JUDGMENT Mr. Rajiv Sharma, J.(Oral).:- Since common questions of law and facts are involved in and CRA-D-15 of 2019, therefore, these are taken up together and being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. Murder Reference No. 1 of 2019 has been made by learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Court for Heinous Crime Against Women, Hisar, for confirmation of death sentence awarded to Ashok son of Suresh Kumar, resident of Juglan, Tehsil and District Hisar, vide judgment dated 29.11.2018 and order dated 05.12.2018, rendered in Sessions Case No. RBT/64-C dated 07.06.2017. 3. Criminal Appeal No. D-15 of 2019 has been preferred by appellant Ashok against the judgment dated 29.11.2018 and order dated 05.12.2018. 4. The appellant (convict) was charged with and tried for offences punishable under Sections 201, 302 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’). He was convicted and sentenced as under :- Name of the convict Offence Imprisonment Fine In default of payment of fine Ashok 302 IPC Death Sentence - - 201 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for seven years Rs.1,000/- One month 5. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 14.02.2017, complainant Rohtash (PW.6) submitted an application to the police stating therein that he had performed inter-caste love marriage with deceased daughter of Suresh Kumar. It was further stated in the application that his deceased wife went to her parental home after their marriage. He left his studies and the deceased went to Jaipur for her studies. He was maintaining regular conversation with his wife on telephone. He received a call from mobile phone No. 99969-49030 on his mobile phone No. 94671-61174 on 22.01.2017 at 7.31 PM. The caller mentioned his name as Ashok. He threatened the complainant with dire consequences. Ashok was brother of the deceased. The complainant came to know the previous day that the family member of his wife (deceased) had committed murder of his wife to maintain false ego. The body was cremated in the morning. The FIR was registered. The Investigating Officer collected residue of vomiting with the help of wet cotton from the floor of the room. He also collected marks of vomiting from outside the room by scratching the cemented floor and converted the same into sealed parcel. Rough site plan was prepared. The accused made a disclosure statement. He got demarcated the place of occurrence. The Investigating Officer collected residue of vomiting with the help of wet cotton from the floor of the room. He also collected marks of vomiting from outside the room by scratching the cemented floor and converted the same into sealed parcel. Rough site plan was prepared. The accused made a disclosure statement. He got demarcated the place of occurrence. The investigation was completed and challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities. 6. The prosecution has examined a number of witnesses. The accused was also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the case of the prosecution. 7. The appellant was convicted and sentenced to death, as noticed above. Hence this appeal by him against his conviction and sentence, and the death reference by learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Court for Heinous Crime Against Women, Hisar, for confirmation of death sentence. 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has sought confirmation of death sentence. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant (convict) has vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against his client. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the judgment and record very carefully. 10. PW.2 Inspector Devender Singh testified that ASI Ved Parkash got conducted the polygraph test of suspected persons from Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban, Haryana, on 22.11.2007. The report is Ex.P1. He collected four roll number slips of deceased Kiran and the same were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.P2. He sent roll number slips Ex.P3 to Ex.P6, application Ex.P7 and suicide note Ex.P8 to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban, for analysis. 11. PW.4 Head Constable Ravinder Singh testified that he along with Constable Satish was associated in investigation of the present case on 15.02.2017. During investigation, Inspector Parhlad Singh visited the place of occurrence and prepared rough site plan. Sample of vomiting, earth, sand and cement were lifted. The same were converted into two sealed parcels. On the same day, ash and burnt bones were lifted from cremation ground, and were converted into two sealed parcels. During interrogation, accused made a disclosure statement Ex.P12 regarding his involvement in the commission of crime. 12. PW.5 ASI Manmohan Singh deposed that the accused made a disclosure statement Ex.P12. He signed the disclosure statement. On the same day, ash and burnt bones were lifted from cremation ground, and were converted into two sealed parcels. During interrogation, accused made a disclosure statement Ex.P12 regarding his involvement in the commission of crime. 12. PW.5 ASI Manmohan Singh deposed that the accused made a disclosure statement Ex.P12. He signed the disclosure statement. The accused led the police party to his house and got recovered M.I. mobile phone along with SIM and suicide note Ex.P8. 13. PW.6 Rohtash Kumar testified that he was married with Kiran on 08.08.2015. It was inter-caste love marriage. After marriage, Kiran went to her house. Thereafter, she went to Jaipur for further study. They used to talk with each other on telephone. She assured that she will convince their family members about their marriage. He never received any telephone call from mobile No. 99969-48030 on his mobile No. 94671-61174. The accused never threatened him on mobile phone. He did not know the accused. He had never met the accused. In the month of February, 2017, his wife expired. He did not know the reason of her death. He did not know who killed his wife. He was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. He denied the submission of application Ex.P16 to the Superintendent of Police, Hisar. He admitted his signatures at point A of application Ex.P16. He denied the receiving of telephone call from the accused. He was confronted with portion A to A of application Ex.P16, wherein it was so mentioned. He had not stated in the application that accused Ashok was brother of deceased Kiran and that yesterday, he came to know that his wife Kiran had been murdered by her family members. He was confronted with portion B to B of application Ex.P16, wherein it was so mentioned. 14. PW.8 Anita Devi, Incharge Group Instructor Govt. I.T.I. Women, Adampur, deposed that she had handed over leave application Ex.P7 of deceased Kiran to the Investigating Officer. 15. PW.9 Inspector Parhlad Singh deposed that he along with other police officials went to village Juglan in the house of the accused. In the room situated on first floor of the house, there were marks of vomiting on the floor and outside the room. He collected the marks of vomiting with the help of wet cotton from the floor of the room. In the room situated on first floor of the house, there were marks of vomiting on the floor and outside the room. He collected the marks of vomiting with the help of wet cotton from the floor of the room. He also collected marks of vomiting from outside of the room by scratching the cemented floor. This was converted into parcel. He collected the bones and ash from the place of cremation. Accused Ashok was arrested. He made disclosure statement Ex.P12. Accused also made another disclosure statement on 16.02.2017. He got recovered one mobile phone mark MI along with SIM and suicide note of deceased Kiran from almirah of his house on 17.02.2017. In his cross examination, he deposed that on 14.02.2017, complainant Rohtash along with another person, namely Sanjay Chauhan, came to Police Station Sadar Hisar at around 2.00 PM. He did not join Sanjay Chauhan as witness. On 14.02.2017, he did not visit the place of occurrence. They went to the place of occurrence on 15.02.2017 at about 10.00 AM. Four or five persons also came on the spot. None of them was joined as witness. They remained at the house of the accused for about 2-3 hours. He did not summon any respectable person from the village, when accused was interrogated. He also admitted that cremation of Kiran had taken place in the cremation ground of the village. He also admitted that there was no official information in the police station regarding un-natural death of deceased Kiran prior to the complaint given by Rohtash. He also admitted that the application for receiving the call details was not on record as the same was given to cyber cell, Hisar. 16. PW.11 Krishan Kumar deposed that on 10.02.2017 at about 6.30 AM, he received a telephonic call from his cousin Ashok son of Suresh Kumar. Thereafter, he went to the house of his uncle Suresh Kumar. Ashok took him to the first floor of the house. He saw that dead body of his cousin Kiran was lying there. Residue of vomiting were also lying in the room and outside the room. Thereafter, he went to his house and intimated his family members about the death of Kiran. He again came to the house of his uncle Suresh Kumar. In the cross-examination, he categorically admitted that there was no resentment in the house of Ashok. Residue of vomiting were also lying in the room and outside the room. Thereafter, he went to his house and intimated his family members about the death of Kiran. He again came to the house of his uncle Suresh Kumar. In the cross-examination, he categorically admitted that there was no resentment in the house of Ashok. He also admitted that death of Kiran was natural death. A large number of people were present at the time of cremation, including Sarpanch, Nambardar, Member. 17. PW.13 Sanjay Chauhan deposed that he was President of Sanatan Dharam Charitable Trust, Parijat Complex, Hisar. As per original record, on 08.08.2015, one Rohtash Kumar son of Jhaman Lal, caste Saini, was married with Kiran Rani daughter of Suresh Kumar. The marriage certificate is Ex.P17. He received a telephone call on 14.02.2017 at about 6.00 AM from an unknown person that in the cremation ground of village Juglan, some persons were cremating dead body of Kiran Rani. The unknown person told him that Kiran had been murdered by her family members. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he had moved an application before the court through his counsel for recording his evidence. He also admitted that two criminal cases were pending against him. There were five or six cases registered against him. He came to know through counsel that Rohtash had not supported the case of prosecution. 18. PW.14 Rohit Kumar proved the call details Ex.P42. He proved the certificate Ex.P41, issued under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. 19. PW.15 Dr. Kanta Malik, Assistant Director (Documents), Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban, deposed that the alleged suicide note Ex.P8 was received in the Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban, on 08.01.2018. She prepared report dated 02.05.2018 vide Ex.P44. 20. The parents of the accused, namely Suresh Kumar and Prem alias Promila, had also undertaken polygraph test. The following questions were formulated by the Assistant Director (Lie Detection), Forensic Science Laboratory, Haryanna, Madhuban (Karnal), which were put to them :- Sr. No Questions Answers (i) Kay tumne apni patni/apne pati va bete ke saath milkar Kiran ko zehar dekar maarne ki saajish rachi thi ? No (ii) Kya tumne apne bete Ashok se Kiran ko zehar dilwaya tha ? No (iii) Kya Ashok ne tumhare kahne per Kiran ko zehar diya tha ? No (iv) Kya tumhe pata tha ki Kiran Rohtash se pyar karti thi ? No (ii) Kya tumne apne bete Ashok se Kiran ko zehar dilwaya tha ? No (iii) Kya Ashok ne tumhare kahne per Kiran ko zehar diya tha ? No (iv) Kya tumhe pata tha ki Kiran Rohtash se pyar karti thi ? No (v) Kya tumhe Rohtash va Kiran ki shaadi ke baare mein pata tha ? No According to test and analysis of polygrams, Suresh Kumar was truthful in his answers on issues No. (i) to (v). Similarly, the polygraph examination of Prem alias Promila was conducted. In the report, it was opined that the analysis and evaluation of polygrams did not reveal deceptive responses on issues No. (i) to (v). According to test and analysis of polygrams, Prem alias Promila was truthful in her answers on issues No.(i) to (v). 21. Ex.P44 is the Forensic Science Laboratory, Haryana, Madhuban, report. According to it, the person who wrote red standard signatures stamped and marked A1, A3 as well a A2, A4 did not write the red questioned signature similarly stamped and marked Q1. Similarly, the person who wrote red standard writings stamped and marked A5 did not write the red questioned writings similarly stamped and marked Q2. As far as opinion No.3 is concerned, according to the report, possibility that the person who wrote red standard writings stamped and marked A5 did not write the red standard writings similarly stamped and marked A5/1 could not be ruled out. According to opinion No.5 of the report, the possibility that the person who wrote red standard writings stamped and marked A5/1 also wrote the common available characters in red questioned writings similarly stamped and marked Q2, could not be ruled out. 22. The prosecution has proved report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Haryana, Madhuban, Ex.P45. According to it, no common poison could be detected in exhibits-1, 2 and 3. 23. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant (convict) was not happy with the marriage of his sister with PW.6 Rohtash. It was an inter-caste marriage. According to the charges framed against the appellant, he had administered poison to his sister, which resulted in her death. Body was cremated hurriedly, according to the prosecution case. 24. PW.6 Rohtash had lodged the report Ex.P16. According to him, he solemnized marriage with Kiran. It was inter-caste marriage. Family of Kiran was not happy with the marriage. According to the charges framed against the appellant, he had administered poison to his sister, which resulted in her death. Body was cremated hurriedly, according to the prosecution case. 24. PW.6 Rohtash had lodged the report Ex.P16. According to him, he solemnized marriage with Kiran. It was inter-caste marriage. Family of Kiran was not happy with the marriage. He had received a phone call from the accused threatening him of dire consequences. He came to know that his wife was murdered. However, when PW.6 Rohtash appeared in the court, he did not support the case of the prosecution at all. He was declared hostile and cross-examined. PW.6 Rohtash categorically stated that he had not received any threatening telephone call. He had not seen the accused. He had never met him. He admitted his signatures on application Ex.P16, but denied its contents. 25. The prosecution has also relied upon statement of PW.11 Krishan Kumar. He is the cousin of the deceased. He admitted in the cross examination that it was a natural death. PW.13 Sanjay Chauhan only deposed with regard to the manner in which he had solemnized the marriage of Kiran with Rohtash. PW.9 Inspector Parhlad Singh deposed in his cross examination that on 14.02.2017, complainant Rohtash along with Sanjay Chauhan had come to Police Station. He did not join Sanjay Chauhan as witness. Though PW.14 Rohit Kumar has proved the call details Ex.P42, but there is no record of conversation. 26. It has come on record that the police had visited the place of occurrence and collected residue of vomiting from the floor of the room and outside the room. Ash and burnt bones were also lifted from cremation ground. These were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. No poison was detected on the same, as per the Forensic Science Laboratory report Ex.P45. 27. In case, the deceased was poisoned by the appellant, the residue of poison ought to be present in exhibits-1, 2 and 3. The marriage between Kiran and Rohtash was solemnized on 08.08.2015. The alleged telephone call was received by PW.6 Rohtash on 22.01.2017. The date of incident is 13.02.2017. PW.11 Krishan Kumar has admitted in his cross-examination that there was no resentment in the family. The polygraph test of parents of the appellant was also undertaken. However, the answers given by them were not found deceptive. 28. The alleged telephone call was received by PW.6 Rohtash on 22.01.2017. The date of incident is 13.02.2017. PW.11 Krishan Kumar has admitted in his cross-examination that there was no resentment in the family. The polygraph test of parents of the appellant was also undertaken. However, the answers given by them were not found deceptive. 28. Since the case is based upon circumstantial evidence, it is necessary for the prosecution to prove the entire chain and all the circumstances must categorically point towards guilt of the accused. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Balu Sonba Shinde Vs. The State of Maharashtra, 2002 (7) SCC 543 , have summarised the principle of circumstantial evidence. Their Lordships have held as under :- “3. The word of caution introduced in the judgment of this Court about five decades ago in that direction however still stands as an acceptable guide. This Court in Hanumant Govind Nargundkar & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh ( AIR 1952 SC 343 ) stated: “It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.” 4. Subsequently, the Constitution Bench of this Court in MG Agarwal and Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra ( AIR 1963 SC 200 ) in the similar vein and without any contra note stated the law with utmost lucidity in the manner noted below: “It is a well established rule in criminal jurisprudence that circumstantial evidence can be reasonably made the basis of an accused person’s conviction if it is of such a character that it is wholly inconsistent with the innocence of the accused and is consistent only with his guilt. If the circumstances proved in the case are consistent either with the innocence of the accused or with his guilt, then the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. There is no doubt or dispute about this position. But in applying this principle, it is necessary to distinguish between facts which may be called primary or basic on the one hand and inference of facts to be drawn from them on the other. In regard to the proof of basic or primary facts, the Court has to judge the evidence in the ordinary way, and in the appreciation of evidence in respect of the proof of these basic or primary facts there is no scope for the application of the doctrine of benefit of doubt. The court considers the evidence and decides whether that evidence proves a particular fact or not. When it is held that a certain fact is proved, the question arises whether that fact leads to the inference of guilt of the accused person or not, and in dealing with this aspect of the problem the doctrine of benefit of doubt would apply and an inference of guilt can be drawn only if the proved fact is wholly inconsistent with the innocence of the accused and is consistent only with his guilt.” 5. Similar however is the opinion of this Court in Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana [ 2001 (3) SCC 628 ] : 2001 (2) RCR (Crl.) 161 (SC) in which one of us (U.C. Banerjee, J.) was a party. The opinion of the Court runs as under : “Incidentally, success of the prosecution on the basis of circumstantial evidence will however depend on the availability of a complete chain of events so as not to leave any doubt for the conclusion that the act must have been done by the accused person. While, however, it is true that there should be no missing links, in the chain of events so far as the prosecution is concerned, but it is not that every one of the links must appear on the surface of the evidence, since some of these links may only be inferred from the proven facts. Circumstances of strong suspicion without however any conclusive evidence are not sufficient to justify the conviction and it is on this score that great care must be taken in evaluating the circumstantial evidence. Circumstances of strong suspicion without however any conclusive evidence are not sufficient to justify the conviction and it is on this score that great care must be taken in evaluating the circumstantial evidence. In any event, on the availability of two inferences, the one in favour of the accused must be accepted and the law is well settled on this score, as such we need not dilate much in that regard excepting however, noting the observations of this Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Ashok Kumar Srivastava ( AIR 1992 SC 840 ) : 1992 (3) RCR (Crl.) 63 (SC) wherein this Court in paragraph 9 of the report observed:- “This Court has, time out of number, observed 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 guilt. But this is not to say that the prosecution must meet any and every hypothesis put forward by the accused however far-fetched 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.” The other aspect of the issue is that the evidence on record, ascribed to be circumstantial, ought to justify the inference of the guilt from the incriminating facts and circumstances which are incompatible with the innocence of the accused or guilt of any other person. The observations of this Court in the case of Balwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab ( AIR 1987 SC 350 ) lends concurrence to the above.” 29. The case of the prosecution, as noticed above, was that the appellant (convict) had administered poison to his sister Kiran forcibly, resulting in her death. The observations of this Court in the case of Balwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab ( AIR 1987 SC 350 ) lends concurrence to the above.” 29. The case of the prosecution, as noticed above, was that the appellant (convict) had administered poison to his sister Kiran forcibly, resulting in her death. We have already noticed that as per the Forensic Science Laboratory, no poison was detected in the residue of vomiting. PW.6 Rohtash, at whose instance the FIR was lodged, has not supported the prosecution case. The chain of circumstances, in this case, is not complete. The prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant (convict) beyond reasonable doubt. 30. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussion made here-in-above, CRA-D-15 of 2019 is allowed. The judgment dated 29.11.2010 and the order dated 05.12.2018 are set aside. Appellant (convict) Ashok is acquitted of the charges framed against him. He be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. Since the appeal of the appellant (convict) has been allowed, has become infructuous. Ordered accordingly.