JUDGMENT : Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J. 1. The instant criminal appeal filed by the appellants herein under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. challenging therein judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Sessions Judge, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) dated 05.12.2013 in Sessions Trial No. 13/2013, whereby each of the appellants has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence Under Section 302 of the IPC Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for one year Under Section 201 of the IPC Rigorous imprisonment for two years It is also directed that both the sentences shall run concurrently 2. The brief facts of the present case are that appellant No.1 - Virendra Kumar Uke is husband of the deceased and appellant No.2 Sarswati Bai is second wife of appellant No.1. At the time of incident, appellant No. 1 was residing on first floor of the house, whereas, deceased - Radhika Bai, first wife of appellant No.1 was residing along with her children in the ground floor of the same house. Dead body of the deceased was found in a room on first floor. On 01.10.2012 at about 08:05 pm, PW-2 – Taman Lal Bansod informed the police regarding death of the deceased on account of burn injuries. Consequently, merg intimation (Ex.-P/1) was registered. The Investigation Officer, H.N. Singh Rajput (PW-14) reached to the spot. Inquest of dead body was conducted vide Ex.-P/2 on 02.10.2012. Dead body of the deceased was in half burnt condition and the tongue was protruded. The broken bangles and other articles were seized vide Ex.-P/9. The dead body was sent for postmortem. PW-3 Dr. Umesh Shrivastava and Dr. R.R. Dhurve conducted postmortem and their report is Ex.-P/4. As per postmortem report, the extent of the burn injuries was 60-70%. The viscera and trachea of the deceased were preserved. No opinion regarding nature of the death was given by the Doctors in the postmortem report. On 03.10.2012 F.I.R. (Ex.-P/14) was registered against unknown person. During investigation, the appellants were taken into custody. The police recorded memorandum statement of appellant No.2 Sarswati Bai vide Ex.-P/8 and seized some jewelry and other articles of the deceased on her instance vide Ex.-P/5. The police recorded memorandum statement (Ex.-P/6) of appellant No.1 Virendra Kumar Uke and on his instance kerosene container was recovered and seized vide Ex.-P/7. During investigation, the appellants were taken into custody. The police recorded memorandum statement of appellant No.2 Sarswati Bai vide Ex.-P/8 and seized some jewelry and other articles of the deceased on her instance vide Ex.-P/5. The police recorded memorandum statement (Ex.-P/6) of appellant No.1 Virendra Kumar Uke and on his instance kerosene container was recovered and seized vide Ex.-P/7. After completion of the investigation, the appellants were charge-sheeted for offence punishable under Section 302, 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajnandgaon which was committed to the Court of Sessions for hearing and disposal in accordance with law. 3. The learned trial Court framed charge for offence punishable under Section 302 in alternative Section 302/34 and 201 of the IPC against each of the appellants. The appellants abjured the charge and pleaded non-guilty. In order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses and exhibited 30 documents. The defence exhibited documents i.e. D1 to D5. Statement of the accused/appellants was recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC wherein they denied the guilt. 4. The trial Court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record convicted the present appellants as mentioned in opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence, the appellants have preferred the instant appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by the trial Court. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the appellants are innocent person and they have falsely been implicated in this case. The conviction of the appellants is based upon circumstantial evidence and its chain is not complete. Presumption under Section 106 of the Evidence Act cannot be applied against the present appellants as many persons were residing in the house. He would further submit that the ornaments of the deceased which were seized from the possession of appellant No. 2 have not been identified by any person and it has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt that those jewelries belonged to the deceased. He would also submit that there is no evidence against appellant No.1 and the learned trial Court mainly on gestures and surmises convicted the present appellants. According to the medical evidence, cause of death of the deceased is also not apparent or clear. Thus, counsel for the appellants would pray for acquittal of the appellants. 6. He would also submit that there is no evidence against appellant No.1 and the learned trial Court mainly on gestures and surmises convicted the present appellants. According to the medical evidence, cause of death of the deceased is also not apparent or clear. Thus, counsel for the appellants would pray for acquittal of the appellants. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State would submit that one bite injury was found over right thumb of appellant No.2 which she sustained at the time of incident. Dr. R.K. Karsh (PW-15) has proved bite injury vide Ex.-P/29. He would further submit that the jewelries of the deceased were seized from the possession of appellant No.2 and on instance of appellant No.1 one kerosene container was seized. The dead body of the deceased was found in the house where the appellants were residing, therefore, the appellants were under obligation to explain the cause of death of the deceased. He would further submit that prosecution has proved chain of circumstances and thus, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 8. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, the following two questions arise for consideration :- (i) Whether the prosecution has been able to prove death of deceased Radhika Bai to be homicidal in nature? (ii) Whether the accused/appellants are the perpetrator of the crime in question? Answer to Question No. (i) :- 9. The learned trial Court in para-10 of its judgment has held that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature relying upon the postmortem report (Ex.-P/4) and FSL report (Ex.-P/30) where no carbon particles were found in the trachea. The learned trial Court has recorded the nature of death to be homicidal on the basis of medical evidence which is correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record and same is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. We hereby affirm the said finding. Answer to Question No. (ii) :- 10. The learned trial Court considered the conduct of appellant No. 1 as he did not make call to the relatives of the deceased though he was asked by his daughter Ku. We hereby affirm the said finding. Answer to Question No. (ii) :- 10. The learned trial Court considered the conduct of appellant No. 1 as he did not make call to the relatives of the deceased though he was asked by his daughter Ku. Pooja (PW-10) when he came to house, further, he did not inform the Kotwar and police regarding death of the deceased, he did not provide any explanation to the relatives and thus his conduct was not natural. Appellant No.2 was mistress of appellant No. 1 and they all were residing in the same house. The appellants wanted to get rid of the deceased and it was not possible for appellant No.2 alone to commit murder of the deceased and this fact has been admitted by appellant No. 2 in her memorandum statement. 11. PW-2 Taman Lal Bansod and PW-09 Shivlal Bansod are elder brothers of the deceased. They have stated that when they reached the house of the appellants at about 06:15 pm on 01.10.2012, they saw the dead body of deceased and found upper side of body burnt. They have further stated that the appellant No. 2 was mistress of the appellant No.1 and there was dispute between the appellants and the deceased in this regard. They have admitted that appellant No.1 and the deceased were married 12-13 years ago and there are three children from their wedlock. In para-7, Taman Lal Bansod (PW-2) has admitted that relations between appellant No.2 and the deceased were cordial. Shivlal Bansod (PW-09) has admitted in para-5 that the deceased never made any complaint against the appellants. 12. PW-3 Dr. Umesh Shrivastava conducted the postmortem vide Ex.-P/4 and found 60-70% burn injuries over the body of the deceased. This witness has found six abrasions on hands and legs of the deceased. He preserved viscera and trachea of the deceased and has not given any opinion regarding cause of death. 13. PW-4 Heeralal Bansod is witness to seizure memo (Ex.-P/5) whereby some articles were seized from the possession of appellant No.2 and he has supported the case of the prosecution. 14. PW-6 Shivdarshan is the witness of memorandum statements of appellants and seizure and has duly supported the same. But, in cross-examination, PW-6 has admitted that the seized jewelries were not put for identification. 15. 14. PW-6 Shivdarshan is the witness of memorandum statements of appellants and seizure and has duly supported the same. But, in cross-examination, PW-6 has admitted that the seized jewelries were not put for identification. 15. PW-7 Balsingh is the witness of inquest (Ex.-P/2), memorandum statements of the appellants (Ex.-P/6 & Ex.-P/8) and seizure memo (Ex.-P/7, Ex.-P/9, Ex.-P/10 and Ex.-P/11) and he has duly supported the case of prosecution. 16. PW-10 Ku. Pooja is the daughter of the deceased and a child witness. She has stated that the deceased was her mother. Appellant No. 2 was residing on the first floor of the house. She was studying in Class - VIth at the time of incident and her sisters are school going girls and on the date of incident, they had gone to school. She had proceeded for school at about 10:00 am. On the date of incident at about 08:00 am the appellant No.1 took Rs.12,000/- from her mother and went to Rajnandgaon on his motorcycle. When she came back from school, her younger sister Dolly and Sarswati (appellant No.2) were present in the house. She called her mother where it was informed by appellant No.2 that her mother is on the first floor and when she along with appellant No.2 went to first floor of the house, they found dead body of the deceased. Thereafter, she called her father and maternal uncle (PW-2 & PW-9). She has further stated that her father came back to house at about 03:15 pm. She made allegation of harassment after consuming liquor against appellant No.1. In cross-examination, there is nothing substantial except that the relation between appellant No. 2 and the deceased were cordial. 17. PW-11 Anupama Meshram is Scientific Officer who examined the place of incident and the dead body of the deceased. She found broken bangles, one earring, broken necklace, matchbox, an empty plastic container and other articles. Her inspection report is Ex.-P/12. In cross-examination, she has stated that nature of death was not clear and it was doubtful. 18. PW-12 Yadumani Sidar, Inspector, recorded statement of the witnesses under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. PW-14 H.N. Singh Rajput, Assistant Sub-Inspector, conducted the investigation. 19. PW-15 Dr. R.K. Karsh has stated that on 04.10.2012, he examined appellant No.2 and a bite injury was found on right thumb of appellant No.2 and his report is Ex.-P/29. 20. PW-16 Ku. 18. PW-12 Yadumani Sidar, Inspector, recorded statement of the witnesses under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. PW-14 H.N. Singh Rajput, Assistant Sub-Inspector, conducted the investigation. 19. PW-15 Dr. R.K. Karsh has stated that on 04.10.2012, he examined appellant No.2 and a bite injury was found on right thumb of appellant No.2 and his report is Ex.-P/29. 20. PW-16 Ku. Sonam is a child witness and daughter of the deceased. She has stated that she left for school at 09-10:00 am on the date of incident and she came back to the house at about 02:00 pm. She was taken to the first floor by her elder sister Pooja where they found the dead body of their mother. She has not made any allegation against the present appellants. 21. In FSL report Ex.-P/30, the particles of kerosene have been found on half burnt clothes, tuft of hairs of the deceased, cement flooring and plastic containers. No kerosene was found over the burnt skin of the deceased. In trachea, no carbon particles were found. 22. From the above discussed evidence, it is apparent that there is no direct evidence against the present appellants. The learned trial Court itself has recorded the finding that though there is no evidence against appellant No.1 but it was not possible for appellant No.2 to commit murder of the deceased alone and on said presumption, the learned trial Court has convicted appellant No.1. Further, the dead body was found on the first floor of the house as appears from the evidence of daughter of the deceased, appellant No.1 was not present in the house and it is not a case where only two persons i.e. the deceased and appellant No.2 were residing in the house. The house of the appellants is situated in the middle of the village. The incident had taken place during broad daylight. Mere seizure of jewelries from the possession of appellant No.2 is not sufficient to connect her with the commission of offence. The relations between the deceased and appellant No.2 were cordial and this fact is admitted by brothers as well as the children of the deceased. Further, the jewelries have not been identified by any of the witnesses and no such procedure was adopted by the prosecution. Seizure of kerosene alone is not sufficient to connect the appellant No.1 with the crime in question. Further, the jewelries have not been identified by any of the witnesses and no such procedure was adopted by the prosecution. Seizure of kerosene alone is not sufficient to connect the appellant No.1 with the crime in question. To prove the case against the accused persons, the prosecution has to prove complete chain of the circumstances as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 . 23. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (supra), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with circumstantial evidence held that the onus was on the prosecution to prove that the chain is complete and the infirmity or lacuna in prosecution cannot be cured by false defence or plea. The condition precedent as per the words of their lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is that before conviction could be based on circumstantial evidence, chain of circumstances must be fully established. It reads thus :- (i) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned must or should and not may be established; (ii) the fact so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable of any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; (iii) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; (iv) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and (v) 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.” 24. In light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the evidence which has come in the present case, we are of the considered opinion that prosecution has miserably failed in establishing the complete chain of circumstances so as to hold the appellants herein criminally liable for murder of the deceased. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the benefit of doubt can be extended to the present appellants. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the benefit of doubt can be extended to the present appellants. Hence, by extending benefit of doubt to the present appellants, we hereby set aside the conviction so recorded and the sentence so awarded by the trial Court to the appellants vide the impugned judgment dated 05.12.2013. The appellants are acquitted of charges punishable under Section 302 & 201 of the IPC. Since the appellants are on jail since 04.10.2012, they be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 25. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is allowed.