JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated July 21, 1981 of Sessions Judge, Jaipur District Jaipur, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. 2. Initially, appellant Abdul Salam and two other co-accused namely, Abdul Latif and Rashid Hussain alias Munna were put on trial in the Court of learned Sessions under section 302 IPC or in the alternate 302/34 IPC. The charge against them was of committing murder of Shahji, The learned Sessions Judge acquitted the co-accused Abdul Latif alias Gaccha and Rashid Hussain alias Munna, but convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid. There is no direct evidence to connect the accused with the crime. The prosecution case hinges on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution relied on the following circumstances against the appellant: (i) evidence of last seen; (ii) recovery of an underwear (Chaddi); (iii) recovery of a piece of rope; (iv) recovery of a pant (Article 6); (v) recovery of a knife; and (vi) recovery of a country-made pistol and some live cartridges. 3. The learned Sessions Judge did not believe the prosecution case so far the evidence of last seen, the recovery of Chaddi and recovery of a piece of a rope is concerned. For the recovery of a country made pistol and cartridges, the learned Sessions Judge observed that the said recovery has no link with the murder. However, placing reliance on two circumstances namely; the recovery of a piece of pant (Article-6) and the recovery of a knife, the appellant was convicted under section 302 IPC for committing murder of Shahji. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that as per prosecution case the incident had taken place 25 Kms. away from Jaipur at a place known as `Nakki- Ghati'. It was also contended that motbir-witness of the recovery namely, PW 7 Chhutan Khan and PW 10 Munna have not supported the recovery. Counsel also contended that the recovery is said to have been made on 14.6.80 at 10.45 p.m. outside Gangapole Gate in Jaipur and that too from an open place and as such the recovery is highly doubtful. It was also contended that the recovery is of a piece of pant and there is no evidence that the deceased was wearing this pant on the day of incident. 4. It was also contended that the recovery is of a piece of pant and there is no evidence that the deceased was wearing this pant on the day of incident. 4. After giving our careful consideration to the above submissions we are satisfied that the recovery of a piece of pant has been made in suspicious circumstances The incident has taken place on 12.6.80 and we find it difficult to believe that the appellant would have brought a part of the pant of deceased from the place of occurrence which is more than 25 Kms. from the place where it was recovered from an open place outside Gangapole Gate near a Nala of dirty water. The motbir witness has not supported the prosecution case and otherwise also we are satisfied that the said recovery does not in any way connect the appellant with the crime. There is no evidence that immediately prior to the incident the deceased was wearing the said pant. The appellant and deceased are said to be good-friends and in the normal course also any pant of the deceased could be with the appellant. 5. We, therefore, place no reliance on the recovery of this article for the purpose of connecting the appellant with the crime. 6. The second circumstance relied by the learned Sessions Judge is the recovery of a knife (Article-1). The recovery of the knife is said to have been made from a well on 19.6.80. The information was given by the appellant on 18.6.80 and efforts were made to recover the articles from the well, but it could not be traced out. Thereafter, fresh efforts were made on 19.6.80 and the knife (Art.1) was recovered vide seizure memo Ex.P 21. For this recovery also, the motbir witnesses namely Yusuf and Mohammed Ali have not supported the recovery. It is also note-worthy that the doctor, who conducted the post-mortem, has explicitly stated that the injuries-sustained by the deceased could not be caused by the knife (Art.1). Further, the Serologist could not detect human blood on the knife as the blood was dis-integrated. Even if this recovery is accepted it can hardly connect the appellant with the crime. 7. We are satisfied from the record that there is no convincing evidence to connect the appellant with the crime. 8. Further, the Serologist could not detect human blood on the knife as the blood was dis-integrated. Even if this recovery is accepted it can hardly connect the appellant with the crime. 7. We are satisfied from the record that there is no convincing evidence to connect the appellant with the crime. 8. Consequently, we allow this appeal, set aside the conviction of appellant Abdul Salam alias Salim under Section 302 IPC and acquit him of the charge. The appellant is now in custody, as he was arrested on the direction of this Court, as such, he is directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.Appeal allowed. *******