JUDGMENT : P.Sree Sudha, J. This Criminal Appeal is filed against the Judgment dated 21.09.2017 in S.C.No.60 of 2017 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar. 2. The case of prosecution is that the father of the accused gave complaint under Ex.P2 on 25.04.2016, stating that about 40 years back, his marriage was performed with the deceased Yellamma and presently she is aged about 55 years. They are blessed with two children i.e., male and female and he performed the marriages of both the children. About 10 years back, he performed the marriage of his son Fathepuram Kistaiah with one Savithri and they are blessed with two children. When his daughter-in-law picked up quarrel with his son and left the house, he went to Chowderpally village to meet his brother-in-law Thirumalaiah on 24.04.2016 at about 4:00 PM to enquire about his daughter-in-law. On 25.04.2016 at about 2:15 AM, his son called him on phone and informed that he slept with his children inside the house and his mother yellamma was slept outside the house. When he came out in the mid-night for passing urine, he found his mother in a pool of blood in front of the house. Immediately, he went there and found his wife dead, her both ears were cutoff and her gold ear studs were stolen away. His son stated to me not to inform to the Police, as they conduct Postmortem examination. As gold ear studs were stolen away and his son stated not to inform to Police, he suspected his son for the death of his wife and it was registered as Cr.No.48 of 2016 under Section 302 and 379 of IPC. 3. To prove the guilt of the appellant/accused, prosecution got examined P.Ws.1 to 13 and marked Exs.P1 to P12 and also marked M.Os.1 to 5. The trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the accused and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer Simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and also sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC. Aggrieved by the said Judgment, accused preferred the present appeal. 4. Aggrieved by the said Judgment, accused preferred the present appeal. 4. The learned Counsel for the appellant/accused mainly contended that there is no eye witness to the occurrence. The father of the accused P.W.1, P.W.2-daughter of P.W.1, P.W.3 resident of Chowdharpally village, P.W.4-son of P.W.2 and P.W.7-brother of the deceased proved the fact that P.W.1 went to Chowdharpally village on 24.04.2016 and was not in Thirumalagiri village of Hanwada Mandal, where the deceased Yellamma was found dead. The confession of the accused is hit by Sections 24, 25, 26 and 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and thus he might have acquitted by the trial Court. The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. There is no direct evidence. The chain of circumstances is not complete, mere suspicion cannot lead to conviction. Therefore, requested the Court to set aside the Judgment of the trial Court. 5. Heard arguments of both sides and perused the entire evidence on record. 6. The father of the accused/P.W.1 turned hostile. During his chief-examination, he stated that he found ear rings of his wife missing. He never gave complaint to police. He did not know the cause of death of his wife. He did not suspect anybody. He also stated that police obtained his thumb impression and he did not know the contents of the complaint. P.W.2 is the daughter of P.W.1. She stated that accused is her younger brother. Her mother died at Thirumalagiri village. She went there and found her dead body lying in front of the house. Her ears were cutoff and gold ear studs were missing. Accused was present near the dead body. Villagers suspected the role of accused in the death of her mother. In the Cross-examination, she stated that she cannot say whether her mother was wearing ear studs prior to her death. The dead body was found in open place. She also stated that accused gave her Rs.20,000/-, but she has not repaid the same, as such there was altercation between herself and accused. 7. P.W.3 is the brother-in-law of P.W.1. He stated that P.W.1 came to their village at about 2:00 PM. He received information regarding the death of his wife Yellamma. He brought P.W.1 from Chowdarpally to Thirumalagiri on his motorcycle. They observed the dead body of Yellamma and found her ears were cutoff. 7. P.W.3 is the brother-in-law of P.W.1. He stated that P.W.1 came to their village at about 2:00 PM. He received information regarding the death of his wife Yellamma. He brought P.W.1 from Chowdarpally to Thirumalagiri on his motorcycle. They observed the dead body of Yellamma and found her ears were cutoff. It appears that they were cutoff to take her gold ear studs. He also stated that villagers suspected the accused. In the Cross-examination, he stated that P.W.1, Yellamma and accused were living together at Thirumalagiri village. They lived amicably. There are residential houses around the house of P.W.1. They reached Thirumalagiri village at about 3:00 AM. Already there are some villagers and also the accused. He did not know whether Yellamma was wearing ear studs prior to her death. 8. P.W.4 is the son of P.W.2. He stated that he along with P.W.3, Balaiah and P.W.1 went to Thirumalagiri village and observed that ears of Yellamma were cutoff. Villagers suspected the accused for the death of Yellamma. P.W.5 is the Panch witness for scene of offence Panchanama, but he turned hostile. P.W.6 is the Panch witness for inquest Panchanama. He stated that Police obtained his thumb impression and turned hostile. P.W.7 is the brother of the deceased. He stated that Yellamma is his elder sister. P.W.1 was in their house when he received information regarding the death of the deceased. He along with family members went to Thirumalagiri village and found the dead body of Yellamma and also injuries around the neck and ears were cutoff. He also stated that there were disputes between accused and his wife. P.W.8 is the Senior Assistant in M.R.O Office, Gandeed Mandal, who acted as Panch witness for confessional panchanama. He stated that accused produced gold ear studs, a vegetable cutter and a stone, which was kept near the wall. Accused produced the gold ear studs which were buried in the ground within the house and they were seized at his instance as M.Os.1 to 3. M.O.1 is returned to P.W.1. Ex.P4 is the admissible part of confessional panchanama. In the Cross-examination, he stated that he acted as witness in three other cases. He stated that accused produced ear studs i.e., M.O.1 within five minutes. P.W.9 is the neighbor of P.W.1. M.O.1 is returned to P.W.1. Ex.P4 is the admissible part of confessional panchanama. In the Cross-examination, he stated that he acted as witness in three other cases. He stated that accused produced ear studs i.e., M.O.1 within five minutes. P.W.9 is the neighbor of P.W.1. He stated about the death of the wife of P.W.1, but stated that he did not know as to how she died and he turned hostile. P.W.10 is the Panch witness for scene of offence Panchanama and rough sketch. He stated that he had signed on Exs.P6-Crime detail form and Ex.P7-inquest report, but in the Crossexamination he stated that he did not know the contents of Exs.P6 and P7. 9. P.W.11 is the Assistant Professor in Government General Hospital, Mahabubnagar, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. He stated that cause of death is due to cardio respiratory failure as a result of hemorrhage and shock secondary to head injury. These injuries are possible with blunt and sharp object. He issued Postmortem examination report under Ex.P8. P.W.12 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, who received complaint from P.W.1 and registered it as Cr.No.48 of 2016 under Section 302 and 379 of IPC and issued FIR under Ex.P9. In the Cross-examination, he stated that he has not mentioned the name of the scribe of Ex.P10. P.W.1 was illiterate. P.W.13 is the Investigating Officer, who conducted entire investigation and filed Charge sheet. In the Cross-examination, he stated that accused was not there at the scene of offence. The neighbors at the house of deceased did not state anything, as such he did not record their statements. It was suggested to him that P.W.9 did not state before him as in Ex.P5, but he denied it. He also stated that he had no idea about P.W.8 regarding in how many cases he acted as a mediator. He further stated that M.O.1 is the special type of ear studs, which will not be ready in open market (Bangaru Gentilu). He further admitted that he had not tallied the blood group of deceased with that of the blood group found on the seized objects. 10. The case of the prosecution is that accused is the son of the deceased. P.W.1 is his father. There were disputes between accused and his wife, as such P.W.1 went to the Chowdarpally village to discuss with his brother-in-law. 10. The case of the prosecution is that accused is the son of the deceased. P.W.1 is his father. There were disputes between accused and his wife, as such P.W.1 went to the Chowdarpally village to discuss with his brother-in-law. On the said date, accused slept inside the house along with children and deceased Yellamma slept outside the house. Accused informed to his father that when he woke up in the mid-night, he found his mother lying dead and her ears were cutoff and gold ear studs were stolen. Immediately, his father came to Thirumalapally village, but accused further stated to his father not to give any complaint to Police, as they will conduct Postmortem examination, as such P.W.1 suspected his son only as accused. So also, it was brought in the evidence that villagers suspected the son of P.W.1 as accused. The Police also seized the stone, with which he beat his mother and sickle with which he cutoff ears and stolen gold ear studs as M.Os.1 to 3 at the instance of confession made by him. 11. The learned Counsel for the accused relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mavuri Nageswara Rao Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh, in which it was held that when once the Test Identification Parade of property was not conducted in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Criminal Rules of Practice, much credence cannot be given to the alleged identification of the said property by the witness. It is evidence that if test identification of properties is not conducted before the Court and if the properties mixed are not identical to the properties seized, the same does not attain any importance. In the absence of any descriptive particulars given by P.W.1 in the FIR and also in the Court, except mentioning the type of articles and since identification of properties came to be conducted contrary to Criminal Rules of Practice, which were held to be mandatory by the Apex Court, the identification of the properties by family members cannot be accepted. In view of the above, recovery of the gold articles does not establish them to be that of the deceased technically. Hence, this circumstance in the chain of events cannot be said to be proved. 12. He further relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ashish Jain Vs. In view of the above, recovery of the gold articles does not establish them to be that of the deceased technically. Hence, this circumstance in the chain of events cannot be said to be proved. 12. He further relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ashish Jain Vs. Makrand Singh and others, 2019(3) SCC 770 in which it was held that the recovery of the stolen ornaments, etc. in the instant matter was made on the basis of involuntary statements, which effectively negates the incriminating circumstances based on such recovery, and severely undermines the prosecution case. 13. In this case, several witnesses turned hostile including P.W.1 complainant i.e., father of the accused. Even P.W.1 in the complaint expressed suspicion against his son. So also, villagers expressed their suspicion against the accused, as such he left the place. Accused was arrested by P.W.13 on 27.04.2016. M.Os.1 to 3 were recovered at the instance of the accused. Except recovery of articles including stone, vegetable cutter and M.O.1-ear studs from the accused, there is no other evidence to connect the accused with the offence. Admittedly, it is a case of circumstantial evidence. There are no eye witnesses to the incident. It is for the prosecution to establish each of the circumstances relied on by them and all the circumstances shall form a chain of events connecting the accused with the crime. Yellamma died on 24.04.2016 and accused was arrested on 27.04.2016, when he came to his house to take gold studs worth about Rs.25,000/-. He had also shown granite stone and a sickle fixed to a wooden stick. The allegation against the accused is that he beat his mother with a stone. When she died, he brought vegetable cutter (Elapeeta) i.e., M.O.2 from the house and cut her ears and took away ear studs i.e., M.O.1 (Gentilu). 14. The learned Counsel for the accused argued that there is no Test Identification Parade for identification of M.O.1. From the beginning it is stated that ear studs is of different type which is not available in the open market. Moreover, it can be identified by P.Ws.1 and 2 as that of the deceased, as such the question of conducting Test Identification Parade does not arise. In this case, complainant is the father of the accused and deceased is his wife. Moreover, it can be identified by P.Ws.1 and 2 as that of the deceased, as such the question of conducting Test Identification Parade does not arise. In this case, complainant is the father of the accused and deceased is his wife. Though, he suspected his son at the time of giving complaint, later while deposing before the Court, he turned hostile. The Panch witnesses for inquest panchanama, scene of offence panchanama and P.W.9 also turned hostile. P.W.2 is the sister of the accused. She also stated that villagers suspected the accused. P.Ws.2 and 3 also stated that villagers suspected the accused. It was also brought in evidence that deceased consumed Toddy and fell asleep. The trial Court relied upon recovery of articles at the instance of the accused and the fact that he has not given complaint immediately after the incident and simply informed to his father and further relied on the evidence of P.W.8, who acted as witness for confessional panchanama and the evidence of P.W.3, who arrested the accused, seized the gold ornaments and convicted the accused. It is for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. If there is any doubt, the benefit of doubt shall be extended to the accused. As per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sujit Biswas Vs State of Assam, 2013 Cri.LJ 3140 (SC), it was held as follows: Suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot take the place of proof, and there is a large difference between something that `may be’ proved, and something that `will be proved’. In a criminal trial, suspicion no matter how strong, cannot and must not be permitted to take place of proof. This is for the reason that the mental distance between `may be’ and `must be’ is quite large, and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. In a criminal case, the court has a duty to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take the place of legal proof. The large distance between `may be’ true and `must be’ true, must be covered by way of clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence produced by the prosecution, before an accused is condemned as a convict, and the basic and golden rule must be applied. The large distance between `may be’ true and `must be’ true, must be covered by way of clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence produced by the prosecution, before an accused is condemned as a convict, and the basic and golden rule must be applied. In such cases, while keeping in mind the distance between `may be’ true and `must be’ true, the court must maintain the vital distance between mere conjectures and sure conclusions to be arrived at, on the touchstone of dispassionate judicial scrutiny, based upon a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all features of the case, as well as the quality and credibility of the evidence brought on record. The court must ensure, that miscarriage of justice is avoided, and if the facts and circumstances of a case so demand, then the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused, keeping in mind that a reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely probable doubt, but a fair doubt that is based upon reason and common sense. As already pointed out, suspicion however strong will not take the place of proof of guilt of the accused. Therefore, this Court finds that accused is not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 and 379 of IPC. 15. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, against appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 and 379 of IPC, by judgment dated 21.09.2017 in S.C.No.60 of 2017, is hereby set aside and he is acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C for offence under Section 302 and 379 of IPC and he shall be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case and his bail bonds stands cancelled. Interim custody of M.O.1 is handed over to P.W.1 and it is made absolute. M.Os.2 to 5 shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.