JUDGMENT : Raja Vijayaraghavan, J. This appeal is preferred by the 1st accused in S.C.No. 1005 of 2015 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge -VI, Kollam. By judgment dated 11.02.2019, the appellant was found guilty and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,00,000/- with a default clause for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC . 2. Haseena, the deceased, is the daughter of Hassan Kunju (A3) and Maimoonath (PW2). Though she was married twice, the marriages ended in separation, due to the psychiatric issues that plagued her. Although her parents took her to various treatment facilities, her ailments remained incurable. The prosecution case is that the 3rd accused was deeply troubled, as he was unable to arrange the marriage of his younger daughter due to Haseena’s mental condition. The 1st accused is alleged to be an exorcist and black magician. The 2nd accused informed the 3rd accused that his own daughter had suffered from similar issues and was cured by the 1st accused. At the request of the 3rd accused, the 1st accused, along with his associates being accused Nos. 4 to 6, began visiting the house of the deceased frequently from 25 t h January, 2014, onwards to perform exorcisms to "drive out evil spirits." It is alleged that, on 12 t h July, 2014, at midnight, accused Nos. 1 to 3, in furtherance of their common intention, conspired to murder Haseena and gathered in the eastern bedroom of the house of 3rd accused. The 1st accused is alleged to have forced Haseena to lie face down on the floor before sitting on her back. Meanwhile, accused Nos. 2 and 3 held her legs firmly to restrain her movements. The prosecution further alleges that the 1st accused then forcibly pulled Haseena upwards, causing a fracture in her vertebral column between the 12th thoracic and 1st lumbar vertebrae. The doctor who conducted the autopsy found numerous other injuries, fresh as well as old, on her body. The prosecution further alleges that, in an attempt to shield the offenders and destroy evidence, the accused transported Haseena’s body to Valiyath Hospital in Karunagappally and misrepresented the cause of death by informing doctors that she had died a natural death. Immediately thereafter, all the accused attempted to bury her corpse with a view to cause disappearance of evidence. The prosecution further alleges that, in an attempt to shield the offenders and destroy evidence, the accused transported Haseena’s body to Valiyath Hospital in Karunagappally and misrepresented the cause of death by informing doctors that she had died a natural death. Immediately thereafter, all the accused attempted to bury her corpse with a view to cause disappearance of evidence. Thereafter, the 5th accused took A1 in a car owned by the 3rd accused to avoid his arrest and accused Nos. 2 and 4 harboured the 1st accused in their house. Thereafter, the 6th accused took the 1st accused in the car bearing registration No. KL.23/C-9197 and harboured him in the house of CW16. It is also alleged that, by these actions, the accused committed offences punishable under Section 302 r/w. Section 120B, Section 201, and Section 212 r/w. Section 34 of the IPC . 3. At 11.15 hours, on 13.07.2014, Wahab (PW1), the uncle of Haseena, went to the Karunagappally Police Station and logged Ext.P1 FI Statement, based on which Ext.P14 FIR was registered as Crime No. 2417/2014 under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C. Since the local people entertained suspicion with regard to the cause of death, a further probe was initiated by PW18, the ASI of Police, Karunagappally Police Station. He went to the Taluk Hospital, Karunagappally and prepared Ext.P4 inquest. He also initiated steps to forward the body to the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram to conduct the autopsy. Ext.P15 report was then sent to court adding Sections 302 , 201, r/w. Section 34 of the IPC . 4. The investigation was then taken over by PW19, the Inspector of Police, Karunagappally Police Station on 14.07.2014. He stated that the accused Nos. 2 and 3 were arrested on 16.07.2014 as per Exts.P16 and P17 arrest memos. The 1st accused was arrested on 21.07.2014 as per Ext.P19 arrest memo. Immediately thereafter, Ext.P20 report was submitted mentioning the correct name and address of the 1st accused. The 5th accused was arrested on 22.07.2014 as per Ext.P21 arrest memo. After arresting accused Nos. 5 and 6, Ext.P24 report was forwarded detailing the correct name and address. Ext.P25 report was forwarded to the court incorporating Section 212 of the IPC . A report was submitted detailing the address of the 6th accused. The Maruti car allegedly used by the 1st accused for fleeing was seized. After arresting accused Nos. 5 and 6, Ext.P24 report was forwarded detailing the correct name and address. Ext.P25 report was forwarded to the court incorporating Section 212 of the IPC . A report was submitted detailing the address of the 6th accused. The Maruti car allegedly used by the 1st accused for fleeing was seized. Ext.P28 FSL report obtained after examining the nail clippings of Haseena was forwarded to the court. Later, Exts.P29 and 30 analysis reports were obtained after analysis of the vaginal swabs and smears of the deceased. On the basis of the disclosure statement made by the 6th accused, various items used by the 1st accused for carrying out the exorcism were seized from the house of the 4th accused as per Ext.P10 mahazar. Various records, mobile phones, diaries etc. were found in a suitcase allegedly belonging to the 1st accused. These items were forwarded to the court and after completing the investigation, the final report was laid before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Karunagappally. 5. Committal proceedings were initiated in accordance with the law, and the case was finally transferred to the Additional District and Sessions Judge-VI, Kollam, for trial and disposal. When the charge was read over in accordance with the law, the accused pleaded not guilty and prayed that they be tried in accordance with the law. 6. As many as 19 witnesses were examined by the prosecution as PWs 1 to 19 and through them, Exts.P1 to P35 were exhibited and marked. MOs 1 to 40 were produced and identified. After the close of prosecution evidence, the incriminating materials arising from the prosecution evidence were put to the accused under Section 313(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances and maintained that they were innocent. On the side of the defence, Exts.D1 to D3(c) Case Diary contradictions were marked. 7. The learned Sessions Judge, after evaluating the evidence, came to the conclusion that there was no credible evidence to connect the accused Nos. 2 to 6 with the crime. It was however held that the prosecution had established the presence of the 1st accused with the deceased immediately before her death. The Last Seen Theory was held to be applicable and accordingly, it was held that it could be inferred that the 1st accused had inflicted the fatal injury to Haseena. 2 to 6 with the crime. It was however held that the prosecution had established the presence of the 1st accused with the deceased immediately before her death. The Last Seen Theory was held to be applicable and accordingly, it was held that it could be inferred that the 1st accused had inflicted the fatal injury to Haseena. Holding so, he was found guilty and was convicted under Section 302 of the IPC . 8. Sri. A. Mohammed, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, advanced the following submissions to unsettle the findings of the learned Sessions Judge. A. The appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence by the learned Sessions Judge is perverse and arrival at the finding of guilt by the Trial Court is not on the basis of reliable and convincing evidence. B. The case rested purely on circumstantial evidence. He would urge that where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person. The prosecution has failed to establish any link, let alone any convincing link, to connect the appellant with the death of Haseena inside the precincts of her own house. C. As per the charge, the 3rd accused, the father of the deceased, was the principal conspirator. The specific case was that it was at his instance that the rest of the accused had got together to murder Haseena as he was finding it difficult to marry off his younger daughter. The projected case of the prosecution was that the head of the deceased was found on the lap of the 3rd accused when PW2, the mother entered the room. However, they turned around and did not support the prosecution on this vital part. The evidence tendered by PWs 2 to 4 cannot be taken to be credible as they have substantially resiled from their earlier statement to save the rest of the accused. D. By acquitting the principal conspirators on the grounds of lack of evidence and by convicting the appellant on the theory of Last Seen, serious error has been committed. F. As per the earliest records, the appellant was never in the picture. His name was included only at a later stage. D. By acquitting the principal conspirators on the grounds of lack of evidence and by convicting the appellant on the theory of Last Seen, serious error has been committed. F. As per the earliest records, the appellant was never in the picture. His name was included only at a later stage. G. The Sessions Judge has erred in concluding that the appellant was last seen with the deceased and wrongly inferred the Last Seen Theory to establish guilt. 9. Sri. T.R.Ranjith, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the evidence clearly established that the death of Haseena was a case of homicide. The evidence let in by PWs 2 to 4 showed that the appellant was alone with the deceased inside the room. PWs 9 and 10 spoke about the presence of the appellant among those persons who had brought the deceased to the hospital. By the nature of the injuries found on the body of the deceased, it was apparent that the appellant had intended to cause such injuries which were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 10. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced and have perused the entire records. 11. Before dealing with the contentions, we shall advert to the evidence adduced before the Court. 12. There is no serious dispute regarding the fact that the death of Haseena was homicidal. The evidence of PW1, the uncle of the deceased, and PWs 2 to 4, the mother and sisters, reveals that Haseena was found unconscious and was shifted to the hospital, where she was pronounced dead. PW9 (Nurse) and PW10 (Attender) of Valliyath Hospital, Karunagappally, deposed before the Court that accused Nos. 1 and 3 had brought Haseena’s dead body to the hospital. PW16 (Dr. Valsala) conducted the postmortem examination and issued Ext. P12 postmortem certificate. She opined that the cause of death was the injury sustained to the abdomen and thoraco-lumbar spine. She further stated that Injury No. 13 was sufficient, in the ordinary course of nature, to cause death. Additionally, she has noted multiple antemortem injuries, including abrasions on the face and neck, contusions, and a severe injury capable of causing neurogenic shock. Dr. She opined that the cause of death was the injury sustained to the abdomen and thoraco-lumbar spine. She further stated that Injury No. 13 was sufficient, in the ordinary course of nature, to cause death. Additionally, she has noted multiple antemortem injuries, including abrasions on the face and neck, contusions, and a severe injury capable of causing neurogenic shock. Dr. Valsala specifically stated that if the victim was lying prone on the floor, and the assailant exerted his full body weight on her buttocks using his knees while forcefully pulling her head backwards by her hair with both hands, Injury No. 13 and other consequential injuries would be caused. In view of the above evidence, it can conclusively be held that the death of Haseena was homicidal. 13. Now we shall deal with the evidence relied on by the learned Sessions Judge to enter a finding of guilt against the appellant. 14. PW1 is the uncle of the deceased. He stated that hearing about what had transpired to Haseena, he went to the Valiyath Hospital and reached there at 9 a.m. None of her relatives were present there. He then went to Haseena’s house. According to him, Haseena was having psychiatric issues and her first marriage ended in a divorce. Thereafter, her marriage was solemnized with her aunt’s son. He stated that he had given Ext.P1 a statement before the police. Since he did not support the case of the prosecution entirely, as requested by the Public Prosecutor, permission was granted to proceed by invoking Section 154 of the Evidence Act. He stated that he was informed that Haseena fell sick and breathless and was shifted to the hospital. 15. PW2, Maimoonath, the mother of the deceased, stated that her husband was employed in the Gulf and that she has four children. Her eldest daughter, Haseena, had been married twice, and at the time of her death, Haseena’s younger sister’s marriage had been fixed. Since the age of ten, she had been suffering from mental ailments and had undergone psychiatric treatment from various doctors at various places. PW2 stated that Haseena passed away in the early hours of 13.07.2014. On the previous day, at midnight, the appellant arrived at their residence to treat Haseena. He had visited them on previous occasions as well. On all previous occasions, the appellant never permitted family members to be present during the treatment. PW2 stated that Haseena passed away in the early hours of 13.07.2014. On the previous day, at midnight, the appellant arrived at their residence to treat Haseena. He had visited them on previous occasions as well. On all previous occasions, the appellant never permitted family members to be present during the treatment. He used to instil fear by claiming that a spirit might take possession of him and harm others. On 12.07.2014, after arriving at their residence, the appellant first performed the ‘Salath’ (an obligatory prayer performed five times a day by devout Muslims) and then recited the ‘Dua’ (a supplicatory prayer seeking guidance, help, or forgiveness from Allah). At that time, the 3rd accused and her children, Rahmath and Noora, were present along with the deceased. Haseena was made to sit in the hall. The Dua prayer lasted approximately 1½ hours. Thereafter, the appellant instructed all family members to leave the hall. While they were seated outside, they heard a repetitive "Gum, Gum, Gum" sound from inside the hall made by the appellant. Immediately afterwards, they heard Haseena cry out, "My Allah, My Allah!". The 3rd accused then forcefully pushed open the door and angrily confronted the appellant, questioning the way he treated his daughter. They found Haseena lying motionless in the hall. The 3rd accused, along with Noora (PW3) and the appellant, then rushed Haseena to the hospital. The doctors after examination pronounced her dead. PW2 stated that the appellant was introduced to her husband by the 2nd accused (Kabeer). She stated that the 2nd accused did not participate in the Dua along with the appellant. Since PW2 did not fully support the prosecution case, particularly regarding the involvement of the other accused, the learned Sessions Judge granted permission for the prosecution to invoke Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act. Ext.P2 was marked when she denied her former statement that accused Nos. 1 and 2 collected money after conducting the Dua prayer. She further denied that accused Nos. 4 to 6 assisted the appellant, leading to the marking of Ext. P2(a), subject to proof. She was confronted with her previous police statement that A2 brought A1 to their home in a car at midnight on 12.07.2014, which she denied, leading to Ext. P2(b) being marked. She further denied that accused Nos. 4 to 6 assisted the appellant, leading to the marking of Ext. P2(a), subject to proof. She was confronted with her previous police statement that A2 brought A1 to their home in a car at midnight on 12.07.2014, which she denied, leading to Ext. P2(b) being marked. She also denied having told the police that, on hearing her daughter’s cry "Allah, Allah," they entered the hall and found Haseena lying on the lap of her husband. When the Public Prosecutor suggested that she was retracting her earlier statement to clear her husband and family members from any wrongdoing, she denied the suggestion. During cross-examination, she admitted that Haseena had been taken to various places within and outside the State for treatment. She further admitted that her husband was arrested on the third day following their daughter's death. PW2 was confronted with her earlier statement that Haseena was found lying on her husband’s lap when she entered the hall. However, she denied it, leading to the said portion being marked as Ext.D1, subject to proof. She asserted that Noora, her daughter, and her husband had entered the hall together. 16. PW3 - Noora, the younger sister of the deceased stated that after the death of her grandmother in January 2014, the appellant visited their home to collect contributions for the Yatheem Khana. He assured her father that Haseena’s mental ailments could be cured completely. Treatment began 11 days after their grandmother’s death, while her father was present. The appellant used to commence treatment only after midnight and never allowed women to be present in the hall. He continued treating Haseena for six months. On 12.07.2014, at midnight, the appellant arrived at their residence. Rahmath (PW4), accused No. 3, Haseena and PW2 and herself were in the house. After Salath, which concluded at about 2:00 a.m., the appellant instructed everyone to leave the hall and sit outside. Only the 1st accused and Haseena remained inside. While so, they heard strange sounds uttered by the appellant, followed by the cries of Haseena. They entered the hall and found Haseena lying motionless on the floor. Her father scolded the appellant, and they immediately rushed Haseena to Valiyath Hospital. The Doctors pronounced Haseena dead on arrival. Only the 1st accused and Haseena remained inside. While so, they heard strange sounds uttered by the appellant, followed by the cries of Haseena. They entered the hall and found Haseena lying motionless on the floor. Her father scolded the appellant, and they immediately rushed Haseena to Valiyath Hospital. The Doctors pronounced Haseena dead on arrival. Since PW3 did not support the prosecution version in its entirety, the Sessions Judge permitted the prosecution to invoke Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act. Ext.P3 was marked subject to proof when she denied having stated that the 2nd accused also accompanied the appellant for treatment. PW3 denied her former statement to the police that the appellant massaged the body of the deceased, and that portion was marked as Ext. P3(a) subject to proof. She also denied that she and her sister slept in the north-western room while her mother slept in the kitchen, leading to Ext.P3(b) being marked. She denied having stated to the police that, upon hearing Haseena’s cries, they entered the hall and saw her lying on their father’s lap, which portion was marked as Ext.P3(c). She also denied her earlier statement that she and others bathed Haseena’s body after bringing her home, which portion was marked as Ext.P3(d). When the Public Prosecutor suggested that she was retracting her statement to assist the accused, she denied the suggestion. During cross-examination, the witness denied that she had noticed injuries on the body of the deceased while bathing her and this portion was marked as Ext.D2. 17. PW4, Rahmath, stated that on 12.07.2014, at midnight, the appellant arrived at their house alone. At that time, PWs 2, 3, A3, Haseena and herself were present. She stated that all of them participated in the Swalath prayer conducted by the appellant. After the prayer, they were asked to leave the hall and sit outside in the sit-out. They closed the door and waited outside. At about 2:00 a.m., they heard the appellant making a strange sound and this was followed by Haseena crying out. She along with her sister, mother, and father, rushed into the hall. There, they found Haseena lying motionless on the floor, with the appellant standing next to her. The 3rd accused attempted to wake Haseena and finding her unresponsive, he angrily questioned the appellant. Haseena was then immediately taken to the hospital, where Doctors pronounced her dead. She along with her sister, mother, and father, rushed into the hall. There, they found Haseena lying motionless on the floor, with the appellant standing next to her. The 3rd accused attempted to wake Haseena and finding her unresponsive, he angrily questioned the appellant. Haseena was then immediately taken to the hospital, where Doctors pronounced her dead. PW4 stated that she had no prior acquaintance with the appellant. During cross-examination, Ext.D3(c) was marked when she denied stating to the police that she had seen accused Nos. 1 to 3 lifting Haseena’s body and taking it to the hospital. 18. PW5 is an attestor to Ext.P4 inquest and PW6 is an attestor to Ext.P5 scene mahazar. PWs 7 and 8 are neighbours, however, they did not support the case of the prosecution. PW9 was the staff nurse of the Valiyath Hospital. According to her, Haseena was brought to the casualty of the hospital at 4 a.m. on 13.07.2014. The Doctor, after examination, pronounced her dead on arrival. She added that the appellant as well as A3 were the persons who had brought Haseena to the hospital. PW10 is an attender at Valiyath Hospital. He spoke exactly in tune with what was spoken to by PW9. He also identified the appellant and the 3rd accused as the persons who had brought Haseena to the hospital. PW11 is a near relative of the 3rd accused. He did not support the case of the prosecution and hence was declared hostile. PW17 prepared Ext.P13 site plan. 19. There is no direct evidence to prove the incident. The entire prosecution case rested on circumstantial evidence. As against the appellant, the prosecution placed the following circumstances before the learned Sessions Judge to prove his involvement in the commission of the offence. Though all but one was held to be inconclusive by the learned Sessions Judge, for the sake of completeness we shall detail the circumstances here. a) The appellant is a person who practices exorcism to drive away evil spirits. He was engaged by the 3rd accused to cure Haseena's mental ailment, and he used to come to the house of the deceased very often b) The 3rd accused had a motive to put an end to the life of Haseena as her mental ailment was an obstacle that he faced to marry off his younger daughter. He was engaged by the 3rd accused to cure Haseena's mental ailment, and he used to come to the house of the deceased very often b) The 3rd accused had a motive to put an end to the life of Haseena as her mental ailment was an obstacle that he faced to marry off his younger daughter. c) On 12.07.2014 at midnight, the appellant was present in the house of the 3rd accused and he aided by accused Nos. 2 and 3 sat on the body of the deceased pulled her head up and murdered her. d) On 13.07.2014, at 4. a.m., the appellant along with accused Nos. 2 and 3 took the injured Haseena to the Valiyath Hospital, Karunagappally. His presence was noted by PW9 staff nurse and PW10 attender. e) The recovery of material objects belonging to the 1st accused based on the disclosure statement given by the 4th accused. 20. The question before us, therefore, is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. In Kishore Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh , [ (1991) 1 SCC 286 )] , the Apex Court has laid down the principles that are to be borne in mind while dealing with a case resting exclusively on circumstantial evidence. It was observed in paragraphs 4 to 6 of the judgment as under: 4………………In a case of circumstantial evidence, all the circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt is to be drawn should be fully and cogently established. All the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. The proved circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and definite tendency, unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused. They should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. The circumstances must be satisfactorily established and the proved circumstances must bring home the offences to the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. It is not necessary that each circumstance by itself be conclusive but cumulatively must form unbroken chain of events leading to the proof of the guilt of the accused. If those circumstances or some of them can be explained by any of the reasonable hypothesis then the accused must have the benefit of that hypothesis. 5. In assessing the evidence imaginary possibilities have no role to play. If those circumstances or some of them can be explained by any of the reasonable hypothesis then the accused must have the benefit of that hypothesis. 5. In assessing the evidence imaginary possibilities have no role to play. What is to be considered are ordinary human probabilities. In other words when there is no direct witness to the commission of murder and the case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances relied on must be fully established. The chain of events furnished by the circumstances should be so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. If any of the circumstances proved in a case are consistent with the innocence of the accused or the chain of the continuity of the circumstances is broken, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt. 6. In assessing the evidence to find these principles, it is necessary to distinguish between facts which may be called primary or basic facts on one hand and inference of facts to be drawn from them, on the other. In regard to the proof of basic or primary facts, the court has to judge the evidence in the ordinary way and in appreciation of the evidence in proof of those basic facts or primary facts, there is no scope for the application of the doctrine of benefit of doubt. The court has to consider the evidence and decide whether the evidence proves a particular fact or not. Whether that fact leads to the inference of the guilt of the accused or not is another aspect and in dealing with this aspect of the problem, the doctrine of benefit would apply and an inference of guilt can be drawn only if the proved facts are inconsistent with the innocence of the accused and are consistent only with his guilt. There is a long distance between may be true and must be true. The prosecution has to travel all the way to establish fully all the chain of events which should be consistent only with hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and those circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude all hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved by the prosecution. The prosecution has to travel all the way to establish fully all the chain of events which should be consistent only with hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and those circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude all hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved by the prosecution. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far consistent and complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that in all probability the act must have been done by the accused and the accused alone. 21. We shall now deal with the individual circumstances. In order to prove that the appellant is a person engaged in exorcism and other nefarious activities, the prosecution banks on the evidence of PWs 2 to 4. The prosecution also relies on the various items found in the suitcase and gunny bag seized based on the disclosure statement given by the 4th accused. No other evidence is let in by the prosecution to prove the above fact. It needs to be borne in mind at this juncture that in the statement filed by the 1st accused under Section 313(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C., he stated that he is not an exorcist and all that he does is conduct Swalath prayers. He stated that as requested by the parents of Haseena, he had gone to the house on various days and conducted prayers and Dua. However, he stated in emphatic terms that he did not go to the residence either on 12.07.2014 or on 13.07.2014. 22. Thus the question boils down to whether the evidence of PWs 2 to 4 can be relied upon to conclude that the appellant had committed the murder of Haseena. To recapitulate the specific case of the prosecution, due to the prolonged mental illness of Haseena, the marriage of PW3 could not be solemnized. The 3rd accused entered into a conspiracy with the appellant and the 2nd accused and thereafter they entered the hall room of the house in the pretext of treating Haseena and committed murder. The charge specifically is that the accused Nos. 2 and 3 held her legs and the appellant sat on her back while the deceased was lying face down and pulled her head up. The charge specifically is that the accused Nos. 2 and 3 held her legs and the appellant sat on her back while the deceased was lying face down and pulled her head up. In their evidence, PWs 2, 3 and 4 did not support the prosecution version in its entirety. They resiled from their earlier version and stated that the appellant was alone in the hall room with Haseena and all the others were outside. As a matter of fact, the earlier version of PWs 2, 3 and 4 was that on hearing the cries of the deceased, they entered the hall room and found Haseena lying on the lap of the 3rd accused. This, we feel is a crucial deviation from their earlier statements. Ext.D1, Ext.P3(c), and Ext.D3(c) were marked in the evidence of PWs 2, 3 and 4 to prove that they have substantially varied their version before the court. Clearly, if their earlier version is accepted, the 3rd accused had an equally important role to play and he was in the room along with accused Nos. 1 and 2. The learned Sessions Judge has ignored this aspect and relying on the substantive evidence relied on by the court came to the conclusion that the appellant was the last person to be seen alone with Haseena when she was alive and the court concluded that the Last Seen Theory could be applied and it can be inferred that it was the appellant who had caused the fatal injury to Haseena. 23. It is true that in a criminal prosecution when a witness is cross-examined and contradicted with the leave of the court, by the party calling him, his evidence cannot, as a matter of law, be treated as washed off the record altogether. It is for the Judge of fact to consider in each case whether as a result of such cross-examination and contradiction, the witness stands thoroughly discredited or can still be believed in regard to a part of his testimony. If the Judge finds that in the process, the credit of the witness has not been completely shaken, he may, after reading and considering the evidence of the witness, as a whole, with due caution and care, accept, in the light of the other evidence on the record, that part of his testimony which he finds to be creditworthy and act upon it. If in a given case, the whole of the testimony of the witness is impugned, and in the process, the witness stands squarely and totally discredited, the Judge should, as a matter of prudence, discard his evidence in toto (See Sat Paul v. Delhi Administration , AIR 1976 SC 294 ). 24. In the case on hand, PWs 2 to 4, are the wife and two daughters of the 3rd accused. Before the Court, they presented an entirely different version, exonerating accused Nos. 2 and 3 and singularly attributing the authorship of the murder to the appellant, asserting that he alone was inside the hall room at the relevant time. However, the numerous omissions and contradictions elicited during the proceedings are not mere discrepancies but go to the very root of the prosecution case, rendering their version highly doubtful. By no stretch of imagination, can their belated assertion that the appellant was the sole person present in the hall room with the deceased be accepted as credible or conclusive. Under the facts and circumstances, no such finding could be arrived ignoring the vital omissions and contradictions brought out by the defence. 25. The next circumstance relied on by the learned Sessions Judge is the evidence of PWs 9 and 10 wherein, they stated that he had accompanied the 3rd accused to the hospital while the dead body of Haseena was brought. The mere fact that the appellant had accompanied the 3rd accused cannot be taken as a circumstance to be used against him. Insofar as the motive, as well as conspiracy to commit the murder, is concerned, the learned Sessions Judge had conclusively held that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the said fact. The court also held that the prosecution had failed to prove the ownership of the items with the 1st accused. Ultimately, the only circumstance found by the learned Sessions Judge is that the appellant was the person, who was last seen with the deceased, we are of the view that this is not a fit case where the theory of Last Seen could be applied. Elaborating the principle of “last seen alive” in State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram , (2006) 12 SCC 254 , the Apex Court held as under: “23. It is not necessary to multiply with authorities. The principle is well settled. Elaborating the principle of “last seen alive” in State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram , (2006) 12 SCC 254 , the Apex Court held as under: “23. It is not necessary to multiply with authorities. The principle is well settled. The provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act itself are unambiguous and categorical in laying down that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of a person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Thus, if a person is last seen with the deceased, he must offer an explanation as to how and when he parted company. He must furnish an explanation which appears to the court to be probable and satisfactory. If he does so he must be held to have discharged his burden. If he fails to offer an explanation on the basis of facts within his special knowledge, he fails to discharge the burden cast upon him by Section 106 of the Evidence Act. In a case resting on circumstantial evidence if the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of the burden placed on him, that itself provides an additional link in the chain of circumstances proved against him. Section 106 does not shift the burden of proof in a criminal trial, which is always upon the prosecution. It lays down the rule that when the accused does not throw any light upon facts which are specially within his knowledge and which could not support any theory or hypothesis compatible with his innocence, the court can consider his failure to adduce any explanation, as an additional link which completes the chain. The principle has been succinctly stated in Naina Mohamed, In re. 1959 SCC OnLine Mad 173, AIR 1960 Mad 218 ” The above judgment was relied upon and reiterated in Kiriti Pal v. State Of West Bengal , (2015) 11 SCC 178 . 26. In the case on hand, it cannot be held with any degree of certainty that the appellant was the only person seen in the company of the deceased when she was last seen. If the case of the prosecution is accepted, by ignoring the version of the hostile witnesses, accused Nos. 1 to 3 were inside the room while PWs 2, 3 and 4 were outside. In that view of the matter, the principles of Last Seen cannot be applied in the instant case. 27. If the case of the prosecution is accepted, by ignoring the version of the hostile witnesses, accused Nos. 1 to 3 were inside the room while PWs 2, 3 and 4 were outside. In that view of the matter, the principles of Last Seen cannot be applied in the instant case. 27. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the court has to be on its guard to avoid the danger of allowing suspicion to take the place of legal proof and has to be watchful to avoid the danger of being swayed by emotional considerations, however strong they may be, to take the place of proof (See Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab , [ 1996 SCC (Cri) 59] ). In State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava , [ (1992) 2 SCC 86 ] , it was observed that the circumstances relied upon must be established and the cumulative effect of the established facts must lead to a singular hypothesis that the accused is guilty. In Ram Singh v. Sonia , [ AIR 2007 SC 1218 ] , it was held that the court must satisfy itself that various circumstances in the chain of events have been established clearly and such completed chain of events must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused. It has also been indicated that when the important link goes, the chain of circumstances gets snapped and the other circumstances cannot in any manner, establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra , [ (1984) 4 SCC 116 ] , the Apex Court held that the graver the crime, the greater 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 the doubt. 28. After evaluating the entire facts in the light of the evidence adduced, we hold that neither the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is sought to be drawn have been fully established nor the same are consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the appellant. 28. After evaluating the entire facts in the light of the evidence adduced, we hold that neither the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is sought to be drawn have been fully established nor the same are consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the appellant. In our considered opinion, the circumstances are neither conclusive in nature nor exclude every possible hypothesis except the one of the guilt of the appellant. The chain of circumstances in this case is not complete so as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the appellant. In view of the foregoing discussion, this appeal is allowed. The finding of guilt, conviction, and sentence passed against the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code in S.C. No.1005 of 2015 on the file of the Additional District & Sessions Judge-VI, Kollam, is set aside, and he is acquitted of all charges. The appellant shall remain at liberty if his incarceration is not required in connection with any other case.