J. D. DUBEY, J. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Pilibhit convicting and sentencing the appellant to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 I. P. C. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, was that Asey Ram, father if the appellant, was married with the daughter of Gendan Lal, resident of Aliganj, Police Station Kotwali, District Pilibhit, appellant Sunder was born out of this wed-lock. Gendan Lal had no son. He owned about twenty six bighas of land and a house which was given to his son-in-law Asey Ram. Consequently Asey Ram was residing at Aliganj. After the death of tie daughter of Gendan Lal, Asey Ram married with another girl Ketki, daughter of Hori Lal. Thereafter, Asey Ram started residing in the house of Hori Lal at Misrain Gauntia. It was alleged that, due to these reasons, an enmity had developed between Sunder and his father Asey Ram. Hori Lal had asked his son-in-law Asey Ram to reside at his house after leaving Aliganj. 3. It has been alleged by the prosecution that appellant Sunder. and Horis cousin Ishwari came to the house of Hori Lal and took Asey Ram on the pretext of settling Gauna i. e. second marria. je of Sunder. Ishwari there after returned alone. Hori Lal had enquired about the whereabout of Asey Ram. Ishwari then informed Hori Lal that he had stayed at Pirhaura and the others had proceeded further. After this information, Hori Lal had searched, but he was no traceable. Consequently he had lodged a first information report (Ext. Ka 1) at police station Kotwali on 29th December, 1981. 4. On 31st December, 1981, one Makhan Lal, Hulasi, Goverdhan and Sewa Ram came to police station Kotwali and informed that the dead body of an unknown person is lying in village Khappraii gauntia. 5. After the dead body was taken out from a well, the inquest report has been prepared by Rahtu Singh (P. W. 6) by that time, the identity of the dead body had not been establi shed. Hence it was sent to the mortuary for post mortem as the dead body of an unknown person. 6. The post mortem had been conducted by Dr. A. K. Srivastava (P. W. 7) at 3. 00 p. m. on 30th December, 1981, showing the dead body as that of an unknown person. Hence it was sent to the mortuary for post mortem as the dead body of an unknown person. 6. The post mortem had been conducted by Dr. A. K. Srivastava (P. W. 7) at 3. 00 p. m. on 30th December, 1981, showing the dead body as that of an unknown person. The doctor had found that the deceased had died as result of drowning. Both the lungs had become distended and baloon shaped. They were also congested. The doctor had opined that the deceased had died about four days before the date and time of post mortem. 7. The investigation of the case had been conducted by the aforesaid Rehtu Shgh. He had submitted his chargesheet against appellant Sunder and one Lalman. 8. Eight witnesses had been examined on behalf of tht; prosecution. Hori Lal (P. W. 1) Kethi (P. W. 2) Bhagwan Das (P. W. 3) Ganga Ram (P. W. 4) and Ram Charan (P. W. 5) are witnesses relating to facts. Out of these witnesses, Bhagwan Das (P. W. 3), Ganga Ram (P. W. 4) and Ram Charan (P. W. 5) had been declared hostile by the prosecution and cross examined. 9. The appellant held pleaded not guilty to the charge levelled against him. The learned Sessions Judge had found one of the accused Lalman not guilty. He had held appellant Sunder guilty of the offence and convicted him as stated above. 10. None has appeared from the side of the appellant. We have been assisted by learned A. G. A. in going through the record. 11. The learned Sessions Judge has come to the conclusion that there was circumstance on record to show that none except the appel lant had committed the crime by causing the death of Msey Ram by drowning him. 12. We are surprised that the learned Sessions Judge has failed to appreciate the very basic principle relating to the consideration of evidence which are circumstantial in nature leading to the guilt of an accused. In a catena of cases, it has been observed that the chain of circumstances should be of such a character which should lead to no other conclusion except the guilt of the accused. Till the post mortem was conducted, the identity of the dead body had not been established. The post mortem was conducted as the dead body of an unknown person. Till the post mortem was conducted, the identity of the dead body had not been established. The post mortem was conducted as the dead body of an unknown person. There is no evidence on record to show that the dead body actually belonged to deceased Asey Ram. Hence the connection of this dead body with the person for whose murder the appellant was charged has not been established before the lower court. 13. The only circumstance which prevailed upon the learned Sessions Judge to hold the appellant guilty was that he being the son of the deceased had not cared to find out the whereabout of his father. He had also come to the conclusion that three to four years before the occurrence Asey Ram had sold some of his land obtained from his previous father-in-law. This enmity was not of such a character from which it could be believed that Sunder would have actually caused the murder of his father. 14. The evidence of Hori Lal and Ketki was only to this effect that three to four days before 29. 12. 1981 Sunder and his companion had taken Asey Ram from the house of Hori Lal. This much circumstances was not at all sufficient to lead the lower court to con clusion that none else except the appellant had committed the crime. 15. A very surprising feature appears in this case that in the letter dated 29. 12. 81 addressed to the station officer, Police Station Kotwali, Hori Lal had stated that he had identified the dead body as that of Asey Ram. This report is said to have been regis tered at 10. 10 a. m. on 30. 12. 1981. The report (Ext. Ka 8) lodged at the police station about the recovery of the dead body is also dated 29. 12. 1981. If on 29. 12. 1981 it was known that the dead body belonged to Asey Ram, then in the post mortem dated 30. 12. 1981 the dead body could not have been stated as that of an unknown person. All these circumstances go to show that the whole story of the prosecution was woven in a very suspicious circumstance. It was somehow aimed at involving the appellant in the case. 16. 12. 1981 the dead body could not have been stated as that of an unknown person. All these circumstances go to show that the whole story of the prosecution was woven in a very suspicious circumstance. It was somehow aimed at involving the appellant in the case. 16. From the above, we find that there was not at all any evidence on the basis of which the appellant could be held guilty of the offence under Section 302, I. P. C. 17. For the reasons mentioned above, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and order of the lower court are set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. He is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are discharged and sureties discharges. Appeal Allowed. .