JUDGMENT : 1. The sole accused – Kumar Naika has challenged the Judgment of conviction dated 11.01.2018 and order on sentence dated 12.01.2018 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge at Chitradurga in S.C.No.121/2014. The learned Sessions Judge has found the accused guilty, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 203 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life i.e., till his last breath and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-with default sentence of three months simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Further, the learned Sessions Judge has sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-with default sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC and also sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 203 of IPC. 2. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant – Sri N.S.Sampangiramaiah for Sri B.Pramod and also the learned SPPII for the State. We have reevaluated the oral and documentary evidence adduced produced by the prosecution before the Trial Court and also bestowed our attention to examine the correctness of the judgment of the Trial Court. 3. Before adverting to the submissions made by the learned counsel, it is just and necessary for us to have the brief factual matrix of this particular case. 4. It is the case of the prosecution that, one Mr.K.V.Sridhar, PW.1, was a Police officer actually investigating a case in Crime No.54/2012 against the accused in connection with the murder of one Susheela Bai. It is the case of the prosecution that PW.1, Sridhar, while recording the voluntary statement of the accused in Crime No.54/2012 came to know that the accused had also committed the murder of his wife – Vanithabai, in the year 1999 by strangulating her in her house at Madakaripura Village. On the basis of such voluntary statement of the accused, PW.1 Sridhar lodged a suo motu report as per Ex.P1, on the basis of which, a case was registered against the appellantaccused in Crime No.122/2012 under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. On the basis of such voluntary statement of the accused, PW.1 Sridhar lodged a suo motu report as per Ex.P1, on the basis of which, a case was registered against the appellantaccused in Crime No.122/2012 under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. On the basis of such suo motu complaint lodged by PW.1, Sridhar, and on the basis of voluntary statement of the accused, the investigation was conducted and ultimately it was found that, the accused was the perpetrator of the crime, that is murdering his wife Vanithabai and therefore, a charge sheet was laid. The accused was secured by the Trial Court and the Trial Court framed charges against the accused for the offences for which he was convicted and put the accused on trial as he pleaded not guilty. 5. The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused examined 14 witnesses as PWs.1 to 14 and got marked documents Exs.P1 to P14. The accused was also examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Apart from that, he was also called upon to lead defence evidence if any on his side. As the accused person did not choose to lead any evidence, after hearing both the parties, appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found him guilty and accordingly sentenced him as noted supra. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant Sri N.S.Sampangiramaiah, strenuously contends that, there is absolutely no incriminating evidence available in the evidence of any of the prosecution witnesses except the evidence of PW.1, who stated about the voluntary statement of the accused. Except the voluntary statement of the accused, there is nothing on record to draw any inference that the accused was the perpetrator of the crime. He also further contended, that, though the prosecution tried to establish that the accused and deceased Vanithabai were residing together at Madakaripura. On the date of offence also the accused stayed in the house of the deceased and after committing the murder, he went away from the said spot projecting that, his wife has committed suicide, but, the prosecution did not succeed in establishing the same. On the date of offence also the accused stayed in the house of the deceased and after committing the murder, he went away from the said spot projecting that, his wife has committed suicide, but, the prosecution did not succeed in establishing the same. It is also further argued that the prosecution also made attempts to show that the accused and his relatives had given their earliest statements before the Investigating Officer in the said case and as well as the Tahasildar during inquest stating that, the wife of the accused died due to suicidal hanging. Therefore, there is absolutely no evidence except some unsuccessful attempt made by the prosecution. There is absolutely no recovery of any incriminating articles at the instance of the accused, none of the witnesses examined before the Court have supported the case of the prosecution, virtually almost all the witnesses have turned hostile to the prosecution. When there is no incriminating evidence available on record, the Trial Court only on the basis of conjectures and surmises and on its own imagination has morally convicted the accused person, even though the case is bereft of any legal evidence. Therefore, it is contended that the accused is entitled to be acquitted for the charges leveled against him. 7. Per contra, learned SPPII has supported the Judgment of the Trial Court and halfheartedly submitted that, though there are some discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution, the Trial Court by assigning reasons has convicted the accused. Therefore, there is no room to interfere with the judgment of the Trial Court. 8. In the wake of the above said submissions, we would like to ascertain and advert to the material evidence available on record and we would like to have a detailed look at the evidence of the prosecution. 9. PW.1, K.V.Sridhar, is the sole star or an important witness to the prosecution. Mr.K.V.Sridhar, was working as a Circle Inspector of Police at Holalkere in Chitradurga District during the relevant point of time. He was investigating a case which related to crime No.54/2012 and he deposed that, he arrested the appellantaccused in connection with the said case. The accused gave a voluntary statement in that case divulging that, he had developed intimacy with one Susheelabai, who was no other than his brother’s wife. He had also married the deceased Vanithabai in the year 1998 at Madakaripura. The accused gave a voluntary statement in that case divulging that, he had developed intimacy with one Susheelabai, who was no other than his brother’s wife. He had also married the deceased Vanithabai in the year 1998 at Madakaripura. He has further stated in the voluntary statement that, Vanithabai came to know about the illicit intimacy between the accused and Susheelabai. She started quarrelling with him and this aspect quarrel was made known to Susheelabai by the accused. Then, the said Susheelabai told him to do away with the life of Vanithabai. Accordingly, the accused on 04.02.1999 committed the murder of Vanithabai by strangulating her with the help of a saree, after assaulting her. On the basis of the said voluntary statement, this witness gave a report and the same was registered in Crime No.122/2012. 10. Except the statement alleged to have been made by the accused being reiterated in the evidence of PW.1, nothing has been stated incriminating the accused. The confession statement of the accused though it is made by way of voluntary statement cannot be in any manner relied upon by the Court except for the purpose of discovery of any fact or recovery of any material object in pursuance of the information given by the accused. The confession statement made by the accused admitting the guilt in the voluntary statement is hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’ for short). What is admissible under Section 27 of the Act, is the discovery of any fact which leads to any discovery of another fact or a recovery of any incriminating material object. In this particular case except the confession statement of the accused admitting the guilt as to how he had committed the murder of his wife, nothing is stated with reference to discovery of any fact which led to recovery of any incriminating articles. Therefore, such statements or the evidence led by PW.1 so far as the admission of the guilt by the accused is hit by Section 25 of the Act and the same is not admissible except to show that a criminal case has been initiated or criminal law has been set into motion against the accused. 11. The prosecution has to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt excluding the voluntary statement of the accused. 11. The prosecution has to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt excluding the voluntary statement of the accused. Except elucidating the contents of the voluntary statement of the accused, in the evidence, of PW1 there is no other incriminating evidence available against the accused in the evidence of this witness. Of course, this witness has also stated that the accused was convicted in another criminal case in S.C.No.85/2012 and the Judgment of the same is produced at Ex.P4. It is also a basic principle of criminal jurisprudence that, any previous conviction or the conviction Judgment in any manner should not influence the Court so far as the present case on hand is concerned because on the basis of the evidence on record pertaining to a particular case, the Court has to examine whether the case of the prosecution has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, as could be seen from the evidence of this witness, except the voluntary statement with reference to admission of the guilt by the accused which cannot be allowed to be proved, there is no other incriminating evidence against the accused. 12. PW.2Smt. Vinodabai, is no other than the mother of the deceased. She has admitted the relationship between herself and deceased Vanithabai and also the accused and that the accused is also no other than the own brother of PW.2. She has stated that, the deceased Vanithabai was suffering from stomach ache and due to that she died herself. PW.2 has also informed the Tahasildar and thereafter there was a compromise between herself and the accused in connection with the same a UDR case was registered in UDR NO.3/1999 and thereafter the same was closed. She has further categorically stated that, she never made any allegations against her brother that, he has committed the murder of deceased Vanithabai. Therefore, even without going to the crossexamination of this witness in the examinationinchief itself nothing has been elucidated, which is incriminating against the accused. Treating this witness, as hostile the learned Public Prosecutor has cross examined this witness and in the course of crossexamination, the whole of the statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., made by this witness was put to her, but except taking the denial nothing worth has been elicited. 13. Treating this witness, as hostile the learned Public Prosecutor has cross examined this witness and in the course of crossexamination, the whole of the statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., made by this witness was put to her, but except taking the denial nothing worth has been elicited. 13. The learned SPPII brought to the notice of this Court that, in the course of crossexamination, this witness has admitted that, at the time when Vanithabai died, the accused and deceased were residing together in the same house. Except that fact nothing has been elicited in order to bring home the guilt of the accused. Learned SPPII submitted that the accused and deceased were last seen together is established from the evidence of this witness to show that the accused and deceased were living together. But the evidence of this witness has to be tested from other materials in her own evidence. She has categorically stated that, they had compromised the matter. Further, the witness has disclosed that, she has been residing at Davanagere, doing household work and admittedly, the accused and deceased were residing at Madakaripura after their marriage and it is also the case of the prosecution that the accused had developed illicit intimacy with his brother’s wife – Susheela Bai and he shifted himself to the house of his brother at Tanigehally village and he often used to go there and also come and reside at Madakaripura. Therefore, how this witness could say that on the particular time and date of the incident, the accused was there in the house at Madakaripura? Therefore, such stray sentence in the crossexamination elicited without the other circumstance in our opinion is not sufficient to draw a conclusive inference that the accused and deceased were last seen together in the said house on the date and time of the incident. She has actually not seen the accused and deceased living together on that day. Therefore, we are of the opinion that on over all reading of the evidence of this witness, there is absolutely no incriminating evidence available against the accused. 14. PW.3 – Venkatesha, is also a resident of Madakaripura and he deposed that, the accused and deceased Vanithabai were residing at Lambanihatty in Madakaripura as husband and wife and in the year 1999, the said lady committed suicide and died. 14. PW.3 – Venkatesha, is also a resident of Madakaripura and he deposed that, the accused and deceased Vanithabai were residing at Lambanihatty in Madakaripura as husband and wife and in the year 1999, the said lady committed suicide and died. He does not know anything about the relationship between the accused and Susheela Bai. However, he says that the accused has been in custody in connection with S.C.No.85/2012 in connection with the murder of deceased Susheela Bai. He has also deposed that he is only a panch witness to the Inquest Mahazar – Ex.P7. He has also admitted that Susheelabai was residing at Tanigehally, and that she is the wife of the brother of the accused by name Rama Swamy Naika. Rama Swamy Naika, is also no more. The accused has permanently shifted himself to Tanigehally, after the death of Rama Swamy Naika. Accused started residing at Tanigehalli, however, often he used to visit Madakaripura to the house of his wife. Therefore, this also clearly goes to show that, accused was not permanently residing at Madakaripura along with his wife and he often used to visit the said village, but nobody has actually spoken about any fact that the accused had actually visited the said house of his wife on that particular date and time of the incident. There is no crossexamination so far as this witness is concerned, except suggesting that he has not given any statement before the Police nor he has signed any Mahazar etc. but, he has signed the Mahazar only at the instance of police. The evidence of this witness can only be taken into consideration to establish that there was death of deceased Vanithabai in her house on the particular date and the inquest proceedings have been conducted by the Police. 15. PW.4 – Yuvara Naika, is no other than the father of the accused. He has deposed that, the marriage of the accused – Kumar Naika had taken place about 15 years ago with Vanithabai and after the marriage, the accused and deceased started living together as husband and wife at Madakaripura in Lambanihatti. Another son of this witness by name Rama Naika, was married to Susheela Bai and was residing at Tanigehally in Holalkere Taluk. Another son of this witness by name Rama Naika, was married to Susheela Bai and was residing at Tanigehally in Holalkere Taluk. He has further deposed that Rama Swamy Naika, died about 15 to 16 years ago and after his death, the accused also started living in the house of Rama Swamy Naika and during that time, the murder of Susheela Bai had taken place in the year 2012. It is further deposed by him that Vanithabai died due to stomach ache by hanging herself. PW.4 infact has given his earlier statement before the Police with regard to the deceased suffering from stomach ache and that the deceased Vanithabai died due to hanging. This witness was treated hostile by the prosecution. 16. In the course of cross examination by Public Prosecutor it is suggested to him that, he had given a statement before the Police that, the accused had developed illicit intimacy with Susheela Bai, and therefore, the accused had committed the murder of Vanithabai, but the said suggestion has been denied. Even during the course of cross examination, the whole of the statement made by this witness to the effect that accused developed illicit intimacy with Susheela Bai and inturn Susheela Bai telling the accused to commit the murder of Vanithabai and heeding to that, he had committed the murder of deceased Vanithabai by hanging her in her house and also projecting to the whole world that it was a suicidal death has been put to him. But those suggestions have been emphatically denied. Even accepting as it is the evidence of this witness, there is absolutely, no incriminating evidence against the accused. He has never implicated either in the examinationinchief or in the crossexamination in any manner that the accused even remotely was connected to the incident i.e., death of his wife deceased Vanithabai. 17. PW.5Thippeswamy Naika is also a relative of the accused. He has also deposed that he came to know about the death of Susheela Bai the wife of the brother of the accused. He has also deposed that, after the death of Vanithabai, the wife of the accused, the accused was not seen in Madakaripura and he almost shifted himself to Tanigehalli village. He does not know whether he was visiting the house of Vanithabai after he shifted himself to Tanigehalli etc. He has also deposed that, he is a panch witness to Ex.P9. He does not know whether he was visiting the house of Vanithabai after he shifted himself to Tanigehalli etc. He has also deposed that, he is a panch witness to Ex.P9. But he has stated that, he signed the said Mahazar in the Police Station, but he has never stated anything about the contents of Ex.P9. 18. In the course of crossexamination, it is suggested that the Police have drawn a Spot Mahazar, Ex.P9, where the dead body of deceased Vanithabai was found but the witness has denied the same and he has reiterated that he has signed the Mahazar in the Police Station and he does not know anything about the contents of the Mahazar. From the evidence of this witness again, we have to reiterate that there is absolutely no material elicited from the mouth of this witness, even to remotely implicate the accused. 19. PW.6 Krishna Naika, is another cousin brother of the accused. He has stated that, he knew that Vanithabai and the accused are husband and wife and the said Vanithabai died in the year 1999 at Madakaripura in Lambanihatti. The accused was residing at Tanigehally after the death of his brother Rama Swamy Naika. He has also stated that, after the death of Vanithabai, accused was not seen in the village at Madakaripura and almost he has shifted himself to Tanigehalli village. He came to know that the accused has been in jail since 2012 in connection with the death of Susheela Bai and infact he has also admitted that, he signed Ex.P9, which is a Spot Mahazar in the Chitradurga Police Station. He has also stated that he was also working as Panchayath Member during the particular point of time. In the course of crossexamination also, he did not disclose anything about the contents of Ex.P9 nor he has spoken about anything to connect the accused. Therefore, evidence of this witness also is not in any manner helpful to the prosecution and there is absolutely no incriminating material in the evidence of this witness. 20. PW.7Dr. Geetha, was working as Senior Specialist in District Hospital, Chitradurga during the year 199899. She has conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Vanithabai w/o accused – Kumar Naika on 7.2.1999. She has categorically stated about the injuries found on the dead body and the ligature mark over the neck. 20. PW.7Dr. Geetha, was working as Senior Specialist in District Hospital, Chitradurga during the year 199899. She has conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Vanithabai w/o accused – Kumar Naika on 7.2.1999. She has categorically stated about the injuries found on the dead body and the ligature mark over the neck. She has also stated that the other organs were intact and congested. After conducting the postmortem examination, she has categorically stated in the post – mortem report marked at Ex.P10 that, the death was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging. She has also stated that, even in the case of homicidal hanging, the above said injuries mentioned in the post – mortem report could also be caused. But very peculiarly as we have carefully examined the postmortem examination report – Ex.P10, the words ‘homicidal hanging’ as deposed in the evidence is conspicuously absent. Perhaps may be for the reason that, the earlier case has been reopened after the voluntary statement was recorded in Crime No.54/2012, the Public prosecutor intelligently elicited this particular aspect during the course of evidence. Therefore, we need not give much importance so far as the improved version is concerned. Earlier, the same Doctor has given the opinion that it was a suicidal hanging and the death was due to asphyxia, as a result of hanging. Even considering that it is a homicidal hanging, the prosecution has to establish from other strong materials that homicidal death was at the instance of the accused. In the course of the crossexamination, the Doctor has stated that, she has not found any contusion or laceration over the body and tongue was not protruded and it was inside the mouth. Therefore, looking to the above said evidence, the Doctor has not conclusively or specifically opined that it was a homicidal hanging. Therefore, we have to look at the other evidence on record to say whether it was a homicidal death of the deceased and the accused is the root cause for such homicidal death. 21. PW.8Mallikarjuna, HC1104, has deposed that he was working as PC 1373 at Chitradurga Rural Police Station during the relevant year 1999. On 6.2.1999, SHO had registered a UDR case in UDR NO.3/1999 in respect of death of Vanithabai, who died at Madakaripura Village. He guarded the dead body and shifted the dead body for postmortem examination. 21. PW.8Mallikarjuna, HC1104, has deposed that he was working as PC 1373 at Chitradurga Rural Police Station during the relevant year 1999. On 6.2.1999, SHO had registered a UDR case in UDR NO.3/1999 in respect of death of Vanithabai, who died at Madakaripura Village. He guarded the dead body and shifted the dead body for postmortem examination. Therefore, looking to the evidence of this witness also, there is absolutely no evidence even remotely to connect the accused. 22. PW.9 Abdul Rehaman, was working as P.S.I. at Chitradurga Rural Police Station during 1999. He has deposed that on 6.2.1999, he came to know about the registration of a case in UDR No.3/1999, which is marked at Ex.P7 and he took over the investigation in connection with this case and got conducted the Inquest examination through the Taluka Executive Magistrate as per Ex.P7. Except that he has not stated anything about the complicity of the accused in the crime. Therefore, there is absolutely no evidence which incriminates the accused. In the course of crossexamination also, nothing worth has been elicited, which supports the case of the prosecution in any manner. 23. PW.10, Mohandas, was working as a Panchayath Development Officer at Madakaripura Village and he has given the Khatha extract pertaining to property No.547/533, which belonged to Yuvara Naika s/o Hanumanaika, who is no other than the father of the accused. The evidence of PW.10 never connects the accused or to the crime in any manner. Therefore, in our opinion, this witness is a formal witness so far as the prosecution case is concerned. 24. PW.11, Gopalappa, was working as ASI in Chitradurga Rural Police Station, who received the information about the death of Vanithabai through father of the deceased, CW.5Raja Naika who lodged a report with regard to the death of Vanithabai on the basis of which this witness had registered a UDR case in No.3/1999. It is also stated by him that CW.5 expressed his doubt with regard to the death of his daughter. Therefore, PW.11 has requested the Tahasildar to conduct the Inquest proceedings on the dead body of deceased Vanithabai and he investigated the UDR case. Except formally investigating the matter to some extent, he has not stated anything about what is the connection between the accused and the crime. Therefore, PW.11 has requested the Tahasildar to conduct the Inquest proceedings on the dead body of deceased Vanithabai and he investigated the UDR case. Except formally investigating the matter to some extent, he has not stated anything about what is the connection between the accused and the crime. It is suggested in the course of crossexamination that, Vanithabai was suffering from stomach ache etc., and therefore, she has committed suicide and it was well within the knowledge of the parents of the said Vanithabai and the accused has not committed any offence. There was no need for crossexamination of this witness at all because in the examinationinchief itself, the witness has not deposed any thing to implicate the accused in any manner. 25. PW.12, S.Balachandranaika, who was working as PSI at Chitradurga Rural Police Station. He has stated that CPI, K.V.Sridhar (PW.1) had given a complaint based on the voluntary statement of the accused and he received the same and registered a case in Crime No.122/2012, prepared the FIR and dispatched the same to the Jurisdictional Court. He has identified the said FIR as Ex.P12 and also Ex.P1 as the report lodged by PW.1. He later handed over further investigation to CW.21 – Ramesh Kumar. There is no much crossexamination so far as this witness is concerned except suggesting that the deceased Vanithabai was suffering from stomach ache and it was well within the knowledge of this witness also. But the said suggestion was not accepted by stating that he had no knowledge about the same. 26. PW.13, Lakshmana Naika, was working as Circle Inspector of Police during that time at Chitradurga Rural Police Station and he took over the investigation in connection with this case and obtained certified copy of the Judgment in S.C.No.85/2012, wherein, this accused was convicted for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and for other offences with reference to the death of one Susheela Bai. The same was marked as Ex.P4. He has deposed that he has submitted the additional charge sheet before the Court. Except stating that, he has obtained the certified copy of the Judgment as per Ex.P4, he has not stated anything about the complicity of the accused in the crime. 27. PW.14, Ramesh Kumar is the last witness on the side of the prosecution. He was working as a Circle Inspector of Police during the year 2012. Except stating that, he has obtained the certified copy of the Judgment as per Ex.P4, he has not stated anything about the complicity of the accused in the crime. 27. PW.14, Ramesh Kumar is the last witness on the side of the prosecution. He was working as a Circle Inspector of Police during the year 2012. He has stated that, on 6.4.2012 in Crime No.122/2012 pertaining to this case, he took over the investigation from PW.12, PSI and on 6.4.2012, he visited the spot and recorded the statement of some of the witnesses and conducted the Mahazar as per Ex.P9 and he came to know that, the accused is in custody in connection with S.C.No.85/2012. He obtained a body warrant and took the accused to the custody and came to know that the accused had projected the death of his wife as if it was a suicide in order to screen himself from the offence of murder though he had committed the murder of his wife. After completing the investigation, he has filed the charge sheet for the offences under Sections 302, 201 and 203 of IPC. Except stating that, he has recorded the statement of the witnesses and took the accused to his custody and produced him before the court in connection with this case, nothing has been stated by him as to how he conclusively came to know that the accused has committed the murder of his wife. 28. Looking to the above said evidence as we have carefully and meticulously reevaluated the evidence of all the witnesses, in our opinion, there is absolutely no evidence elicited from the mouth of any of the witnesses to connect the accused in any manner except that in one sentence PW.2 has stated that the accused and deceased were residing together and at the time of death of Vanithabai, the accused and deceased were living together. We have appreciated the evidence of the said lady by looking into the other circumstances of the case as the said witness was not at all residing at Madakaripura at the relevant point of time. She is not a competent witness to say whether on the particular day and time of the incident, the accused actually visited the said village Madakaripura and the house of Vanithabai. She is not a competent witness to say whether on the particular day and time of the incident, the accused actually visited the said village Madakaripura and the house of Vanithabai. On the other hand, we have also examined the evidence, which discloses that after the death of Rama Swamy Naika i.e., the brother of the accused, the accused permanently shifted himself to the house of his brother and according to the prosecution the accused developed illicit intimacy with Susheela Bai and he was continuously residing there but often used to visit the house of Vanithabai. Therefore, we cannot draw a conclusive inference that, the accused and deceased were residing together continuously in the said place, where the death of deceased Vanithabai occurred at Madakaripura. Therefore, there is no proof to say that the accused and deceased atleast last resided together in the said place and were last seen together at least nearby the time before the death of deceased Vanithabai. Therefore, looking to the above said evidence, in our opinion, there is absolutely no evidence against the accused. Virtually, we can say that there is zero evidence. 29. Therefore, now we have to examine on what basis, the Trial Court has convicted the accused. Virtually we were taken aback after going through the Judgment of the Trial Court, as the entire Judgment is based on conjectures and surmises. We have to say here if a Judge forms an opinion or draws an inference which is not based on any definite evidence but forms the said opinion by means of guess work, it amounts to conjectures. On the other hand, forming an opinion on an inconclusive evidence or insufficient material and coming to a proposition that something might be true even though there is no evidence for confirmation, that amounts to a surmise. In this background, we have to examine the Judgment of the Trial Court. The Trial Court in fact has simply reiterated the evidence of all the witnesses, and at the end has said that there is nothing to disbelieve these witnesses, but it has not appreciated the evidence as to what is there to believe in the evidence of the said witnesses with reference to the commission of the crime by the accused person. 30. 30. At paragraph14, the Trial Court has come to the conclusion that on 4.2.1999, it was shown that, the accused had visited the house of the deceased and that the accused has not given any explanation so far as to what happened in his house even in his 313 Cr.P.C., statement or in the course of crossexamination of any of the witnesses. We are afraid to accept the said observation made by the Trial Court for the simple reason that, in a case of circumstantial evidence whatever may be the circumstances projected by the prosecution, those circumstances have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution to prove the guilt. The proven circumstances should complete the chain to indicate unerringly the commission of the offence by the accused. Here none of the witnesses have deposed before the Court that they had seen the accused person at any point of time or reasonably close to the time prior to the date of incident at Madakaripura with the deceased or in the house where the accused and deceased were residing after their marriage. We do not find as to from where the Trial Court has derived this evidence in order to draw such an inference that the prosecution has proved the case that, the accused and deceased were last seen together on the date of the incident. Therefore, it is nothing but a fertile imagination by the Trial Court in order to draw such a wrong inference. 31. Again at paragraph – 15, the Trial Court has observed that the parties in the earlier case have compromised the matter and therefore, the UDR case ended with a false report submitted by the Police by closing the case. This has been taken seriously by the Trial Court by saying that, one can presume that the accused has committed the murder and therefore, he has entered into compromise with other witnesses in the case. This observation in our opinion is baseless and ridiculous. There is absolutely no suggestion to any of the witnesses as we have already evaluated the prosecution evidence, that because the accused has committed the murder of his wife, he has persuaded all the witnesses and therefore the said case was closed etc. Therefore, in our opinion, this observation is on the basis of mere imagination and bereft of any legal evidence, the Trial Judge has formed such an opinion. Therefore, in our opinion, this observation is on the basis of mere imagination and bereft of any legal evidence, the Trial Judge has formed such an opinion. 32. Another observation made by the Trial Court is that there is no reason set out in the defence by the accused. There is a defence set out in the evidence that the deceased died due to stomach ache. But such evidence has come through from a person no other than the father and other witnesses and mother of the deceased. They have categorically stated in the examination-in-chief itself that the deceased was suffering from stomach ache. It is not the defence that has been taken in the crossexamination of these witnesses. It is elicited in the course of examinationinchief itself, but it has not been clarified either in the course of crossexamination of those witnesses, by the prosecution though they were treated hostile by the prosecution. Even otherwise, the false defence even if any taken by the accused, in our opinion, alone is not sufficient to draw the inference of the complicity of the accused in the absence of prosecution itself not proving its case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the Trial Court has also erred in drawing such inference on the basis of such conjectures. 33. The Trial Court has not actually after appreciating the evidence stated in the deposition of each of the witnesses as to what exactly is the incriminating evidence available against the accused in the evidence of those witnesses. But as we have already referred to, the Trial Court very mechanically has stated that, there is nothing to disbelieve the evidence of those witnesses. There has to be something to believe, and then the Court can say there is nothing to disbelieve the evidence. Therefore, in our opinion, the Trial Court on imagination has drawn such an inference. 34. The Trial Court has also made observation at paragraph No.21, which is really an astonishing factor, in our opinion that no ordinary prudent man can come to such a conclusion much less a Judicial Court. The trial Judge has commented upon the evidence of Dr.Geetha, where she has stated that injuries may be caused due to homicidal hanging. Further, the Trial Judge has added to that: “It seems that due to strangulation Smt.Vanithabai died, but it was not properly observed by the C.P.I., P.S.I., and the concerned doctors. The trial Judge has commented upon the evidence of Dr.Geetha, where she has stated that injuries may be caused due to homicidal hanging. Further, the Trial Judge has added to that: “It seems that due to strangulation Smt.Vanithabai died, but it was not properly observed by the C.P.I., P.S.I., and the concerned doctors. Because of all these negligence, case in U.D.R.NO.3/1999 has been closed.” 35. This, in our opinion, is totally baseless and there is absolutely no explanation given by the Trial Court as to how it has taken a different view from that of the opinion expressed by an expert. Doctor is an expert, who after the completion of the entire postmortem examination has given an opinion that the death was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging. As we have already observed that the words “homicidal hanging”, have not been used by the Doctor in her report but she improved only during the course of evidence that too after reopening of the case after a long lapse of 12 years. Of course ‘the Court is an expert of experts, but it does not mean to say, it can always step into the shoes of an expert or it can overcome the opinion of an expert without any basis and substitute its own opinion’. In order to overcome the evidence of an expert, the Judge has to give a proper, acceptable, logical reason how, in what manner he can over ride or overcome the opinion of an expert. Of course, Expert’s opinion is not binding on the Courts, but it becomes binding on the Court unless and until the Court differs from the opinion of an expert, on the basis of other sufficient recognized phenomenon of Medical Jurisprudence or reasons that logically emanate from the records. Therefore, in this particular case, there is absolutely no other evidence available to establish that the death of deceased Vanithabai was due to strangulation and not due to hanging. Therefore, the observation made by the Trial Court, in our opinion, is irrelevant, without any foundation and it cannot be accepted at all. 36. The Trial Judge has also observed at paragraph No.24 with reference to the evidence of PW.9, who has stated that as he has not visited the spot and he does not know in which place Kumar Naika resided during the year 1999. 36. The Trial Judge has also observed at paragraph No.24 with reference to the evidence of PW.9, who has stated that as he has not visited the spot and he does not know in which place Kumar Naika resided during the year 1999. The Trial Court has observed that PW.9, P.S.I. has not conducted proper investigation and washed his hands by closing the UDR, which is not proper. Again it remains a mystery on what basis, the Trial Court has come to the conclusion that PW.9 has without any basis washed his hands by means of closing the UDR case. In order to come to such a conclusion atleast after reopening of the case and during further investigation and filing of the charge sheet and during the course of evidence, there must be some evidence available to show that there is serious lapse on the part of the Investigating Officer in closing the UDR case. Without referring to any of the circumstances or evidence the Trial Court has in our opinion without looking into the materials on record has come to such a conclusion, which in our opinion is erroneous. 37. Further, the learned Trial Judge has relied upon the statement of CW.13 – Raja Naika, who has lodged his earlier report suspecting the death of his daughter. The trial Judge has observed that, though CW.13, Raja Naika has suspected the death of deceased Vanithabai, the Police officials, Doctor, Taluka Executive Magistrate have not conducted the investigation properly and tried to close the matter. If that were to be the true situation why the trial Judge has not initiated any proceedings against these officers and further added to that, there is no material to show that the statement of Raja Naika – CW.13 is virtually translated into evidence in any manner before the Court, as substantive piece of material which the Trial Court could have relied upon and could have made such accusation against the Police officials, Doctor, Taluka Executive Magistrate. Here again we have to reiterate here that, the courts have to presume that, all the public officials, who exercise their powers and discharge their duty, have done the same in accordance with law unless it is established before the Court with cogent convincing evidence that, they discharged their duty with mala fides, by misusing their positions. Here again we have to reiterate here that, the courts have to presume that, all the public officials, who exercise their powers and discharge their duty, have done the same in accordance with law unless it is established before the Court with cogent convincing evidence that, they discharged their duty with mala fides, by misusing their positions. Without discussing those matters, merely making accusation against a public servant is not advisable to the Courts. 38. The last but not the least, the Trial Court has made an observation that the sole responsibility is there on the accused to explain what happened in his house, how his wife died in the house, where the accused and deceased were residing. Mainly, the Trial Court concentrated on the defence taken by the accused and nonexplanation in 313 of Cr.P.C., statement, presuming that the prosecution has proved that the accused and deceased were found residing together on that day of the incident. In this context we remind the courts as to how the prosecution has to prove a case in a circumstantial evidence case. It is a long tested principle that in a circumstantial evidence case, the court has to first examine, keeping aside the defence taken by the accused, whether independent of the defence taken by the accused in 313 of Cr.P.C., statement or during the course of crossexamination, the prosecution stands on its own legs. It is the burden on the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. If not the mere taking of any defence even an imaginary defence by the accused will not come to the aid of the prosecution so as to establish the case of the prosecution. Therefore, the consideration of the defence of the accused is secondary in a criminal case. Primarily, the Court has to examine whether the prosecution itself has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt or not. Therefore, the basic principles of criminal jurisprudence have not been properly understood by the Trial Judge in considering the above said aspects. 39. Therefore, looking from any angle, the Judgment of the Trial Court is completely full of conjectures and surmises as rightly submitted by the learned counsel. It is only on the basis of the imagination the trial Judge without there being any legal evidence, rendered the impugned erroneous judgment. 39. Therefore, looking from any angle, the Judgment of the Trial Court is completely full of conjectures and surmises as rightly submitted by the learned counsel. It is only on the basis of the imagination the trial Judge without there being any legal evidence, rendered the impugned erroneous judgment. In this context, we are reminded of a decision of the Apex Court of a bench consisting of three Judges in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116 , The Apex Court has observed that: “In a circumstantial evidence case, Cardinal principles for conviction on the basis of, restated – Falsity of defence plea if a circumstance against the accused – Held that the circumstances not sufficient to conclusively establish the guilt of the accused. The circumstance of last seen together and other circumstances examined in the light of the facts of the case. The circumstance that the accused has taken the false plea or false defence will not constitute any link in the chain of circumstances against the accused. Infirmities in the prosecution case cannot be cured by use of such defence of the accused.” 40. Therefore, in our opinion, the defence alone could not boomerang against the accused as misunderstood, by the learned Sessions Judge. 41. In another case, in the case of State of U.P. v. Hakim Singh and others reported in (1980) 3 SCC 55 , the Apex Court has observed that: “A perusal of the judgment of the High Court clearly shows that the High Court has not dealt with intrinsic merits of the evidence of the witnesses, but has brushed aside their evidence on surmises and conjectures and on preponderance of improbabilities on imagination. With very great respect to the Hon’ble Judges we are constrained to observe that the judgment of the High Court, is not only not in accordance with law but it borders on perversity.” 42. We have to add to the above that, if a Court expresses its opinion, draws any inference without any basis, without any evidence on record and without any logical reasons, such Judgment would not stand to judicial scrutiny. We have to add to the above that, if a Court expresses its opinion, draws any inference without any basis, without any evidence on record and without any logical reasons, such Judgment would not stand to judicial scrutiny. In this background, we reiterate the golden principles, by saying that, it is the responsibility and obligation on the part of the Courts either in the case of conviction or in the case of acquittal, to make a complete comprehensive appreciation of all the vital features of the case. The evidence brought on record in its entirety has to be scrutinized with utmost care and caution. It is the duty of a Judge to see that justice is properly administered, which is the paramount consideration of a Judge. The responsibility bestowed on the Courts cannot be mitigated or obliterated even remotely without any reason derived from the records. The Court is also required to appreciate the evidence meticulously to draw the inferences based on sound reasons logically flowing from the requisite analysis of the materials on record. The logical reasons must always be on the analysis of the materials on record. Therefore, the approach cannot be cryptic, it cannot be perverse, it cannot be imaginary and it cannot be on the basis of guess work. The duty of the Judge is to consider the evidence objectively and dispassionately and the reasons are to be well founded and with all certainty and conclusiveness the findings are to be expressed. The refractive attitude of the Judge must be demonstrable from the judgment itself. 43. All these qualitative analysis of the evidence is conspicuously absent so far as, the Judgment of the Trial Court is concerned. It is trite that, the Court has to safeguard the interest of the Society and the victim, but it is also the equal responsibility of the Judge to render justice to the Accused, after ascertaining whether the evidence available and material on record legally establishes the case of the prosecution and moral convictions are always deprecated. Hence, we have absolutely no hesitation to set aside the Judgment of the Trial Court. We also make it clear that a copy of this judgment be circulated to all the Judges in the State, who are in the helm of affairs. 44. Hence, we have absolutely no hesitation to set aside the Judgment of the Trial Court. We also make it clear that a copy of this judgment be circulated to all the Judges in the State, who are in the helm of affairs. 44. We have observed a very harsh punishment has been imposed by the Trial Court while imposing Life Imprisonment directing that the accused has to undergo the imprisonment till his last breath. In order to impose such a harsh sentence there should be a strong and unbeatable evidence with reference to the cruelty and conduct of the accused and surrounding circumstances of the case, which takes the case nearly to the rarest of rare case. Even if it falls within the category of a rarest of rare case, in order to impose punishment in between Life Imprisonment and the death, it is only the prerogative of the constitutional Courts to impose such punishment. Either the High Court or the Supreme Court exercising their powers derived from the Constitution only can impose such sentence, which is aggravated form of sentence between death and the Life Imprisonment. It is the prerogative of the Governments to exercise the powers of commutation and remission of sentence under Sections 432, 433 and 433A of Cr.P.C. President of India under Article 72 and the Governors of the States under Article 161 of the constitution can also exercise the powers to completely waive the sentence passed by the Courts. Therefore, by means of passing such an order extending the definition of the Life Imprisonment, it virtually curtails the vested right of the Government and the President of India and the Governors of the States. That cannot be done by the Sessions Judges while exercising the powers. The Indian Penal Code only recognizes two types of highest punishment that can be imposed by the Sessions Judges under the provisions under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the Sessions Judges in our opinion have absolutely no power to impose the punishment other than the Life Imprisonment by extending the same either directing that the person should not be released till his death or fixing the period for more than 14 years, like 25 years, 30 years or like that. Therefore, again we reiterate that it can only be done by the constitutional Courts. Therefore, again we reiterate that it can only be done by the constitutional Courts. The Trial Court infact without looking into these relevant provisions in the Criminal Procedure Code and the Indian constitution has imposed such a harsh punishment even without any legal basis or factual basis on record. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the Trial Court Judgment is not only erroneous but also not legal. Therefore the same is not sustainable. 45. The Registry is hereby directed to circulate a copy of this Judgment to all the judicial officers in the State. 46. With these observations, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed; (ii) The judgment of conviction dated 11.01.2018 and order of sentence dated 12.01.2018 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga in SC No.121/2014, is hereby set aside; (iii) Consequently, the appellant/accused is acquitted of the charges for the offence punishable under sections 302, 201 and 203 of IPC; (iv) The appellant/accused is set at liberty, forthwith, if he is not required in any other case; (v) Registry is hereby directed to communicate the operative portion of this judgment to the concerned jail authorities to release the accused if he is not required in any other case; (vi) Registry is also hereby directed to send back the records to the trial Court along with a copy of this judgment; (vii) If the appellant/accused has deposited any fine amount, the same is ordered to be refunded, on proper identification and acknowledgement.