JUDGMENT Dhaddha, J. 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment & order dated 11.07.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahpura, District Jaipur in Sessions Case No.03/2017 (NCV No.04/2017), whereby appellant had been convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/-; in default of payment thereof, to further undergo one month’s additional rigorous imprisonment. 2. Brief facts are that a hand written report was submitted before Police Station Manoharpur, District Jaipur on 14.09.2016 by complainant – Sultan Gurjar that on 13.09.2016 his brother Kalluram Gurjar was sleeping in his room at night. When Smt. Vimla Devi came home at about 1.00 AM from the house of her paternal uncle-in-law after attending the baby birth celebration function (Jalwa), she had seen injuries on the head of her husband. So, she cried for help. Family members and villagers reached there and found Kalluram lying dead. At that time, Krishna and Sachin were sleeping in other room and their elder brother was at his maternal home. All the family members were in deep grief. Sultan and other villagers informed the police. Police came and took the dead body to the mortuary at NIMS Medical College and Hospital, Jaipur. On this, an FIR No.246/2016 was registered at Police Station Manoharpur for the offence punishable under section 302 IPC and investigation commenced. 3. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against accused Krishna Devi by police before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Shahpura from where the case was committed to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahpura, District Jaipur. 4. Charge was framed against the appellant under section 302 IPC. Appellant did not plead guilty to the charge framed against her and claimed trial. 5. In order to prove its case, during trial, prosecution examined 16 witnesses and exhibited 50 documents. Appellant when examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 prayed that she was innocent. She said that on the date of occurrence, she had gone along with her mother for attending the baby birth celebration function (Jalwa). 6. Appellant did not examine any witness in her defence. 7. After hearing the arguments of both the parties, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the accused appellant for offence punishable u/s 302 IPC as mentioned above. 8. 6. Appellant did not examine any witness in her defence. 7. After hearing the arguments of both the parties, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the accused appellant for offence punishable u/s 302 IPC as mentioned above. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned trial court had erred in ordering the conviction and sentence of the appellant. In fact, it was a case of no evidence as the material witnesses had not supported the prosecution case. He submitted that the prosecution had failed to complete the chain of circumstances leading towards the guilt of the appellant. 9. Learned State counsel has opposed the appeal. 10. Present case relates to murder of Kalluram. The case rests on circumstantial evidence. 11. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Padala Veera Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. ( AIR 1990 SC 79 ), as under:- “10. …….. This Court in a series of decisions has consistently held that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence such evidence must satisfy the following tests : (1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; (2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; (3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. (See Gambhir v. State of Maharashtra).” 12. It has also been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Brajendrasingh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 2012 Supreme Court 1552, as under:- “There is no doubt that it is not a case of direct evidence but the conviction of the accused is founded on circumstantial evidence. It is a settled principle of law that the prosecution has to satisfy certain conditions before a conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be sustained. It is a settled principle of law that the prosecution has to satisfy certain conditions before a conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be sustained. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established and should also be consistent with only one hypothesis, i.e. the guilt of the accused. The circumstances should be conclusive and proved by the prosecution. There must be a chain of events so complete so as not to leave any substantial doubt in the mind of the Court. Irresistibly, the evidence should lead to the conclusion inconsistent with the innocence of the accused and the only possibility that the accused has committed the crime. To put it simply, the circumstances forming the chain of events should be proved and they should cumulatively point towards the guilt of the accused alone. In such circumstances, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person. Furthermore, the rule which needs to be observed by the Court while dealing with the cases of circumstantial evidence is that the best evidence must be adduced which the nature of the case admits. The circumstances have to be examined cumulatively. The Court has to examine the complete chain of events and then see whether all the material facts sought to be established by the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused, have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. It has to be kept in mind that all these principles are based upon one basic cannon of our criminal jurisprudence that the accused is innocent till proven guilty and that the accused is entitled to a just and fair trial.” 13. Let us examine the evidence led by the prosecution to come to a conclusion as to whether the prosecution had been successful in completing the chain of circumstances leading towards guilt of the appellant. 14. Shimbhu Dayal Gurjar (PW-1) deposed that on 14.09.2016 he was in his village. His brother Babu Lal phoned him that someone had murdered his brother-in-law Kallaram. After that, he along with his family members went to NIMS hospital. His sister and niece Krishna were not at home at the time of incident. They had gone to attend baby birth celebration function (Jalwa). His brother Babu Lal phoned him that someone had murdered his brother-in-law Kallaram. After that, he along with his family members went to NIMS hospital. His sister and niece Krishna were not at home at the time of incident. They had gone to attend baby birth celebration function (Jalwa). He did not support the prosecution story and he was declared hostile 15. Complainant - Sultan (PW-2) deposed that his brother Kalluram was murdered on 13.09.2016. He was at his house in the night. His wife Phooli Devi had gone in music function. Vimla and her daughter Krishna had also gone to attend the music function. He deposed that when Vimla came home, she saw dead body of his brother. On hearing her cries, neighbours came there. He had lodged complaint (Ex. P-3). He also deposed with regard to memo Panchayatnama (Ex. P-1), recovery memo of dead body (Ex. P-4), site plan (Ex. P-5) and recovery memo of a piece of mattress with blood stained (Ex. P-6). He was further deposed that blood smeared soil had not been taken. He deposed that his signatures were obtained on plain papers. He also sated that hammer was not recovered from the appellant. He was declared hostile. 16. Kailash Chand Gurjar (PW-3) and Balchander (PW- 5) deposed with regard to Panchayatnama (Ex. P-1) 17. Omkarmal Gujar (PW-4) deposed with regard to Panchayatnama (Ex. P-1) and also stated that deceased’s clothes were not recovered in his presence and no site plan was prepared by the police. In his cross examination, he stated that when he had signed on site plan (Ex. P-5) and memo of recovery of undergarments (Ex. P-15), they were blank. 18. Badri Prasad (PW-6) deposed with regard to handing over of the dead body. He also deposed that piece of blood stained mattress was not recovered in his presence. He denied the recovery of blood stained clothes, blood smeared soil. He was declared hostile. In cross examination, he stated that his signatures were obtained on blank papers. 19. Mamta (PW-7) deposed that appellant was arrested vide memo Ex. P-16. 20. Vimla (PW-8) deposed that one year ago, she along with her son Sachin and daughter Krishna had gone to attend music function in the house of her paternal uncle-in-law. She came back at 1.00 AM. Krishna was behind her. When she opened the door and called but nobody spoke. P-16. 20. Vimla (PW-8) deposed that one year ago, she along with her son Sachin and daughter Krishna had gone to attend music function in the house of her paternal uncle-in-law. She came back at 1.00 AM. Krishna was behind her. When she opened the door and called but nobody spoke. Her husband was murdered. She did not know who had killed him. In cross examination, she denied that her husband had scolded Krishna (appellant). She also admitted that appellant was along with her during music function. 21. Laxman Singh (HC) (PW-9) deposed that he was Malkhana In-charge on 14.09.2016. He deposed that Shri Umesh Beniwal handed over him 10 sealed packets to deposit in the Malkhana. 22. Surji Devi (PW-10) deposed that Vimla W/o shri Kalluram and her daughter Krishna had attended the music function of her grand-son’s Jalwa. 23. Phooli (PW-11) deposed that grand-son was born to Surji Devi (PW-10) and there was a music function. Krishna and her mother attended the function. 24. Dr. Chain Singh (PW-15) deposed that he conducted the postmortem (Ex. P-23) of deceased Kalluram. The opinion of the medical board was that the cause of death of Kalluram was COMA brought about as a result of antemortem head injury which was sufficient to cause death in normal course of nature. 25. Investigating Officer, Shri Umesh Beniwal (PW-16) deposed that he was investigation officer of the case and deposed with regard to the investigation conducted by him. 26. A perusal of the evidence led by the prosecution reveals that the prosecution had miserably failed to bring forth any motive available to the appellant to have committed the murder of the deceased Kalluram. The prosecution had not examined any witness to the effect that at the time of occurrence, the appellant was with deceased and she had murdered him. 27. Thus, from the perusal of the entire evidence led by the prosecution discussed above, it can be said that the present case is a case of no evidence. The prosecution had failed to bring on record the chain of circumstances leading towards the guilt of the accused appellant and negating her innocence. 28. Thus, prosecution had failed to establish its case against the appellant by leading cogent and convincing evidence. 29. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant is liable to be acquitted of the charge framed against her. 30. 28. Thus, prosecution had failed to establish its case against the appellant by leading cogent and convincing evidence. 29. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant is liable to be acquitted of the charge framed against her. 30. The appeal preferred by the appellant is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant as ordered by the trial court is quashed and set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge(s) framed against her. Appellant who is in custody, be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. 31. In view of the provisions of Section 437-A Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, appellant Kumari Krishna Gurjar D/o Shri Kalluram @ Kallaram is directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-, and a surety in the like amount, before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, which shall be effective for a period of six months, with stipulation that in the event of Special Leave Petition being filed against this judgment or on grant of leave, the appellant aforesaid, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court.