Beena Antony v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 16[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 26TH JYAISHTA, 1944 CRL.A NO. 112 OF 2017 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 20.11.2015 IN SC 103/2014 OF SESSIONS COURT, KALPETTA, WAYANAD** ## **APPELLANT/ACCUSED:** BEENA ANTONY, AGED 42 YEARS W/O. ANTI @ ANTONY, AGED 42 YEARS, PALLITHARA HOUSE, MOOPPAINAD AMSOM, ARAMANGALAMCHAL, RIPPON POST, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.MANJU ANTONEY SRI.R.ANAS MUHAMMED SHAMNAD ## **RESPONDENT/STATE:** THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.KOCHI - 31. BY ADVS. ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA SMT.AMBIKA DEVI S, SPL.G.P. (ATROCITIES AGAINST WOMEN AND CHILDREN AND WELFARE OF W AND C)(GP-38) ## **OTHER PRESENT:** SRI.E.C.BINEESH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.A 112/2017 2 K.VINOD CHANDRAN & C.JAYACHANDRAN, JJ. -----------------------------------Crl. Appeal No.112 of 2017 ------------------------------------Dated this the 16[th] day of June, 2022 ## J U D G M E N T ## Jayachandran, J. 1. The sole accused in S.C No.103/2014 of the Sessions Court, Kalpetta is the appellant herein. The judgment dated 20.11.2015 in the said Sessions Case is under challenge in this appeal, as per which, the accused was found guilty of offences under Ss.302 and 201 of the Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/for offence under S.302, and imprisonment for a period of two years and a fine of Rs.5,000/- for offence under S.201 of the Penal Code, the substantive sentence being directed to run concurrently. Default sentence is also prescribed. 2. The prosecution would allege that the husband of the accused, one Antony (PW23), had an illicit relationship with the deceased, Meenakshi, before and after his marriage. PW23 brought the deceased to a shed erected in his property three days prior to Crl.A 112/2017 3 5.11.2011 and accommodated her there. PW4, the son of the deceased, came in search of his mother and had a quarrel with the accused and PW23; in which incident PW23 got injured. Due to that provocation and the previous enmity of the accused towards the deceased, for obvious reason of having to share her husband with that lady, the accused attacked the deceased at the newly constructed shed, by using an axe (MO14), hacked her several times on her head, until she succumbed. To cause destruction of the evidence, the accused washed and cleaned the axe and concealed the same, so as to screen herself from the crime, thus committing the offences enumerated above. 3. Prosecution examined 34 witnesses and marked Exts.P1 to P32. Material objects were marked as MO1 to MO14. Upon completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under S.313, Cr.P.C, whereupon, she denied all incriminating circumstances against her. No oral evidence was adduced by the accused. Exts.D1 to D2 contradictions were marked through PW34. 4. On an analysis of the facts and evidence, the learned Sessions Judge took stock of the Crl.A 112/2017 4 circumstantial evidence in the context of motive, extra judicial confession to the brother of the accused, last seen together alive theory, recovery of weapon and presence of blood in the weapon to find the accused guilty of the offences alleged and sentenced her as indicated above. 5. Heard Sri.C.C.Anoop, learned counsel for the appellant/accused and Sri.E.C.Bineesh, learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the records. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there exists no direct evidence, whatsoever, incriminating the accused; and the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution do not constitute a complete chain, unerringly pointing to her guilt. The motive alleged, the recovery of weapon and the alleged extra judicial confession are not proved in terms of law. As regards recovery, neither the authorship of concealment, nor the place from where it was concealed is spoken to in the alleged confessional statement. The presence of blood in MO14 weapon is of no moment, inasmuch as its origin, as to whether it is human or not, could not be detected. The recovery of nighty Crl.A 112/2017 5 worn by the accused itself is doubtful, notwithstanding the fact that the said nighty hardly incriminates the accused. As regards the alleged extra judicial confession, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that it was no confession at all. The accused asked her brother/PW17 as to whether he would help them to secure bail to her husband, who was arrested in the crime, to which PW17 answered in the negative. Then, the accused asked a qualified question to PW17 as to whether he would help her, if she was the accused, where again his answer was in the negative. This has been treated by the learned Sessions Judge as an extra judicial confession. A hypothetical and qualified question put by the accused to her brother, which does not tend to incriminate the accused, is not a confession in law, is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. On such premise, learned counsel would seek acquittal of the accused by reversing the judgment impugned. 7. Per contra, Sri.E.C.Bineesh, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the judgment impugned is quite sustainable in law. The illicit relationship between the husband of the accused and the deceased is Crl.A 112/2017 6 established. The prosecution evidence would establish that the deceased came to the house of the husband of accused three days prior to the incident and resided there. The fact that there was a quarrel between the husband of the accused and the son of the deceased/PW4 is proved. It is established that the body of the deceased was found with bleeding injuries in the shed at the property of the accused and her husband. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, this is a fit case where the last seen together alive theory can be pressed into service. The above factors, coupled with the recovery of the weapon under S.27 of the Evidence Act, wherein blood was found, would pin down the accused to the crime. Learned Public Prosecutor would maintain that the judgment impugned warrants no interference from this Court. 8. The prosecution essentially relies upon the testimonies of PWs 3 and 4 - the sons of the deceased through PW23, PW17 (brother of the accused) and PW23 (husband of the accused) to drive home the prosecution case, apart from the recovery of weapon under S.27 of the Evidence Act, the motive alleged, the extra judicial confession of the accused to her brother and Crl.A 112/2017 7 the last seen alive together theory. At the outset, we notice that out of the above referred witnesses, PWs 17 and 23 have turned hostile to the prosecution. 9. Before scanning through the evidence tendered by PWs 3 and 4, certain facts, which are not disputed; rather established by satisfactory evidence, are indicated herein below:- Accused is the legally wedded wife of PW23, who had an illicit relationship with the deceased, which, according to the prosecution, continued after the marriage as well. It is also fairly established that the deceased used to come to the house of PW23 quite frequently and they were living, more or less, as husband and wife. PWs 3 and 4 are the sons born to the deceased in that relationship. In the legal wedlock, PW23 have two children through the accused. 10. With this prelude, we will now scan through the evidence adduced by PWs 3 and 4. PW3 deposed that his mother, Meenakshi, was murdered on 5.11.2011 and that his father is Antony @ Anti, PW23. They have not entered into a formal marriage. 2-3 days prior to the fateful day (5.11.2011), the deceased left her Crl.A 112/2017 8 residential colony to the house of PW23. PW4, his younger brother, went in search of his mother to the house of PW23 on 5.11.2011 and there was a quarrel between them, which PW3 came to know through one Sudheesh, the son of his mother's sister. PW3 immediately ran to the house of PW23. Although he made enquiries with the daughter of the accused about his mother, she claimed ignorance. Then, PW3 went to the shed on the upper portion of PW23's house, where he saw his mother lying in a pool of blood, with cut injuries on her neck. Although he brought one Ummer's autorickshaw to take his mother to hospital, he realised that she is no more. PW3 found his mother dead by about 2.30 p.m on 5.11.2011. He thereafter went to Meppadi Police Station to give Ext.P2 F.I.S, wherein he had expressed an apprehension that crime would have been committed by his father, PW23. PW3 was present when Ext.P1 inquest report was prepared by the Police. A single footwear belonging to his brother/PW4 was found in the shed. PW3 identified MO1-nighty, MO2underskirt, MO3-Kontha, MO4-anklet, MO5-nose ring, MO7-imitation gold chain of his mother. PW3 would testify that his mother used to go and reside in the shed possessed by PW23, occasionally. Crl.A 112/2017 9 11. In cross examination, PW3 would state that he and his brother (PW4) did not relish the relationship between his mother and PW23 and that they had restrained her in this regard on several occasions. Nor was the relationship acceptable to their neighbours in the colony. Two days before the incident, PW23 attacked one Kariyan (PW9), the brother of the deceased. It is also elicited that the inhabitants of the colony were inimical to PW23 and that the deceased used to visit Antony ignoring their reservation in this regard. It is further extracted that in the quarrel between PW23 and PW4, the former got injured. A suggestion was made to PW3 to the effect that he, PW4 and the inhabitants of their colony have done away with the deceased, for, she used to go and live with PW23 frequently, disregarding their restraint and reservations. This suggestion is emphatically denied by PW3. It is elicited in re-examination that PW3 had animosity to his mother. 12. PW4, is the younger brother of PW3 and the son of the deceased through PW23. He also would reiterate that his mother had not formally married PW23, but they were maintaining a relationship, in which himself Crl.A 112/2017 10 and PW3 were born. According to PW4, PW23 and the deceased were living as husband and wife. On the Wednesday prior to the date of the incident, the deceased went to the house of PW23, which she used to do occasionally. Noticing that she had not returned after two days, PW4 went in search of his mother to the house of PW23. Upon enquiry, the accused told PW4 that the deceased had gone to the ration shop and that she will be sent back by evening. Since the deceased did not return by evening, PW4 again went to the house of PW23, whereupon the accused told him that PW23 and the deceased went to a place called Cherambadi and that she will be sent back immediately upon her return. However, the deceased did not return on that day, wherefore, PW4 went to the house of PW23 again on 5.11.2011, along with one Sudheesh (CW31). PW23 and the accused were there. PW23 and the accused obstructed PW4 when he attempted to enter the house in search of his mother. The accused attempted to assault him with a knife. When PW4 resisted, he was attacked by PW23 and the accused. An injury was inflicted upon his right palm, as also, his left chest with the knife held by PW23. In self defence, PW4 attacked PW23 by using a kavanavadi (കവണവട�) causing injury to PW23. Crl.A 112/2017 11 Thereupon, PW4 ran away, out of fear. Seeing the ruckus, Sudheesh (CW31) too ran away from the scene. While running, PW4 lost one of his footwear. He came to know later that the same was taken into custody by the Police. He threw away his other footwear during the course of his running. Tired of running when he took some rest, CWs 25 and 26, who were passing through, were informed of the incident. They took PW4 to the colony. He immediately received a phone call in his nearby house from PW3 asking him to come to the house of PW23 immediately. When he went there, people had gathered there and he saw his mother lying dead in the shed, possessed by PW23, erected in his property. At that time, neither PW23 nor the accused was there in the house. As regards MO4 footwear lying in the shed, PW4 would state that he had abandoned it at the house of PW23. According to PW4, the accused had strong objection in the deceased coming to the house of PW23 frequently and that she warned the deceased from doing that. MO13 nighty is claimed to have been identified by PW4 as one worn by the accused, when PW4 saw the accused in the house. In cross, it was suggested that PW4 is the son born to the deceased through another person, which he denied, reiterating Crl.A 112/2017 12 that PW23 is his father. A quarrel between Kariyan (PW9) and PW23 has been confirmed by PW4. It is elicited that there was a case against PW4 for having assaulted PW23. PW4 confirmed the presence of accused when PW23 quarrelled with him. A similar suggestion as put to PW3 was also put to PW4 to the effect that PW3, PW4 and inhabitants of the colony have done away with the deceased out of their animosity due to her relationship with PW23, which PW4 denied. 13. On scanning through the evidence of PWs 3 and 4, we cannot find any clinching evidence specifically pointing to the guilt of the accused. Neither PW3 nor PW4 witnessed the incident, admittedly. 14. Although PWs 3 and 4 had not seen the incident, their evidence would establish that the deceased was with PW23 two days prior to the date of the incident. PW4 gave specific evidence to the effect that he came in search of his mother twice, in the morning and evening on the day before the incident, and that he came again on the next day, when he quarreled with PW23. The fact that the deceased was found dead with bleeding injuries in the shed in the property of PW23 Crl.A 112/2017 13 is also established. Apart from establishing the said circumstances, nothing turns out of the evidence of PWs 3 and 4. 15. That apart, we find that the evidence tendered by PW4 is not fully inspiring. It was his version that pursuant to the quarrel with PW23, he ran away from the spot, out of fear, during which, he lost one of his footwear in the course of running. Thereafter, he consciously abandoned the remaining footwear at another place. However, the footwear which PW4 lost was found in the shed, where the deceased was found dead. PW4 has no version to the effect that he had entered the shed when he came in search of his mother. Instead, his version is that he tried to enter the house of PW23, which was objected to by PW23 and the accused, resulting in a quarrel. Importantly, the version of PW4 in the court regarding the footwear found in the shed was that he had abandoned the same there – a version quite different from his earlier one, besides being difficult to believe. Thus, a serious suspicion is cast as to how the footwear of PW4 was found in the shed, in which the deceased was found dead. Relevant in this context is the evidence Crl.A 112/2017 14 of PW24 – the daughter of accused - brought out in cross examination that PW4 ran to the shed after quarrelling with PW23 and the accused. No explanation is forthcoming by the prosecution in this regard; rather the explanation that PW4 abandoned it during the course of running does not agree with the place where the footwear was ultimately found. 16. Another incompatibility is with respect to the presence of the daughter of accused at the scene of occurrence. According to PW3, he enquired with the daughter of PW23 about his mother, whereas the version of PW4 is that PW23 and the accused were not there at the time when he came to the scene of occurrence. We find incompatibility between the versions of PWs 3 and 4, for, if PW23 and the accused were not there, there is little possibility that their children will be left in the house. Here, we take stock of the evidence tendered by PW14 - the auto driver - and PW16, who deposed that PW23, the accused, and the daughters took the auto of PW14 for a trip to Vythiri on the date of occurrence. Both deposed that PW23 was having bleeding injuries, obviously caused in the quarrel with PW4. Besides, PW24 and PW25, the daughters of the accused, Crl.A 112/2017 15 themselves, deposed that they accompanied their parents to Vythiri in the autorickshaw. Be that as it may. 17. Two other witnesses from whom the prosecution contemplated support were PWs 23 and 17, the former being the husband and the latter, the brother of the accused. However, PW23 turned hostile to the prosecution case. PW23 would depose that the deceased and her parents used to come to his property for various works and that he has no knowledge whether the deceased was married or not. Initially, he claimed he was oblivious as to the date and the place where the deceased was found dead. Subsequently, he would say that he came to know that she was found dead in the shed erected in the property of his mother, but in his possession. He, however, admitted the quarrel with PW4 and claimed on that premise that both himself and the accused were in hospital on the date on which the deceased passed away. He further admitted that PW4 came in search of his mother/deceased and that she was in their property on the fateful day. When PW4 attempted to enter his house, PW23 obstructed him, whereupon PW4 attacked him with an axe. The witness Crl.A 112/2017 16 was declared hostile and in the examination thereafter, PW23 would state that Police had suspected him in connection with the death of the deceased. Exts.P13, P13(a) to P13(e) are the contradictions marked through PW23, which would indicate that in his former statement, he stated that it was his wife/accused, who killed the deceased. We, therefore, conclude that the evidence tendered by PW23 hardly extend any support to the prosecution version as regards the guilt of the accused. The same is the case with PW24 and PW25, the daughters of the accused and PW23, who also turned completely hostile to the prosecution. 18. The next witness is PW17, the brother of the accused. He came to know about the death of the deceased from newspaper. He would state that the accused came to his house some time near the date of the death of the deceased and that the children of the accused came on the day previous to that. He also came to know about a quarrel, pursuant to which the accused and her husband were in the hospital, as spoken to him by the said children. When the accused came to the house of PW17, PW23 was already arrested. The accused Crl.A 112/2017 17 asked PW17 as to whether he would help her to secure bail for PW23, which PW17 refused. Thereupon, the accused asked PW17 as to whether he would help her, if she was the accused, which request also PW17 negated. As regards, the specific words spoken to by the accused, PW17 initially said that she does not remember precisely, but clarified as follows: "ഞഞാനഞാണ്‌ ചചെയയ്തചയ്തങങ്കിൽ എചന്നെ ജഞാമമ്യതങ്കിൽ എടടുകടുമമഞാ എന്െ ബബീന എമന്നെഞാട് മചെഞാദങ്കിചച." 19. In cross examination, it is elicited that, before giving statement to the Magistrate, PW17 was instructed by the Police to give statement as directed by the Police, as otherwise, PW17 is likely to be implicated. This was, however, clarified in re-examination that the Police had only instructed him to speak in accordance with his former statement. Here also, we conclude that the evidence tendered by PW17 is of little avail to the prosecution. ## 20. The Extra judicial confession It is apposite in this regard to refer to the extra judicial confession relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge to find the accused guilty. The above Crl.A 112/2017 18 referred conversation has been reckoned as an extra judicial confession made by the accused to PW17. A confession is a statement made by an accused, which must either admit in terms, the offence or substantially all the facts constituting the offence [See Om Prakash v. State of U.P (AIR 1960 SC 409) ]. In the instant case, PW17 does not admit anything, whatsoever, insofar as the offence is concerned, or in respect of any fact constituting the offence. All what is alleged to have been spoken to by the accused to PW17 is that Whether PW17 would help her, if it was she who committed the crime, in the matter of securing bail. This is a hypothetical and qualified question, which does not per se qualify as a confession of the guilt. As it is well settled, an admission shall be clear, precise and categoric, whereby the maker binds himself with respect to a fact in issue or a relevant fact. We, therefore, discount completely the reliance placed upon the above referred statement of the accused to PW17, which was misconceived as an extra judicial confession. It was at best an accusation or an expression of consternation that the brother is distancing himself from the brother-in-law, while he may be more indulgent with his own sister. The Crl.A 112/2017 19 brother; undeterred, answered in the negative, clearly asserting that his refusal was not on account of lack of a blood relationship. ## 21. Last seen alive theory We are at a loss again to observe that the last seen alive theory has no application to the given facts. It is true that the deceased was in the shed near to the house of the accused and her husband, two days prior to the incident, where she was found dead. It is also clearly established that PW23, the husband of the accused, was maintaining an illicit relationship with the deceased. PW7, the neighbour of accused, deposed that she saw the deceased at Antony's shed, two days prior to the incident. Therefore, it would be reasonable to infer that the deceased was last seen at the shed attached to the house of PW23. However, there is no evidence adduced by any witness to show that the deceased was last seen with the accused specifically. The shed, going by the evidence adduced, is on the upper portion of the residential property of the accused and PW23. PW23, the accused, and their children were residing there. If evidence is only to the effect that the deceased person was last found Crl.A 112/2017 20 along with a family consisting of several members, one among whom alone is arraigned as an accused, the last seen alive theory can hardly be pressed into service against the accused, when there is complete dearth of evidence as to with whom, particularly, she was last seen alive. That apart, PW7 saw the deceased in Antony's shed two days prior to the incident, wherefore, the time at which she was last seen in Antony's (PW23) property is not proximate to the time at which she was found dead in the shed. We, therefore, dismiss the applicability of this theory to the given facts. Even when PW4 came to the property of PW23 and enquired about his mother, she was not present there or rather he has no case that she was seen along with PW23 and the accused or even in the shed. ## 22. Recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act According to the prosecution, the accused gave a confessional statement to PW34, the investigating officer, to the effect that she will show the axe and the place where it is concealed, if she is taken. Pursuant to such statement, PW34 took the accused to the house of PW23 bearing no.11/44 and recovered MO14 Crl.A 112/2017 21 axe from the south-western side of the kitchen. The axe was concealed in a heap of wooden logs. Ext.P4 is the seizure mahazar and Ext.P24 is the confessional statement made by the accused. PW15, the witness to Ext.P3 mahazar, supported the recovery of MO14 axe. Before addressing the merits and evidentiary value of the above recovery, we may indicate that pursuant to another confessional statement made to the same officer, the nighty worn by the accused on the fateful day was also recovered. However, the same does not lend any tangible support to the prosecution version. There was no presence of any blood or the like in the nighty, so as to link the said material object with the crime. Hence, we discard that part of the recovery, which pertains to the nighty. 23. As regards the recovery of MO14 axe, the evidence led through PW33, the chemical examiner, would indicate that there was presence of blood in the same. However, the origin of the blood as to whether it is human or not could not be detected. 24. As regards the recovery, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that neither the place Crl.A 112/2017 22 where it was concealed, nor the fact as to who concealed it has been spoken to by the accused, wherefore, the so claimed recovery cannot be of any impact. We cannot persuade ourselves to endorse the said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. S.27 of the Evidence Act is extracted herein below:- “ 27 . How much of information received from accused may be proved.- Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.” The various legal requirements under the Section can be summarised as follows: “(1) The fact of which evidence is sought to be given must be relevant to the issue. It must be borne in mind that the provision has nothing to do with question of relevancy. The relevancy of the fact discovered must be established according Crl.A 112/2017 23 to the prescriptions relating to relevancy of other evidence connecting it with the crime in order to make the fact discovered admissible. (2) The fact must have been discovered. (3) The discovery must have been in consequence of some information received from the accused and not by accused's own act. (4) The persons giving the information must be accused of any offence. (5) He must be in the custody of a police officer. (6) The discovery of a fact in consequence of information received from an accused in custody must be deposed to. (7) Thereupon only that portion of the information which relates distinctly or strictly to the fact discovered can be proved.” {See in this regard: 1. Anter Singh v. State of Rajasthan [AIR 2004 SC 2865] 2. Amitsingh Bhikamsingh Thakur v. State of Maharashtra [(2007) 2 SCC 310] and 3. Sanatan Naskar v. W.B [(2010) 8 SCC 249]} 25. Only that part of the information given by a person whilst in police custody, whether the information is confessional or otherwise, which distinctly relates to the fact thereby discovered but Crl.A 112/2017 24 no more, is provable in a proceeding in which the accused is charged with commission of an offence. In Murugan v. State of Tamil Nadu [AIR 2008 SC 2876] , a blood stained axe concealed behind the bushes was recovered on the pointing of the accused. Such recovery was held to be admissible in evidence under S.27. In State of M.P v. Murarilal [1973 Crl.LJ 1559] , it was held that though the accused did not give information as to the exact place where the incriminating article was placed, still, if he leads to the shop of a named person, it is admissible as the recovery of article could be effected from a place in that shop. We are, therefore, not persuaded to uphold the contention that the confessional statement is not liable to be recognized under S.27 of the Evidence Act for the mere reason that the place where it was concealed and as to who concealed the same, have not been spoken to by the accused. As held by a Full Bench of this Court in Ajayan v. State of Kerala [2011(1) KLT 8 (F.B.)] , authorship of concealment is not a sine quo non to reckon a recovery under S.27. 26. Nevertheless, we find another infirmity as regards the utility and evidentiary value of the fact Crl.A 112/2017 25 discovered. The discovery of a material object is of no relevancy to the question whether the accused is guilty of the offence charged against him, unless it is connected with the offence. It is, therefore, the connection of the thing discovered, which renders its discovery a relevant fact. The connection between the offence and the thing discovered may be established by evidence, other than the statement leading to the discovery, but that does not exclude proof of the connection by the statement itself. [See in this regard Puransingh v. King-Emperor [(1946) 25 Pat 279) ]. 27. In the case of recovery of a weapon, the fact discovered assumes relevance only when the weapon is proved to have been used in the commission of the offence by adducing independent evidence. In the instant case, we find that there exist no tangible evidence before us to connect the weapon recovered to the crime in question. Mere presence of blood, without tracing its origin, cannot be of any avail to the prosecution case. The role of the accused, rather her guilt, has not been established by satisfactory evidence. In such circumstances, even if the discovery Crl.A 112/2017 26 of the fact is taken stock of under S.27 of the Evidence Act, the same lends little support to the prosecution case, insofar as fixing the culpability of the accused is concerned. In other words, the fact discovered is only one link in the chain of circumstances; and in the absence of proof with respect to other links, the link by way of discovery of the fact, by itself, is not of any avail, especially since there is no unbroken chain of circumstances established. Point found accordingly. 28. We have discussed the evidence tendered by the main witnesses in support of the prosecution case, as also, the circumstances, which have been taken stock of by the learned Sessions Judge and projected before us by the learned Public Prosecutor. We have perused the evidence tendered by other witnesses also, only to find that the same also is of no avail to drive home the prosecution allegations. Indubitably, this is a case where there is no direct evidence, but which is sought to be proved/established by virtue of circumstantial evidence. As it is well settled, proof by way of circumstantial evidence can be recognised only if a complete chain of circumstances, which Crl.A 112/2017 27 unerringly points to the guilt of the accused is established, which the prosecution miserably failed to establish in the instant facts. 29. Having gone through the evidence, we are of the opinion that the guilt of the accused has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. In such circumstances, we concede the benefit of doubt to the accused and allow the Criminal Appeal. The accused shall be released forthwith, if she is not required in any other case. Sd/K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE Sd/C.JAYACHANDRAN JUDGE jg