JUDGMENT : S. Chandrashekhar, J. 1. The sole accused has faced the trial under section 302 IPC for committing murder of Lokmi Gopin, his wife. 2. The appellant has been convicted and sentenced to R.I. for life under section 302 IPC. 3. The case set up against the appellant by the prosecution is founded on circumstantial evidence; one of the circumstances sought to be proved against the appellant is that on the previous night there was a quarrel between the appellant and his wife for preparation of drinks (Haria) and after committing murder of his wife he has fled away. 4. At the outset, it needs to be recorded that abscondence of an accused may be an incriminating circumstance but in no case it can be the only circumstance to record conviction of an accused on the charge of murder. An accused may flee away from the place of occurrence fearing his false implication or arrest and ascendance alone is not a circumstance to infer guilt of a person [refer, "Sk. Yusuf Vs. State of West Bengal", (2011)11 SCC 754 ]. 5. The informant of this case, namely, Dubraj Gope is the father of Lokmi Gopin. In his fardbeyan which was recorded on 15.02.2006, the informant has stated that in the morning at about 7:00 a.m. he received an information from Bunsi Gope and Gangadhar Khandai who had come to his house that a quarrel has taken place between his daughter and his son-in-law. On receiving such information, the informant along with his wife, namely, Gurwari Gopin had gone to the matrimonial home of his daughter where he found the dead body of his daughter. One Bansula which according to the prosecution is the assault weapon was lying near the dead-body of his daughter. He has found that the appellant, his son-in-law, had fled away with his two years' old child. 6. During the trial, the informant has not been examined by the prosecution. Anukaran Cherwa P.W.-1 and Singrai Cherwa P.W.-2 are the co-villagers; P.W. 1 and P.W.-2 are Munda of the village. They are hear-say witnesses. They have seen the dead body of Lokmi Gopin in the house of the appellant. Dr. Ashok Kumar Mishra who has conducted the post-mortem examination has found the following injuries on Lokmi Gopin: "(i) Incised wound over left side of head 3" above a ear size. They are hear-say witnesses. They have seen the dead body of Lokmi Gopin in the house of the appellant. Dr. Ashok Kumar Mishra who has conducted the post-mortem examination has found the following injuries on Lokmi Gopin: "(i) Incised wound over left side of head 3" above a ear size. 2½" x 1" x deep to cranial cavity. Lacerated brain mass seen through the wound. (ii) Incised wound over left ear size 2" x 1" x bone deep. (iii) Bleeding from mouth and ear noted." 7. According to the doctor, the injuries on Lokmi Gopin were caused by sharp cutting weapon such as Basula and the time elapsed since death was 36 to 72 hours; the postmortem examination was conducted on 16.2.2006 at about 3:30 p.m. 8. The opinion of the doctor on the time of death throws considerable doubt on the prosecution's case that in the night of 14.2.2006 Lokmi Gopin was killed by her husband, the appellant. 9. The law on circumstantial evidence has been discussed by the Supreme Court in plethora of judgments, the earliest one being in "Bhagat Ram Vs. State of Punjab" reported in AIR 1954 SC 621 , wherein it has been laid down that where the case depends upon the conclusion drawn from circumstances the cumulative effect of the circumstances must be such as to negative the innocence of the accused and bring home the offence beyond any reasonable doubt. In "C. Chenga Reddy Vs. State of A.P." reported in (1996) 10 SCC 193 , it has been observed that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. These principles have been reiterated by the Supreme Court in "Trimukh Maroti Kirkan Vs. State of Maharashtra" reported in (2006) 10 SCC 681 , as under: "12. ............ These principles have been reiterated by the Supreme Court in "Trimukh Maroti Kirkan Vs. State of Maharashtra" reported in (2006) 10 SCC 681 , as under: "12. ............ The normal principle in a case based on circumstantial evidence is that the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established: that those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused: that 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 they should be incapable of explanation on any hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with their innocence." 10. The prosecution has failed to prove motive behind the crime which provides an important link in the chain of circumstances (refer, Surinder Pal Jain Vs. Delhi Administration" 1993 Suppl (3) SCC 681); the quarrel between the couple as the motive for crime is not proved and that alone by itself cannot prove the guilt of the appellant. 11. In the aforesaid state of evidences, we find that the prosecution has failed to establish that it was the appellant, namely, Sonu @ Tangru Gope who has committed murder of Lokmi Gopin and, accordingly, the appellant is acquitted of the charge under section 302 IPC. 12. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code dated 17.2.2011 and order of sentence of R.I. for life dated 19.2.2011 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-1 at Chaibasa in Sessions Trial no. 138 of 2006 are set-aside. 13. Mr. Azeemuddin, the learned APP states that the appellant is presently in custody. 14. He shall be set free forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case. 15. In the result, Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 234 of 2011 is allowed. 16. Let the lower court record be transmitted to the court concerned, forthwith.