JUDGMENT (ORAL) M.B. Ghodeswar, J. - The appellant accused No.1 is tried and convicted by the learned. Additional Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli for causing the murder of his father Tulshiram, by his order dated 24.5.1990 in Sessions Case No. 92 of 1989. 2. The prosecution case is that the appellant Patru is the elder son of deceased Tulshiram. He was living separately with his family from deceased Tulshiram and his younger brother Ramdas (P.W. 1). Tulshiram had already given a share in the property to his sons. Some 15 days prior to the incident, Tulshiram sold his 2 acres of land to Prabhu Patil Akare and out of the sale proceeds, he deposited Rs. 8,0001- in Post Office. Appellant Patru was demanding some amount from Tulshiram and, therefore, there was dispute. On 2.3.1988, deceased Tulshiram left his house at about 9 A.M. in the morning for going to forest as usual for collecting leaves and thereafter he did not return on that day. P.W. 1 Ramdas went to Police Patil Yogaji (P.W. 3) and informed him about non-returning of Tulshiram but P.W. 3 Yogaji advised Ramdas to wait and search Tulshiram. On the next day also, Tulshiram was not found and, therefore, under the signatures of P.W. 1 Ramdas and P.W. 3 Yogaji, report was" lodged in Police Station, Kurkhed on 3.3.1988. On 4.3.1988, the dead body of Tulshiram was found floating in a lake. Police arrived and with the help of two fishermen, the body of Tulshiram was taken out from the tank and spot panchanama (Exhibit 18) and Inquest panchanama (Exhibit 19) were drawn. There were injuries caused by sharp weapon on the person of deceased and stones were tied to the waist and neck of the dead body. Therefore, offence under section 302 of Indian Penal Code was registered. P.S.I. Shri krushna Patil (P.W. 4) has initially arrested P. W. 1 Ramdas, but Ramdas escaped from the custody of police and he preferred an application for anticipatory bail in the Sessions Court at Chandrapur. The application was rejected and Ramdas was again arrested. From 4.3.1988 to 28.3.1988, the investigation did not proceed. On 28.3.1988, appellant Patru was arrested. On the memorandum of appellant, one axe stained with human blood was recovered from his house. He has shown the place where Tulshiram was assaulted in the forest near the lake where pool of blood was seen. From 4.3.1988 to 28.3.1988, the investigation did not proceed. On 28.3.1988, appellant Patru was arrested. On the memorandum of appellant, one axe stained with human blood was recovered from his house. He has shown the place where Tulshiram was assaulted in the forest near the lake where pool of blood was seen. He has shown the pit where dead body was buried. His clothes banian and half-pant were seize as they were having blood stains and other articles were seized in the house search. The seized property was sent to chemical analyser for chemical analysis. On the disclosure of appellant, accused No. 2 Mukharu Madavi was also arrested. Appellant accused No.1 Patru was charged under section 302 of Indian Penal Code, whereas both the accused were further charged under section 201 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 3. During trial, the prosecution has examined P.W. 1 Ramdas, P.W. 2 Godubai, the son and widow of Tulshiram respectively, P.W. 3 Yogaji Police Patil of village Kadholi as a panch and P.W.4 Shrikrushna Patil, the Investigating Officer. 4. The defence of the appellant is of total denial. 5. It has come in evidence that the relations of P.W. 1 Ramdas and his elder brother i.e. the appellant Patru were not cordial There was one incident in which P.W. 1 Ramdas had assaulted appellant with spear and prosecution for the same was pending in the Court. There is no evidence that at or near the place of incident, the deceased was seen in the company of appellant. This case rests entirely on the circumstantial evidence. On the basis of the evidence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, in para 19 of his judgment, enumerated the circumstances as under: (1) That accused No.1 Patam was not on cordial terms with his father." (2) That prior to his death, Tulshiram sold his land and deposited the sale proceeds in the post-office by nominating the son of Ramdas and deprived accused NO.1 Patru of the chance to get the said money. (3) That there was ample opportunity for accused NO.1 Patru to be away from his work for some time on the date of incident. (4) That accused NO.1 Patru showed the place of murder from where bloodstained earth, twigs and leaves were recovered. (5) That accused No.1 Patru discovered blood-stained axe, spade, PAHAR, GAT, (part of cot) from his house. (3) That there was ample opportunity for accused NO.1 Patru to be away from his work for some time on the date of incident. (4) That accused NO.1 Patru showed the place of murder from where bloodstained earth, twigs and leaves were recovered. (5) That accused No.1 Patru discovered blood-stained axe, spade, PAHAR, GAT, (part of cot) from his house. (6) That the dhoti of deceased Tulshiram was discovered in consequence of the information given by accused No.1 Patru. (7) That the clothes of accused NO.1 Patru were stained with the same blood group as that of 'Sandi' of the deceased. The learned trial Court believed the prosecution evidence, held that the chain of circumstances is complete against accused No.1 Patru for causing murder of his father Tulshiram and recorded a finding of conviction against him. However, he has acquitted accused No. 2 Mukharu Madavi for offence punishable under section 201 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. Shri Daga, the learned Advocate appearing for appellant, has contended that chain of circumstances is not complete. There is absence of evidence of 'last seen' and on motive and as there is no substantive evidence, the evidence of discovery of axe and blood-stained clothes found on the person of the appellant is not sufficient to base conviction. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor supported the order of the learned trial Court, submitting that the evidence of discovery of axe and blood-stained clothes, in the absence of any explanation by the accused, is sufficient for conviction. 7. Though P.W. 1 Ramdas and P.W. 2 Godubaj have stated in their evidence that appellant was residing separately and there were certain disputes going on over the properly, the disputes were of minor nature. Tulshiram had already given the share in the property to his sons P.W. 1 Ramdas and the appellant-accused No. 1 Patru. There is no evidence to show that appellant was demanding amount of the sale-proceeds from Tulshiram. There is absolutely no evidence about motive. The learned Advocate appearing for appellant-accused does not dispute that Tulshiram died a homicidal death. 8. The only evidence collected by prosecution is of blood-stained axe recovered as per memorandum of appellant and his blood-stained clothes. The axe and clothes of accused were having human blood. The banian on the person of deceased was having blood-stains of Blood group 'B'. The learned Advocate appearing for appellant-accused does not dispute that Tulshiram died a homicidal death. 8. The only evidence collected by prosecution is of blood-stained axe recovered as per memorandum of appellant and his blood-stained clothes. The axe and clothes of accused were having human blood. The banian on the person of deceased was having blood-stains of Blood group 'B'. The blood group on the axe could not be determined. However, the blood-stains on clothes of accused were of blood group' B' i.e. of the deceased. It is, there fore, submitted on behalf of the prosecution that this piece of evidence of blood group connects the appellant with the crime. It is true that accused has not explained in his statement under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure about the blood stains found on his clothes and the axe. There is no evidence about blood group of appellant Patru. It is pertinent to note that appellant is an agriculturist. It is mentioned in the seizure panchanama that blood stains were found on the front portion of banian and half pant. It is common knowledge that agriculturists working in the field or forest sustain some injuries i.e. minor abrasions, scratches and, therefore, the blood-stains are found on clothes. In the absence of determination of blood-group of appellant, it cannot be said that this is a clinching circumstance against the accused. The learned counsel for the appellant-accused has rightly pointed out that there is no substantive evidence brought by prosecution and merely on this evidence of blood-stained clothes, conviction cannot be founded. It is, therefore, very risky to base conviction on such evidence. The learned trial court has merely relied on the circumstances mentioned above which do not complete the chain of circumstances which is very vital in a case of circumstantial evidence. The learned Trial Judge has not given cogent reasons for his finding. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order of conviction and sentences passed against the appellant-accused No.1 Patru s/o Tulshiram Narnaware by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Cadchiroli on 24.5.1990 in Sessions Case No. 92 of 1989 is hereby quashed and set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the offence punishable under section 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code. The appellant Patru be set at liberty forthwith if he is not required in any other offence. The appellant Patru be set at liberty forthwith if he is not required in any other offence. Fine amount, if already paid by the appellant, be refunded to him. Appeal allowed.