JUDGMENT B.A.Patil, J. - The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/accused being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court') in S.C.No.90/2016 dated 24.12.2016. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional SPP for the respondent-State. 3. The facts of the case are that the father of the deceased filed a complaint alleging that the accused and the deceased were husband and wife and have begotten a son. On 23.03.2016 the deceased telephoned to her parents and intimated that the accused was suspecting her fidelity and had assaulted her and he was causing physical and mental harassment to her. She also informed that he has threatened that he would take away her life and in the meanwhile, on 24.03.2016, the accused telephoned to the sister of the deceased and intimated that his wife had died. Immediately when they came to the house, they saw the dead body of the deceased which was lying in the hall and there was nobody in the house and accordingly a complaint was registered. 4. On the basis of the complaint, a case has been registered in Crime No.55/2016. Thereafter the police investigated the case and charge sheet has been lodged as against the accused. After committal of the case, the learned Sessions Judge took cognizance and framed the charges and the accused pleaded not guilty. In order to prove the case, the prosecution examined in all 23 witnesses as PW1 to PW23 and got marked 40 documents at Exs.P1 to P40 and got identified M.O.1 to 6. Thereafter the statement of the accused was recorded by putting the incriminating materials as against him. The accused denied all such incriminating materials on record but has not led any defence evidence. However, he got marked Ex.D1. Thereafter hearing both the parties impugned judgment was came to be passed. 5. The main contention urged by the learned counsel for the appellant are that the appellant has been convicted for the offences though there is no evidence. The trial Court erroneously convicted the accused. It is her further contention that there are no eye witnesses to the alleged incident. 5. The main contention urged by the learned counsel for the appellant are that the appellant has been convicted for the offences though there is no evidence. The trial Court erroneously convicted the accused. It is her further contention that there are no eye witnesses to the alleged incident. Only on the basis of the interested testimony of PW10, 11 and 12 and without there being any corroborative evidence, the trial Court under such doubtful circumstances has convicted the accused. It is her further contention that mere suspecting or doubting will not prove the case of the prosecution. The prosecution has to clearly establish the fact beyond all reasonable doubt. Even though there is no positive evidence as against the accused to show that the accused who has committed the alleged offence, the trial Court has erroneously convicted the accused only on the fact that the accused is the husband of the deceased. It is her further contention that all the independent witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and they have been turned hostile. Under such circumstances, the trial Court ought to have given the benefit of doubt and ought to have acquitted the accused. On these grounds she prayed to allow the appeal and to set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence by acquitting the accused. 6. Per contra the learned additional SPP vehemently argued and submitted that PW10 to 12 are the relatives of the deceased and they have clearly deposed before the Court admitting the fact that the deceased used to inform that the accused suspected the fidelity and character and was illtreating and harassing the deceased and even the evidence of PW1 goes to show that the accused and the deceased were staying together. It is further clear from the evidence that the ASI went to the house of the accused and at that time deceased and the accused were quarreling and they have been brought to the police station and they have given an undertaking that it is their family matter and they are amicably going to settle. Immediately on the intervening night of 23.03.2016 and 24.03.2016 the alleged incident has taken place. 7. Immediately on the intervening night of 23.03.2016 and 24.03.2016 the alleged incident has taken place. 7. The prosecution has clearly established the fact that the accused and the deceased were staying in the house and the unnatural death has taken place in the premises, then under such circumstances, it is the accused who has to explain how the unnatural death of the deceased has taken place. In the absence of any such material, only inference which can be drawn is that it is the accused who has caused the unnatural death of his wife. Taking into consideration the above said facts, the trial Court rightly convicted the accused. There are no good grounds made out to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court and the said judgment deserves to be confirmed and it is the ground to dismiss the appeal. 8. We have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records including the lower Court records. 9. The prosecution in order to prove its case has got examined 23 witnesses. PW1 and 2 are the owners and neighbors residing nearby the house. They have to speak with regard to the quarrel and illicit relationship of the deceased and parents advise and other consideration. As they have been completely given a goodbye to their earlier version, they have been treated as hostile. PW3 is also a witness with similar circumstance. He has also not supported the case of the prosecution and has been treated as hostile. PW4 and PW5 are the panchas for the inquest mahazar panchanama i.e., Ex.P5. PW4 is partly turned hostile and PW5 is completely turned hostile. PW6 and 7 are the panchas for the seizure mahazar panchanama of the clothes of the deceased as per Ex.P10. Even they have not supported the case of the prosecution. PW8 is the pancha for seizure mahazar panchanama of the clothes of the accused and the veil which has been used for the purpose of committing the offence. He has also not supported the case of the prosecution and he has been treated as hostile. PW9 has deposed that on a Holi Hunnime day at about 6.00pm to 6.30pm, the accused took him and the police and the material objects viz., one rose colour veil, a black nighty, a langa and a nikker were produced. He has also not supported the case of the prosecution and he has been treated as hostile. PW9 has deposed that on a Holi Hunnime day at about 6.00pm to 6.30pm, the accused took him and the police and the material objects viz., one rose colour veil, a black nighty, a langa and a nikker were produced. Same were seized by drawing a mahazar as per Ex.P11. In his cross examination he has deposed that no prior notice has been given to the said witness. He has not given any information to write the panchanama. He has admitted that in his presence the said panchanama was not written and the other suggestions have been denied. PW10 father of the deceased has deposed that the deceased was given in marriage to the accused and she has given birth to a child and the deceased used to work in anganwadi at Alnawar. Prior to the marriage, he had married to another woman and subsequently he got divorce and got married to the deceased. He has further deposed that the deceased used to tell that the accused was suspecting her character and used to ill-treat and harass her. He has further deposed that on 24.03.2016 his daughter Shantha had received a call from the accused and informed that the deceased has died and immediately they came to the house of the accused and saw the dead body lying in the house and after that he has filed the complaint. PW11 sister of the deceased and PW12 mother of the deceased have also deposed on similar lines. During the course of cross examination, nothing has been elicitated so as to discard their evidence. PW13 is the first wife of the accused. She has not supported the case of the prosecution and she has been treated hostile. PW14 is the doctor who has conducted autopsy over the body of the deceased. In his evidence, he has deposed that the death of the deceased was due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation and time since death was more than 12 hours and less than 24 hours and he has also given post mortem report as per Ex.P23. PW15 is the ASI who received a wireless message and on the basis of that he went to the house of the accused. PW15 is the ASI who received a wireless message and on the basis of that he went to the house of the accused. The accused and the deceased were quarreling and the people had gathered and he has taken them to the police station and produced before PW17. PW16 is the police constable who has taken the photographs of the proceedings. PW17 is the head constable, who has deposed that on 23.03.2016 at about 5.40 pm, one Ayub A. Killedar came to the police station and informed that the deceased had called him over phone and informed that she wanted to talk to him and accordingly he went to her house but at that time the first wife's children objected and as he suspected that some mischief might happen, he came from there and informed the same to the police. The accused, deceased and the children of the first wife were produced before the police station by one of the police who was on duty and at that time the deceased and the accused have given an undertaking as per Ex.P31. During the course of cross examination, all the suggestions have been denied but nothing has been elicited so as to discard this evidence. PW18 is the head constable who carried the FIR-Ex.P34 to the jurisdictional Court. PW19 is the owner of the house who let the house to the accused. He has been also treated as hostile. PW20 is the broker who arranged the house of PW19 to be let to the accused. He has not supported the case of the prosecution. PW21 is the women police constable who has carried the dead body to the hospital for conducting post mortem. PW22 is the police constable who has carried the seized articles to RFSL, Belagavi. PW23 is the police inspector who investigated the case and filed the charge as against the accused. 10. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused was suspecting her fidelity and used to illtreat and harass the deceased and in that light in the intervening night of 23.03.2016 and 24.03.2016, the death of the deceased Gracy has taken place in the house. Though the prosecution has got examined many witnesses, including the neighbors, they have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been treated hostile. Though the prosecution has got examined many witnesses, including the neighbors, they have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been treated hostile. PW10 to 12 are the father, sister and mother of the deceased and they are the hearsay witnesses and they only spoke with regard to the deceased informing about the accused suspecting her character and ill-treating and harassing her. Admittedly in the instant case on hand, there are no eye witnesses to the alleged incident. When the entire case rests on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has to prove all the chain of events and if all these chain of events with important links have been established by the prosecution, then under such circumstances, it could be held that the prosecution has proved the guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. Where the charge sought to be proved rests only on circumstantial evidence, motive, will be an important factor in order to tilt the case. This proposition of law has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of KUNA ALIAS SANJAYA BEHERA Vs. STATE OF ODISHA, (2018) 1 SCC 296 . 11. Keeping in view the ratio laid down in the above said decision and after perusal of the evidence and materials placed on record, we find that though the prosecution has got examined PW20, he has not supported the case of the prosecution and he has been treated hostile. Though PW10 to 12 have spoken with regard to the fact that the deceased informed over the phone about the ill-treatment and harassment caused by the accused by suspecting her fidelity and character, but the evidence discloses the fact that no steps have been taken by these witnesses to pacify the situation and advise the accused. In the absence of any such material, it cannot be held that the motive alleged against the accused has been proved by the prosecution. 12. The prosecution by the evidence of PW14 the doctor has established the fact that the deceased died due to asphyxi as a result of strangulation and died an unnatural death. But merely because the accused suspected the character of deceased, he cannot be convicted for the alleged offence. 12. The prosecution by the evidence of PW14 the doctor has established the fact that the deceased died due to asphyxi as a result of strangulation and died an unnatural death. But merely because the accused suspected the character of deceased, he cannot be convicted for the alleged offence. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused by taking support under Section 106 of Evidence Act, the prosecution has to clearly establish the fact that the couple were lastly seen in the premises to which outsider may not have any access. Only if that fact is established by the prosecution, the burden will shift upon the accused to explain the grounds of unnatural death of his wife. It is well settled proposition of law that initially the burden is always there on the prosecution. The prosecution has to establish the fact that the couple were lastly seen together in the said premises and the deceased has died an unnatural death. But in the instant case, the crucial aspect of the fact that lastly the accused and the deceased were living together in the said house as on the date and time of the incident, has not been established. In the absence of any such material, no inference can be drawn under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. 13. It is contended by the learned additional SPP that the evidence produced by the prosecution clearly goes to show that quarrel was going on in between the accused and the deceased and they have been taken to the police station and they have also given undertaking as per Ex.P31. But merely on the basis of the said evidence no inference can be drawn to the effect that it is the accused who has committed the alleged offence. On the contrary, the evidence produced in this behalf goes to show that the children of first wife have also visited the house of the accused and the deceased and they have also quarreled with the deceased for having spoken with PW20. When the said material is available, under such circumstances, it cannot be held that it is the accused alone who was there in the house, under such circumstances the accused cannot be called upon to explain the ground for unnatural death of his wife. When the said material is available, under such circumstances, it cannot be held that it is the accused alone who was there in the house, under such circumstances the accused cannot be called upon to explain the ground for unnatural death of his wife. In order to substantial this proposition of law, we rely on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of DNYANESHWAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, (2007) 10 SCC 445 at paragraph 10 it has been observed as under: "10. It has not been disputed before us that the deceased was murdered in her matrimonial home. It is not the case of the appellant that the offence was committed by somebody else. It is also not his case that there was a possibility of an outsider to commit the said offence. One of the circumstances which is relevant is that when the couple was last seen in a premises to which an outsider may not have any access, it is for the husband to explain the ground for unnatural death of his wife. In Raj Kumar Prasad Tamarkar v. State of Bihar, this Court held: "22. The conspectus of the events which had been noticed by the learned Sessions Judge as also by the High Court categorically goes to show that at the time when the occurrence took place, the deceased and the respondent only were in the bedroom and the terrace connecting the same. There was no other person. The cause of death of the deceased Usha Devi i.e. by a gun short injury is not disputed. The fact that the terrace and the bedroom are adjoining each other is not in dispute. 23. The autopsy report shows that 'a blackening and charring' existed so far as Injury (i) is concerned. The blackening and charring keeping in view the nature of the firearm, which is said to have been used clearly go to show that a shot was fired from a short distance. Blackening or charring is possible when a shot is fired from a distance of about 2 feet to 3 feet. It, therefore cannot be a case where the death might have been caused by somebody by firing a shot at the deceased from a distance of more than 6 feet. The place of injury is also important. The lacerated wound was found over glabella (middle of forehead). It, therefore cannot be a case where the death might have been caused by somebody by firing a shot at the deceased from a distance of more than 6 feet. The place of injury is also important. The lacerated wound was found over glabella (middle of forehead). It goes a long way to show that the same must have been done by a person who wanted to kill the deceased from a short distance. There was, thus, a remote possibility of causation of such type of injury by any other person, who was not in the terrace. Once the prosecution has been able to show that a the relevant time, the room and terrace were in exclusive occupation of the couple, the burden of proof lay upon the respondent to show under what circumstances death was caused to his wife. The onus was on him. He failed to discharge the same." 14. Keeping in view the ratio laid down in the above decision and taking into consideration the fact that when there is lack of evidence to the effect that the couple were last seen together in the premises, the benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused. 15. On perusal of the judgment of the trial Court these facts and proposition of law has not been properly looked into by the trial Court. The trial Court has erroneously convicted the accused. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence in that regard is liable to be set aside. 16. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad in SC No.90/16 dated 24.12.2016 is set aside and the accused is acquitted of the charges leveled against him. 17. The bail bond and surety bond stands cancelled. The learned Sessions Judge is hereby directed, if any fine amount has been deposited by the appellant/accused, the same may be refunded to him on proper identification and acknowledgment. Registry is directed to send back the lower Court records forthwith.