JUDGMENT 1. - The accused-appellant Ramesh has been convicted by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Court, Kota under Section 302 Wand has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer six month's simple imprisonment. The learned Judge has also ordered that the Motor-cycle No. RNR 6728 which was taken possession from Pares, should be returned to him and a sum of Rs. 619/- which had been recovered from the accused-appellant should be returned to the accusedappellant after expiry of his period of limitation for filing appeal/revision. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused-appellant Ramesh had taken an insurance policy No. 180659721 only in the month of March 1991 and he was insured for a sum of Rupees three Lacs. He had paid the first premium, the second premium being paid quarterly was paid in July 1991. The accused wanted to take the amount of the said policy and as per the case of the prosecution he committed the murder of one Madan in conspiracy with other accused persons and after having caused the death of Madan he left his own visiting card on the dead body to show as if Ramesh, the bolder of the policy has died so that the money could become payable to his wife Smt. Manji Devi. Pares is said to be friend of the accused appellant and the accused-appellant and Paras had gone together on a motor-cycle on 29th July, 1991 and thereafter Ramesh did not return to the house. A report of the incident was lodged by Padam Kumar Jain, the real brother of accused-appellant Ramesh on 30th July, 1991 that he has come to know that his brother has been murdered, then he reached to the spot, then he saw that there was a dead body on which a visiting card of Ramesh was lying. The case was investigated and it was noticed by the police that infact Ramesh had not died and one Madan had died and in order to show that the accused-appellant had died, he had placed the visiting card on the dead body and thereafter had absconded so that the amount may become payable to his wife. 3. There can be no dispute that the dead-body was not of the accused-appellant Ramesh and the accused-appellant is alive. 3. There can be no dispute that the dead-body was not of the accused-appellant Ramesh and the accused-appellant is alive. As per the case of the prosecution the dead-body was of one Madan, but there is no direct evidence and no identification that the dead-body was of Madan, but the identification can also be from the clothes and there is sufficient material on record that the clothes which were on the dead-body were of Madan and for the purposes of disposal of this appeal we will take it for granted that the dead body was of Madan and was of none else. 4. The accused was arrested and was tried for the murder of Madan along with other accused persons Rajesh @ Raju and Pares. The learned Special Judge, SC/ST Court, Kota convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as aforesaid, but the other accused persons were acquitted of the charges. 5. Learned Counsel for the accused-appellant has contended that there is no evidence what-so-ever against the accused-appellant to connect him with the crime. All the witnesses of the prosecution have not supported the case of the prosecution. Even the witnesses who were relatives of Madan have not sup ported the case of the prosecution and in this connection a reference may be made to the statement of PW 5 Pushpa Bai, PW 6 Pappu and PW 7 Rajendra Singh. They have stated that there were acid burns on the face of Madan and, therefore, the dead-body could not be identified, but as said above they identified him by clothes. The accused-appellant has only been convicted on the circumstantial evidence and the circumstances are as under: (1)There were the marks of acid burns on the right hand finger of the accused-appellant; (2) There were marks of acid burns on the body of deceased Madan; (3) The acid burn injuries which were on the finger of right hand of the accused as well as on the body of deceased Madan are of the same duration and, therefore, are received at the same time. (4) The possibility of the accused-appellant receiving injuries on the finger of right hand is by throwing acid on the deceased. (5) There was resemblance in the face the accused-appellant with the face of deceased Madan and there was visiting card of the accused-appellant on the dead body. (4) The possibility of the accused-appellant receiving injuries on the finger of right hand is by throwing acid on the deceased. (5) There was resemblance in the face the accused-appellant with the face of deceased Madan and there was visiting card of the accused-appellant on the dead body. (6) The accused-appellant absconded after the offence from his house which shows the guilty intention of the accused. (7) Article 9 is a letter which was recovered from the possession of the accused, which letter had been addressed by the accused to his wife. (8) The accused-appellant Ramesh had insured himself for a sum of Rs. 3 lacs and the motive of murder Madan was to show as if Ramesh has died so that the accused could get the amount. 6. Learned Counsel has taken us through the evidence on record and contended that it cannot be said that each of the above circumstance stand proved on record and secondly even if some of them stand proved, they do not connect the accused with the crime. Learned Counsel further contends that the circumstances which have been held to be proved against the accused-appellant were not even put to the accused-appellant in his statement under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code Learned Counsel has taken us to the statement of the accused-appellant recorded under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code It will be seen from the perusal of the statement of the accused-appellant that so far as the letter Article 9 said to have been written by the accused-appellant to his wife is concerned, it has not even been put to the accused-appellant that it is in his hand-writing. Mere recovery of a letter, which is undated, from the possession of the accused does not necessarily prove that the accused has addressed it to his wife. It even otherwise will not connect the accused with the crime. Learned Sessions Judge has extracted it at page 7 of the typed copy of the judgment and a perusal of it will show that it does not connect the accused with the crime. All that has been stated in the said letter is that the accused is said to have said that Rajesh is his man and Manji should do as Rajesh @ Raju say and she should not get perturbed. All that has been stated in the said letter is that the accused is said to have said that Rajesh is his man and Manji should do as Rajesh @ Raju say and she should not get perturbed. She was asked to do as should be directed by Paras and Raju and whatever amount is asked by them should be paid to them and she should not spend money unnecessarily. It is further said in that letter that the accused will return to his house. As said above, this letter is undated and the signatures of the accused have not been proved by any evidence what-so-ever. The letter is addressed to one Manji and as said above a perusal of the receipts Ex.P.35 will show that the name of the wife of the accused as nominee has been shown as Manju and not as Manji. Therefore, the recovery of Article 9 firstly does not connect the accused with the crime and secondly it was not put to the accused that it was addressed to his wife and it was sent by him. 7. Coming to the circumstances that the accused has also acid burn injuries on the finger of right hand, the Doctor has not specifically said that the injuries were caused at the same time as the injuries on the dead body of Madan. In other words, age of the injuries on the finger of right hand of the accused appellant and on the deceased Madan has not been categorically proved to be the same and, therefore, this circumstance also cannot be read against the accused. Circumstance No. 4 is the repetition of earlier circumstance as it is in respect of possibility of the accused having thrown acid and mere possibility to receive the injuries by acid on the finger of right hand cannot be a circumstance. It must have been proved conclusively. No material what-so-ever is on record so far as circumstance No. 5 is concerned that there is any resemblance in the appearance of the accused-appellant and deceased Madan. So far as finding of a visiting card of Ramesh, the accused appellant, on the dead-body of Madan is concerned, no doubt it was of accused, but there is no material that the accused-appellant had placed it there. So far as finding of a visiting card of Ramesh, the accused appellant, on the dead-body of Madan is concerned, no doubt it was of accused, but there is no material that the accused-appellant had placed it there. Coming to the other circumstance that the accused has absconded, surprisingly this circumstance was not put to the accused in his statement under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code Now it can be said that the same cannot be read against the accused-appellant. Thus, the only circumstance is that the accused had insured himself for a sum of Rs. 3 lass but that circumstance alone is not sufficient to connect the accused with the crime, so far as death of Madan is concerned. 8. Consequently, we hereby allow this appeal, set aside the judgment dated 1.12.1992 of the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Court, Kota. The accused is acquitted of the charge under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and the sentence awarded to him is set aside. He is in jail. He shall be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.Appeal allowed. *******