BHATNAGAR, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 26.7.80 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Gangapur City by which appellant Suryakant @ Pappu was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sent-enced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 200/- in default of payment of fine to suffer one months rigorous imprisonment. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution story giving rise to this on 23.7.79 appellent, Suryakanyt was in the field along with a few other and his grand-father Bhairon Puri. At about 11.00 a.m. others left and Suryakant appellant and the deceased remained there in the field. In the afternoon after about 4 hours Gurdev Puri, another grand-son of Bhairon Puri came to the field He did not find his grand-father Bhairon Puri there and made a search for him He then went to his house. He and his brother Bhagwan Puri P.W. 1 tried to search their grand-father but he was not traceable. Both of them went to the field and under the impression that somebody might have pushed the old man in the well made a search inside the well but Bhairon Puri was not traceable. They, on seeing the trail of dragging in the field followed the trails and found the dead body of Bhairon Puri in a field. Bhagwan Puri went to police station Tada Bhim and lodged the report Ex. P. 1 before S.H.O. Ram Kripal (P.W. 15) at 11.59 p.m. The formal F.I.R. Ex. P. 19 was chalked out on the basis of Ex. P. 1 and Head Constable Dwarka Prasad was entrusted with the investigation. Dwarka Prasad went to the site and prepared necessary memos. On the next date i.e. 24.3.79. at about 9.00 a.m. Dr. Murari Lal Sharma, (P.W. 8) conducted the autopsy over the dead-body. A.S I. Faiyaz Mohammed, (PW. 16) arrested the appellant and handed him over to the Investigation Officer, Dwarka Prasad who vide memo Ex. P. 21 on 29.3.79 seized one bushirt and pants which the appellant was Wearing at the time of his arrest because they were suspected of having blood stains on them. While the appellant was in custody the Investigation Officer, Dwarka Prasad in pursuance of the information furnished by the appellant recovered knife Article-l from a bush in the field of deceased Bhairon Puri, vide memo Ex. P. 10. The knife is said to have stains of blood on it. While the appellant was in custody the Investigation Officer, Dwarka Prasad in pursuance of the information furnished by the appellant recovered knife Article-l from a bush in the field of deceased Bhairon Puri, vide memo Ex. P. 10. The knife is said to have stains of blood on it. The articles seized during the course of investigation and being suspected of having blood stains on them were sent for chemical examination. The report of the Chemical Examiner in Ex. P. 25 and that of Serologist Ex. P. 26. The Chemical Examiner noted blood on the clothes of the accused and the knife. The Serologist detected human blood on the clothes of the deceased and the accused but could not tell the origin of the blood on the knife. 3. Upon completion of necessary investigation charge-sheet against the appellant was filed in the Court of Munsiff & Judicial Magistrate, Hindon City. The learned Magistrate finding it a case exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions committed the case to the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Gangapur City. The learned Judge charge-sheeted the appellant and recorded his plea. He denied the indictment and claimed to be tried. 4. In order to substantiate its case Prosecution examined 17 witnesses. The accused in his statement under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) denied the allegations and stated that as he had injuries on his hand some blood from that injury might have stained his cloths. He denied the allegation of his getting recovered any article. The learned Judge placed reliance on the prosecution witnesses and held the appellant guilty for the charge of murder of Bhairon Puri and passed the judgment under appeal. Feeling aggrieved by his conviction and sentence the appellant has preferred this appeal in this Court. 5. We have heard Mr. S. R. Surana, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. G. C. Chatterjee, learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the judgment under appeal on a number of grounds. It has been forcefully contended that the case rests on circumstantial evidence and the circumstances brought on record by the prosecution are not sufficient to hold the appellant guilty for the commission of the crime. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the judgment under appeal on a number of grounds. It has been forcefully contended that the case rests on circumstantial evidence and the circumstances brought on record by the prosecution are not sufficient to hold the appellant guilty for the commission of the crime. According to the learned counsel the circumstances, such as the accused being last seen in the company of the accused; his leaving the field and going to Jodhpur; the motive to commit the crime; blood stains on his clothes at the time of his arrest and the recovery of knife in pursuance of the information furnished by him have not been established by convincing evidence, nor the scattered circumstances make a whole chain so as to justify the conviction of the appellant. 7. Regarding the circumstance of accused being last seen with the accused, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the witnesses Shyam Lata (P. W. 2) and Gurdev Puri being inimical to the accused are interested in his conviction. For Siya Ram (P.W. 10) the argument of the learned counsel is that he has not supported the prosecution case for Shyam Lata being there or the appellant alone being left in the company of Bhairon Puri. For Harbal Gurjar (P.W.9) the argument is that he has been declared hostile by the prosecution and has not supported the statement of Gurdev Puri that he was there in the field when she came there second time. 8. It has been orphatically urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is no evidence to suggest that the appellant was in the company of the deceased till his death. That the circumstance of the accused being last seen in the company of the deceased is a very week type of evidence and unless there are strong circumstances to corroborate this circumstance it should not be made basis of conviction. The learned counsel referred to certain authorities to substantiate his argument which we would presently discuss. 9. In order to appreciate the evidence on record the pendigree of the deceased and the accused and certain witnesses would be necessary. Bhairon Puri had three sons, Kalyan Puri, Shankar Puri and Dwarka Puri. Shanknar Puri had gone in adoption. Dwarka Puri has two sons viz., Chandrakant and Surya-kant-appellant. 9. In order to appreciate the evidence on record the pendigree of the deceased and the accused and certain witnesses would be necessary. Bhairon Puri had three sons, Kalyan Puri, Shankar Puri and Dwarka Puri. Shanknar Puri had gone in adoption. Dwarka Puri has two sons viz., Chandrakant and Surya-kant-appellant. Kalyan Puri has three sons viz., Bhairon Puri, Gurdev Puri, and Raghuvansh Puri. Shyam Lata is the wife of Gurdev Puri. 10. Shyam Lata (P.W. 2) has stated that on the fateful day she, along with her sister-in-law, (Jethani) Narbada had gone to the field in the morning and both of them cut the grass. Gurdev Puri also reached there after some time. One Gurjar Harbal and another Gurjar whose name she did not know were also there. Suryakant accused was also there. That they returned to the house with grass leaving only Pappu i.e. the accused and Bhairon Puri in the field. Gurdev Puri (P:W. 5) has stated about himself, his wife Shyam Lata and sister-in-law, Narbada going to the field in the morning of the date of the occurrence. He has stated that he remained in the field upto 10 or 11 a.m. Then he stated that he reached his house at 10.30 a.m. and returned to the field after about 5 hours and asked Harbal as to where Bhairon Puri was and was informed that he was not there. The criticism levelled against these two witnesses is that they were inimical with the accuse and his father Dwarka Puri. That, they were interested in harrasing Dwarka Puri and his sons, one of whom is the accused appellant, because Gurdev Puri and his brothers were interested in the field of Bhairon Puri and had a plan to deprive Dwarka Puri of the fields of Bhairon Puri. That, Bhagwan Puri had gone even to the extent of getting a document executed showing that the share of Dwarka Puri in the fields had been sold by Bhairon Puri. According to the learned Public Prosecutor this might have caused annoyance to Suryakant and to lead him to get rid of the old man. While discussing the next point i.e. the motive for the commission of the crime we would discuss in detail the relation between the complainant and his brothers, including Gurdev Puri. According to the learned Public Prosecutor this might have caused annoyance to Suryakant and to lead him to get rid of the old man. While discussing the next point i.e. the motive for the commission of the crime we would discuss in detail the relation between the complainant and his brothers, including Gurdev Puri. For the present purpose all that is required to be noted is as to whether there is cogent evidence to establish that appellant alone was there and if so whether he remained in the company of the deceased till his death. 11. Harbal is an independent witness in the case. Though he has been declared hostile by the prosecution because he has not supported the prosecution case on the point of his going to the field second time, his presence is admitted by all witnesses. He has stated that on the date of occurrence he had gone for cultivation in the field of Bhairon Puri and saw Bhairon Puri sitting on a bench under a tree. That, at that time Gurdev Puri, accused Pappu, Bhagwan Puri and one more person and one Gurjar of village Kewada were there. That, he remained in the field till 11 a.m. and then left the field. He stated that he did not come to the field second time. Siya Ram (P.W. 10) is another witness of this circumstance of the accused being last seen in the company of the deceased. He has stated that he had seen Bhairon Puri, Harbal, Gurdev Puri and Pappu @ Suryakant in the field that time. The witness stated that when he left the field Bhairon Puri, Pappu accused and Harbal were there. He has expressed his ignorance about any lady coming to the field till he was there. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that this excludes the presence of Shyam Lata and Narbada because Shyam Lata has stated that she and other persons including the Gurjar who was working at the engine, meaning thereby Siya Ram, had left the field. Siya Ram on the other hand deposed about his remaining in the field upto 11 a.m. i.e. after Gurdev Puri leaving the field and further that when he left, Harbal, Pappu and Bhairon Puri were there in the field. Siya Ram on the other hand deposed about his remaining in the field upto 11 a.m. i.e. after Gurdev Puri leaving the field and further that when he left, Harbal, Pappu and Bhairon Puri were there in the field. Gurdev Puri has stated about his reaching the house which is about 1/2 mile from the filed at about 10.00 a.m. This shows that when he left the field Harbal and Siya Ram were there in the field. Harbal has stated about Bhagwan Puri being there in the filed in the morning whereas Bhagwan Puri has stated that he had not gone to the field that morning. The inconsistency in the statements of the witnesses coupled with the fact that relations between Gurdev Puri and Shyam Lata being his wife were not cordial with the appellant raises doubt on the turthfulness of the witness. Apart from it the circumstance of last seen in order to be pressed in service should be that in between the time of the accused being last seen in the company of the deceased and the commission of the crime there was nobody else in the company of the deceased. As stated earlier Siya Ram, an independent witness has clearly stated that when he left the field Harbal, Bhairon Puri and Pappu remained there. From the time of leaving the field and reaching the house as given by Shyam Lata and Gurdev Puri it may be inferred that Siya Ram had also remained in the field when those witnesses had left the field. Thus the statements of Shyam Lata and Gurdev Puri cannot be taken to mean that appellant alone was there in the company of Bhairon Puri when the witnesses left. Gurdev has stated that when 5 hours after his leaving the field in the morning he returned to the field he asked Harbal about the whereabouts of Bhairon Puri and was told that Bhairon Puri was not there. Harbal has denied his second visit to the field on that day. If Harbal was there at about 3.30 p.m. when Gurdev Puri had gone second time to the field and at that time Suryakant appellant was not there and Harbal had gone only once in the field that day, the question of Suryakant also being in the company of Bhairon Puri does not arise 12. If Harbal was there at about 3.30 p.m. when Gurdev Puri had gone second time to the field and at that time Suryakant appellant was not there and Harbal had gone only once in the field that day, the question of Suryakant also being in the company of Bhairon Puri does not arise 12. Siya Ran is an independent witness but all that can be known from his testimony is that Suryakant was there in the field alongwith many others at about 11.00 a.m. but nobody has seen him alone in the company of the deceased on that day. The pertinant question, therefore, is as to whether there is any material to suggest that the appellant had committed the murder because he was there in the field on that day. As discussed above there were others also. The Investigating Officer has stated when he reached the site he was informed that Suryakant had gone to Jodhpur. The learned counsel placed reliance on the case of Joshu Khan Vs. State of Assam (1) and Mirza Iqbal Hussain Vs. State of U.P. (2) and submitted that the facts and circumstances of those cases were very much similar to the present case and the court should not have relied on the circumstance of accused being last seen in the company of the deceased because the accused could be there in the field in the natural course of events. 13. In the first of the above referred cases the accused and the deceased were brothers. Their being in the field together prior to the occurrence according to their Lordships was not by itself sufficient to lead to the irresistible inference that the accused must have murdered the deceased. In the second case the accused alongwith five deceased had come to India from Nepal in search of livelihood and were living together. As such the accused being last seen in the company of the five deceased was not taken to be an unusual fact so as to make this circumstance a clinching evidence against him. Bhairon Puri being the grand-father of Suryakant his presence even if considered to be proved will not in the absence if any other convincing circumstance connecting him with the commission of crime in itself lead to the conclusion that he and he alone was the culprit. 14. Bhairon Puri being the grand-father of Suryakant his presence even if considered to be proved will not in the absence if any other convincing circumstance connecting him with the commission of crime in itself lead to the conclusion that he and he alone was the culprit. 14. Another circumstance against the appellant is his absconding from his village from the date of occurrence. It is pertinent to note that there is no witness who might have seen him going from the village that day. The Investigating Officer, Dwarka Prasad reaching the village of the accused has stated that on reaching the site he was informed that Suryakant had gone to Jodhpur. It has come on record that the maternal grand-father of the appellant resides at Jodhpur. He has also taken the plea in his statement under Section 313 of the Code that on the relevant day he was at Jodhpur. He was arrested at Jodhpur on 28. 3. 79. The argument of the learned Public Prosecutor is that his being at Jodhpur despite his grand-fathers death shows his guilty conscious. It has no where come on record that he had any information about his grand-fathers death during the period of four days i.e. the day of occurrence and his arrest-The circumstance of absconding raised the prosecution can not, therefore, be a circumstance against the appellant. 15. Another circumstance against the appellant is the motive for the commission of (illegible) to the prosecution, Dwarka Puri and his sons used to borrow money from various persons and Bhairon Puri had to repay that loan and for that reason he had sold 12 Bighas of land failing in the share of Dwarka Puri and paid the amount to Jagan Lal (P.W.3) Gopi (P.W. 4) and one Han Singh for which witness Bala Ram (P.W. 13) has been examined. Ex. P. 8 bears the signatures of three creditors on l/-Re Stamp paper. Ex.4 and Ex. p.6 are the receipts in favour of Hari Singh Vijay Singh for advancing loan of Rs. 8000/- & Rs. 5030/- respectively to Chandrakant Puri & Dwarka Puri. The learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the genuineness of these documents Ex. 4 & Ex.6 has not been established. Ex.4 and Ex. p.6 are the receipts in favour of Hari Singh Vijay Singh for advancing loan of Rs. 8000/- & Rs. 5030/- respectively to Chandrakant Puri & Dwarka Puri. The learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the genuineness of these documents Ex. 4 & Ex.6 has not been established. That, when there was no partition where was the question of Bhairon Puri selling away the share of Dwarka Puri, father of the appellant in the fields and discharging the debt. The stamp Ex. P. 8 was purchased on 27.6.78 by Raghuvansh Puri brother of witnesses Bhagwan and Gurdev Puri. It has been given to the police by Bhagwan Puri. There is force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that it was a manipulation by the two brothers Reghuvansh Puri and Bhagwan Puri in order to deprive Dwarka Puri and sons from the fields. The learned public prosecutor submitted that even if it was so then this would have caused grievance to the appellant and he might have thought of getting rid of the old man. It is important to note that the question was asked to the accused regarding Ex. p. 8 in his statement under Section 313 of the Code and he denied to have any knowledge of it. Dwarka Puri has not been examined to substantiate the prosecution case that he was taking loan from others which his father had to pay. So far as Ex. P. 4 and Ex.P. 6 are concerned, they are of no help to the prosecution. Ex. P.4 relates to debt to Chandrakant Puri and Ex. P.6 relates to advancing money to Dwarka Puri. They bears the signatures of Dwarka Puri and Chandrakant Puri. Neither of these two documents bears the name or signature of accused Suryakant and, therefore the allegation of Dwarka Puri and his sons taking loan is not substantiated. It is significant to observe that the signatures of Bhagwan Puri and Chandrakant Puri on Exs. p 4 and p.6 have not been proved by any witness. Thess two documents relate to the loan advanced by Hari Singh Vijay Singh. He has not been examined. Instead of one Bala Ram (P.W. 13) has come in the witness box and stated that Dwarka Puri and his sons had taken loan from Hari Singh. p 4 and p.6 have not been proved by any witness. Thess two documents relate to the loan advanced by Hari Singh Vijay Singh. He has not been examined. Instead of one Bala Ram (P.W. 13) has come in the witness box and stated that Dwarka Puri and his sons had taken loan from Hari Singh. From this type of evidence the prosecution case about Dwarka Puri and his sons taking loan and wasting money can not be believed. It is also to be considered that no question has been asked to the appellant in his statement under Sec 313 of the Code regarding these two documents Exs.p. 4 and p. 6, and, therefore, they cannot be taken help of in holding the appellant guilty. There is reference in Ex, p.8 in the entry relating to Jagan Lal (P.W. 3) that money was given by selling the share in the agriculture land of Dwarka Puri. Jagan Lal has stated that if there was any marriaging ceremony in the family of Bhairon Puri then at his instance he used to advance money. He has further stated that there was no quarrel between Bhairon Puri and Dwarka Puri and his sons. Gopi (P.W. 4) has stated that it was at the instance of Bhairon Puri that he used to advance the loan. Bala Ram (P.W. 13) has stated that there was no quarrel between Bhairon Puri and Dwarka Puri and his sons. He has categorically stated that Bhairon Puri while discharge the debt has not named any of his sons or grand-sons who might have taken the loan. From this type of evidence it cannot be inferred that Suryakant had any grudge against his grand-father so as to commit his murder. In this connection statement of Chanda Lal (P.W. 12) also carries importance. He is a Patwari. He has stated that 1/2 of the land of Bhairon Puri was mutated in the names of Raghuvansh Puri, Bhagwan Puri and Gurdev Puri sons of Kalyan Puri on 25.10.78 on the basis of gift in their favour by Bhairon Puri and half of the land remained in the name of Bhairon Puri. This shows that there was no partition prior to that date and if there was no partition the question of Dwarka Puri selling the share of Dwarka Puri prior to 27.6.78 when stamp Ex. P.8 was purchased does not arise. This shows that there was no partition prior to that date and if there was no partition the question of Dwarka Puri selling the share of Dwarka Puri prior to 27.6.78 when stamp Ex. P.8 was purchased does not arise. In the light of this statement the learned counsel has forcefully argued that appellant could not have any grudge against the deceased rather the sons of Kalyan Puri i.e. Bhagwan Puri, Raghuvansh Puri and Gurdev Puri having their eye on the remaining portion of field of Bhairon Puri and with an idea to exclude Dwarka Puri from the right in the fields might have done away with Bhairon Puri so that he may not give the remaining land to Dwarka Puri and even if it was not so they might have concocted story against Suryakant on knowing about the murder of Bhairon Puri by someone. The evidence regarding the loan and the sale of land by Bhairon Puri as discussed above i does not lead to the conclusion that there could be any motive for the appellant to commit the murder of his grand-father. 16. The next circumstance upon which the prosecution has relied is the presence of blood stains on the clothes of the appellant at the time of his arrest. Ex. P. 21 is the arrest memo. At its bottom it is mentioned that there were blood stains on the clothes of the accused. This evidently is in different ink and appears to have been written subsequently. The clothes were not seized at the time of arrest. They were rather seized on the next day vide memo Ex.p.23. The report of the Serologist is that the blood on the clothes was of Group B. The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that this is a strong circumstance against the accused because the group of blood on the clothes of the deceased and of the accused was the same i.e. B Group. A question has been asked to Dr. Murari Lal Sharma (P. W. 8) in this regard and he has stated that there may be possibility of the blood of the grand-father and the grand-son being of the same group. B group, is not an uncommon group of blood. A question has been asked to Dr. Murari Lal Sharma (P. W. 8) in this regard and he has stated that there may be possibility of the blood of the grand-father and the grand-son being of the same group. B group, is not an uncommon group of blood. In the absence of any effort to exclude the possibility of the blood group of appellant, it cannot be said with certainty that the blood on the clothes of the accused was that of the deceased. In the arrest memo it has been mentioned that accused had injuries on his fingers and there was hospital bandage on them. In his statement under Section 313 of the Code the accused has stated that he had injuries on his hand and the blood from those injuries might have fallen on his clothes. Ex. D.l. is the injury report of the accused-appellant. There is one vertical incised wound on the palmer surface of Ring finger of left hand over frict phalynx. The other two injuries are linear abrasion. The date of this report is 31-3-79. The duration is 6 to 8 days. This being the position the defence plea appears to be plausible and the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the blood on the clothes of the accused was because of the injuries of his hand is acceptable and the circumstance of the stains of blood cannot be pressed into service against the appellant. 17. The last circumstance brought on record against the appellant is the recovery of knife vide Ex. P. 10 in pursuance of the information furnished by him. Regarding the information, suffice it to say that the two motbirs to the recovery memo namely, P.W. 6 Madan Lal and P.W. 7 Raghunath Prasad have categorically stated that the police officer took the accused near the bush and asked him to take out the knife by which he committed the murder of his grand father Bharion Puri. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that if the police had asked the accused in this way, there was no question of his furnishing any information prior to that. The bush in which the knife is said to be lying was in the field of Bhairon Puri and was looked after by Bhairon Puri and his brothers and, therefore, cannot be said to be a place in possession of the accused. The bush in which the knife is said to be lying was in the field of Bhairon Puri and was looked after by Bhairon Puri and his brothers and, therefore, cannot be said to be a place in possession of the accused. The open field was excessible to all and sundry. Apart from it, the Serologist report could not determine the origin of the blood on the knife because the stains were disintegrated. The recovery of the knife cannot, therefore, be said to be a circumstance against the accused. 18. The learned Public Prosecutor stressed that the circumstances taken individually may not be sufficient to connect the accused with the commission of the crime but the Court is to see them cumulatively, and if one circumstance is corroborated by another circumstance conviction would be justified. He referred to the case of Kammo alias Kamruddin Vs. The State of Rajasthan (3) wherein the evidence of accused being last seen in the company of the deceased alongwith the evidence of recovery from the accused of the ornaments worn by the deceased on his body prior to his murder were taken to be sufficient circumstances to hold the accused guilty of murder. Another case relied on by the learned counsel is Tulsiram Vs. The State of Rajasthan (4) wherein the circumstances of blood stains on the clothes of the accused and his extra judicial confession were taken to be sufficient for conviction. 19. The circumstances to be pressed into service against an accused need not be very many in number. Even a few circumstances, if duly established, may in a given case be held sufficient conviction. If one circumstance is weak other circumstance may land support to it. However, in order to base conviction upon circumstancial evidence the circumstances should be of such a nature that substantiate the prosecution case that it is the accused and none-else who is the culprit. The involvement of the accused only on the basis of circumstancial evidence should be held to be proved only when there is credible, cogent and convincing evidence regarding those circumstances. If the circumstances do not make a regular chain it would not be safe to make them the basis of conviction. The involvement of the accused only on the basis of circumstancial evidence should be held to be proved only when there is credible, cogent and convincing evidence regarding those circumstances. If the circumstances do not make a regular chain it would not be safe to make them the basis of conviction. In the present case, as discussed above, none of the circumstances individually or all of them or some of them collectively are sufficient to establish the involvement of the accused in the crime. Hence, upon such circumstances, we do not find it safe to uphold the conviction of the appellant. 20. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and the sentence awarded to the appellant are set aside, and he is acquitted of the charge. The accused appellant is on bail. He need not to surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged.