JUDGMENT : C. Praveen Kumar, J. 1. Accused No. 1 in Sessions Case No. 96 of 2015 on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, is the Appellant herein. Originally, Accused No.1 to 3 were tried for the offence punishable under Section 304-B Indian Penal Code [‘I.P.C.’] or alternatively for an offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. 2. As seen from the record, a charge-sheet was filed against Accused No.2 and 3 vide P.R.C. No. 03 of 2002 in Sessions Case No. 156 of 2002. The case against Appellant/Accused No.1 was split as he was absconding for about 15 years. Accused No.1 was arrested and produced before the Court on execution of Non-Bailable Warrant. On 26.07.2015, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, wherein, it came to be numbered as S.C. No. 96 of 2015. Accused No. 1 faced trial as an “under trial prisoner”. It is also to be noted here that, the case against Accused No. 2 and 3 ended in acquittal, as there was no evidence to connect them with the crime, vide Judgment, dated 24.08.2007. 3. However, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant herein for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. It is against this conviction and sentence of imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C., the present appeal came to be filed. 4. The substance of the charge against the accused is that, on 23.10.2001, Accused No. 1 is said to have caused the death of his wife, by name, Rajana Bhagyalakshmi [‘Deceased’], with the help of Accused No. 2 and 3, in his house. 5. The facts, in the issue, are as under: i) PW6 is the father of the deceased. According to him, the marriage between Accused No. 1 and deceased took place about a year prior to the incident. At the time of marriage, cash of Rs.10,000/-and a gold ring was presented to Accused No.1. The deceased was also given ¼ tula of gold ear rings and silver anklets. Initially, both of them lived at Tummikapalli Village and later shifted to Vizag, where the accused looked after the deceased well. But, at times, he used to beat her suspecting her fidelity. The deceased was also given ¼ tula of gold ear rings and silver anklets. Initially, both of them lived at Tummikapalli Village and later shifted to Vizag, where the accused looked after the deceased well. But, at times, he used to beat her suspecting her fidelity. As such, the deceased was brought to Tummikapalli Village, where, Accused No. 1 was admonished. However, about three days prior to incident, Accused No.1 took the deceased to his house. As per the evidence available on record, Accused No.1 and his parents along with deceased used to live in the said house. ii) While things stood thus, the Talari of the Village informed PW1, who was working as Village Revenue Officer of Tummikapalli Village, about the deceased lying with injuries, in the house of the accused, under a cot. This was on 23.10.2001 at about 7.00 P.M. Immediately the information about the same was furnished to PW6 also. On receiving the said information, PW1 and also PW6 proceeded to the scene of offence and noticed the dead body of the deceased under the cot with injuries. PW1 lodged the report at 9.00 P.M., before PW11 – Sub-Inspector of Police, who registered it as a case in Crime No.77 of 2001 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. Ex.P1 is the report. Ex.P10 is the First Information Report. iii) PW13 – Inspector of Police, took up further investigation, obtained a copy of Ex.P10 [F.I.R.], and proceeded to the scene of offence i.e., the house of the accused. He prepared a panchanama of the scene and also got photographed the scene of offence. Ex.P2 is the scene observation report. At the scene, PW13 seized blood stained clothes, blood stained sticks and damaged tape recorder, which are marked as M.O.1 to M.O.4, under Ex.P2 [Scene Observation Report]. He conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of mediators. Ex.P3 is the inquest report. At the time of inquest, he examined PW4, PW5 and others and recorded their statements and, thereafter, sent the body for post-mortem examination. iv) PW8 – the Civil Surgeon, Government Head Quarters Hospital, Vizianagaram, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased on 24.10.2001 at 4.30 P.M., and issued Ex.P8 – the post-mortem certificate. According to him, the cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage due to ante mortem injuries to vital organs. iv) PW8 – the Civil Surgeon, Government Head Quarters Hospital, Vizianagaram, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased on 24.10.2001 at 4.30 P.M., and issued Ex.P8 – the post-mortem certificate. According to him, the cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage due to ante mortem injuries to vital organs. v) Further investigation, in this case, was taken up by PW12 and found that Accused No.1 to 3 were absconding. However, PW12 arrested Accused No. 2 and 3, but, Accused No. 1 was absconding. After collecting all the material available on record, initially a charge-sheet came to be filed against Accused No. 2 and 3 and the case against Accused No. 1 was split up. 6. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., came to be furnished. Since the case is triable by Court of Sessions, the matter was committed to the Sessions Court under Section 209 Cr.P.C. Basing on the material available on record, charge as referred to above came to be framed, read over and explained to the accused, to which, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW13 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P11, beside marking M.Os. 1 to M.O.4. Out of 13 witnesses examined by the prosecution, PW2, PW3, PW4 and PW5 did not support the prosecution case and were treated hostile by the prosecution. After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, to which he denied, however, did not adduce any defence evidence in support of his plea. 8. Believing the evidence of PW1, PW6 and PW10, the learned Sessions Judge convicted Accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C., however, acquitted him for the offence punishable under Section 304-B I.P.C. Challenging the same, the present appeal came to be filed. 9. Smt. Ammaji Nettem, learned Legal-Aid Counsel, appearing for the Appellant/Accused No.1, would submit that there is absolutely no legal evidence available on record to connect the accused with the crime. 9. Smt. Ammaji Nettem, learned Legal-Aid Counsel, appearing for the Appellant/Accused No.1, would submit that there is absolutely no legal evidence available on record to connect the accused with the crime. According to her, having acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304-B I.P.C. and in the absence of any evidence showing involvement of Accused No. 1 in the commission of offence or being present in the house at the time of offence, the learned Judge erred in convicting Accused No. 1. 10. Sri. S. Dushyanth Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State, would submit that, when the dead body was found in the house, the burden is on the accused to explain as to how the deceased died. In the absence of any explanation being given by the accused, except denial in his 313 Cr.P.C., examination, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that, the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court requires no interference. 11. The point that arises for consideration is, whether the prosecution was able to bring home the guilt of the Accused No.1 beyond reasonable doubt? 12. Before proceeding further, it is to be noted that the trial Court, vide separate Judgment, acquitted Accused No. 2 and 3 of both charges i.e., Section 302 and 304-B of I.P.C. However, coming to Accused No. 1, in a separate trial, the trial Court convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. 13. It is now to be seen, whether there is any material available on record to connect Accused No. 1 with the crime. 14. As seen from the record, there are no eye witnesses to the incident and the case rests on circumstantial evidence. In a case arising out of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has to prove each of the circumstance relied upon by them and the circumstances so proved should form a chain of events, which should lead to an irresistible conclusion establishing the guilt of the accused. 15. In R.Damodaran v. The State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police, AIR (2021) SC 1173, the Apex Court after referring to the judgment of a three Judge Bench in Padala Veera Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, and Ors., 1989 Supp (2) SCC 706, held that, in a case which rests on circumstantial evidence such evidence must satisfy the following tests: 1. By The Inspector Of Police, AIR (2021) SC 1173, the Apex Court after referring to the judgment of a three Judge Bench in Padala Veera Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, and Ors., 1989 Supp (2) SCC 706, held that, in a case which rests on circumstantial evidence such evidence must satisfy the following tests: 1. the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; 2. those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; 3. 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 4. the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of 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. (See Gambhir v. State of Maharastra, (1982) 2 SCC 351 ) 16. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the judgments referred to above, it is now to be seen whether the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are proved and if proved, whether they form a chain of events connecting the accused with the crime leading to an inescapable conclusion, the guilt of the accused. 17. In the instant case, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, tried to contend that in view of the harassment, as spoken to by PW6, it is to be presumed that it was Accused No.1, who must have caused the death of the deceased. 18. In order to prove, whether there was any harassment by the accused, the only evidence available on record is that of PW6 [father of the deceased]. He in his evidence deposed that, the marriage of his daughter [deceased] was performed about a year prior to the incident and at the time of marriage, cash of Rs.10,000/-was given along with a gold ring. Apart from that, the deceased was presented with ¼ tula of gold ear rings and silver anklets. He in his evidence deposed that, the marriage of his daughter [deceased] was performed about a year prior to the incident and at the time of marriage, cash of Rs.10,000/-was given along with a gold ring. Apart from that, the deceased was presented with ¼ tula of gold ear rings and silver anklets. Though, in the evidence-in-chief, he speaks about beating the deceased by the accused suspecting her fidelity, because of which they brought the deceased to their house and after admonishing Accused No.1, the deceased was sent back, but, in the cross-examination, he admits that, two months after the marriage of his daughter [deceased], he went to Vizag and found both of them living happily. According to PW6, one Bagamma, who is his elder sister, residing in Vizag informed him about harassment faced by the deceased in the hands of Accused No.1. But, strangely, the said Bagamma was never examined by the prosecution. No explanation is forthcoming as to why she was not examined by the prosecution. Therefore, the only piece of material available to prove the harassment was the evidence of Bagamma, but, she was not examined by the prosecution. It would be appropriate to extract the admissions made in the cross-examination of PW6, which are as under: “After two months after marriage of my daughter, I went to Vizag to their house. By that time of my visit they lived happily. Bagamma who is my elder sister who used to reside at Vizag only used to tell me about the harassment of the deceased by A.1 but my daughter never informed about the harassment to me. My sister Bagamma used to reside at Venkateswara metta at Vizag. A.1 used to reside near RTC Complex area. I did not give any report to police on the information furnished by Bagamma or I did not made any mediation before elders.” 19. Coming to the incident in question, as stated earlier, the accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. Therefore, the prosecution has to prove that it was the appellant alone who was responsible for the incident, for the reason that Accused No. 2 and 3, who were tried for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. were acquitted by a separate trial. 20. PW10, who is a neighbour and, who is the brother-in-law of the deceased was made to speak about the incident in question. 20. PW10, who is a neighbour and, who is the brother-in-law of the deceased was made to speak about the incident in question. According to him, in the month of October, 2001, PW6 telephoned to him and informed about the death of the deceased. Immediately he reached the house of the accused and found the dead body of the deceased under a cot in the house of the accused. There were number of injuries and fractures all over the body. According to him, he saw the body through a window and later unbolted the door, went inside and saw the dead body. According to him, Accused No. 1 and his parents and one brother and one sister used to reside in the house. He further states that, by the time he went to the house, none were present except the dead body; about four [04] days prior to the incident, Talari made a call and informed about Accused No. 1 and the deceased quarrelling with each other. Then PW10 went to the house of the accused and asked him to take the deceased with him and as he refused, the matter was placed before panchayat, in which the accused and deceased were also present. The panchayatdars informed that they will convince and send the deceased on Friday and asked PW10 to go to his Village, but, the incident took place on Thursday itself. This, in substance, is the evidence of PW10. 21. It may be true that the Village Talari called PW10 and informed him about the quarrel between Accused No.1 and the deceased [Talari not examined]. It may also be true that there was a panchayat [panchayatdars not examined], but, whether the same is sufficient to infer that it was Accused No. 1 alone, who was responsible for the death, more so, when the evidence of PW6 and also the evidence of PW10 would show that not only Accused No. 1, but his parents and one brother and sister used to reside in the house. 22. First-of-all, the material available on record nowhere establishes that Accused No. 1 present in the house at the time of incident. Secondly, not only Accused No. 1, four more people were residing along with Accused No. 1 in the said house. Out of the four persons, two of them were charged and acquitted. 22. First-of-all, the material available on record nowhere establishes that Accused No. 1 present in the house at the time of incident. Secondly, not only Accused No. 1, four more people were residing along with Accused No. 1 in the said house. Out of the four persons, two of them were charged and acquitted. Therefore, question of Accused No. 1 being convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 simplicitor with the evidence available on record may not be proper. Definitely, inference of guilt could have been drawn had Accused No. 1 alone was present at that time or just prior or after the incident. In the absence of the same and having regard to the fact that number of persons were living along with Accused No. 1 in the said house and some of them were acquitted, it may not be safe to convict Accused No. 1 for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. 23. At this stage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that, in view of the alternate charge framed, the appellant can be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304-B I.P.C. 24. It is true that, a conviction for the offence punishable under Section 304-B I.P.C. is permissible provided there is enough material on record to show that there was harassment for or in connection with any unlawful demand of dowry by Accused No. 1. But, as observed by us earlier, the prosecution relied on the evidence of PW6 to prove the harassment, which was disbelieved by the trial Court while acquitting the Accused under Section 304-B I.P.C. Even otherwise, PW6 in his cross-examination admits that one Bagamma used to inform him about the harassment by the accused, but, strangely, the said Bagamma was not examined. Further, PW6 admits that, the deceased never complained to him about the harassment in the hands of the accused. In view of the above, convicting Accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 304-B I.P.C. by drawing a presumption under Section 113-B of Indian Evidence Act, may not arise. 25. In Kailash Gour and others vs. State of Assam, AIR 2012 SC 786 the Apex Court held as under: “It is one of the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent till he is proved to be guilty. 25. In Kailash Gour and others vs. State of Assam, AIR 2012 SC 786 the Apex Court held as under: “It is one of the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent till he is proved to be guilty. It is equally well settled that suspicion howsoever strong can never take the place of proof. There is indeed a long distance between accused `may have committed the offence' and `must have committed the offence' which must be traversed by the prosecution by adducing reliable and cogent evidence. Presumption of innocence has been recognised as a human right which cannot be wished away.” 26. Having regard to above, we hold that the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are not proved beyond doubt. Considering the judgment referred to above and in the absence of any cogent and convincing evidence, we feel that, it may not be safe to convict the appellant/accused No.1 for the charge of murder. Accordingly, we are inclined to acquit the Appellant/Accused No.1 by extending benefit of doubt. 27. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant/accused No. 1 in the Judgment, dated 31.03.2016 in Sessions Case No.96 of 2015 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Vizanagaram, for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. is set-aside and he is acquitted for the said offence. Consequently, the appellant/accused no. 1 shall be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case or crime. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant/accused no.1 shall be refunded to him. No order as to costs. 28. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.