JUDGMENT : K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J. The sole accused in Sessions Case No.54 of 2016 on the file of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Parvatipuram, is the appellant in the present criminal appeal. He was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. By his judgment dated 27.01.2017, the learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of the charges under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, accordingly convicted him of the said charges and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only), in default to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three (3) months, for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. He was further sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for two (2) years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only), in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two (2) months, for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The substance of the charges is that, on 19.11.2015, at about 04.00 p.m., at his fields situated at Ramabhadrapuram Village, the accused caused the death of his wife, namely Ponduru Lakshmi (hereinafter referred to as "deceased") by strangulating her with a jute rope. In the course of same transaction, in order to screen the evidence, on 28.11.2015, the accused burnt the dead body of the deceased in the fields of PW5, thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. 3. Case of the prosecution, as culled out from the evidence adduced by it, is as under. The appellant/accused is the husband of the deceased. PW2 is the father, and PW3 is the mother, of the deceased. PW4 is the deceased's sister's husband. PW6 is the co-sister of the deceased. Marriage of the deceased was performed with the accused about 11 months prior to the alleged incident. They lived happily for about five months. The accused alongwith the deceased went to his in-laws house for festival. During that time, the deceased moved freely with PW4. The accused suspected her behaviour. Thereafter, the accused used to beat the deceased in a drunken state. The deceased used to complain to her parents about the harassment being meted out by the accused. One day, at about 04.00 p.m., the accused and the deceased were seen going to their fields. During that time, the deceased moved freely with PW4. The accused suspected her behaviour. Thereafter, the accused used to beat the deceased in a drunken state. The deceased used to complain to her parents about the harassment being meted out by the accused. One day, at about 04.00 p.m., the accused and the deceased were seen going to their fields. But, at 07.00 p.m., on that day, the accused alone had returned to his house. He informed his parents that the deceased went to her parents house. They enquired PWs.2 and 4, the father and brother-in-law of the deceased about her, but in vain. (ii) On 28.11.2015, at about 05.00 p.m., one Rajeti Haribabu, VRA, informed PW1 that there was a dead body of a female person, which was partly burnt in the fields of PW5. On information, PW1 and the said Haribabu went to the fields of PW5 and found partly burnt dead body of a female person, aged about 19 years. Then, he lodged a report Ex.P1 in Ramabhadrapuram Police Station. (iii) On 28.11.2015, PW14-the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ramabhadrapuram Police Station received Ex.P1 report from PW1 and, basing on the same, he registered a case in Crime No.167 of 2015 of Ramabhadrapuram Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. Ex.P13 is the original FIR. He examined PW1 and recorded his statement. (iv) On 29.11.2015, PW15 - the Inspector of Police, Salur Circle, on receipt of FIR from PW14, visited the scene of offence, which is situated at the fields of PW5. He observed the scene of offence in the presence of PWs.1 and 2 and seized the burnt ash alongwith soil. MO2 is ash and MO3 is some quantity of soil. Ex.P2 is the scene of observation report. He prepared the rough sketch of the scene of offence. Ex.P15 is the rough sketch of scene of offence. He examined PWs.1 to 5 and recorded their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (v) On 29.11.2015, PW12-the Tahsildar of Ramabhadrapuram, on requisition, conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the fields of PW5 in the presence of panchayatdars i.e., one Daketi Paramahamsa and others. Ex.P3 is the inquest report. (vi) On 29.11.2015, PW13-the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Badangi, on requisition, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued post-mortem certificate Ex.P14. Ex.P3 is the inquest report. (vi) On 29.11.2015, PW13-the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Badangi, on requisition, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued post-mortem certificate Ex.P14. According to him, the cause of death of the deceased was due to cardio respiratory arrest due to ante-mortem asphyxia, neurogenic shock, resulting from strangulation. (vii) On 30.11.2015, PW15 recorded the statement of PW6. Thereafter, on 01.12.2015, PW15 arrested the accused and seized the match box - MO4 and jute rope of 80 cms., in length - MO5, under mediators report Ex.P11 in the presence of PW10 and others. On 03.12.2015, PW15 recorded the statements of PWs.2, 7 and 9. After collecting relevant documents and after completion of investigation, PW15 filed charge-sheet. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 15 and got marked Exs.P1 to P15 and MOs.1 to 5. 5. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating material appearing against him and reported no defence evidence. 6. Heard Sri G. Vijaya Saradhi, learned Counsel for the appellant/accused, and Sri Kochiri Anand Kumar, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State. 7. Learned Counsel for the appellant/accused submitted that the entire case rests on the circumstantial evidence and there are no eye-witnesses to the occurrence. He further submitted that except the "last seen theory" that the accused and the deceased were seen going together, there is absolutely no other evidence to connect the accused to the alleged crime. According to him, PWs.6 and 7 are the witnesses, who are alleged to have seen the accused and the deceased going together, but the said two witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution and they were treated hostile by the prosecution. He further submitted that there are number of discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, hence no credence can be given to those witnesses, and there is no legal evidence to connect the accused. 8. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that basing on the "last seen theory" and recovery of jute rope - MO5, the learned Sessions Judge passed a well reasoned judgment, which calls for no interference by this Court. 8. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that basing on the "last seen theory" and recovery of jute rope - MO5, the learned Sessions Judge passed a well reasoned judgment, which calls for no interference by this Court. According to him, though PWs.6 and 7 did not support the prosecution case and they were treated hostile, such portion of their evidence that they last seen the accused and the deceased going together is established and there is no response from the accused in his Section 313 Cr.P.C., examination, which would point a finger at the accused that he is the person who caused the death of the deceased. 9. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the accused for the charges levelled against him beyond all reasonable doubt or not? 10. Amongst the prosecution witnesses PWs.1 to 15, PWs.2, 4 to 7 and 9 did not support the case of prosecution and they were declared hostile by the prosecution. PW13 - the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Badangi, on requisition, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. He stated that the dead body of the deceased was a moderately nourished female dead body. It was partly burnt, eyes and mouth closed, hair was black and some part of hair was burnt. According to him, the body was putrefied and burnt, ligature mark present around the neck and no external injuries were found. He opined that the cause of death of the deceased to the best of his knowledge was due to cardio respiratory arrest due to ante-mortem asphyxia, neurogenic shock, resulting from strangulation. The post-mortem certificate goes to show that the death of the deceased was not a natural death and the same was homicidal death. 11. Now the question that arises for consideration is who is responsible for the death of the deceased? 12. On a perusal of the evidence on record goes to show that the entire case rests on the circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence, in law, is evidence not drawn from direct observation of a fact in issue. Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence that does not, on its face, prove a fact in issue but gives rise to a logical inference that the fact exists. Circumstantial evidence requires drawing additional reasonable inferences in order to support the claim. 13. Circumstantial evidence, in law, is evidence not drawn from direct observation of a fact in issue. Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence that does not, on its face, prove a fact in issue but gives rise to a logical inference that the fact exists. Circumstantial evidence requires drawing additional reasonable inferences in order to support the claim. 13. In a decision reported in Pritinder Singh @ Lovely v. The State of Punjab, (2023) 10 SCR 1033 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus : "Undisputedly, the present case is a case which rests on circumstantial evidence. The law with regard to conviction in the case of circumstantial evidence is very well crystalised in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 . We may gainfully refer to the following observations of this Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda's case (supra) : "153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established: (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned "must or should" and not "may be" established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between "may be proved" and "must be or should be proved" as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793 = 1973 SCC (Cri.) 1033 = 1973 Cri. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between "may be proved" and "must be or should be proved" as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793 = 1973 SCC (Cri.) 1033 = 1973 Cri. LJ 1783, where the observations were made : [SCC Para 19, P.807, SCC (Cri.) P.1047] "Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a Court can convict and the mental distance between "may be" and "must be" is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions." (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the 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. 154. These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence." 14. In the light of these guiding principles, the present case has to be considered. 15. In order to connect the links to form a chain, the motive to cause the death of the deceased has to be seen. Motive : 16. In order to prove the motive, PW3, who is the mother of the deceased, was examined. According to PW3, marriage of the deceased was performed with the accused, who is none other than the younger brother of PW3, after Sankranthi festival. They were living together at Ramabhadrapuram. Both the accused and the deceased lived together happily for five months. Thereafter, the accused started beating the deceased in a drunken state and sending her to PW3's house. According to PW3, the deceased used to complain PW3 about the accused beating her in a drunken condition. PW3 used to convince the deceased and send her to the house of the accused. Thereafter, the accused started beating the deceased in a drunken state and sending her to PW3's house. According to PW3, the deceased used to complain PW3 about the accused beating her in a drunken condition. PW3 used to convince the deceased and send her to the house of the accused. In Karthika Masam, the father of PW3 and accused went to the house of PW3 and enquired them whether the deceased came to their house. They informed him that the deceased did not come to their house. They searched in the houses of their relatives, but they could not find the deceased. One week thereafter, they learnt that the dead body of the deceased was found partly burnt in a vegetable garden of PW5. Immediately, PW3 alongwith PW2 and their relatives rushed to the scene of offence and identified the dead body of the deceased in the vegetable garden of PW5. PW3 states that the accused killed the deceased due to suspicion that the deceased got contacts with PW3's elder son-in-law namely Thumala Somesh. Except the said statement made by PW3, there is no other evidence to show that because of suspicion, the accused caused the death of the deceased. 17. In her cross-examination, PW3 categorically stated that after the incident only, she came to know that the accused was suspecting the fidelity of the deceased alleging that she got illegal contacts with Thumala Somesh, who is elder son-in-law of PW3. On a careful reading of the said evidence goes to show that it is not the version given by the deceased to PW3. When PW3 came to know about the said fact only after the death of the deceased, it is not known as to how PW3 states that the accused killed the deceased due to suspicion that the deceased got illegal contacts with her elder son-in-law. There is any amount of discrepancy with regard to the said fact. Except PW3, no other witness stated with regard to the said aspect. Apart from the same, it is the version of PWs.3 and 2, who are wife and husband and parents of the deceased, that the father of PW3 and the accused came to their house and enquired whether the deceased came to their house about 10 days prior to the death of the deceased for which PWs.2 and 3 stated that the deceased did not come to their house. Apart from it, both PWs.2 and 3 and father of the accused searched in the houses of their relatives and friends of the deceased, but they could not find the deceased. If PWs.2 and 3 were not able to find the deceased, it is not known as to why they have not given any complaint in the police station immediately with regard to missing of the deceased. To that extent, PW3 categorically stated that they did not give any report to the police, when her father visited her house to enquire about the arrival of the deceased. 18. PW4, who is the brother-in-law of the deceased, did not support the prosecution case and he was treated hostile by the prosecution. On a perusal of the evidence of PWs.2 to 4 goes to show that there is any amount of ambiguity with regard to the motive that has been stated by PW3 and the same cannot be accepted because of the reasons stated above. Last seen theory. 19. In order to prove "last seen theory", the prosecution examined PWs.6 and 7. Both PWs.6 and 7 did not support the prosecution case and they were treated hostile by the prosecution. According to PW6, they are residing in adjacent portion of the accused. The accused was living affectionately with the deceased. About one year back, the incident occurred. She saw the accused and the deceased going together at 04.00 p.m., to their field and, at about 07.00 p.m., on the same day, the accused alone returned to his house. PW6 stated that the parents of her husband i.e., her in-laws are living in another portion. When her in-laws questioned the accused about his wife, the accused replied that he sent her away to her parents house. One week thereafter, the deceased was found dead in the fields of others. PW6 was treated hostile by the prosecution. 20. Even according to PW7, he saw the accused and the deceased going together to their fields at about 04.00 p.m., and he did not see when they returned. In his cross-examination, PW7 stated that four or five days after both the accused and the deceased went to the fields, he saw the deceased with some women in the morning. It was on Karthika Monday. PW7 was also treated hostile by the prosecution. 21. In his cross-examination, PW7 stated that four or five days after both the accused and the deceased went to the fields, he saw the deceased with some women in the morning. It was on Karthika Monday. PW7 was also treated hostile by the prosecution. 21. Though PW7 in his evidence stated that both the accused and the deceased were last seen going together to their fields, in his cross-examination he further stated that four or five days after both the accused and the deceased went to the fields, he saw the deceased with some women in the morning, which goes to show that the incident did not take place, as suggested by the prosecution. In view of the witnesses PWs.6 and 7 turning hostile, much credence cannot be given to the testimony of the said witnesses. Basing on the same, the theory put forth by the prosecution that both the accused and the deceased were last seen going together is unbelievable. 22. The other circumstance relied on by the prosecution is with regard to recovery of MO5-jute rope. PW15-the Inspector of Police is stated to have arrested the accused and deposed about the seizure of match box (MO4) and jute rope (MO5), which was of 80 cms., in length, from the motor pump shed of the accused on his disclosure. According to prosecution, MO5 - jute rope, which is about 80 cms., in length, was tied to the motor pump in the shed and the accused had taken away part of the said rope and with that rope he is alleged to have strangulated the deceased and the said rope, which was found around the neck of the deceased, was marked as MO1. PW15 in his cross-examination stated that he did not send MOs.1 and 5 to RFSL to prove that both of them are of the same rope. 23. Learned Sessions Judge relied upon the seizure of the said MO5 from the motor pump shed, which is situated in the fields of the accused. Learned Sessions Judge also observed that the motor pump shed is not a public place, where the public would have access to enter the pump shed. In general, the jute rope would be used by every villager in the villages. The jute rope was seized from the motor pump shed of the accused at his instance. Learned Sessions Judge also observed that the motor pump shed is not a public place, where the public would have access to enter the pump shed. In general, the jute rope would be used by every villager in the villages. The jute rope was seized from the motor pump shed of the accused at his instance. Merely because the jute rope - MO5 was seized from the motor pump shed belonging to the accused, it cannot be said that the said pump shed is not accessible to anyone. Generally, there would not be any fencing around the motor pump sheds located in the villages. It can be easily accessible to everyone. Apart from it, merely because a jute rope was recovered, finger cannot be pointed towards the accused. It is settled principle of law that however strong a suspicion may be, the suspicion cannot take the place of a legal proof beyond reasonable doubt. Apart from the same, this Court is of the view that there is absolutely no other evidence to connect the accused to the aforesaid crime. In a case of circumstantial evidence, it is for the prosecution to prove the case in such a way that it is the accused and the accused alone who had caused the death of the deceased. Any discrepancies with regard to the same would always goes in favour of the accused. 24. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution is not able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 25. In the result, the criminal appeal is allowed. The convictions and sentences recorded against the appellant/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC in the judgment, dated 27.01.2017, in Sessions Case No.54 of 2016 on the file of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Parvatipuram, are hereby set aside. Consequently, the appellant/ accused is found not guilty of the charges levelled against him and he is accordingly acquitted of the said charges and shall be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case or crime. Fine amount, if any, paid by him shall be refunded to him. 26. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal appeal shall stand closed.