Navin Sinha, J.

1. The present appeal arises from judgment dated 22.02.1999 of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar in Sessions Trial No. 61 of 1998, convicting the Appellant under Section 302/34 IPC to life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000, in the event of failure to pay which she was required to undergo one year further rigorous imprisonment. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that Merg, Exhibit P-1 was lodged on 4.11.1997 by Thirwar Das, PW-1 on information given to him by the Appellant that her husband was lying dead at the door of the house. FIR was registered on the basis of the same by ASI B.L. Sahu, PW-13 marked Exhibit P-17 on 8.11.1997. The post mortem was conducted on 6.11.1997 by Dr. F.R. Nirala, PW-9 and the report Exhibit P-12 revealed three injuries on the person of the deceased; i) lacerated wound 1 1/2" x 1/2 c.m. x 1/2. c.m. over right cheek ii) Compound committed fracture of zygomatic bone iii) Contusion 2" x 1/2" over chest left side below nipple, internally fracture of 5th and 6th rib and Echymosis blood clot opining that the cause of death was due to excessive blood loss.

2. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no eye witness to the occurrence and the entire case of the prosecution is based on the alleged extra-judicial confession of co-accused along with confession of the co-accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act leading to recovery of Lungi and grinding stone alleged to have been used for assault. The forensic report with regard to both is negative with no presence of blood. It leaves only the extra-judicial confession of the co-accused only. There is no material whatsoever against the appellant to convict her on the basis of any circumstantial evidence even. The co-accused never made an extra judicial confession. What is alleged to be a confession where statements made to the police when it came to the village, in presence of the villagers including PW-3 Ayodhya Prasad and PW-8 Punitram. The motive alleged against the Appellant is her extra marital affair with the co-accused. PW-2 Bhagchand has deposed that the deceased never suspected the infidelity of his wife and never objected to the co-accused coming to his house as he was a regular visitor. There was no material to sustain the conviction of the appellant or even ascribe any motive to her.

3. Counsel for the State relied upon the extra judicial confession made by the co-accused that they had intended to kill the deceased as the Appellant had an extra marital affair with the co-accused and that the deceased husband was an impediment in the same. There existed a motive for the Appellant to kill the deceased in association with her paramour which was an important consideration in a case of circumstantial evidence.

4. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties and perused the evidence on record also. There is no eye witness to the occurrence and the case against the Appellant is based on circumstantial evidence coupled with the extra judicial confession of the co-accused. In case of circumstantial evidence, there must be some tangible material linked with a chain of circumstances and one circumstance must be intertwined with the other in a continuous link compatible only with the guilt of the accused pointing inescapably to the same. There must be no other hypothesis possible compatible with the innocence of the accused. In the latter case, the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. In the present case the only circumstantial evidence emerging against the Appellant is the motive because of her extra marital affair with the co-accused. We find it difficult to accept the existence of motive especially when prosecution witnesses have themselves stated that the deceased never objected to the co-accused visiting his house and even staying at times. If the co-accused had easy access to the house of the Appellant with no objection being raised by the deceased who was her husband,