JUDGMENT 1. The two appellants Chhaga and Moda stand convicted by the Judgment of the Sessions Judge, Udaipur dated 21-4-1972 under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for having committed the murder of one Partha. They have each been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. The prosecution case in brief was as follows. On 26.6.1971, the deceased Partha of village Molela and his brother, the co-accused Moda, were invited in the evening by the accused Chhaga of village Bagol to his residence for Prasadi. The evidence discloses that earlier that day, the accused Moda had come from his village Guda to village Molela to settle a dispute. He was apparently staying with his brother, the deceased Partha. That evening, the three of the accused along with the accused Chhaga's son Deva, who has been acquitted, had a drinking bout at the house of Chhaga. The deceased was never found alive. The accused Deva on finding that Partha, was dead was sent to village Molela to fetch his relations. The dead body of the deceased apparently bore no visible marks of external injury and it was taken out for being carried to village Molela. It could not, however, be removed due to to the intervention of Sukhlal PW/4 who suspected some foul-play. The first information report exhibit P/1 was lodged by him early in the next morning at 4.00 A. M. at the Police Station Nathdwara. The report mentions doubt against the accused Chhaga and the acquitted co-accused Deva. 3. There can be no doubt, nor is it seriously disputed, that the deceased Partha met with a homicidal death. Dr. A. S. Murdia, PW/9, Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Kanwa performed an autopsy on the dead body and found five external injuries and several internal injuries, vide postmortem report exhibit P/5. In his opinion, the death of the deceased Partha was due to injury No. 2 i;e. fracture of the skull. Dr. Murdia states that the external injuries were caused by same blunt weapon. The death was caused as a result of the injuries to the brain, fracture of parietal and temporal bones and middle managial haemorrhage. 4. The question still remains whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt against the appellants. There is no direct evidence against the appellant. There conviction rests on circumstantial evidence. The death was caused as a result of the injuries to the brain, fracture of parietal and temporal bones and middle managial haemorrhage. 4. The question still remains whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt against the appellants. There is no direct evidence against the appellant. There conviction rests on circumstantial evidence. The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are : (1) on the fateful day, the accused Chhaga invited Moda and Partha to his house for Prasadi, (2) the fact that Partha's dead body was found in Chhaga's house, (3) the accused Chhaga and Moda gave a false explanation in their examination under section 342 that the deceased Partha died of drinks i.e. his death was natural, while the mecical evidence shows that the death was homicidal, (4) the two accused along with Deva wanted to take out the body surreptitiously from village Bagol to village Molela with the object of causing the evidence to disappear, and (5) the statement made by the accused Moda exhibit P/1 leading to the discovery of the stone grinder (lodi) article 2, seized under seizure memo exhibit P/13 with which the deceased Partha is alleged to have been done to death and (7) the seizure of a blood-stained dhoti article 1 from the person of the accused Moda, seized under seizure memo exhibit P/9. The learned Sessions Judge was largely influenced by the fact that the accused gave a false explanation of the death and the fact that Partha died in the house of Chhaga and the accused were prevented from removing the body from the village. We are afraid that these two circumstances by themselves are not sufficient to lead to an inference of guilt against the appellants. There can be no doubt that strong suspicion attaches against the appellants that they and Deva must have been the persons who committed the murder of the deceased Partha. But there is a long distance to be travelled between what may be true and what must be true. (See, Sanvansingh v. State of Punjab AIR 1957 S. C. 637 ). 5. In order to convict a person on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances relied upon in support of the conviction must be fully established and the chain of evidence furnished by those circumstances must be so far complete as to leave any reasonable ground for conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. 5. In order to convict a person on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances relied upon in support of the conviction must be fully established and the chain of evidence furnished by those circumstances must be so far complete as to leave any reasonable ground for conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. The circumstances prayed must be such as to exclude every hypothesis except that of the accused. That test is clearly not fulfilled in the present case. While it is true that the deceased Partha died in suspicious circumstances and he was done to death at the house of the accused Chhaga, there is, we regret to find, no sufficient evidence as to the persons who caused the death. The prosecution has examined 6 witnesses namely. Mst. Bhagli PW/1, daughter of the deceased Partha, his son-in-law Panna PW/2, cousin Nana PW/3, Sukhlal PW/4, Uda PW/5, Lambardar of village Bagol and Chaturbhuj PW/6. Bhanwarlal, Station House Officer, PW/7 was also examined. Of these, Mst. Bhagli PW/1, Panna PW/2 and Nana PW/3 merely state that Deva came to village for saying that the deceased Partha was found dead in sleep. They then rushed to village Bagol and were making preparations to take the dead body to their village Molela. The version of Panna PW/2 is that Sukhlal PW/4 prevented the dead body from being taken, because he suspected that the deceased Partha had not died of natural causes. The fact that the relations were called from the village is compatible with the innocence of the accused, rather than their guilt. The testimony of Sukhlal PW/4 is that he found the Mukhias of the village sitting together and from their talk, he suspected that the deceased Partha had been done to death by the accused. He therefore, prevented the dead body being taken and went to make a report. This witness undoubtedly acted on mere suspicion and hear-say. The prosecution has not examined any of the inhabitants of village Bagol to support its theory that the accused were the persons responsible for the death of the deceased. The other two circumstances namely, recovery of the stone grinder, article 2 and the blood-stained dhoti article 1, are of on avail to the prosecution. Neither of these incriminating articles were sent to the Chemical Examiner or the serologist. These articles are, therefore, not connected with the crime. The other two circumstances namely, recovery of the stone grinder, article 2 and the blood-stained dhoti article 1, are of on avail to the prosecution. Neither of these incriminating articles were sent to the Chemical Examiner or the serologist. These articles are, therefore, not connected with the crime. No doubt, the accused Moda had admitted that the dhoti article 1 was stained with blood, but he has given an explanation that when he found blood coming out of the nose and ear of his brother Partha he out of brotherly affection wiped it of. Even if the dhoti was blood stained, the explanation offered by him was not unreasonable. That apart, the accused Moda could not be convicted merely on this circumstance. As against the accused, Chhaga, there is no other circumstance except the fact that the deceased Partha died in his house. The prosecution has, therefore, failed to bring home the guilt against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. 6. The result, therefore, is that the appeals succeed and are allowed. The judgment and the sentence passed by the Sessions Judge against the appellants are set aside and the appellants shall be set at liberty, if not required in connection with any other case. Accused Moda, who is on bail, need not surrender to his bail bonds which are hereby discharged. *******