BYAS, J.—This is a jail appeal by accused Hariya against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore dated January 24, 1979 convicting the appellant under section 302, I.P.C. and sentencing him to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of the payment of fine to further undergo one years rigorous imprisonment. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that PW 4 Chelaram, PW 10 Ramjilal, deceased-victim Prabharam alias Prabhuram and accused Hariya were travelling in a bus from village Jha and got down at bus stand Ankhol. From the bus stand Ankhol, all the four left on foot to go to Bali. In the way, the deceased-victim lagged behind as he was an old man. The remaining three persons stayed at a water hut. There the accused told that since he had lost a ten rupee note he was going back in search of it. The other two persons viz. P.W. 4 Chelaram and PW 10 Ramjilal proceeded further PW 4 Chelaram went to Bhoparam (PW 2) who is a son of the deceased-victim. He informed him that his father had sent information that he was coming and he (son) should go to with water. PW 2 Bhoparam thereupon went to his father with a jar of water. He found him lying dead near a field. Thereupon he went to Police Station, Chitalwara district Jalore and verbally lodged report Ex.P 4 of the occurrence. The police registered a case under section 302, I.P.C. and took up the investigation. The Investigating Officer prepared the inquest report and sent the victims dead body for post mortem examination. The autopsy was conducted, on 4.3.78 by Dr. Pukhraj Mehta, the then Medical Officer lncharge, Government Dispensary, Jha. He found the following injuries on the victims deadbody :— (1) There were six crestic marks of finger-nails on either side of the wind-pepe, and (2) One abrasion on the centre of scrotum. Clotted blood was present around the glans of penis and over the abrasion. According to Dr. Mehta, the cause of death was throtting causing asphyxia. The report of the post mortem examination issued by him is Ex.P. 10. The site was inspected and the site plan was prepared. The accused was arrested on 16.5.78. Clotted blood was present around the glans of penis and over the abrasion. According to Dr. Mehta, the cause of death was throtting causing asphyxia. The report of the post mortem examination issued by him is Ex.P. 10. The site was inspected and the site plan was prepared. The accused was arrested on 16.5.78. In consequence of the disclosure statements made by him, one blanket, one Saafa, one Dhoti, one Kamiz alleged to be belonging to the deceased-victim and a pair shoes belonging to the accused himself were recovered from different place. The clothes of the deceased-victim were put for identification test and they except the turban were correctly identified by the victims son Bhoparam (P.W.2), It is alleged that certain foot-prints were also found at the place where the victims dead body was found lying. On completion of investigation, the police presented a challan against the accused in the Court of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sanchore who committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge, Jalore framed a charge under section 302, I.P.C. against the accused to which he pleaded not gilty and faced the trial. During trial the prosecution examined 12 witnesses and filed some documents. In defence, the accused adduced no evidence. The defence taken by him was that of total denial. On the conclusion of trial, the learned Sessions Judge found the charge duly brought home to the accused. The accused was consequently convicted and sentenced as mentioned at the very out set, 3. We have heard the learned Amicus curiae and the learned Public Prosecutor. We have also gone through the record of the case. Admittedly there is no direct evidence against the accused to connect him with the murder of deceased-victim Prabhuram. The case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence consisting of (1) the accused and the deceased-victim were travelling together in the bus and were also together upto a little distance from the water-hut; (2) recover of the clothes of the deceased-victim in consequence of the information and at the instance of the accused; and (3) the foot prints found at the place where the victims dead body was found lying It may be mentioned that no expert evidence relating to the identification of the foot prints was made available by the prosecution during trial. As such this evidence was rightly rejected by the learned Sessions Judge. As such this evidence was rightly rejected by the learned Sessions Judge. We are, therefore, concerned with remaining two sets of evidence referred to above. 4. Shri Kumbhat, the learned Amicus curiae vehemently contended that the above two sets are circumstances are not sufficient to connect the accused with the murder of deceased-victim Prabhuram. It was argued that PW 4 Cheharam, P.W. 10 Ramjilal, the accused and Prabhuram were travelling together in the bus and thereafter on foot from the bus sand Ankhol. This circumstance in itself is not sufficient to arrive at a conclusion that the deceased-victim was throttled by the accused. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contention and find considerable force in it. Even if the testimony of these two witnesses PW 4 Chelaram and PW 10 Ramjilal is taken to as it stands, it is not sufficient to hold that it was the accused who had throttled the victim and put him to death. The testimony of these two witnesses simply reveals that they and the accused together with the deceased-victim started on foot from village Ankhol. Nothing more can be inferred against accused from what they stated above. 5. It is stated that the accused left the water-hut on the pretext that he had lost a ten rupee note and he was going in search of that. This fact in itself is also not sufficient to drive us to a conclusion that the victim was throttled to the death by the accused. These two witnesses do not state that the accused went upto the deceased-victim. In other words, there is no evidence to show that the deceased-victim and the accused were seen last together and thereafter the victim was not found alive. Merely becuase the accused went back in search of his lost currency note, we cannot infer that he went to the deceased-victim and caused his death. 6. Coming to the evidence relating to the recovery of the clothes of the deceased-victim at the instance of the accused, it is not of any help. PW 4 Chelaram and PW 10 Ramjilal do not state that the coat, blanket, shirt, dhoti and the turban, which were recovered were being worn by the deceased-victim when he was in their company. Coming to the evidence relating to the recovery of the clothes of the deceased-victim at the instance of the accused, it is not of any help. PW 4 Chelaram and PW 10 Ramjilal do not state that the coat, blanket, shirt, dhoti and the turban, which were recovered were being worn by the deceased-victim when he was in their company. In order to make this sort of evidence helpful to the prosecution it was required that these two witnesses PW 4 Chela Ram and PW 10 Ramjilal must have stated that the deceased-victim was wearing these clothes when he was with them. Thus, the recovery of the clothes at the instance of the accused furnishes no incriminating evidence against the accused so as to induce us that he was the perpetrator of the crime. 7. It may be noticed that the recovery of these clothes of the victim was made nearly after 2 1/2 months of the incident. We are unable to see any logic or reason that the accused would keep them hidden or concealed for no rhyme or reason for such a long time. The recovery of the shoes of the accused at his instance is also of no evidentary value. It does not connect him with the commission of the offence. 8. While parting away with the case, we are at pains to note that the approach of the learned Sessions Judge was wholly erroneous and unsustainable. The accused was convicted on entirely insufficient rather nil evidence. The learned Sessions Judge took superficial view of the entire matter and convicted the accused unnecessarily and thereby he has been detained for a petty long time since his conviction. 9. For the reasons discussed above, we are unable to maintain the conviction of the accused. In the result, the appeal of accused Hariya is allowed. His conviction and sentence under section 302, I.PC. are set-aside. He is in jail and shall be forthwith set at liberty if not wanted in any other case.