JUDGMENT A.M. Badar, J. - By this appeal, appellants/accused are challenging the judgment and order, dated 15.07.1995, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, II, Purnia, in S. Tr. No. 241 of 1993 (Trial No. 71 of 1993) thereby convicting them of offences punishable under Sections 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and 201 thereof. For the offences punishable under Sections 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, both the appellants/accused are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code they are sentenced to suffer imprisonment for three years. 2. Facts, in brief, leading to the prosecution of appellants/accused can be summarized, thus: (a) Appellant no. 1, Kalawati Devi, is mother-in-law whereas appellant no. 2, Sudama Devi, is widow of Mahendra Ram. Appellant/accused no. 2, Sudama Devi married Mahendra Ram (since deceased) about 7 years prior to the incident. She started cohabiting with Mahendra Ram three years after her marriage. After staying at her matrimonial house for a period of one year, she insisted for going to her parental house and that is how Mahendra Ram (since dead) reached her to her parental house. According to the prosecution case, thereafter, appellant/accused no. 2, Sudama Devi, never returned back to her matrimonial house for resuming cohabition. It is averred by the prosecution that she was having illicit affairs with some other person. Though Mahendra Ram repeatedly attempted to bring back appellant/accused no. 2, Sudama Devi, he was abused on several occasions by his in-laws. Appellant/accused no. 2, Sudama Devi, never accompanied him to her matrimonial house. (b) The prosecution further, averred that 15 days prior to lodgment of the first information report, Mahendra Ram (since dead) eturned back to his parental house from Punjab. He informed his mother Savitri Devi, wife of Kalar Ram (P.W. 1 and the first informant) that he will repay the debt of Rs.500/- taken from a mahajan of the village of his in-laws and then he will return by taking with him his wife, i.e., appellant/accused no. 2, Sudama Devi. Mahendra Ram is stated to have left the house thereafter. However, he did not return. Ultimately, on 25.09.1991 one Vidyanand, who happens to be son-in-law of first informant P.W. 1, Most. 2, Sudama Devi. Mahendra Ram is stated to have left the house thereafter. However, he did not return. Ultimately, on 25.09.1991 one Vidyanand, who happens to be son-in-law of first informant P.W. 1, Most. Savitri Devi informed her that Mahendra Ram is done to death by accused persons by strangulating him and they destroyed the evidence of commission of offence by throwing his dead body in a river. (c) Upon hearing this information, given by Vidyanand, first informant/P.W.I Mrs. Savitri Devi along with her relatives immediately went to the house of appellants/accused at Janki Nagar and enquired from them regarding where-about of Mahendra Ram. Appellants/accused persons told them that Mahendra Ram died as he suffered ailment of stomach up-set. Suspecting foul play on the part of the appellants/accused persons P. W. 1 Mrs. Savitri Devi rushed to Police Station, Janki Nagar, and lodged the report, on the basis of which Crime No. 212 of 1991 came to be registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants/accused persons. (d) During the course of investigation, dead body of Mahendra Ram came to be recovered from the river. It was sent for autopsy. Autopsy Surgeon found that Mahendra Ram died because of asphyxia caused by strangulation. (e) On completion of routine investigation, the appellants/accused came to be charge-sheeted. On committal of the case, the learned trial Court framed charge against the appellants/accused persons. They abjured the guilt and claimed trial. (f) In order to bring home the guilt to the appellants/accused, the prosecution examined its witnesses. However, the appellants/accused persons did not enter in defence. (g) Upon hearing the parties, the learned trial Court, by the impugned judgment was pleased to conclude that the prosecution has proved its case. According to the trial Court has proved that the deceased had gone to the house of his in-laws few days prior to the date of occurrence for bringing back his wife, i.e., appellant/accused no. 2 Sudama Devi and then his dead body was recovered from the river, which is near the village of the appellants/accused persons. The learned trial Court, further, held that the appellants/accused persons have admitted during the course of examination of P.W. 1 Mrs. Savitri Devi and P.W. 2 Puran Ram that deceased Mahendra Ram was with them before his death but he died due to diarrohea. The learned trial Court, further, held that the appellants/accused persons have admitted during the course of examination of P.W. 1 Mrs. Savitri Devi and P.W. 2 Puran Ram that deceased Mahendra Ram was with them before his death but he died due to diarrohea. It is, further, concluded by the learned trial Court that even the said fact is indicated from the statement of appellants/accused recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Accordingly, the appellants/accused persons came to be convicted and sentenced, as indicated in the opening paragraph of the judgment. 3. We heard Miss Anukriti Jaipuriyar, learned counsel appearing for appellants/accused. By taking us through the depositions of entire witnesses of the prosecution, she argued that the prosecution has failed to establish circumstances which are sufficient to infer guilt of the appellants/accused in the offence alleged against them. It is, further, argued that evidence of the prosecution is totally contrary and most important witness namely Vidyanand is not examined by the prosecution. Even the investigating officer is not examined by the prosecution and therefore the appellants/accused are entitled to acquittal. 4. As against this, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor argued that the appellant/accused no. 2, Sudama Devi, has admitted her guilt by giving confession before the learned Judicial Magistrate and the same came to be recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is, further, argued that evidence of prosecution indicates that the deceased was with the appellants/accused persons at the time of his death. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions so advanced and also perused the records and proceedings, including oral as well as documentary evidence. The dead body after its recovery was sent for autopsy to Sadar Hospital, Purnia where the post mortem examination thereon came to be conducted by P.W. 6 Dr. Ashok Kumar Pathak. The autopsy surgeon noted that there was fracture of thyroid cartilage and rupture of third cervical vertebra. With this finding the autopsy surgeon concluded that cause of death of Mahendra Ram was due to asphyxia caused by strangulation. With this evidence the prosecution has established a fact that Mahendra Ram died homicidal death. Now let us examine with which evidence, the prosecution want to establish guilt of the appellant/accused in the offence alleged against them. 6. Undisputedly, the entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. With this evidence the prosecution has established a fact that Mahendra Ram died homicidal death. Now let us examine with which evidence, the prosecution want to establish guilt of the appellant/accused in the offence alleged against them. 6. Undisputedly, the entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. It is well settled that inference of guilt can not be drawn in such cases unless all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with innocence of accused. In reference to cases where there is no direct evidence and the decision has to rest on circumstantial evidence, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a line of decisions has consistently held that such evidence must satisfy the following tests :- (i) The circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established. (ii) Those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused : (iii) 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 (iv) The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation on 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. In this connection the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar V. State of M.P ( AIR 1989 SC 1890 ): (1989 Cri.L.J.2124), Padala Veera V. State of A.P (AIR 1990 SC.79), (1990 Cri. L.J 605), Josheph V. State of Kerala (2000) 5 SCC 197 , : (2000 Cri LJ 2467), and Kuldeep V. State of Rajasthan,( 2000) 5 SCC 7,: (2001 Cri LJ 479) may be seen. (v) It is also well settle that the prosecution has to establish each circumstance by independent evidence and the circumstances so established should from a complete chain without giving room to any other hypothesis and should be consistent with his guilt and are inconsistent with his innocence. (v) It is also well settle that the prosecution has to establish each circumstance by independent evidence and the circumstances so established should from a complete chain without giving room to any other hypothesis and should be consistent with his guilt and are inconsistent with his innocence. (vi) It may be stated here that while appreciating the circumstantial evidence in criminal cases, strict scrutiny of each of the facts placed by circumstantial evidence and their cumulative effect has to be taken into consideration and if they are of such nature as to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused then only conviction can follow. 7. Keeping in mind these principles of appreciation of evidence in cases based on circumstantial evidence, let us now examine evidence of prosecution in order to ascertain whether the same is sufficient to infer guilt of the appellants/accused persons for offences punishable under Sections 302 read with 34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution has examined as many as seven witnesses, out of which the prosecution has just produced P.W. 3 Yugo Yadav, P.W. 4 Ganeshi Rishideo, and P.W. 5 Bhopendra Yadav before the trial Court and had not conducted their chief examination. In course of examination of defence of these three witnesses feigned ignorance in respect of evidence. P.W. 1 Mrs. Savitri Devi and P.W. 2 Puran Ram, who happens to be mother and uncle of the deceased, are said to be star witnesses for the prosecution. The learned trial Court believing on their versions has concluded that the accused persons have admitted before these witnesses that the deceased had been to their house before his death and he died of diarrohea. We have carefully perused depositions of both these witnesses. So far as mother P.W. 1 Mrs. Savitri Devi is concerned, she has stated before the Court that 15 days prior to the incident her son Mahendra Ram returned from Punjab and disclosed her that he is going to the place of his in-laws i.e., Janki Nagar where he shall be paying debt of Rs.500/- to one money lender and he shall also bring back his wife, i.e., appellant/accused no. 2, Sudama Devi. With these narrations, according to P.W. 1 Mrs. Savitri Devi her son left the house but did not return even after gap of 5 to 6 days. 2, Sudama Devi. With these narrations, according to P.W. 1 Mrs. Savitri Devi her son left the house but did not return even after gap of 5 to 6 days. Then, she was told by her son-in-law Vidyanand that both appellants/accused persons have killed her son Mahendra Ram by strangulating him and then the dead body was disposed off by throwing it in a river. This witness, further, deposed that thereafter she had been to the house of appellants/accused persons and then they disclosed her that Mahendra Ram died of diarrohea. P.W. 1 Mrs. Savitri Devi also stated that upon enquiry as to why information of death of her son was not given to her both appellants/accused persons told her that what was the use of giving such information and information could have been given at the time of performing "sharaddh" ceremony. As per version of this witness then she lodged the first information report and subsequently dead body of her son was found in a river, of Sahoria. 8. Similar is the evidence of P.W. 2 Puran Ram uncle of the deceased. As per his version three years after her marriage appellant/accused no. 2 Sudama Devi started cohabiting with Mahendra Ram and, then, after one year she returned to her parental house. As per version of this witness, after returning from Punjab, Mahendra Ram went to the house of his in-laws for fetching his wife. He also stated that Vidyanand had given information that the appellants/accused persons have killed Mahendra Ram by strangulation and threw his dead body in water. This witness also claims to have accompanied P.W. 1 Mrs. Savitri Devi to the house of appellants/accused. He has spoken about narration of the appellants/accused that Mahendra Ram died of diarrohea. He also stated that he heard from neighbours of the appellants/accused that they heard sounds of quarrel from house of appellants/accused. 9. Careful perusal of evidence of these two witnesses makes it clear that they have only stated that after return from Punjab, deceased Mahendra Ram had left the house by telling them that he is going to the house of his in-laws, i.e., to the house of appellants/accused persons. The prosecution has not adduced any evidence to show that deceased Mahendra Ram had actually gone to the house of appellants/accused persons at village Janki Nagar. The prosecution has not adduced any evidence to show that deceased Mahendra Ram had actually gone to the house of appellants/accused persons at village Janki Nagar. No witness is examined by the prosecution to bring on record the fact that deceased Mahendra Ram was seen at village Janki Nagar or at the house of the appellants/accused persons any time before or soon before incident of murdering Mahendra Ram. Thus, the only conclusion, which may be drawn from evidence of both these witnesses is to the effect that by telling them that he is going to Janki Nagar to fetch his wife and to clear his debt, Mahendra Ram has left the house 15 days prior to the incident. 10. Though P.W. 1 Mrs. Savitri Devi and P.W. 2 (Puran Ram) have stated that after hearing about death of Mahendra Ram from Vidyanand they had been to the house of appellants/accused for enquiring about Mahendra Ram, the first information report lodged by P.W. 1 Mrs. Savitri Devi is conspicuously silent about this fact. In her first information report P.W. 1 Mrs. Savitri Devi has not claimed that when she had been to the house of appellants/accused persons for enquiry, they told her that Mahendra Ram suffered from diarrohea and passed away. Even the alleged narrations of the appellants/accused that there was no need to inform about the death and that information could have been in the "sharaddh" ceremony is conspicuously missing from the first information report, lodged by P.W. 1 Mrs. Savitri Devi. Perusal of the first information report lodged by P.W. 1 Mrs. Savitri Devi makes it clear that she has not claimed that when she had been to the house of appellants/accused persons, they admitted presence of Mahendra Ram at their house prior to his death. In this view of the matter, the learned trial Court ought not to have recorded a finding that appellants/accused persons have admitted before these two witnesses that the deceased was at their house prior to his death and that the deceased died due to diarrohea. Such observation, according to us, is totally perverse. 11. Last witness examined by the prosecution is P.W. 7 Dayanand Sah who vouched about signature of Narayan Prasad Mandal, police officer, Janki Nagar, on first information report as well as seizure memo. Such observation, according to us, is totally perverse. 11. Last witness examined by the prosecution is P.W. 7 Dayanand Sah who vouched about signature of Narayan Prasad Mandal, police officer, Janki Nagar, on first information report as well as seizure memo. His evidence is totally formal in nature and is of no consequence to infer guilt of the appellants/accused in the crime and commission of offence. 12. Except this material there is nothing on record to connect the appellants/accused persons to the crime in question. The learned trial Court observed that statement of appellant/accused no. 1 Kalawati Devi under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code shows that the deceased had came to her house before the death. We have perused statement of appellant/accused no. 1 Kalawati Devi recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the learned trial Court. We are not satisfied in the manner in which the incriminating evidence was put to the appellants/accused for seeking her explanation. Only two questions are asked to the appellants/accused while examining them under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Be that as it may, question no. 2 appellant/accused no. 1 Kalawati Devi)was in respect of evidence of autopsy surgeon and in that question which was put to appellants/accused that at the time of the incident deceased, Mahendra Ram, was at her house and by killing him the dead body was thrown in the river. The appellants/accused answered this complexed question by stating that on earlier occasion deceased, Mahendra Ram, had been to her house, but, she had not killed him. Mahendra Ram was son-in-law of his appellant/accused no. 1 Kalawati Devi. Being a son-in-law it was but obvious that at some point of time he must have visited the house of is In-laws. She has not stated while answering the question no. 2 that deceased Mahendra Ram was at her house on the date of incident. Hence, the learned trial Court committed error in using this complexed answer to question no. 2 by appellant/accused no. 1 Kalawati Devi to infer her guilt. 13. During the course of argument, learned Public Prosecutor has drawn our attention to judicial confession of appellant/accused no. 2 Sudama Devi recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, and submitted that the same can be relied upon for concluding that the appellants/accused have committed the crime in question. 1 Kalawati Devi to infer her guilt. 13. During the course of argument, learned Public Prosecutor has drawn our attention to judicial confession of appellant/accused no. 2 Sudama Devi recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, and submitted that the same can be relied upon for concluding that the appellants/accused have committed the crime in question. The learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, who has recorded the alleged confessional statement of appellant/accused no. 2 Sudama Devi is not examined nor the said statement was proved by the prosecution during the course of trial. Even otherwise it is not seen that no time for reflection was granted to the said accused, who happened to be rustic female, aged about 19 years, at that point of time. She has not even admitted commission of offence of murder of Mahendra Ram, while making such statement and, as such, we find no substance in contention of the learned Public Prosecutor in that regard. 14. The net result and the foregoing discussion requires us to hold that the prosecution has failed to prove chain of circumstances, the cumulative effect of which is that the crime, in question, was committed by the appellants/accused and none else. 15. We put on record words of appreciation for the able assistance rendered by Miss Anukriti Jaipuriyar to this Court in arriving at the proper conclusion for deciding the instant appeal. We direct the High Court Legal Service Authority to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- to Miss Anukriti Jaipuriyar for service rendered by her. 16. In the result, the Appeal deserves to be allowed and the same is allowed with the following order : 17. The impugned judgment and order, dated 15.07.1995 of conviction of the appellants/accused and resultant sentence passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, II, Purnia, in S. Tr. No. 241 of 1993 is quashed and set aside. The appellants/accused are acquitted of the offences, alleged against them. Their bail bonds stand cancelled.