JUDGMENT : Sachin Singh Rajput, J. The appellant by way of this appeal call in question the judgment dated 07.12.2021 passed by Special Judge, Balrampur at Ramanujganj (CG) in Special Case No. 03/2020 by which he has been convicted under Sections 302, 201 IPC and Section 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short the “Special Act”) and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.100/- under Section 302 IPC and Section 3 (2) (v) of the Special Act each, and RI for 3 years with fine of Rs.100/- under section 201 IPC, plus default stipulation. 2. Deceased in this case is Kirti Sonwani. The incident in this case is stated to have taken place in the intervening night of 13.10.2019 and 14.10.2019. The factual backdrop of the instant case is that initially a case for rape was registered against the accused/appellant at the instance of father of the deceased herein. However, during trial the deceased/prosecutrix turned hostile and the accused/appellant got acquitted in that case, and thereafter they both got married and started living separately in a rental house. It is relevant to note here that apart from the deceased and accused, brother of the deceased also stayed with them. On the date of incident it is said that the accused/appellant taking the deceased with him left for her maternal home at village Karcha, however after sometime he returned and told his brother-in-law namely Akshay Sonwani (PW-1) that having met with an accident, his sister (the deceased) died. On coming to know about the incident, father of the deceased namely Chhaihat Sonwani (PW-2) gave a merg intimation (Ex.P-14) to the concerned Police Station on the basis of which FIR (Ex.P-18) was registered for the offences under Sections 302, 201 IPC. After drawing the spot map the dead body was sent for Postmortem examination and the Postmortem report is Ex.P-10. On the memorandum of the accused/appellant, various articles such as Motorcycle and clothes were seized under Ex.P-8 and Ex.P-9 and they were sent for chemical examination to Forensic Science Laboratory. After investigation charge-sheet was filed under the same Sections plus for the Section under the Special Act as mentioned above. 3. Prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses in order to prove its case. After investigation charge-sheet was filed under the same Sections plus for the Section under the Special Act as mentioned above. 3. Prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses in order to prove its case. Statement of the accused/appellant under Section 313 CrPC was also recorded in which he denied the allegations made against him, and claimed trial. 4. Learned trial Court after hearing the parties and going through the evidence adduced before it convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as described above. Hence this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the accused/appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been roped in a false case and there are several contradictions and omissions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. He submits that the witnesses to memorandum and seizure examined by the prosecution have not supported the case of prosecution and turned hostile. He also disputes the seizure of the T-shirt. It is submitted that (PW1) and (PW2) were examined before the Court whereas their statement under Section 161 CrPC (Ex.P/1) was recorded after 62 days i.e. on 16/12/2019. Therefore, the entire prosecution case is doubtful. It is also submitted that though PW1 has admitted cordial relationship between the appellant and the deceased but in paragraph 7 of his statement, he admitted that mother of the deceased had filed a complaint against 5 persons regarding murder of Kirti. It is further submitted that PW3 and PW4 are hearsay witnesses. Statement of PW3, who is the sister of deceased is based on the information given by PW1 and that statement of PW4 is totally different from the story put forth by the prosecution. He further submits that from the statement of the witnesses it is also apparent that the relationship between the accused and the deceased was cordial and after marriage they were living together peacefully. He also submits that from the evidence of PW8, it is also apparent that upto 9 PM on the date of incident, the appellant was in the shop where he was working. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sharanappa Alias Sharanappa Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2023) 10 SCC 168 and also in the case of Sonvir Alias Somvir Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2018) 8 SCC 24 . 6. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sharanappa Alias Sharanappa Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2023) 10 SCC 168 and also in the case of Sonvir Alias Somvir Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2018) 8 SCC 24 . 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel supports the judgment impugned to be just and proper and based on the appreciation of the evidence of the witnesses. He submits that from the evidence collected by the prosecution, the only thing which can be deciphered is that it is accused appellant who had taken the deceased from the house where they used to stay and after sometime the deceased was found dead and therefore, it is he who is liable to prove as to how the deceased died because she was last seen in the company of the accused / appellant. According to him, all the witnesses have stood firm in their stand and mere minor contradictions and omissions cannot stand to the advantage of accused / appellant. 7. Heard counsel for the parties at a greater length and gone through the material collected by the prosecution as also evidence of the witnesses recorded in the Court including the judgment impugned with all possible care and caution. 8. The important witness in this case happens to be the brother-in-law of the accused / appellant (PW1) as he at that time used to stay with the accused and the deceased and therefore, his deposition requires to be dealt with considerably. From the evidence of this witness, it is apparent that on the date of incident, he was with his mother at his native place. He has stated that his mother telephonically called up the accused enabling her to have a talk to her daughter (the deceased) but the accused / appellant told her to be at his work place and would call her up after reaching home. Later on, this witness himself went to Balrampur but found the door of the house locked. As the door was locked, he went out for refreshment and after return he saw the key of the house put at a particular place and the doors of the house were shut. Later on, this witness himself went to Balrampur but found the door of the house locked. As the door was locked, he went out for refreshment and after return he saw the key of the house put at a particular place and the doors of the house were shut. He is however stated to have been informed by the son of his landlord Vivek Kumar Lakda (PW-5) that two persons, one the deceased but he could not see the other one, had left the house together. His evidence further discloses that after some time, the accused / appellant returned home and went to sleep. He has thereafter stated that when his sleep was broken, the accused /appellant was found weeping. He went on to state that in the next morning, he went to his school and when he came back to the room in the recess period, the accused /appellant told him about the deceased having died in an accident and also took him to the spot. According to this witness, the police were already present at the spot and from there the accused/ appellant was taken away by the Police. From the evidence of this witness, it is apparent that there used to be quarrelsome activities between the accused and the deceased. And that he also used to beat her quite often. 9. Another important witness in this case is PW-2 the father of the deceased. He has stated that the accused/ appellant had killed the deceased and threw her body on the road. He also claims to have heard the shrieks of the deceased but it was beyond recognition to be of his own daughter. It is after being informed by the village Sarpanch about lying of some dead body, he accompanied him to spot and came to know that it was his daughter who was lying dead. He has stated that the distance of the spot and that of his house is just 500 metres. He has however denied about his not receiving any information regarding the incident. According to this witness, he had lodged a report against the accused/appellant on earlier occasion regarding his daughter being taken by him and subjected to rape. He however has admitted that the deceased was first married to one Bajrang. He has denied the appellant not to be the author of the crime in question. 10. According to this witness, he had lodged a report against the accused/appellant on earlier occasion regarding his daughter being taken by him and subjected to rape. He however has admitted that the deceased was first married to one Bajrang. He has denied the appellant not to be the author of the crime in question. 10. Yet another important witness is Shobha Sonwani (PW- 3) but she too has stated almost the same thing in the line of PW-1. One important thing which emerges from testimony of this witness is that when she informed him about the arrival of PW-1 to Balrampur, he (accused) told him that he himself was to come to the village and there fore, there was no need of PW-1 going to Balrampur. She has also stated that the accused/appellant had told her to prepare a cock feast which he would relish on arrival. She however has stated about the relations between the deceased and the accused to be quite bitterly. She has stated that the accused had even subjected the deceased to beating in her presence and there used to be frequent quarrel between the two on trivial matters. PW-4 has also stated almost one and the same thing in the line of PW-3. He however has stated that there were injuries on the body of the deceased and her stomach appeared to have been overrun by some vehicle. PW-5 is stated to have seen two persons going together and one of them was the deceased but he could not identify the other one. This apart, seizure witnesses have also supported the case of prosecution. 11. There is no eye-witness to the incident in this case and the case of the prosecution wholly rests on circumstantial evidence. From the evidence of PW-1 who appears to be an important witness and used to stay in the company of the accused and the deceased, it is manifest that the relations between the accused and the deceased were cordial. He has stated that the accused loved the deceased and for that he married her. After marrying the deceased, the accused took a rental house at Balrampur and they started living together. The record also shows that the brother of the deceased also stayed with them for prosecuting his studies. He has stated that the accused loved the deceased and for that he married her. After marrying the deceased, the accused took a rental house at Balrampur and they started living together. The record also shows that the brother of the deceased also stayed with them for prosecuting his studies. From his testimony it is also apparent that as his mother wanted to talk to the deceased, she called up the accused for that purpose, but the accused/appellant told her to be in his work place and would ensure the communication between his wife and his mother-in-law after he reached home. Thereafter this witness (PW-1) started for Balrampur but found the door of the house locked. As the door was locked, he went out for refreshment and after return he saw the key of the house put at a particular place and the doors of the house were shut. He is however stated to have been informed by the son of his landlord Vivek Kumar Lakda (PW- 5) that he had seen two person going out of the house, out of them one was the deceased but he could not recognize the other one. His evidence further discloses that after some time, the accused / appellant returned home and went to sleep. He has thereafter stated that when his sleep was broken, the accused appellant was found weeping. Of course the conduct of the accused/appellant creates some suspicion but it is a settled legal position that suspicion howsoever strong it is, cannot be acted upon for conviction alone. 12. Law with regard to the circumstantial evidence is well settled. In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarada Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622 as held under:- “152. 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 & Anr. 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 & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra where the following observations were made: "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. 153. These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence.” 13. One of the circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is that the accused/appellant married the deceased because earlier a report for the offence under Section 376 IPC was lodged against him by her father. The second circumstance relied upon by the prosecution a that she was last seen with the deceased. The third circumstance was that blood group of the deceased and that of one which was found on the cloths and soil recovered from the spot is the same. 14. It is well settled legal position that in case of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution is required to prove the involvement of the accused in the crime in question beyond reasonable doubt; the circumstances present in the case must have the definite tendency towards the guilt of the accused; the chain of circumstance must be complete and if any link thereof is missing, the conviction can not follow. In this case though the motive has been tried to be established by the prosecution, from the evidence of the brother of the deceased (PW-1) it is apparent that the relations between the accused and the deceased were cordial. As regards, last seen theory, from the evidence of PW8 it is apparent that upto 9 PM on the date of incident, the appellant was in the shop where he was working and therefore, this stand of the prosecution of their being last seen together is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. 15. Dealing with an identical issue it has been held by the Supreme Court in the matter of Kanhaiya Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2014) 4 SCC 715 as held below:- “12. The circumstance of last seen together does not by itself and necessarily lead to the inference that it was the accused who committed the crime. There must be something more establishing connectivity between the accused and the crime. Mere non-explanation on the part of the appellant, in our considered opinion, by itself cannot lead to proof of guilt against the appellant. 16. Much emphasis was given by the learned trial court on the recovery blood stained shirt of the appellant which contained the same blood group of the deceased. This is one of the material circumstance relied upon by the learned trial court to hod conviction of the appellant. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sonvir (Supra) in paragraph 26.3 has observed as under:- 26.3 ALLEGED RECOVERY OF BLOOD-STAINED SHIRT 26.3.1. As per the prosecution, a blood-stained shirt was recovered at the instance of Sonvir @ Somvir (Appellant-Accused No. 2) from his room in the house of Teja Chaudhary, at the time of his arrest. The bloodstained shirt was sent for analysis to the FSL. As per the FSL report (Ex. PW-33/A), the shirt allegedly recovered from Sonvir @ Somvir (Appellant-Accused No. 2) was found to be stained with human blood of “B” group, which was the same “blood group” as that of the deceased. 26.3.2. In paragraph 20, the High Court held the recovery of the bloodstained shirt from Sonvir @ Somvir (Appellant-Accused No. 2) to be incriminating against him, since the blood samples taken from the bedsheet at the scene of crime, were also found to be of the same blood group. 26.3.3. 26.3.2. In paragraph 20, the High Court held the recovery of the bloodstained shirt from Sonvir @ Somvir (Appellant-Accused No. 2) to be incriminating against him, since the blood samples taken from the bedsheet at the scene of crime, were also found to be of the same blood group. 26.3.3. It is relevant to note that as per the FSL report (Ex. PW-33/A), both the blood- stained shirt allegedly recovered from Sonvir @ Somvir (Appellant-Accused No. 2) and the blood samples taken from the bedsheet at the scene of crime were found to be stained with human blood of “B” group. 26.3.4. The mere matching of the blood-group of the blood samples taken from the bed-sheet at the scene of crime, and the blood-stained shirt recovered from Sonvir @ Somvir (Appellant-Accused No. 2) cannot lead to the conclusion that the appellant had been involved in the commission of the crime. 26.3.5. On this issue, reliance can be placed on two decisions of this Court in Prakash v. State of Karnataka [ (2014) 12 SCC 133 ; paragraphs 41 and 45] and Debapriya Pal v. State of West Bengal [ (2017) 11 SCC 31 ; paragraph 8] wherein this Court while deciding cases based on circumstantial evidence had held that mere matching of the blood group cannot lead to the conclusion of the culpability of the accused, in the absence of a detailed serological comparison, since millions of people would have the same blood group. 26.3.5. In the present case, the prosecution has not proved that the room from where the blood-stained knife and blood-stained shirt were allegedly recovered, was in the exclusive possession of the appellant. 26.3.7. The prosecution case is that the said room was in the house owned by one Teja Chaudhary. The prosecution did not examine the said Teja Chaudhary to prove that the said room was rented to Sonvir @ Somvir and/or was in the exclusive custody of the appellant. Therefore, the recovery of the blood-stained shirt from Sonvir @ Somvir (Appellant- Accused No. 2) cannot be used as an incriminating piece of evidence. 17. In the case in hand the seizure witnesses of the recovery of the blood stained shirt of the appellant have not supported the case of the prosecution. The seizure was made on 21.10.2019 vide Ex-P/9. Therefore, the recovery of the blood-stained shirt from Sonvir @ Somvir (Appellant- Accused No. 2) cannot be used as an incriminating piece of evidence. 17. In the case in hand the seizure witnesses of the recovery of the blood stained shirt of the appellant have not supported the case of the prosecution. The seizure was made on 21.10.2019 vide Ex-P/9. The same was sent for query to District Hospital, Balrampur vide letter dated 12.12.2019 which in turn gave the query report dated 13.12.2019 vide Ex-P/11. The same was sent for forensic examination on 16.12.2019 which is reflected from the FSl report Ex-P/25 dated 24.12.2019. Delay in sending the Shirt creates doubt in the case of the prosecution. In case of Sharanappa (Supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:- 9. As stated earlier, the case is based on circumstantial evidence. Therefore, it is the duty of the prosecution to establish all the circumstances forming a part of the chain. The first and the most important circumstance relied upon by the prosecution was of last seen together. The only witness examined to prove the said circumstance was PW-3 Alfred Mathai. According to his version in the examination-in-chief, the appellant used to come for work as a helper for fitting tiles and therefore, he had seen the appellant. He stated that he was a Electrical Contractor. His version is that on 28th May, 2004 when he was proceeding towards Adyapadi Church where he used to go in connection with his work, he saw the appellant along with his wife near Mariyapura Bus Stop. He stated that he was not aware that the woman accompanying the appellant was his wife. 14. So far as the case of the prosecution regarding recovery of the weapon of the offence at the instance of the appellant is concerned, we find that both PW-4 and PW-5 were allegedly the witnesses to the mazhar have not supported the prosecution. PW-4 stated that he signed the mazhar at the police station. PW-5 did not depose before the Court that the appellant, while in police custody, stated that he was aware about the place at which he had concealed the weapon of the offence. Therefore, even the second circumstance pleaded by the prosecution was not at all established. Only on the basis of the third circumstance based on the conduct of the appellant, the appellant cannot be convicted. 18. Therefore, even the second circumstance pleaded by the prosecution was not at all established. Only on the basis of the third circumstance based on the conduct of the appellant, the appellant cannot be convicted. 18. In the case in hand, there is nothing concrete as to the involvement of the accused/appellant in the crime in question and entire case it based on suspicion just for the reason that the deceased was the wife of the appellant and they used to live together at Balrampur. As already stated above, it is a settled legal position that suspicion howsoever, strong it can be, cannot be made the basis of conviction. Dealing with an identical issue it has been held by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sujit Biswas Vs. State of Assam reported in (2013) 12 SCC 406 as held below:- “13. 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 “13. 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. (Vide: Hanumant Govind Nargundkar & Anr. v. State of M.P., AIR 1952 SC 343 ; State through CBI v. Mahender Singh Dahiya, AIR 2011 SC 1017 ; and Ramesh Harijan v. State of U.P., AIR 2012 SC 1979 ). 14. In Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1973 SC 2773 , this Court observed as under: "Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in cases where in the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence." 15. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622 , this Court held as under: “The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the ? guilt of the accused. There should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. guilt of the accused. There should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. 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." 16. In M.G. Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1963 SC 200 , this Court held, that if the circumstances proved in a case are consistent either with the innocence of the accused, or with his guilt, then the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. When it is held that a certain fact has been proved, then the question that arises is whether such a fact leads to the inference of guilt on the part of the accused person or not, and in dealing with this aspect of the problem, benefit of doubt must be given to the accused, and a final inference of guilt against him must be drawn only if the proved fact is wholly inconsistent with the innocence of the accused, and is entirely consistent with his guilt. 17. Similarly, in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (Supra), this Court held as under: ? “Graver the crime, greater should be the standard of proof. An accused may appear to be guilty on the basis of suspicion but that cannot amount to legal proof. When on the evidence two possibilities are available or open, one which goes in the favour of the prosecution and the other benefits an accused, the accused is undoubtedly entitled to the benefit of doubt. The principle has special relevance where the guilt or the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence.” 18. Thus, in view of the above, the Court must consider a case of circumstantial evidence in light of the aforesaid settled legal propositions. In a case of circumstantial evidence, the judgment remains essentially inferential. Inferences are drawn from established facts, as the circumstances lead to particular inferences. The Court must draw an inference with respect to whether the chain of circumstances is complete, and when the circumstances therein are collectively considered, the same must lead only to the irresistible conclusion, that the accused alone is the perpetrator of the crime in question. Inferences are drawn from established facts, as the circumstances lead to particular inferences. The Court must draw an inference with respect to whether the chain of circumstances is complete, and when the circumstances therein are collectively considered, the same must lead only to the irresistible conclusion, that the accused alone is the perpetrator of the crime in question. All the circumstances so established must be of a conclusive nature, and consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. 19. Further it is a settled legal position that if the material available on record and the evidence of the witnesses give rise to two views, the one favorable to the accused has to be taken into consideration. Dealing with the identical issue it has been held by the Supreme Court in the matter of Pradeep Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 239 In cases where heavy reliance is placed on circumstantial evidence, is that where two views are possible, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other towards his innocence, the one which is favorable to the accused must be adopted. 20. In aforesaid factual and legal position, this Court is of the considered opinion that in this case the prosecution has utterly failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the benefit of doubt it goes to the accused. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, judgment impugned is set aside and the accused/appellant is acquitted of the charge leveled against him. As the appellant is in jail, let he be set free forthwith if not required in any other case. 21. Keeping in view of the provisions of Section 437-A CrPC, the appellant is directed to furnish a personal bonds in terms of from No. 45 prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure of sum of Rs. 25,000/- with 2 reliable sureties in the like amount before the Court concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months along with undertaking that in the event of filing of special leave petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant on receipt of notice thereon shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 22. The Trial Court record along-with the copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action.