JUDGMENT : SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J. The sole accused in Sessions Case No.68 of 2016 on the file of the Court of Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, is the appellant. He was tried by the learned Sessions Judge under the following charges: The first charge was under Section 302 IPC, The second charge was under Section 201 IPC and The third charge was under Section 498-A IPC. 2. Substance of the charge is that on the intervening night of 30/31.10.2014 the accused committed murder of his wife viz., Gurvendapalli Radha (hereinafter referred to as deceased), by placing saree around her neck and forcibly pulled it through the window, as the deceased did not prepare food and she demanded gold Pusthula thradu to her and later with an intention to screen the evidence, the accused tore the saree and hide it in the garments and shifted the dead body to Ramanagar village, Challapalli Mandal, Krishna District and the accused also subjected the deceased to cruelty and harassed her physically and mentally. Thereby, the accused committed the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 498-A IPC. 3. Learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.4,00,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one year. Learned Sessions Judge also convicted the accused for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. Further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 201 IPC. All the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. Out of total fine amount, the son and mother of the deceased were awarded Rs.3,50,000/- and Rs.50,000/- respectively towards compensation. 4. Case of the prosecution, as seen from the evidence available on record, is: (i) The accused, a resident of Muvva village, lives by executing contract works of BSNL, and he married the deceased in May, 2006. Out of wedlock, they were blessed with a male child viz., Ramcharan. The accused used to harass the deceased physically and mentally, and also demanded to leave him to have marriage with his relative's daughter. Out of wedlock, they were blessed with a male child viz., Ramcharan. The accused used to harass the deceased physically and mentally, and also demanded to leave him to have marriage with his relative's daughter. The accused and deceased lived in Hyderabad, and thereafter, the accused shifted the family to Vizianagaram. The accused left for the camps without attending daily needs of the deceased and her son. The deceased went to her mother and took shelter. The accused went to his in-laws' house and brought back the deceased to Vizianagaram on 27.10.2014 by leaving their son. On 31.10.2014 at about 5.00 a.m., the accused informed Vijaya Krishna Babu-P.W.1, brother of the deceased, over the phone that the deceased was found dead by the doctors, and he was bringing the dead body to Ramanagar in an Ambassador car and reached Ramanagar at about 4.30 p.m. (ii) P.W.1 and Vijaya-P.W.5, mother of the deceased, found swelling on the left cheek, abrasion on the throat, and contusion on the left ribs on the dead body of the deceased. The dead body was buried according to Christian customs on the same day. After the arrival of the elders and on thorough enquiry, the accused disclosed the quarrel between him and the deceased. PW.1 came to Vizianagaram and enquired with P.Ws.2 to 4 and learnt that the deceased died at about 3.00 a.m. and the accused screened the same and informed P.W.1 that death occurred at about 5.00 a.m. and shifted the dead body without informing anyone. Thereafter, P.W.1 reported on 02.11.2014 at II Town Police Station, Vizianagaram. Ex.P1 is a report. The Sub Inspector of Police, P.W.21, registered the same as a case in Crime No.277 of 2014 under Section 302, 201 and 498-A IPC and forwarded the same to all concerned. Ex.P10 is F.I.R. (iii) P.W.22 Inspector of Police, I Town PS, Vizianagaram, who was holding additional charge of II Town PS, Vizianagaram, took up the investigation. He visited the scene of the offence at Dolphin Heights Apartments along with P.W.1 and examined him. P.W.1 handed over Ex. P2-notebook. He also examined P.Ws.2 to 4 and recorded their statements. Thereafter, he proceeded to Challapalli Police Station, Krishna District, visited the Tahsildar's office, gave a requisition to visit the burial ground at Lakshmipuram, to exhume the dead body and to conduct the inquest. P.W.1 handed over Ex. P2-notebook. He also examined P.Ws.2 to 4 and recorded their statements. Thereafter, he proceeded to Challapalli Police Station, Krishna District, visited the Tahsildar's office, gave a requisition to visit the burial ground at Lakshmipuram, to exhume the dead body and to conduct the inquest. P.W.22 secured the mediators, drafted an observation report-Ex.P7 at the burial ground. He examined P.Ws.5, 6, 10 and others and recorded their statements. He photographed and videographed the exhuming process. After exhuming the dead body, an inquest was conducted. Ex.P8 is the inquest report. (iv) P.W.16, worked as Medical Superintendent, Area Hospital, Avanigadda, on receipt of a requisition from the Mandal Executive Magistrate, Challapalli, along with Dr.Sahaja went to the burial ground at Challapalli and conducted the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. Ex.P14 is a preliminary post-mortem report. After receipt of RFSL report-Ex.P15 and another RFSL report-Ex.P16 regarding hyoid bone, he gave final opinion-Ex.P17. He opined that the cause of death is due to asphyxia due to hanging. P.W.16 further deposed that the dead body was highly decomposed. (v) On 06.11.2014 at about 5.30 p.m. P.W.22 received a phone call from the Station House Officer, II Town PS, that the accused was produced by the Village Revenue Officer-P.W.8 and he gave a report Ex.P6, based on an extra-judicial confession made by the accused. The accused voluntarily confessed before the mediators about the killing of his wife. In pursuance of the same, P.W.22, along with the accused, went to the scene of the offence. The accused showed two saree pieces, M.Os.1 and 2, which were seized under the cover of the mediator's report-Ex.P11. (vi) Thereafter, P.W.23, Inspector of Police, took up further investigation. He deputed P.W.19, S.I. of Police, to collect the admitted writings of the deceased. P.W.19 handed over two bio-data forms-Ex.P9 of the deceased to P.W.23. He deputed P.W.18, ASI of Police, to collect the admitted writings of the deceased. P.W.18 produced a small notebook-Ex.P3 and a white notebook-Ex.P4. P.W.23 prepared a letter of advice to the Director, FSL, to compare the handwriting of the deceased with the admitted handwritings. He received expert opinion-Ex.P19. After the completion of the investigation, P.W.23 filed the charge sheet. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 24, marked Exs.P1 to P20 and exhibited M.Os.1 and 2. Ex.D1 was marked on behalf of the accused. 6. He received expert opinion-Ex.P19. After the completion of the investigation, P.W.23 filed the charge sheet. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 24, marked Exs.P1 to P20 and exhibited M.Os.1 and 2. Ex.D1 was marked on behalf of the accused. 6. When the accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating evidence appearing against him. 7. Accepting both ocular and documentary evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused as aforesaid. 8. Heard Sri T.Nagarjuna Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the case of prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence and the prosecution failed to connect the links in the chain and thus failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. He would submit that no injuries were found on the dead body of the deceased. Had P.Ws1 and 5 noticed any injuries, they would not have had to bury the corpse. He would also submit that no independent witness was examined to prove the alleged harassment meted out to the deceased at the hands of the accused. Further, Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination itself is not evidence. He would also submit that the contents of letters-Ex.P2 were not read over in Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination, and the said letter cannot be treated as a dying declaration. He would finally submit that when two views are possible, the view leaning towards the accused needs to be preferred. 10. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that death of deceased is unnatural and the accused informed about the death of deceased to P.Ws.1 and 5 after 4 hours of death. The accused initially convinced P.Ws.1 and 5, however, after the arrival of all the relatives, when they questioned, the accused himself disclosed the altercation and his beating of the deceased. He would submit that the death occurred in the house of the accused, and he could not give a proper explanation. In fact, the accused gave a false explanation of bleeding. In respect of Ex.P2, scribed by the deceased, the expert opined that it is the handwriting of the deceased, and the handwriting of the deceased was identified by her brother and eventually prayed to dismiss the appeal. 11. In fact, the accused gave a false explanation of bleeding. In respect of Ex.P2, scribed by the deceased, the expert opined that it is the handwriting of the deceased, and the handwriting of the deceased was identified by her brother and eventually prayed to dismiss the appeal. 11. We have carefully scrutinized the entire evidence on record. 12. As seen from the evidence of prosecution witnesses and documents, the marriage between the accused and deceased was solemnized in May 2006 and out of wedlock, they were blessed with a male child. The death of deceased occurred in the house of the accused on the intervening night of 30/31.10.2014. The accused brought the dead body of the deceased to the house of his in-laws. P.W.1 is the brother, and P.W.5 is the mother of the deceased. The dead body was buried on the same day. As per the evidence on record, the marriage between the accused and the deceased is a love marriage. The accused never took the deceased to his parents' house. 13. In the evidence, P.Ws.1 and 5 deposed about the harassment meted out by the deceased at the hands of the accused. After setting up of marital home at Vizianagaram, according to P.W.1, the accused took the deceased and her son to Vizianagaram on two occasions. On 27.10.2014, the accused came to his in-laws' house and took the deceased to Vizianagaram, leaving behind their child at his in-laws' house. P.Ws.1 and 5 further deposed that the dead body of the deceased was buried as per Christian customs. P.Ws.1 and 5 specifically deposed that the elders advised to bury the dead body. P.Ws.1 and 5 deposed about the swelling on the left cheek, abrasion on the throat, and contusion on the left ribs on the dead body of the deceased. However, the accused pleaded that those injuries might have been caused while shifting the body in the car dicky. 14. The dead body was exhumed on 03.11.2014. The Civil Assistant Surgeon opined that the death was due to asphyxia due to hanging. In Ex.P14 preliminary post-mortem report, no external injuries were found, and the dead body of the deceased was highly decomposed. The hyoid bone of the deceased is intact. P.W.16 specifically deposed that the deceased is not pregnant. However, P.W.1 deposed that when the accused took the deceased on 27.10.2014 to Vizianagaram, she was 4 th months pregnant. In Ex.P14 preliminary post-mortem report, no external injuries were found, and the dead body of the deceased was highly decomposed. The hyoid bone of the deceased is intact. P.W.16 specifically deposed that the deceased is not pregnant. However, P.W.1 deposed that when the accused took the deceased on 27.10.2014 to Vizianagaram, she was 4 th months pregnant. 15. The accused informed P.W.1 on 31.10.2014 at about 5.00 p.m. about the bleeding suffered by the deceased and further informed that he would be taking her to the hospital. In fact, the accused in the Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination also confirmed the same. Of course, the statement given in Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination cannot be treated as evidence. However, the evidence of P.W.1, regarding intimation on 31.10.2014 at about 5.00 a.m. about the deceased suffering from bleeding and the accused taking her to the hospital, has been corroborated. 16. In this connection, the evidence of P.W.3, a security guard at the apartment, needs to be considered. According to P.W.3, at about 12.00 a.m. on 30/31.10.2014, the accused Nagaraju informed him that the deceased had fallen because of ill-health and informed him to open the gate. After 15 minutes, an ambulance came to the apartment. P.W.3 went to the flat and found the deceased unconscious on the floor in the hall. The accused caught hold of hands, and P.W.3 caught hold of legs, brought down the deceased in the lift, and the person in the ambulance examined the deceased and declared her dead, and the ambulance left the apartment. The dead body was left in the cellar, and the accused went out to get a Taxi, and the Taxi came to the apartment at about 4.45 a.m. 17. Thus, the evidence of P.W.3 is clear that the deceased breathed her last at about 12 midnight, since the person in the ambulance declared her dead. However, the accused informed P.W.1 at about 5.00 a.m. that the deceased was suffering from bleeding and he was taking her to the hospital, and 15 minutes thereafter, he informed P.W.1 about the death of the deceased. Whether this instance itself is sufficient to convict the accused, and the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The case of the prosecution rests upon circumstantial evidence. In such a case, the prosecution must prove the chain of events and the motive. 18. Whether this instance itself is sufficient to convict the accused, and the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The case of the prosecution rests upon circumstantial evidence. In such a case, the prosecution must prove the chain of events and the motive. 18. Thus, it is clear that the deceased died in the house of the accused. The accused must explain the circumstances, under Sec 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, as to whether the death is suicide or a homicide. Of course, in Section 313 Cr.P.C examination, the accused gave his version regarding the bleeding, calling for an ambulance etc., The accused cannot be convicted on his failure to explain the circumstances under Section 106 Indian Evidence Act. It is only an additional circumstance if the other links in the chain are proved beyond a reasonable doubt. 19. Ex.P2 letter said to have been scribed by the deceased, in a notebook, demonstrates the harassment met by the deceased at the hands of the accused. However, the recitals in Ex.P2 further reveal that a prior case was lodged by the deceased, the police registered the case, and forwarded it to the court, and that the deceased was staying in the hostel. It further reveals the false promise made by the accused and gets the case withdrawn. The prosecution, for the reasons best known, failed to place the material regarding the earlier case. No explanation was offered in that regard. 20. Of course, the contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the accused came with a false explanation and his non- explanation under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act coupled with Ex.P2, whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, needs to be weighed with other circumstances, i.e. the failure of the prosecution to bring the correct picture regarding the recitals in Ex P.2, including the corpse to be buried on the same day without any resistance. 21. A perusal of the contents of Ex.P2 primarily disclosed earlier disputes reaching a case to the Court and withdrawal at a later point in time. If the theory of prosecution coupled with the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 5, concerning the harassment, is true, they would not have buried the corpse on the same day, that too after noticing the alleged injuries. If the theory of prosecution coupled with the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 5, concerning the harassment, is true, they would not have buried the corpse on the same day, that too after noticing the alleged injuries. This instance makes it clear that the prosecution suppressed the genesis and, indeed, failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. 22. The contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor regarding the non-explanation of the circumstances by the accused under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, it is appropriate to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Subramaniam Vs. State of Tamilnadu , (2009) 14 SCC 415 wherein it was held thus: “23. So far as the circumstance that they had been living together is concerned, indisputably, the entirety of the situation should be taken into consideration. Ordinarily when the husband and wife remained within the four walls of a house and a death by homicide takes place it will be for the husband to explain the circumstances in which she might have died. However, we cannot lose sight of the fact that although the same may be considered to be a strong circumstance but that by alone in the absence of any evidence of violence on the deceased cannot be held to be conclusive. It may be difficult to arrive at a conclusion that the husband and the husband alone was responsible therefor.” 23. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Subramaniam ’s case (supra-2), relied upon its earlier judgments in Trimukh Maroti Kirkan Vs. State of Maharastra , (2006) 10 SCC 681 and Ponnusamy Vs. State of T.N. , (2008) 5 SCC 587 , and observed thus: “26. In both the aforementioned cases, the death occurred due to violence. In this case, there was no mark of violence. The appellant has been found to be wholly innocent. So far as the charges under Section 498-A or Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is concerned, the evidence of the parents of the deceased being PW 1 and PW 2 as also the mediators, PWs 4 and 5 have been disbelieved by both the courts below. That part of the prosecution story suggesting strong motive on the part of the appellant to commit the murder, thus, has been ruled out.” 24. That part of the prosecution story suggesting strong motive on the part of the appellant to commit the murder, thus, has been ruled out.” 24. No independent witness was examined regarding the harassment meted out by the deceased at the hands of the accused. The neighbor, who was examined as P.W.2, did not state anything regarding the harassment. In the absence of any other material, we are unable to comprehend that the accused harassed the deceased, and, in fact, the prosecution failed to prove the same beyond a reasonable doubt. 25. Regarding false explanation or non-explanation of the accused when he was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C examination, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharastra , (1984) 4 SCC 116 , held that it can only be used as an additional circumstance when the prosecution has proved a chain of circumstances leading to no other conclusion than guilt of the accused. However, it cannot be used as a link to complete the chain. Admittedly, in the case at hand, the prosecution rests its case on circumstantial evidence and hence the prosecution must prove the chain of links and also the motive of the accused. 26. In Raj Kumar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan , (2013) 5 SCC 722 : 2013 SCC OnLine SC 435 the Hon'ble Apex Court considered the scope of examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C and held thus: “30. In a criminal trial, the purpose of examining the accused person under Section 313 CrPC is to meet the requirement of the principles of natural justice i.e. audi alteram partem. This means that the accused may be asked to furnish some explanation as regards the incriminating circumstances associated with him, and the court must take note of such explanation. In a case of circumstantial evidence, the same is essential to decide whether or not the chain of circumstances is complete. No matter how weak the evidence of the prosecution may be, it is the duty of the court to examine the accused, and to seek his explanation as regards the incriminating material that has surfaced against him. The circumstances which are not put to the accused in his examination under Section 313 CrPC, cannot be used against him and have to be excluded from consideration.” 27. In Kalicharan Vs. The circumstances which are not put to the accused in his examination under Section 313 CrPC, cannot be used against him and have to be excluded from consideration.” 27. In Kalicharan Vs. State of U.P., (2023) 2 SCC 583 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1718 , the Hon'ble Apex Court, while dealing with the situation where the contents of post-mortem were not put to the accused, observed thus: “27. Questioning an accused under Section 313CrPC is not an empty formality. The requirement of Section 313 CrPC is that the accused must be explained the circumstances appearing in the evidence against him so that accused can offer an explanation. After an accused is questioned under Section 313CrPC, he is entitled to take a call on the question of examining defence witnesses and leading other evidence. If the accused is not explained the important circumstances appearing against him in the evidence on which his conviction is sought to be based, the accused will not be in a position to explain the said circumstances brought on record against him. He will not be able to properly defend himself.” 28. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Manu Sharma Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) , (2010) 6 SCC 1 : 2010 SCC OnLine SC 480 held that the answers given by the accused to the questions put under Section 313 of the Code are not, per se, evidence because, firstly, it is not on oath and, secondly, the other party i.e. the prosecution, does not get an opportunity to cross-examine the accused. 29. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that Ex P.2 was proved by examining the P.W.1. The writing in Ex P.2, the handwriting expert examined as P.W.20, opined that it is the handwriting of the deceased. Whether a conviction based upon Ex P.2 can be confirmed on the presumption that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, we will consider now. 30. The evidence of an expert is a rather weak type of evidence, and normally, the courts do not generally consider it as offering „conclusive' proof. It is not safe to rely upon the same without seeking independent and reliable corroboration. 31. In Magan Bihari Lal Vs. 30. The evidence of an expert is a rather weak type of evidence, and normally, the courts do not generally consider it as offering „conclusive' proof. It is not safe to rely upon the same without seeking independent and reliable corroboration. 31. In Magan Bihari Lal Vs. State of Punjab , (1977) 2 SCC 210 : 1977 SCC (Cri) 313 while dealing with the evidence of a handwriting expert, this Hon'ble Apex Court observed as follows: “7… We think it would be extremely hazardous to condemn the appellant merely on the strength of opinion evidence of a handwriting expert. It is now well settled that expert opinion must always be received with great caution and perhaps none so with more caution than the opinion of a handwriting expert. There is a profusion of precedential authority which holds that it is unsafe to base a conviction solely on expert opinion without substantial corroboration. This rule has been universally acted upon and it has almost become a rule of law. It was held by this Court in Ram Chandra v. State of U.P. [ AIR 1957 SC 381 : 1957 Cri LJ 559] that it is unsafe to treat expert handwriting opinion as sufficient basis for conviction, but it may be relied upon when supported by other items of internal and external evidence. This Court again pointed out in Ishwari Prasad Misra v. Mohd. Isa [ AIR 1963 SC 1728 : 1963 BLJR 226 ] that expert evidence of handwriting can never be conclusive because it is, after all, opinion evidence, and this view was reiterated in Shashi Kumar Banerjee v. Subodh Kumar Banerjee [ AIR 1964 SC 529 ] where it was pointed out by this Court that expert's evidence as to handwriting being opinion evidence can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence and before acting on such evidence, it would be desirable to consider whether it is corroborated either by clear direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. This Court had again occasion to consider the evidentiary value of expert opinion in regard to handwriting in Fakhruddin v. State of M.P. [ AIR 1967 SC 1326 : (1967) 2 Andh LT 38] and it uttered a note of caution pointing out that it would be risky to found a conviction solely on the evidence of a handwriting expert and before acting upon such evidence, the court must always try to see whether it is corroborated by other evidence, direct or circumstantial.” The said principle was reiterated in S.Gopal Reddy Vs. State of A.P , (1996) 4 SCC 596 32. In the case at hand, a perusal of the contents in Ex.P2, as pointed out supra, speaks about the earlier case. However, nothing is forthcoming from the prosecution regarding the earlier case between the accused and the deceased. Apart from the keen perusal of Ex.P2, the „surname' of the deceased was scribed differently in the body and at the bottom. Ex.P2 does not contain the date. While in Ex.P2, the signature of the complete „surname' was mentioned, whereas in Ex.P9 it was scribed as „G'. In Ex.P9, the date was mentioned as 29.10.2014, whereas the deceased, by 29.10.2014, was at Vijayanagaram. P.W.1 deposed that the accused telephoned his mother on 28.10.2014, and the deceased spoke with his mother and her son. If the deceased lived at Vijayanagaram by 28.10.2014, her making an application on 29.10.2014 for a ration card to the Tahsildar, Challapalli, does not arise. 33. Given the discrepancies pointed out supra, apart from not putting the contents to the accused in Section 313 Cr.P.C examiantion, and no evidence regarding the harassment meted out by the deceased in the hands of the accused, it is not safe to rely upon Ex.P2 to convict the accused based on Ex.P2. The prosecution also failed to prove the alleged harassment and the genuineness of the Ex.P2 beyond reasonable doubt. 34. A three-Judge bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Darshan Singh Vs. State of Punjab , (2024) 3 SCC 164 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 17 in identical facts and circumstances, where the trial Court convicted the accused and the same was confirmed by the High Court, set aside the concurrent findings of fact and allowed the appeal. 35. 34. A three-Judge bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Darshan Singh Vs. State of Punjab , (2024) 3 SCC 164 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 17 in identical facts and circumstances, where the trial Court convicted the accused and the same was confirmed by the High Court, set aside the concurrent findings of fact and allowed the appeal. 35. It is a settled proposition of law in criminal jurisprudence that when two views are possible, one leaning towards the acquittal and the other towards conviction, the benefit should be given to the accused. In Devi Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan , (2019) 19 SCC 447 , the Hon'ble Apex Court expressed the same. 36. Apart from the discussion supra, when the case of prosecution rests upon circumstantial evidence, in such an instance, motive plays an important role. In the case at hand, the prosecution failed to prove the motive of the accused in eliminating the deceased beyond a reasonable doubt. 37. In State of U.P. Vs. Kishanpal , (2008) 16 SCC 73 , the Hon'ble Apex Court examined the importance of motive in cases of circumstantial evidence, observed thus: “39. The motive may be considered as a circumstance which is relevant for assessing the evidence but if the evidence is clear and unambiguous and the circumstances prove the guilt of the accused, the same is not weakened even if the motive is not a very strong one. It is also settled law that the motive loses all its importance in a case where direct evidence of eyewitnesses is available, because even if there may be a very strong motive for the accused persons to commit a particular crime, they cannot be convicted if the evidence of eyewitnesses is not convincing. In the same way, even if there may not be an apparent motive but if the evidence of the eyewitnesses is clear and reliable, the absence or inadequacy of motive cannot stand in the way of conviction.” 38. In Pannayar Vs. State of T.N. , (2008) 16 SCC 73 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the absence of motive in a case depending on circumstantial evidence is a factor that weighs in favour of the accused. 39. In Chintappa Patil Vs. In Pannayar Vs. State of T.N. , (2008) 16 SCC 73 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the absence of motive in a case depending on circumstantial evidence is a factor that weighs in favour of the accused. 39. In Chintappa Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra , (2021) 5 SCC 626 , the Hon'ble Apex Court at Para-27 observed as follows: “Though in a case of direct evidence, motive would not be relevant, in a case of circumstantial evidence, motive plays an important link in completing the chain of circumstances. 40. In the case at hand, no evidence was let in to prove the motive of the accused. The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.5, as discussed supra, does not inspire the confidence of the Court to attribute motive against the accused. In our considered opinion that the learned trial court failed to apply the correct legal position to the facts of the case and thus convicted the accused, and the same cannot be allowed to continue. 41. Thus, in view of the discussion supra, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellant for the offences under Sections 302, 201 and 498A IPC beyond a reasonable doubt. Hence, the conviction and sentence imposed in S.C.No.68 of 2016 dated 04.04.2018 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, needs to be set aside. 42. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is hereby allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant by the learned Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, in S.C.No.68 of 2016 dated 04.04.2018 are hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all the charges. Fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant/Accused shall be refunded to him. 43. As the appellant/accused herein was already enlarged on bail by order dated 18.04.2023 vide I.A.No.1 of 2023, he is directed to appear before the Superintendent, Central Prison, Visakhapatnam, for completing the legal formalities in terms of the judgment rendered by the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Batchu Ranga Rao & others Vs. State of A.P . , 2016(3) ALT (Crl.) 505 (DB) (AP) Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.