JUDGMENT : P.S. Dinesh Kumar, J. - This appeal by the accused is presented through the Legal Services Authority, challenging the judgment and sentence dated 29.12.2012, recorded in S.C.No.27/2011, on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Mandya. 2. The case of the prosecution is that, the victim Manjula was the wife of accused. On 22.10.2010, the accused stabbed his wife on the chest by a knife causing fatal injuries, to which she succumbed. Based on a telephonic information, the police rushed to the spot and as per the complaint - Ex.P1 given by PW.1, FIR was registered and investigation was conducted. 3. The police personnel were deputed to trace the accused and he was apprehended at about 3.30 p.m. on the date of incident, viz., 22.10.2010. The spot mahazar and inquest panchanama were also conducted on the same day. The blood stained weapon and clothes alleged to have been worn by the accused were also recovered. After completing the investigation, the prosecution has laid the charge sheet. 4. On behalf of the prosecution, in all 11 witnesses were examined. PW.8 - Dr.Sowmya is the Doctor, who has conducted the post mortem. PW.9 - Sumarani is the Sub-Inspector, who has conducted part of the investigation and PW.10 - Venkatesha is the Investigating Officer, who has laid the charge sheet. All other witnesses have turned hostile. 5. The learned Trial Judge has considered this case as a case based on the circumstantial evidence and recorded following circumstances: 1) The relationship between the accused and the deceased; 2) Stay of the accused and the deceased together in the shed of PW-01 when the incident occurred; 3) It was the accused and the deceased who were only in the shed on that right, with their children; 4) The quarrel erupted on the early hours of the day of the incident; 5) Dead body was found inside the shed; 6) Seizure of knife the weapon of offence (MO-06) on the information and at the instance of the accused; 7) Seizure of the blood stained cloth of the accused (MOs 07 and 08) on his information and at his instance; 8) Blood group of the stains found on the knife and so also on the cloth of the accused were of the same group i.e. 'O' as that of the deceased. 9) Accused quitting the place of crime. 6. 9) Accused quitting the place of crime. 6. Based on the aforesaid circumstances, the learned Trial Judge has framed the following points for his consideration: - 1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the death of Manjula-the deceased wife of the accused was homicidal? 2) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that it was the accused who murdered Manjula-the deceased as alleged? 3) What order? 7. Answering points No.1 and 2 in the affirmative, for the reasons recorded therein and based on his findings, the learned Trial Judge has convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. 8. Assailing the legality and correctness of the judgment of the Trial Court, Sri S.J. Krishnaji Rao, the learned advocate for the appellant would urge following contentions: that the accused is not the biological father of Manu-PW.5. Amplifying this contention, he would argue that as accused is not his biological father, it is incomprehensible that PW.5 would turn hostile, if the incident had really occurred in the manner as per the prosecution's theory and in fact, the accused had committed the offence. He would rely upon Ex.P15 - the statement of the accused, and contend that the statement itself clearly shows that he is not the biological father of PW.5. Though the statement recorded by the police cannot be relied upon, except for the purpose of recovery, the learned counsel would strenuously contend that Ex.P.15 - the statement having been brought on record by the investigating Officer, the same will have to be relied upon insofar as the biological relationship between the accused and PW.5 is concerned as the said document is not contradicted; that PW.4 - Nandini is the daughter of accused and the victim, she has also turned hostile. He would contend that versions of PW.1, PWs.4 and 5 ought to have been considered as the eye witnesses. The Investigating Officer has deposed that the body of the victim - Manjula was brought out of the shed by some persons. The incident has occurred at about 5.30 a.m. Viewed from the theory put-forth by the prosecution, it is most probable that PWs.4 and 5, who are children of the victim, ought to have been inside the shed. The Investigating Officer has deposed that the body of the victim - Manjula was brought out of the shed by some persons. The incident has occurred at about 5.30 a.m. Viewed from the theory put-forth by the prosecution, it is most probable that PWs.4 and 5, who are children of the victim, ought to have been inside the shed. For the reasons best known, the learned Trial Judge having considered the case resting upon circumstantial evidence, has not appreciated the fact that prosecution has not been able to establish a complete chain of circumstances; that as per the version of PW.1, the accused was apprehended by the villagers and handed over to the police, whereas the Investigating Officer's case is that a team of police personnel were deputed to apprehend the accused. The prosecution's case is that the accused had escaped before the police arrived at the scene of offence and he was apprehended at about 3.30 p.m., on the same day, in the outskirts of Mandya Town by the police personnel, who were deployed to apprehend the accused. 9. Thus in substance, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the prosecution has failed to establish the case by proving the chain of circumstances. Therefore, the conviction recorded by the Trial Court is unsustainable in law. 10. The learned SPP would argue in support of the impugned judgment of the Trial Court. 11. We have carefully considered the submissions of learned Advocates on both sides and perused the material on record. 12. It is not in dispute that the incident has occurred at about 5.30 a.m. on 22.10.2010. PW.1 was the first to reach the place of occurrence. In his examinationin- chief, he has stated that he heard some loud voice from the shed and when he went there, he saw the accused, the children; and the victim was lying in a still position. He has also stated that he had apprehended the accused. He has further stated that when the police inspector came to the spot, he got a complaint written and handed it over to the police, and the police took the accused into their custody. However, this witness has been treated as 'hostile'. 13. Pw.9 - Sumarani, who is the Investigating Officer states that accused had escaped and he was apprehended at about 3.30 p.m. 14. However, this witness has been treated as 'hostile'. 13. Pw.9 - Sumarani, who is the Investigating Officer states that accused had escaped and he was apprehended at about 3.30 p.m. 14. Out of the nine circumstances recorded by the learned trial Judge for his consideration, important among them are circumstances No.6 to 9. The circumstance No.6 is seizure of knife used for committing the offence. According to the prosecution, the knife was recovered in a shed, behind the place of occurrence of incident. The recovery panchanama is witnessed by PW.6-Umesha and PW.7- Sridhara. Both have turned hostile. PW-6 has stated that panchanama was conducted by the police themselves and he had signed the same, without reading it. In his examination-in-chief, he has stated that he was called to the police station and asked to put his signature. PW-7 has stated that he did not know the contents of panchanama. 15. The next circumstance relied upon is seizure of blood stained clothes of accused i.e., pant and shirt, which are marked as MOs. No.7 and 8. These clothes were also seized as per Ex.P.9. 16. Circumstance No.6 is recovery of knife. Circumstance No.7 is recovery of blood stained clothes. Although these were recovered under seizure mahazar- Ex.P.9 and the same is witnessed by two witnesses Umesha-PW.6 and Sridhara-PW.7 respectively, both have not supported the prosecution. 17. As noted above PW.6 has turned hostile. PW.7 in his examination-in-chief has stated that he did not know the contents of Ex.P.9 and has signed as per instructions of the police. He has also turned hostile. 18. Circumstance No.8 is blood group of the stains found on the knife used by the accused. 19. Ex.P.19 is the Forensic Laboratory report, which has been marked through PW.10 - the Investigating Officer, who has produced the charge-sheet. There is no specific deposition with regard to FSL report in the examination-in-chief nor in the cross-examination. None has been examined from the Forensic Laboratory to speak with regard to Ex.P.19. A perusal of Ex.P.19 shows that the parcel contained 8 items which included sample mud, a saree, a knife, a T shirt and a pant. The report shows traces of 'O' Group blood on items No.1, 3, 5, 7 and 8. In the absence of any one deposing with regard to the FSL report, it is of little assistance to the prosecution. 20. The report shows traces of 'O' Group blood on items No.1, 3, 5, 7 and 8. In the absence of any one deposing with regard to the FSL report, it is of little assistance to the prosecution. 20. Circumstance No.9 relied upon is accused quitting the place of crime. As per PW.1, the accused was apprehended by him and other villagers, and handed over to the police. The version of Investigating Officer is that the accused had escaped and he was apprehended by the police personnel in the outskirts at Mandya Town. Thus, if the prosecution's case is analyzed, it could possibly plead for recording of conviction based on the seizure of weapon, blood stained clothes alleged to have been worn by the accused and traces of 'O' group blood alleged to have been found on the weapon and the clothes. The recovery of the knife and the blood stained clothes has not been proved beyond doubt for want of firm evidence by the panchanama witnesses PWs.6 and 7. 21. If the theory of recovery fails, the aspect of 'O' group blood having been found on the weapon and clothes must also fail. Further, the circumstance of accused quitting the place of offence, finds no support from any credible witness to support. Thus, the chain of circumstances, which the learned Trial Judge has noted for his consideration, are not proved beyond reasonable doubt in a consistent manner. 22. Further it is noted that in the cross-examination of PW.8 - Dr. Sowmya, a question was asked whether victim could suffer such an injury if she fell on a sharp object when chased by an Ox. Admittedly, the incident has occurred at 5.30 a.m. inside the shed and we are at pain to note the manner in which the cross-examination has taken place. 23. It is settled that when any criminal trial is based on the circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be complete and consistent with the guilt, and beyond reasonable doubt. Conviction cannot be recorded based on inconsistent chain of events. 24. In the circumstances, in our considered view, the conviction recorded by the learned Trial Judge is unsustainable in law. 23. It is settled that when any criminal trial is based on the circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be complete and consistent with the guilt, and beyond reasonable doubt. Conviction cannot be recorded based on inconsistent chain of events. 24. In the circumstances, in our considered view, the conviction recorded by the learned Trial Judge is unsustainable in law. Resultantly this appeal must succeed and accordingly, we pass the following :- ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed; (ii) The judgment and sentence dated 29.12.2012 passed in S.C.No.27/2011 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge at Mandya, is hereby set aside; (iii) The appellant -accused is acquitted of charge under Section 302 of IPC; (iv) The accused shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.