JUDGMENT : (Arun Dev Choudhury, J.) 1. Heard Mr. D. Panging, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. T Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Arunachal Pradesh. 2. The challenge: The present criminal appeal is filed against the Judgment dated 07.02.2023 and order of sentence dated 08.02.2023, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bomdila, West Kameng District in Session Case No. 03/2022, wherein and whereby, the appellant was convicted under Section 302/201 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 20,000/- for committing offence under Section 302 IPC and rigorous imprisonment of 5 (five) years for committing offence under Section 201 IPC and fine of Rs. 5,000/-and in default to undergo simple imprisonment of five months. 3. The background: I. The prosecution was launched on the basis of an FIR lodged by Officer in Charge of Bhalukpong Police Station, District- West Kameg, Arunachal Pradesh to the effect that on 18.10.2021, at 04:00PM, he has received a telephonic information regarding recovery of a female dead body lyingin the backside of Bhalukpong General Ground Pavilion in a semi naked condition with bushes lying on her back, however, no document inside her bag as regards her identity was found. Accordingly, Bhalukpong Police Station Case No. BPG/PS-C No. 13/2021 under Section 302 IPC was registered. II. During the course of the investigation, the accused was arrested on suspicion and having telephonic conversation with the victim the previous night i.e. on 17.10.2021. Inquest and post-mortem upon the dead body were conducted. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer (IO), had submitted a charge sheet against the appellant under Section 302/201 of IPC. III. Since the case was Sessions triable,it was committed to the learned Sessions Judge, Bomdila, West Kameng District. Charges were framed against the appellant under Section 302/201 of IPC by the learned trial Court, and the same was read over and explained to the accused person. Since the accused denied the charges brought against him and claimed to be tried, the matter went up for trial. IV. As there is no eyewitness to the offence, the prosecution’s case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence. Since the accused denied the charges brought against him and claimed to be tried, the matter went up for trial. IV. As there is no eyewitness to the offence, the prosecution’s case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution had examined as many as 29 (twenty- nine) witnesses, including the I.O., who conducted the investigation as PW-27, the Doctor who conducted the Post-Mortem upon the dead body as PW-19. The Court also examined PW-4 Santosh Chetry as CW-1. V. After recording the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the statement of the accused person was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. The accused denied all the incriminating materials put to him. The accused adduced his evidence as DW-1. VI. On conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court convicted the accused person/appellant for committing offences punishable under Sections 302/201 of the IPC and sentenced him, in the manner described hereinabove. 4. Argument on behalf of the appellant: I. Mr. D. Panging, learned counsel for the appellant argues that admittedly there is no direct evidence against the appellant and the whole case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence however, there is no iota of evidence to arrive at the conclusion of guilt, not to say that the evidences and the circumstances projected by the prosecution even do not raise any suspicion or hypothesis of guilt of the accused. According to Mr. Panging, in the case in hand, there is no circumstantial evidence not to suggest any chain of evidence to arrive at a conclusion of guilt of the appellant. In support of his argument, Mr. Panging, learned counsel places reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarad Bridhi Chand Sarda –Vs- State of Maharastra reported in 1984 4 SCC 116 II. According to Mr. Panging, learned counsel, the prosecution has failed to establish any unbroken chain of circumstances, rather, it is a case of no evidence. According to him, the conviction is based on speculative circumstances. In support, he places reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Navaneeta Krishanan –Vs- State reported 2018 16 SCC 161 . While concluding his argument, Mr. Panging, submits that the appellant is entitled for an honourable acquittal for want of evidence. 5. Argument on behalf of the State: I. Mr. In support, he places reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Navaneeta Krishanan –Vs- State reported 2018 16 SCC 161 . While concluding his argument, Mr. Panging, submits that the appellant is entitled for an honourable acquittal for want of evidence. 5. Argument on behalf of the State: I. Mr. T. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Arunachal Pradesh, submits that from the testimonies of witnesses, it has been established beyond any doubt that the accused appellant all along had a relation with the victim, he met the victim on the previous day and that the dead body was found near the camp of the accused/appellant, who at the relevant point of time was staying in the CRPF camp near the PO. According to him, it was also established that one money bag of a passenger who travelled with the accused from Delhi to Guwahati, was also found near the dead body and the aforesaid evidence clearly establishes the chain of circumstances, consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused appellant. The aforesaid circumstances are conclusive in nature. Therefore, the appellant was rightly convicted. II. Mr. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, further contends that the accused person/appellant had committed a gruesome crime and therefore, taking note of the evidence on record, the learned Court has rightly convicted the appellant, and such decision does not call for any interference from this Court. 6. Determination: We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have also analysed the evidence available on record. Let us record our determination in the following paragraphs: I. The shreds of evidence: Before recording our final conclusion, let this Court appreciate the evidence on record in the following manner: i. PW-1 (Miss Sonam Tamang), in her evidence stated that she worked in hotel Yangjong with her cousin sister PW-2 and she saw the dead body near the general ground. According to her on the night of her death, she came to the hotel and asked for cigarette at around 9:30 p.m. She further stated that she did not know anything about the case. During her cross-examination, she stated that the distance between hotel and general ground is around 15 to 20 meters. She further deposed that she did not hear any shouting on the night of incident from side of general ground. During her cross-examination, she stated that the distance between hotel and general ground is around 15 to 20 meters. She further deposed that she did not hear any shouting on the night of incident from side of general ground. According to her the deceased came alone to hotel and that she has no knowledge about the facts of the case. ii. PW2 (Miss Pinky Tamang), is the sister of the PW-1, and she was working at the hotel Yangjong at Upper Bhalukpong. On the fateful night she was not in the hotel and returned to her hotel at around 12:15 midnight. On next day, some guys who came to the general ground for playing football shouted that there was a dead body. According to her, she was informed by the PW-1 that the deceased came toher hotel on previous night asking for a cigarette. She further deposed that she did not go to see the dead body. During her cross-examination, she admittedthat she did not know how the deceased died and that she had no knowledge about the facts of the case. iii. PW3 (Miss Shettal Subba), deposed that she knows the deceased Poonam @ Sapna as she worked in her hotel for some period and due to her bad character of consuming alcohol, she did not keep her in work. On the night of the incident, Poonam @ Sapna came to her hotel from the backand asked for a cigarette. During her cross-examination, she deposed that she was alone at the time when the deceased came to her hotel, and she was under the influence of alcohol. She, in her cross- examination, further stated that she did not see the dead body but the dead body was at Upper Bhalukpong. She admitted that she has no knowledge about the facts of the case. iv. PW4 (Shri Santosh Chetry) is a handyman. According to him, he went to have tea to the hotel of PW-3and met deceased Poonam at the hotel and had dinner. Thereafter, the deceased asked him to drop at Tippi. So, they hired the vehicle of PW-5 and proceeded from Lower Bhalukpong to Tippi, and on reaching Upper Bhalukpong, near the general ground, she received a phone call and got down from the vehicle. Thereafter, the deceased asked him to drop at Tippi. So, they hired the vehicle of PW-5 and proceeded from Lower Bhalukpong to Tippi, and on reaching Upper Bhalukpong, near the general ground, she received a phone call and got down from the vehicle. As the deceased got down at Upper Bhalukpong,he and the PW5, the driver, returned from that place and cancelled the program to go to Tippi. According to him, when he met the deceased at Bhalukpong it was 8:15 p.m., and when she got down at Upper Bhalukpong from the vehicle, it was around 10 pm. According to him, while they were having dinner, the deceased received aphone call and he heard a male voice who said "Jaanu kaha ho" and he handed over the mobile to the deceased and the deceased replied that she is here. According to this witness, while getting down from the vehicle, the deceased struck a stone. The deceased asked this witness to return. According to this witness, the deceased told them that she was going to meet her boyfriend at Upper Bhalukpong. During his cross-examination, though he denied the suggestion that the deceased told him that she had a boyfriend at Tippi and that he stated before the police that the deceased wanted to go to Tippi to meet her boyfriend. He admitted the suggestion that there was no quarrel between the deceased and the caller. According to him, he did not know how the deceased died. He also admitted that the deceased was under the influence of alcohol and she was unable to stand herself. He came to know about her death on next day. v. ( CW-1 is Sri Santosh Chetry) .This witness was again examined as CW-1. He admitted that he called the deceased at around 10:30 PM. According to him, at the time of dinner, he gave his number to the deceased, and before that, he was not acquainted with her. He deposed that, though during his earlier examination as PW-4before the Court deposed that PW- 5 dropped him at the petrol pump from where he went to his residence, however, he actually slept in the vehicle along with the driver of the vehicle. They spent the night at Tippi and then moved to Lumla and came back after two days. He could learn about death from information received from his friend Suman Limbu. They spent the night at Tippi and then moved to Lumla and came back after two days. He could learn about death from information received from his friend Suman Limbu. He called the deceased three times ,but the last two calls were not picked up. During cross-examination, he admitted that he did not tell the police about the calling of the deceased at 10:30 PM by the driver and that he did not tell police that he slept inside the vehicle. According to him, the statement of his mother PW-6, is incorrect that he came back to Bhalukpog on the next day. He denied the suggestion that he stalked the deceased and admitted that he met the deceased one month before the date of the incident at Momo Point Hotel, for the first time, but they did not talk to each other. He admitted he stayed at Bhalukpong on 18.10.2021 and left for Lumla on 19.10.2021. According to him, the driver of the vehicle had called the deceased twice, but he is not aware why driver called the deceased. He denied the suggestion that he has diverted the way of investigation of the police without revealing the fact. vi. PW5 (Shri Subal Das) is the owner cum driver of the vehicle in which PW-4 and the deceased travelled. According to him, in the year 2021, he reached Bhalukpong from Rangapara at 8:30 p.m. and parked his vehicle at the hotel Tashi Yangtse. In the meantime, PW-4 appeared with a proposal to drop them at Tippi, he told him that he had a passenger to drop back at their house near the police station and then only he could go to Tippi. After dropping the previous passenger, PW-5came back to PW-4 at the same place and picked up PW-4 and a lady and dropped the lady near the ground. The PW-4 came back with him and he dropped him at the point where he was picked up point i.e. hotel Tashi Yangtse. In his evidence, he further deposed that he does not remember the exact time, but it might be around 9 p.m. when he dropped her at Bhalukpong, and later he came to know about the death of the deceased on the next day, whom he dropped at Upper Bhalukpong. The deceased did not give him any reason for cancelling the programme to go to Tippi. The deceased did not give him any reason for cancelling the programme to go to Tippi. He also stated that he does not know the reason for the death of the deceased, and he also does not know the accused standing on the dock. During cross-examination, PW5 admitted that PW-3 and him were the persons to see the deceased on that night. He admitted that he has no knowledge about the facts of the case. vii. PW6 (Smti Maya Chetry) is the mother of PW-4. Her evidence was not relevant inasmuch as she even could not disclose the telephone number of her son. During cross-examination, she stated that her son did not come back home on the night of the incident, but he came back on next day from Tawang as he is a handyman. She admitted that she has no knowledge about the facts of the case. viii. PW-26 (Raja Narzary), is the employer of PW-4,and according to him, PW-4 worked as a Handyman of his vehicle and also stayed with him on the fateful night. According to this witness, PW4 told him that he was called by the deceased, and accordingly he returned to the residence of PW-26 at 9 PM after leaving Poonam. During the cross-examination, he denied the defence suggestion that PW4 came to his room at 11 PM and affirmed that PW4 was with him the whole night and left about 8-9 AM. He further denied the suggestion that the PW4 left for Lumla at 2 PM. During cross, he also stated that PW4 called the deceased over the phone at about10 to 10:30 PM, and after that, he left, and he does not know if thereafter, PW4 went out. ix. PW13 (Shri Rahul Chetry) in his evidence stated that he worked in the Oasis Wine shop at Lower Bhalukpong. PW13 further stated that the deceased was a customer of his wine shop, and she used to purchase beer daily from his wine shop. He came to know about the death of the deceased one day after her death. PW13 further deposed that though he forgot the date, before her death, the victim came to his wine shop at around 7 p.m. and purchased beer. Again, at around 9:00 p.mPW13 got a call from the deceased, who was asking if his wine shop was open. PW13 further deposed that though he forgot the date, before her death, the victim came to his wine shop at around 7 p.m. and purchased beer. Again, at around 9:00 p.mPW13 got a call from the deceased, who was asking if his wine shop was open. He closed his wine shop at 8:30 p.m. His mobile was seized by police. PW13telephoned him as many as two to four times. On one occasion, PW13 heard her voice saying "aaya" during the conversation. She told PW13 that she had fallen on the ground, and on the next call her mobile was switched off. PW13 further stated that he does not remember the number as it was new mobile. He proved. P.Ex. 1, seizure memo of one vivo cell phone and his signature as P.ex. 1(A). During cross-examination, PW13 denies that he invited the deceased to come to Tippi. PW13 admits that he took the deceased at Prasanti cottage Bhalukpong, Assam and had sexual intercourse with her and the same was narrated to the police.PW13 admitted that he made a call to the deceased, but it was not 17 times. He admitted that during the conversation with the deceased,PW13 suggested her to put ointment on the wound, and she replied that she was at home and was fine. PW13 denied the suggestion that he wanted to have sexual intercourse with the deceased at that night. PW13 denied the suggestion that he stated before police that he wanted to have sexual intercourse with the deceased at that night. PW13 admitted that his wife was living at Tezpur, and he stayed at Tippi at the time of the incident. PW13 denied that he had frequent sex with the deceased. PW13 admitted that he telephoned the deceased around 10 p.m on the night of the incident. PW13 stated that he does not know how the deceased died. PW13 denied that he diverted the police by telling a lie. x. PW14 (Shri Manja Tamang) was working as a security guard at Dhorajia fabrication Company at Tippi near petrol pump. PW14 further stated that every day, he used to wait for a vehicle at the forest check gate, Bhalukpong, to go to Tippi and that PW-13 and PW14 boarded in the same vehicle i.e. Bolero pickup. PW14 got down near his workplace at around 8:30 p.m. and PW-13 went ahead in the same vehicle. PW14 further stated that every day, he used to wait for a vehicle at the forest check gate, Bhalukpong, to go to Tippi and that PW-13 and PW14 boarded in the same vehicle i.e. Bolero pickup. PW14 got down near his workplace at around 8:30 p.m. and PW-13 went ahead in the same vehicle. During cross-examination, PW14 stated that he cannot say, if PW-13 went back to Bhalukpong side after arrival at Tippi. xi. PW15 (Sri Binod Tamang) was working as a Manager in Oasis and the RS wine shop. Oasis is situated at Lower Bhalukpong, and the RS wine shop is at Tippi. Though police did not record his statement butpolice questioned him about PW-13. PW-13 was a salesman at the Oasis wine shop. PW15 witnessed the seizure of mobile of PW-13 as his number was detected as one of the callers in the deceased's mobile. Later on, PW15 came to know about the death of the deceased. He proved P.ex. 1 as a seizure memo and P.ex. 1(B) as his signature. During cross-examination, PW15 stated that police did not enquire him about the murder case; however, they enquired me about PW-13. PW15 denied that he had given false statement to protect PW-13. xii. PW16 (Shri Pankaj Mili) was working in GREF, stated that he did not know the accused standing on the dock and that the deceased was his friend. It was a Saturday (16.10.2021),and the deceased told him that she had performed bhai tika at Rupa. She spent the night with him and on the next morning (17.10.2021) at 5 a.m, they moved from Sessa and dropped her at Lower Bhalukpong in the house of her elder sister at around 7 a.m. PW16 received a call on 17.10.2021 from the deceased at around 10:30 a.m. with a request to drop her at Lal Hotel Bhalukpong. After that, PW16 went to the Sunday market. Again, at around 11:30 a.m., the deceased called PW16 to come to Lal hotel to have a beer, and PW16 came there and had a beer with her and came back. After the completion of marketing, PW16 came back to Sessa. At 7 p.m while PW16 was cooking, PW16 made a call to the deceased to inform her that PW16had come back to his camp at Sessa. She told him that she was still in Lal hotel. After the completion of marketing, PW16 came back to Sessa. At 7 p.m while PW16 was cooking, PW16 made a call to the deceased to inform her that PW16had come back to his camp at Sessa. She told him that she was still in Lal hotel. She also told him that after the consumption of one more beer bottle, she would come out of the hotel. She asked to keep the mobile on and, accordingly, PW16 kept his mobile on during the time of cooking. Later on, she could not reply, so PW16 cut off the line. At around 10:30 p.m, she asked PW16 to drop her at the house of her elder sister at Bhalukpong, but she did not reveal where she was at that time. PW16 further stated that he declined to drop the deceased, as it was late at night and PW16 was at Sessa. On Monday, at around 7 to 7:30 a.m, PW16 made a call to the deceased, but her mobile was not reachable, and on 19.10.2021, PW16 heard that she had died. During cross-examination, PW16 admitted that he had called 12 times to deceased on Sunday (17.10.2021). PW16 further admitted that when the deceased called him around 10:30 p.m., her voice was normal and asking him to drop her at the house of her sister's house. PW16 also admitted that he had paid Rs. 1000/- to the deceased to stay with him on Saturday night for sex. PW16 also admitted that the deceased was a call girl. PW16 further stated that he came to know the deceased through the Lal hotel. PW16 heard the news of the murder of the deceased from her elder sister. xiii. PW17 (Shri Sagar Sangma) was working in GREF. According to him, he does not remember the date when the deceased came to him for renting a shoproom at Nigam Garo Basti Bhalukpong. However, she did not occupy the room, and no vegetable shop was opened. Rent was paid for 1 month. She died before the expiry of one month. This witness was not cross-examined by the defence. xiv. PW7 (Shri Sachindra Nath) was deployed as guard th commander on 17.10.2021 of the 138 Bn. Company at st Bhalukpong for a period of one month w.e.f. 1 day of the month. Rent was paid for 1 month. She died before the expiry of one month. This witness was not cross-examined by the defence. xiv. PW7 (Shri Sachindra Nath) was deployed as guard th commander on 17.10.2021 of the 138 Bn. Company at st Bhalukpong for a period of one month w.e.f. 1 day of the month. According to him, on 18.10.2021 in the afternoon around 04:00 PM, some boys playing football on the ground informed PW-8 and PW-9 that a dead body was found near the ground under a bush. They were deployed for Sentry duty at camp. The ground is near their camp. On 18.10.2021, PW-8 and PW-9 were on duty in the evening w.e.f. 2 to 4 and 4 to 6 respectively. PW7 further deposed that he does not remember the person deployed on 17.10.2021. PW7 saw the accused in their camp for once at around 3:30 p.m. on 18.10.2021 as he came for clearance of the arms. PW7 did not know how the deceased died. During cross-examination, he admitted that they used to maintain a register for the entry and exit of CRPF personnel. He also admitted that he has not received any report of shouting around the ground on the date of the alleged incident. During cross-examination, he admitted that he had not been reported by any three of Sentry regarding the presence of the accused on said night. The accused was posted at Bomdila, and he was supposed to transfer to HQ, Itanagar. PW further admits that he has no knowledge about the facts of the case. xv. PW8 (Shri Yograj Satav), a CRPF personnel in his evidence stated that on 17.10.2021, he was deployed for sentry duty at camp 138 Bn. Company at Bhalukpong. His duty time was from 4 to 6 p.m and 9 p.m to 12 a.m on 17.10.2021, 6 a.m to 9 a.m on 18.10.2021, 2 p.m to 4 p.m on 18.10.2021. While he was on duty w.e.f 2 p.m. to 4 p.m., some boys came to him at around 4 p.m and intimated him about the dead body. He knows the accused Md. Iqbal standing on the dock. During cross-examination, PW8 admitted that they used to maintain register for the entry and exit of CRPF personnel. While he was on duty w.e.f 2 p.m. to 4 p.m., some boys came to him at around 4 p.m and intimated him about the dead body. He knows the accused Md. Iqbal standing on the dock. During cross-examination, PW8 admitted that they used to maintain register for the entry and exit of CRPF personnel. PW8 also admitted that during his duty time, the alleged accused did not exit from their camp.PW8 admitted that he did not hear any shouting around the ground on the date of the alleged incident. On examination by the court, PW8 stated that their camp is a big campus and fenced by bamboo and barbed wire at a height of around 6 feet. In his opinion, no one can cross the fencing in the normal course of action; however, if a person determines to cross the fencing, he can cross the fencing. On re-cross-examination, PW8 stated that he did not see any person forcefully crossing the fencing during his duty hour and that he cannot see all the sides of fencing from his sentry point but the campus is under patrolling, which is looked after by patrolling team, a troop of another section comprising of four persons. He has not received any report of any force member crossing the fencing on said night. However, if such an incident is received, it must be reported to the Guard commander. xvi. PW9 (Sri Santosh Kumar) in his deposition stated that on 17.10 2021 to 18.10.2021, he was deployed as sentry duty at the camp 138th Bn. at Bhalukpong from 12 midnight to 3 p.m., from 9 a.m to 12 p.m on 18.10.2021 and from 4 p.m to 6 p.m on 18.10.2021, one boy who was playing football and PW-8 intimated about the dead body at 4:00 PM. Accordingly, it was reported to the Guard Commander. PW9 further stated that he knows the accused Md. Iqbal is standing on the dock as he is working for their company. During cross-examination, PW9 admitted that they used to maintain a register for entry and exit of CRPF personnel and during his sentry duty, the accused did not go outside. PW9 admitted that he had not heard of shouting around the ground on the date of the alleged incident. During cross-examination, PW9 admitted that they used to maintain a register for entry and exit of CRPF personnel and during his sentry duty, the accused did not go outside. PW9 admitted that he had not heard of shouting around the ground on the date of the alleged incident. PW9 further stated that he was told by PW-8 about four persons sitting in the stadium at around 10:30 p.m but at 12 midnight, he did not notice any such movement of persons. xvii. PW-25 (Hiren Chandra Rai) is another CRPF personnel who deposed that he was on patrolling duty on 17.10.2021 from 10:00 PM to 12:00PM within the premises of their camp. He further deposed in evidence in chief that on that evening, the accused was in the camp premises and that he did not notice any unlawful activities outside the campus. During cross-examination, he deposed that no person can enter or exit the camp without the knowledge of the patrolling personnel. According to him, the accused was in the new barrack when he was on his patrolling duty at 10:10 PM. he did not see the accused leaving away from the premises between 10:00 to 12:00 PM, when he was on duty. This witness was examined by the Court by putting certain questions. To a pointed question of the Court, he deposed that the barbed wire post is around 5.5. feet as per his opinion, and the bamboo fencing is not very old. To another question, he stated that there is a small Mandir near the boundary of the highway within the premises, but there is no CC steps approach road from Mandir to the highway. To another pointed question of the Court, he said that it is correct to say it is not impossible to come out from the premises, if a person desires or determines and that he did not check out whether fencing was broken at that point or the next day. During further cross- examination by the defence, he admitted that they did not receive any information on the next date or after the accident as regards damage to the fencing. xviii. PW10 (Shri Kamle Ramdas), another CRPF personnel, in his evidence stated that he had availed leave on 28.09.2021 and joined duty on 18.10.2021 and reported to the camp at 10 a.m with his family. xviii. PW10 (Shri Kamle Ramdas), another CRPF personnel, in his evidence stated that he had availed leave on 28.09.2021 and joined duty on 18.10.2021 and reported to the camp at 10 a.m with his family. PW10 further stated that he came to know about the incident at about 5 p.m. on the same day, and he knows the accused Md. Iqbal standing on the dock and also knows Constable Patras Topno and Ct. Suleman Topno as they are from this Company. PW10 was declared hostile. During his cross-examination, PW10 denied that he told the police that on 17.10.2021 the accused came from Bomdila to Company HQ Bhalukpong to take clearance from OC B Company and he was allotted a bed for the night at the new barrack on 17.10.2021 along with two Constables Patras Topno and Ct. Suleman Topno. During his cross-examination by the defence, PW10 stated that Constable Patras Topno and Ct. Suleman Topno did not tell that the alleged accused went outside on that night. xix. PW11 (Shri Dinesh Kumar), another CRPF personnel in his evidence deposed that he availed leave on 27.09.2021 for 19 days and joined on duty on 18.10.2021 at 10:30 a.m with my family. PW11 further deposed that he does not know what had happened on the previous day. PW11 further stated that he knows the accused Md. Iqbal standing on the dock and he came to know that a dead body was found outside the camp. During cross-examination, PW11 admitted that he does not know how the deceased died and that he did not know facts of the case. xx. PW12 (Shri Birendra Singh Negi), a CRPF personnel in his evidence deposed that he knows the accused Md. Iqbal standing on the dock as they are from the same company. On 17.10.2021 at 8 p.m, the accused came to PW12’s barrack and told him that his girlfriend would come to him at around 9 p.m. PW12’s barrack is different from his barrack. PW12 went to his barrack around 8:45 p.m and asked about the girl, and he told PW12 that the girl would come at 9:30 p.m. The accused made a call to his girlfriend, and the phone was picked up by a male person, who replied that the madam (girlfriend) was having dinner. PW12 went to his barrack around 8:45 p.m and asked about the girl, and he told PW12 that the girl would come at 9:30 p.m. The accused made a call to his girlfriend, and the phone was picked up by a male person, who replied that the madam (girlfriend) was having dinner. At around 9:40 p.m, the girl came in a vehicle and the girl was sitting at the railing on the ground and meanwhile, one boy came, and after a few minutes, the girl left with the boy far away at a distance of around 100 meters. At around 10:05 p.m., PW12 left for his barrack, and the accused also left for his barrack. PW12 further stated that thereafter, he did not know about the case except on the next day, he came to know about the dead body. During cross-examination, PW12 admitted that the deceased and that boy seem to be quarrelling with each other. PW12 further stated that he did not know whether the accused left the barracks or not on that night. PW12 admitted that they maintained the register entry and exit of their personnel. All the time, the camp is under patrolling surveillance. Sometimes it begins from 9 p.m to 5 a.m for an interval of two hours with one patrolling personnel. PW12 also admitted that he did not hear the movement of any person on said night nor he had been told by the patrolling duty person. In his opinion, the accused is innocent. xxi. PW18 (Shri Sang Norbu, ASI) is the informant of the case. OC of PS Bhalukpong informed him that a dead body was lying at the back side of Bhalukpong general ground near the CRPF camp. Accordingly, PW18 went to the PO and found the dead body between the general ground and the CRPF camp and also noticed that the dead body was lying on the ground. The deceased was having a red colour bag, and the sling of the bag was found crossing her body. The tongue was protruding. The deceased was wearing blue jeans pulled down and a white-coloured cloth covering the upper part. No document was found in her pocket to identify her. Nothing was found inside the bag. After that, PW18 submitted a report. This witness proved P.ex. 2 FIR, P.ex. The tongue was protruding. The deceased was wearing blue jeans pulled down and a white-coloured cloth covering the upper part. No document was found in her pocket to identify her. Nothing was found inside the bag. After that, PW18 submitted a report. This witness proved P.ex. 2 FIR, P.ex. 2(A) his signature and M.ex 1, lather bag, which PW18 saw on the body of deceased. He exhibited and proved M.ex. 2, one pair of black shoe of the deceased. During the PO visit, PW18 found M.Ext. 3, a male brown colour purse near the dead body within a distance of 2 meters, containing ADHAR card No. 455903058790, PAN Card No. AKA-PD31130, RC bearing number AS-01DJ-4113, RC bearing number AS-01AE-4256, DL No. AS-02-20170067368, Debit card SBI No.-559601009686-4903 all in R/o Ghameswar Das S/o Hem Kanta Das, 7 Kanaklata path Dakhimgaon, Puberun apartment, Kahilipara, Kamrup Metro, Assam, The aforesaid materials have been exhibited as M.ex. (A) to 24(F). PW18 further stated that he knows the accused Md. Iqbal standing on the dock. During his cross-examination, PW18 stated that he could not say whether the deceased was killed at PO or brought her dead body to PO. PW18 further stated that he did not see any sign of struggle at the PO, but he saw that the dead body was covered by bushes in order to hide the dead body. At the time of his visit to PO, there was no rain, but before his visit, there had been rain on that day. PW18 further stated that he did not notice any footprint. PW18 denied that he took a photograph of PO, however, he just took a photograph of the deceased. PW18 denied that he identified the M.ex. 1 on assumption. PW18 admitted that he stated the distance between the dead body and M.ex. 4 (series) on assumption as he did not measure it, as such, the report of the IO on the distance between the dead body and M.ex. 4 may be more correct, as he might have measured it. PW18 also admitted that he did not use a hand glove to pick up or check the M.ex. 1 to 4. PW18 also admitted that since he has not used the hand glove to pick up the M.ex. 1 to 4(A) to (F) from the PO, he did not suggest to the IO for a fingerprint test. xxii. PW18 also admitted that he did not use a hand glove to pick up or check the M.ex. 1 to 4. PW18 also admitted that since he has not used the hand glove to pick up the M.ex. 1 to 4(A) to (F) from the PO, he did not suggest to the IO for a fingerprint test. xxii. PW-20 (L. Longda) is a police personnel who accompanied the officer in charge of Bhalukpong police station to the place of occurrence, and he is another seizure witness of material Exhibit-3 and M.Ext. 3(A) to 3(F). He supported the seizure and affirmed of discovery of the body of the deceased in a naked condition. During cross-examination, he admitted the suggestion of defence that though he saw the aforesaid exhibits but did not see the contents of Ext 3(A) to 3(F) and is not aware of what is written in the seizure memo. xxiii. PW-25A (Nawang Monpa) is a Head Constable of Bhalukpong Polie Station. This witness was wrongly numbered as PW-25. Fo for clarity, we have marked him as PW-25A. He also accompanied the team of police personal to the place of occurrence during the investigation and seizure to P.Ext.3 M.Ext.-1, M.Ext.3, M.Ext.4, M.Ext-5, M.Ext.6, M.Ext.-7, M.Ext.8, M.Ext.9, M.Ext.10, M.Ext.11 and M. Ext.12. During cross, he stated that he does not know the contents of the seizure memo and that he only collected it from the PO and handed it over to I.O. xxiv. PW19 (Dr. Tage Neha) had done PME on the body of deceased Sapna Chetry, there were signs of strangulation and injury marks on her genitals. The deceased died of asphyxia following strangulation. The strangulation was evident as there was a ligature mark in the middle portion of the neck, fracturing thyroid cartilage and trachea and the tongue was also found protruding. The age of injury was around 30 hours at the time of PME, as it was evident by the presence of maggots in the orifices. PW19 had also collected the blood sample of the deceased. PME was done at 03:00 PM on 19.10.2021. The weapon of offence could be like a rope.He proved the PME report as P.ex. 4 andhis signature in it as P.ex. 4(A). PW19 had also collected the blood sample of the deceased. PME was done at 03:00 PM on 19.10.2021. The weapon of offence could be like a rope.He proved the PME report as P.ex. 4 andhis signature in it as P.ex. 4(A). During examination, deposed that he also collected vaginal swab, anal swab, urethral swab, loose pubic hair (to find out any foreign hair), cut pubic hair of the deceased, nail scraping of deceased. He proved the blood sample of the deceased as P.ex-5 and his signature in it as P.ex-5(A), and also proved the blood sample of the accused as P.ex-6 and his signature in it as P.ex-6(A).During cross-examination, he denied to suggestion that he had not written the report of the PME of the deceased. He admitted that he had not mentioned the weapon of offence used in the commission of offence. He also admitted that he did not find any signs of struggle in the body of the deceased. xxv. PW-21 (Ram Rajput) is a sanitary worker at CHC, Bhaulkpong. He has proved P.ex. 5(B) and P.ex. 6(B) as his thumb impression, and P.ex. 5 and P.ex. 6 are the blood sample authentication forms. He also assisted PW-19 during post-mortem examination. During cross, he admitted that he put his thumb impression in P.ext. 5 &6 on the instruction of PW-19. xxvi. PW-21 (Sri Thakur Subodh) is the company commander of the concerned CRPF Camp. He was a seizure witness to P.ex-7, a red leather bag and also witnessed to collection of vaginal swab, anal swab, etc. He proved his signature as P. ex. 7(B) in P. ex.7. During cross-examination, he denied the suggestion of the defence that he had not seen the collection of blood sample, semen, pubic hair etc. of the accused by the Doctor. xxvii. PW-22 (Sanjib Basfore) is a Sanitary Assistant at CHC, Bhalukpong, and according to him, he assisted PW- 19during the collection of the blood sample of the deceased. He proved P.ex.5(C) as his signature on P.ex.-5. During cross, he admitted that he did not know about the contents of the P.ex.5 and he had put his signature on the instruction of PW-19. xxviii. He proved P.ex.5(C) as his signature on P.ex.-5. During cross, he admitted that he did not know about the contents of the P.ex.5 and he had put his signature on the instruction of PW-19. xxviii. PW-23 Sri Gomeswar Das, is the person who, according to the prosecution version, was a co-passenger with the accused in a flight from Delhi to Guwahati and as per the prosecution version, his lost money purse(M. Ex.3) was found near the dead body. According to him, while he was collecting the luggage from the luggage belt at Guwahati, he took out his purse from his pocket, took out some cash, kept it in his front shirt pocket, and kept the purse at his back pant pocket. Since it was crowded near the luggage belt, he did not remember noticing the accused there, who is now standing on the dock. On the next date, after reaching Guwahati, when he went to buy some goods, he realised that he had lost his purse. According to him, he immediately blocked his ATM card. According to him, since there was a quarantine for 7 days with effect from 16.09.2021 to 22.09.2021, he was inside his house. On 22.09.2021, he got a telephone call from Bhalukpong Police Station that his purse had been recovered, and accordingly, he appeared before the Officer in Charge, Bhalukpong Police Station, on 23.09.2021. He proved Paper Exhibit-8a certificate under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act regarding seizure of the SD Card. He proved his signature as a Paper Exhibit. 8(a), his ID Card as Paper Exhibit. 9, Flight ticket as Paper Exhibit 10, Paper Exhibit as boarding pass and Paper Exhibit 12 his mini statement of SBI Debit Card. He proved M. Ext. 13 as his purse, M.Ext. 14 as his AADHAR Card, M.Ext. 15 as his ATM Card, M.Ext.16 as his PAN Card andM.Ext. 17 as his passport size photo. During cross-examination, he admitted that he cannot say whether he lost the purse at the Airport. He produced the Ext.9 to 12 before the police and he did not put any signature in respect of M.Ext 13 to 17. He do not remember, where he lost his original boarding pass. xxix. PW-24 (Namita Das) is the wife of PW-3,who is the seizure witness to P.Ex.9 in respect of M. Ex.18. He produced the Ext.9 to 12 before the police and he did not put any signature in respect of M.Ext 13 to 17. He do not remember, where he lost his original boarding pass. xxix. PW-24 (Namita Das) is the wife of PW-3,who is the seizure witness to P.Ex.9 in respect of M. Ex.18. She deposed that she has just put her signature in P.Ex-9 and does not know where her husband lost his purse. xxx. PW-28 (Mrinal Saikia) is the Assistant Manager, Security, Indigo Airlines. He deposed that on 16.09.2021 accused travelled from Jammu to Delhi on Flight No. 6E2368 on seat No. 27A and on the same day, he again travelled from Delhi to Guwahati in Flight No. 6E2001 on Seat No. 4E. On the said flight,PW-23 also travelled to Guwahti on Seat No. 19F. He proved the P.Ex 10 & 11, the e-tickets, P.ex. 18 as boarding pass, P.ex. 21 as Indigo airlines guidelines, P.ex. 31 as flight manifesto of Jammu to Delhi and P.ex 32 as flight manifesto of Delhi to Guwahati. During the cross-examination, he deposed that many persons were named as Md. Iqbal and they might have travelled on their airlines. xxxi. PW-27 , (Dujom Bagra)is the Investigating Officer. He deposed that on receipt of telephonic information regarding the recovery of the dead body, lying backside of Bhalukpong general field, an enquiry was conducted and thereafter, Bhalukpong PS Case No. 13/21 under Section 302 IPC was registered, and he conducted the enquiry. During the investigation, he conducted an inquest over the dead body in presence of witness. He also deposed as regard seizing the exhibits including material exhibits and paper exhibits. He recorded the statement of the witnesses. After analysis of CDR, he found that there were six incoming calls and four outgoing calls from and to the accused and all calls were made within one hour i.e. from 09:14 PM to 10:35 PM on 17.10.2021. On suspicion accused appellant was arrested and during interrogation, he confessed that he was in constant touch with the deceased. According him, the accused appellant disclosed that the victim was a prostitute whom he met at hotel namely Hotel KDS. In the afternoon of 17.10.2021, he had sexually intercourse with the deceased twice. On suspicion accused appellant was arrested and during interrogation, he confessed that he was in constant touch with the deceased. According him, the accused appellant disclosed that the victim was a prostitute whom he met at hotel namely Hotel KDS. In the afternoon of 17.10.2021, he had sexually intercourse with the deceased twice. He also confessed that he called the deceased to come to Upper Bhalukpong general ground and that he also informed PW-12 that the deceased was coming to meet him. Both the accused and the said PW-12 stated that they noticed the deceased coming down from a car while they were hiding backside of the barracks. The accused stated before the IO that on the date of death, the deceased did not come near him; he just saw the deceased through the fencing. The money purse, which was missing one month back on 16.09.2021, was recovered from the PO, which is a playground. There is no other material except to suspect the accused who stayed at the barracks adjacent to the ground. Though in the course of the investigation, biological samples of the victim and accused were collected and sent to FSL for examination, and FSL report was not received. The mobile phone of the deceased could not be recovered. He proved the P.Ex.1 to P.Ex.46 and M.Ex 1 to M.Ex.23. During cross-examination, this witness admitted that the accused did not confess that he killed the deceased and that the PW-23 did not file any missing report of his purse. He further deposed that there was no sign of struggle at the place of recovery of the dead body, and it is possible that the dead body was dumped after killing somewhere else. He had exhibited the duty register of the CRPF camp, and that there was no exit remark of the accused on the duty register. The last call from the mobile of the deceased was made to PW-4. The mobile location of the said PW-4was found at lower Bhalukpong, and the location of the deceased was found at upper Bhalukpong, where the dead body was found. The CDR reflected that the accused contacted the deceased last at about 10:00 PM. According to him, as per the PME report, death was caused before 36 hours of examination and in calculation, it is found that the death was caused between 10:00 PM to 03:00 AM during the night. The CDR reflected that the accused contacted the deceased last at about 10:00 PM. According to him, as per the PME report, death was caused before 36 hours of examination and in calculation, it is found that the death was caused between 10:00 PM to 03:00 AM during the night. According to him, he filed the charge sheet against the accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence which shows that the accused was in constant touch with the deceased on the night of her death. He admitted that PW-4 dropped the deceased at the place of occurrence. One Puja Tamang (PW-29) saw the deceased alone at the PO. He further admitted that PW-4 called the deceased 17 times and the accused 10 times. xxxii. PW-29 Puja Tamang deposed that she came with the deceased to Bhalukpong and that she had identified the dead body, and police conducted an inquest in her presence. She proved the P. ext, the inquest report and her signature as P.ex 28(a). xxxiii. The accused examined himself as DW-1 and deposed that he was innocent and did not know anything about the death. According to him, on the date of the incident, he was at his camp and he did not gone out of the camp during that night. During cross-examination, he denied the suggestion regarding calling the deceased over the phone for 10 times on the date of the incident. He denied knowing thePW-23 and denied that he had stolen his purse and denied that he had made the last call to the deceased before her death. He admitted that he travelled by flight from Jammu to Delhi and Delhi to Guwahati by Indigo airline. II. Principle of law: i. It is clear from the prosecution's case through their witnesses, that their case is based on circumstantial evidence. It is by now well settled that circumstantial evidences are evidences not based on direct eyewitness accounts, but based on evidence from which the guilt of an accused can be inferred. It consists of a chain of facts and events, that, when linked together, point conclusively to the guilt of the accused. Unlike direct evidence, circumstantial evidence requires the court to draw inferences. It is equally well settled that the prosecution, while relying on circumstantial evidence, must prove its link in the chain of circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. It consists of a chain of facts and events, that, when linked together, point conclusively to the guilt of the accused. Unlike direct evidence, circumstantial evidence requires the court to draw inferences. It is equally well settled that the prosecution, while relying on circumstantial evidence, must prove its link in the chain of circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. If any link is weak or missing, the benefit of the doubt must go to the accused. In Sarad Bridhi Chand Sarda (supra) , the Hon’ble Apex Court laid down five golden principles, which are as follows: I. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn are to be fully established. II. The fact so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused. III. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. IV. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. V. There must be a complete chain of evidence so as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. ii. It is also equally well settled that when relying on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances, consistent with the hypothesis of guilt. Suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of legal proof. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Hanumant Vs State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 1952-2SCC 71 , reminded that in cases, where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be in first instance is fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused . The chain must be so complete that it rules out any theory other than the guilt of the accused. In criminal jurisprudence, the circumstantial evidence is admissible and can lead to conviction, but only if it satisfies a strict standard as recorded hereinabove. The prosecution has the onus to eliminate all reasonable hypotheses except that of the accused’s guilt. Any gap in the evidentiary chain mandates acquittal. Such a principle is based on another important principle that the liberty of an individual cannot be curtailed unless guilt is established with absolute certainty, even when relying solely on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution has the onus to eliminate all reasonable hypotheses except that of the accused’s guilt. Any gap in the evidentiary chain mandates acquittal. Such a principle is based on another important principle that the liberty of an individual cannot be curtailed unless guilt is established with absolute certainty, even when relying solely on circumstantial evidence. To summarize, what prosecution must establish is a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances, which are established and point only to the guilt of the accused, and it excludes every other possible hypothesis. It is seen from the different judicial pronouncements that the courts in India, while dealing with circumstantial evidence, follow a conservative and cautious approach, especially in cases involving a death sentence or life imprisonment, motive-based prosecution and where scientific and forensic evidence is missing or inconclusive. III. Analysis and findings: In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled principles of law, now let us deal with the evidence and the circumstances on which the prosecution is based, as well as the decision of the learned Session Judge, in the following manner. I. Death, recovery of the body and the nature of death : From the evidence of the investigating officer and the deposition of other police officials who were present at the time of recovery of the body of the deceased, it is established beyond reasonable doubt that a female half-naked dead body was recovered from the General Ground, Bhalukpong on 18.10.2021 at 04:00 PM. From the evidence of the Doctor PW- 19 and the Post-mortem Examination Report, it is also established beyond a reasonable doubt that the death was due to asphyxia as a result of triangulation. Through evidence of PW-29, it was established that the body recovered was that of Poonam @ Sapna. As per PW19, the death was caused around 36 hours before the conduct of post-mortem on 19.10.2021 at 03:00 PM. Through the aforesaid witnesses/evidences, the prosecution was able to establish that the death was homicidal in nature. Accordingly, we are of the unhesitant view that the prosecution has been able to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the death was homicidal in nature, and the dead body was found at the place of occurrence projected by the prosecution and the dead body was that of Poonam @ Sapna. II. Accordingly, we are of the unhesitant view that the prosecution has been able to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the death was homicidal in nature, and the dead body was found at the place of occurrence projected by the prosecution and the dead body was that of Poonam @ Sapna. II. Chain of movement/ activity of the victim in the previous day/night till she was last seen alive: As per version of PW13, the victim came to his wineshop at Lower Bhalukpong around 7 PM on 17.10.2021 and purchased beer and as per the testimony of PW1, she saw the victim around 9.30 pm on 17.10.2021, when the victim went to her hotel and asked for a cigarette. This hotel is situated 15 to 20 meters from the General Ground where the dead body was found. As per the version of PW4, who was also examined as CW1, he met the deceased at a hotel in Bhalukpong around 08:15 PM and had dinner together and the deceased requested him to drop her at Tippi and accordingly, they went towards Tippi in the vehicle driven by PW5. According to him, when they reached upper Bhalukpung at around 10 pm, where the victim got down instead of going to Tippi. According to this witness, the motive of the deceased to go to Tippi was to meet her boyfriend and while having dinner at the hotel together, she received a call from her boyfriend. The PW12, a CRPF personnel testified that at around 9:40 PM the victim came in a vehicle and was sitting at railing of the general ground and in the meantime, a boy came and after few minute girl left with the boy far away at a distance of 100 meters. According to him, he and the accused could see the girl from the fencing of the barrack, and according to him, the accused told him that the girl is his friend and around 10 PM, the accused went to his barrack. As per the version of PW-16, he called the deceased 12 times on 17.10.2021 (Sunday) and the last call was around 10.30 pm. According to this witness, the voice of the deceased was normal and she asked him to drop her at the house of her sister. However, he refused to do so as it was too late. As per the version of PW-16, he called the deceased 12 times on 17.10.2021 (Sunday) and the last call was around 10.30 pm. According to this witness, the voice of the deceased was normal and she asked him to drop her at the house of her sister. However, he refused to do so as it was too late. From these witnesses, it can safely be concluded that the victim was at Bhalukpong around 7 PM on 17.10.2021 and at around 9 to 10 pm, she was at upper Bhalukpongnear the general field; firstly, in the hotel of PW1 and thereafter, in the railing of the general ground i.e. near the place, where her dead body was recovered on the next date i.e. 18.10.2021. Thus, the prosecution has been able to establish that the lady was near the place of occurrence between 9 to 10 pm as she was seen alive by PW1, PW4, PW5, PW12, PW13 on 17.10.2021 and that her last call was around 10:30 PM on 17.10.2021 and she was last seen with a boy not with the accused. III. The CDR, the link of the accused, the deceased and other witnesses: The prosecution projected that on the previous night of the incident, the deceased had a continuous telephonic conversation with PW13, PW16 and with the accused. As per the version of PW13, there was a telephonic conversation between PW13 and the deceased at 9 pm and during the conversation, she informed that she had fallen down on the ground and on the next call her mobile was switched off. He admitted during cross that he took the deceased to Prashanti Cottage at Bhalukpong, Assam and had sexual intercourse with her and that he made calls to the deceased. He also admitted that he called the deceased over telephone around 10 pm on 17.10.2021. PW16 also admitted that he met the deceased on 17.10.2021 around 11.30 am and also admitted that he had sex with the deceased on payment of Rs. 1000/- and both had beer together. He has admittedly called the deceased 12 times on 17.10.2021 (Sunday) and last call was around 10.30 pm. PW16 also admitted that he met the deceased on 17.10.2021 around 11.30 am and also admitted that he had sex with the deceased on payment of Rs. 1000/- and both had beer together. He has admittedly called the deceased 12 times on 17.10.2021 (Sunday) and last call was around 10.30 pm. As per the version of the I/O, from the analysis of CDR, it was found that there were six incoming calls and four outgoing calls from the accused to the deceased and these calls were made between 9.24 pm to 10.35 pm on 17.10.2021. He exhibited CDR consisting of 19 pages. P. Exhibit 39 the certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act issued by Bharti Airtel and P. Exhibit-44 certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act, issued by Reliance JIO, however, such certificate were not proved by the concerned authority/authority acquainted with it who issued such certificate, nor the prosecution brought them as witness during the course of trial. So far relating to the call between the PW13 and PW16, they had admitted as regards their telephonic conversation. However, CDR in respect of the calls between the accused and the deceased were not proved during the course of the trial. Section 65B(1) of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, provides that notwithstanding anything contain in the Evidence Act, any information contained in an electronic record, which is printed on paper, stored, recorded, or copied, in optical or magnetic media, produced by a computer, is deemed to be a document when it satisfies the condition prescribed under Section 65B(2) of the Indian Evidence Act. However, in the case in hand, though CDR were accompanied by certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, and though such CDR is an admissible evidence, however, authenticity and correctness of such CDR can be said to be proved only when the certificate issued under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act, is proved through the author or any person acquainted with the CDR i.e. the telecom authority. It is apposite to record here that to prove a certificate under Section 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act, a person seeking to rely on the electronic record must present a certificate as required under Section 65B(4) of the Act, which should; identify the electronic record, described how it was produced, provide details of the device used and confirm compliance with Section 65B(2) of the Act. The certificate must be signed by a person responsible for the operation of the device or management of the relevant activity. Such factum can be proved by the responsible authority who issued such a certificate. However, the prosecution, for reasons best known to them, has not called such a responsible person to prove the certificates. Therefore, in our considered opinion, though CDR accompanied by the certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, is admissible evidence, in absence of proof of the certificate by the authority issuing it or authority acquainted with it, such evidence cannot be relied on inasmuch as it is settled proposition of law that mere exhibiting a document is not sufficient unless the content of same is proved. The I.O., though, had projected that the accused admitted before him and confessed that he was in constant touch with the deceased; such a confession before the investigating officer during custody is not an admissible evidence. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused and deceased were in constant touch through telephone. IV. The last chain to connect the accused to the crime: The prosecution projected that the accused came out of his camp/barracks and met the accused in the general field. To establish such link, the prosecution relied on the evidence of PW7, PW8, PW9, PW10, PW11. All these persons were inmates of the CRPF camp and were on guard duty during the period from 17.10.2021 till 18.10.2021, when the body was recovered. However, these prosecution witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution as regards the projection that the accused went out to meet his girlfriend, the deceased. These persons were on guard duty/Sentry Duty in the CRPF camp from 04:00 PM on 17.10.2021 till the body was recovered around 1600 hour on 18.10.2021. All of the aforesaid witnesses, in unequivocal terms admitted that they maintained a register for entry and exit of CRPF personnel and that the accused entered the camp at 03:30 PM on 17.10.2021 and the accused did not come out of the camp till the recovery of the dead body on 18.10.2021. PW7, PW8 were informed by some boys around 4 PM as regards discovery of the dead body. PW7, PW8 were informed by some boys around 4 PM as regards discovery of the dead body. PW8 also deposed that the camp is a big campus and fenced by bamboo and barbed wire at a height around 6 feet and in his opinion, no one can cross the fencing in the normal course of action, however, if a person determines to cross the fencing, a person can cross their fencing. And there was no report that any person from the force had crossed the fencing on the night and no such incident was reported to the Guard Commander. It is important to note that PW-12 who is a CRPF personnel deposed that accused informed him that his girl friend will come at 9:30 PM and at 9:40 PM, the girl came in a vehicle and the girl was sitting at a railing on the ground and one boy came after few minutes and thereafter, the girl left with the boy far way at around 10.05 PM. The PW 12 left for his own barrack. From this prosecution witness itself, it is clear that the girl was with another boy around 9:40 PM till 10 PM and PW12 and accused witnessed the girl from inside the barrack through the fencing. If that is the prosecution’s case, together with the testimonies of PW7, PW8, PW9, PW10 and PW11, the prosecution has failed to establish the projection that the girl met the accused near the general field and that the accused went out from the camp to meet her. However, unfortunately, the learned Sessions Judge on surmises and conjecture and on a presumption that a person can come out by breaking the fencing held that the accused met the girl in the general field and killed her. Such a hypothesis is not at all consistent with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused in the backdrop of evidence laid by the prosecution. The learned Session Judge, failed to appreciate and apply the golden principle of law as recorded hereinabove by this Court. The learned Session Judge has measurably failed to apply the settled principle of law that when a prosecution is based only on circumstantial evidence, suspicion, however strong cannot take the place of legal proof. In the absence of any evidence to connect the accused with the crime in question, the accused must be given benefit of doubt. The learned Session Judge has measurably failed to apply the settled principle of law that when a prosecution is based only on circumstantial evidence, suspicion, however strong cannot take the place of legal proof. In the absence of any evidence to connect the accused with the crime in question, the accused must be given benefit of doubt. ( Ref: Narasappa Vs State of Karnataka (2007) 10 SCC 770 ) Yet another vital aspect which the learned Sessions Judge ignored is that though there were collection of important materials like blood, vaginal swab, anal swab, pubic hair, sparm etc., however, the prosecution had failed to produce such important evidence for the reasons best known to them, if such forensic evidence were brought on record and proved, the same would have thrown light and could have been an important chain of circumstance. The learned Sessions Judge, had placed heavy reliance on the possibility of a person crossing the fence of the camp and he also put specific question to the PWs, who were on Sentry duties and such PWs stated that if a person desires and determined, they can cross the fencing. However, while doing so, the learned Sessions Judge, has failed to appreciate the settled principle of law that there is a long distance between “may be” and “must be” ( Ref. 2004 10 SCC 699 Narendra Singh and Another –Vs- State of Madhya Pradesh ). Thus, from the aforesaid analysis of the evidence, this Court is of the unhesitant view that the chain of even/fact/circumstance is not conclusive in nature and tendency and does not satisfy the strict standard as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarad Bridhi Chand Sarda (supra). V. Chain/link of recovery of the male money purse allegedly belongs to PW23: Even if it is assumed that the prosecution has been able to establish that it is the accused who had stolen the money purse from PW23, at the Guwahati Airport and the same was found at the place of occurrence, such factum in the presence of the evidence lead by the prosecution and as recorded hereinabove, cannot be treated to be a circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt of the accused can be said to be fully established. In this regard, there are many other hypotheses, such as the accused met the victim in the day time which may also lead to a possibility that the bag was handed over when they were together. Yet another projection of the prosecution is that the bag was lost one month back on 16.09.2021 and the owner of the bag PW-23 even is not aware where he lost the bag. Therefore, there are also possibilities that bag was lost not in the Airport and the same came into possession of the victim from any other source. As recorded hereinabove, there is a long gap between “may” and “must”. Therefore, on the basis of such link, which is very weak link cannot be ground of conviction of the accused. At the cost repetition, it is recorded herein that in the backdrop of the findings recorded hereinabove, there were no other chain of evidence leaving any reasonable ground for a conclusion to held the accused/appellant guilty. VI. Conviction under Section 201 of IPC : To prove an offence under Section 201 IPC, which deals with causing disappearance of evidence, the prosecution must prove; firstly, the main offence have been committed; secondly, the accused must have knowledge or reason to believe that main offence was committed; and thirdly, the accused must have caused the disappearance of evidence or given false information to protect the offender from punishment. In the case in hand, what is seen is that to bring home such charge, the prosecution projected that the accused had caused the disappearance of evidence by throwing the dead body into the bushes. However, when the prosecution had failed to prove that the main offence under Section 302 IPC, had been committed by the accused, the accused is entitled to acquittal for commission of offence under Section 201 IPC too. 7. Conclusion: To summarize, we have, for the reasons recorded hereinabove, no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances to point guilt to the accused in committing the offence by excluding every possible hypothesis. 7. Conclusion: To summarize, we have, for the reasons recorded hereinabove, no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances to point guilt to the accused in committing the offence by excluding every possible hypothesis. We are also of the unhesitant view that the learned Sessions Judge, has committed serious error of law and facts in convicting the accused based on the prosecution evidences which cannot be said to be a complete chain of evidence, so as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with innocent of the accused rather the learned Session Judges judgment is based on surmises and conjuncture and on presumption and assumption, which cannot be a basis of conviction. 8. Directions: Accordingly, we issue the following directions: I. The Judgment and conviction dated 07.02.2023 and order of sentence dated 08.02.2023, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bomdila, West Kameng District in Session Case No. 03/2022, stands set aside and quashed. II. The accused/appellant Md. Iqbal is acquitted from the charges of commission of offence under Sections 302/201 IPC giving him benefit of doubt. III. The accused/appellant shall be released from custody forthwith, if he is not in custody in connection with any other case(s). IV. TCR be sent back and a copy of this order be forwarded to the learned Sessions Judge, Bomdila, West Kameng District, who passed the impugned judgment and sentence.