JUDGMENT 1. - Respondent Naksi was tried for the charges under sections 302, 201 and 379 IPC by the Sessions Judge, Banswara. By the judgment dated July 31, 1984 the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondent Naksi for the charges under sections 302 and 201 IPC and convicted him for the charge under section 379 IPC and sentenced him to two years RI and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo six months RI on that count. 2. Feeling dissatisfied by the acquittal of the respondent for the charges under sections 302 and 201 IPC the State of Rajasthan after seeking leave of this Court filed this appeal. 3. On June 29, 1983 Punja (PW 7) filed a report at Police Station Khamera to the effect that his son Gautam had gone on June 21, 1983 on by-cycle and did not return thereafter. On July 3, 1983 Punja again lodged a report at the same Police Station informing that his son Gautam had been murdered by Naksi. On the basis of this information Ex. P 1 dated July 3, 1983 a case was registered against the respondent Naksi. Naksi was arrested on July 3, 1983 vide memo Ex. P 24. While under custody of the police, respondent Naksi furnished information for getting recovered the bones of the dead body. In pursuance of that information he got recovered the bones of a person and clothes and shoes which were taken in possession by the police vide memo Ex. P 6 and Ex. P 7. On July 6, 1983 the respondent furnished information for getting recovered one 'axe'. In pursuance of that information he got the 'axe' recovered from his house. On July 4, 1983, in pursuance of the information furnished by the respondent, 'hansli' was recovered from Shantilal (PW 6) vide memo Ex. P 30. The respondent is also said to have got recovered one 'dhoti' which had stains of blood on it but was washed. Medical Board was constituted for ascertaining the gender of the dead person and the duration of death. The Board prepared the report Ex. P 9 and Dr. P.L. Bhardwaj (PW 14), a Member of that Board was examined at the trial, 26 witnesses were examined by the prosecution to substantiate its case. In his statement under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant denied the allegations levelled against him. The Board prepared the report Ex. P 9 and Dr. P.L. Bhardwaj (PW 14), a Member of that Board was examined at the trial, 26 witnesses were examined by the prosecution to substantiate its case. In his statement under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant denied the allegations levelled against him. The learned Sessions Judge placed reliance on the prosecution evidence and held the appellant guilty only for the offence under section 379 IPC and pissed the judgment under appeal. The State therefore, preferred this appeal. Respondent Naksi is unrepresented and Mr. M.M. Singhvi Advocate offered his services to plead the case of the respondent and he was allowed to do so. 4. We heard Mr. L.S. Udawat, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. M.M. Singhvi, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record of the case carefully. 5. At the very outset it may be noted that prosecution case solely stands on circumstantial evidence. The learned Judge has discussed in detail all the circumstances brought on record by the prosecution and except that of the recovery of the 'hansli' did not place reliance on any of them. The first circumstance brought against the respondent is his having been last seen in the company of Gautam on June 22, 1983 and June 23, 1983. Two witnesses have been examined in this concern. One is Punji (PW 5) sister of the respondent and the other is Deepa (PW 2). Punji (PW 5) has stated that his brother has gone with one man whom he introduced as the son-in-law of their maternal uncle. She has stated that she was not knowing that man before. Deena (PW 2) has categorically stated that he was not knowing Gautam before hand and it was them respondent who introduced him. The learned Judge has not placed reliance on this circumstances for the reason that both these witnesses could not say definitely that the person with the respondent was Gautam deceased. The learned Judge has also taken into consideration the omission of important fact of Gautam going with Naksi on June 21, 1983 in Ex. P 2 despite the prosecution case that Deepa had told this fact to Punji prior to the lodging of that report. This circumstance cannot be taken as a connecting link to the chain of the prosecution story. 6. P 2 despite the prosecution case that Deepa had told this fact to Punji prior to the lodging of that report. This circumstance cannot be taken as a connecting link to the chain of the prosecution story. 6. Another circumstance against the respondent brought on record is the motive to commit the crime. It is alleged that he was having illicit relations with Takli (PW 4) wife of Gautam. Takli is the only witness examined on this point. She has stated that before her marriage she had developed a liking for the respondent but after the marriage there was no relation between her and the respondent. She has also stated that her husband did not behave harshly with her even after knowing this fact. In this view of the matter, the learned Judges has rightly not placed reliance on this circumstance against the respondent. 7. So far as the recovery of the bones and clothes at the instance of the respondent is concerned, there remains not much to say in view of the evidence of Dr. P.L. Bhardwaj (PW 14), Member of the Medical Board. Gautam is said to be missing from the house from June 21, 1983. The bones were recovered on June 27, 1983 in scattered condition. The opinion of the Medical Board as per the report of Ex. P 9, proved by Dr. P.L. Bhardwaj (PW 14) was that the duration of death was about three months. This opinion in no way reconciles with the prosecution case because the gap between the missing of Gautam and the bones being recovered was only of the ten days. 8. The circumstance of the recovery of 'axe' has rightly been not pressed into service against the respondent because the 'axe' was recovered from the house where father of the respondent was also living. Apart from it no human blood was detected by the Serologist on the `axe'. Regarding the recovery of the 'dhoti' having the human blood on it, the learned Judge has observed that Labu (PW 13), father of Gautam has stated that 'dhoti' produced in the Court was not of Gautam because Gautam was wearing old dhoti when he left the house, while the one produced in the Court was a new one. 9. The learned Judge had placed reliance on the recovery of 'hansli' from Shantilal with whom the respondent is said to have pledged it. 9. The learned Judge had placed reliance on the recovery of 'hansli' from Shantilal with whom the respondent is said to have pledged it. This circumstance we need not discuss because the trial Court has on the basis of it convicted the respondent for the offence under section 379 IPC and no appeal has been preferred against that finding. 10. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Judge regarding the charges under sections 302 and 201 IPC based on sound reasoning's calls for no interference by this Court. 11. Consequently, the appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan has no merits and is dismissed. In pursuance of the warrant of arrest issued by this Court to procure the attendance of respondent Naksi, he was produced in the Court on August 5, 1985 and was sent to Central Jail, Jodhpur. He shall be set forth to liberty if not required in any other case.Appeal allowed. *******