Judgment N. M. KASLIWAL, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal by the accused Sardara is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur, dated April 29, 1980, convicting him under Sections 302 and 380 Indian Penal Code and awarding a sentence of imprisonment for life for offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code and two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5001-, in default of payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment of three months under section 380 Indian Penal Code. ( 2 ) THE entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. The accused appellant Sardara is the real son of deceased Murti Devi. Four circumstances mentioned below have been found established by the learned Sessions Judge: 1. that the accused had sold 6 bighas of land to Bhonraya Meena 4-5 years ago for a sum of Rs. 7,000/- which consisted of his own share alongwith the share of his mother, but he did not give the share to Mst. Murti Devi; ii. prior to the incident the accused had gone in the evening at the house of Mst. Murti Devi and was seen with her; iii. recovery of knife Article 7 at the instance of the accused; iv. the accused had sold utensils Articles I to 6 belonging to Mst. Murti Devi to witness Kalyan Singh PW 11 and the said utensils were got recovered at the instance of the accused. ( 3 ) WE have heard Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the accused-appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor at length and have thoroughly perused the record. In our view, the prosecution has failed to prove anyone of the above circumstances beyond reasonable doubt to connect the accused with the crime. We shall consider each one of the circumstances hereinafter. ( 4 ) SO far as the first circumstance sought to be proved by the prosecution is regarding motive. The prosecution has examined P. W. 1 Phool Chand and P. W. 14 Mst. Sodi in this regard. According to P. W. 1 Phool Chand, his father Jiwan had died IS years or 9 years ago. There was 12 Bighas of land of the family. After the death of his father the land was divided in three portions. One-third share went to his mother Mst. Murti Devi and react of 2/3rd share was divided between him and the accused Sardara 1/3rd each. There was 12 Bighas of land of the family. After the death of his father the land was divided in three portions. One-third share went to his mother Mst. Murti Devi and react of 2/3rd share was divided between him and the accused Sardara 1/3rd each. Phool Chand father stated that about 4-5 years ago accused Sardara sold 6 Bighas of land out of 12 Bighas to Bhonraya Meena for an amount of Rs. 7,000/ -. Thereafter, the witness Phool Chand also sold remaining 6 Bighas of land to Umrao. Prior to the date of incident, accused started living at some distant place. So far as Murti Devi was concerned, she was living with the witness Phool Chand in village Banar. Mst. Murti Devi used to live all alone as Phool Chand also used to remain outside for some manual work. He used to go to village Banar for attending his mother. Phool Chand further stated that though Sardara accused sold a part of his share and of Mst. Murti Devi but he did not pay the amount of her share. He also stated that Sardara accused had once inflicted a blow on him by a knife. He, however, admitted in the cross-examination that he lodged no report at the police station regarding this incident to inflicting a blow by the knife. Sardara accused formerly lived at village Kethan but thereafter his whereabouts were not known. Neither the purchaser Bhonraya Meena has been examined by the prosecution nor any written document has been produced on the record to show that the land was sold for Rs. 7,000/- including the share of Mst. Murti Devi, as deposed by Phool Chand. The only motive for the crime as alleged by the prosecution is that as accused Sardara bad not given the share to Mst. Murti Devi, there were strained relations between Mst. Murti Devi and Sardara, and on this account the accused committed murder of his mother. We are not prepared to believe the story of motive as alleged by the prosecution. Firstly, the transaction is alleged to have been made 4 or 5 years before the date of incident. There is no evidence at all from the side of the prosecution to show that Mst. We are not prepared to believe the story of motive as alleged by the prosecution. Firstly, the transaction is alleged to have been made 4 or 5 years before the date of incident. There is no evidence at all from the side of the prosecution to show that Mst. Murti Devi had ever demanded her share in this intervening period or there was any exchange of letters demanding the said amount or at any time there was any exchange of words or some other incident to show that there were strained relations between the accused and his mother on this account. Even on the date of incident when according to the prosecution, the accused had met the deceased in the evening it is nowhere the case of the prosecution witnesses PW 3 Sarli or PW 8 Surja that there was any exchange of words or Mstmurti Devi had asked for her share of money alleged to have been devovoured by Sardara 4 or 5 years ago. As already mentioned above there is no documentary evidence placed on record nor Bhonraya Meena, who had purchased the land bas been examined by the prosecution to show that such transaction bad really taken place in order to prove the motive. We are not prepared to believe the bald and oral statement of PW I Phool Chand and his wife PW 14 Mst. Bodi in this regard, who are also interested witnesses. It is also not believable in the ordinary human conduct that the accused Sardara can have any motive to kill his own mother for not paying her share of land which is alleged to have been sold 4 or 5 years ago. ( 5 ) THE second circumstance caught to be proved by the prosecution against the accused is that he was seen having some talk with his mother Mst. Murti Devi. In this regard the prosecution has examined P. W. 3 Mst. Sarli and P. W. 8 Surja. According to Mst. Sarli, one day prior to the date of incident, she had seen the accused talking with Mst. Murti Devi in the evening. She further stated that Mst. Murti Devi had slept in her own house in the night all alone. On the next day in the morning a child had informed that Mst. Murti Devi bad been found lying dead in the field of Girdhari Khatik. Murti Devi in the evening. She further stated that Mst. Murti Devi had slept in her own house in the night all alone. On the next day in the morning a child had informed that Mst. Murti Devi bad been found lying dead in the field of Girdhari Khatik. In the cross-examination she admitted that after the accused was seen talking with Mst. Murti Devi in the evening, Mst. Murti Devi was all alone in the house in the night. She did not know as to when Sardara had come in the house. An other witness in this regard is P. W. 8 Surja, who stated that Mst. Murti Devi was residing in a neighbouring house. The accused Sardara had come to meet his mother. In the night time he had beard the voice of Sardara. Sardara was telling his mother that be bad come there to take Mst. Murti Devi so that she could meet his children. On the next day he came to know that the dead body of Mst. Murti Devi was lying in the field of Girdhari Khatik. In the cross-examination he admitted that his eye sight was weak and be was partly deaf. It is important to note that he stated that the above fact was disclosed to the police on the next day of the incident hut the police recorded his statement under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code after a lapse of 3 or 4 months. There is no satisfactory explanation given by the prosecution for such long delay in recording the statement of this witness. According to this witness Surja, the accused bad a talk with his mother Mst. Murti Devi for taking her to his own house to meet his children. We are not prepared to believe the statement of the witness with regard to his having heard the talk of the accused with his mother inasmuch as he is hard of hearing and he has not stated that he had gone inside the house of Mst Murti Devi when this talk took place between the accused and Mst. Murti Devi. Even otherwise the subject matter of talk between the accused and his mother clearly shows that they had cordial relations and on that account the accused had come to take his mother so that she could meet his children. Murti Devi. Even otherwise the subject matter of talk between the accused and his mother clearly shows that they had cordial relations and on that account the accused had come to take his mother so that she could meet his children. Apart from that the evidence of these two witnesses cannot at all be taken as a circumstance of last seen with Mst. Murti Devi to connect the accused with the crime. It is nowhere the evidence of the prosecution that Mst. Murti Devi was murdered in the house where she lived. On the other hand, the case of the prosecution is that Mst. Murti was murdered outside her house and her body was found in the field of Girdhari Khatik. There is no evidence from the side of the prosecution to prove that the accused was seen outside the house of Mst. Murti Devi, taking her in the night before the incident took place. It has also come in evidence of P. W. 3 that Mst. Murti Devi was alive and had slept in the house after the alleged talk between the accused and Mst. Murti Devi in the evening. Though, we are not prepared to believe the statements of these two witnesses for proving that the accused was seen with the deceased but even otherwise whatever evidence has been given by these two witnesses cannot be considered as a circumstances of last seen with the deceased for taking it as a circumstance against the accused. ( 6 ) SO far as the recovery of knife Article 7, to connect the accused with the crime, is concerned, it is not necessary to give any detailed reasons as the recovery has been made after a lapse of 3! months from a place which is a small khauli on the thorough fare and can be approached by any member of the public. That apart, a perusal of the injuries found on the body of the deceased clearly go to show that such injuries cannot be inflicted from the knife Article 7 alleged to have been recovered at the instance of the accused. According to Dr. Gaur P. W. 10 the size of the incised wound was 7 x 4 while the blade of the knife Article 7 so mentioned in the recovery memo Ex. p ii itself shows that its size was 35 cm. According to Dr. According to Dr. Gaur P. W. 10 the size of the incised wound was 7 x 4 while the blade of the knife Article 7 so mentioned in the recovery memo Ex. p ii itself shows that its size was 35 cm. According to Dr. Gaur there was fracture of 8 ribs on the body of Mst. Murti Devi which, in our opinion, is well nigh impossible to have been caused by the knife in question. ( 7 ) THE last circumstance is the recovery of utensils at the instance of the accused from the shop of Kalyan Singh P. W. 11. These utensils are Article 1 to Article 6, which are Thali, Katori, Lota, Degchi and Glass. Such articles are of common use as also admitted by P. W. 1 Phool Chand and his wife P. W. 14 Mst. Bodi. Mst. Bodi also admitted that these utensils were shown by the police prior to their test identification. This circumstance cannot be taken against the accused to connect with the crime. ( 8 ) IN the result, we are fully convinced that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove any guilt against the accused, appeal is accordingly allowed. The accused appeal is accordingly allowed. The convicting of the accused Sardara for offences under Sections 302 and 380 Indian Penal Code and the sentence awarded to him are set aside. The accused appellant is in jail as such he would be release forthwith if not involved in any other case. Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside.