JUDGMENT 1. The accused-appellant Nathu Ram son of Lachhi Ram was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udaipur for committing the murder of Narsingh Das Mahant in the night intervening 19th and 20th January, 1973. He was found guilty of offence punishable under section 302, Indian penal Code, and sentenced to imprisonment for life. The aggrieved accused has challenged the verdict of the trial court by way of this appeal. 2. There is no eye-witness in this case and the conviction of the accused is based Jon circumstantial evidence. 3. It is a well settled position of law that in case of circumstantial evidence the accused cannot be convicted unless and until the evidence adduced is inexplicable to any other hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. The evidence relied upon by the trial court of convicting the accused is as under:- (i) The accused was 1st seen with the deceased by P. W. 1 Nana Lal and P. W. 7 Pannalal. (ii) Recovery of blood-stained clothes of the accused as well as scrap-pings of blood from the nails and finger tips of the accused (iii) Recovery of blood stained clothes of the deceased at the instance of the accused. 4. As regards the accused being last seen with the deceased it would suffice to say that only two witnesses viz. P. W. 1 Nannalal and P. W. 7 Pannalal have been relied upon by the trial court. We have carefully examined the statement of P. W. 7 Pannalal The learned Public Prosector for the State has also not been able to point out any thing in the statement of P. W. 7 Pannalal on the basis of which it can be said that he had last seen the deceased in the company of the accused. No doubt, P. W. 1 Nannalal has stated that when he left the `Dhuni' in the company of P. W. 7 Pannalal, the accused Nathuram was in their `Akhada'. The presence of the accused in the Akhada'does not mean that he was last seen with the deceased. No doubt, P. W. 1 Nannalal has stated that when he left the `Dhuni' in the company of P. W. 7 Pannalal, the accused Nathuram was in their `Akhada'. The presence of the accused in the Akhada'does not mean that he was last seen with the deceased. P. W. 2 Gopilal stated before the trial court that early in the morning on the next day when he went to the `Akhada after hearing about the death of Narsingh Das Mahant, be found the accused sitting near the dead body of the Mahant This fact itself suggest that the accused did not have any hand in the murder of Narsingh Das Mahant, otherwise he would not have kept himself sitting in the close company of the dead body of the Mahant. A murderer would try to run away from the scene of occurrence i as soon as it is possible. The evidence of P.W. 1 Nannalal whereas as a whole does not inspire any confidence and we are unable to subscribe with the view of the trial court that the accused was last seen with the deceased. 5. The recovery of the blood-stained clothes of the accused and the blood from his1 nails has been explained by him in his statement recorded under section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, wherein he has stated that the blood from his clothes and nails was recovered because it got tainted while he was washing the Takhat'. 6. The last piece of evidence is recovery of the clothes of the deceased at the instance of the accused. The evidence regarding the recovery consists of the Investigating Officer and the Motbir P. W. 6 Rodsingh. The Prosecution wants us to believe that though the accused burnt some of the clothes stained with human blood in the `Dhuni', yet inspite of burning rest of the clothes, alleged to have been of the deceased, he concealed them in a pit after digging the same. This appears to be most unnatural. The easiest course available to the accused was to burn them in the `Dhuni' or leave them where they were lying. This appears to be most unnatural. The easiest course available to the accused was to burn them in the `Dhuni' or leave them where they were lying. That apart, it does not stand to reason 1 why an accused will conceal such valueless articles, that is the clothes of the deceased, which were merely rags, into a pit and then get them discovered at the behest of the I police, unless and until he had gone mad or wants to get himself hanged. The evidence on the records cannot be held to be sufficient to maintain the conviction of the accused, and this circumstance is not proved against the accused. 7. As already held above the circumstances relied upon by the trial court have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. 8. The net result of the above discussion is that the appeal filed by the accused appellant succeeds, and the conviction and sentence awarded to him is set aside. He is ordered to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. Sd/- M.L. Shrimal, J., Sd/- M. B. Sharma, J. *******