JUDGMENT : Suman Shyam, J 1. Heard Mr. N. Mahajan, learned counsel for the appellant. We have also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Addl. P.P. Assam appearing for the State. None has appeared for the informant in this case. 2. Assailing the impugned judgment dated 21-05-2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kokrajhar in Sessions Case No. 97/2010 convicting the sole appellant under Section 302 of the IPC on the charge of murdering his wife and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, the present appeal has been preferred. 3. The prosecution case, in a nutshell, is that on 14-01-2019 an ejahar was lodged before the Officer-in-Charge of Fakiragram Police Station by Md. Idris Ali Akand reporting that his daughter Musstt. Earon Bibi had been given away in marriage to Md. Azim Uddin Paramanik of Dhepdhepi village 4/5 years ago as per Muslim Shariat by executing Kabin Nama. On 11-01-2009 he was informed that Musstt. Earon Bibi had gone missing from her matrimonial home since the night of 08-01-2009. Since then they had been searching for her in the nearby houses of kith and kin. On 14-01-2009, at about 07:00 a.m. in the morning, his son Md. Ayub Hussain saw two dogs digging the sand in the alluvial land near the river Gangeya and became suspicious. Coming nearer he had dug out with his hand cloths of the victim. The matter was then informed to the Officer-in-Charge of Sithila Police Outpost. Later, the sand in that spot was dug out in presence of police and magistrate and the dead body of his daughter was recovered. The informant had also stated that he suspected Md. Azim Uddin Pramanik, son of Md. Majibar Pramanik to have killed his daughter and kept the body buried on the bank of river Gangeya in collusion with the other accused persons, viz.Md. Jabed Ali Akand, Musstt. Aziran Bibi, Md. Jahan Miyan and Md. Majibar Pramanik. 4. Based on the FIR dated 14-01-2009 Fakiragram P.S. Case No. 3/2009 was registered against the five accused persons under Section 302/201/34 of the IPC and the matter was taken up for investigation. After completing the investigation, the Investigating Officer (I/O) had submitted charge-sheet against all the five accused persons including the present appellant. Jahan Miyan and Md. Majibar Pramanik. 4. Based on the FIR dated 14-01-2009 Fakiragram P.S. Case No. 3/2009 was registered against the five accused persons under Section 302/201/34 of the IPC and the matter was taken up for investigation. After completing the investigation, the Investigating Officer (I/O) had submitted charge-sheet against all the five accused persons including the present appellant. Accordingly, charges were framed against the accused persons under Section 302/201/34 IPC and were read over and explained to them. However, the accused persons had pleaded not guilty, as a result of which, they were made to face trial. 5. The prosecution case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence. To bring home the charge, the prosecution side had examined as many as 12 witnesses including the Doctor (PW-10) who had conducted the Postmortem Examination as well as the two I/Os, viz.PW-11 and PW-12 who had conducted the investigation and submitted the charge-sheet. The statements of the accused persons including the present appellant were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. but the defense side did not adduce any evidence. Upon conclusion of trial, the learned Sessions Judge, Kokrajhar had passed the impugned judgment dated 21-05-2015 convicting the appellant herein under Section 302 of the IPC and sentencing him as aforesaid. However, the remaining four co-accused persons were acquitted by the learned trial court due to want of evidence against them. 6. Mr. Mahajan, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the entire prosecution case is based on suspicion, conjecture and surmises inasmuch as the prosecution could not prove the charge framed against the appellant under Section 302 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. According to Mr. Mahajan there is not even an iota of evidence to implicate the appellant for committing the murder of his wife and therefore, his conviction under Section 302 IPC and the sentence awarded by the learned trial court is wholly untenable in the eye of law and hence, is liable to be set aside by this Court. 7. Responding to the above Ms. Bhuyan, learned Addl. P.P. Assam has submitted that since the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence, some of the circumstances which raises a needle of suspicion against the appellant/accused person and eventually had been established by the evidence brought on record by the prosecution has been rightly relied upon by the learned trial court so as to convict the appellant. Ms. P.P. Assam has submitted that since the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence, some of the circumstances which raises a needle of suspicion against the appellant/accused person and eventually had been established by the evidence brought on record by the prosecution has been rightly relied upon by the learned trial court so as to convict the appellant. Ms. Bhuyan submits that there is evidence on record to show that the victim had gone missing from her matrimonial house in the evening of 08-01-2009 and the said fact was known to the accused. Notwithstanding the same, the accused/appellant did not inform the police immediately nor did he take proper steps so as to search for his missing wife. Coupled with that, submits Ms. Bhuyan, there is evidence to show that the victim was in the house of the appellant on the day on which she went missing, i.e. 08-01-2009 and there is no explanation from the inmates of the house as to the circumstances under which the victim had gone missing. The learned Addl. P.P. Assam, therefore, submits that the learned trial court has rightly relied upon the circumstantial evidence brought on record by the prosecution side so as to convict the appellant and there is no justifiable ground for this Court to interfere with the impugned judgment and order dated 21-05-2015. 8. We have considered the submission advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties and have also gone through the materials available on record. Since the appellant’s counsel has argued that there is no evidence available on record to sustain the conviction of the appellant, it would be necessary for us to briefly discuss the evidence lead by the prosecution side in this case. 9. As noticed above, the informant in this case Md. Idris Ali Akand is the father of the victim and he was examined by the prosecution side as PW-1. In his deposition before the court, the PW-1 had stated that there was a love affair between the accused Azim Uddin Paramanik and his daughter Musstt. Earon Bibi and about 9/10 year ago, their marriage was solemnized socially. He has deposed that the accused Md. Majibar Paramanik is the father of the accused Azim Uddin Paramanik, whereas accused Musstt. Aziram Bibi is his mother. Earon Bibi and about 9/10 year ago, their marriage was solemnized socially. He has deposed that the accused Md. Majibar Paramanik is the father of the accused Azim Uddin Paramanik, whereas accused Musstt. Aziram Bibi is his mother. The accused Jabed Ali Akand is the paternal uncle of the accused Azim Uddin Paramanik whereas accused Jahan Miyan is the maternal uncle of the accused by the village courtesy. The PW-1 has deposed that his son-in-law Azim Uddin Paramanik used to stay at Guwahati and work there but his daughter used to stay at home with her father-in-law and mother-in-law. About 5 years ago, before ‘Muharram’ his daughter and her husband Azim Uddin Paramanik had come to their house from Guwahati. Three days after the ‘Muharram’ Azirun Bibi came to his house in the morning and told him that his daughter, taking with her wearing apparels, had gone missing from their home. At that, he had told Azirun Bibi that his daughter would never go anywhere leaving behind her child aged about 6/7 years and that she (Azirun) had killed her daughter with the help of accomplices. Then Azirun went away from their house without saying anything. He had searched for his daughter but could not find her. Seven days thereafter, his son Ayub Hussain (PW-5) noticed the dogs digging the sand on the bank of Gangiya river, to the south of the house of Majibur Paramanik. When his son went near the place and dug out some sand, he had seen a dead body lying there. His son then came and informed them about the matter. He had seen that the villagers had arrived there and saw that the dead body of his daughter had been exhumed. Police took away the dead body. Exhibit-1 is the inquest report and Exhibit-1(1) was his signature. He then lodged an ejahar with the police station and Exhibit- 2 is the said ejahar carrying his signature. 10. PW-2 Sri Bishadu Ram Barman was the Secretary of the VDP of Dhepdhepi village. He has deposed before the court that on the night of 08-01-2009, at around 03:00 a.m. his co-villagers accused Johan Ali came to his house and woke him up from sleep. After that he had seen accused Azim Uddin Paramanik and Jabed Ali were also present there along with Johan Ali. He has deposed before the court that on the night of 08-01-2009, at around 03:00 a.m. his co-villagers accused Johan Ali came to his house and woke him up from sleep. After that he had seen accused Azim Uddin Paramanik and Jabed Ali were also present there along with Johan Ali. The accused Azim Uddin Paramanik told him that on that night, he had gone to attend a ‘Jikir’ programme leaving his wife Earon Bibi at home and after returning from the programme, he did not find his wife at home. He then asked them to inform the girl’s father and the village “Gaonburah” (Village Headman) and also to search for the girl. At around 06:00 a.m. on 14-01-2009 Jiyar Ali had informed him over phone that he suspected someone might have buried the dead body of his sister Earon Bibi at the alluvial soil on the bank of Gangia river. He then went to the Gaonburah Lalit Ch. Barman’s house and informed him about the matter. After that, he being accompanied by the Gaonburah and other villagers, went to the place of occurrence, i.e. the bank of Gangia river and saw that the dead body of the deceased Earon Bibi was being dug up by the police sweeper in presence of a Magistrate. The father-in-law of Earon Bibi had identified the dead body. The police had prepared the inquest report and took the dead body away. Exhibit-1 is the inquest report and Exhibit-1(2) was his signature. This witness has also stated that he did not know as to who had killed Earon Bibi. During his cross-examination, PW-2 has stated that he did not go near the dead body since it was stinking and that Azim Uddin used to work in Guwahati but he used to sometime stay at his home. PW-2 has also deposed that Earon Bibi was mentally ill and Azim Uddin used to provide her with medical treatment. 11. Sri Lalit Ch. Barman who is the Gaonburah of Dhepdhepi village was examined by the prosecution as PW-3. This witness has deposed that he knew the accused persons present in the dock and had identified them. PW-2 has also deposed that Earon Bibi was mentally ill and Azim Uddin used to provide her with medical treatment. 11. Sri Lalit Ch. Barman who is the Gaonburah of Dhepdhepi village was examined by the prosecution as PW-3. This witness has deposed that he knew the accused persons present in the dock and had identified them. PW-3 has further deposed that on 09-01-2009 at around 07:00 a.m. the accused Azim Uddin Paramanik and Jahan Uddin came to his house and informed that on the previous night he had gone to attend a ‘Jikir’ programme but after returning from the ‘Jikir’ he did not find his wife at home. Even after making search for her she could not be traced out. PW-3 has stated that he had asked the accused persons to inform the father of the Earon Bibi about the matter and had also enquired about her in the house of other relatives. In the morning of 14-01-2009, the VDP Secretary Sri Bisadu Ram Barman (PW-2) came to his house and told him that the dead body of Earon Bibi had been found in the alluvial land of Gangia river and he should go there. Then he went to the alluvial land of Gangia river on being accompanied by some of the co-villagers as well as the PW-2. After reaching there, he had seen the police person present there along with the sweepers. The police sweepers had exhumed the dead body and he could identify it to be that of Earon Bibi. Police then took away the dead boy. He did not know who had killed Earon Bibi. In his cross-examination, PW-3 had stated that he has heard that Earon Bibi (victim) was mentally ill. 12. PW-4 Md. Jiar Ali Akand is a co-villager and he has stated in his deposition that on 11-01-2009, at around 08:00 a.m., Azim Uddin’s mother, viz. Azirun Bibi came to his house and informed that her daughter-in-law Earon Bibi had disappeared from their house. She had also informed that Earon Bibi had left behind her younger son at home and ran away after stealing a pair of anklets of her daughter. On 14-01-2009, at around 06:00 a.m. he had gone towards the river bank to defecate. At that time he had met Md. She had also informed that Earon Bibi had left behind her younger son at home and ran away after stealing a pair of anklets of her daughter. On 14-01-2009, at around 06:00 a.m. he had gone towards the river bank to defecate. At that time he had met Md. Ayub Hussain who had told him that two dogs were digging up the sand in the river bank and he suspected that the body of Earon Bibi had been buried there after killing her as her apparel was found on the spot. He then immediately informed the VDP Secretary about the matter as well as other co-villagers, viz. Akbar Ali and Mamud Ali. Thereafter, he along with Sri Bisadu Ram Barman and other villagers went to the place of occurrence. The police, along with the sweeper had also reached the place. Thereafter, the police sweeper had taken out the dead body of Earon Bibi which he could recognize. The police then took away the dead body. This witness has also deposed that about 2/3 months prior to her death Earon Bibi had told him that her husband and her mother-in-law used to torture her. He used to tell Azirun Bibi not to quarrel. So he suspects that the accused person had killed Earon Bibi. 13. PW-5 Md. Ayub Hussain is the son of the informant and the brother of the deceased. PW-5 has deposed that his brother-in-law Azim Uddin used to work as a plumber at Guwahati. Around three days prior to the incident accused Azim Uddin took his sister to his house. Four days thereafter, Azim Uddin’s mother Azirun Bibi came to their house one morning and informed that Earon Bibi has been missing for the last three days. When he had enquired about the whereabouts of his younger sister in the nearby villages he could not find anything. Three days after receipt of the information about the fact that his younger sister had gone missing, one morning he went to the alluvial land near the river Gangiya to defecate and then he saw two dogs were digging earth. Coming near the spot, he had found the sari of his sister. Then he returned home and informed his mother and aunty about the incident. He again went to the land near the Gangiya river. Coming near the spot, he had found the sari of his sister. Then he returned home and informed his mother and aunty about the incident. He again went to the land near the Gangiya river. By that time, other villagers had also gathered there and the police personnel had also arrived along with the sweepers. Police sweepers had exhumed the dead body of his sister Earon Bibi. The body was later taken away by the police for postmortem examination. This witness has deposed that he believed except for accused Mujibur Paramanik all the other accused persons, in a body, had killed his younger sister. 14. PW-6 Md. Hakim Ali Paramanik is a resident of the same village where the victim Earon Bibi used to reside. PW-6 had stated that one morning, about 5 years ago, he was taking his cattle to the alluvial land near the river Gangiya which is situated in the south of the house of the accused person. On his way back, he had seen Earon Bibi doing household works in the house of the accused Azim Uddin. On the morning of the following day, the accused Azim Uddin had come to his house and informed him that Earon Bibi had gone missing. Later on, he had heard that Earon Bibi had been found dead. 15. PW-7 Md. Sahjahan Akand is another co-villagers who has also deposed in similar lines by saying that he had seen Earon Bibi with a baby on her lap in the house of the accused person while he was coming to the alluvial land near the river Gangiya. The following day, in the morning hours, while he was proceeding towards the alluvial land near the river Gangiya, Earon Bibi’s mother-in-law had told him that she had gone missing from their house since the previous night. Some 6/7 days later Police had recovered the dead body of the Earon Bibi from under the sand in the alluvial land near the river Gangiya. Likewise, Musstt. Surjan Bibi (PW-8) had also stated that she had also seen Earon Bibi in the house of the accused person in the previous evening while she was taking her cattle along. On the following day, Azirun Bibi was walking by her side saying that Earon Bibi had run away from the home in the previous night. 16. PW-9 Md. Mahmud Ali Paramanik is another co-villagers. On the following day, Azirun Bibi was walking by her side saying that Earon Bibi had run away from the home in the previous night. 16. PW-9 Md. Mahmud Ali Paramanik is another co-villagers. He has deposed that about six years ago, one day Earon Bibi’s father Idris Ali had approached him and told that his daughter Earon Bibi had gone missing from the house of her husband Azim Uddin. He too had searched for Earon Bibi but could not find her. After about 12/13 days Abu Samad, i.e. the brother of Earon Bibi had called him and told that the dead body of Earon Bibi had been found buried under the sand near the river Gangiya. 17. Dr. Nikunja Das who had conducted Postmortem Examination on the dead body of Earon Bibi, was examined as PW-10. He had proved the Postmortem Report Exhibit-3. The Postmortem Report reveals as follows: “A female decomposed dead body of about 22 years was sent for post mortem examination. Rigor mortise both upper and lower limbs absent. Whole body is covered with sand and mud. Maggots seen all over the body. Abdomen is swollen, hairs over the head partially peeled off, skin over the body peeled off as the body is decomposed. Ligature mark seen over the neck which is continuous, transverse below the thyroid cartilage. Uterus- Dead foetus seen inside the uterus which is macerated decomposed. Skull is found. Age of the foetus is approximately 5/6 months.” Doctor had opined that the death is due to asphyxia following strangulation which is ante mortem and homicidal in nature. 18. The investigation pertaining to Fakiragram P.S. Case No. 3/2009 pertaining to G.D Entry No. 198 dated 14-01-2009 was conducted by Sub-Inspector Md. Khalique Ahmed who was entrusted with the matter. The I/O was examined as prosecution witness as PW 11. PW-11 has deposed that on 14-01-2009, one Mamud Ali appeared at the Sithila P.P. and informed about the incident verbally. At that time, the In-Charge of Sithila P.P. made G.D Entry No. 198 dated 14-01-2009 and informed the matter to the O/C of Fakiragram Police Station. PW-11 had stated that the Police had recovered the dead body from the alluvial soil near the river Gangiya. Postmortem and inquest was conducted over the dead body. He was entrusted with the charge of carrying out investigation in the aforesaid case. PW-11 had stated that the Police had recovered the dead body from the alluvial soil near the river Gangiya. Postmortem and inquest was conducted over the dead body. He was entrusted with the charge of carrying out investigation in the aforesaid case. Accordingly, he drew up a sketch map, recorded the statements of the witnesses but in the meantime, he was transferred. So he had handed over the relevant documents of the case to the O/C of the Police Station. The charge-sheet in the case was submitted by Sub-Inspector (S.I.) D.S. Singha. 19. The S.I. Dibendu Sekhar Singha was examined as PW-12. He has confirmed in his deposition that he had received the Case Diary (C.D.) on 10-03-2010. Thereafter, he had arrested two accused persons and forwarded them to the court, collected the Postmortem Report and after examining the relevant documents of the case had submitted the charge-sheet against the accused persons. PW-12 has also proved the charge-sheet Exhibit-4. 20. Upon analyzing the evidence lead by the prosecution side, the learned trial court has held that it has been proved beyond doubt that the deceased Earon Bibi did not have any serious mental ailment or depression. It has also been proved that the house of the accused Azim Uddin was close to the place from where the dead body of Earon Bibi was recovered and that the accused person did not inform the Police about Earon Bibi going missing. That apart, accused Azim Uddin had remained absconding till 11-03-2010 and he did not surrender before the Police. It was also the observation of the learned trial court that the accused had failed to offer proper explanation as to the circumstances under which Earon Bibi had disappeared. By relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Trimukh Maroti Kirkan Vs. State of Maharastra reported in (2006) 10 SCC 106, the learned court below had concluded that since there was evidence to show that the victim was in the house of the accused shortly before the incident took place and since the accused husband used to reside in that house, it was incumbent upon him to offer explanation as to how the victim had received injuries, which the accused had failed to offer. Applying the doctrine of “last seen together” theory, the learned trial court had held that there was a burden cast upon the accused to explain as to how the incident had occurred and failure on his part to furnish proper explanation would give rise to a very strong presumption of guilt against the accused. It has also been observed that the accused Azim Uddin Paramanik did nothing to trace out his missing wife. On the basis of such findings and conclusion, the learned trial court had convicted the accused Azim Uddin Paramanik under Section 302 of the IPC for committing the murder of his wife while acquitting other four accused persons. 21. It is apparent from the nature of evidence lead by the prosecution side that the case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence. Therefore, the core question that would arise for consideration by this Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case is as to whether, the prosecution had succeeded in establishing all the links in the chain of circumstances so as to establish the charge brought against the accused under Section 302 of the IPC beyond reasonable doubt. On a close scrutiny of the evidence available on record, we are afraid to note that the finding on the above point would have to be recorded in the negative. We find that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge brought against the accused persons by adducing cogent evidence on record. This we say so also because of the fact that we find force in the primary argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the accused in this case has been convicted purely on the basis of suspicion but not on the basis of any evidence available on record. 22. As noticed above, the basic thrust of the argument of learned Addl. P.P. Assam is to the effect that the prosecution had lead sufficient evidence to show that the accused did not do enough to trace out his wife after she had gone missing and that there is no explanation as to how the accused has disappeared on the evening of 08-01-2009 from her matrimonial house. P.P. Assam is to the effect that the prosecution had lead sufficient evidence to show that the accused did not do enough to trace out his wife after she had gone missing and that there is no explanation as to how the accused has disappeared on the evening of 08-01-2009 from her matrimonial house. In the above context, it is to be noted herein that it has clearly come out from the evidence of PW-2 that on the very night of disappearance, i.e. 08-01-2009, the appellant herein, along with others, had gone to the house of the VDP Secretary (PW-2) and informed him about the matter. On the next morning, i.e. on 09-01-2009 at around 07:00 a.m. they also went and informed the matter to the village headman i.e. Gaon Burah (PW-3). Not only that, even the mother-in-law of the victim had informed the informant, i.e. the father of the deceased on 11-01-2009 that his daughter had gone missing from the matrimonial house. 23. It appears from the evidence available on record that not only had the accused and his family members launched a search for the victim, but even the informant and his son, upon receipt of information about his daughter going missing, had made relevant enquiries in the house of the relatives and kith and kin so as to trace out his daughter but could not find her. Neither party had informed the Police about the matter till the morning of 14-01-2009 when the dead body was dug out from the alluvial soil of river Gangiya. There is evidence on record, particularly, the testimony of PWs-2 and 3 which indicates that the victim Earon Bibi was suffering from some mental ailment and it appears that some documentary proof pertaining to her mental health condition of the victim was also made available before the learned trial court. Under the circumstances it is possible that the search for the victim from 09-01-2009 to 14-01-2009 was maintained at a low key by the in-laws and parents of the victim on an assumption that the victim had left the house due to her mental ailments and would soon return back home on her own. Such hope was completely shattered on 14-01-2009 when the dead body was recovered. Prior to that, even the family members of the victim did not inform the Police about her going missing. Such hope was completely shattered on 14-01-2009 when the dead body was recovered. Prior to that, even the family members of the victim did not inform the Police about her going missing. In view of the above, it would not be proper to impute motive upon the accused merely on the ground of delay in informing the Police about the victim going missing, unless there is evidence available on record to prove his deliberate complicity in the matter. 24. Coming to the next point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, it is no doubt correct that the evidence of PWs-6, 7 and 8 goes to show that the victim Earon Bibi was seen in her matrimonial house in the previous evening when she had gone missing. On the basis of such evidence, the learned trial court had invoked the theory of “last seen together” circumstances and held the accused liable for his failure to offer proper explanation in the matter. However, what is to be borne in mind is that the presence of the victim in her matrimonial home was very natural since she used to live therein. Since the stand of the accused persons is to the effect that the victim had voluntarily left the house in the evening of 08-01-2009 along with certain valuable items and since the dead body was recovered almost a week thereafter, from another place, we are of the view that neither the “last seen together” circumstances would have any relevance in the facts of this case nor would there be any burden cast upon the accused persons under Section 106 of the Evidence Act to explain as to the circumstances under which the victim had sustained injuries. 25. There is no evidence on record to show that the victim was strangulated inside the matrimonial house and thereafter her dead body was shifted near the river bank and buried. 25. There is no evidence on record to show that the victim was strangulated inside the matrimonial house and thereafter her dead body was shifted near the river bank and buried. Section 106 of the Evidence Act, it must be borne in mind, does not relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the charge brought against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt but merely lessens the burden of the prosecution by casting an obligation upon the inmates of the matrimonial home of the victim to offer explanation as to how the deceased had received injuries provided it is established on the basis of cogent evidence brought on record that the incident did take place within the confines of the matrimonial home of the victim wherein none other than her husband and in-laws were present. However, the evidence available on record in this case is insufficient to draw such a conclusion in the present case. As such, we are of the view that the law laid down in the case of Trimukh Maroti Kirkan (Supra) would not have any application in the facts of the present case and therefore, the learned trial court has erred in law in applying the principle of Section 106 of the Evidence Act in the facts of this case. 26. In the case of Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda Vs. State of Maharastra reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116 the Supreme Court has laid down the principles that would be applicable where the prosecution is required to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of circumstantial evidence. The observations made in paragraph 3.3 of the said decision laying down the relevant parameters, are reproduced herein below for ready reference:- “1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established; 2. The facts so established should be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; 3. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; 4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and 5. The facts so established should be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; 3. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; 4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and 5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.” 27. On a careful scrutiny of the evidence available on record, we are of the view that the conditions laid down in the case of Shard Birdhi Chand Sarda (Supra), has not been satisfied in the present case. Rather, the prosecution’s story appears to be based on suspicion rather than proper evidence collected by the I/O to prove the charge. The mere fact that the accused person was absconding after the incident, cannot, in our opinion, be a ground to convict him for committing murder of his wife unless the charge is proved on the basis of cogent evidence brought on record. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we are of the view that the impugned judgment and order dated 21-05-2015 passed by the learned trial court is unsustainable in the eye of law and the same is accordingly set aside. The appellant is hereby acquitted due to want of evidence against him and shall be set at liberty. The appeal stands allowed. We are informed that the appellant is in jail. The appellant be released forthwith if his custodial detention is not required in connection with any other proceeding. Send back the LCR.