JUDGMENT : S.K. MISHRA, J. 1. The appellant takes exception to the judgment pronounced by the learned Sessions Judge, Chamoli in Sessions Trial No. 21 of 2012, arising out of Case Crime No. 03 of 2012, convicting the appellant under Sections 302 and 318 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as “the Penal Code” for brevity) and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one additional year and rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo two months simple imprisonment, respectively, as per the judgment and order dated 18.06.2014. 2. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 06.08.2012, the appellant gave birth to an illegitimate child, though her husband was not present for a longtime with her. It is the further case of the prosecution that she committed murder of that child and concealed the dead body in the cow dung heap, hence her father-in-law, namely, Padam Singh lodged a report on 07.08.2012 before the Revenue Police. The Revenue Police took up the investigation of the case and after taking appropriate steps like examination of witnesses, including the complainant, and seizure of material objects etc. submitted charge-sheet against the appellant, for the offence under Sections 302, 318 and 201 of the Penal Code. 3. The defence took the plea of simple denial in its case and in order to prove its case, the prosecution examined seven witnesses on its behalf. 4. The complainant, Padam Singh has been examined as PW-1. PW-2, Smt. Bhagwati Devi, alleged to be the mother-in-law of the appellant, who as per the case of the prosecution discovered the dead body of the deceased child from the cow dung heap. PW-4, Doctor Satish Kumar is a Doctor who has conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and Dr. Maliti Yadav, PW-5 has conducted medical examination of the appellant. PW-3, Mohan Singh is the husband of the appellant. PW-6, Makar Singh and PW-7, Vijay Pal Singh have taken part in the investigation of the case. In addition to such examination of witnesses, several documents have also been led into evidence by exhibiting the same. Maliti Yadav, PW-5 has conducted medical examination of the appellant. PW-3, Mohan Singh is the husband of the appellant. PW-6, Makar Singh and PW-7, Vijay Pal Singh have taken part in the investigation of the case. In addition to such examination of witnesses, several documents have also been led into evidence by exhibiting the same. The defence has neither examined any witnesses, nor led any document, as exhibits, into evidence. 5. This case is preferred from the jail. Originally, Mr. J.S. Virk was appointed as Amicus for the appellant. However, on his assuming charge of the post of Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand, Mr. K.C. Tiwari, has been appointed as the Amicus by the Court to argue the case on behalf of the appellant. 6. Mr. K.C. Tiwari, the learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant, in course of argument, would submit that there is no material except certain circumstances appearing against the appellant, and those circumstances are also not conclusively proved. He would further argue that the prosecution has not established a chain of circumstances unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the appellant. 7. Mr. Amit Bhatt, the learned Deputy Advocate General, on the other hand would submit that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 8. There is no dispute at this stage that the dead body of the deceased, that was found inside a cow dung heap, had anti-mortem injures on its head and, therefore, there is no dispute regarding the homicidal natural death of the deceased. The only dispute at this stage is whether the prosecution by leading circumstantial evidence has conclusively fastened the guilt on the appellant. 9. At paragraph 24 of the impugned judgment, the learned Sessions Judge has taken into consideration the different circumstances that are appearing against the appellant and has come to the conclusion that the prosecution’s case has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 9. At paragraph 24 of the impugned judgment, the learned Sessions Judge has taken into consideration the different circumstances that are appearing against the appellant and has come to the conclusion that the prosecution’s case has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. For appropriate and proper appreciation of the facts, paragraph 24 is quoted below in brevity: 24- i=koyh ij miyC/k ifjfLFkfrtU; lk{; ls oks lkjh dfM+;k vfHk;qDrk ds xHkZorh gksus] fnukad 02-08-2012 dks cPps dks tUe nsus ds Ik'pkr cPps dks mlds lkFk ifjokj dks u fn[kkuk ,oa vfHk;qDrk ls iSnk gq, cPps dk e`r 'ko xkscj ds ढsj esa fNik;k gqvk] Jherh Hkxorh nsoh dks feyuk ,oa esfMdy fjiksVZ ds vk/kkj ij e`r cPps dk flj ij QVk gqvk ?kko 3 xq.kk 3 lsŒehŒ [kksiM+h dh peM+h ij gksuk] iSjksa dh nksuksa gM~fM;ka VwVh gqbZ gksuk ,oa MkDVj dh jk; esa e`R;q dk dkj.k e`R;q iwoZ vkbZ pksVksa ls gksuk] lEiw.kZ lk{; ;g nf'kZr djrk gS fd uotkr f'k'kq tks vfHk;qDrk ls iSnk gqvk Fkk] dks tUe nsrs gh e`R;qdkkfjr dj e`r 'kjhj dks xkscj ds ढsj esa Nqikdj] mlds tUe dks Nqik;k] ,d&nwljs ls tqM+h gqbZ gS vkSj lEiw.kZ vfHk;kstu lk{; ls ;g nf'kZr gksrk gS fd vfHk;qDrk us uotkr iq:"k f'k'kq dks tUe nsus ds ckn lkl&llqj ls >xM+k gksus ij uotkr f'k'kq ds flj ij PkksV igqapkbZ] ftlls mldh eqR;q gks x;hA 10. A reading of the aforesaid paragraph reveals that the following circumstances were held to have been proved by the learned Sessions Judge while coming to the conclusion that he has in convicting the appellant. They are enumerated point wise as hereunder: (i) On 02.08.2012, the appellant gave birth to a child. (ii) That child was concealed by her and was not shown to any of her relations or family members. (iii) The dead body of the child was concealed inside a cow dung heap. (iv) That PW-2, Bhagwati Devi discovered the dead body in the cow dung heap. (v) The medical report, which leads to the conclusion that there were injuries on the head of the deceased child which are anti-mortem in nature, and bones of both the legs were found to have been fractured. 11. (iv) That PW-2, Bhagwati Devi discovered the dead body in the cow dung heap. (v) The medical report, which leads to the conclusion that there were injuries on the head of the deceased child which are anti-mortem in nature, and bones of both the legs were found to have been fractured. 11. In course of hearing, on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Deputy Advocate General, it is clear that none of the witnesses have seen the appellant giving birth to the child, whose murder was allegedly committed by her. Secondly, none of the witnesses have come forward and stated that after giving birth to the child, the appellant did conceal the child from other family members and did not allow them to have a look at it. Also, there is no evidence that she herself has gone and concealed the dead body of the child inside a cow dung heap. Therefore, the first three circumstances, relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge, have not been proved in this case. However, from the record, it is proved that PW-2, Bhagwati Devi did recover a dead body of an infant child, and that infant child had injuries on its head and the bones of both of his legs were broken. That itself, does not prove the case of the prosecution. 12. However, Mr. Amit Bhatt, the learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State, would submit that PW-5 after medical examination opined that 6 to 8 days prior to her examination on 09.08.2012, the appellant has given birth to a child. 13. Thus, it is clear that there is evidence in the shape of opinion of an expert that about 6 to 8 days prior to 09.08.2012, the appellant gave birth to a child, but, such evidence is only an opinion evidence and it does not conclusively establish the case of the prosecution. 14. In our considered opinion, the circumstances established by the prosecution, in this case, do not form a complete chain of events or circumstances unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the appellant. There are enough gaps in the circumstances, whereby a natural doubt arises about the case of the prosecution. 15. 14. In our considered opinion, the circumstances established by the prosecution, in this case, do not form a complete chain of events or circumstances unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the appellant. There are enough gaps in the circumstances, whereby a natural doubt arises about the case of the prosecution. 15. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the learned Sessions Judge has committed an error on record by coming to the conclusion that the appellant has committed the offence of murder of a child, and concealed the birth by secretly disposing of the dead body under Section 318 of the Penal Code. 16. Hence, the Criminal Jail Appeal No. 36 of 2014 is allowed. The conviction and sentence are hereby set-aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges and she be set at liberty forthwith. 17. The appellant is in jail. She shall be released from jail forthwith, in case, she is not otherwise required in any other case. 18. The Registry is directed to provide a copy of this judgment to the Superintendent of concerned Jail and the concerned trial court for intimation and compliance. 19. The Trial Court Record be sent back.