Ahmed Ali Khan, J.-The appellants Lakshmaiah and Muniappa were prosecuted before the District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur, for the offence of murder punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code before the District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur, in Sessions Case No. 9 of 1908 on the file of his Court. The learned Sessions Judge convicted them of the offence with which they were charged and sentenced them each to undergo imprisonment for life. The charge against them was that on the night between 28th and 29th of January, 1968 in the Mantap close to the temple (attached to the temple) of Jaladagere Village, Kunigal taluk, Tumkur district, the appellants committed the murder of Chowrappa alias Abbayya (deceased) throwing a stone (M.O. 1) on his head. 2. It was alleged by the prosecution that Appellant No. 1 Lekshmaiah and the deceased Chowrappa were the employees of the Imperial Tobacco Co., of India Ltd., Bangalore (which will hereinafter be referred to as the ‘company’). The said company had given right to its retired employees to nominate their relations for employment and this facility had led to malpractices. It was said that some persons had made it their business to catch hold of retired servants of the company, purchase their tickets for consideration and persuade the authorities of the company to appoint their own protegees in the service of the company. It is the prosecution case that the deceased and appellant No. 1 Laksmaiah were indulging in the said malpractices and were securing employments in the company for their protegees. It was alleged that the deceased got one Yagappa (P.W. 37) employed in the company in this manner. 3. It was the prosecution case that Appellant No. 1 approached the Union Secretary Krishna Murthy (P.W. 49) to help the deceased to get some persons admitted in the company’s services. The prosecution further alleged that one Chinnappa who has been examined as P.W. 40 in the case is a prosperous neighbour of the deceased. He had some unemployed dependents and he was anxious to get employment for them in the company. The prosecution further alleged that one Chinnappa who has been examined as P.W. 40 in the case is a prosperous neighbour of the deceased. He had some unemployed dependents and he was anxious to get employment for them in the company. The deceased held out promises to P.W. 40 that he would secure employment to his dependents Cheluvaraj (P.W. 41), Balaraj (P.W. 45) and one Aralappa and told him that that he i.e., the deceased had secured employment to one Yagappa (P.W. 37) in the company, and persuaded Chinnappa that if he pays money, employment would be likewise secured for his dependents in the company on very attractive salaries which according to P.W. 42. Harold would come up to Rs. 210 per month at the rate of Rs. 3.65 wages and Rs. 3-50 D.A. per day. 4. It was said that P.W. 40 paid the deceased a sum of Rs. 1,000 and asked him to get employment for his dependents in the company. After receiving Rs. 1,000 the deceased took P.W. 41 Cheluvaraj (the foster son of P.W. 40) and Balaraj (P.W. 45) the brother-in-law of P.W. 40 to Appellant No. 1 who took them to the Cigarette Factory, and from there along with Poliah, P.W. 47 and Nagiah Naidu, P.W. 46 (retired servants of the company), A-1 took them all to a Typist in Dharmaraj Koil Street, Bangalore and got the applications Exhibits P-39 and P-39(a) addressed to the Company typed, stating in them that Cheluvaraj, P.W. 41 is the brother of Nagiah Naidu (P.W. 46) and Balaraj to be the brother of Poliah (P.W. 47). A-1 promised to pay Poliah P.W. 47 Rs. 500 and Nagiah Naidu, P.W. 46 Rs. 400 and paid them each Rs. 150 and Rs. 50 there. The prosecution also alleged that after the applications were made, the deceased collected a sum of Rs. 3,070 from P.W. 40 Chinnappa at different times representing to him that that money was required to be paid to the concerned persons to get employment for his dependents. 5. Even thereafter the deceased attempted to secure more money from P.W. 40 Chinnappa. He approached him for a further sum of Rs. 2,000 stating to him that he would positively see that his dependents were employed very soon with the help of Appellant No. 1. P.W. 40 Chinnappa at first felt hesitant to give him any more amount. 5. Even thereafter the deceased attempted to secure more money from P.W. 40 Chinnappa. He approached him for a further sum of Rs. 2,000 stating to him that he would positively see that his dependents were employed very soon with the help of Appellant No. 1. P.W. 40 Chinnappa at first felt hesitant to give him any more amount. But when the deceased gave the Chit Exhibit P-31 to P.W. 40, which according to the prosecution he had got written by his daughter P.W. 20 Mary, P.W. 40 gave the desired sum of Rs. 2,000. P.W. 40 however asked his foster son P.W. 41 Cheluvaraj to accompany the deceased and to see that the amount is paid by the deceased to the person concerned. It is in the evidence of the prosecution that the deceased took the amount and gave it to Appellant No. 1 who assured P.W. 41 that he would get the employment soon. Bat when nothing transpired even after the payment of an additional sum of Rs. 2,000, P.W. 40 Chinnappa met the deceased near his house on 28th January, 1968 (Sunday) and banged him. 6. The prosecution case was that the deceased had given the amount to appellant No. 1 as the financial condition of Appellant No. 1 was not sound, and he was not in a position to repay the amount that had been given to him, and as the deceased was pressing him either to get the dependents of P.W. 40 employed in the Company or return the money, he wanted to put an end to the deceased and with this object in mind Appellant No. 1 along with his friend Muniappa Appellant No. 2 took the deceased to the Mantap attached to Jaladageeramma’s temple and murdered him. This was the motive for the crime according to the prosecution. 7. It is not disputed before is that the deceased Abbayya met with a homicidal death. P.W. 2 Kempanna, the Medical Officer who conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Abbayya found; (1) A lacerated wound 1½" X ¼" X ¼" above the pinna of left ear with clotted blood; (2) a contusion 2" X 1½" over the left temporal region with clotted blood over its surface. P.W. 2 Kempanna, the Medical Officer who conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Abbayya found; (1) A lacerated wound 1½" X ¼" X ¼" above the pinna of left ear with clotted blood; (2) a contusion 2" X 1½" over the left temporal region with clotted blood over its surface. (3) a contusion 2¼" X 2" over the right temporal region blue in colour; (4) a contusion 2" X ¾" over the right upper eye-lid, and (5) an abrasion ¼" X ¼" over the back of medial part of right wrist with little clots of blood. on the dead body of the deceased. P.W. 2 was of the opinion that injuries Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were fatal and they were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. He has further deposed that the injuries found on the deceased could be caused by a big stone like M.O. 1. His evidence has not been challenged before us. 8. The prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence. None has witnessed the murder. Therefore, we have to see whether the circumstances alleged by the prosecution are satisfactorily established and further whether the proved circumstances are not merely consistent with the guilt of the accused but inconsistent with their innocence. The plea of the accused persons is one of denial. 9. Prosecution depended upon the following circumstances which were accepted by the Sessions Judge: (1) That the financial position of accused No. 1 was not good; his indulging in malpractices and thereby obtaining loans from the deceased; (2) that the deceased was seen in the company of the accused and their movements at Yediyur Cross: (3) The deceased being in the company of the accused persons at the Mantap of Jaladageeramma’s temple on the night intervening between 28th and 29th of January, 1968. (4) The return journey of the appellants and the movements and conduct of accused No. 1 after his return from Bangalore; (5) Friendship between accused No. 1 and accused No. 2, and (6) that accused No. 1 used to visit the temple of Jaladageeramma quite often. 10. To establish that accused No. 1 was not in a good financial position, the prosecution has examined P.W. 18, Mangi Lal, P.W. 19 Balchand Pawn Broker, P.W. 27 Angamma and P.W. 25, Narayanappa. 11. 10. To establish that accused No. 1 was not in a good financial position, the prosecution has examined P.W. 18, Mangi Lal, P.W. 19 Balchand Pawn Broker, P.W. 27 Angamma and P.W. 25, Narayanappa. 11. It is in the evidence of P.W. 18 Mangi Lal, money-lender that accused No. 1 borrowed from him a sum of Rs. 700 on a pronote Exhibit P-22, dated 3rd February, 1967. The said pronote was jointly executed in his favour by accused No. 1 and P.W. 25, Narayanappa. Accused No. 1 hid also borrowed a sum of Rs. 200 on the joint pronote executed by P.W. 25 Narayanappa and accused No. 1 in favour of P.W. 18 as per Exhibit P-24 dated 16th February, 1967. Accused No. 1 borrowed another sum of Rs. 100 under the pronote Exhibit P-23 dated 5th February, 1967 from P.W. 18. That pronote was executed by accused No. 1 in favour of P.W. 18. Again on 23rd April, 1967, he borrowed a sum of Rs. 300 from P.W. 18 under the pronote Exhibit P. 25 executed by appellant No. 1 and the deceased in favour of P.W. 18. The witness has further deposed that appellant No. 1 pledged a gold ring and borrowed a sum of Rs. 60 as per Exhibit. P-26 on 14th April, 1967. 12. P.W. 19 Balachand is a pawnbroker. He has deposed to the fact that accused No. 1 pledged ear-rings and borrowed from him a sum of Rs. 115 on nth November, 1967. Exhibit P-28 is the pawn ticket. He also pledged a gold chain on 22nd November, 1967 with him and borrowed a sum of Rs. 360 as per pawn ticket Exhibit, P-29. Accused No. 1 had further borrowed a sum of Rs. 460 from him as per pawn ticket Exhibit P-30 on 10th December, 1967. The evidence of P.W. 27 Angamma. is that accused No. 1 borrowed from her a sum of Rs. 150 for the expenses of his second marriage and added that he subsequently repaid her debt. The testimony of these witnesses shows that accused No. 1 was in the habit of obtaining loans from them quite often. The evidence has not been challenged on behalf of the appellants. 13. But it was argued on behalf of the appellants that even if their evidence is to be accepted, it cannot have any material effect in the case against the appellants. The evidence has not been challenged on behalf of the appellants. 13. But it was argued on behalf of the appellants that even if their evidence is to be accepted, it cannot have any material effect in the case against the appellants. The evidence let in on behalf of the prosecution with regard to the alleged malpractices in which the deceased and appellant No. 1 are alleged to have participated or indulged has also not been challenged on behalf of the appellants. In this connection the prosecution has examined P.W. 30 Munivenkata, P.W. 31 Muniyappa, P.W. 32 Chikkamuniramaiah, P.W. 37 Yagappa, P.W. 40 Chainnappa, P.W. 41 Cheluvaraj, P.W. 42 Harold, P.W. 45 Balaraj, P.W. 46 Nagaiah Naidu, P.W. 47 Polaiah, P.W. 48 Muniyappa and P.W. 49 Krishnamurthy. P.W. 30 Munivenkata has given evidence that accused No. 1 used to take persons to him to get employment and he was collecting tokens from discharged employees on payment of money. The witness is an executive member of the Labour Union of the Company. It is in his evidence that accused No. 1 had come to him a year and half prior to his examination in the Court and requested him to collect 2 tokens for him from persons discharged from service. He has also deposed about the practice prevailing in the company in respect of appointments of nominees of discharged persons. Since the evidence relating to malpractices was not challenged before us, it is unnecessary to discuss the evidence of the witnesses examined in this connection in detail. P.W. 30 Munivenkata, who is a worker in the company and a member of the Executive Committee of the Factory Union has given evidence that one and a half years before he was examined in the Court, appellant No. 1 had requested him to collect two tickets. After a month he brought two boys P.W. 31 Muniyappa and P.W. 32 Chikkamuniramaiah to him to secure jobs for them. P.W. 31 paid him a sum of Rs. 500 and P.W. 32 Rs. 600. But as the witness was unable to secure employment for them, he returned the said amounts to P.Ws. 31 and 32. P.Ws. 31 and 32 have also deposed substantially to the same effect. 14. P.W. 31 paid him a sum of Rs. 500 and P.W. 32 Rs. 600. But as the witness was unable to secure employment for them, he returned the said amounts to P.Ws. 31 and 32. P.Ws. 31 and 32 have also deposed substantially to the same effect. 14. The evidence of P.W. 40 Chinnappa is to the effect that on the representation of the deceased that he would secure employment for his dependents, namely his foster son Cheluvaraj P.W. 41 and his brother-in-law Balaraj, P.W. 45 and also for one Aralappa, he save him a sum of Rs. 3,070 at different times. The deceased wanted a further sum of Rs. 2,000. At first the witness felt hesitant to pay the amount, but when the deceased gave him the chit Exhibit P-31 mentioning therein the amounts already paid to him (Exhibit P-31) and told him that the additional sum of Rs. 2,000 was required to be paid to the person concerned, the witness gave the deceased a sum of Rs. 2,000 and as a precautionary measure asked his foster son P.W. 41 Cheluvaraj to accompany the deceased and to see that the sum was paid to the person concerned. 15. P.W. 41 Cheluvaraj has deposed that on the instructions of P.W. 40 he accompanied the deceased that the deceased went to appellant No. 1 and paid him the sum of Rs. 2,010. 16. P.W. 41 Cheluvaraj and P.W. 45 Balaraj have also deposed, that the deceased obtained Rs. 1.000 from P.W. 40 representing to P.W. 40 that he will secure employment in the company for them and thereafter he took them to accused No. 1. Accused No. 1 took them to P.Ws. 46 and 47 and then they all went to the typist in Dharmaraja Lane to get the applications Exhibits P-39 and P-39(a) typed. After Exhibit P-39 and Exhibit P-39(a) were typed signatures of P.W. 46 Nagaiah Naidu and P.W. 47 Polaiah were obtained on the applications and P.Ws. 46 and 47 were paid Rs. 150 and Rs. 50 respectively by appellant No. 1, P.Ws. 41 and 45 further deposed that appellant No. 1 had told them that he would send the applications to the Company. Their evidence is corroborated by P.W. 42 Harold, an employee in the company. 17. Then we have the evidence of P.W. 37 Yagappa. 46 and 47 were paid Rs. 150 and Rs. 50 respectively by appellant No. 1, P.Ws. 41 and 45 further deposed that appellant No. 1 had told them that he would send the applications to the Company. Their evidence is corroborated by P.W. 42 Harold, an employee in the company. 17. Then we have the evidence of P.W. 37 Yagappa. His evidence is to the effect that the deceased had secured him employment in the company on payment of Rs. 300. The prosecution has also relied upon the evidence of P.Ws. 48 and 49 to show that appellant No. 1 was the person whom the deceased used to approach for securing employment to his protegees in the company. It is in the evidence of P.W. 48 Muniyappa that the deceased had approached him about two years back and requested him to get a ticket to a boy of his choice and that the boy’s name was Nagaraj. He had. also told him that he will speak to Lakshmaiah, appellant No. 1 and get the work done and that the deceased paid him Rs. 500. P.W. 49 Krishnamurthy is the Secretary of the Union of the Company. He has deposed that accused No. 1 had once approached him and told him that he has got 3 or 4 applicants, seeking employment in the company and requested him to help him to which he promised. Relying upon the evidence of these two witnesses it was argued on behalf of the prosecution that Appellant No. 1 was an important person through whom the deceased used to get his work done. It was argued by Mr. Devadas, the learned Advocate for the appellants that even if the testimony of these witnesses is to be believed it does not amount to any motive as alleged on behalf of the prosecution. He submitted that except for the sum of Rs. 2,000 in respect of which P.W. 41 Cheluvaraj has given evidence that it was given to appellant No. 1 it is not borne by the evidence of the prosecution that any other amount had been paid to appellant No. 1. He submitted that except for the sum of Rs. 2,000 in respect of which P.W. 41 Cheluvaraj has given evidence that it was given to appellant No. 1 it is not borne by the evidence of the prosecution that any other amount had been paid to appellant No. 1. Even with respect to this amount there is no evidence on record to show that the deceased was demanding the amount back from appellant No. 1 nor there is any material on record which indicates that there were any strained feelings between accused No. 1 and the deceased on this account. That being so, according to Mr. Devadas the motive alleged is not established by the prosecution evidence. 18. It was argued on behalf of the State by the Public Prosecutor that the absence of motive by itself is not sufficient to discard the positive evidence of the witnesses who have deposed with regard to the other circumstances against the accused. In support of his argument he relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Rajinder Kumar v. State of Punjab1, particularly on the observation made in para. 11 at page 1324 of the report wherein it is observed: “What moved Rajinder Kumar to commit this dastardly deed is not clear. The strained relations between Tonny’s father Ravinder on the one hand and Rajinder on the other because the former had asked Rajinder to stop his visits as mentioned in the first circumstance specified above does not explain his action. Let us assume, however, that even this evidence of strained relations had not been given. That can be no reason for doubting the evidence, as regards the other circumstances that has been adduced or for hesitating to draw the inescapable conclusion from them. The motive behind a crime is a relevant fact of which evidence can be given. The absence of a motive is also a circumstance which is relevant for assessing the evidence. The circumstances which have been mentioned above as proving the guilt of the accused Rajinder are however not weakened at all by this fact that the motive has not been established. It often happens that only the culprit himself knows what moved him to a certain course of action. This case appears to be one like that.” 19. The circumstances which have been mentioned above as proving the guilt of the accused Rajinder are however not weakened at all by this fact that the motive has not been established. It often happens that only the culprit himself knows what moved him to a certain course of action. This case appears to be one like that.” 19. Motive after all, is not a necessary factor, though a relevant one, to be established by the prosecution, though it may not assume importance when the prosecution case rests on the evidence of eye-witnesses. But in a case depending on circumstantial evidence absence of motive itself becomes a relevant factor in considering the evidence relating to the incriminating circumstances alleged by the prosecution against the accused. Even in the case cited above, it has been observed that the absence of motive is also a circumstance which is relevant for assessing the evidence. Therefore the fact that the motive alleged by the prosecution is insufficient, will have to be kept in view while assessing and evaluating the evidence of the prosecution with regard to other circumstances upon which dependence is placed by the prosecution and in respect of which prosecution witnesses have given evidence. It must be mentioned here that no motive whatsoever is attributed to accused No. 2. All that the prosecution has attempted to show is that accused No. 2 is a friend of accused No. 1. 20. P.W. 27 Angamma has given evidence that appellant No. 1 and appellant No. 2 used to come to Nagavara toddy shop where she goes to sell Chakana. She has stated that appellants 1 and 2 are friends. It is in the evidence of P.W. 28 Muniswamappa that appellants 1 and 2 used to move together. Even if the evidence of these two witnesses is to be accepted, that does not take the case of the prosecution any further. 21. There is nothing in the evidence to show that appellant No. 2 had any grudge against the deceased nor there is any evidence on record to show that the relationship between the deceased and appellants 1 and 2 was strained. On the other hand the prosecution witnesses have deposed to the effect that the deceased and appellant 1 were close friends. In these proved circumstances We think that Mr. On the other hand the prosecution witnesses have deposed to the effect that the deceased and appellant 1 were close friends. In these proved circumstances We think that Mr. Devadas is right in his contention that the motive alleged by the prosecution is inadequate and it cannot be said that it was sufficient to impel the accused persons to commit the murder of the deceased. The prosecution alleged that the appellants and the deceased left Bangalore by M.S.R.T.C. bus and got down at Yediyur Cross, they visited the hotel of P.W. 10, each of them had a cup of coffee and then they went to the toddy shop of P.W. 11 and from there they went to the Mantap attached to Jaladageeramma’s temple which is at a distance of about one mile from the Yediyur Gross. The prosecution has relied upon the evidence of P.Ws. 16, 13, 10, 11, 12, 6 and 15 to prove the movements of the appellants and the deceased on the day of the occurrence. P.W. 16 Anthoni Swamy is a vegetable vendor. He has spoken to the effect that he saw the appellants and the deceased at Kalasi-Palya bus stand on a Sunday about 7 or 8 months prior to the date of his deposition in Court. He says that he had brought vegetables to the City Market at Bangalore for sale. After he sold the vegetables when he went to Kalasi-Palya bus-stand, he found the appellants and the deceased at the bus-stand. Nothing is brought out in his examination-in-chief as to the time at which he saw the accused and the deceased at the Kalasi-Palya bus-stand. But in cross-examination to a question put to him he says that the boarded they bus for his village at about 2-40 p.m. It was however argued on behalf of the State that as it is in the evidence of the witness that he boarded the bus at 2-45 p.m., he must have seen the appellants and the deceased at the bus-stand sometimes in the afternoon that day. But the fact remains that no question has been put to the witness with regard to the time at which he saw the deceased and the appellants at the bus-stand and the Court is left to draw an inference. Further the learned Sessions Judge thought that P.W. 16 may be a chance witness. But the fact remains that no question has been put to the witness with regard to the time at which he saw the deceased and the appellants at the bus-stand and the Court is left to draw an inference. Further the learned Sessions Judge thought that P.W. 16 may be a chance witness. Though his observation is lacking in definiteness, one thing is clear that he was not quite sure about the evidence given by P.W. 16. 22. P.W. 36 Sreenivasappa is a M.S.R. T.C. Clerk at the Kalasi-Palya bus-stand. He has deposed that on 28th January, 1968, he was on duty at the bus stand between 2 P.M. and 10 p.m. He issued 3 tickets to Yediyur Cross on the Tiptur Bound bus leaving the Kalasi-Palya bus stand at 3.45 p.m. He his deposed with reference to the trip sheet Exhibit P-38(a). This witness had not seen either the appellants or the deceased. His evidence only shows that 3 tickets were issued that day to Yediyur Cross. It was argued on behalf of the appellants that the ticket which was found in the pocket of the deceased is a ticket of a private bus and this renders the evidence of P.W. 36 rather doubtful. Moreover the evidence of this witness cannot help the prosecution case because he did not see either the appellants or the deceased at the bus-stand. It cannot be said that the contention advanced on behalf of the appellants is without any force. 23. The next witness examined on behalf of the prosecution is P.W. 10 Srinivasa Rao, the Hotel-keeper at Yadiyur Cross. This witness has spoken to the fact that about 8 or 9 months prior to his examination in Court, at about 7 p.m. three persons came to his hotel, that they had brought bread with them and they had bread and coffee at his hotel. He has also deposed that at the time when these persons were taking coffee, some woman came into the hotel and he saw her engaged in conversation with those three persons. 24. P.W. 12 Shivaramanaidu is the vice-chairman of the village panchayat. He has also spoken to the fact that when he was in the hotel of P.W. 10 he saw three persons sitting there and having coffee and bread. 24. P.W. 12 Shivaramanaidu is the vice-chairman of the village panchayat. He has also spoken to the fact that when he was in the hotel of P.W. 10 he saw three persons sitting there and having coffee and bread. He has also spoken with regard to the woman with whom the said three persons were conversing and to whom a cup of coffee was given by those persons. With regard to the evidence of P.Ws. to and 12 it was argued on behalf of the appellants that their evidence is not free from discrepancies. It was further argued that if it was the intention of the appellants to do away with the deceased some time later, it is highly improbable that they would have visited the hotel of P.W. 10 in the company of the deceased and made themselves conspicuous in order to create evidence against themselves. Although the contention advanced on behalf of the appellants cannot be rejected straightaway, nevertheless even if the evidence of these witnesses is accepted it does not take the prosecution case any further. As will be observed presently the prosecution case mainly depends upon the evidence of P.W. 14 Dodda Giriyappa, the person who saw the deceased in the company of the accused-appellants last on 28th January, 1968 at about 10 p.m. in the night. If the evidence of P.W. 14 is held to be unacceptable then the evidence of these witnesses by itself is not such as to form a basis for a finding of guilt against the appellants. 25. The prosecution also relies upon the evidence of P.W. 12 Shivaramanaidu, toddy shop-keeper. He has deposed that three persons had come to his toddy shop on a Sunday about 8 to 9 months before he was examined in the Court and appellant No. 1 consumed one and a half bottles of toddy and paid 0.38 paise. 26. The next and the most important circumstance depended upon by the prosecution is that the deceased was last seen in the company of the appellants at the ‘mantap’ close to Jaladageeramma temple in the night. To prove this, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of P.W. 6 Venkataiah and P.W. 14 Doddagiriyappa. 26. The next and the most important circumstance depended upon by the prosecution is that the deceased was last seen in the company of the appellants at the ‘mantap’ close to Jaladageeramma temple in the night. To prove this, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of P.W. 6 Venkataiah and P.W. 14 Doddagiriyappa. It is the evidence of P.W. 6 that on a Sunday 7 or 8 months back (he was examined on 12th August, 1968), when he went in search of his missing cow and when he was near Jaladageeramma’s temple, he noticed some light and, when he turned, he saw heads of three persons in front of the ‘mantap’. The evidence of this witness does not show as to at what time he had seen those three persons. No attempt has been made on behalf of the prosecution to ascertain the time. The evidence of P.W. 14 is to the effect that when he was going to his ‘kana’ which is at a distance of about 25 yards from the ‘mantap’ he was attracted by some fire and when he went there he saw three persons warming themselves round the fire. Since the prosecution relies mainly upon the evidence of this witness and it was argued before us that the circumstance to which he has deposed to is an important circumstance in the case, the relevant portion of his evidence may be usefully extracted here. He deposed: "........On 28th January, 1968, I had seen the deceased (dead fellow), and the accused now before the Court sitting at the mantap ‘having lit a fire and sitting warming themselves’. That day I had gone from my house near my thrashing floor with the burning lantern. I saw ‘light’ in front of the mantap. So I went near the place from which light had emanated and I found the deceased and these 2 accused sitting around the fire-place. At the time I had the lantern in my hand. I asked these people ‘from which place have you come’. The reply was ‘we have come from Bangalore’. I remember the dress put on by these persons. I asked them as to why they had come. They told me that they had come to Jaladageeramma’s temple. I sat with these people for about half an hour talking with them. They asked me about the management of the temple. The reply was ‘we have come from Bangalore’. I remember the dress put on by these persons. I asked them as to why they had come. They told me that they had come to Jaladageeramma’s temple. I sat with these people for about half an hour talking with them. They asked me about the management of the temple. When I started going towards the house there persons told me that they would sleep at the place and asked me to give some mat. I told these people that none sleeps at the place and suggested to them to sleep in the village. Then the person wearing panche that is A-1, new before the Court said to me it did not matter and asked me to give a mat. I then gave a mat to them. The mat now before the Court (M.O. 3) is the same. After this, I remained at the place for some 5 minutes more. And during the time I was there, the deceased said that he would sleep and he had worked in the factory in the night shift. In my presence he slept over the mat given by me. I then told A-1 that I would go near my ‘kana’. He told me ‘you may go’. So I went. I waited there near my ‘kana’ for quarter of an hour and returned to my house". Much reliance is placed on behalf of the prosecution on the evidence of this witness, and it was argued that according to P.W. 1 Patel Venkata Gawda, this witness had stated to him that he had seen the accused and the deceased at the ‘mantap’ on the previous night. P.W. 1 the Patel has also deposed that he had informed the Investigating Officer, P.W. 50 about what P.W. 14 had told him, and it is also in the evidence of Sub-Inspector. P.W. 50 Nanjanna that as P.W. 14 Doddagiriyappa was not available in the village on 29th January, 1968, he examined him on the following day, viz., on 30th January, 1968. It was submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that in these circumstances there is no. reason for not accepting the evidence of P.W. 14. P.W. 50 Nanjanna that as P.W. 14 Doddagiriyappa was not available in the village on 29th January, 1968, he examined him on the following day, viz., on 30th January, 1968. It was submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that in these circumstances there is no. reason for not accepting the evidence of P.W. 14. It was further argued in this connection that P.W. 14 is an utter stranger to the accused as well as to the deceased, he is an independent witness; there is no reason to discard his evidence. We have considered carefully the evidence of this witness and we are of the opinion that his evidence is not free from inherent improbabilities. It his examination-in-chief P.W. 14 has stated- "......About 7-8 months back there was ragi ‘kana’ in my land. I had collected ‘hurali mede, ragi mede’ for the purpose of thrashing. At the time I used to be in my land keeping a watch". But, later on in his deposition he has stated that from the ‘mantap’ he went to the ‘kana’ and stayed there only for quarter of an hour and he then returned to his house. If according to him he used to keep watch over the stack stored there, it is highly unlikely that he would have gone to his house after being there for quarter of an hour. It was, however, argued on behalf of the Slate that he might be keeping watch for some time in the ‘kana’ and not the whole night. But that point has not been elicited from the witness. We think that the learned Counsel for the appellants is right in maintaining that on the basis of the earlier portion of the evidence of this witness it is quite clear that he used to keep watch on the stack in the night. The other inherent improbabilities in the evidence of this witness which make it difficult to place reliance upon his testimony are: (1) He has deposed that he noticed the fire from his ‘kana’ and that portion of the ‘Mantap’ could be seen from his ‘kana’. But the evidence of P.W. 51 Subbanna Alva is 10 the effect that the front portion of the ‘mantap’ is not visible from the ‘kana’ of P.W. 14. But the evidence of P.W. 51 Subbanna Alva is 10 the effect that the front portion of the ‘mantap’ is not visible from the ‘kana’ of P.W. 14. (2) Although this witness has stated that he gave a mat (M.O. 3) to A-1, it is not borne by his evidence whether he had taken the mat with him, or being asked by A-1 he went to his house or ‘kana’ and brought the mat and gave it to him. According to this witness, he was in his ‘kana’, and noticing the light he had gone to the ‘mantap’. Apparently there was no necessity for him to take the mat along with him. (3) The witness has stated that when he went to the temple he saw the appellants and the deceased sitting round the fire warming themselves. But at what spot they were sitting and at what spot actually the fire was lit, cannot be ascertained from the evidence of this witness. Nor any attempt has been made on behalf of the prosecution to clarify this point. (4) Admittedly it was a wintry night, hence it can be reasonably inferred that the fire would be fairly big. That being so, as contended on behalf of the appellants, semblance of ashes would have been found at the spot. But the inquest report Exhibit P-3 is silent on that point. (5) The Investigating Officer, P.W. 50 has deposed in a cursory way that P.W. 14 was not available in the village on that day and he recorded his statement when he returned to his village on the following day viz., 30th January, 1968. But he does not say as to what attempts were made by him to secure the presence of P.W. 14 on that day. P.W. 14 has deposed that he had been to Valagere qura village. It is not known what is the distance between that village and the place of occurrence, nor it is clear from the evidence whether even if he had gone to that village, his presence could be secured on that very day or not. (6) Although P.W. 14 has stated that he saw the appellants and the deceased at the ‘mantap’ for about half an hour, he only states about the clothes of the deceased. He does not mention about the clothes on the perrons of the appellants. 27. (6) Although P.W. 14 has stated that he saw the appellants and the deceased at the ‘mantap’ for about half an hour, he only states about the clothes of the deceased. He does not mention about the clothes on the perrons of the appellants. 27. At this stage we may also mention that the First Information Report (of P.W. 50) which was prepared on 30th January, 1968 after the inquest refers to the association of the deceased with a woman only, and it is further mentioned therein that this woman was seen with the deceased till late in the evening. Significantly there is no mention in it that the deceased was seen in the company of the accused persons at the mantap in the night on 28th January, 1968. In answer to the question put to him in his cross-examination i.e., “did it transpire in your investigation that the deceased was moving about with a woman before his death and that she disappeared”, Investigating Officer P.W. 50 stated “It did transpire”. Although first information is not a substantive piece of evidence in the above circumstances the omission of the fact that the deceased was seen in the mantap in the company of the accused persons, particularly when it mentions that he was seen in the company of a woman is an important omission which not only raises doubt in the prosecution case but also bears on the reliability of P.W. 14. The learned Sessions Judge did not analyse or discuss the infirmities mentioned by us above nor he has taken this aspect of the case into consideration. 28. The other circumstance on which reliance was placed on behalf of the prosecution was the journey of the appellants back to Bangalore. It is the prosecution case that the appellants got into the lorry of P.W. 7 at about 2 a.m. in the night of 28th, 29th of January 1968 from a spot at a distance of about 2 miles from the Yediyur Cross. They went up to Dasarahalli Checkpost in the lorry of P.W. 7 (MYF 3505) and from there they travelled in the lorry of P.W. 9 (MYD 786) to Bangalore where they got down near the Russel Market. P.W. 7 is the driver of the lorry MYP 3505 and P.W. 8 Dastagir Beig is its cleaner. They went up to Dasarahalli Checkpost in the lorry of P.W. 7 (MYF 3505) and from there they travelled in the lorry of P.W. 9 (MYD 786) to Bangalore where they got down near the Russel Market. P.W. 7 is the driver of the lorry MYP 3505 and P.W. 8 Dastagir Beig is its cleaner. The driver Syed Ameer and the cleaner have deposed to the effect that the appellants stopped then lorry at about two miles away from the Yediyur Cross and asked them to give a lift. They were taken in the lorry to Dasarahalli Checkpost and there P.W. 7 Syed Ameer asked P.W. 9 Wahab Khan, the driver of the lorry MYD. 786, to give a lift to the appellants to Bangalore Cantonment. It is in the evidence of P.W. 9 Wahab Khan that the appellants were taken in his lorry to Bangalore and they got down near the Russel Market. Criticism is levelled against these witnesses on behalf of the appellants on the ground that material contradictions are to be found in their evidence. As we are of the opinion that if the evidence of P.W. 14 Doddagiriyappa is held to be unacceptable, the evidence of these witnesses even if it is believed cannot be held sufficient to connect the guilt with the appellants conclusively. Hence it is unnecessary to probe into it any further. 29. The next circumstance relied upon by the prosecution was that A-1 obtained leave on 29th January, 1968. P.W. 44 Govindaraj, the Time-keeper of the Company, has deposed that on 29th (January, 1968) his shift was from 6-30 A.M. to 6-30 p.m. Appellant No. 1 came at 6-30 A.M. and asked for one day’s leave. He wrote the entry Exhibit P-43(a) and stated that P.W. 43 Reymond had granted the leave. Reliance was also placed on behalf of the prosecution on the conduct of appellant No. 1 after reaching Bangalore. Dependence was laid on the circumstance that A-1 did not come to see the dead body of the deceased nor did he attend his funeral. P.W. 21 Chinnamma, the wife of the deceased, P.W. 35 Chowrappa and P.W. 39 Anthony have spoken to in that regard. Dependence was laid on the circumstance that A-1 did not come to see the dead body of the deceased nor did he attend his funeral. P.W. 21 Chinnamma, the wife of the deceased, P.W. 35 Chowrappa and P.W. 39 Anthony have spoken to in that regard. But, as mentioned above, if the evidence of P.W. 14 is found to be unacceptable as we have found, the circumstances as spoken to by the witnesses referred to above by themselves are not sufficient to connect the accused with the crime. 30. The other circumstance relied upon on behalf of the prosecution is that A-1 was a devotee of Jaladageeramma temple which is spoken to by P.W. 13 Pujari Chowdaiah, P.W. 25 Narayanappa and P.W. 26 Hanumantha. It was alleged that therefore it is probable that he would have taken the deceased to the ‘mantap’ which is attached to the temple. On the other hand, it was argued on behalf of the appellants that if A-1 was a devotee of the temple as alleged by the prosecution, it is highly improbable that he would have taken the deceased to the temple to murder him. Even if the contention advanced on behalf of the appellants is rejected, this circumstance, to our mind, cannot have any materiality. 31. As mentioned earlier, the motive as sponsored on behalf of the prosecution is insufficient. The evidence relating to the fact that the deceased was seen in the company of the appellants, namely that of P.W. 14 Doddagiriyappa, it is not free from infirmities. Though the prosecution has alleged motive against A-2 also, there is no evidence on record whatsoever to attribute any motive to A-2. All that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses shows is that A-2 is a friend of A-1. But that circumstance can hardly justify an inference that he would go to the extent of participating in the commission of murder. In the instant case the circumstances proved and depended upon by the prosecution are not such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. The utmost it can be said is that the circumstances proved by the prosecution raise a strong suspicion against the appellants. In other words there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. The utmost it can be said is that the circumstances proved by the prosecution raise a strong suspicion against the appellants. But, mere suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot take the place of proof. Therefore, we do not think that the guilt of the appellants is satisfactorily established. 32. We are of the opinion that the circumstances proved in this case, on a just or legal view being inconclusive in nature, do not warrant a conviction. The cumulative effect of them is not such as to negative the innocence of the appellants and to establish conclusively the participation of the appellants in the commission of the offence changed beyond reasonable doubt. 33. In the result, we allow this appeal, set aside the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants, and acquit them. They will be set at liberty forthwith. S.V.S. ----- Appeal allowed; Conviction set aside.