JUDGMENT : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. The allegation against the wife is that she has killed her husband by strangulation. 2. In S.T. No. 23 of 2008, she has suffered judgment of conviction and punishment of R.I for life and fine of Rs.30,000/-under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The informant of this case, namely, Sohar Turi is father of the deceased. On the basis of his fardbeyan, Bishnugarh P.S. Case No.51 of 2007 has been lodged against wife of the deceased, namely, Nunuchandra Turi. 4. During the trial, the prosecution has examined eight witnesses; the informant is P.W.1. 5. The mother of the deceased, namely, Kitkahi Devi-P.W.2 and his brother, namely, Mahesh Turi-P.W.6 have also been examined during the trial. P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5 are independent witnesses; they are co-villagers. 6. The case of the prosecution against the appellant is based on circumstantial evidence. 7. To prove its case against the appellant the prosecution has led evidence on; (i) quarrel between the couple, (ii) death of Nunuchandra Turi, and (iii) his dead body found in his house. 8. The informant has stated in his fardbeyan that on 26.05.2007 at about 11 a.m he had gone to the house of Thurka Manjhi with his wife. At that time, his son and his wife were at home. They were planning to go to sasural at village-Kasicharidih, Govindpur next day. When the informant comes back home with his wife he has found the door of the house was closed. He thought his son and daughter-in-law have gone to village Kasicharidih but when he came inside the house he found his son resting by side of mahua bag. When he tried to wake him up he fell on the ground. He tried to search for his daughter-in-law but she was not at home. Then he raised hulla whereupon several villagers came there. In the court, he has described the incident of 26.05.2007 in a similar manner as narrated by him in his fardbeyan. His wife who has been examined as P.W.2 and his other son who has been examined as P.W.6 have also supported him saying that they had gone to the house of Thurka Manjhi. They have stated that the appellant was threatening Nunuchandra Turi to kill him. 9. Dr. His wife who has been examined as P.W.2 and his other son who has been examined as P.W.6 have also supported him saying that they had gone to the house of Thurka Manjhi. They have stated that the appellant was threatening Nunuchandra Turi to kill him. 9. Dr. K.K. Verma, who has conducted the post-mortem examination on 27.05.2007 at 3.45 p.m, has observed redness and swelling in front of the neck of Nunuchandra Turi, size about “1½ X ½ ”; abrasion on the neck of about ½”. In his opinion, cause of death was excessive pressure over neck. 10. The main investigating officer of this case has not been produced during the trial. 11. In his fardbeyan, the informant has raised a suspicion against the appellant only for the reason that she was not found at home when he came back home. But, he has also stated that the appellant did not want to stay with his son. His wife has, however, alleged that the appellant was threatening her son to kill him. His other son has gone one step ahead. He says that the appellant was quarreling with his mother. In these facts, non-examination of the investigating officer has caused prejudice to the defence for he could not be cross-examined on the aforesaid inconsistency in the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.6. 12. Dead body of Nunuchandra Turi has been found in his house has been established by the prosecution, but then, cause of death has not been conclusively established. During his cross-examination, the doctor has stated that he has found no other injury on the person of Nunuchandra Turi and injury found on him can be caused by suicidal hanging, but in the same vein he has further stated that a circular mark should have been found around neck of the deceased. According to the doctor, the time elapsed since death was 4 to 36 hours, but, again in the same breath he has observed that decomposition of the whole body had started and foul smell was coming out of the dead body. The aforesaid observations recorded by the doctor do not corroborate the prosecution story that Nunuchandra Turi was killed in the afternoon of 26.05.2007. 13. According to the prosecution, the death has occurred between 11.30 a.m to 1.00 p.m on 26.05.2007, however, fardbeyan of father of the deceased has been recorded at 8 a.m on 27.05.2007. The aforesaid observations recorded by the doctor do not corroborate the prosecution story that Nunuchandra Turi was killed in the afternoon of 26.05.2007. 13. According to the prosecution, the death has occurred between 11.30 a.m to 1.00 p.m on 26.05.2007, however, fardbeyan of father of the deceased has been recorded at 8 a.m on 27.05.2007. Since the investigating officer of this case has not been examined, the delay in lodging the First Information Report and who has sent information to the police station could not be elicited from him. 14. P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5 are formal witnesses. P.W.3 has gone to the house of the informant on hearing hulla and he has seen the dead body of Nunuchandra Turi. He has said that he has no knowledge about quarrel between husband and wife; he stays one k.m away from the informant's house. P.W.4 has stated that the police did not make any enquiry from him and P.W.5 has turned hostile. 15. The only evidence led by the prosecution against the appellant is that she was seen lastly in the company of her husband and thereafter dead body of her husband has been found in his house. 16. When a person is seen lastly in the company of the accused and soon thereafter his dead body is found, the accused must say what has happened thereafter. The evidence of last-seen-together may provide an additional link in the chain of circumstances, but, by itself it would not complete the chain of circumstances. There may be several circumstances such as time gap, live-nexus, etc. in which the evidence of last-seen-together becomes irrelevant. In “Arjun Marik Vs. State of Bihar” reported in 1994 Supp (2) SCC 372, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: 31. “...................it is settled law that the only circumstance of last seen will not complete the chain of circumstances to record finding that it is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and, therefore, no conviction, on that basis alone, can be founded.” 17. In the above state of evidence – only the evidence on last-seen-together has been proved – we are of the opinion that the appellant has been convicted only on suspicion, but then, suspicion howsoever strong cannot take the place of legal evidence. 18. In the above state of evidence – only the evidence on last-seen-together has been proved – we are of the opinion that the appellant has been convicted only on suspicion, but then, suspicion howsoever strong cannot take the place of legal evidence. 18. In the end, we are of the opinion that the appellant is entitled for the benefits of doubt and, therefore, her conviction under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is set-aside. 19. In the result, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 885 of 2018 is allowed. 20. The appellant is acquitted of the charge framed against her in S.T. No. 23 of 2008. 21. The appellant, namely, Kunti Devi, who is in jail, shall be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case. 22. Let a copy of the judgment be transmitted to the court concerned through 'FAX'. 23. Let the lower-court records be transmitted to the court concerned, forthwith.