Short Note : Along with the appellant, one Radheshyam was also prosecuted for the offence u/s 302/34 IPC for committing the murder of Shobharam but he has been acquitted and the appellant alone has been convicted. Held: Admittedly in the present case, there is no eye witness. The prosecution has not led any evidence to prove that there was any enmity between the appellant and deceased Shobharam, nor it led any evidence to show that he was either a friend or accomplice of the other co-accused Radheshyam. The only evidence against the appellant is circumstantial one, namely, the recovery of Farsa from the possession of the appellant which was found stained with human blood coupled with the fact that he was absconding for a few months. The Farsa is stated to have been seized from the possession of the appellant after a period of about three months from the date of the incident. As regards absconsion, admittedly the appellant is a labourer and there appears no reason to doubt his statement that the had left the village to earn his wages. That apart, when the main accused Radheshyam has been acquitted, there is no reason to uphold the conviction of the appellant based on circumstantial evidence, which is not sufficient to hold him guilty for murder. Therefore, the appellant is atleast entitled to the benefit of doubt. Appeal allowed and conviction and sentence set aside.