JUDGMENT : (Amit B. Borkar, J.) 1. The appellant aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 29th August, 2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha in Sessions Case No.75 of 2016 convicting and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 has come up in appeal before us. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution case runs as follows: The Informant is the owner of agricultural land admeasuring four acres at Sindhi Shiwar. The Informant had employed Baba Parteki to take care of his agricultural land. Baba Parteki was residing in the agricultural land alongwith his wife Sangita (PW-3) and small daughter. On 18.5.2016, at 2.30 a.m. the Informant received call from Sangita (PW-3) that her husband was assaulted by the accused on head and the blood was oozing. When the Informant asked Sangita (PW-3), who killed her husband, Sangita (PW-3) told the Informant that the accused came in the field and assaulted her husband while she was in sleep and while leaving the accused woke her up and told her that he will kill her. It is also alleged that Sangita (PW-3) alongwith her daughter ran away from the spot of incident and remained in dark and made call to the Informant. 3. It appears that on the information sent by Naresh Golhar (PW-1) at 6.00 a.m., First Information Report came to be registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The post-mortem examination of dead body of Baba Parteki was conducted on 18/05/2016 by Dr. Sandip Charade (PW-5). The doctor found seven injuries on the dead body. On the examination of the dead body, Dr. Charade (PW-5) expressed his opinion that cause of death was due to shock and hemorrhage due to injuries over neck and the injuries over body may have been caused by sharp edged weapon. Dr. Charade (PW-5) opined that the injuries on the body of Baba Parteki were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death of him. 5. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions in the usual manner. In the Trial Court, the appellant was charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. To the said charge, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. His defence was that of denial. To substantiate it, he neither adduced oral nor documentary evidence. 6. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions in the usual manner. In the Trial Court, the appellant was charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. To the said charge, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. His defence was that of denial. To substantiate it, he neither adduced oral nor documentary evidence. 6. During the trial, the prosecution examined in all nine witnesses. We may straightway mention that there is no eye-witness of the incident and the case hinges purely on the circumstantial evidence. During trial, the prosecution sought to establish three circumstances and the learned Trial Judge held that all of them were established. The circumstances are extra-judicial confession, seizure of weapon and the accused found running from the spot of incident. 7. The learned Trial Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner stated above, vide impugned judgment. 8. We have heard Shri S. S. Das, learned Advocate (Appointed) for the appellant and Shri T. A. Mirza, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent. We have perused the statements of the witnesses examined by the prosecution to prove the said circumstances; material exhibits tendered and proved by the prosecution and the impugned judgment. After giving our anxious consideration to the matter, we are satisfied that this is a case where the appellant deserves the benefit of doubt. 9. We have already observed earlier that there are no eyewitnesses of the incident and the prosecution case squarely rests on circumstantial evidence. 10. It is well settled that before a conviction can be sustained on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has to prove: (a) various circumstances; (b) that cumulatively all the circumstances unerringly lead to the guilt of the accused; (c) the circumstances established are only inconsistent with the inference of innocence of the accused; and (d) they are incapable of being explained on any other reasonable hypothesis, excepting that of guilt of the accused. 11. We must examine whether the stringent test to be borne in mind before sustaining the conviction on the circumstantial evidence are satisfied in the instant case. To our judgment, circumstances – extra-judicial confession, seizure of weapon and the accused found running from the spot of incident do not inspire belief. 12. 11. We must examine whether the stringent test to be borne in mind before sustaining the conviction on the circumstantial evidence are satisfied in the instant case. To our judgment, circumstances – extra-judicial confession, seizure of weapon and the accused found running from the spot of incident do not inspire belief. 12. The learned Trial Judge has recorded finding of proof of extra-judicial confession based on oral evidence of Naresh Golhar (PW-1), Sangita Parteki (PW-3), and Shubham Golhar (PW-7). On scrutiny of their evidence on record, it shows that Naresh Golhar (PW-1) did not depose about extra-judicial confession, as stated in the First Information Report. Naresh Golhar (PW-1) -Informant in the First Information Report stated that Sangita (PW-3) disclosed to him on phone that the accused killed her husband. But, Naresh Golhar (PW-1) in his deposition stated that Sangita (PW-3) disclosed the name of accused when he reached spot of the incident. Sangita (PW-3) in her deposition stated that the accused woke her up in the midnight and told her that he assaulted her husband with axe. The said statement appears to be inherently improbable, as the person who had killed the victim, was not expected to wake up his wife and tell her that he had assaulted her husband. Shubham (PW-7) stated in his deposition that his father Naresh Golhar (PW-1) had told him that Sangita (PW-3) had made phone-call to him and had informed that the accused had assaulted her husband. As stated earlier, Naresh (PW-1), in his deposition stated that Sangita (PW-3) disclosed the name of accused only after he reached the spot of incident, which is inconsistent with the statement of Naresh Golhar (PW-1) made in the First Information Report. Therefore, the evidence of Shubham (PW-7) cannot be relied upon to prove the circumstance of extra-judicial confession. Therefore, we are satisfied that the circumstance of extra-judicial confession is nothing but, afterthought and the prosecution has failed to prove the said circumstance. 13. The next circumstance which weighed with the learned Trial Judge to convict the appellant is the seizure of weapon from the accused under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is pertinent to note that Ravindra (PW-6) as well as Investigating Officer have not deposed that the appellant –accused gave statement about the place where he had hidden the weapon i.e. axe. It is pertinent to note that Ravindra (PW-6) as well as Investigating Officer have not deposed that the appellant –accused gave statement about the place where he had hidden the weapon i.e. axe. Ravindra (PW-6) and Investigating Officer have not deposed that the axe was found from the concealed place. Ravindra (PW-6) and the Investigating Officer did not depose that the axe recovered was sealed while seizing the same. In our opinion, the learned Trial Judge has wrongly based conviction upon discovery of the axe and its seizure at the instance of the appellant - accused particularly when the weapon was seized from the public place. 14. The next circumstance, which found favour with the learned Trial Judge for conviction of the appellant, was the alleged conduct of the appellant –accused running from the spot of incident. The learned Trial Judge relied upon the testimonies of Sangita (PW-3), Shubham (PW-7) and Vikas (PW-8) to hold that prosecution has proved said circumstance. It is pertinent to note that the Informant, who was present along with Sangita (PW-3) and Shubham (PW-7) did not depose that after the incident, he saw the appellant -accused running away from the spot of incident particularly when, as per the evidence of the prosecution, Naresh (PW-1) was present along with Sangita (PW-3) and Shubham (PW-7) at the spot of incident after the incident. It is pertinent to note that neither Sangita (PW-3) nor Shubham (PW-7) did elaborate details about the direction in which the appellant- accused was running away, whether the appellant was possessing axe, what clothes the appellant was wearing and his distance from electric pole. It is also pertinent to note that neither Shubham (PW-7) nor Sangita (PW-3) told the appellant to stop from running away nor any of them chased him. In our opinion, in the facts of the present case, the accused had no reason to stay at the spot of incident for a long time and then to run away from the spot of incident. Vikas (PW-8) deposed that he had seen the accused at 5.30 p.m. coming from the field where the incident took place. The prosecution has not brought on record the reason as to why the accused remained in the field of spot of incident from 2.30 a.m. till 5.30 a.m. We have also doubt about testimony of Vikas (PW-8). Vikas (PW-8) deposed that he had seen the accused at 5.30 p.m. coming from the field where the incident took place. The prosecution has not brought on record the reason as to why the accused remained in the field of spot of incident from 2.30 a.m. till 5.30 a.m. We have also doubt about testimony of Vikas (PW-8). Vikas (PW-8) stated that the accused told him that at 5.30 a.m. he was coming from the field of the Informant. His statement does not inspire confidence as the person who commits murder would not remain at the spot of incident without any reason and would not tell another person after three hours that he was coming from the spot of incident. 15. Apart from the circumstances relied upon by the learned Trial Judge, we find that the prosecution theory and the evidence of Sangita (PW-3) do not inspire confidence since the accused allegedly inflicted seven injuries on the deceased and Sangita (PW-3) who was sleeping in the same room had not heard any noise of the deceased. Considering the nature of the injuries mentioned by Dr. Charade (PW-5), we find it impossible that the husband of Sangita (PW-3) having sustained seven injuries had not shouted or made noise. 16. Another circumstance, which creates doubt about theory of the prosecution is the testimony of Dr. Sandip Charade (PW-5) that he cannot say that the weapon shown to him in Court was the same with which blows were given to deceased Baba Parteki. Another circumstance which weighs in favour of the accused is the evidence of the Investigating Officer. When he had arrested the accused, the Investigating Officer had prepared arrest panchanama which does not reflect blood stained clothes on the person of the accused. 17. Pursuant to the above discussion, we find that the prosecution has failed to adduce clinching circumstantial evidence, which conclusively and unerringly points to the guilt of the appellant. The Supreme Court, in the oft-quoted case of Sarwan Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1957 SC 637 has held that suspicion howsoever strong cannot take place of proof. In the said decision, His Lordship has also held that between ‘may be true’ and ‘must be true’ a long distance has to be travelled and the whole of this distance must be travelled by the prosecution by adducing cogent, legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence. In the said decision, His Lordship has also held that between ‘may be true’ and ‘must be true’ a long distance has to be travelled and the whole of this distance must be travelled by the prosecution by adducing cogent, legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence. In the present case, on three circumstances – extra-judicial confession, discovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and the accused seen fleeing from the spot of incident, the said distance cannot be said to have been covered. Therefore, in our opinion, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the appellant. As a logical corollary of our finding, the appellant has to be given benefit of doubt and deserves to be acquitted. We, therefore, pass the following order: ORDER (a) The judgment and order dated 29.8.2019 passed in Sessions Case No.75/2016 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha convicting the appellant/accused – Sharad Ramchandra Rahate for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is set aside. (b) The appellant/accused -Sharad Ramchandra Rahate is acquitted of the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. (c) The appellant/accused -Sharad Ramchandra Rahate be released forthwith, if not required in any other offence. (d) The muddemal property be destroyed as per the order of the Additional Session Judge, Wardha. The Criminal Appeal is allowed in the above terms. Fees of Shri S.S.Das, Advocate (appointed) to represent the appellant be paid as per the Rules.