JUDGMENT : Ananda Sen, J. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the conviction of the sole appellant under Sections 302, 201 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code vide judgment of conviction dated 09.10.2018 and order of sentence dated 11.10.2018, whereby the sole accused has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.50,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and in case of default in payment of fine he has to undergo S.I. for one year, the appellant further sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years with fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC and in case of default in payment of fine he has to undergo S.I. for two months, the appellant further sentenced to undergo R.I. for two twelve years with fine of Rs.10,000/- for offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and in case of default in payment of fine he has to undergo S.I. for two months. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the entire case is based on circumstances. Since there are no eye witness to the occurrence and the circumstances are also not complete and proved by the prosecution, the appellant could not have been convicted. As per him, it is the case of the prosecution that the deceased was taken to the hospital, but the prosecution has not proved the aforesaid fact. The driver of the vehicle which carried the dead body was also not examined. As per him it is also surprising that when a person has been taken to hospital and the Doctor found her dead, why the Doctor did not inform the police and not kept the body. Further, the circumstances according to the appellant is also very weak to convict him. He further submits that there are no material to convict the appellant under Section 376 of the IPC. No FSL report has been produced to suggest that rape was committed. It is his contention that only on mere assertion by the informant and others, this appellant has been convicted under Section 376 of IPC without any evidence, which is absolutely illegal. 3. No FSL report has been produced to suggest that rape was committed. It is his contention that only on mere assertion by the informant and others, this appellant has been convicted under Section 376 of IPC without any evidence, which is absolutely illegal. 3. Learned counsel for the State submits that admittedly the deceased was with this appellant, thus, the appellant has the responsibility to disclose as to what actually had happened and how she died. Admittedly, she stayed with this appellant at night, when it is alleged that she felt ill and was taken to the hospital. As per the doctor she was brought dead. Considering the aforesaid facts it is the appellant, who has to explain the circumstances of the death of the deceased, which he has failed thus, the Court has correctly convicted the appellant. He further submits that the Doctor who had conducted the postmortem has opined that death is due to asphyxia, as a result of pressure over neck. Since the appellant was with the deceased all along, he is the only person to commit the said act. Thus, the State submits that the appellant has been correctly convicted. 4. We have heard, the learned counsel for the parties and we have gone through the records. The fardbeyan is Exhibit-2/1 and the same is at the instance of Ashok Surin. In the fardbeyan he has stated that on 25.03.2012 at about 12.00 noon Luisa Topno, wife of the informant received a call from her daughter who informed that after her examination on 26.03.2012, she could reach home, but his daughter did not return on that day and her mobile was also found switch off. On 27.03.2012 at about 01.00 P.M. Edward Bhengra and his two friends brought the dead body of his daughter by an ambulance. On query stated that on 26.03.2012 when he was returning in a motorcycle with her, they stayed at Torpa in his friend’s house and on 27.03.2012 at 09.30 when they started for their house and reached Eroundu the deceased told him she was not feeling well and she asked for water and thereafter she fainted. He instantly called Deepak Kandulna for a Bolero vehicle and after some time Govind and Deepak came and they carried the deceased in the Bolero for hospital, but on the way she died. He instantly called Deepak Kandulna for a Bolero vehicle and after some time Govind and Deepak came and they carried the deceased in the Bolero for hospital, but on the way she died. On 28.03.2012, at the time of burial of dead body, informant found some black mark on the neck and saw froth coming out from her mouth. The informant stated that Edward Bhengra may have taken his daughter to his friend Sandip’s house and tried to forcefully make relationship and in fear of being caught committed her murder. 5. On the aforesaid fardbeyan, Kamdara P.S. Case No.16 of 2012 was registered under Sections 302/201/376/34 of IPC. The police after investigation filed chargesheet under Sections 302, 201, 376 of IPC. 6. As the appellant pleaded not guilty, charge was framed and he was put on trial. Sixteen witnesses have been examined in this case, who are as follows:- (i) P.W.-1- Johan Toppno (ii) P.W.2- Kamil Topno (iii) P.W.-3- Joshphina Surin (iv) P.W.-4- Serofina Surin (v) P.W.-5- Deepak Kundulna (vi) P.W.-6- Sandip Surin (vii) P.W.-7- Lehu Surin (viii) P.W.-8- Antony Surin (ix) P.W.-9- Luesa Surin, mother of the deceased (x) P.W.-10- Pritam Lohra (xi) P.W.-11- Junas Congadi (xii) P.W.-12- Bhensent Toppno (xiii) P.W.-13- Dinesh Prasad Rajak, I.O. of this case (xiv) P.W.-14- Dr. Ajit Kumar Chaudhary, Medical Officer (xv) P.W.-15- Sudarshan Murmur, Circle Officer, Kamdara (xvi) P.W.-16- Dharamveer Singh, S.I., Kamdara P.S. 7. The following documents and material objects were also exhibited by the prosecution:- Exhibit-1 Signature of Serofina Surin on seizure list. Exhibit-1/1 Seizure list. Exhibit- 2 Statement u/s 164 of Cr.P.C of Sandip Surin. Exhibit-2/1 Fardbayan. Exhibit-2/2 Endorsement in the fardbayan. Exhibit-3 Formal F.I.R. Exhibit-4 Application for preparation of inquest report. Exhibit-5 Carbon copy of inquest report. Exhibit-6 Signature of Ajit Kumar Choudhary on postmortem report. Exhibit- 7 F.S.L. Report. Exhibit-8 Application of Officer In-charge of Kamdara P.S. regarding forwarding of seized articles. Exhibit-9 Arrest memo. Exhibit- 10 Confessional statement. Material exhibit-I Duppata. 8. P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3, P.W.-5, P.W.-10, P.W.-11 and P.W.-12 are declared hostile in this case. In their cross-examination nothing important could be extracted. P.W.-4 is the seizure list witness. Same was marked as exhibit-1. P.W.6- Sandip Surin deposed that on 26.03.2012 Edward and his sister visited his home at Kuda. He doesn't remember the name of Edward's sister. He further stated that after having dinner. In their cross-examination nothing important could be extracted. P.W.-4 is the seizure list witness. Same was marked as exhibit-1. P.W.6- Sandip Surin deposed that on 26.03.2012 Edward and his sister visited his home at Kuda. He doesn't remember the name of Edward's sister. He further stated that after having dinner. Edward and his sister went to his Uncle Joseph's Surin house which is adjacent to his home. The next day at about 09:00AM, Edward came to his house and informed that his sister was unconscious. Thereafter, he went to Joseph's house where he found that Edward's sister was unconscious. They arranged a vehicle and took her to Kamdara Government Hospital where she was declared dead by the doctors. Libig Toppo also accompanied them to the hospital. The dead body of the deceased was sent to her home Shurwa. Then he and Libig returned. He also stated that his statement was also recorded under Section 164 of IPC bearing his signature, which he identified and marked as Exhbit.-2. In his cross-examination he stated that Edward and his sister came at 09:00pm. He himself, family members, Edward and his sister all had dinner together. After an hour, both of them went to his Uncle Joseph's house to sleep. The distance between his and his uncle's house is nearly 15 yards. He deposed that he never heard any kind of noise or commotion that night and did not go to his uncle's house to meet Edward before 9 in the morning. He further deposed that he doesn't have any information about how Edward's sister got unconscious. He even doesn't have any information about any slips/document/paper issued by the hospital. They took the body of the deceased by the ambulance of the hospital to her village. After that he came back to his home and doesn't know what happened further. P.W.7- Lehu Surin stated that the incident is of 27.03.2012. He was at his home at that time. The dead body of Ashok Surin's daughter Victim was brought by his cousin brother Edward Bhengra in ambulance. When there was uproar, the villagers reached near the dead body. He also went there and saw the dead body. The villagers were discussing that there was a black spot on the neck of the dead body, he had not seen it. The body was buried hastily. When there was uproar, the villagers reached near the dead body. He also went there and saw the dead body. The villagers were discussing that there was a black spot on the neck of the dead body, he had not seen it. The body was buried hastily. Edward Bhengra was seen with the dead body and was not seen later. Villagers were saying that Victim had been strangulated to death. He further identified Edward Bhengra who was present in the court. In cross-examination he deposed that he did not saw with his own eyes what happened to Victim. It was only when Victim's dead body arrived in the village when he came to know that Victim had died. He does not know who killed Victim. When the body was brought, it was covered. Before this he had not made any statement anywhere. Victim's mother brought him to testify. He also deposed that he is not giving any false statement on request of Victim's mother. P.W.8- Antony Surin stated that the incident was of 27.03.2012. Edward Bhengra brought the dead body of Ashok Surin's daughter in an ambulance. There was commotion but when he went to see the body, he saw that she was dead. He also heard that there was stain on the neck of the dead body. He recognized Edward Bhengra who was present in the Court. He also stated that the police brought him to Court. In his cross-examination he deposed that he neither saw nor know how Victim died. The body was covered in the ambulance. The body was taken out of the ambulance and buried according to the customs. He was not questioned by the police. P.W.9- Louisa Surin stated that the case was filed by her husband Ashok Surin. Her husband died on 10.04.2014. That Victim was her daughter. Victim studied in Birsa College, Khunti and used to study staying in Khunti Hostel. Edward went to Khunti and lured her daughter to go with him to her home. Edward Bhengra told Victim that her mother has called her. Edward took Victim with him to Torpa Raitoli. The next day he was coming to my house with Victim. Victim fainted on the way. Edward brought water from someone else's house in Bhegra Turudu and gave it to Victim to drink. Victim regained consciousness. After this, she was forcefully taken to Kuda along with his two companions. Edward took Victim with him to Torpa Raitoli. The next day he was coming to my house with Victim. Victim fainted on the way. Edward brought water from someone else's house in Bhegra Turudu and gave it to Victim to drink. Victim regained consciousness. After this, she was forcefully taken to Kuda along with his two companions. Edward Bhengra killed her by strangulating him in Kuda. Next day, Edward Bhengra along with his friends took Victim to the hospital but she was not admitted to the hospital. The hospital declared her dead. After this Edward and his companions brought Victim's body to the village in an ambulance at around 12:30 PM. The body was buried the next day. Police was called on 27.03.2012 because there was a black spot on Victim's neck. The fact of giving water to Victim on the way and taking Victim away with him was told to her by Edward. She stated that Edward Bhengra is her sister's son, Police came and took out the dead body. The post- mortem was not done in Gumla and the same was done in Ranchi. Edward and Victim had a brother-sister relationship but Edward did wrong to Victim and killed her. She identified Edward Biengra in Court. She also deposed that she came to give testimony with Antony Soren, Lev Surin and the police. Amrus Surin has died, who was a witness in this case. In her cross-examination she deposed that she is not educated. Victim had left for home from the hostel on 12.03.2014. The body was brought in the ambulance on 12.03.2014 at around 12 and 1 o'clock in the day. Victim was buried the next day on 13.03.2014 at 01:00pm. She stated that she saw that there was a black mark all over the neck. After the burial, she had also informed the police about the black spot, the day after the burial. She also deposed that she did not go to the hostel, Raitoli or Turutu Village. Edward Bhengra had told her about Turutu village. The people of her village told about the incident who belonged to her family. Antony, Lev etc. had come to her house to tell about the incident. She deposed that what was the case and what was written in the report she is not aware of. The ambulance in which body of Victim was brought belonged to Kamdara Hospital. The people of her village told about the incident who belonged to her family. Antony, Lev etc. had come to her house to tell about the incident. She deposed that what was the case and what was written in the report she is not aware of. The ambulance in which body of Victim was brought belonged to Kamdara Hospital. She did not go to the hospital to inquire but her husband had gone. The doctor had not informed about her death. The buried body was exhumed on 27.03.2014. The dead body was slightly decomposed. She did not see with her own eyes what happened to her daughter. She deposed that she is not giving false testimony against Edward. P.W. 13, Dinesh Prasad Rajak has deposed that on 30-03-2012, he was posted as Assistant Sub-Inspector in Kamdara Police Station. On the said date, he was handed over the charge of Kamdars Police station Case No. 16/12 by Kamlesh Paswan. This case was registered on the basis of the statement of informant Ashok Surin. This statement is in the handwriting and signature of Officer-in- charge, Kamlesh Paswan, which was also signed by the informant Ashok Surin, whom he recognized. All are marked as Exhibit. The informant had stated in his fardbayan that the deceased Victim who is the daughter of the informant, was a student of I.Sc. in Booti Birsa College, who stayed in the hostel of Convent College. On 26.03.2012, she called her mother Louisa Surin on her mobile number and said that she will come home after the completion of the examination on 26.03.2012, but she did not come till late night on 27.03.2012. At around 1 o'clock in the ambulance, Edward along with his two companions brought the dead body and upon enquiry they told that on Monday dated 26.03.2012 he had gone to get his eyes treated and after that when he was returning from Khunti, as it was evening in Torpa, he stopped at his friend's place in Ramtoll. Next day, on 27.03.2012, when he left for home he saw Victim near village Kundu on the way. Victim's health deteriorated and in the meantime, she felt thirsty so he bought water from adjacent house and gave it to her to drink she fell unconscious he called Deepak Kanduna and arrayed a Bolero then, Govind's elder brother Deepak came and took Victim to the hospital. Victim's health deteriorated and in the meantime, she felt thirsty so he bought water from adjacent house and gave it to her to drink she fell unconscious he called Deepak Kanduna and arrayed a Bolero then, Govind's elder brother Deepak came and took Victim to the hospital. Victim died on the way. He did not say anything about going to Ramatoli. She was buried in cemetery after dark on 28.03.2012 and village people reported that there was a stain on the neck and in the morning, froth came out of the mouth. Getting opportunity, Edward ran away. In his cross-examination he stated that on 30.03.2012, he took charge of the investigation of this case, the date and place of taking the statement had not been recorded by him in case diary. He had gone to the place of occurrence with Police Station in-charge and this is mentioned in paragraph 5 of the case diary, but the registration number of the vehicle by which he had gone had not been mentioned. The distance of place of occurrence from police station has not been mentioned by him in diary nor has the map of the incident made by him. The name of the doctor who examined and declared Victim dead was not noted by him. By whom Victim's body was buried was not mentioned by him in the case diary. On 31.03.2012, the body of Victim was taken out from the grave in the presence of Circle Officer, Kamdara. Inquest report of Victim's body was made by Circle Officer, Kamdara, Victim's S.S.L. report was received, till the charge-sheet submitted by him and there is no information whether S.S.L. report has come yet or not because he was transferred. The pink stall of Victim that was confiscated has not been brought by him to the Court today because he has been transferred and hence, he has come from outside today. Statement of witnesses Ambrus Surin and Sarofina Surin was taken by him on 02.04.2012. The statement of Circle Officer, Kamdara was not recorded by him. P.W. 14, Dr. The pink stall of Victim that was confiscated has not been brought by him to the Court today because he has been transferred and hence, he has come from outside today. Statement of witnesses Ambrus Surin and Sarofina Surin was taken by him on 02.04.2012. The statement of Circle Officer, Kamdara was not recorded by him. P.W. 14, Dr. Ajit Kumar Chaudhry deposed that he was posted as professor and head of the Department of Forensic Medicine, RIMS, Ranchi and on that very day postmortem examination was conducted by Medical Board, constituted by Medical Superintendent, R.I.M.S. The board have found following injuries:- (i) The body was of average height, (ii) Rigorous mortis was absent over the body, (iii) Post-mortem blisters over the body surface, (iv) Adipocerous changes commencing scalp hairs between the tech close, tongue partially protuted and bitten in between the teeth. (v) The go levy of hand unfit. (vi) Maggots presence over both the arms. (vii) Faint ligature mark 3 ½ cm x 4 cm. In which situated on upper part of neck. It was encircling the neck transversely and continuously. (viii) There was an abrasion 3 ½ cm x 3 cm on right pester lateral neck upper part situated right to midline There was old rapture of hymen allowed to two fingers to be introduced easily. He opined that the death was due to pressure over the neck. In his cross-examination, he stated that there is no sign of bone fracture, only ligature mark and abrasions and also no sign of rape in the body. P.W.- 15, Sudarshan Murmu deposed that on 31.03.2012, he was posted as Circle Officer in Kamdara. On that day in Kamdara police station Case No.16/12, an order was given by him to disinter the body of the deceased Victim from the graveyard. He went to the graveyard situated at Suruwa Pahan Toli with Police Station In-charge and police force. After that the dead body of the Victim was dug out from the graveyard, the inquest report was prepared by him which is in his writing and signature and this report is also signed by two other witnesses John Topno and Sagan Surin. He recognized both of them. He identified the carbon copy of inquest report which has been prepared under the same process. This is marked as Exhibit No. 5. He recognized both of them. He identified the carbon copy of inquest report which has been prepared under the same process. This is marked as Exhibit No. 5. After that the body of Victim was sent to Sadar Hospital, Gumla for post- mortem. In cross-examination, he stated that he doesn't remember the name of the person, who informed him about the presence of Victim's dead body in that graveyard. He doesn't remember the name of the person who dug the place to remove the body from the graveyard. The father of the deceased, the informant was also present there. When the dead body of deceased was taken out from the cemetery, he found that dead body of the deceased was not totally decomposed, all injuries were visible. He admits that the inquest report, which is in Court, is a carbon copy, he is not aware about the whereabout of the original copy. Videography of exhuming the dead body from the cemetery was not done. The police did not take his statement in relation to this case. The inquest report of Victim was prepared in the police station and he stated again that the inquest report was prepared at the place of occurrence. P.W.-16, Dharamveer Singh deposed that today, on 27.09.2018 he was posted in Kamdara police station. On the instructions of Kamdara Officer-in-charge (Kajal Dubey), he has received a forwarding application for presenting the seized exhibits of Kamdara police station Case No. 16/12 dated 30.03.2012 in the Court, which is in his signature and he identified the same, which was marked as Exhibit No.8. He also exhibited the stole, which was seized from the dead body at graveyard, which is marked as material exhibit-1. 9. After recording the evidence, we find that on consideration of the evidence the appellant has been convicted for committing under Sections 302, 201 and 376 of IPC. Thus, this appeal has been filed. 10. After going through the record, we find that the entire case is based on the circumstantial evidence. The body of the victim/girl was brought to her village where she was buried and thereafter body was exhumed as there was doubt as to how she died. There was some whisper in the village and among the witnesses that some mark was seen on the neck of the deceased. On that basis, the body was exhumed and FIR lodged. 11. There was some whisper in the village and among the witnesses that some mark was seen on the neck of the deceased. On that basis, the body was exhumed and FIR lodged. 11. Now let us consider the circumstances, which is present in this case and whether they are sufficient to convict this appellant. The appellant is convicted under Sections 302, 201 and 376 of IPC. Now first let us see whether the prosecution has been able to prove the charge against the appellant for committing offence under Section 376 of IPC. The victim-girl, whose dead body was brought to the village, was related to this appellant. Her body was brought to the village by this appellant in a vehicle. The body was buried and thereafter exhumed. The body was sent for postmortem, the Doctor who conducted the postmortem is P.W.-14 and the postmortem report has also been exhibited. After going through the postmortem report, we find that though the Doctor has stated that the hymen was rapture but the said rapture was old one. In his report he has not stated that the victim was subjected to rape. In cross-examination, the Doctor who is P.W.-14 stated that there was no sign of rape. The vaginal swab was sent to FSL for examination and for DNA profile, but in the entire record there is no such report. P.W.-9, who is the mother of the deceased, in her evidence stated that this appellant has committed some wrong with the deceased and thereafter killed her. Aforesaid are the only evidence produced by the prosecution in support to prove the allegation under Section 376 of IPC. In our opinion, only on the basis of the statement of the mother of the deceased, without any medical evidence in support of rape, specially when the doctor stated that there is no sign of rape, the conviction under Section 376 of IPC is bad and cannot be sustained. 12. Now we will discuss the circumstances which are there to come to a conclusion as to whether the conviction under Section 302 of IPC against the appellant is correct or not. 12. Now we will discuss the circumstances which are there to come to a conclusion as to whether the conviction under Section 302 of IPC against the appellant is correct or not. As per the prosecution case, the informant stated that his wife, Lusea Surin (P.W.9 and mother of the deceased), received a call from the deceased informing her that her examination is on 26.03.2012 and she would reach home thereafter but she did not reach and her mobile was found switch off. On next day 27.03.2012 at about 01.00 P.M. this appellant and his two friends brought the dead body of her daughter in ambulance. On query it is alleged that this appellant has stated that they were returning on 26.03.2012 in a motorcycle and styed in a friend’s house. On 27.03.2012 when they were returning, the girl stated that she was not feeling well and asked for water and thereafter she fainted. This appellant called Deepak Kandulna for a Bolero vehicle and after that they had carried her to hospital but she was declared dead. The part of the information was gathered from the telephonic conversation between P.W.-9 and the deceased and rest from this appellant. From this evidence, it is clear that the informant had stated that the victim/girl was taken to the hospital as she was not feeling well. This information was derived from this appellant. P.W.-6, Sandip Surin who has accompanied the appellant also stated that the deceased became unconscious in the house and thereafter they arranged the vehicle and took her to Kamdara Government Hospital where she was declared dead by the Doctor. This statement may have been made by P.W.-6 and the appellant to prove their innocence, but it was the duty of the I.O. to investigate the aforesaid fact and find out the truthfulness of the statement. If a person was taken a government hospital and the Doctor finds the person to be dead, surprisingly, why not any information was sent to the police and the body was sent for postmortem immediately from the hospital itself. Whether the death had actually taken place in Kamdara Government Hospital or not, is a question which should have been investigated, but the police failed to do so. Whether the death had actually taken place in Kamdara Government Hospital or not, is a question which should have been investigated, but the police failed to do so. In absence of such information, we have to believe the statement of P.W.6, who is none but the prosecution witness and his credibility has not been doubted by the Trial Court. This prosecution witness was not declared hostile. He stated that deceased was taken to the hospital as she was not feeling well and became unconscious where the Doctor declared her dead. The police also did not record any statement of the Doctor of Kamdara Government Hospital to verify the aforesaid fact. This is a blunder on the part of the Investigating Officer. Further as per P.W.-6 one Libig Toppo also accompanied them to the hospital, but this Libig Toppo was also not examined. The body was carried to the village of the deceased in Ambulance. From the evidence of P.W.-6, we find that they arranged a vehicle from the house of Joshphina Surin (where the deceased was sleeping with the appellant) on which they took the deceased in unconscious state to the hospital. The said vehicle is not an Ambulance. From the evidence and the FIR, we find that the dead body was brought in the village by an Ambulance. This means after the Doctor declared the deceased dead, the Ambulance was taken from the hospital and the body was transported to the village. If that be so, it is surprisingly as to why the police did not investigate and recorded the statement of those Doctors and the Ambulance driver to verify the statement of the appellant and P.W.-6. 13. From the evidence of P.W.-9, we find that she has given details as to what had happened to her daughter just before the incident. From her evidence it is not clear as to how she got all these information. Admittedly, she is not an eye witness and there was no telephonic conversation with the deceased and this appellant. As per the FIR the deceased last contacted this witness at about 12 noon on 25.03.2012 when the deceased told her that she would return after her examination on 26.03.2012, but she did not return and mobile was switched off. Admittedly, she is not an eye witness and there was no telephonic conversation with the deceased and this appellant. As per the FIR the deceased last contacted this witness at about 12 noon on 25.03.2012 when the deceased told her that she would return after her examination on 26.03.2012, but she did not return and mobile was switched off. If that be so, from where she got the information as to what happened to the deceased thereafter, is a mystery which the prosecution failed to unfurl. She also stated in her evidence that she is unaware as to who had committed murder of the deceased. Her statement, where she states in details as to what actually happened on 26.03.2012, in absence of the source of information, cannot be relied upon. 14. The circumstances which surfaced in this case, from the evidence of the parties is that as per P.W.-6, this appellant and the deceased on 26.03.2012 came to their room and after dinner this appellant and deceased went to the house of Joshphina Surin which was just adjacent to their home. Next day morning, this appellant came and inform that this deceased who was his sister is unconscious. This witness immediately rushed to the house and found the deceased in unconscious state, when they had taken the deceased to the hospital where she was declared dead by the Doctor. 15. P.W.-6 also stated that he found the deceased unconscious lying on the bed. He is the only witness on behalf of the prosecution who naturally could have stated something on the fact. As per him the deceased was in an unconscious state and she was taken to the hospital. As per his statement it is not the case of the prosecution that the deceased was murdered there in the house. In absence of any positive evidence that the deceased was murdered in the house when they were sleeping, we have to accept the statement of P.W.-6 that in an unconscious state she was taken to Kamdara Government Hospital where she was declared dead. In the chain of evidence, the next fact which comes in the evidence is that the body arrives in the village in an Ambulance of the hospital. In the chain of evidence, the next fact which comes in the evidence is that the body arrives in the village in an Ambulance of the hospital. The events in between i.e. taking the body to the hospital, examination by the Doctor in the hospital and declaring her dead in the hospital, has not been proved and is rather missing. This huge lacuna by the prosecution dents the entire prosecution case. All these circumstances whether it actually happened or not should have been investigated and proved by the prosecution to establish the guilt of this appellant. There are two situations, either the deceased was taken to the hospital where she was declared dead or was not taken. The real fact and the prosecution story should have been brought forward. The next question, which arose is that if she was really taken to the hospital and was declared dead, why the body was released without any document by the Doctor and why the Doctor was not examined and nor the postmortem was conducted at the instance of those Doctors. The other situation would be that the body was never taken to the hospital and was directly taken to the village. 16. Further, the story which has been narrated by P.W.-6 is absolutely different from the story narrated by P.W.-9, about the deceased fainting while returning home and this appellant offering water to her and forcefully taken her to kuda along with his two friends, is without any basis. There is no corroborative evidence on this point nor the I.O. did any investigation. From which source this information was received is also not clear. From P.W.-6 we find that she was taken to the house of this witness, but this witness never stated that at any point of time, he felt that the deceased was forcibly taken to his house. Further, P.W.-6 stated that the appellant and the deceased stayed fifteen yards away from his house, but at night he did not hear any noise of commotion from there. 17. Thus, from what has been discussed above, we find that there is serious lacuna in investigation of this case and the case was not at all investigated properly. The materials which are before us is not sufficient to convict this appellant. There are huge gaps in each circumstance and the chain is not complete. Further, the prosecution has failed to prove motive. The materials which are before us is not sufficient to convict this appellant. There are huge gaps in each circumstance and the chain is not complete. Further, the prosecution has failed to prove motive. The prosecution case of commission of rape and thereafter to hide the commission of rape, murder was committed has also not been substantiated as the Doctor doubted commission of rape. 18. Thus, all of the circumstances are too weak to prove involvement of this appellant and the chain of circumstances is not complete, coupled with the fact that investigation has not been done in a proper manner. All these facts create a doubt in the mind of this Court about the prosecution story, the manner of death and the involvement of this appellant. When there is any doubt created in the mind of this Court, the same goes in favour of the appellant. 19. In view of the aforesaid finding, we hold that the conviction of the appellant under Sections 302, 201 and 376 of IPC is not sustainable in the eyes of the law. The judgment of conviction dated 09.10.2018 and order of sentence dated 11.10.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-1-cum-Special Judge in Session Trial No.188 of 2012 is hereby set aside. 20. Accordingly, the instant Criminal Appeal is allowed. 21. This Court directs the above named appellant to be released forthwith from custody, if not required in any other case. 22. Let Trial Court Records along with a copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned trial court forthwith. 23. Accordingly, the instant Criminal Appeal is allowed. 24. Interlocutory application, if any, also stands disposed of. Subhash Chand, J. - I agree.