JUDGMENT Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - The sole appellant has suffered the judgment of conviction and sentence of RI for life and fine of Rs.5000/- on the charge of committing murder of his wife, namely, Tara Devi. 2. On the basis of the fardbeyan of Ram Prasad Rana, the father of the deceased, which was recorded at 10:00 a.m. on 26.08.2008, Barkagaon P.S. Case No 123 of 2008 was registered against the appellant and his parents under section 302/34 IPC. However, after the investigation a charge sheet was submitted only against the appellant and he has faced the trial on the charge under section 302 IPC. 3. During the trial prosecution has examined ten witnesses; the informant is PW-8 and his nephew, namely, Rameshwar Rana is PW-9. 4. The prosecution witnesses, namely, Debnath Sah PW-3, Arjun Saw PW-4, Ramdeo Saw PW-5 and Sikandar Kumar Rana PW-6 have been declared hostile at the instance of the prosecution. 5. The case set up by the defence is that the appellant was suffering from mental illness and for that his treatment was going on at Ranchi and, therefore, his act would fall under section 84 of the General Exceptions under the Indian Penal Code. 6. The expression ''insanity'' is not defined in the Indian Penal Code, however, it has been interpreted by judicial decisions. There is no dispute on the proposition that the one who raises a plea of General Exceptions must prove it either through the prosecution''s evidence or by leading cogent evidence. Before the benefit under section 84 of the Indian Penal Code is extended to an accused it must be proved that at the time when he has committed the crime he was suffering from such mental illness that he was not able to understand the consequence of his act. But, what transpires in this case is that the informant was getting treatment for his mental illness, however, it cannot be held that he was suffering from such illness that his case would fall under section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. In his fardbeyan, the informant has stated that it was Tuesday morning; date not known to him, when he received an information from a villager that his son-in-law has killed his daughter. When he reached the village- Dokatand he has found the dead body of his daughter in her marital home. 7. In his fardbeyan, the informant has stated that it was Tuesday morning; date not known to him, when he received an information from a villager that his son-in-law has killed his daughter. When he reached the village- Dokatand he has found the dead body of his daughter in her marital home. A crowd of the villagers had assembled there and on inquiry from them he was informed that his son-in-law was apprehended by the villagers and they have assaulted him. Inside the house he has seen the dead body of his daughter lying drenched in blood and there were injuries on her head, cheek and hand with sharpcutting weapon. When he asked his son-in-law about death of his daughter he did not reveal anything important, however, he continued to say that a quarrel had taken place in the night between them and again at 4:00 a.m. in the morning whereupon he has killed his wife with chilohi; a vegetable cutting instrument. The informant has further stated that in the past his daughter had informed him that her husband used to assault her. At the time of the incident she was pregnant. 8. However, when the informant was examined in the court he has stated that first his son Mukesh received an information about death of Tara and he has informed him about the incident and thereafter he along with 8-10 other persons proceeded for Barkagaon, however, on the way he has found that the police was bringing the dead body of his daughter to the police station. He has seen the dead body of his daughter at the police station. In paragraph No. 5 of his examinationin-chief, he has reiterated that his fardbeyan was recorded at Barkagaon police station and an Inspector has recorded his statement. His nephew, namely, Rameshwar Rana PW-9 has stated that Ram Prasad Rana has informed him about the occurrence over telephone and thereafter he has gone there. He has also deposed in the court that his uncle has given his fardbeyan in the police station which bears his signature. 9. His nephew, namely, Rameshwar Rana PW-9 has stated that Ram Prasad Rana has informed him about the occurrence over telephone and thereafter he has gone there. He has also deposed in the court that his uncle has given his fardbeyan in the police station which bears his signature. 9. From testimony of the informant and his nephew in which they have stated that the fardbeyan was recorded at the police station, whereas the fardbeyan records in so many words that it was recorded at 10:00 a.m. on 26.08.2008, registration of the First Information Report on the basis of the fardbeyan which was recorded at village Dokatand has become doubtful. There is another reason why registration of the First Information Report has become suspicious. The informant has stated that on the way to Dokatand, he has seen the police going to the police station with the dead body of his daughter. From his evidence, it shall be inferred that the police had information of the incident and it had already visited the place of occurrence. But it is not known who has informed the police and why a First Information Report was not lodged at least on the basis of statement of a villager. 10. By now it is well settled that if the prosecution comes out with a definite case it must prove its case on all aspects of the matter beyond all reasonable doubt. In " Mohinder Singh Vs. The State, (1953) AIR SC 415 ", the Supreme Court has observed that it is elementary that where the prosecution has a definite or positive case, it must prove the whole of its case. 11. The seizure witnesses, namely, Murari Rana PW-2 and Debnath Sah PW-3 have stated that nothing was seized in their presence and at the instance of the police (bada babu) they have put their signatures on the seizure memo; they have denied that the seizure memo was written before them. 12. The learned Sessions Judge has observed that the prosecution has proved that immediately after the dead body of his wife was seen in his house he was found in the village and it also stands proved that the appellant was arrested on the same day. 13. 12. The learned Sessions Judge has observed that the prosecution has proved that immediately after the dead body of his wife was seen in his house he was found in the village and it also stands proved that the appellant was arrested on the same day. 13. The dead body of Tara Devi was sent to the hospital at about 4:00 p.m. on 26.08.2008; the incident has happened at 4:00 a.m. in the morning and fardbeyan of the informant was recorded at 10:00 a.m. on the same day. On such facts, false implication of the appellant could have been ruled out, but then, there are glaring missing links in the prosecution case. The informant PW-8 has admitted in his crossexamination that he has stated about the death of Tara on the basis of what he has heard. He has further stated that he never made any complaint to the police that his son-in-law was demanding dowry. He has stated that he cannot say who else has put his thumb impression on his fardbeyan. PW-9 has stated that Ram Prasad Rana informed him over telephone at about 3:30 a.m. in the morning about the occurrence. He has further stated that he has reached the place of occurrence at about 6:30 a.m. and the police has arrived there by 7:00 a.m., however, the police did not make any inquiry from him. He has also stated that no recovery was effected by the police in his presence. In paragraph No.25 of his cross-examination, he admits that he has no personal knowledge about the incident and none of the villagers has given a written statement that the appellant has committed murder and, therefore, he was apprehended by them. He has also stated that no recovery was effected by the police in his presence. In paragraph No.25 of his cross-examination, he admits that he has no personal knowledge about the incident and none of the villagers has given a written statement that the appellant has committed murder and, therefore, he was apprehended by them. The inconsistencies in the testimony of PW-8 and PW-9; (i) the informant first says that his fardbeyan was recorded in the village at Dokatand, however, in the court he says that his fardbeyan was recorded by the Inspector of Police at Barkagaon police station, (ii) the informant says that he along with 8-10 other persons had proceeded for Barkagaon, however, his nephew (PW-9), who, according to the informant has accompanied him, says that he alone had gone to Dokatand, (iii) none of the prosecution witnesses has claimed that they have heard cries of the victim, (iv) the independent witnesses have turned hostile, (v) seizure witnesses have not supported any seizure, and (vi) the Investigating Officer has not collected material information about the crime, create serious doubt on the prosecution''s story that the appellant has committed murder of his wife. 14. Dr. Syed Noor Mohammad PW-7, who has conducted the postmortem examination, has found the following injuries on Tara Devi: "External Exam: Both eyes half open, mouth closed, rigor mortis present in both upper and lower limbs. Ante-mortem injury: (i) Incised wound on right face from eye to ear 3" x " x bone deep (ii) Incised wound on chin 2" x 1" x bone deep. (iii) Incised wound left neck 6 in numbers measuring upper to lower side (1) 1 " x " x bone deep (2) 1 " x " x bone deep (3) 1" x " x bone deep (4) 1" x " x bone deep (5) 1" x " x bone deep (6) " x " x skin deep (iv) Incised wound near right wrist joint 2" x 1" x muscle deep. (v) Incised wound right forearm 1" x " x muscle deep (vi) Incised wound on right shoulder back side 2" x 1" x bone deep (vii) Incised wound back of the neck 1 " x " x bone deep (viii) Incised wound occipital region of skull 3" x 2" x bone deep, bone cut down. On dissection: Lungs, spleen, liver, kidney are intact and pale. On dissection: Lungs, spleen, liver, kidney are intact and pale. Heart empty, stomach normal contains mucous fluid 3 ons uterus gravict contained female foetus of aged about 8 months. Bladder empty." 15. The doctor has found several injuries; thirteen incised injuries, on the person of Tara Devi, however, none of the villagers has come forward to say that he has heard cries of Tara Devi and gone to the house of the appellant. It has come in the prosecution''s evidence that the appellant was suffering from mental illness and he was getting treatment at Ranchi. Regarding treatment of the appellant, the informant has also admitted the same in paragraph No. 19 of his cross-examination. The Investigating Officer has stated in the court that the villagers have informed him about the appellant suffering from mental illness and getting treatment at Ranchi. The prosecution story that the villagers had apprehended the appellant and on seeing dead body of Tara Devi they had assaulted him is supported by PW-8 and PW-9, but none of the villagers has come forward to say that the appellant was beaten and tied with a tree. The Investigating Officer has stated that he has not conducted investigation on the point of detention of the appellant by the villagers. He has further stated that though it is mentioned in the fardbeyan that the appellant was assaulted by the villagers, he has not done any investigation on this point. It is also a matter of record that medical examination of the appellant was not conducted after he was arrested by the Investigating Officer. 16. On such facts, in our opinion, the prosecution has failed to establish that the appellant was caught by the villagers and, angered, they have assaulted him. 17. From the prosecution''s evidence that much stands proved that the appellant was suffering from some mental illness and that may have been the reason when his wife was found dead in his house a suspicion was raised on his complicity in the crime, but then, suspicion howsoever strong cannot take the place of legal evidence. 18. It is trite law that the prosecution has to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt whereas all that an accused is required to demonstrate is that there is a doubt on his complicity in the crime or that two views are" possible. 18. It is trite law that the prosecution has to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt whereas all that an accused is required to demonstrate is that there is a doubt on his complicity in the crime or that two views are" possible. In " Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Versus State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 , the Supreme Court has observed thus: "218. ........in view of the fact that two views are possible on the evidence on record, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other his innocence, the accused is entitled to have the benefit of one which is favourable to him. In that view of the matter I agree with my learned Brothers that the guilt of the accused has not been proved beyond all reasonable doubt." 19. In the end, having examined the records of Sessions Trial No. 18 of 2009, we find that the appellant has been implicated in this case only on suspicion. The prosecution has failed to establish that he has committed murder of Tara Devi, his wife. The prosecution''s case is based on the circumstantial evidence, however, the prosecution has failed to prove the incriminating circumstances by leading cogent and consistent evidence and, moreover, the chain of circumstances is not complete and, therefore, his conviction under section 302 IPC is not sustainable. 20. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction under section 302 IPC dated 21.01.2017 and the order of sentence of RI for life and fine of Rs.5000/- dated 23.01.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XII, Hazaribag in Sessions Trial No. 18 of 2009 inflicted upon the appellant, namely, Kailash Rana in Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.354 of 2017 are set-aside. 21. The appellant is acquitted of the criminal charge framed against him. 22. The appellant, namely, Kailash Rana, who is in custody, shall be set free forthwith, if not required in connection to any other case. 23. In the result, Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.354 of 2017 is allowed. 24. Let lower court records be transmitted to the court concerned, forthwith. 25. Let a copy of the judgment be communicated to the trial court through FAX.