JUDGMENT Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - The sole appellant has been convicted and sentenced to RI for life under section 302 IPC on the charge of committing murder of his wife in the intervening night of 08/09.02.2007. 2. The informant of the case is father of the deceased, namely, Shila Devi. In his written report dated 09.02.2007, the informant has stated that his daughter who was married to the appellant about 15 years back has been killed by her husband and her father-in-law. Her husband was not providing necessities of life to his daughter and about 10 months prior to the incident he had thrown her out of her matrimonial home. However, on intervention of some people, she was taken back home by her husband. The informant has stated that on inquiry from the villagers in villageSimaria he was informed by them that his daughter has been killed by her husband and the family members. 3. During the trial, the prosecution has examined 10 witnesses; the informant, namely, Nakul Rawani is PW-9. Brothers of the deceased, namely, Devendar Rawani PW-5, Mahendar Rawani PW-6 and her cousin, namely, Paresh Rawani PW-8 have also been examined during the trial. 4. The independent witnesses, namely, Tarani Rawani PW-1 and Badari Rawani PW-2 have turned hostile. 5. The case set up by the prosecution against the appellant is that the appellant was not providing food and other necessities to his wife and there was frequent quarrel between the couple and that was the reason he has killed his wife in the intervening night of 08/09.02.2007. The learned Sessions Judge has referred to his examination under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and held that the appellant, who has failed to give a plausible explanation to the death of his wife, has killed his wife. 6. The informant has been examined in the court as PW-9. He has stated that someone has informed him over telephone about the death of his daughter, however, the informant as well as PW-5 and PW-6, his sons, all have failed to name the person who has allegedly informed them about the death of the deceased, namely, Shila Devi. The informant as well as PW-5, PW-6 and PW-8 have stated that there was a compromise between the appellant and his wife about one year back and thereafter she was taken to her matrimonial home. The informant as well as PW-5, PW-6 and PW-8 have stated that there was a compromise between the appellant and his wife about one year back and thereafter she was taken to her matrimonial home. The informant has admitted during his crossexamination that in regard to the quarrel between his daughter and her husband no report was made to the police. PW-5, PW-6 and PW-8 have also stated that no case was lodged either with the police or in the court regarding the incident of marpit between their sister and her husband. 7. The accused-appellant has set up a defence that relationship between the couple was cordial and his father-in-law or brothers-in-law never visited him or asked about the well-being of his wife. 8. During his cross-examination, the informant admits that he never visited his daughter to see her children. He has also stated that he does not remember how many times and when he had gone to the matrimonial home of his daughter and about marpit his daughter had informed him. During his cross-examination, the Investigating Officer has admitted that he has not recorded the statement of the persons from the neighbourhood, however, he has recorded the statement of Devendar Rawani, Mahendar Rawani and Paresh Rawani, all of village Chitkath. These witnesses, who have been examined as PW-5, PW-6 and PW-8, have also admitted that they have not visited the house of their sister frequently. They have failed to give details about the children of their sister, their name, date of birth etc. They have also admitted that the children of the appellant are staying with him. In fact, PW-5 has said that he does not remember the day and date of the death of his sister. 9. Admittedly, there is no eye-witness to the death of Shila Devi. 10. In a case based on circumstantial evidence motive provides an important link, though it may not be of much significance in a case based on direct evidence. In " Surinder Pal Jain v. Delhi Administration, (1993) Supp3 SCC 681 ", the supreme court has held as under: "11. ....... In a case based on circumstantial evidence, motive assumes pertinent significance as existence of the motive is an enlightening factor in a process of presumptive reasoning in such a case. In " Surinder Pal Jain v. Delhi Administration, (1993) Supp3 SCC 681 ", the supreme court has held as under: "11. ....... In a case based on circumstantial evidence, motive assumes pertinent significance as existence of the motive is an enlightening factor in a process of presumptive reasoning in such a case. The absence of motive, however, puts the court on its guard to scrutinise the circumstances more carefully to ensure that suspicion and conjecture do not take place of legal proof." 11. On the basis of the evidence laid by the prosecution against the appellant, we find that the prosecution has failed to establish motive for the crime and harassment of Shila Devi by the appellant. 12. Another incriminating circumstance taken against the appellant is death of Shila Devi in her matrimonial home. 13. Dr. Sita Ram Sah is PW-7, who has conducted the postmortem examination, has observed thus: "A black ligature mark about " width found on the upper part of neck placed transversely and obliquely over upper part of the neck and knot of ligature mark over right side of neck. On dissection of neck underneath ligature mark tissue were white and glistening and on further dissection the cricoid cartilage and hyoid bones were fracture. All nail beds were pale. Signs of saliva dribbling is found over left angle of mouth. Signs of faced discharge found." 14. No other external injury on Shila Devi has been found by the doctor. 15. In the opinion of the doctor, cause of death was asphyxia as a result of hanging. 16. It is the prosecution''s case that Shila Devi has been done to death by throttling, but then, no thumb mark on her neck has been detected by PW-7. 17. In the Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology by Modi, 26th edition, at page-516, it is said that if fingers are used (throttling) marks of pressure by the thumb and the fingertips are usually found on either side of the windpipe. The thumb mark is ordinarily higher and wider on one side of the front of the neck and the finger marks are situated on its other side obliquely downwards and outwards and one below the other; such marks are sometimes found clustered together. The thumb mark is ordinarily higher and wider on one side of the front of the neck and the finger marks are situated on its other side obliquely downwards and outwards and one below the other; such marks are sometimes found clustered together. It further says that when both hands are used to grasp and compress the throat the thumb mark of one hand and the finger marks of the other hand are usually found on either side of the throat and bruises and abrasions may be found on the front of neck as well as on its back. 18. It is widely accepted in the medical jurisprudence that hanging is generally "suicidal". Pariekh''s Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence, Forensic Medicine and Toxicology mentions that "homicidal hanging" is rare. In case of hanging, ligature mark is directed obliquely upward with a gap indicating position of the knot with no damage to the skin in the gap. On dissection, ligature mark reveals dry and glistening white band of subcutaneous tissue. 19. The observations of PW-7; ligature mark on upper part of the neck placed transversely, oblique over upper part of the neck, knot of ligature mark, tissues white and glistering, saliva dribbling from the mouth, clearly disclose death by hanging. Though hyoid bone was found fractured which is rare in case of suicidal hanging, but then, it is not such a feature that would rule out suicidal death by hanging. 20. The Investigating Officer who has inspected the place of occurrence has found that the distance between the floor and the wooden log on the ceiling was 5 ft., whereas height of Shila Devi was about 4 ft. He has also found a rope tied around the neck of Shila Devi. 21. No other incriminating material has been detected by the Investigating Officer during investigation. 22. The inquest report also mentions death by hanging. 23. The above being the factual scenario, we are of the opinion that Shila Devi has died a suicidal death, but neither a charge under section 306 IPC was framed against him nor the prosecution has led evidence on abetment to suicide. 24. 22. The inquest report also mentions death by hanging. 23. The above being the factual scenario, we are of the opinion that Shila Devi has died a suicidal death, but neither a charge under section 306 IPC was framed against him nor the prosecution has led evidence on abetment to suicide. 24. In the above state of affairs, having examined the records of S.T. Case No. 212 of 2007, we hold that not only the chain of circumstances is completely broken, the prosecution has in fact failed to prove any incriminating circumstance sought to be proved against the appellant and, therefore, his conviction under section 302 IPC is not sustainable. 25. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction of the appellant, namely, Nunmani Rawani under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code dated 26.02.2009 and the order of sentence of RI for life under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code dated 28.02.2009 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka in S.T. Case No. 212 of 2007 are set aside. 26. The appellant, namely, Nunmani Rawani is acquitted of the charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code framed against him for murder of his wife. 27. The appellant, namely, Nunmani Rawani, who is in custody, shall be released forthwith, if not required in connection to any other case. 28. In the result, Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 240 of 2010 is allowed. 29. Let lower court records be transmitted to the court concerned, forthwith. 30. Let a copy of the judgment be communicated to the trial court through FAX.