ORDER : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. The sole appellant has faced the trial on the charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for causing death of Reeta Rani and under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code for causing disappearance of her dead body. In Sessions Trial Case No. 88 of 2011 he has been convicted and sentenced to R.I for life and fine of Rs. 2,000/- under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and R.I for 7 years and fine of Rs. 2,000/- under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The informant of this case is father of the deceased. On the basis of his fardbeyan which was recorded in the early morning of 31.05.2009 near bamboo orchid of Ranjani Ghosh at village Rangunia, Behragora, Barsol P.S. Case No. 53 of 2009 has been registered against Bhupati Patra, who is husband of the deceased, Neelkamal Senapati, who is nephew of the deceased and Pinak Bhuiya a neighbour under section 302 and section 201 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the appellant alone was put on trial in S.T. Case No. 88 of 2011. During the trial the prosecution has examined 11 witnesses; the informant is P.W.9. 3. In his fardbeyan, the informant has stated that last night he received an information that his daughter has been killed. On receiving such information he has gone to the village-Rangunia with Bhupati Patra, Dilip Patra, Gorango Patra and Arjun Patra. There he has seen crowd of villagers assembled near the house of his daughter. He has seen dead body of his daughter lying at a distance from her house and there was swelling on her neck. He has also seen a five litre plastic jerkin with smell of kerosene oil and a match box there. On enquiry he came to know that his son-in-law along with his nephew and a friend have killed his daughter. He has further stated that about 15 days before this incident the appellant has beaten his wife mercilessly and in this regard a panchayati was convened. He has also stated that the appellant on suspicion of illicit relation of his wife with Pinak Bhuiya had been beating her in the past and whenever the informant tried to take his daughter home the appellant was not permitting her to go with him. He has also stated that the appellant on suspicion of illicit relation of his wife with Pinak Bhuiya had been beating her in the past and whenever the informant tried to take his daughter home the appellant was not permitting her to go with him. He has also stated that the appellant was threatening to kill her. In the court, the informant has stated about ill-treatment and assault of his daughter by the appellant. He has stated that he received information about death of his daughter through his son. He has spoken about his visit to village-Rangunia with his co-villagers and family members. His nephew, namely, Mahir Ghosh who has been examined as P.W.5 has also stated about the information received by him regarding death of Reeta Rani by setting her on fire. He has stated that his uncle had asked him to accompany him to the police station to lodge a complaint about the incident. 4. P.W.5 and P.W.9 are not the eye-witness and the other prosecution witnesses who claimed themselves as eye-witnesses before the police have turned hostile. The case of the prosecution is therefore solely based on circumstantial evidence. 5. In a case which is based on circumstantial evidence the prosecution must prove that the chain of circumstances is so complete that the incriminating circumstances which have been found proved are pointing towards guilt of the accused and no other hypothesis consistent with innocence of the accused is possible. In “Hanumant Govind Nargundkar Vs. State of M.P.” reported in AIR 1952 SC 343 , the Supreme Court has observed thus; “It is well to remember that in case where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.” 6. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.” 6. To prove the charge under section 302 and section 201 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant, the prosecution has laid evidence on: (i) homicidal death of Reeta Rani, (ii) dead body of Reeta Rani found near her house and (iii) motive. 7. In a case based on circumstantial evidence motive plays an important role, but motive alone cannot be the sole basis for convicting an accused for a serious offence like murder [refer: “Surinder Pal Jain Vs. Delhi Administration” reported in 1993 Supp. (3) SCC 681]. The informant has alleged that the appellant was nurturing a doubt that his wife had an illicit relation with Pinak Bhuiya and that was the reason he was beating his wife for last several years. According to the informant, the appellant has assaulted his wife about 15 days before he killed her but none of the prosecution witnesses has supported the informant on this point. The prosecution witnesses – Rahul Patra-P.W.1 who is son of the deceased, and Rewati Mohan Bhuiyan-P.W.2, Keshari Dehuri-P.W.3, Pratima Patra-P.W.4 and Debashish Patra-P.W.6, who are the co-villagers, have turn hostile. The son of the deceased has stated in his evidence that Pinak Bhuiya who is a neighbour used to frequently visit his house. P.W.2 when he was cross-examined by the prosecution has stated that Pinak Bhuiya had illicit relation with the deceased and after the occurrence there was a meeting of the villagers. P.W.3 has stated that he does not know about the occurrence and P.W.4 has stated that he came to know about death of Reeta Rani the next day. In the fardbeyan, the informant has stated that when he reached the house of his daughter the appellant was not present there but in the court he has deposed that the appellant was sitting by the side of the dead body of his wife though he was neither crying nor saying anything. 8. On such evidence, it cannot be held that the prosecution has proved motive for the crime. 9. 8. On such evidence, it cannot be held that the prosecution has proved motive for the crime. 9. Under section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, a presumption may arise against the inmates of the house if dead body of a women is found in her marital home. The appellant is not the only person in his family and none of his family members including his son has deposed in the court that he has killed his wife. Before a presumption can be raised under section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act against the appellant what has been observed by the Supreme Court in “Shambhu Nath Mehra Vs. State of Ajmer” reported in AIR 1956 SC 404 ; a presumption in law does not leave the prosecution of its burden to prove the foundational facts constituting the offence, has to be kept in mind. 10. Dr. Kumar Manokamna-P.W. 7 who has conducted the postmortem examination has observed that the whole body of Reeta Rani was burnt except sole of her both feet and blackened marks were present over her whole body and her hair were twisted and blackened. On internal examination he has found fracture of larynx and trachea which were filled with blood. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation. 11. Reeta Rani has suffered a homicidal death is proved by the prosecution, but then, evidence of the doctor creates substantial doubt on the time of her death. During his cross-examination the doctor has stated that the cause of death cannot be ascertained. The reason why he has said so is that he has found the body in a highly decomposed state. The informant has stated that in the mid-night of 30.5.2009 he received an information from son of her daughter about death of his mother and he along with several co-villagers and family members proceeded for village-Rangunia. But none of his co-villagers or family members except P.W.5 has been examined. P.W.5 has stated that in the night he visited the house of Reeta Rani but he came back home and next day early morning when P.W.9 asked him to go to the police station he had accompanied him. 12. The informant has stated that his daughter was happily married with the appellant and the appellant was in love with his wife and children. 12. The informant has stated that his daughter was happily married with the appellant and the appellant was in love with his wife and children. In his fardbeyan the informant has stated that the dead body of his daughter was found in burnt condition in the bamboo orchid of Ranjani Ghosh and the investigating officer has stated that it was found in the bamboo orchid of Kuber Ghosh, but even these persons have not been examined during the trial. According to the prosecution the incident has happened in the open bamboo orchid where the appellant has set his wife on fire, but no one from the village has come forward to depose that he has seen the appellant committing murder of his wife. 13. From the aforesaid evidences led by the prosecution during the trial, we find that the chain of circumstances is not complete and only on the basis of the medical evidence which proves homicidal death of Reeta Rani the appellant cannot be convicted for committing her murder and, therefore, we hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge under section 302 and section 201 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant. 14. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction under sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and the order of sentence of R.I for life and fine of Rs. 2,000/- under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and R.I for 7 years and fine of Rs. 2,000/- under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, both dated 31.08.2013, passed by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ghatsila in Sessions Trial Case No. 88 of 2011 against the appellant, namely, Bhupati Patra are set-aside. 15. The appellant, namely, Bhupati Patra is acquitted of the criminal charges framed against him in Sessions Trial Case No. 88 of 2011. 16. Mrs. Vandana Bharti, the learned Spl.PP states that the appellant is in jail serving the sentence. 17. Accordingly, the appellant, namely, Bhupati Patra, who is in jail, shall be set free forthwith, if not wanted in connection to any other criminal case. 18. Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 849 of 2013 is allowed. 19. The Court appreciates the assistance rendered by Mrs. Shaurya, the learned Amicus. 20. The Secretary, Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee shall reimburse the learned Amicus as per Notification dated 23.11.2017. 21. 18. Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 849 of 2013 is allowed. 19. The Court appreciates the assistance rendered by Mrs. Shaurya, the learned Amicus. 20. The Secretary, Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee shall reimburse the learned Amicus as per Notification dated 23.11.2017. 21. Let lower-court records be transmitted to the court concerned, forthwith.