JUDGMENT 1. - The appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur dated February 19, 1977 by which appellant Manohar Singh was convicted under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that Laxman Singh PW 5 appeared at Police Station Mavli, District Udaipur at about 7.00 a.m. on 29-6-1974 and presented written report Ex.P. 13. It was stated therein that in the preceding night, his brother Mohabbat Singh was sleeping on a cot in his house. Some unknown persons intruded into the house and caused the murder of Mohabbat Singh by inflicting blows with a sharp edged weapon like sword or axe. The police registered a case and proceeded with the investigation. Head Constable (Police) Jayanti Lal PW 11 arrived on the spot, inspected the site and prepared the site plan. He also prepared the inquest report of the dead body of Mohabbat Singh. The blood-stained clothes of the deceased were seized and sealed. Post mortem examination of the victim's dead body was conducted at about 11.30 a.m. on the same day by PW 2 Dr. Krishan Kumar Agrawal the, then Medical Officer in-charge Government Dispensary, Mavli. The Doctor noticed three incised wounds on the victim's dead body. In the opinion of Doctor Agrawal, the cause of death was sudden shock and excessive hemorrhage, with cutting of cervical spinal cord and Trachea, due to wounds in the neck, caused by heavy sharp edged weapon. The post-mortem report prepared by the Doctor is Ex.P 2. The accused was arrested by the Investigation Officer on 7-7-1974 vide arrest memo Ex.P 10. In consequences of the information furnished by the accused on 8-7-1974 to the Investigation Officer, one sword (Article 1) was recovered lying concealed in the bushes. It was seized and sealed. The sword had stains of blood on it. The clothes of the accused and the sword were sent for chemical examination to the Chemical Examiner, Rajasthan and the Serologist, Calcutta. Human blood was found on all of them. 3. It revealed during investigation that the deceased Mohabbat Singh was married to the sister of prosecution wituesse Ram Singh and Ram Singh was married to the sister of the deceased. The accused is the real nephew of PW 1 Ram Singh. Human blood was found on all of them. 3. It revealed during investigation that the deceased Mohabbat Singh was married to the sister of prosecution wituesse Ram Singh and Ram Singh was married to the sister of the deceased. The accused is the real nephew of PW 1 Ram Singh. A theft was committed in 1973 in the house of Ram Singh situate in village Pavta, Ram Singh lodged report Ex. P 1 of this theft on 25-7-1973 at Police Station, Mavli. He expressed his suspicion on the accused. A few days before 29-6-1974, again a theft took place in the house of PW 1 Ram Singh. This time only one sword was stolen by the culprit. Ram Singh again suspected the accused as having committed the theft of his sword. It was alleged that the accused got an impression that Ram Singh PW 1 had lodged the report of theft at the instigation of the deceased Mohabbat Singh. It was alleged that it was why Mohabbat Singh was killed by the accused. On the completion of investigation, the police submitted a challan against the accused in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, Mavli who in his turn committed that case for trial to the court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge framed a charge under Section 302 Indian Penal Code against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and faced the trial. The accused claimed absolute innocence and stated that he has been falsely implicated on account of his inimical relation with his uncle Ram Singh PW 1. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses and filed some documents. In difence, no evidence was adduced by the accused. On the conclusion of trial, the learned Sessions Judge held that the charge was duly proved against the accused. The accused was consequently convicted and sentenced as mentioned at the very out-set. Aggrieved against the conviction, the accused has come up in appeal. 4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor. We have also gone through the case file carefully. 5. Admittedly, there is no eye witness of the incident and the prosecution case rests entirely on the circumstantial evidence. Aggrieved against the conviction, the accused has come up in appeal. 4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor. We have also gone through the case file carefully. 5. Admittedly, there is no eye witness of the incident and the prosecution case rests entirely on the circumstantial evidence. In order to establish the charge against the accused, the prosecution adduced the following sets of circumstantial evidence: (i) PW 1 Ram Singh and the deceased Mohabbat Singh were close relatives of each other. The accused was on inimical terms with PW 1 Ram Singh; (ii) The accused made an extra-judicial confession to have killed Mohabbat Singh before PW 3 Rod Singh; (iii) Sword (Article 1) was of PW 1 Ram Singh. It was stolen away by the accused from the house of Ram Singh; and (iv) Sword (Article 1) was recovered in consequence of the information furnished by the accused whilst in police custody and human blood was found on it. 6. The learned Sessions Judge disbelieved and dismissed the evidence of PW 3 Rod Singh relating to the extra-judicial confession alleged to have been made by the accused. He, however, took the view that the remaining three sets of evidence taken together were sufficient to show that it was the accused and none-else who had committed the murder of Mohabbat Singh. 7. It was argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant that even if these three sets of evidence are considered together, they are wholly insufficient to connect the accused with the murder of Mohabbat Singh. Reliance was placed on Prabha Babaji Navle v. State of Bombay, AIR 1956 Supreme Court 56 ; Aher Raja Khima v. State of Saurashtra, AIR 1956 Supreme Court 217 ; and State v. Sardara Singh 1962 RLW 68 . 8. It was, on the other hand, contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that the three sets of evidence accepted by the court below when taken together conclusively show that the accused was the perpetrator of the crime. We have taken the respective submissions into consideration. 9. It is true that relations between the accused and his uncle Ram Singh PW 1 were unhappy and extremely strained. It is also true that the deceased Mohabbat Singh was the brother-in-law of PW 1 Ram Singh. We have taken the respective submissions into consideration. 9. It is true that relations between the accused and his uncle Ram Singh PW 1 were unhappy and extremely strained. It is also true that the deceased Mohabbat Singh was the brother-in-law of PW 1 Ram Singh. But we are unable to conceive that the accused nurtured any ill-will against the deceased Mohabbat Singh. Simply because he happened to be the brother-in-law of PW 1 Ram Singh. The incident had taken place in village Babna whereas the accused is resident of village Gangdevi and PW 1 Ram Singh is resident of village Pavta. In order to prove the motive for the murder, it was incumbent on the prosecution to show that the accused had enmity with the deceased. The prosecution had failed to prove so. 10. PW 1 Ram Singh stated that sword (Article 1) was his and it was stolen away from his house. No report at the Police Station was lodged of this theft. There is again no satisfactory evidence on record to show that sword (Article 1) was of PW 1 Ram Singh. 11. The offence was committed in the intervening night of 28 and 29 June, 1974 and the accused was arrested nearly after eight days on 7-7-1974. Sword (Article 1) was recovered lying in bushes. The place from where it was recovered was accessible to all and sundry. The place of recovery was not in the exclusive possession of the accused. 12. According to report Ex. P 14 of the Serologist human blood found on Dhoti was of 'O' group. Blood group however could not be ascertained of the blood found on the sword (Article 1). If the blood group found on the deceased's Dhoti tallied with the blood found on the sword, it would have afforded a very valuable piece of evidence for connecting the accused with the murder of the victim. However, blood group found on the sword could not be ascertained. As such the mere fact that human blood was found on the sword is not of much consequence. 13. Apart from all these matters, the mere recovery of blood-stained articles is in itself not sufficient to seek conviction. The recovery of bloodstained articles is only of corroborative value. Independently it is wholly insufficient to warrant the conviction. As such the mere fact that human blood was found on the sword is not of much consequence. 13. Apart from all these matters, the mere recovery of blood-stained articles is in itself not sufficient to seek conviction. The recovery of bloodstained articles is only of corroborative value. Independently it is wholly insufficient to warrant the conviction. This was the view taken in the three decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant. 14. The three sets of evidence on which the conviction of the accused was based are wholly insufficient to show that in all probabilities it was the accused and no-one else who perpetrated the crime. The various pieces of circumstantial evidence must have the tendency to conclusively point out the guilt of the accused. They must militate against the innocence of the accused. 15. For the reasons mentioned above, we are unable to maintain the conviction of the accused. He was wrongly convicted. 16. In the result, the appeal of accused Manohar Singh is allowed. His conviction and sentence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code are set-aside and he is acquitted. He is already on bail and need not surrender. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled.Appeal allowed. *******