallakkara a place which is about 5 Kilo Meters away from his residence. But, the deceased used to visit his residence quite often, that is once in a week and whenever he comes he used to take provisions from his house to prepare food. According to him, two days before the death of the deceased he came to his residence and collected rice and vegetables and left to Chinnakkallakkara. On 10.10.2011, he got an information from one Ravi, the Panchayath President that the deceased was found dead at a place called Kalavakmettil. On receiving the information, he rushed to the place and then found the deceased lying dead in an uninhabited land covered with plants and bushes. He deposed that the deceased had bleeding from his head and as he was found dead he immediately rushed to Sholayur Police Station and had given Ext.P1 F.I. Statement. He has further deposed that two days back to the incident, the deceased came and collected provisions from his house and on the next day the appellant came to his residence and informed that the deceased was found cooking food in his newly constructed house where house warming was not performed. The appellant demanded him to call back the deceased from his building and threatened that if he was not taken back he will kill him. When the appellant threatened him like that he immediately went to the newly constructed house and found the deceased sitting inside the house and he asked the deceased to accompany him to his residence, and then he agreed to it and he returned to his house thinking that he will accompany him. But on the next day he got the information that the deceased was found dead in an abandoned property. It is to be noted that PW1 deposed before the court that the deceased was murdered by the appellant for having prepared food in his newly constructed house where he has not even started his residence. According to this witness, the appellant had committed murder of the deceased because of his vengeance for having entered into his house under construction and cooked food ignoring his objection and that is the only reason for his enmity to commit murder of the deceased. According to this witness, the appellant had committed murder of the deceased because of his vengeance for having entered into his house under construction and cooked food ignoring his objection and that is the only reason for his enmity to commit murder of the deceased. PW1 has also deposed that the dead body of the deceased was found in an uninhabited place on 10.10.2011 and on the previous day he found the deceased sitting in the residential house of the appellant under construction. According to the prosecution, the deceased was last seen by PW1 at the residential house of the appellant under construction. But the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there are material contradictions in his statements and so no reliance can be placed on his evidence. It is true that he has not stated before PW14 while giving the F.I. statement that the appellant had committed murder of the deceased because of his enmity towards the deceased and in fact he entertained no doubt/suspicion about any one, but before the court he deposed that the deceased was murdered by the appellant because of his enmity. Like that, he has not stated in his F.I. statement that he had seen the deceased on the previous day sitting inside the house under construction when the appellant threatened him that he will kill him if he was not taken away from his house. This part of his evidence is an exaggerated version and cannot be termed as minor or extremely natural discrepancy or mere omission. In fact it is an important point to prove the alleged motive. There is no explanation as to why this witness did not disclose the same to PW14 when he gave the F.I. statement. The prosecution is relying on this evidence alone to prove the motive in support of it's case. It is not particular that all the details must be present in the F.I. Statement but when it is a material point to prove the prosecution version the absence of such a relevant/important version without any explanation assumes importance especially when the prosecution case rests purely on circumstantial evidence. When material contradictions and omissions as referred above are there, it is unsafe to hold that the motive alleged by the prosecution to support it's case is proved. 13. PW5, is the Ward member of Ward No. 3 of Sholyar Panchayat. When material contradictions and omissions as referred above are there, it is unsafe to hold that the motive alleged by the prosecution to support it's case is proved. 13. PW5, is the Ward member of Ward No. 3 of Sholyar Panchayat. He deposed that the appellant was constructing a house for his residence and it was not completed and no door was fixed for the same. He has also identified his signature in Ext.P5 Mahazar of the house as the place of occurrence, prepared in his presence. PW6, the Panchayat Secretary deposed that the appellant was constructing his house with the assistance of the Panchayat, and no building number was assigned by the local authority and Ext.P6 certificate was issued after perusal of the records maintained in the Panchayat. PW13, the Village Officer has also deposed that no number was assigned to the building since the construction has not been completed. Of-course, it is proved by these evidence that the residential house of the appellant was under construction at the time of the incident. 14. As per the prosecution case, the place of occurrence is the partly constructed residential house of the appellant. Ext P5 Mahazar marked through PW4 reveals that blood stains were found in the floor as well as in the wall of the room in the building and the blood stains were collected as MO7 series by PW11, the CPO after preparing Ext.P10 mahazar. But it is significant to note that the dead body was found in an uninhabited place away from the partly constructed house of the appellant, however the investigating agency had failed to prepare the mahazar of the place where the body was found. Admittedly, it is a place away from the house under construction. If the deceased was attacked by the appellant at his new house under construction, how the body happened to be in an uninhabited place which is at a distance away from that house?. There is no explanation for this from the side of the prosecution. How the body was shifted to that place, if the deceased was murdered at the newly constructed house, whether the deceased was dragged from the residential house to the place where the body was found or whether the body was shifted with the assistance of somebody else etc. are in total dark. How the body was shifted to that place, if the deceased was murdered at the newly constructed house, whether the deceased was dragged from the residential house to the place where the body was found or whether the body was shifted with the assistance of somebody else etc. are in total dark. If blood stains were found in the newly constructed house where the deceased was alleged to have been beaten by the appellant causing bleeding injuries, normally blood stains would be found from there till the place where the body was found. But such an evidence is lacking and no blood stains were found anywhere in between the residential house and the place where the body was found and the prosecution has no case that blood was collected from the floor where the body was found as deposed by PW1. If the deceased had bleeding injury and if his blood had caused stains in the residential house of the appellant, definitely blood stains would be found at the place where the dead body was found especially when PW1 has stated so. But the investigating agency did not care to prepare a Mahazar of the place or site plan where the body was found and also failed to collect blood stains if any, found at that place. How the body happened to be at a place away, if he was attacked at the newly constructed house is left unanswered by the prosecution. Definitely, blood stains would be available, if he was dragged or lifted from the house to that place as the prosecution version is that he was beaten on his head to cause his death. So that part of the chain appears to be missing and the prosecution has failed to explain the same so as to complete the chain that the appellant had attacked the deceased inside his newly constructed house and then removed his body from there and put it in a pit in an uninhabited area. The prosecution has not been able to establish that part of evidence beyond doubt and in fact it creates suspicion about the alleged prosecution case. These facts also lead to the conclusion that the officer who investigated the case did not carry out the investigation thoroughly and the serious lapses create doubt on the investigation. 15. The prosecution has not been able to establish that part of evidence beyond doubt and in fact it creates suspicion about the alleged prosecution case. These facts also lead to the conclusion that the officer who investigated the case did not carry out the investigation thoroughly and the serious lapses create doubt on the investigation. 15. Much reliance is placed by the prosecution to the recovery of MO1 at the instance of the appellant to connect him to the alleged crime. MO 1 is a handle of Pick axe. The prosecution case is that the appellant had beaten the deceased with MO1 and thereafter he had hidden the weapon below a culvert and in consequence of the information supplied by him and as led by him after his arrest the weapon was recovered and seized as per Ext.P4 seizure mahazar. Ext. P4(a) is the portion of the statement alleged to have been given by him before PW14, which led to the recovery of the weapon. PW4 was examined as the witness to prove recovery of the weapon alleged to have been used by the appellant to inflict injury on the deceased. Though, he deposed that he had witnessed the appellant effecting recovery of the weapon from a place below the culvert in cross examination he had admitted that he was standing on the road side, in an elevated position and normally one could not witness what is happening below the culvert, but he leaned towards the culvert and thus witnessed the recovery. So from his statement itself it is clear that he has not witnessed the appellant recovering MO.1 in the presence of a police official on accompanying him to the culvert. PW14, the S.I. of police has also admitted that the culvert is situated in a lower level than the road and a person who is standing on the road side could not witness recovering the weapon by the appellant from the culvert because of the height difference. But, PW14 has a different case that PW4 came down from the road side near to the culvert and witnessed the recovery of weapon by the appellant. But PW4 has no such case. But, PW14 has a different case that PW4 came down from the road side near to the culvert and witnessed the recovery of weapon by the appellant. But PW4 has no such case. Such being the case it is difficult to conclude that the recovery of MO1 was effected at the instance of the appellant by the investigating officer in the presence of PW4 so as to place reliance to connect the appellant with the crime. The material piece of evidence to connect the appellant with the crime is the alleged recovery of MO1 which do not inspire confidence and in fact it creates suspicion about its' recovery and preparation Exts.P4 and P4 (a). In such a circumstance, it is unsafe to place reliance on the recovery of MO1 weapon. 16. Ext.P9 Scene Plan prepared by PW10 also substantiate the fact that the building of the appellant was under construction. But Ext.P9 Scene Plan and Ext.P5 the Mahazar of the house will not show that any food was prepared by anyone in the house under construction though the prosecution has a case that the appellant committed murder of the deceased infuriated on seeing him cooking food in his house under construction. The remnants of any fire wood or provisions, vegetables, water or such other articles used for cooking food were not found by the investigating officer, inside the house or anywhere on it's surroundings though Ext.P5 Mahazar of the house was prepared immediately after the arrest of the appellant. 17. Similarly, PW14 the investigating officer found blood stains only in a scanty manner, but it was scraped out from the alleged place of occurrence. It is also to be noted that PW3 doctor who conducted the post mortem examination had collected blood sample from the body of the deceased while conducting autopsy. PW14 has also collected the blood sample of the appellant as part of his investigation. It is also to be noted that PW3 doctor who conducted the post mortem examination had collected blood sample from the body of the deceased while conducting autopsy. PW14 has also collected the blood sample of the appellant as part of his investigation. He had forwarded the blood samples collected from the alleged place of occurrence, blood sample lifted from MO1 with the assistance of a scientific assistant attached to the Regional Chemical Laboratory, Thrissur, and the blood soaked gauze collected (of the deceased) through the doctor who conducted autopsy and the blood sample of the appellant and as per Ext P21 forwarding note, forwarded all the samples for examination in the Forensic Laboratory so as to prove the presence of the deceased inside the house and the alleged attack by the appellant on the head of the deceased with MO1 weapon. Ext.P25 is the report of the chemical examiner who identified the blood of the deceased as group 'A'. Ext.P22 is the report forwarded after examination of the objects collected by PW14 with the assistance of scientific assistant. Though human blood was detected in certain items, it was reported that the blood found was insufficient for determining the origin and group. So the prosecution could not prove the fact that on scientific examination the blood group of the deceased, matched with the blood found in MO.1 or in any of the objects seized by PW14 from the alleged place of occurrence. Therefore, Ext.P22 Report is of no assistance and the Forensic evidence do not support the prosecution case. As such, no reliance can be placed on this circumstance. 18. As mentioned earlier, though a scientific assistant attached to the Regional Chemical Laboratory, Thrissur, inspected the newly constructed house of the appellant on 10.10.2011 accompanied by PW14, she was not taken to the place where the body was found so as to verify whether blood stains were present at the place where the body was found by PW1 on 10.10.2011, especially when PW1 has a case that blood stains were found at the place where the body was found. No explanation is forthcoming for the failure to prepare a mahazar of the place where the dead body was found as well collection of blood stains from the spot. No explanation is forthcoming for the failure to prepare a mahazar of the place where the dead body was found as well collection of blood stains from the spot. What all evidence that could be gathered from the attending facts were not made available by the prosecution and it is a gross infirmity which creates doubt on the fairness of the investigation especially when the case solely rests on circumstantial evidence. 19. Two black short hairs collected from MO1 was forwarded to the Forensic Laboratory as item No.12 in Ext.P21 and the finding after chemical analysis as per Ext P24 is that human scalp hair found in MO 1 weapon are similar to the sample scalp hairs of the deceased. But whether that report alone will inspire confidence regarding the manner of occurrence of the crime is the question to be answered. It is significant to note that the appellant was taken into custody by PW14 on 10.10.2011. But it is discernible from his evidence itself that the alleged collection of the hairs found in the weapon by the Scientific Assistant was not as per any Mahazar prepared by him. The Scientific Assistant also has not prepared any report regarding the alleged collection of hair from MO1 weapon. It is significant to note that though recovery of MO1 was effected on 10.10.2011, the hairs found in MO1 are alleged to have been collected only on 12.10.2011. In Ext.P4 Mahazar there is no mention about the presence of hair in MO1. According to PW14, the weapon was in his custody after recovering the same on 10.10.2011 till it was examined by Scientific Assistant on 12.10.2011 after inspection of the newly constructed residential house of the appellant. There is no evidence to prove that till MO1 was examined by the Scientific Assistant, it was kept without any tampering or without any possibility to tamper it by anyone. The same was not sealed or packed then and there after the recovery of the same. PW14 had admitted that it was not packed or sealed and he simply carried it to the newly constructed house on 12.10.2011 and thereafter collected the hairs in the weapon. The same was not sealed or packed then and there after the recovery of the same. PW14 had admitted that it was not packed or sealed and he simply carried it to the newly constructed house on 12.10.2011 and thereafter collected the hairs in the weapon. Since it is not evident that the weapon was sealed at the time of seizure and kept in safe custody without any possibility to tamper the same, it is not safe to consider the presence of hair in MO1 as scientific evidence to corroborate the prosecution case and at any rate it cannot be made as a circumstance to uphold the conviction of the appellant. The absence of a mahazar for collecting the hair sample would also strengthen the case of the defence that there is every possibility to manipulate the evidence so as to implicate the appellant with the alleged crime especially when there is no mention of the presence hairs in Ext. P4 Seizure Mahazar prepared while effecting recovery of MO1 by PW14, on 10.10.2011. 20. As referred above, the prosecution has failed to explain the following aspects to complete the chain of circumstances to connect the appellant with the murder of the deceased. The lapse or failure of the prosecution to prepare the Mahazar of the place where the dead body was found though the case of the prosecution is that the body was found in an uninhabited place, away from the place of occurrence i.e.; from the building of the appellant under construction. It is not discernible from the records whether the property is a nearby property or not? The distance between these two places is not clear from the records. The prosecution is also silent, how the body happened to be in the property when the incident had taken place inside the house of the appellant under construction. Whether the body was removed from the house by the appellant and put it in the uninhabited land and if so how it was shifted etc are not clear from the evidence. How the body was removed by him, whether the appellant alone carried or dragged the body to the place where it was recovered or whether he got assistance of anybody else are also not clear. How much distance away from the house, the body was recovered could not be gathered from the evidence adduced by the prosecution. How the body was removed by him, whether the appellant alone carried or dragged the body to the place where it was recovered or whether he got assistance of anybody else are also not clear. How much distance away from the house, the body was recovered could not be gathered from the evidence adduced by the prosecution. Whether blood stains were found at the place where the body was recovered is not clear, though the prosecution has a case that he had bleeding injuries as he sustained head injury and that has resulted in his death. The prosecution is supposed to explain all these matters and the non explanation of such details would cast shadow of doubt regarding the genuineness of the prosecution case. There is no reason for not preparing the Mahazar of the place where the body was found so as to give a vivid picture of the place where the dead body was found. So all these facts create serious doubt regarding the prosecution case that the deceased was attacked by the appellant inside his house infuriated by the refusal of the deceased to leave his house. As mentioned earlier, the witness examined to prove recovery of MO1 at the instance of the appellant also appears to be doubtful and when it is taken together with the deposition of PW14, it would shake the evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Of course undue importance should not be attached to minor details, but when it affect the core of the prosecution case, it cannot be termed as minor variation or discrepancies; and in such circumstance the court has to adopt a careful approach for a legal verdict based on facts and law. Therefore, it could be seen that the prosecution could not link all the chain of circumstances to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant alone is responsible for the death of the deceased. The attending circumstances and facts do not evoke confidence regarding the manner of occurrence or place of occurrence. 21. In view of the evidence and discussions made above we find that as a shadow of doubt is cast over the prosecution case the conclusion of the trial court is totally erroneous and illegal. The attending circumstances and facts do not evoke confidence regarding the manner of occurrence or place of occurrence. 21. In view of the evidence and discussions made above we find that as a shadow of doubt is cast over the prosecution case the conclusion of the trial court is totally erroneous and illegal. We strongly feel that the investigating agency investigated the case in a casual manner and failed to bring forth all the legal evidence before the court as to exclude every possibility of reasonable doubt. Although, the prosecution has produced certain evidence, they have failed to establish the circumstances by reliable, cogent and convincing evidence to connect the appellant with the commission of the crime. The defective or faulty investigation had damaged the prosecution case as a whole. Conviction cannot be based on surmises or suspicion, however great, as life and liberty guaranteed to an individual by the Constitution of India, can be deprived of by putting him behind the bars only by following the procedure established by law. In short, we find that the prosecution failed to establish proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the benefit of doubt is to be given to the appellant. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The conviction as well the sentence imposed on the appellant are set aside and he is acquitted. He shall be set at liberty forthwith unless and otherwise his presence is required in connection with any other case.