P. N. S. CHOUHAN, J. ( 1 ) APPELLANT No. 2 Badansingh and No. 5, Koharsingh are the sons of appellant No. 1, Rajaram and No. 4, Jankibai. Appellant No. 3 Gandharva Singh is the cousin of Rajaram. Acquitted accused Chandravati is the daughter of Rajaram. Chandravati was carrying on an affair with deceased Sukhdeo Singh. Her parents were worried on that account. Her relations tried to warn Sukhdeo Singh of the consequences but to no avail. It appears appellants No. 1 and 4 were equally worried on account of this situation. With a view to correct the same, they married Sukhdeo Singh. So also the parents of Chandravati, married her to a different boy. Notwithstanding this, the deceased and Chandravati continued their affair. The allegation is that this furnished the motive to the appellants to eliminate Sukhdeo Singh. During the period 23/12/1984 to 27/12/1984, the appellants are said to have committed the murder of Sukhdeo Singh when he was in their house to meet his beloved. The dead body was then taken in a bullock cart and thrown in open ground. On 27/12/1984 at about 8. 00 p. m. , Sukhdeo Singh left his house telling his parents that he will return after taking pans. He never returned. A search was mounted. Then on 25/12/1984 the fact was reported in police outpost, Karrapur that Sukhdeo Singh was missing. On 27/12/1984, his dead body was found. First Information Report was lodged by Nirbhay Singh (P. W. 1) the same day at 9. 00 a. m. Investigation followed. The fact that Sukhdeo Singh met a homicidal death having not been disputed, it is needless to labour on the aspect of medical evidence in this behalf. The learned trial judge vide judgment dated 9/4/1986 passed in Sessions Trial No. 150/85 held the following circumstances proved against the appellants and on their basis, convicted them u/s. 302/34 and 342 I. P. C. sentencing them to life imprisonment on the first count and 3 months R. I. on the later, which is under challenge in this appeal: (Hindi matter) ( 2 ) THOUGH the appellants in their statement u/s. 313 Cr. P. C. denied the affair of illicit relations between the deceased and Chandravati, yet appellants learned counsel conceded that this circumstance was rightly held proved by the trial Court. P. C. denied the affair of illicit relations between the deceased and Chandravati, yet appellants learned counsel conceded that this circumstance was rightly held proved by the trial Court. ( 3 ) THE evidence of Siyabai (P. W. 11) proving above circumstances No. 2 has been assailed on the ground that she was residing with her maternal uncle Har Prasad whose house is the same as that of Nirbhay Singh (P. W. 1) the father of the deceased. She has admitted in para 6 that (Hindi Matter ). Then, she has admitted that though the deceased was her brother she was not on visiting terms with Chandravati. In these circumstances, her assertion that Chandravati Bai standing in front of her house had asked her when she was returning to, the house of her maternal uncle to send Sukhdeo Singh is so unnatural that it ought not to have been given any credence by the trial Judge as the evidence unmistakingly shows that Chandravati bai was not having any difficulty in meeting Sukhdeo Singh. In fact, she was herself at times visiting the house of the later as is to be gathered from the evidence of Panbai (P. W. 5) mother of the deceased. When the deceased and Chandravati were having such liberty there was no necessity for her to have sent for the deceased through Siyabai who was not on visiting terms with her. The case diary statement of Siyabai was recorded after 26 days. True it is that this witness has stated that the very next morning, she returned to her parents place in village Baheria where she received the news of murder of Sukhdeo Singh and therefore returned to Barchha to offer her condolence to the bereaved family and then she disclosed the above facts and her statement was recorded by the police. A close security of her evidence shows that she is not a truthful witness. In portion marked A othercase diary statement (Ex. D. 4) she had stated that she came to know of the tragedy when she returned to her maternal uncles place in village Barchha. She has disowned this portion of her previous statement there appears to be no reason to think that the 1. 0. recorded this fact without being told by her. D. 4) she had stated that she came to know of the tragedy when she returned to her maternal uncles place in village Barchha. She has disowned this portion of her previous statement there appears to be no reason to think that the 1. 0. recorded this fact without being told by her. Thus, the very purpose of her second visit to Barchha that it to offer condolence to the bereaved family is belied by her case diary statement. She is a middle aged lady and is quite frequently visiting her maternal uncle's place yet she feigns ignorance of the relationship between the deceased and Chandravatibai. Her statement that she enquired from Chandravati bai the purpose of calling Sukhdeo Singh but she parried the querry and yet she did not divulge this fact to anyone sounds unnatural in view of her case diary version that she had become so inquisitive that she had followed Sukhdeo singh till he entered the house of Chandravatibai. If this was so considering the fact that ladies are ill-equipped to keep secrets she would have told this fact to the inmates of the house. ( 4 ) ON circumstance No. 3, the evidence of Shivraj Singh resident of Semaria (P. W. 12) is to this effect that while on his way to village Gangaua along with Saligram, to fetch fodder in bullock cart they passed through village Barchha during late night and noticed a bullock cart going ahead in which a man was laying and the cart was being driven by Kaharsingh. Appellant Badansingh was sitting on that cart and appellant Rajaram and Gandharva were waling on foot in front of it. Then the bullock cart turned towards Bhata. This witness after traversing some distance stopped his cart and went to find out as to what was thrown from the other cart and found that the dead body of Sukhdeo was lying on the ground. He had earlier overheard appellant Rajaram saying (Hindi matter) learned counsel assailed the evidence of this witness on the ground that even though Sukhdeo Singh was his brother-in-law as admitted by him in para 19, he failed to disclose this important fact to anyone for days together. He had earlier overheard appellant Rajaram saying (Hindi matter) learned counsel assailed the evidence of this witness on the ground that even though Sukhdeo Singh was his brother-in-law as admitted by him in para 19, he failed to disclose this important fact to anyone for days together. In fact as per this witness, he went to Gangaua and returned from there to his village after about 1 days and during this period, he did not mention to anyone, the fact that he had seen the dead body of Sukhdeo Singh being disposed off by the aforesaid appellants. Then, he asserts that after about a fortnight, he reported what he had seen in Karrapur police outpost but admittedly there is no such report in existence. This witness has admitted that he has faced two murder cases. The submission is that had this witness really seen what he claims to have seen, he would have immediately taken steps to get the culprits apprehanded. He would not have kept silence for so long. His conduct is so unnatural that his statement ought not to have seen relied upon. We are in agreement with the, submission that the prolonged silence on the part of this witness to disclose what he claims to have seen on that fateful night, renders his testimony highly doubtful and aforesaid circumstance No. 3 was wrongly held as duly proved on its basis. ( 5 ) AFTER excluding circumstance No. 2 and 3 on aforesaid circumstance No. 4, criticising the evidence of Rajaram (P. W. 19), investigating Officer, the learned counsel argued that all the articles recovered from the house were such which could have been found even on a normal search of the house. Therefore the recording of the confessional memorandum of a number of appellants appears to be a design to rope in as many as possible. Then presence of human blood on the guilt recovered at the instance of Janakibai could not have been construed incriminating as the same could have been due to menstruation. The Serologist report vide Ex. p. 24, has confirmed presence of human blood only on two items recovered at their instance of the appellants viz, a quilt recovered at the instance of Jankibai and a piece of rope recovered on information given by Badan singh. The Serologist report vide Ex. p. 24, has confirmed presence of human blood only on two items recovered at their instance of the appellants viz, a quilt recovered at the instance of Jankibai and a piece of rope recovered on information given by Badan singh. However, determination of the blood group on the articles was rendered impossible due to disintegration: Nail pairings of the appellants were also found to be stained with blood. Relying on Ujagar Singh v. Emperor it was contended that presence of blood on nail pairings of the appellants has no evidentiary value whatsoever. In the said case, on examination by the Court, the expert witness admitted that from medico legal point of view confirmation of human blood on the nail parings of accused person has no evidentiary value. We are of view that non-explanation of presence of human blood on the quilt and the piece of rope in the circumstances of the case, it not sufficient to sustain the impugned convictions. In view of our findings that the circumstances No. 2 and 3 were wrongly held proved by the trial Court, the denial on the part of the appellants of illicit relationship between the deceased and Chandravati bai by itself was not liable to be considered incriminating. ( 6 ) IN view of the aforesaid, besides the motive and the recovery of the blood stained quilt and piece of rope from the house of the appellants, nothing remains to connect the appellants with the crime. Both these circumstances are apparently wholly insufficient to prove the charge of murder against them. ( 7 ) IN result, the appeal is allowed. Appellants conviction and sentence as aforesaid, are hereby set aside and they are ordered to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. Appeal allowed. .