JUDGMENT B.A.Patil, J. - This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot, (herein after referred to as the 'trial Court'), in Sessions Case No.1/2013 dated 26.08.2016, wherein the appellant-accused has been convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- with default clause. 2. We have heard the learned counsel Sri. Neelendra Gunde, for the appellant and the learned Additional S.P.P. Sri V.M. Banakar for the respondent- State. 3. The genesis of the case of the prosecution in brief is that the complainant is the father of the deceased. He got married his daughter Shivaleela to the accused when she was a minor and therefore, the deceased used to stay with her parents. When she attained the age of majority, accused was asked to take her to the matrimonial home and at that time, the accused told the complainant and his family members that he will take her to the matrimonial home only after he getting the job as he is about to get the Government job. Subsequently, accused was selected as a police constable and joined for his duties. Even then the accused did not took the deceased, when the complainant asked the accused, he told that after completing the training period he will come and take her. Thereafter, the accused was posted for training at Bellary. It is further alleged in the complaint that the accused applied for leave on 2/9/2012 and came to Kolhar. On 3/9/2012 evening, he came to the village of the complainant and stayed in their farm house. It is further alleged that the deceased Shivaleela had joined the tailoring class and she used to go to the class at about 9.00 O'clock and as usual on 4/9/2012, morning at about 9.00 O'clock, she left to Bilagi. Accused also accompanied the deceased by saying that he will also go with her to Bilagi and from there he will go to Kolhar. 4. The complainant waited up to 6.00 O'clock and at that time, he got a phone call from his daughter saying that she is waiting for her husband at Bilagi cross as told by him, once he comes to Bilagi cross from Kolhar, both of them will come to home together. 4. The complainant waited up to 6.00 O'clock and at that time, he got a phone call from his daughter saying that she is waiting for her husband at Bilagi cross as told by him, once he comes to Bilagi cross from Kolhar, both of them will come to home together. But, even after 10.00 p.m., accused and the deceased did not returned to home. He was under the impression that they might have slept in his elder brother's house at Tolamatti he kept quite. It is further alleged that on 5/9/2012, morning at about 6 o' clock his elder brother Ningappa came from Tolamatti and when the complaint made enquiry with him as to whether the deceased and the accused have stayed in his house on the previous night, he told that they have not come to his house. When he made enquiry with his younger brother Shreeshaila, then he told that on the previous day at about 9.30 p.m., the deceased and the accused were proceeding by talking in a loud voice and when he questioned them, they told that everything is alright and they are coming to the village by walk as they have missed the bus. It is further alleged that at about 7.00 O'clock, the complainant received a message that body of his daughter was found lying by the side of the road at Erkal, with a wound visible on her neck and thereafter, he came to know that his daughter has been murdered by the accused as he was suspecting her fidelity. 5. On the basis of the complaint, a case has been registered in Crime No.148/2012. Thereafter, after investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed. 6. The learned Magistrate after following the procedure, committed the case to the Sessions Court. Sessions Court took the cognizance and secured the presence of the accused who are on bail and thereafter, after hearing the parties to the proceedings, the charge was prepared, read over and explained to the accused. Accused pleaded not guilty. He claims to be tried and as such, the trial was fixed. 7. The prosecution in order to prove the case got examined 15 witnesses, got marked 18 documents and 9 material objects. Thereafter, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. by putting incriminating material as against him. Accused pleaded not guilty. He claims to be tried and as such, the trial was fixed. 7. The prosecution in order to prove the case got examined 15 witnesses, got marked 18 documents and 9 material objects. Thereafter, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. by putting incriminating material as against him. He denied the said incriminating materials, but he has not led any evidence nor got marked any documents. After hearing both the sides, the trial Court passed the impugned order of conviction and sentence. Challenging the legality and correctness of the said judgment, the appellant accused is before this Court. 8. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the appellant accused are that the impugned judgment of the Trial Court is contrary to law, facts and circumstances. The trial Court has erroneously without there being any basis and without there being any link between the evidence has wrongly convicted the accused. It is his further submission that the entire case rests on circumstantial evidence. Though the prosecution has relied upon the motive, if the contents of the complaint and the evidence of PW-1, are seen together, it reveals that at the first instance complainant PWs.1 and 3-the younger brother of PW-1 and the wife of PW-1 and PW-4 have deposed that by suspecting the fidelity of the deceased, the accused has committed the murder of the deceased. But, subsequently, in his evidence PW-1 has deposed that accused used to demand Rs.4,00,000/- for taking the deceased back. When an improvement has been made in the evidence of PW-1 for implicating one more motive apart from the one that which has been made out in the complaint that itself creates a suspicion in the case of the prosecution about the motive. It is the further submission that if the accused has suspected the fidelity of the deceased and the same has been informed by the deceased to the members of the family, then under such circumstances, that atleast some elders could have been called and the matter should have been pacified. No such evidence has been also brought before the Court. It is his further submission that except the interested testimony of PWs-1, 3 and 4 no other persons have deposed with regard to that motive. No such evidence has been also brought before the Court. It is his further submission that except the interested testimony of PWs-1, 3 and 4 no other persons have deposed with regard to that motive. Under such circumstances, it is hard to believe that there existed any motive for the accused to commit the murder of the deceased. It is his further submission that PWs-3 and 5 have deposed before the Court that they have seen the deceased and the accused coming together at about 9.30 p.m. by talking in loud voice in the road and that they have questioned them whether any problem is there and the accused and the deceased told that nothing is there and they are coming by walk as they have missed the bus. But if the evidence of PW-6 is seen that itself creates a doubt about they meeting the deceased and accused together at about 9.30 p.m. In the cross examination of PW-6, he has clearly admitted that at about 6.30 to 7.00 p.m., when they had been to Bilagi cross that they have seen the accused and the deceased and thereafter, accused boarded a bus towards Bijapur and deceased boarded a tempo to go to Tummarmatti. Under such circumstances, the evidence of PWs-3 and 5 does not repose any confidence that they have seen the accused and the deceased together at about 9.30 p.m. going by bus. Even the evidence of PW-8 also does not repose any confidence when the evidence of PWs.3, 5 and 6 if they do not repose any confidence. Under such circumstances, the benefit of doubt ought to have been given to the accused and accused alone. It is his further submission that when in circumstantial evidence relied on by the prosecution, if a slightest doubt arises the benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused. The trial Court without looking into the evidence in its right perspective, has wrongly appreciated and wrongly convicted the accused. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the appeal and to set aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and acquit the accused. 9. Per contra, learned Additional S.P.P. vehemently argued and contended that the evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 clearly indicates that the deceased was suspecting fidelity of the deceased and therefore, the accused used to quarrel. 9. Per contra, learned Additional S.P.P. vehemently argued and contended that the evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 clearly indicates that the deceased was suspecting fidelity of the deceased and therefore, the accused used to quarrel. Their evidence has not been disturbed during the course of cross examination. It is his further submission that PWs-5 and 6 have seen the accused and the deceased together going by talking in loud voice and subsequently, the deceased was found dead on the road side at Erkal road. It is his further submission that PWs-6 and 8 have also deposed with regard to they seeing the deceased and accused lastly near Bilagi cross. It is his further submission that the evidence of PW-6 was in the first instance recorded on 5/4/2016 and subsequently, he has been cross examined on 27/6/2016 and again the said witness has been deposed on 9/8/2016 and at that time, a stray admission has been made with regard to the accused boarding the bus towards Bijapur side and the deceased boarding tempo to go to Tummarmatti. When there is a long gap that itself goes to show that witnesses have been won over by the accused and got such admission. Under such circumstances, such evidence of PW-6 has to be discarded and the sustentative evidence of PWs-3, 5 and 8 have to be appreciated in its proper manner and if that evidence is looked into, then under such circumstances, it clearly indicates that it is the accused who had moved together with the deceased and thereafter, she has been found dead and the accused has not come up with any proper explanation as to what had happened after they have lastly seen together. In that light, the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and came to a right conclusion and has rightly convicted the accused. There are no good grounds to interfere with the judgment of the Trial Court. The judgment of the Trial Court deserves to be confirmed. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the appeal. 10. We have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records including the Trial Court records. 11. It is not in dispute that the entire case rests on circumstantial evidence and there are no eye witnesses to the alleged incident. 10. We have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records including the Trial Court records. 11. It is not in dispute that the entire case rests on circumstantial evidence and there are no eye witnesses to the alleged incident. This is the case of the prosecution that marriage of the deceased was performed when the deceased was very young and thereafter, when she attained the age of the majority, they requested the accused to take her to the matrimonial home and the accused inturn told that he is about to get a Government job and immediately after getting the job, he will take and thereafter, the accused got appointed in the police department. When he joined the duty, again the complainant asked him but, he told that he will take her with him only after his training and thereafter on 2/9/2012, he applied for the leave and came to his house at Kolhar. On the next day he came to the village of the complainant and thereafter, on 4/9/2012 he and the deceased went together to go to Bilagi. In sofaras this evidence is concerned, there is consistency in the evidence of the prosecution and even nothing has been elicited so as to discard the said fact which has been brought on record. The only question which has remained for the consideration of this Court is what has happened when they left the house. 12. Pw1 is the father of the deceased and he is the complainant. In his evidence, he has reiterated what has been stated in the complaint Ex.P1. Apart from that, he has deposed that the accused used to demand Rs.4,00,000/- as dowry to take the deceased to matrimonial home. He has also further deposed that the accused used to threaten that if he is not given the amount, he will marry some other girl. Further accused was also suspecting the fidelity of his wife Shivaleela. During the course of cross examination, he has also admitted that he has been to police station for filing the complaint, after seeing the dead body of the deceased at about 7.30 p.m. to 8.00 p.m. and at that time, the accused was there in the police station. 13. Further accused was also suspecting the fidelity of his wife Shivaleela. During the course of cross examination, he has also admitted that he has been to police station for filing the complaint, after seeing the dead body of the deceased at about 7.30 p.m. to 8.00 p.m. and at that time, the accused was there in the police station. 13. Pw-2 is the inquest Pancha who signed Ex.P2 Inquest Panchanama and Ex.P4-Spot Mahazar and seizure of cloths of the deceased recovered as M.Os.1 to 4. During the course of cross examination, he has admitted that from Bilagi to go to his house so many vehicle facility is there and last bus comes at about 8.30pm. He has also further admitted that the house of PW-1 is at a distance of 3 kms. from his village and after 3 lands, there is the house of PW-3 Sri Shreeshail. Except that nothing has been brought on record in his evidence. 14. Pw-3 is the younger brother of the complainant, he has also reiterated the evidence of PW-1. He has further deposed that on 4/9/2012 at about 9.30 p.m. himself and PW-5 were coming on the motorcycle and at that time, they have seen the deceased and the accused were coming by walk and that they were talking in loud voice. Witness further deposed that they stopped their motorbike and asked the deceased and the accused as to why they are going so late and the deceased informed that they have missed the bus and they are returning to the house by walk. Witness further deposed that next day he came to know at about 7.00 p.m. that the deceased was found dead by the side of the road and he went and saw the dead body. He has suspected that the accused has committed the murder of the deceased, after they met there. PW-4 is the mother of the deceased, she has reiterated the evidence of PW-1. During the course of cross examination nothing has been elicited so as to discard the evidence. PW-5 is the witness who has also reiterated the evidence of PW-3. Nothing has been elicited so as to discard this evidence. 15. PW-4 is the mother of the deceased, she has reiterated the evidence of PW-1. During the course of cross examination nothing has been elicited so as to discard the evidence. PW-5 is the witness who has also reiterated the evidence of PW-3. Nothing has been elicited so as to discard this evidence. 15. Pw-6 is the witness said to have seen the accused and the deceased together at about 6.30 to 7.00 p.m., when they had been to Bilagi cross and at that time, the accused and the deceased were found standing and when he questioned the deceased Shivaleela as to why she is standing there, the deceased told that herself and her husband are going towards their house. During the course of cross examination recorded on 9/8/2016 he has deposed that the accused boarded the bus to go towards Bijpaur and the deceased boarded the tempo and proceeded towards Tummarmatti and thereafter, they went to their village at about 7.30 p.m. to 8.00 p.m. 16. Pw-7 is the teacher of the tailoring class where the deceased used to go to learn tailoring. He has deposed with regard to the deceased coming to his training class and that on the next day she did not come. Except that nothing has been deposed by this witness and even during the course of cross examination much dispute has not been raised in so far as this witness is concerned. PW-8 has also reiterated the evidence of PW-6. Nothing has been brought on record to discard his evidence. 17. Pw-9 is the Assistant Engineer who has drawn the hand sketch as per EXP8. PW-10 is a doctor who conducted autopsy over the body of the deceased and has issued PM report as per Ex.P10 and gave his opinion as per Ex.P11. He has opinioned that the cause of death is due to carcinogenic arrest secondary to Asphyxia due to the pressure over neck structure. Though several admissions have been taken through the mouth of this witness, in so far as the homicidal death of the deceased is concerned, the same has not been disputed. 18. Pw11 is the P.S.I. who received the complaint, Ex.P1 and registered the case and issued the FIR as per Ex.P11 and he has also apprehended the accused on 5/9/2012. Though several admissions have been taken through the mouth of this witness, in so far as the homicidal death of the deceased is concerned, the same has not been disputed. 18. Pw11 is the P.S.I. who received the complaint, Ex.P1 and registered the case and issued the FIR as per Ex.P11 and he has also apprehended the accused on 5/9/2012. PW-12 is the police constable who carried the dead body for post mortem and thereafter, he handed over the body to the relatives and he collected the cloths of the deceased and thereafter, he has submitted a report along with the said cloths as per Ex.P14. PW-13 is the Investigating Officer who has partly investigated the case. PW-14 is the police constable who had carried the FIR to the jurisdictional Court and submitted the same to the jurisdictional Magistrate along with FIR. PW-15 is the Investigating Officer who investigated the case and filed the charge sheet as against the accused. 19. We have carefully and cautiously gone through the evidence produced by the prosecution. In sofaras the deceased died homicidal death is concerned, the same has not been disputed. 20. The prosecution has relied mainly on two circumstances to prove the quilt of the accused. One is with regard to the motive that the accused used to suspect the fidelity of the deceased and therefore he might have committed the murder of the deceased. But, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint Ex.P1 and the evidence of PWs-1, 3 and 4, there is no consistency. Though it is contended that the accused used to suspect the fidelity, subsequently, PW-1 in his examination-chief has made an improvement to his version by saying that the accused used to demand Rs.4,00,000/- to take the deceased to the matrimonial home or otherwise he will be going to marry another girl. There was no reason as to why the said motive was not stated by PW-1 while filing the complaint. So when the witness is in the habit of improving the version and adding new motives, one after another, that itself creates a doubt in his evidence. 21. Be that as it may. There was no reason as to why the said motive was not stated by PW-1 while filing the complaint. So when the witness is in the habit of improving the version and adding new motives, one after another, that itself creates a doubt in his evidence. 21. Be that as it may. Except the interested testimony of PWs.1, 3 and 4 no other independent witnesses have been examined by the prosecution to substantiate the fact that the accused used to suspect the fidelity of the deceased and in that light, he has committed the murder. The said motive alleged appears to be surprising. Even as per the case of the prosecution the deceased got married the accused when she was young and thereafter, the complainant had asked the accused to take her to the matrimonial home. But, he had refused to take her with him on the ground that he is likely to get a Government job and only thereafter, he is going to take her. Subsequently, he got a job in the police department and when again was requested to take his wife, he told that after completion of the training he will come and take her to the matrimonial house. When they have not joined together even once, and in the absence of any such particulars as to why, where and when he started suspecting the fidelity of the deceased, such evidence is hard to believe. Even prosecution has not brought on records in the evidence to show that earlier the accused was knowing about the character of the deceased and was suspecting her fidelity and for that reason, he was avoiding to take her. If he was already suspected the fidelity, the contention of the prosecution that on the previous day of the incident the accused coming and staying in the house of the complainant itself creates a doubt. Further the evidence of PW-7 goes to show that the accused had gone along with the deceased upto Bilagi and thereafter the deceased had attended the training class. So when she has already attended the training class on that day, the last going together and thereafter, the deceased departing from the accused is also very clearly stated. 22. Further the evidence of PW-7 goes to show that the accused had gone along with the deceased upto Bilagi and thereafter the deceased had attended the training class. So when she has already attended the training class on that day, the last going together and thereafter, the deceased departing from the accused is also very clearly stated. 22. If we go through the evidence of PWs.6 and 8, they have deposed that when they have come near Bilagi cross at about 6.30 p.m. or 7.00 p.m., they have seen the deceased and the accused standing there and talking with each other. The evidence of PW-6 during the course of cross examination shows that it is the accused who boarded the bus going towards Bijapur and the deceased boarded the Tempo to go to Tummarmatti. So in that light, if evidence of PW-6, is taken into consideration that when already the accused had boarded the bus to go towards Bijapur and the deceased had boarded the tempo to go to Tummarmatti then where exactly again they have met at about 9.30p.m. as deposed by PWs.-3 and 5 is not made clear. It itself creates a doubt in the case of the prosecution. As could be seen from the statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. similar explanation which has been admitted by PW-6 has been given. Under such circumstances, the accused and the deceased finding together at about 9.30 p.m. and the same has been witnessed by PWs.-3 and 5 also cerates a doubt. 23. At this juncture, the learned Additional SPP submitted that the said witness has been examined in chief on 5/4/2016 and subsequently, he has been cross examined on 27/6/2016 and further cross examined on 9/8/2016. As there was long gap, there is every possibility of the accused winning over the said witness and getting the said admission and only to get that admission the said witness has been further cross examined. If such a situation is to be accepted, then why the prosecution had not chosen to cross examine the witness, if he had assailed from his earlier version. At least, the same suggestion could have been made by the prosecution by cross examining the witness. In the absence of any such material, the facts deposed by the witness remains and it will ensure to the benefit of the accused alone. 24. At least, the same suggestion could have been made by the prosecution by cross examining the witness. In the absence of any such material, the facts deposed by the witness remains and it will ensure to the benefit of the accused alone. 24. Though it is contended by the learned Additional SPP that though PW-6 has given an admission, PW-8 had not given any such evidence. But when these two witnesses were together at the place of the alleged incident and have seen the accused and the deceased together standing there and one of the witnesses has clearly admitted the fact that the accused boarded the bus to go towards Bijapur and the deceased boarded the Tempo to go to Tummarmatti and then under such circumstances, that too when the entire case rests on circumstantial evidence, it is hard to believe such circumstances as a link in the chain of events. 25. It is well settled preposition of law that when the entire case rests on circumstantial evidence where there are no eye witnesses to the alleged incident, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, all the circumstances are to be linked up with one another and if the Court will be in a position to see the chain of events with all the links forming a complete chain then it can be said that the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. But when the accused has brought the evidence before the court to the effect that he had departed the company of the deceased at about 6.30 to 7.00pm. as deposed by PW-6, then under such circumstance, it creates a doubt in the case of the prosecution. It is well settled preposition of law that if a slightest doubt arises in the case of the prosecution, that benefit of doubt is to be given to the accused. 26. It is also well settled law that where the charge sought to be proved is only on circumstantial evidence then the motive plays an important role in order to tilt the scale. 26. It is also well settled law that where the charge sought to be proved is only on circumstantial evidence then the motive plays an important role in order to tilt the scale. If that aspect is also looked into, then the motive which has been urged at the earlier stage is that he is suspecting the fidelity of the deceased and in the evidence, subsequently it has been brought that he was demanding Rs.4,00,000/- to take the deceased to the matrimonial home, such versions cannot be believed. So in that light, if the evidence with regard to motive is looked into in the present case, then the scale will tilt in favour of the accused rather than in favour of the prosecution. So in that light also the motive which has been urged by the prosecution is also not so strong so as to point towards the guilt of the accused alone. Taking into consideration the above said facts and circumstances and evidence and the materials placed on record, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has not established all the circumstances so as to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 27. The trial Court without properly appreciating the evidence in its right perspective and without applying the principles of law under the circumstantial evidence, has erroneously convicted the accused. Though the trial court has convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and has imposed fine of Rs.5,000/- but for the reasons best known to it, no default sentence has been imposed. That itself shows the non application of the mind by the judge. So taking into consideration these aspects, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned judgement of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court is liable to be set aside. 38. For the discussion held by us above and the circumstance narrated, we pass the following order: ORDER The appeal is al lowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot, in Sessions Case No.1/2013 dated 26.8.2016 is set aside and the appellant accused is acquitted of the charges level led against him. The bail bond and surety bond stood cancel led. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot, in Sessions Case No.1/2013 dated 26.8.2016 is set aside and the appellant accused is acquitted of the charges level led against him. The bail bond and surety bond stood cancel led. If any fine amount has been deposited, the same may be refunded to the appel lant-accused on proper identif ication and acknowledgement. The Registry is directed to send back the LCR to the Trial Court.