Short Note : The appellant was convicted for an offence under section 302 and sentenced to imprisonment for life. There is no direct evidence against the appellant. His plea was that of denial and false implication. Held : The case against the appellant rests entirely on two circumstances, one the motive and the other an alleged recovery of Dhariya from the hut of the appellant on an information given by him. The appellant is said to have given an information to Head Constable Bherudas in presence of Jursingh and one Tensingh that he has kept concealed the Dhariya in his hut which he shall get recovered. Jursingh did not support the prosecution as regards this information and seizure. Prosecution did not examine the other Panch-witness, viz. Tensingh. On the question of information under section 27 of the Evidence Act, the evidence of Jursingh is quite in conflict with the evidence of Head Constable Bherudas. The other Panch witness viz. Tensingh, in all propriety, should have been examined. Therefore, it cannot be taken to be proved beyond doubt that the appellant had given the information about 'Ohariya' and which was seized from his hut. Motive may at best raise some suspicion against the appellant but this is not enough to convict him. That being so, this conviction cannot be upheld. Appeal allowed.