JUDGMENT : Subhash Chand, J. 1. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 17.02.2018 and the order of sentence dated 21.02.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in S.T. Case No.128 of 2012, whereby the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs.5,000/-for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case leading to this Criminal Appeal are that the informant Lakhan Bhumij gave the written information with the police station concerned with these allegations that on 17.07.2011, he had gone to graze the bull and about 11:30 hours he came back to his house and found his younger brother Dulay Bhumij having assaulted with spice grinder stone to the forehead of his wife, who succumbed to injuries. He asked his younger brother why he had done so, he stated that he had lost his mental balance. The occurrence took place around 11:00 O’clock. On this written information, Manjhari (Tatanagar) P.S. Case No.12 of 2011 was registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant-accused Dulay Bhumij. 3. The Investigating Officer after having concluded the investigation, filed charge-sheet against the appellant Dulay Bhumij under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. The cognizance was taken by the Magistrate concerned, who committed the case for trial to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, who subsequently transferred the same to the learned Sessions Judge-I, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa. 4. The Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, West Singhbhum Chaibasa framed the charge against the accused-appellant Dulay Bhumij under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the same was explained to him, he denied the charge and claimed to face the trial. 5. 4. The Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, West Singhbhum Chaibasa framed the charge against the accused-appellant Dulay Bhumij under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the same was explained to him, he denied the charge and claimed to face the trial. 5. On behalf of the prosecution to prove the charge against the accused in oral evidence examined altogether eleven witnesses i.e. P.W.-1, Gardi Samad; P.W.-2, Jambira Topno; P.W.-3, Mangal Singh Bhumij; P.W.-4, Ratan Soren; P.W.-5, Parvati Bhumij; P.W.-6, Ramay Samad; P.W.-7, Giridhari Gope; P.W.-8, Mahendra Sidhu; P.W.-9, Ghosa Sidhu; P.W.-10, Ramashish Prasad and; P.W.-11, Bipin Bihari Gautam and in documentary evidence the prosecution has adduced Exhibit-1, Signature of P.W.-1 on the seizure-list; Exhibit-2, Signature of P.W.-1 on the statement recorded under under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.; Exhibit-3, Postmortem report of the deceased; Exhibit-4, Signature of P.W.-6 on written report; Exhibit-4/1, Endorsement with regard to forwarding the written report to Manjhari Police Station for lodging the case; Exhibit-4/2, Endorsement with regard to lodging the case on the written report; Exhibit-5, Inquest report; Exhibit-6, Formal FIR; Exhibit-7, Search-cum-seizure list; Exhibit-8, statement of Gardi Samad (P.W.-1) recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and; Exhibit-8/1, Statement of Arjun Munda recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. 6. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in which, he denied the incriminating circumstances in evidence against him and also denied his presence at his house on the date of alleged occurrence and stated himself to be innocent. 7. The learned trial Court after hearing the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the accused and learned counsel for the State, passed the impugned judgment of conviction dated 17.02.2018 and the order of sentence dated 21.02.2018 holding the appellant-accused Dulay Bhumij guilty for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced as stated hereinabove. 8. Aggrieved from the impugned judgment of conviction dated 17.02.2018 and the order of sentence dated 21.02.2018, this Criminal Appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellant. 9. Heard the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and learned APP for the State and perused the materials available on record. 10. 8. Aggrieved from the impugned judgment of conviction dated 17.02.2018 and the order of sentence dated 21.02.2018, this Criminal Appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellant. 9. Heard the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and learned APP for the State and perused the materials available on record. 10. In order to decide the legality and propriety of the impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court, we would like to appreciate the evidence oral as well as documentary adduced on behalf of the parties on record, which are reproduced hereinbelow: 10.1 P.W.-1, Gardi Samad, in his examination-in-chief, says that about two years ago it was 07:00 or 08:00 O’clock in the morning he was at his house. He received information from Lakhan Bhumij that Dulay Bhumij has committed murder of his wife with the spice grinder stone. He reached to the house of Dulay Bhumij and found the dead body of his wife in the house. He informed to the outpost Kokcho, the police came and took in custody the bloodstained soil and the spice grinder stone (shilbatta) and seizure memo was also prepared. He put his signature marked Exhibit-1. The inquest report of deceased was prepared and marked Exhibit-2. In cross-examination, this witness says that his statement was also taken by the Magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and he did not see the occurrence. 10.2 P.W.-2, Jambira Topno, in his examination-in-chief, says that Gardi Samad informed him that Dulay Bhumij has assaulted his wife with spice grinder stone. He along with Munda went to the police station and the police came there. The seizure memo and other papers were prepared thereon. He also put his signature. 10.3 P.W.-3, Mangal Singh Bhumij, in his examination-in-chief, says that he came to know in regard to the occurrence from Lakhan Bhumij and he went to the house of Dulay Bhumij and found the dead body of wife of Dulay Bhumij and silbatta was also lying there. In cross-examination, he says that he did not see the occurrence. 10.3 P.W.-3, Mangal Singh Bhumij, in his examination-in-chief, says that he came to know in regard to the occurrence from Lakhan Bhumij and he went to the house of Dulay Bhumij and found the dead body of wife of Dulay Bhumij and silbatta was also lying there. In cross-examination, he says that he did not see the occurrence. 10.4 P.W.-4, Ratan Soren, in his examination-in-chief, says that on 18.07.2022 he was posted in Sadar Hospital, Chaibasa, on that day, postmortem was done by him at 01:20 pm, on the dead body of Indravati Bhumij @ Jaimuni Bhumij, wife of Dulay Bhumij and found head with fracture skull and mandible on left side with exposed brain matter. Time of death was 12-36 hours from the time of conducting postmortem and the abovementioned injury is sufficient to cause death by hard and blunt object. The injury may be caused by spice grinder stone. 10.5 P.W.-5, Parvati Bhumij, in her examination-in-chief, says that she having come to know in regard to the occurrence, she reached to the house of Dulay Bhumij and found the dead body of Indravati Bhumij. In cross-examination, this witness says that she did not see the occurrence. 10.6 P.W.-6, Ramay Samad, in his examination-in-chief, says that Lakhan Bhumij had told him in regard to the occurrence and the information of the same was given to the police. On the written information, he also put his signature marked Exhibit-4. Lakhan Bhumiz has died. In cross-examination, this witness says that he put his signature on the written information. What was mentioned in the written information, he is not aware. 10.7 P.W.-7, Giridhari Gope, in his examination-in-chief, says that the elder brother of accused, namely, Lakhan Bhumij had told him that his brother Dulay Bhumij committed murder of his wife by assaulting with spice grinder stone. In cross-examination, this witness says that he did not see the occurrence. 10.8 P.W.-8, Mahendra Sidhu, in his examination-in-chief, says that he did not see the occurrence. Police did not interrogate him. This witness was declared hostile and denied the statement given to the Investigating Officer. 10.9 P.W.-9, Ghosa Sidhu, in his examination-in-chief, says that he did not see the occurrence and police did not interrogate him. In cross-examination, this witness denied the statement given to the Investigating Officer. He was also declared hostile. Police did not interrogate him. This witness was declared hostile and denied the statement given to the Investigating Officer. 10.9 P.W.-9, Ghosa Sidhu, in his examination-in-chief, says that he did not see the occurrence and police did not interrogate him. In cross-examination, this witness denied the statement given to the Investigating Officer. He was also declared hostile. 10.10 P.W.-10, Ramashish Prasad, who is the Investigating Officer, in his examination-in-chief, says that on 17.07.2011, he was posted in Tantnagar Outpost as Sub Inspector of Police. The villager Munda Gardi Samad informed him orally that Dulay Bhumij has committed murder of his wife by assaulting with the spice grinder stone. He made entry in G.D. at Sr. No.233 on 17.07.2011 and for verification of the G.D. entry, reached to the place of occurrence along with the armed forces. At the place of occurrence, Lakhan Bhumij gave the written information to him. The dead body of Indravati Bhumij found there. Her inquest report was prepared by him. It is in his handwriting and signature. Gardi Samad Munda and Lakhan Bhumij both put their signature marked Exhibit-5. The dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem. The written information given by Lakhan Bhumij, on which, thumb impression of Lakhan Bhumij and the signature of Dakua Ramay Samad has been made, which is identified by him and marked Exhibit-6. It was also forwarded by him to Manjhari Police Station for endorsement. He identified the signature thereon. On this written information, Case Crime No.12 of 2011 was registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code on 17.07.2011. Formal FIR was prepared by the Munsi, he identified his handwriting and signature marked Exhibit-6. During Investigation, he recorded the re-statement of Lakhan Bhumij, who supported the FIR allegations and investigated the place of occurrence, from where, the bloodstained soil and the spice grinder stone were taken in custody. He recorded the statement of Parvati Bhumij, Ramay Samad, Mangal Singh Bhumij, Gardi Samad, Jamjira Topno, Arjun Munda and Gosa Sidhu. He arrested Dulay Bhumij on the spot. The accused was being held by Gardi Samad at the spot and he arrested him. The statement of Giridhari Gope, Gardi Samad and Arjun Munda was recorded by the Magistrate concerned under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and he filed charge-sheet under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code against Dulay Bhumij. The accused was being held by Gardi Samad at the spot and he arrested him. The statement of Giridhari Gope, Gardi Samad and Arjun Munda was recorded by the Magistrate concerned under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and he filed charge-sheet under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code against Dulay Bhumij. In cross-examination, this witness says that he was not eyewitness of the occurrence. 10.11 P.W.-11, Bipin Bihari Gautam, who is the Judicial Magistrate proved the statement of Gardi Samad and Arjun Munda recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure marked Exhibit-7 and 7/1 respectively. 11. The prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. As per the allegations made in the FIR marked Exhibit-6, which was prepared on the basis of written information marked Exhibit-4, it is found that the informant Lakhan Bhumij is the elder brother of the appellant. On 17.07.2011, he had gone to graze the bull and came back to his house at 11:30 and when he came to his house, he saw his younger brother Dulay Bhumij had committed murder of his wife by assaulting her with spice grinder stone. On being asked by him, it was told that why he committed murder of his wife, he replied that his mind was not working and he was mentally imbalanced, therefore, he pelted the stone on the forehead of his wife causing her death. In the FIR itself, the time of occurrence is shown 11:00 O’clock. 11.1 Though this FIR marked Exhibit-6, which is based on the written information marked Exhibit-4 has been proved by the secondary evidence of the witness of P.W.-6, Ramay Samad and P.W.-10, Ramashish Prasad, who is the Investigating Officer. 11.2 As per the statement of P.W.-6, Ramay Samad, who had also put his signature on the written information has stated that Lakhan Bhumij died, consequently, the informant Lakhan Bhumij was not examined on behalf of the prosecution. 11.3 If the written information marked Exhibit-4, on which, the signature has been admitted by P.W.-6, Ramay Samad; but he has stated that he is not aware in regard to the contents of this FIR. 11.3 If the written information marked Exhibit-4, on which, the signature has been admitted by P.W.-6, Ramay Samad; but he has stated that he is not aware in regard to the contents of this FIR. P.W.-10, the Investigating Officer has also stated that the informant Lakhan Bhumij had put his thumb impression, which was also signed by Ramay Samad was given to him and he forwarded the same to having made endorsement to register the FIR, accordingly, the formal FIR Exhibit-6 was prepared. 11.4 If the contents of this written information are read collectively, it is found that Lakhan Bhumij had not seen the occurrence. As per the written information, time of occurrence is 11:00 O’clock and he reached to his house at 11:30 O’clock. He came to know in regard to the occurrence from his younger brother Dulay Bhumij, who has stated that he had committed murder of his wife by assaulting with a spice grinder stone under his mental imbalance. This written information may be said the extra judicial confession made by the appellant-convict to his elder brother Lakhan Bhumij (informant), who died during trial and could not prove this extra judicial confession. Though P.W.-6, Ramay Samad and P.W.-10, Ramashish Prasad, the Investigating Officer proved the thumb impression of the informant. 11.5 As such, in the chain of circumstantial evidence, this written information Exhibit-4 on the basis of which, FIR Exhibit-6 was prepared the extra judicial confession made by the appellant-convict to his elder brother Lakhan Bhumij is the first link of the circumstantial evidence; but the same is not found proved. 12. So far as the testimony of P.W.-1, Gardi Samad; P.W.-3, Mangal Singh Bhumij; P.W.-6, Ramay Samad and; P.W.7, Girdhari Gope is concerned, all these witnesses have come to know in regard to the occurrence from Lakhan Bhumij and reached to the house of Dulay Bhumij and found the dead body of the wife of Dulay Bhumij in pool of blood and also the spice grinder stone lying there. None of these witnesses have seen the occurrence, as such, the testimony of all these witnesses being hearsay is not admissible in evidence. 13. None of these witnesses have seen the occurrence, as such, the testimony of all these witnesses being hearsay is not admissible in evidence. 13. So far as the evidence of P.W.-2, Jambira Topno (Mukhiya) is concerned, he came to know in regard to the occurrence from P.W.-1, Gardi Samad and he also reached to the house of the appellant-convict and found the dead body of his wife lying in pool of blood and spice grinder stone. His testimony is also hearsay. 14. So far as the recovery of dead body, which was found in injured condition, the same is also corroborated with the medical evidence of P.W.-4, Dr. Ratan Soren, who conducted the postmortem of the deceased and found crush injury on her head with fracture skull and mandible on left side with exposed brain matter. Time of death is shown 12-36 hours from the time of conducting postmortem, which was conducted on 18.07.2011 at 01:20 p.m. on the very next day of occurrence. 15. On behalf of the prosecution, P.W.10, Ramashish Prasad, the Investigating Officer was also examined. Though he has proved the written information marked Exhibit-4 and the FIR Exhibit-6 and has stated that he recorded the re-statement of the informant Lakhan Bhumij and also recorded the statement of other prosecution witnesses. He took in his possession the bloodstained soil and the spice grinder stone, which was alleged to have been used in commission of murder. The seizure-memo of the same was prepared by him marked Exhibit-1, which was signed by P.W.-1, Gardi Samad and P.W.-2, Jambira Topno. This witness has also stated that no one prosecution witness was the eyewitness of the occurrence. This witness also admitted that the articles, which were recovered by him, were not sent to FSL for examination. Though the seizure memo of the bloodstained soil and the spice grinder stone is found proved; yet the same was not sent to FSL for examination. Therefore, this lacuna in investigation is fatal to prosecution case. 15.1 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kuldip Yadav & Anr. Vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 2011 SC 1736 held that since the bloodstained clothes, bloodstained earth of the place of occurrence were not sent to forensic laboratory for chemical examination, the conviction was set aside. Paragraph No.23 reads as under: “32.Summary of all the issues: ………….. Vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 2011 SC 1736 held that since the bloodstained clothes, bloodstained earth of the place of occurrence were not sent to forensic laboratory for chemical examination, the conviction was set aside. Paragraph No.23 reads as under: “32.Summary of all the issues: ………….. f) Likewise, though the IO collected blood stained clothes and other objects including earth from the site, there is no information whether the same were examined by the forensic science laboratory and the outcome of the same. ………………. l) The blood stained clothes, blood stained earth of the place of occurrence were not sent to forensic laboratory for chemical examination. …………….. o) The findings of the High Court and ultimate conclusion dismissing the appeals are perverse and resulted in failure of justice.” 15.2 As per the prosecution case, the spice grinder stone, which was recovered from the place of occurrence alleged to have been used in commission of murder was not bloodstained and the same was also not sent to the FSL for examination. As such, this fact is not proved on behalf of the prosecution that that the spice grinder stone, which was recovered from the place of occurrence was used in commission of murder. While in case of circumstantial evidence, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove the weapon (spice grinder stone), which is alleged to have been recovered, was used in commission of the murder and the same being not proved is found fatal to prosecution case. As such, this link in chain of circumstantial evidence is found missing. 16. From perusal of the impugned judgment passed by the learned Trial Court, it is found that the learned Trial Court held the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code relying upon Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 17. From perusal of the prosecution evidence, it is found that though all the prosecution witnesses, who were examined during trial have stated that having received information from the informant Lakhan Bhumij, they reached to the house of the appellant-convict Dulay Bhumij and found the dead body of his wife lying in pool of blood and also spice grinder stone was found lying there. From the testimony of these prosecution witnesses, this fact is proved that the dead body of the wife of convict was found in injured condition as a homicidal death in the house of the appellant-convict but the prosecution has failed to prove that at the time of occurrence at 11:00 O’clock on 17.07.2011, the appellant-convict was also present there. There is no last seen evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution that the appellant-convict and the deceased were last seen by any one in his house before the time of occurrence i.e. 11:00 O’clock as well. 17.1 In case of circumstantial evidence, unless and until, the prosecution proves from the prosecution evidence, the complete chain of circumstantial evidence indicating that the perpetrator of the crime is the appellant-convict beyond reasonable doubt, no burden of proof can shift upon the appellant-convict to explain how and under what circumstances; the homicidal death of his wife was caused. Taking into consideration the evidence adduced on record, which are circumstantial evidence and many link in the chain of circumstantial evidence being found missing, the prosecution case is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. As such, the burden of proof under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act cannot be shifted upon the appellant-convict. As such, the learned Trial Court had committed legal error in shifting the burden of proof upon the appellant without giving any finding that the chain of circumstantial evidence is complete in itself. 17.2 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prem Singh versus State Of NCT of Delhi reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 2 held that it is, of course, the duty of prosecution to lead the primary evidence of proving its case beyond reasonable doubt but, when necessary evidence had indeed been led, the corresponding burden was heavy on the appellant in terms of Section 106 of the Evidence Act to explain as to what had happened at the time of incident and as to how the death of the deceased occurred. Paragraph No. 16.4.1 reads as under: “16.4.1. Paragraph No. 16.4.1 reads as under: “16.4.1. It is, of course, the duty of prosecution to lead the primary evidence of proving its case beyond reasonable doubt but, when necessary evidence had indeed been led, the corresponding burden was heavy on the appellant in terms of Section 106 of the Evidence Act to explain as to what had happened at the time of incident and as to how the death of the deceased occurred. There had not been any explanation on the part of the appellant and, as noticed, immediately after the incident, he attempted to create a false narrative of accidental drowning of the children. There had not been any specific response from the appellant in his statement under Section 313 CrPC either.” 17.3 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sabitri Samantaray Vs. State of Odisha reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 504 held that Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act applies to cases where the chain of evidence has been successfully established by the prosecution. Paragraph Nos. 18 and 19 read as under: “18. Section 106 of the Evidence Act postulates that the burden of proving things which are within the special knowledge of an individual is on that individual. Although the Section in no way exonerates the prosecution from discharging its burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt, it merely prescribes that when an individual has done an act, with an intention other than that which the circumstances indicate, the onus of proving that specific intention falls onto the individual and not on the prosecution. If the accused had a different intention than the facts are specially within his knowledge which he must prove. 19. Thus, although Section 106 is in no way aimed at relieving the prosecution from its burden to establish the guilt of an accused, it applies to cases where chain of events has been successfully established by the prosecution, from which a reasonable inference is made out against the accused. Moreover, in a case based on circumstantial evidence, whenever an incriminating question is posed to the accused and he or she either evades response, or offers a response which is not true, then such a response in itself becomes an additional link in the chain of events. [See Trimukh Maroti Kirkan Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 10 SCC 681 ].” 17.4 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajinder Singh Vs. [See Trimukh Maroti Kirkan Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 10 SCC 681 ].” 17.4 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajinder Singh Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2013) 15 SCC 245 held that Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not relieve the burden of the prosecution to prove guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Paragraph No. 18 reads as under: “18. Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not relieve the burden of the prosecution to prove guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt but where the prosecution has succeeded to prove the facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the existence of certain other facts and the accused by virtue of special knowledge regarding such facts fail to offer any explanation then the court can draw a different inference.” 17.5 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Satye Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand reported in (2022) 5 SCC 438 held that conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence but it should be tested on the touchstone of law relating to the circumstantial evidence that all circumstances must lead to the conclusion that the accused is the only one who has committed the crime and none else. Relying on Section 106 of the Evidence Act is also misplaced, inasmuch as Section 106 is not intended to relieve the prosecution from discharging its duty to prove the guilt of the accused. Paragraph No. 18, 19, 20 and 21 read as under: “18. Again in Majenderan Langeswaran v. State (NCT of Delhi), this Court having found the material relied upon by the prosecution inconsistent and the infirmities in the case of the prosecution, considered number of earlier decisions, and held that the conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence but it should be tested on the touchstone of law relating to the circumstantial evidence that all circumstances must lead to the conclusion that the accused is the only one who has committed the crime and none else. 19. Applying the said principles to the facts of the present case, the Court is of the opinion that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the entire chain of circumstances which would unerringly conclude that alleged act was committed by the accused only and none else. 19. Applying the said principles to the facts of the present case, the Court is of the opinion that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the entire chain of circumstances which would unerringly conclude that alleged act was committed by the accused only and none else. Reliance placed by learned advocate Mr Mishra for the State on Section 106 of the Evidence Act is also misplaced, inasmuch as Section 106 is not intended to relieve the prosecution from discharging its duty to prove the guilt of the accused. 20. In Shambu Nath Mehra v. State of Ajmer, this Court had aptly explained the scope of Section 106 of the Evidence Act in criminal trial. It was held in para 11 : (AIR p. 406) “11. This lays down the general rule that in a criminal case the burden of proof is on the prosecution and Section 106 is certainly not intended to relieve it of that duty. On the contrary, it is designed to meet certain exceptional cases in which it would be impossible, or at any rate disproportionately difficult, for the prosecution to establish facts which are “especially” within the knowledge of the accused and which he could prove without difficulty or inconvenience. The word “especially” stresses that. It means facts that are pre-eminently or exceptionally within his knowledge. If the section were to be interpreted otherwise, it would lead to the very startling conclusion that in a murder case the burden lies on the accused to prove that he did not commit the murder because who could know better than he whether he did or did not. It is evident that that cannot be the intention and the Privy Council has twice refused to construe this section, as reproduced in certain other Acts outside India, to mean that the burden lies on an accused person to show that he did not commit the crime for which he is tried. These cases are Attygalle v. Emperor and Seneviratne v. R. All ER at p. 49.” 21. In the case on hand, the prosecution having failed to prove the basic facts as alleged against the accused, the burden could not be shifted on the accused by pressing into service the provisions contained in Section 106 of the Evidence Act. These cases are Attygalle v. Emperor and Seneviratne v. R. All ER at p. 49.” 21. In the case on hand, the prosecution having failed to prove the basic facts as alleged against the accused, the burden could not be shifted on the accused by pressing into service the provisions contained in Section 106 of the Evidence Act. There being no cogent evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove the entire chain of circumstances which may compel the Court to arrive at the conclusion that the accused only had committed the alleged crime, the Court has no hesitation in holding that the trial court and the High Court had committed gross error of law in convicting the accused for the alleged crime, merely on the basis of the suspicion, conjectures and surmises.” 18. In view of the critical appraisal of the evidence on record, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the burden of proof has wrongly been shifted upon the appellant by the learned Trial Court. As such, the impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court needs interference and this Criminal Appeal deserves to be allowed. 19. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction dated 17.02.2018 and the order of sentence dated 21.02.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in S.T. Case No.128 of 2012 are set aside. The appellant is acquitted from the charge levelled against him and he is directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. 20. Let a copy of this judgment be communicated to the learned Trial Court.