Judgment 1. This appeal by Barhoo Raut, resident of village Ramna, police station Jogapatti in the district Champaran is directed against his conviction under Sec.302 of the Indian Penal Code, hereinafter referred to as the Code and the sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon him for the murder of Arjun Prasad Yadav in his cattle shed at village Ratahi, police station Thakraha in the district of Champaran in the night between 4th and 5th November, 1967. 2. The prosecution case in brief was that in the said night the appellant, who is Sarhu of the deceased was sleeping along with the deceased in the cattle shed. Next morning i.e. 5th of November, 1967 Ganeshia (P.W. 1), the mother of that deceased finding her son still sleeping went to the cattle shed in order to wake him up, as it was getting late, for giving fodder to the cattle. She called out her son Arjun Pd. Yadav and when she went inside the cattle shed she wanted to wake him up by touching his head but found him dead having cut injury on the neck. Thereupon she raised hulla and began to weap. Hearing the hulla several persons including Suraj Prasad (P.W. 2) arrived there and saw Arjun Pd. Yadav lying dead. The appellant was not found then in the cattle shed. According to the case of the prosecution the appellant had illicit connection with Kishori, wife of the deceased. On the date of occurrence Kishori was with her father Chander Ahir in village Ramna, in other words, in the village of the appellant. The appellant is married to the daughter of Anant, the Sala of Chander Ahir, the father-in-law of the deceased. According to the prosecution, the appellant and Chander Ahir have houses at the same place. The further case of the prosecution was that P.W. 1, the mother of the deceased was anxious that Kishori should come and live with her husband. Therefore, a date for Rokshati was to be fixed by Chandar Ahir. The appellant was also baking active part in not getting the date fixed for Rokshati. However, the deceased went to the father-in-laws place and got 7th of November, 1967 fixed as the date of Rokshati. Therefore, a date for Rokshati was to be fixed by Chandar Ahir. The appellant was also baking active part in not getting the date fixed for Rokshati. However, the deceased went to the father-in-laws place and got 7th of November, 1967 fixed as the date of Rokshati. The further case of the prosecution was that the appellant had come to the village of the deceased on Saturday the 4th of November, 1967 and he was found in the company of the deceased in the evening as well as in the night and he was also sleeping with the deceased on the night between Saturday and Sunday. P.W. 1 when found her son dead after some time she went to the police station, Thakraha on the 5th of November, 1967 and at 3-30 P.M. lodged first information report. The said first information report was recorded by the officer-in-charge Sabhapati Singh (P.W. 27) who proceeded with the investigation, went to the place of occurrence, held inquest over the dead body and sent the dead body of deceased for post-mortem examination to Dr. K.N. Sinha, Civil Assistant Surgeon of Bettiah Hospital (P.W. 25) who held post-mortem examination on the 6th of November, 1967. Thereafter P.W. 27 examined several witnesses and he also searched the house of the appellant. He did not find appellant in his house. In his absence Gamchha and Ganji were recovered from the house. Those articles contained blood like stains. He sent them for chemical examination and report. After having completed the investigation he submitted charge sheet against the appellant. After the usual inquiry under Chapter XVIII of the old Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant was committed to the court of Session. Before the Sessions Court as many as 27 witnesses including those, we have already mentioned, were examined by the prosecution to establish its case. It may be mentioned at the outset that none of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution was eye-witness to the occurrence. Conviction of the appellant is solely based on the circumstantial evidence. 3. On behalf of the appellant, however, no witness was examined as a defence. His defence in brief was that he was innocent and he was falsely implicated. 4. No one has appeared on behalf of the appellant. Conviction of the appellant is solely based on the circumstantial evidence. 3. On behalf of the appellant, however, no witness was examined as a defence. His defence in brief was that he was innocent and he was falsely implicated. 4. No one has appeared on behalf of the appellant. Learned counsel for the State, however, has placed before us the relevant materials on the record and he has also placed the judgement of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. It may be noticed that the first circumstantial evidence relied on by the prosecution is that the appellant was found talking with the deceased on Saturday evening. The second circumstance is that he was found sleeping in the night between Saturday and Sunday in the cattle shed where the deceased was murdered. In order to establish these two circumstances the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution are Suraj Pd. (P.W. 2), uncle of the deceased; Runia (P.W. 4), Jhalo Ahir (P.W. 6), Madan Prasad (P.W. 7), Prasad Bin (P.W. 8), Chandar Sah (P.W. 9), Nathuni Chamar (P.W. 10), Budharam (P.W. 19), Raja Raut (P.W. 22). The third circumstance is the objective finding of P.W. 27, the investigating officer when he visited the place of occurrence and the cattle shed on the 6th of November, 1967 he found straw spread on the ground. He found the dead body of Arjun over the straw. He also found blood fallen on the straw the earth and on the Tatti walls. He further noticed smoked Biri ends. It may be mentioned here that P.W. 4 had stated in his evidence that on the night of the occurrence the deceased had gone to her to collect fire for lighting Biri. When P.W. 4 enquired from the deceased that what for he was taking the fire, then he said that his Sarhu had come, who wanted fire to light Biri. The fourth circumstance taking into account is that the Investigating Officer (P.W. 27) had recovered from the house of the appellant Doria Ganji (Ext. 1) and Gamcha (Ext. 2). The Gamcha was wet and spread on straw punj at the door of the appellant, whereas the Ganji was folded and was kept concealed in the room. Both, according to P.W. 27, had blood stains. P.W. 19 stated in his evidence that Ganji (Ext. 1) and Gamcha (Ext. 1) and Gamcha (Ext. 2). The Gamcha was wet and spread on straw punj at the door of the appellant, whereas the Ganji was folded and was kept concealed in the room. Both, according to P.W. 27, had blood stains. P.W. 19 stated in his evidence that Ganji (Ext. 1) and Gamcha (Ext. 2) were on the person of the accused Barhoo Raut when he saw the accused in the company of Arjun, the deceased. The fifth circumstance against the appellant is that the Chemical Examiner has found blood on exhibit 1 vide his report (Ext. 8). No blood, however, could be detected on exhibit 2. The sixth circumstance against the appellant which was urged on behalf of the prosecution is that the appellant was absconding since after the murder of the deceased and he surrendered in court only on the 5th of January, 1968. Lastly, the 7th circumstance which can be urged against the appellant was that in his examination under Sec.342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he falsely denied to have been in the company of the deceased in the evening and the night when the occurrence had taken place as well as he has denied falsely the recovery of exhibits 1 and 2 from his house. 5. Learned counsel for the State contends that the circumstances enumerated above were sufficient to establish the prosecution case. He drew our attention to the circumstances that the appellant was last seen in the company of the deceased. In our opinion, from the said stands it cannot be conclusive evidence for holding that he was guilty of the offence of murder. Reference may be made to Dukharan Mian V/s. State of Bihar (1971 BLJR 641) where M.P. Verma and A.N. Mukharji, JJ. observed that the evidence of last seen alone could not be said to be a conclusive evidence for holding a person guilty such a type of offence as murder. There should be something more than the mere evidence of last seen. Their Lordships had relied upon in this connection on a judgement of the Supreme Court in Eradu V/s. State of Hyderabad, AIR 1956 SC 316 : (1956 Cri LJ 559). Learned counsel for the state also laid stress upon the circumstance that blood stained Ganji (Ext. 1) was recovered from the house of the appellant. He referred to the Chemical Examiner report (Ext. 8). Learned counsel for the state also laid stress upon the circumstance that blood stained Ganji (Ext. 1) was recovered from the house of the appellant. He referred to the Chemical Examiner report (Ext. 8). But in my opinion, in the instant case there is no report of serologist to show that it contained human blood. On the contrary exhibit 8 indicates that the blood was too small for serological examination. In that view of the matter it cannot be said that it contained human blood. Learned counsel then emphasised on the circumstances arising out of the statement made by the appellant under Sec.342. He submitted that a false denial also shows that the appellant was guilty of the offence. In our opinion, that by itself is not sufficient. It is well established that it merely adds link to the chain of the prosecution story. In other words it cannot be considered as conclusive. Lastly, he submitted that the appellant was absconding for about two to three months after the occurrence as also one of the important circumstances against him. In our opinion, this circumstance even is not sufficient to hold that the appellant was guilty of the offence. It may further be noticed that this circumstance was not put to the appellant under Sec.342 by the learned Sessions Judge. Therefore, the appellant had no opportunity to explain this circumstance levelled against him. Hence he cannot attach any importance to this circumstance. 6. The Supreme Court in various cases have laid down the test in cases where the conviction is based solely on circumstantial evidence. In Anant Chintaman Lagu V/s. The State of Bombay, AIR 1960 SC 500 : (1960 Cri LJ 682) at was observed at page 523 in paragraph 68 that - "Circumstantial evidence in this context means a combination of facts creating a net work through which there is no escape for the accused, because the facts taken as a whole do not admit of any inference but of his guilt. To rely upon the findings of the medical man who conducted the post-mortem and of the chemical analyser as decisive of the matter is to render the other evidence entirely fruitless. While the circumstances often speak with unerring certainty, the autopsy and the chemical analysis taken by themselves may be most misleading. No doubt, due weight must be given to the negative findings at such examinations. While the circumstances often speak with unerring certainty, the autopsy and the chemical analysis taken by themselves may be most misleading. No doubt, due weight must be given to the negative findings at such examinations. But, bearing in mind the difficult task which the man of medicine performs and the limitations under which he works, his failure should not be taken as the end of the case, for on good and probative circumstances, an irresistible inference of guilt can be drawn." It would, therefore, be apparent from what has been discussed above that the circumstantial evidence relied upon by the prosecution in the instant case, is not of such character as can be held to be consistent only with the guilt of the appellant. 7 In the result, we allow the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant and acquit him. The bail bond of the appellant is also discharged.