JUDGMENT B.A.Patil, J. - The appellant/accused is requesting the interference of this Court in the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ballari (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court') in S.C.No.06/2014 dated 20.01.2016. 2. We have heard the learned counsel Sri.Vishnu Bhat, who is appearing on behalf of the accused, appointed by the High Court Legal Services Committee and the learned Additional SPP Sri.V.M.Banakar for the respondent-State. 3. The genesis of the case of the prosecution in brief is that; the deceased was given in marriage to the accused/appellant about 11 years back. They have begotten a son and a daughter. It is further alleged that since last two years, the accused was suspecting the fidelity of his wife and used to quarrel and even used to snatch the money, which she used to earn. In that light, he used to give physical and mental harassment to the deceased. Though the accused has been advised, he had not mended his character. In that light, when the deceased was working in the field, he took the deceased to the hut and strangled to death on 30.07.2013. On the same day at about 5.00 p.m., the complainant received the phone call about the death. Immediately he along with the relatives came and noticed the dead body of Mahalingamma in the hut of the accused and there was ligature mark on the neck. By suspecting the same, a complaint has been filed. 4. On the basis of the complaint, a case has been registered in Crime No.156/2013. Thereafter the police investigated the case and charge sheet has been lodged as against the accused. The committal Court committed the case to the Sessions Court by following the provisions of Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter the Sessions Court secured the presence of the accused and framed charges and the accused pleaded not guilty. He claims to be tried and as such, trial was fixed. 5. In order to prove the case, the prosecution examined in all 28 witnesses as PW1 to PW28, got marked 21 documents at Exs.P1 to P21 and got identified M.O.1 to 3. Thereafter the statement of the accused was recorded by putting the incriminating materials as against him. The accused denied the same but has not led any evidence on his behalf and has not marked any document. Thereafter the statement of the accused was recorded by putting the incriminating materials as against him. The accused denied the same but has not led any evidence on his behalf and has not marked any document. Thereafter hearing both the learned counsels for the parties, the appellant/accused was convicted. Challenging the legality and correctness of the said judgment, he is before this Court. 6. The advancement of the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant is on two folds. It is his first submission that though there is no cogent and acceptable evidence, the trial Court has convicted without application of mind and law. It is his further submission that though there is no iota of evidence with reference to motive and involvement of the accused, the trial Court only on suspicion, has convicted the accused. 7. It is the contention of the learned public prosecutor that insofar as the accused and deceased living together has not been disputed by the accused in his cross examination and accused has also made a confession before her mother PW14, the other witnesses have also spoken with regard to the conduct of the accused that he used to suspect the fidelity and used to harass the deceased and on the alleged date of incident, he went and brought her from the field and after quarreling, he strangled her, thereby committed the murder of the deceased. This evidence is also corroborated with the evidence of the Doctor, who has conducted autopsy over the body of the deceased and issued post mortem report as per Ex.P16. In his report, he has stated that there is compression of neck and that is sufficient to hold that the deceased died an unnatural death. Taking into consideration the said facts and circumstances, the trial Court has rightly convicted the accused. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the appeal. 8. We have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and perused the records including the trial Court records. 9. Admittedly, the present case on hand rests on circumstantial evidence. There are no eye witnesses to the alleged incident. In order to establish the fact that the deceased died a homicidal death, the prosecution got examined PW1 to 3, 17, 18 and 23- the doctor. PW17 and 18 are the inquest mahazar panchas as per Ex.P13. 9. Admittedly, the present case on hand rests on circumstantial evidence. There are no eye witnesses to the alleged incident. In order to establish the fact that the deceased died a homicidal death, the prosecution got examined PW1 to 3, 17, 18 and 23- the doctor. PW17 and 18 are the inquest mahazar panchas as per Ex.P13. They have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been treated as hostile. Though the prosecution is intending to rely upon the evidence of PW1 to 3 and 6, they have only deposed with regard to strangulation mark, said to have been found over the neck of the deceased. On perusal of the evidence of PW23-doctor in his evidence, he has clearly deposed that there was bried blackish marking found on the neck. He has opined that the death is due to compression of the neck. During the course of cross examination, nothing has been elicited to discard the evidence of this witness. On perusal of the evidence of PW23, it goes to show that the deceased Mahalingamma died a homicidal death. 10. The prosecution is intending to rely upon the first circumstance, which is that of the motive. The case of the prosecution is that the accused used to suspect the fidelity since two years and used to harass and assault her, in that light, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PW1 to 3, 6 and 7. On perusal of the evidence of PW1 to 3 and other witnesses, they have deposed that the accused used to suspect her fidelity, was giving harassment and the same was to be informed by his sister, whenever she used to come to the house. It had been further deposed that they have also convened panchayat and accused promised that they will look after his wife well and will not give any harassment and on the promise made by the accused, she has been sent back. During cross examination, he has deposed that no complaint was lodged, when the accused was suspecting her fidelity after their marriage. He has further deposed that the deceased used to reveal the harassment given to her by the accused and other suggestion has been denied by the witness. The same has been reiterated by PW2, 3, 6 and 7. 11. During cross examination, he has deposed that no complaint was lodged, when the accused was suspecting her fidelity after their marriage. He has further deposed that the deceased used to reveal the harassment given to her by the accused and other suggestion has been denied by the witness. The same has been reiterated by PW2, 3, 6 and 7. 11. On perusal of the evidence of all these witnesses, it indicates that the deceased has informed them about suspecting her fidelity and harassment. It has come on the evidence that the panchayat was convened. But for the reasons best known to the prosecution except the related witnesses, no panchadar has been examined to substantiate the fact that there was dispute with regard to suspecting of her fidelity, the accused has been advised and thereafter the deceased has been sent back to the house of the accused. Those witnesses to speak about it, have not supported the case of the prosecution and they have been treated as hostile. Under such circumstances, it is very difficult to only rely upon the evidence of related witnesses and come to the conclusion that the accused was suspecting the fidelity and there was a motive for the purpose of alleged incident. 12. It is well settled proposition of law that where the strangulation is sought to be proved only on circumstantial evidence, motive plays an important part in order to tilt the scale. This proposition of law has been laid by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of KUNA ALIAS SANJAYA BEHERA Vs. STATE OF ODISHA, (2018) 1 SCC 296 . Para 20 of the said judgment reads as under: "20. That in a case where the charge is sought to be proved only on circumstantial evidence, motive plays an important part in order to tilt the scale was, amongst others underscored in Mohmadkhan Nathekhan Vs. State of Gujarat, (2014) 14 SCC 589 ." 13. Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the motive is an important aspect in circumstantial evidence. The next circumstance on which the prosecution is intending to rely upon is that the accused and the deceased were last seen together and the deceased used to tell her co-workers about the accused suspecting her fidelity. Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the motive is an important aspect in circumstantial evidence. The next circumstance on which the prosecution is intending to rely upon is that the accused and the deceased were last seen together and the deceased used to tell her co-workers about the accused suspecting her fidelity. In that light, the prosecution has got examined PW4, 5, 10 to 13, but none of the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and even they have not whispered the fact that the deceased has told that the accused used to suspect her fidelity. In that light, there is no cogent and acceptable evidence to substantiate such contention. In that light, this circumstance falls to ground. 14. One more circumstance on which the prosecution is intending to rely upon is that of extra judicial confession of the accused before PW14-mother of the accused, she has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been treated as hostile. Though it is contended by the learned Addl.SPP that the dead body was seen in the house of the accused and it is the accused who has to explain under what circumstance the deceased died an unnatural death, admittedly the death has taken place in day light and the accused is working as coolie. In order to attract the provisions of Section 106 of Evidence Act, the prosecution has to establish the fact that it is the accused and the deceased, who alone were staying in the said house and the said house is not easily accessible to any other persons. In the absence of any such material, no inference can be drawn that the accused and the deceased alone were staying in the house and the accused has to explain under what circumstance the deceased died an unnatural death. But on perusal of the prosecution case, PW14 was also staying in the same house. Under such circumstances, the effect of Section 106 of Evidence Act will not come to the aid of the prosecution. In that light, the said circumstance will not go to establish the fact that it is the accused who has caused the unnatural death of the deceased. 15. Under such circumstances, the effect of Section 106 of Evidence Act will not come to the aid of the prosecution. In that light, the said circumstance will not go to establish the fact that it is the accused who has caused the unnatural death of the deceased. 15. Looking from any angle, whatsoever the evidence which has been produced, is not cogent and acceptable so as to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 16. It is well settled proposition of law that where the case is based on circumstantial evidence, the motive is very important. Apart from the entire circumstances, if they have been seen together, that itself points out the guilt of the accused, then in that event, the accused can be convicted. When the prosecution is intending to rely upon the circumstance of last seeing together of the accused with the deceased, it requires corroboration and if there is no material and corroboration, then under such circumstances, the accused cannot be convicted in this behalf. 17. This proposition of law has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Navaneethakrishnan Vs. State by Inspector of Police, (2018) AIR SC 2027 at paragraph 18 and 23, it has been observed as under: "18. PW-11 was able to identify all the three accused in the Court itself by recapitulating his memory as those persons who came at the time when he was washing his car along with John Bosco and further that he had last seen all of them sitting in the Omni van on that day and his testimony to that effect remains intact even during the cross examination in the light of the fact that the said witness has no enmity whatsoever against the appellants herein and he is an independent witness. Once the testimony of PW-11 is established and inspires full confidence, it is well established that it is the accused who were last seen with the deceased specially in the circumstances when there is nothing on record to show that they parted from the accused and since then no activity of the deceased can be traced and their dead bodies were recovered later on. It is a settled legal position that the law presumes that it is the person, who was last seen with the deceased, would have killed the deceased and the burden to rebut the same lies on the accused to prove that they had departed. Undoubtedly, the last seen theory is an important event in the chain of circumstances that would completely establish and/or could point to the guilt of the accused with some certainty. However, this evidence alone can't discharge the burden of establishing the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt and requires corroboration. 19 to 22.xxxxx 23. The law is well-settled that each and every incriminating circumstance must be clearly established by reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances so proved must form a chain of events from which the only irresistible conclusion about the guilt of the accused can be safely drawn and no other hypothesis against the guilt is possible. In a case depending largely upon circumstantial evidence, there is always a danger that conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof. The court must satisfy itself that various circumstances in the chain of events must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused. When the important link goes, the chain of circumstances gets snapped and the other circumstances cannot, in any manner, establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The court has to be watchful and avoid the danger of allowing the suspicion to take the place of legal proof for sometimes, unconsciously it may happen to be a short step between moral certainty and legal proof. There is a long mental distance between "may be true" and "must be true" and the same divides conjectures from sure conclusions. The Court in mindful of caution by the settled principles of law and the decisions rendered by this Court that in a given case like this, where the prosecution rests on the circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must place and prove all the necessary circumstances, which would constitute a complete chain without a snap and pointing to the hypothesis that except the accused, no one had committed the offence, which in the present case, the prosecution has failed to prove." 18. On perusal of the evidence and material placed on record, the circumstances on which the prosecution is intending to rely have not been proved with chain of events. It is well settled proposition of law that if the chain of events if they have not been completed and if there is any break, the benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused. In that light, the judgment of the trial Court requires interference at the hands of this Court. 19. We have carefully and cautiously gone through the judgment of the trial Court. The trial Court only on presumption and assumption has come to a wrong conclusion and has wrongly convicted the accused. Though there is no clinching evidence connecting the accused to the alleged incident, as such, the same is liable to be set aside. For the discussions held by us above, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Principle District and Sessions Judge, Ballari in S.C.No.6/2014 dated 20.01.2016 is set aside and the appellant/accused is acquitted of all the charges leveled against him. 20. 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 trial Court records, forthwith.