JUDGMENT : Amit B. Borkar, J. The appellant – accused has challenged the impugned judgment dated 6-1-2018 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur in Sessions Case No. 24/2016 by which the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. The case of the prosecution, in short, is as under :— Deceased – Amarsingh alias Guddu was the son of Informant – Subedarsingh. The deceased had three sisters and was working in Shubh Laxmi Video Parlour, Bangali Camp, Chandrapur. On 25-10-2015, the deceased – Amarsingh returned from his work. He left his house on the pretext of giving keys but thereafter did not return. The informant, around 12.00 hours in the midnight got up and saw the vehicle of the deceased parked inside the compound of the house. The informant searched but the deceased was not found. Therefore, the informant came home and slept. On the next day i.e. 26-10-2015 in the morning around 6:00 a.m. when the informant got up and was brooming, he saw the dead body of his son in supine condition in front of the road of his house. The informant went and tried to wake the deceased up but his son was dead. The informant noticed injuries on the back and neck of the deceased with sharp weapons and he was lying in a pool of blood. The informant therefore filed report with Police Station Chandrapur City (Exhibit 16). 3. On the basis of the report, offence came to be registered vide Crime No. 239/2015 (Exhibit 17) against unknown person and investigation started. The Investigating Officer Vivek Deshmukh (PW13) arrested the accused, drawn inquest panchanama and spot panchanama. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the witnesses. The blood stained knife was recovered at the instance of the accused as per the memorandum. The Investigating Officer filed charge-sheet with the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandrapur. Since the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate committed the case for trial to the Sessions Court under section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. The Investigating Officer filed charge-sheet with the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandrapur. Since the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate committed the case for trial to the Sessions Court under section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. The learned Sessions Judge framed charge against the accused which was explained to him in vernacular to which the accused pleaded not guilty. During the trial, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses. The prosecution led circumstantial evidence against the appellant. The learned Sessions Judge believed the circumstances and convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner as stated in para No. 1 above. 5. We have heard learned advocate for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State. We have meticulously gone through the deposition of witnesses. We have perused the various exhibits proved by the prosecution to substantiate their case. 6. The contentions on behalf of the appellant stated briefly are that the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of events and the circumstances is not at all complete. The prosecution has failed to prove the motive. The incriminating circumstances were put to the appellant while recording his statement under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The recovery of knife was not proved according to section 27 of the Evidence Act. The prosecution has failed to prove that the clothes and knife remained in sealed condition till they were handed over to the chemical analysis. Therefore, it is submitted that the judgment of conviction of the appellant is unsustainable in law. 7. Learned APP for the respondent/State pointed out that the evidence of the circumstances, which according to him, proved complicity of the appellant in the murder. According to the learned APP, the prosecution has successfully proved beyond doubt that the homicidal death of the deceased – Guddu was caused by the appellant only. According to him, the circumstantial evidence was complete and the appellant had motive of quarrel on the earlier day. He therefore prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 8. Before entering into the arena of appreciating the evidence relating to the circumstances, there is no serious dispute about the fact that the death of Guddu was homicidal in nature. According to him, the circumstantial evidence was complete and the appellant had motive of quarrel on the earlier day. He therefore prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 8. Before entering into the arena of appreciating the evidence relating to the circumstances, there is no serious dispute about the fact that the death of Guddu was homicidal in nature. The evidence in the form of post-mortem report, medical certificate and chemical analysis report in addition to evidence of Dr. Shashikant Dhoble (PW9) – the Autopsy Surgeon stated that the Injury Nos. 1 to 5 mentioned in Column No. 17 are sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and Injury Nos. 6 to 9 are likely to cause death. The said evidence proves that the death of Guddu was homicidal in nature. 9. Since there is no direct evidence regarding the murder of victim, the prosecution case in the present case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence. There is no eye-witness to the alleged incident. It is well established that in a case resting on circumstantial evidence, all the circumstances brought out by the prosecution must inevitably and exclusively point to the guilt of the accused and there should be no circumstance, which may reasonably be considered consistent with innocence of the accused. Even in the case of circumstantial evidence, the Court requires to bear in mind the cumulative effect of all the circumstances in a given case and weigh them as an integrated whole. All the proved circumstances must provide the chain, no link of which must be missing, and they must unequivocally point to the guilt of the accused and exclude any hypothesis consistent with his innocence. 10. Keeping in view the aforesaid well-established principles of law enunciated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in various judgments in criminal case based on circumstantial evidence, we proceed to consider the instant appeal. 11. The prosecution has brought the following circumstances, which according to them, are sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. The circumstances enumerated by the Trial Court in the judgment are of the following effect :— “(i) Quarrel between the deceased and accused wherein the accused threatened the deceased of killing reflects sufficient motive. (ii) Blood stained clothes and knife discovered at the instance of the accused. (iii) Blood of the deceased found on the knife and clothes of the accused. (ii) Blood stained clothes and knife discovered at the instance of the accused. (iii) Blood of the deceased found on the knife and clothes of the accused. (iv) Injuries on the palm of the accused.” 12. We would individually take up each circumstance. Circumstance (i) Quarrel between the deceased and accused wherein the accused threatened the deceased by killing reflects sufficient motive :— The first circumstance which weighed with the trial Court is that there is evidence in the form of testimonies of Sagar Dahagaonkar (PW6) and Ravindra Pamulwar (PW8) that there was quarrel between the deceased and accused wherein the accused threatened the deceased of taking his life. On careful scrutiny of the evidence of Sagar (PW6) and Ravindra (PW8), it appears that on the night between 25-10-2015 and 26-10-2015, there was quarrel between Satish Gomase and Guddu (deceased) as the deceased had not returned the amount of Rs.1000/- or Rs.500/- which was taken by the deceased one year back. At that time, Guddu (deceased) took out knife from his possession and threatened Satish saying that ^^rsjs dk;ds iSls] rsjs dks ekjrk gw¡** . Thereafter, Satish went to his house. Thereafter, quarrel took place between the accused and deceased on which Guddu (deceased) threatened the accused ^^rsjs ifjokj dks ekj Mkywxak** . Thereon, the accused told him that ^^rw D;k ekjsxk] eS rsjs dks ns[k ysrk** . Thereafter, Ravindra (PW8) pacified both of them and both went away. This evidence led by the prosecution does not indicate that the accused had threatened the deceased to kill him. On the contrary, it was the deceased who had threatened the accused saying that “I will kill your family”. But at the same time, there was quarrel between Satish Gomase and Guddu (deceased) on the ground of non-payment of amount which was taken by the deceased one year back. In our opinion, Satish had strong motive to kill the deceased than the accused. In view of the quarrel between Satish and deceased on the ground of non-payment of amount, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the strong motive which impelled the accused to commit murder of Guddu (deceased), particularly in view of the fact that Satish Gomase had stronger motive. 13. In view of the quarrel between Satish and deceased on the ground of non-payment of amount, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the strong motive which impelled the accused to commit murder of Guddu (deceased), particularly in view of the fact that Satish Gomase had stronger motive. 13. Circumstance (ii) Blood stained clothes and knife discovered at the instance of the accused :— The prosecution has examined Santosh Meshram (PW4) and Ramesh Dhudse (PW5) on the point of proof of memorandum and seizure of knife. Santosh Meshram (PW4) and Ramesh Dhudse (PW5) stated that the accused gave memorandum statement in their presence and it bears the signature of the accused and Investigating Officer. They also stated that the contents of it are true and correct. They also stated that the police recovered the blood stained knife and clothes and sealed them in their presence. Santosh Meshram (PW4) in his cross-examination admitted that when he reached the police station, the memorandum at Exhibit 36 was already prepared and signed by the accused and he was not knowing the contents of the same. Though the prosecution has proved recovery of knife under memorandum and the blood stained clothes, from the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it appears that from 30-10-2015 till 16-11-2015, the knife was not in sealed condition. The prosecution has also failed to explain as to how the Investigating Officer sent the knife to Medical Officer by letter dated 9-11-2015 (Exhibit 76) when the said knife was with the Department Of Forensic Medicine, Chandrapur for examination of weapon till 17-11-2015 from 31-10-2015. 14. Circumstance (iii) Blood of the deceased found on the knife and clothes of the accused :— Ordinarily the blood of the deceased on the weapon recovered at the showing of the accused and on the clothes of the accused is an incriminating circumstance. But, in the present case, in absence of substantive evidence, the conviction cannot be based only on the basis of blood on weapon and on the clothes of the accused. It is well settled that a mere recovery alone would not be sufficient to convict the accused on a substantive charge of murder under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code in absence of substantive evidence. 15. It is well settled that a mere recovery alone would not be sufficient to convict the accused on a substantive charge of murder under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code in absence of substantive evidence. 15. Circumstance (iv) Injuries on the palm of the accused :— Insofar as the last circumstance of injuries to the accused on his palm is concerned, that said circumstance was not specifically put to the accused while recording his statement under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, the accused had no opportunity to explain the injuries on his palm and therefore the said circumstance cannot be used solely as a proof of charge for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 16. In our opinion, the circumstance of recovery of weapon and blood of deceased on the clothes of the accused cannot form basis of conviction without substantive evidence, as they may arose strong suspicion against the appellant to show that the prosecution case may be true, but it may not take the place of proof. We are fortified in our view by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarwan Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1957 SC 637 . In para No. 9 of the said decision, Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have observed that “suspicion howsoever strong, cannot take the place of proof”. In para No. 12 of the said decision, it is further observed that “between ‘may be true’ and ‘must be true’ there is inevitably a long distance to travel and the whole of this distance must be covered by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence”. 17. In view of the aforesaid infirmities, we hold that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. In our opinion, maximum it can be said in favour of the prosecution is that a strong suspicion has been created against the appellant and the prosecution case may be true but the strong suspicion and ‘may be true’ are not enough to record a finding of guilt in a criminal case. We regret that the prosecution has failed to travel a distance between ‘may be true’ and ‘must be true’ by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence. We regret that the prosecution has failed to travel a distance between ‘may be true’ and ‘must be true’ by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence. For the aforesaid reasons, in our view, the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained. 18. For the reasons recorded above, we pass the following order :— (i) The judgment and order of conviction dated 6-1-2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur in Sessions Case No. 24/2016 convicting the appellant – Laxman S/o. Utrayya Dongre for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby quashed and set aside. (ii) The appellant is acquitted of the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by giving him benefit of doubt. (iii) The appellant – Laxman S/o. Utrayya Dongre, who is in jail, shall be released forthwith if he is not required in any other offence. (iv) The appeal is allowed in the above terms.