the morning of 17-6-1999 and then whereabouts for rest of the day of the deceased were not known, was not clinching circumstance considering the time gap between the time of death and the incident of last seen. The benefit of doubt was given to the accused. In the present matter, if Gumphabai had not turned hostile, conviction could have been safely given against the accused but as Gumphabai has turned hostile and the other evidence is not satisfactory and sufficient to prove the circumstance of last seen, the accused must get benefit of doubt in the present matter. In the case of Digamber Vaishnav v. State of Chhattisgarh reported as 2019 ALL SCR (Cri) 1009 the Apex Court has laid down that strong suspicion, strong coincidences and grave doubt cannot take place of legal proof. There cannot be dispute over this proposition. In the present case also the evidence and the record has created suspicion against the accused but the evidence is not sufficient to prove the guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. In the present case not a single circumstance which can be called as incriminating is fully established. This Court holds that trial court has committed error in convicting the appellant. In the result, following order.
