ORDER : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. The sole appellant-Chari Oraon has challenged the judgment of conviction dated 18.12.1993 under section 302 I.P.C. and the order of sentence of R.I. for life dated 20.12.1993 passed by the Additional Judicial Commissioner, Lohardaga in S.T. No.418 of 1991/46 of 1992. 2. By an order dated 10.02.1994, the appellant was granted bail by this Court. 3. The prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence; there is no eye-witness to the actual occurrence in which the deceased-Birsu Oraon has been killed. 4. On the basis of ferd-beyan of Narayan Oraon, younger brother of the deceased-Birsu Oraon, which was recorded at about 9.30 a.m. on 17.08.1990 at police station, Senha P.S. Case No.68 of 1990 was registered against the accused-appellant under section 302 I.P.C. After the investigation, charge-sheet was filed and cognizance of the offence was taken by the court for the offence under section 302 I.P.C. A charge under section 302 I.P.C. has been framed by an order dated 23.02.1993 against the accused-appellant. 5. During the trial, the prosecution has examined 12 witnesses; wife of the deceased namely, Parbatiya Orain has been examined as P.W 2, his daughters namely, Rawi Kumari and Ranthi Kumari have been examined as P.W 3 and P.W 4 respectively and his younger brother namely, Narayan Oraon has been examined as P.W 10. The investigating officer has examined himself as P.W 11. 6. On the basis of the evidences laid before him, the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, Lohardaga has held that the circumstances brought on record “make him believe” that the accused-appellant has caused death of Birsu Oraon. 7. Ms. Amrita Banerjee, the learned Amicus has raised two-fold contentions; (i) the circumstances referred by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, Lohardaga in paragraph no.11 of the judgment do not complete the chain of circumstances so as to convict the appellant under section 302 I.P.C, and (ii) suspicion howsoever strong cannot be a substitute for the legal evidence so as to convict an accused, more particularly, in a serious offence like murder. 8. Ms. Amrita Banerjee, the learned Amicus has referred to the decision in “Navaneethakrishnan Vs. 8. Ms. Amrita Banerjee, the learned Amicus has referred to the decision in “Navaneethakrishnan Vs. State by Inspector of Police” reported in (2018) 16 SCC 161 , to contend that the incriminating circumstances must be clearly established by the reliable and clinching evidences and the circumstances so proved must form a chain of events from which it can be safely inferred that it was the accused and accused alone who has committed the crime. 9. On the other hand, Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, the learned A.P.P. has contended that once the accused has failed to explain satisfactorily the incriminating circumstances put to him in his examination under section 313 Cr.P.C., that he was last seen together with the deceased-Birsu Oraon, and he has failed to lead any evidence to establish that on the fateful day he had gone to Lohardaga Bazar, the judgment of conviction of the appellant cannot be faulted. 10. In the first place, we intend to record that in a case primarily based on circumstantial evidence the prosecution must first prove the circumstances and then establish that the circumstances so proved against the accused complete the chain of circumstances so as to exclude any reasonable probability of innocence of the accused. The law on the subject is by now well-settled so much so that only when it is found that the proved circumstances establish that it was the accused and the accused alone who has committed the crime, he can be convicted for the offence alleged against him. In paragraph no.11 of the judgment the learned Judicial Commissioner has referred to the following circumstances: (i) the deceased was seen in the company of the appellant at about 12 p.m. (ii) the deceased thereafter was not seen alive, and (iii) the investigating officer could not arrest him. 11. Before we proceed to analyze the prosecution evidence, we must indicate that one of the circumstances referred by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, that the investigating officer could not arrest the accused to hold the appellant guilty for murder of Birsu Oraon, is an outstanding reason given by him. There may be several situations in which the investigating officer has failed to arrest an accused; least to say, he did not take any effort to arrest the accused. These are, however, the issues in the realm of speculation, but a criminal trial does not proceed on probability and speculations. 12. There may be several situations in which the investigating officer has failed to arrest an accused; least to say, he did not take any effort to arrest the accused. These are, however, the issues in the realm of speculation, but a criminal trial does not proceed on probability and speculations. 12. The prosecution case is that on 16.08.1990 Birsu Oraon, brother of the informant, had gone to Mahdaniya Tand to observe paddy crop (Gora). The informant was later on informed by the wife of Birsu Oraon that at about 12.30 p.m. he had come back home and again gone to Mahdaniya Tand with the accused-Chari Oraon, but thereafter he did not come back home. In the evening at about 6.30 p.m. he went to the jungle carrying meal for Birsu Oraon and on the way he found someone lying, body covered with a blanket. When he did not get any response from the man lying there he removed the blanket and found that it was his brother-Birsu Oraon. He found that blood was oozing from his face and ear and his head, ear and back were crushed by stone. He thereafter came back home and gave this information to the villagers who rushed to the jungle and found the dead body of Birsu Oraon. The witness-Chandari Kumari has deposed in the court that the accused-appellant and the deceased-Birsu Oraon had gone to Tand ¼nksuks VkaM Äweus tk jgs Fks½ . Wife of the deceased has also spoken on the similar lines. None of the witnesses has alleged any animosity between the appellant and the deceased-Birsu Oraon and they have also not spoken about any word uttered by the appellant which may indicate that the appellant had forced Birsu Oraon to accompany him, rather the evidence led by the prosecution is that Birsu Oraon had gone with the appellant on his own. 13. We find that the only circumstance which has been proved by the prosecution is that the accused was last seen in the company of the deceased. 13. We find that the only circumstance which has been proved by the prosecution is that the accused was last seen in the company of the deceased. This may be one of the circumstances, but not the only circumstance on the basis of which an accused can be convicted for the offence under section 302 I.P.C. The law assumes that when a man is last seen in the company of the accused and soon thereafter his dead body has been recovered it may be the accused who has committed the crime, but then, if the accused has offered an explanation what has happened thereafter, he has discharged his onus. To hold that an accused must answer each and every incriminating circumstance during his examination under section 313 Cr.P.C., would be against the basic principle in law. We are of the opinion that it was not necessary for the appellant to establish that at the time of occurrence he was at Lohardaga Bazar. It is the fundamental principle in criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution must prove its case to the hilt, that is, beyond all shadows of reasonable doubt. Whenever there are two possibilities which can be inferred from the evidence brought on record, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt. Leaving aside this, we find that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish its case against the appellant. 14. On such unsecured foundation on which the prosecution evidence is laid, the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner has committed a grave mistake in law in convicting the appellant for the offence under section 302 I.P.C. 15. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 18.12.1993 under section 302 I.P.C. and the order of sentence of R.I. for life dated 20.12.1993 passed by the Additional Judicial Commissioner, Lohardaga in S.T. No.418 of 1991/46 of 1992 are set-aside. The appellant is discharged of the liability of bail-bonds which he has furnished pursuant to order dated 10.02.1994. 16. In the result, Criminal Appeal No.23 of 1994 (R) is allowed. 17. We appreciate the efforts of Ms. Amrita Banerjee, the learned Amicus who has prepared 5-pages notes on the prosecution evidence and ably assisted the Court arguing this criminal appeal on behalf of the appellant. 18. The assistance rendered by Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, the learned A.P.P. is also appreciated. 19. 17. We appreciate the efforts of Ms. Amrita Banerjee, the learned Amicus who has prepared 5-pages notes on the prosecution evidence and ably assisted the Court arguing this criminal appeal on behalf of the appellant. 18. The assistance rendered by Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, the learned A.P.P. is also appreciated. 19. The Secretary, Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee shall reimburse the learned Amicus on submission of bills. She shall be paid Rs.5500/-for each effective date of hearing, but subject to the cap as provided under the Notification dated 23.11.2017. 20. Let the lower-court records be transmitted to the court concerned, forthwith.