JUDGMENT Vinit Kumar Mathur, J - The present criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the accused-appellant against the judgment and order of conviction dated 31/01/2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 5, Udaipur in Sessions Case No. 33/2016 whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one months additional rigorous imprisonment. 2. The brief facts in the present case are that a written report (Ex.P.2) was filed by PW.1 Khatu stating therein that wife of his brother Shiva was a habitual drinker and used to consume liquor daily. On 09/01/2016, his brother had a fight with his wife Parvati. Both of them were at their house and he was in Udaipur. He was informed on telephone that Parvati had passed away. On getting this information when he reached home, he saw Parvati lying dead and his brother informed that she consumed liquor day before yesterday and assaulted him and, therefore, they had a fight. Yesterday at around 6 p.m., Parvati died. There was an injury on the backside of right ear of the deceased. The relatives were informed. 3. On this information, a formal F.I.R. No. 08/2016 was registered at Police Station Jhadol, Udaipur for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. 4. After conclusion of investigation, the police filed charge- sheet against the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. 5. Learned trial court framed, read over and explained the charges for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. to the accused appellant who pleaded not guilty and sought trial. 6. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses and Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/20 documents were exhibited. 7. The accused-appellant was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and he was confronted with the evidence adduced against him during the course of trial to which he denied and stated that he was innocent and was falsely implicated in the present case. At the time of incident, he had gone to Udaipur for doing his job of labour. 8. Learned trial Court, after hearing the arguments from both the sides, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as above vide judgment dated 31/01/2018. Hence this appeal. 9. At the time of incident, he had gone to Udaipur for doing his job of labour. 8. Learned trial Court, after hearing the arguments from both the sides, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as above vide judgment dated 31/01/2018. Hence this appeal. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that there was no evidence in the present case and all the independent witnesses were declared hostile as they did not support the prosecution story. The recovery of bamboo stick was effected from an open place and the appellant could not be connected with the same. Learned trial Court thus erred in convicting the appellant vide judgment dated 31/01/2018. He, therefore, prays that the appeal of the appellant may be allowed and the appellant may be acquitted of the charge levelled against him by setting aside the judgment dated 31/01/2018. 11. Per contra, learned public prosecutor has submitted that on the strength of the prosecution witnesses, it was proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the appellant assaulted his wife Parvati and inflicted fatal injuries. The recovery of bamboo stick on the information given by the accused appellant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the statement of PW.12 Dr. Vishnu Pujari and the postmortem report (Ex.P.16) shows that the death of Parvati was due to subdural haematoma pressing brain tissues. The said injury was caused by none other than the appellant. Learned trial Court rightly analyzed the entire evidence on record and after taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the present case rightly convicted the appellant for the offence alleged vide judgment dated 31/01/2018. He, therefore, prays that no interference is warranted in the present case. 12. We have heard the submissions made at the bar and closely scanned the record of the trial court as well as judgment impugned dated 31/01/2018. 13. The first informant Khatu (PW.1) stated that he is brother of Shiva and Parvati is his brothers wife. Both Shiva and Parvati were habitual drinkers. The heated altercations and fights between Shiva and Parvati were usual phenomena. When Parvati died, he was in Udaipur. He was informed on telephone by his wife and, therefore, he came back. 13. The first informant Khatu (PW.1) stated that he is brother of Shiva and Parvati is his brothers wife. Both Shiva and Parvati were habitual drinkers. The heated altercations and fights between Shiva and Parvati were usual phenomena. When Parvati died, he was in Udaipur. He was informed on telephone by his wife and, therefore, he came back. At this juncture, the prosecution has declared him hostile but in his cross-examination, it has come on record that the relationship between the husband and wife was not cordial and they often indulged into fighting with each other. 14. PW.2 Rakesh who is a close relative of the appellant, PW.3 Mangilal & PW.4 Shankar Lal have been declared hostile by the prosecution. Other independent witnesses have also been declared hostile. 15. PW.12 Dr. Vishnu Pujari who conducted the autopsy upon the dead body of the deceased stated that there were four injuries on the body of the deceased and the cause of death was clotting of blood in the head. He further stated that in his opinion, clotting can occur even on falling on the ground and the injuries sustained by the deceased can also be sustained while falling from the tree. The clotting can also happen when the brain haemorrhage is caused and brain haemorrhage can also take place, if somebody consumes a large quantity of liquor. 16. PW.17 Chail Singh is the investigation Officer who conducted the investigation of the matter and stated that he prepared the site plan, recorded the statements of the witnesses, collected the samples and after conducting the investigation, as prescribed in law, submitted his report before the court of competent jurisdiction. 17. The fact that the appellant and his wife used to consume liquor in the large quantity and often indulge into fight has come on record. The fact that deceased Parvati was habitual of consuming liquor is also fortified from the testimony of PW.1 Khatu. There is no eye witness in the present case and all relevant prosecution witnesses have not supported the prosecution story and have thus been declared hostile in the matter. 18. We have examined the testimony of PW.12 Dr. Vishnu Pujari who conducted the autopsy of deceased Parvati and the Investigating Officer PW.17 Chail Singh who conducted the investigation in the matter and have considered the postmortem report (Ex.P.16) and the recoveries made in the present case. 19. 18. We have examined the testimony of PW.12 Dr. Vishnu Pujari who conducted the autopsy of deceased Parvati and the Investigating Officer PW.17 Chail Singh who conducted the investigation in the matter and have considered the postmortem report (Ex.P.16) and the recoveries made in the present case. 19. The fact regarding daily consumption of alcohol in large quantity by the deceased has very well come on record. 20. PW.12 Dr. Vishnu Pujari stated that such injuries sustained on the body of the deceased as mentioned below can be caused, if a person falls on the ground or falls from the tree clotting of the blood in the brain may be caused:- ^^pksV la[;k 1 & nkfgus gkFk ds uhps dh rjQ lhus ds lkbM esa iDapj FkkA pksV la[;k 2 & flj ds nk;h rjQ 7 xq.kk 5 lseh lwtu FkhA pksV la[;k 3 & nkfguh vka[k pksV ls dkyh gqbZ FkhA pksV la[;k 4 & ukd esa [kqu Hkjk gqvk FkkA** 21. We further note that in the postmortem report(Ex.P.16), the cause of death was shown to be subdural haematoma pressing brain tissues. Therefore, possibility of the injuries having been sustained by falling on the ground after excessive consumption of alcohol is more plausible in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Our belief is also fortified from the fact that the bamboo stick recovered on the information given by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act does not bear any bloodstains. Therefore, the possibility of inflicting injuries by the bamboo stick becomes highly doubtful and unreliable. Besides this, there is no other evidence ocular or otherwise to connect the present appellant with the commission of offence alleged in the present case. Merely because there were heated altercations and fights between the husband and wife, it cannot be presumed that offence alleged was committed by the present appellant as the appellant too offered an explanation in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that he was not at home and he was in Udaipur on that day in connection with his labour work. Thus, we find that neither any eye witness nor other witness deposed that the crime in question was committed by the appellant nor there was any incriminating document produced during trial which may connect the appellant with the commission of offence alleged in the present case. 22. Thus, we find that neither any eye witness nor other witness deposed that the crime in question was committed by the appellant nor there was any incriminating document produced during trial which may connect the appellant with the commission of offence alleged in the present case. 22. In our opinion, learned trial Court was not justified in convicting the appellant for the offence alleged in the present case on the basis of conjectures and surmises and, therefore, benefit of doubt is required to be given to the appellant in the facts and circumstances of the case as the prosecution has miserably failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the offence alleged was committed by the appellant. 23. Our view gets fortified from the observations made by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Sarwan Singh v. The State of Punjab reported in AIR 1957 SC 637 which reads as under: "In his cross-examination Dr. Singh admitted that injury No. I could have been caused by razor blade as suggested by the counsel for Sarwan Singh and injuries Nos. 2 to 4 could have been caused by rubbing against some hard substance. In other words, on medical evidence it is difficult to reject the explanation of the accused as unreasonable or palpably untrue. Then we have the evidence of blood-stains on the shirt and chadar worn by Sarwan Singh. If the explanation given by Sarwan Singh about his injuries is not unreasonable then the presence of blood-stains on his dress cannot be seriously pressed against him. The evidence of Rakha about the negotiations and purchase of a pistol from him and about the part of Sarwan Singh in that transaction no doubt may suggest that Sarwan Singh was associated with the criminals but that is very far from proving the charge of murder against him. Incidentally, as we have already observed, if the pistol was purchased it is difficult to understand why it was not used. Then we have the evidence of the shoes which were found on the spot. The evidence of the shoe-maker Santa Singh suggests that he had identified the pair of shoes as belonging to Sarwan Singh that very night. Incidentally, as we have already observed, if the pistol was purchased it is difficult to understand why it was not used. Then we have the evidence of the shoes which were found on the spot. The evidence of the shoe-maker Santa Singh suggests that he had identified the pair of shoes as belonging to Sarwan Singh that very night. According to him, he has been manufacturing shoes like this pair though not on a large scale Unfortunately, in his examination under S. 342 of the Code, no question had been put to Sarwan Singh about these shoes. It is not unlikely that Sarwan Singh may have offered to demonstrate that the shoes did not fit in with his feet. In any event, failure to give him an opportunity to explain the circumstances by putting an appropriate question to him under S. 342justifies his argument that this circumstance should not be used against him. Besides, like the evidence given by Rakha, the identity of the shoes would also be a very minor circumstance in relation to the charge of murder for which Sarwan Singh is being tried. The result is that, if the approvers evidence is discarded as unworthy of credit and his own retracted confession is excluded from consideration as not being voluntary or true, whatever circumstantial evidence remains is obviously insufficient to bring home to Sarwan Singh the charge framed against him. If that be the true position, we must hold that the learned Judges of the High Court were in error in convicting Sarwan Singh of the offence of murder. It is no doubt a matter of regret that a foul cold-blooded and cruel murder like the present should go unpunished. It may be as Mr. Gopal Singh strenuously urged before us that there is an element of truth in the prosecution story against both the appellants. Mr. Gopal Singh contended that considered as a whole, the prosecution story may be true; but between may be true and must be true there is inevitably a long distance to travel and the whole of this distance must be covered by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence. We have carefully considered all the arguments which Mr. Gopal Singh urged before us; but we do not think it would be possible to regard the approver as a reliable witness or to hold that the confession of Sarwan Singh is voluntary or true. We have carefully considered all the arguments which Mr. Gopal Singh urged before us; but we do not think it would be possible to regard the approver as a reliable witness or to hold that the confession of Sarwan Singh is voluntary or true. In the result, the appeal preferred by Sarwan Singh must be allowed, the order of conviction and sentence passed against him must be set aside and he must be acquitted and discharged. Appeals allowed." 24. Our view further gets fortified from the observations made by the Honble in the case of Navaneethakrishnan v. The State by Inspector of Police (Criminal Appeal No. 1134 of 2013) decided on 16.04.2018 which reads as under, "(23) The law is well settled that each and every incriminating circumstance must be clearly established by reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances so proved must form a chain of events from which the only irresistible conclusion about the guilt of the accused can be safely drawn and no other hypothesis against the guilt is possible. In a case depending largely upon circumstantial evidence, there is always a danger that conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof. The court must satisfy itself that various circumstances in the chain of events must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused. When the important link goes, the chain of circumstances gets snapped and the other circumstances cannot, in any manner, establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The court has to be watchful and avoid the danger of allowing the suspicion to take the place of legal proof for sometimes, unconsciously it may happen to be a short step between moral certainty and legal proof. There is a long mental distance between "may be true" and "must be true" and the same divides conjectures from sure conclusions. The Court in mindful of caution by the settled principles of law and the decisions rendered by this Court that in a given case like this, where the prosecution rests on the circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must place and prove all the necessary circumstances, which would constitute a complete chain without a snap and pointing to the hypothesis that except the accused, no one had committed the offence, which in the present case, the prosecution has failed to prove." 25. Thus, in view of whatever stated above, the judgment dated 31/01/2018 passed by the trial court is not sustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 26. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 31/01/2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 5, Udaipur in Sessions Case No. 33/2016 is hereby quashed and set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge for the offence under Section 302 IPC. The accused-appellant is in custody, he shall be released from prison forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.