ORDER

This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Bihar dated 14th December, 1990 confirming the conviction and sentence of the appellants for an offence under Sections 302/34 IPC.

2. On the basis of a fard-bayan recorded on the statement of Anjira Khatoon - PW 3, sister of the deceased, at about 8.30 p.m. on 16th April, 1986, investigation was taken in hand and at the conclusion of the investigation, the appellants along with two others (father and sister-in-law of appellant No. 1) were tried for offences under Sections 302/34 IPC and Section 201 IPC. The trial Court, vide judgment dated 3rd October, 1988 acquitted all the four accused for the offence under Section 201 IPC but convicted them for offences under Sections 302/34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment. On appeal, the High Court acquitted the father and sister-in-law of accused No. 1 by giving them benefit of doubt vide judgment dated 14th December, 1990 but maintained conviction and sentence of both the appellants - husband and mother-in-law of deceased Aheleya Khatoon.

3. There is no eyewitness in this case. The entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. It is settled law that, in case based on circumstantial evidence, before the court can record conviction, it must satisfy itself that circumstances from which an inference of guilt could be drawn have been established by unimpeachable evidence led by the prosecution and that all the circumstances put together are not only of conclusive nature but also complete the chain so fully as to unerringly point only to the guilt of the accused and are not capable of any explanation which is not consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. It is on the basis of these principles that we shall examine the circumstantial evidence relied upon by the prosecution in this case.

4. The circumstances relied upon by the High Court to bring home the charge to the appellants, as can be culled down from the judgment of the High Court, are :

1. That appellant No. 1 had borrowed Rs. 10,000/- from his father-in-law (father of the deceased) to defend himself in a murder case and mother of the deceased was presurising him to return the money;

2. That the appellants (as well as the acquitted accused) were ill-treating the deceased and had beaten her on certain previous occasions;

3. That the dead body of the deceased was found from the house occupied by the appellants;

4. Medical evidence;

5. That at about 10 a.m. both the appellants were seen going out of their house along with the one year old child of the deceased;

6. That appellant No. 1, had disclosed to PW 6 and PW 9 at 4.00 p.m. that his wife (the deceased) had died at 11 a.m. by burning;

7. The unsubstantiated plea of alibi of the appellants, and;

8. Failure of appellant No. 1 to report the incident to the police.

5. Prosecution has led evidence to show the existence of circumstance No. 1, with a view to establish motive and circumstance No. 2 to show the previous conduct of the appellants. There is no doubt that the prosecution has established circumstance No. 3. The medical evidence (circumstance No. 4) also shows that the cause of death was due to burn injuries. The only evidence led by the prosecution about the time of death is the evidence of PW 6 and PW 9 (circumstance No. 6).

6. Before we allow to link up the above circumstances, it is absolutely essential to first consider whether the prosecution has led any unimpeachable evidence to show that the appellants were present in the house where the deceased died as a result of burn injuries at the crucial time. In our opinion, if it is found that the presence of the appellants at the crucial time has not been established in the house, all other circumstances would not complete the chain of circumstantial evidence to