Short Note : 1. The learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Morena framed the following four charges against the accused:- "Firstly, on 25.10.1974 at Mata-ki-Pulia Islampura, Morena, committed robbery of 2 golden ear-rings worn by Guddi alias Shiksha D/o Chhotey Lal Jain R/o Morena and that as such you voluntarily caused hurts to Kumari Shiksha alias Guddi and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 394 of the IPC. Secondly, you on the said date, time and place committed rape on Kumari Shiksha alias Guddi D/o Chhotey Lal Jain and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 376 of the IPC. Thirdly, you on the said date, time and place, committed murder by intentionally causing the death of Kumari Shiksha alias Guddi D/o Chhotey Lal Jain and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 302 of the IPC. Fourthly, you on the said date, time and place knowing that the murder of Km. Shiksha alias Guddi, punishable with death has been committed did put the dead body of the said girl in pit and covered it with a view to disappear the evidence of the said offence with the intention of screening yourself from legal punishment and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 201 of the IPC. After trial the learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted the accused of offences under section 394, 376 and 302 IPC and has acquitted him of the offence punishable under section 201 IPC." 2. This is a case where there is no eye-witness. The evidence against the accused appellant is circumstantial in character. As such the finding against the appellant cannot be made on such circumstantial evidence unless the evidence is wholly inconsistent with his innocence and leads irresistibly to the inference of his guilt. The conviction of the appellant is based on six circumstances as is clear from para 8 of the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 3. As to the first circumstance, there is no evidence on record on the basis of which it can be held that the accused and the deceased were last seen on or near the field of Sumersingh Jatav popularly known as Bishan-ki-Bagiya at or about the time of occurrence. The evidence led by the prosecution in respect of the circumstance is afforded by Prakash Chand Jain (PW-10). The evidence led by the prosecution in respect of the circumstance is afforded by Prakash Chand Jain (PW-10). What he states in para 1 of his deposition is only that Guddi with other children of the locality reached the house of the witness and at that time the accused was standing pear them. When children went away the accused also went away. This testimony does not prove the close proximity of time and place of this fact with that of the incident. Therefore, this circumstance cannot be regarded of any evidentiary value. 4. As to the second circumstance regarding recovery of the dead body by itself it does not establish nexus between the crime and the accused. 5. As to the circumstances relating to absconsion of the accused and his arrest at Harda on 13.12.1974, suffice it to state that evidence of absconsion is relevant being subsequent conduct of the accused. 6. The factum of absconsion of the accused appellant, though not established by relevant evidence to be due to his involvement in the crime, even if assumed to have been established, cannot be considered to be an incriminating circumstance serving a link in the chain of circumstances which can be utlised for establishing guilt of the appellant unless the other incriminating circumstances viz. identity of the hairs and gold rings are found to be proved by reliable and cogent evidence. 7. From the report it is clear that the identity of the hairs is not proved. The judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge therefore, suffers from the infirmity of erroneous assumption of the fact that the report is positive. The other evidence relied on by the learned A.S.J. viz. testimony of Dr. D.P. Shukla (PW-12), Babulal (PW-13), Ramakant Tiwari (PW-17) is not on the point. 8. The gold rings are of common use and admittedly available in the market. No broken gold rings are stated to have been mixed with Articles P-1 and P-2. As such the identification proceedings cannot be regarded to be of any corroborative value in Morena there is office of Tahsildar as admitted by PW-16 Guljarilal Jain in no cogent reason has been given by the prosecution side why Guljarilal Jain was preferred to the Tahsildar or Naib Tahsildar Morena. The substantive evidence afforded by the prosecution witnesses Chhotelal (PW-1) on the point of ownership of the gold rings is not credible. The substantive evidence afforded by the prosecution witnesses Chhotelal (PW-1) on the point of ownership of the gold rings is not credible. It is hazardous to rely on such unconvincing and vague testimony as is given by him. Besides the identification proceedings as observed earlier is of no corroborative value. Therefore, the identity of the gold rings of Guddi Articles P-1 and P-2 recovered from Bulakiram (PW-8) has not been established by reliable and cogent evidence. 9. No doubt, it is true that everyone of the proved facts need not by itself be decisive of complicity of the accused. But in the instant case the link of two incriminating circumstances viz. the identity of hairs and identity of the property are missing. Consequently, it cannot be held that the accused appellant alone was responsible for perpetration of crime. 1970 SCC (Criminal) 320, AIR 1971 SC 2156 and AIR 1966 SC 821 , relied on. Appeal allowed.