JUDGMENT : (K. Surender, J.) 1. The Appeal is filed by the appellant/accused, aggrieved by the judgment dated 26.10.2018 in S.C.No.76 of 2016, on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge at Adilabad. The appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for murdering his wife, Rathod Shoba Bai. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State. 3. On 04.06.2015, around 3:30 p.m., P.W.1, who is the son of the deceased’s sister, went to the Police Station and lodged a complaint alleging that he came to know that the appellant quarreled with the deceased, suspecting her fidelity and hit her on the head with an axe. He immediately rushed to the deceased’s house and found her in an unconscious state in a pool of blood. She was immediately shifted to the hospital. At the time of shifting the deceased to the hospital, his mother/P.W.5, cousin brother/P.W.2, and P.W.6 were present. 4. On the basis of information given by P.W.1, the crime was registered by P.W.17 and the FIR was dispatched to the concerned Magistrate. Thereafter, he went to the scene of offence. There, he found a pool of blood, a blood stained shirt, and a towel. The scene of the offence is the house of the deceased. The incriminating materials were seized from the scene. The deceased died while undergoing treatment on the next day. The investigation was then handed over to P.W.20. P.W.20 went to the hospital and conducted the inquest of the dead body, and the dead body was then sent for postmortem examination. 5. Postmortem examination was conducted by P.W.19, who found the following injuries: 1. Three laceration measuring 6 x 0.5cm x cavity deep, 4 x 0.5 cm x cavity deep, 2 x0.5 cm x cavity deep present over mid parietal region. Fracture of skull over mid parietal region along line of the injuries above mentioned. Brain tissue is protruded one. Diffuse sub dural and sub arachnoid haemorrhage present all over the brain. About 500 gms of blood marks present at the base of the brain. 2. Fracture of radius and ulna present. 3. Right eye is blackened. 4. Left eye is blackened. 6. According to P.W.19, the death was due to a head injury, which would have been caused by axe/M.O.5. 7. About 500 gms of blood marks present at the base of the brain. 2. Fracture of radius and ulna present. 3. Right eye is blackened. 4. Left eye is blackened. 6. According to P.W.19, the death was due to a head injury, which would have been caused by axe/M.O.5. 7. The appellant was apprehended on the same day, i.e., 04.06.2015. The appellant was interrogated, and pursuant to his confession, M.O.5 was seized. The seizure was made from the bushes beside the Government college, which is located at a distance from the residence. 8. On the basis of the confession and seizure affected at the instance of the appellant, including blood stained wearing apparel of the deceased, the charge sheet was laid. 9. Learned Sessions Judge, on the basis of circumstantial evidence, found the appellant guilty. 10. Learned Legal Aid counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that there is no direct evidence, and the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution to make out a case against the appellant are doubtful. Apart from the alleged suspicion entertained by the witnesses, there is no other evidence to connect the appellant with the death of the deceased. No one has seen the appellant near the house when the incident took place. Even according to the prosecution witnesses, the appellant and the deceased quarreled long ago and were living separately. Though P.W.2 stated that the appellant stayed with the deceased, however, in the absence of any witnesses who can confirm the appellant’s presence in the house on the date of the incident, the conviction is improper. 11. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gargi v. State of Haryana , [ 2019 9 SCC 738 ] , wherein the Court discussed circumstantial evidence, the ‘last seen’ theory, and the absence of direct evidence to establish motive. In Subramaniam v. State of Tamilnadu , [ 2009 14 SCC 415 ] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in the absence of evidence indicating violence, and where the circumstances do not lead to a definite conclusion of guilt, benefit of doubt has to be extended. In Shivaji Chintappa Patil v. State of Maharashtra , [ 2021 5 SCC 626 ] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court dealt with the principles of circumstantial evidence, the application of Section 106 of Evidence Act, and the relevance of motive. In Shivaji Chintappa Patil v. State of Maharashtra , [ 2021 5 SCC 626 ] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court dealt with the principles of circumstantial evidence, the application of Section 106 of Evidence Act, and the relevance of motive. Accordingly, the conviction under Section 302 of IPC against the husband for the murder of his wife was set aside. 12. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that there is no reason why the close relatives would speak against the appellant unless it was the appellant who inflicted injuries on the deceased and caused her. Admittedly, there were differences between the deceased and the appellant. When the appellant was staying with the deceased, it is for the appellant to explain under what circumstances, the death occurred. 13. P.W.1 is the son of the sister of the deceased, P.W.2 is the son of the deceased, P.W.3 is the cousin brother of the deceased, P.W.4 is the daughter of the deceased, and P.Ws.5 and 6 are the independent witnesses. All of them stated that they suspected that the appellant had beaten the deceased to death with an axe. The reason to kill her is that the appellant suspected the deceased of having an illegal intimacy with someone else. P.Ws.8 to 10 are circumstantial witnesses, who stated that the appellant and the deceased had been living separately for nearly 10 years, and that the appellant joined the deceased and they were living together 2 to 3 months prior to the incident,. All of the witnesses stated that the appellant was suspecting the character of the deceased and belived she was having intimacy with someone else. 14. P.W.18 is the witness, who was examined by the prosecution to speak about the extra-judicial confession made to him by the appellant. According to P.W.18, while he was at the bus stand, the appellant met him and informed him that he murdered the deceased. Immediately, P.W.18 informed P.W.8, who is one of the neighbours. P.W.8 turned hostile to the prosecution case. He did not speak anything about P.W.18 informing him about the murder of the deceased. According to P.W.18, he went along with P.W.6 to the place where the incident happened. According to P.W.18, he found the body lying in a pool of blood, and immediately, she was shifted to the hospital. P.W.18 further stated that the deceased died while undergoing treatment. 15. According to P.W.18, he went along with P.W.6 to the place where the incident happened. According to P.W.18, he found the body lying in a pool of blood, and immediately, she was shifted to the hospital. P.W.18 further stated that the deceased died while undergoing treatment. 15. The extra-judicial confession made to P.W.18 is one of the circumstance relied upon by the prosecution. Though P.W.18 stated that after the appellant confessed to him about committing the murder of the deceased, he called P.W.8 and went to the scene where the body was lying in a pool of blood, the name of P.W.18 does not find a place in the complaint lodged by P.W.1. P.W.1 did not state that he, along with P.Ws.2, 6, and 7, shifted the body of the deceased to the hospital. The name of P.W.8 is not mentioned either in the complaint lodged by P.W.1 or in the statements of P.Ws.1 to 4. The version given by P.W.18 becomes doubtful for the said reasons. 16. Though the witnesses spoke about their suspicion that the appellant had killed the deceased, however, such suspicion is not corroborated by any substantive evidence. There are no witnesses who saw the appellant in the house or at the time when the incident happened. All the witnesses, P.Ws.1 to 4, P.Ws.7 to 10, who are circumstantial witnesses, stated that the appellant had been staying along with the deceased for two months prior to the incident. However, none of them witnessed the incident. All of them merely suspected that it was the appellant who killed the deceased. 17. The corroborative evidence relied upon by the prosecution was P.W.18, to whom the extra-judicial confession was made. As already discussed, the evidence of P.W.18 cannot be relied upon. The other evidence is the recovery of M.O.5 at the instance of the appellant. M.Os.6 and 7 are the wearing apparel of the appellant. Though M.Os.5 to 7 were sent to FSL, however, the blood found on them was not linked to the deceased. 18. The case is one of circumstantial evidence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra , [ (1984) 4 SCC 116 ] , laid down the principles regarding the acceptance and the basis for recording a conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence, which read as under:- “1. 18. The case is one of circumstantial evidence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra , [ (1984) 4 SCC 116 ] , laid down the principles regarding the acceptance and the basis for recording a conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence, which read as under:- “1. the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned ‘must’ or ‘should’ and not ‘may be’ established; 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 explained 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.” 19. Each and every circumstance relied upon by the prosecution has to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. As already discussed, (i) there is no evidence of the appellant being last seen in or near the house when the incident took place; (ii) the alleged confession made to P.W.18 is not believable, (iii) the recovery of axe/M.O.5, which was found in the open place, cannot be relied upon. There are missing links in the chain of circumstances of the prosecution. On the basis of such evidence, the conviction cannot sustain. 20. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. Since the appellant is in jail, he shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.