MADAN MOHAN LAL, J. This is an appeal filed against the judgment and order dated 29-7-1978 passed by Sri Hukam Singh, the then Sessions Judge, Rampur by which he has convicted Pooran Lal, the appellant, under Section 302, IPC and has sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. In the town of Bilaspur, district Rampur one Bihari had three sons, named, Deep Chand, Gulabi Ram and Chhotey Lal. Pooran Lal, the appellant is the son of Gulabi Lal. Shanker Lal deceased was the son of Chhotey Lal. Whereas Deep Chand and Chhotely Lal were carrying on cultivation, Gulabi Ram, on the other hand, was in private service. The said Gulabi Ram had left service and thereafter started working as labourer. There had been partition of the property among the brothers long ago. The appellant used to raise a dispute with regard to the same. It is alleged that 3-4 months prior to the incident Pooran Lal, appellant, had a quarrel with Shanker Lal deceased because he was pressing for an extra share in the property, which was stoutedly opposed by Shanker Lal deceased. On an intervention of certain persons some land for the construction of the Kotha had been given to the appellant by Shanker Lal. However, one month prior to the incident there was another quarrel between Shanker Lal deceased and his father on one side and the appellant on the other. 3. According to the case of the prosecution on 18-10-1977 at about 9pm. the appellant came to the house of Shanker Lal deceased and prevailed upon him to accompany with a cup in his hand. Shanker Lal deceased also took a torch with him. Thereafter Shanker Lal was not seen. At about 8 a. m. in the morning one Lokman had informed Chhotey Lal that the dead body of his son Shanker Lal was lying in the Kharra (depression) of an old river. After seeing the dead body Chhotey Lal went to the police station where he lodged report of the incident on 19-10-1977 at 9. 20 a. m. The police reached the spot to find the dead body, with multiple injuries, lying there. From the side of the dead body a torch and cup, handkerchief belonging to the deceased Shanker Lal and a wrist watch belonging to the appellant were found there. An empty bottle of liquor was also lying there. 20 a. m. The police reached the spot to find the dead body, with multiple injuries, lying there. From the side of the dead body a torch and cup, handkerchief belonging to the deceased Shanker Lal and a wrist watch belonging to the appellant were found there. An empty bottle of liquor was also lying there. On the same day the investigating officer had arrested the appellant. The clothes which were worn by the appellant were blood stained and the same were taken in possession. At the instance of the appellant a blood stained knife hidden in his hut was recovered in the presence of the witnesses. 4. In support of its case the prosecution examined 17 witnesses. PW 2 Chhotey Lal is the father and PW 5 Kalwa is the younger brother of Shanker Lal deceased. They had stated that on the fateful night the appellant had come to their house to take away the deceased and that thereafter he was not seen alive. PW 4 Mangli, PW 6 Lokman and PW 7 Bal Kishan are the witnesses regarding the recovery of the dead body etc. PW 8 Chet Ram was a witness of last seen but he turned hostile. PW 9 Deep Chandra and PW 11 Manga Ram were the witnesses of the recovery of the knife at the instance of the appellant. Constable Mohd Tausif Ali, PW 12, Constable Babu Singh PW 13, Constable Sita Ram PW 14, Constable Suraj Singh PW 15 and Shyam Lal Gupta clerk PW 16 were formal witnesses. The investigation of this case was made by PW 17 Sri Satya Pal Sharma. On 19-10-1987 at about l0-30 a. m. he had recovered the dead body of Shanksr Lal from the aforesaid Kharra of the old river. He had taken the dead body in possession and after necessary formalities sent the same for post-mortem examination. From near the dead body the investigating officer had found a cup, torch and a handkerchief of the deceased and wrist watch belonging to the appellant. He had found blood at the said place and had taken samples of blood stained and unstained earth from there. The Investigating Officer had prepared a site plan. From near the dead body the investigating officer had found a cup, torch and a handkerchief of the deceased and wrist watch belonging to the appellant. He had found blood at the said place and had taken samples of blood stained and unstained earth from there. The Investigating Officer had prepared a site plan. The Investigating Officer found the appellant coming from the side of the grove, belonging to Munshi Lal and after interrogation the appellant took the Investigating Officer and the witnesses to his hut from where is produced a blood stained knife. The Investigating Officer had also taken the blood stained clothes of the appellant in possession. The Investigating Officer had recorded the statement of the witnesses. 5. PW 10 Dr. R. K. Gulati the then Medical Officer, PHC, Bilaspur, examined the appellant on 19-10- 1977 at 5-50 p. m. and he found the following injuries on his person : (1) Incised wound 1 cm. x cm. on the dorsum of the left thumb middle phalnex, the margins of which were clean cut. (2) Incised wound 2 cm. x cm. x cm. on the dorsum of left hand nearly 2 cm. below the wrist, the margins of which were also clean cut. (3) Linear scabbed abrasion 3 cm. x on palm of right hand, 3 cm. below the wrist. 6. PW 3 Dr. R. Misra the then Medical Officer, District Hospital, Rampur had conducted the post-mortem examination of the dead body of Shanker Lal on 19-10-1977 at 5. 20 p. m. He found the following ante- mortem injuries on the dead body: (1) Incised wound 5 cm. x 2 cm. x bone deep on the right side of the forehead above eye brow. (2) Incised wound 3 cm. x 1 cm. 1 cm. on the right side of the face, 1 cm. below the eye. (3) Incised wound 7 cm. x 3 cm. x abdominal cavity deep on the right front of abdomen out of which rings were coming out. (4) Incised wound 3 cm. x 2 c. m x 2 c. m x 6 cm. on the right Army Act frontside, 7 cm. below the right shoulder. (5) Incised wound 3 cm. x 2 cm. x 6 cm. on the right Army Act upper side 6 cm, below the shoulder. (6) Incised wound 3cm x 1 cm. x 2 cm. x 2 c. m x 2 c. m x 6 cm. on the right Army Act frontside, 7 cm. below the right shoulder. (5) Incised wound 3 cm. x 2 cm. x 6 cm. on the right Army Act upper side 6 cm, below the shoulder. (6) Incised wound 3cm x 1 cm. x 2 cm. on the right arm upper side 6 cm, below the shoulder. (7) Incised wound 5 cm. x 1 cm. x skin deep, on the right forearm, front side, 1 cm. below elbow joint. (8) Incised wound 4 cm. X 1 cm. x skin deep on the back, middle, part. (9) Incised wound 6 cm. 2 cm. x abdominal cavity, deep on the right side, back lower portion. (10) Incised wound 2 cm x 1cm. x l cm. on the left side of back nearly 30 cm. below the shoulder. (11) Incised wound 3 cm, X 1 cm. X skin deep on back of left knee. (12) Incised wound 3 cm. X 1 cm. on front of left ankle. (13) Abrasion cm. X 1 cm. on the right toe. 7. On internal examination the Medical Officer had found that the membranes of the peritoneum had been cut and it contained 1 pints of liquid blood. The gall bladder was also found cut and it had the wound 7 cm X 1 cm. X abdominal cavity deep. The stomach was empty. The liver was also found cut m the area of 4 cm. X l cm. X 3 cm. The right kidney was also found cut in the area of 2 cm. X 1 cm. The death had been caused due to shock haemorrhage. 8. The appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313 Crpc denied the case of the prosecution. He further stated that there was enmity between him and his uncle Deep Chandra, that Chhotey Lal and Deep Chandra were of the same group and that the Investigating Officer had arrested him a 9/9,30 a. m, from near the dead body. The appellant, however, did not produce any evidence in defence. 9. The learned Sessions Judge has believed the case set up and the evidence produced by the prosecution and has accordingly convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant had filed this appeal. 10. The appellant, however, did not produce any evidence in defence. 9. The learned Sessions Judge has believed the case set up and the evidence produced by the prosecution and has accordingly convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant had filed this appeal. 10. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the State and have perused the record carefully. 11. This is a case of circumstantial evidence. The circumstances on which the prosecution relies against the appellant are firstly, that there was motive for the appellant to commit this crime, secondly, that Shanker Lal deceased was lastly seer, in the company of the appellant, thirdly, that wrist watch belonging so the appellant was recovered by the side of the dead body of Shanker Lal, fourthly, that the blood strained knife was recovered at the instance of the appellant, fifthly, that some injuries were found on the person of the appellant, which were of the same time as that of the incident and, sixthly, that some blood was found on the clothes of the appellant. 12. Firstly, taking the motive, the prosecution produced evidence that not feeling satisfied with the partition already made the appellant used to claim some more land which was resisted by Shanker Lal deceased. On the face of it, it may be observed that when the father of the appellant was alive it was not normally for the appellant to claim some more share or land in the ancestral property which admittedly had been partitioned a few decades ago. Besides, PW 2 Chhotey Lal, informant, the father of Shanker Lal, has admitted in his evidence that partition took place decades ago. In our view when the partition took place decades ago there was no reason for any fresh dispute being raised in this respect. Any way, it is stated in the first information report that in the current rainy season the appellant made a wrong claim to more property and that the said dispute came to the stage of Marpit, In this respect PW 2 Chhotey Lal, informant, also stated in his evidence that 3-4 months prior to this incident there took place a quarrel between the appellant on the one hand and Shanker Lal deceased on the other on the claim of the former regarding more property. Manga Ram PW 11, has stated in his evidence that one month prior to this murder there was a quarrel and dispute between the appellant, on the one hand, and Shanker Lal deceased and his father on the other with regard to the land In our view when the appellant was wrongly claiming more property from Shanker Lal deceased and his father a id the same had reached the stage of Marpit as well and that when the same happened as early as one month prior to the incident, it does not appeal to reason that at such an odd time at 9-20 p. m. on 19-10-1977 the appellant would have walked into the house of Shanker Lal and persuaded him to go for an outing with him and that too by a carrying a cup in his hand obviously for the purpose of taking drinks. Enmity is a double edged weapon. It is quite likely in this case that due to strained relations the informant suspected the appellant for committing this crime. The evidence produced by the prosecution, firstly, to the effect that the relations were strained and, secondly, to the effect that the relations were apparently so cordial that without hesitation Shanker Lal deceased accompanied the appellant at the aforesaid time is, therefore, not convincing and inspiring. The motive set up by the prosecution is not proved in this case. 13. Coming to the evidence of the last seen the prosecution has examined merely two witnesses, PW 2 Chhotey Lal and PW 5 Kalwa, regarding the fact that after the appellant had taken Shanker Lal deceased from the house of the latter was not seen alive. Chhotey Lal PW 2 and Kalwa PW 5 are father and son. They are interested witnesses. Their evidence is contradictory and the contradictions in their evidence cannot be reconciled. Whereas PW 2 Chhotey Lal has deposed that it was in his presence that the appellant had taken away Shanker Lal from the house and that at the said time he (PW 2) was taking dinner, PW 5 Kalwa, on the other hand, had deposed that at the time when the appellant took away Shanker Lal deceased from the house, his father was sleeping. Besides, we have already observed that when the relations between the parties were so much strained that quarrel and dispute with regard to the property reaching to the stage of Marpit had taken place merely one month prior to the incident, neither the appellant would have walked into the house of Shanker Lal at that odd hours of the day nor Shanker Lal would have willingly accompanied the appellant in the presence of the family members to guide him. 14. The third circumstances which the prosecution (sic) dead body was found a wrist watch belonging to be tried to prove was that at the (sic) when the appellant was recovered from the side of the said dead body. It may be observed at this stage that recovery of the said wrist watch has been vehemently challenged before us by the learned counsel for the appellant. PW Chhotey Lal, informant, has admitted in his evidence that when he first went to see the dead body he did not find any wrist watch lying although he had seen other articles lying there. This is why no mention of wrist watch was made in the first information report, which was subsequently lodged at the police station. Similarly, PW 6 Lokman has admitted in has evidence that when he saw the dead-body for the first time he did not find any wrist watch lying there, that when he went there for the second time even then he did not find any wrist watch at that place and that it was subsequently that the Investigating Officer picked up a wrist watch at a distance of 2-3 steps from the dead-body. 15. As regards the ownership of the said watch PW 5 Kalwa gave a strange strory. He stated that the appellant had found the said wrist watch lying on the road 24 months prior to the incident. PW 6 Lokman has stated in his evidence that 15 days prior to the incident the appellant had given the said watch to him for sale and that he had tied the said wrist watch on his wrist for 15 days. If this is so then PW 6 Lokman and not the appellant would have been in possession of the said wrist watch at the time of the said incident. If this is so then PW 6 Lokman and not the appellant would have been in possession of the said wrist watch at the time of the said incident. Anyway there is no evidence whatsoever that at the time when the appellant came to take away Shanker Lal deceased or that when Shanker Lal was lastly seen alive in the company of the appellant, the latter had the said wrist watch in his possession. 16. The said watch can hardly be said to be a watch which would have been carried by the appellant. In the memo of recovery of the said watch it is stated that the aforesaid wrist watch was without hands (Suiyan nikali hui ). It may not be out of place to observe here that no regular identification of the said wrist watch was got conducted. We are thus not prepared to believe the evidence produced by the prosecution that any wrist watch belonging to the appellant was recovered from the side of the dead body of Shanker Lal deceased. 17. The fourth circumstance regarding which the prosecution produced evidence against the appellant was that he had given the blood stained knife from a hut belonging to him. PW 9 Deep Chandra, the real brother of the informant, is a witness of recovery of the said knife. He has deposed that after his arrest the appellant told the Investigating officer on interrogation that the knife was in the hut and that he could bring out the same. The said evidence does not show that the appellant was the author of the concealment of the said knife. In our view, unless it is proved that the appellant was the author of the concealment of the knife, the recovery of the knife could not connect the appellant with this murder. This witness has admitted that the said hut had no doors and that the appellant alone had gone to the hut and that no body else went inside the said hut. Similarly, PW 11 Managa Ram stated in his evidence that the appellant had simply stated that the knife was in the hut. It may be observed that from the evidence of this witness as well it could not be made out that the appellant was in any way the author of the concealment of the said knife. Similarly, PW 11 Managa Ram stated in his evidence that the appellant had simply stated that the knife was in the hut. It may be observed that from the evidence of this witness as well it could not be made out that the appellant was in any way the author of the concealment of the said knife. This witness admitted that the appellant alone went inside the hut and brought out the knife. This witness frankly admitted in his evidence that he was not in a position to tell as to where in the hut the said knife was lying. In our opinion, if the knife was lying on the ground and the said hut was admittedly open without any door then it cannot be said that the appellant had the exclusive knowledge of the concealment of any knife in the said hut. We are thus not convinced in this case that the said knife was kept in the aforesaid hut in such a way that the appellant alone was aware of the same and also that he was the author of the said concealment. 18. The fifth circumstance relied upon by the prosecution against the appellant is that when the appellant was medically examined on 19-10-1977 the aforesaid three injuries were found on his person. The said injuries were superflous. The appellant was a labourer by profession and was probable that the said injuries were sustained by him while doing some labour. In our view, had there been any struggle between the appellant and Shanker Lal deceased over the possession of the said knife at the time of the aforesaid incident, then the appellant would not have sustained merely such superfluous injuries. It may be noted from the post-mortem examination report that the deceased was a young lad of 20 years, with an average built body. In our view, had he struggled with the appellant, who too was alone, it would not have easy for the appellant to give fatal blows to Shanker Lal without sustaining major injuries on his body. In our view, the aforesaid few injuries on the person of the appellant could not connect the appellant with this crime. 19. Lastly it is stated that there were blood-stains on the clothes of the appellant. In our view, the aforesaid few injuries on the person of the appellant could not connect the appellant with this crime. 19. Lastly it is stated that there were blood-stains on the clothes of the appellant. The said clothes were not sent to the serologist who could say that the spots of blood found on the said clothes were of human blood. In our view, some spots of blood on the clothes of the appellant, who was a labourer by profession, could not raise a presumption that he had committed a murder. 20. In a case of circumstantial evidence there are five golden principles which must and should be established. The same are as follows :-- (i) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilty to be drawn should be fully established ; (ii) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hapothesis except that the accused is guilty; (ii) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency ; (iv) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one due to be proved and (v) there must be a chain of a evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probabilities the act must have been done by the accused". 21. In our opinion, the afore said principles are not established in this case. The case against the appellant is, therefore, not free from doubt. 22. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence of Pooran Lal, appellant, under Section 302, IPC are hereby set aside. He is acquitted of the offence under Section 302 IPC. He is on bail. He need not surrender to his bail bonds. Which hereby stand discharged. Appel allowed .