Short Note : 1. The prosecution case is that about two years prior to the present incident Samaylal brother of deceased Sheobalak for whose murder the present trial was held, was prosecuted by Khadgawan Police Station for an offence of theft. In that case the co-accused Sagarsai and Ujjwal Gond brother of appellant Bantoosingh were prosecution witnesses. Deceased Shivbalak and his brother Samaylal had then attempted on Ujjwal Good so that he may resile from his evidence but he did not agree to that. It is further alleged that because of this Samaylal had committed a murder of Ujjwal Gond on 5-4-75 for which Samaylal was arrested and prosecuted for offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Since appellant's brother had been murdered, the appellant wanted to take revenge from Shivbalak and was therefore on a look out for an opportunity. Further allegation is that on 12-6-77 when Shivbalak was sleeping alone in the PARCHHI of his house appellant Bantoosingh along with Sagarsai armed with Tangi went there and committed the murder of Shivbalak. Held : The learned Sessions Judge has accepted the evidence of Neelamber, as according to him it stood corroborated from the evidence of the other witnesses who have already been referred to above. In our opinion, the evidence of the witnesses is contrary. Some of the witnesses do not even state about the presence of Neelamber or even about his having made any statement or about his having seen the appellant and the co-accused running away from there. As it is all these witnesses are also closely related to the deceased and so were also inimical to the appellant. In our opinion, the evidence of Neelamber about his having seen the appellant and the other accused running away cannot be accepted. The circumstance therefore cannot be taken to be proved. 2. So far as the recovery of the Tangi is concerned, it is of no consequence, as according to the report of the Serologist it was not found to be blood stained. The human blood could also not be confirmed on Dhoti seized from the appellant. 3. The prosecution also sought to prove that the appellant had made an extrajudicial confession before some of the prosecution witnesses. These witnesses did not support the prosecution. Accordingly, this also cannot be taken to be proved. The human blood could also not be confirmed on Dhoti seized from the appellant. 3. The prosecution also sought to prove that the appellant had made an extrajudicial confession before some of the prosecution witnesses. These witnesses did not support the prosecution. Accordingly, this also cannot be taken to be proved. Yet another circumstance that seems to have weighed with the learned Additional Sessions Judge is that after this murder the relations of the family of the deceased had damaged the house of the appellant Bantoosingh. In our opinion, by this no inference about the guilt of the appellant can be drawn. 4. In absence of any other cogent evidence, the evidence of the motive alone is wholly insufficient to find the appellant guilty. The circumstances made at best raise some suspicion against the appellant but it cannot be a substitute for proof beyond reasonable doubt. In our opinion from the evidence and material on record the conviction of the appellant cannot be upheld and deserves to be set-aside. Appeal allowed.