TEJ SHANKAR, J. ( 1 ) ACCUSED appellants mewaram and Omprakash have been convicted and sentence by the learned Sessions Judge Morena on 15. 7. 1981 u/s. 302 IPC to imprisonment for life. ( 2 ) SHORTLY narrated the prosecution story is that on 26. 10. 1980 a report was made by Madnu Dhobi, Kotwar Sikroda, that in Bijendra Singh Thakurs haar a dead body was lying in a well. PW 13 Prahladsingh, station-in-charge, registered a marg intimation (Ex. p 16) and he proceeded to the spot. As it had gone dark he did not take any action. In the morning of 27. 10. 1980 he W6nt to Sikroda and arranged for taking out the dead body from the well. When it was taken out Panchnama Ex. P7 was prepared. He then prepared site-plan Ex. P 8. He recovered a Tehmad and a torn bush shirt vide Ex. P 9 and P 10. he sent the dead body for post mortem vide Ex. P 5. The latter investigation was conducted by PW 12, Harpal Singh. He got photograph of the dead body obtained (Ex. P 2) and got it published in the newspaper (Ex. P 2 and P 3 ). On 10. 12. 1980 he got it identified by Sabu Khan and Chunni Khan and prepared memo Ex. P 17. He arrested the accused on 23. 12. 1980 but got the memo written by J. S. I. , vide memo Ex. P 12. At the time when he arrested Mewaram he was wearing a golden ring which was seized vide Ex. P 13 and he got the Panchnama written by J. S. I. , Basant singh. A wrist watch and a Gupti were seized from accused Omprakash, vide Ex. P 14. After investigation he recorded statements of witnesses and submitted chargesheet. The accused persons denied the charge and alleged that they have been falsely implicated. ( 3 ) THE prosecution has mainly relied upon circumstantial evidence. Only two circumstances have been brought on record in order to bring home the gilt against the accused. The first circumstance brought on record in respect of which the evidence is of last seen of the accused and the alleged recovery of three articles claimed by the prosecution to have been recovered from the accused persons which belonged to the deceased. The first circumstance brought on record in respect of which the evidence is of last seen of the accused and the alleged recovery of three articles claimed by the prosecution to have been recovered from the accused persons which belonged to the deceased. On the basis of these two circumstances alone the prosecution sought to prove its case. It must be mentioned at the very outset that the record does not show that there was any motive for the accused persons to have committed the crime. The law is well established in cases of circumstantial evidence except in very exceptional cases the presence of motive is of great significance. As the prosecution has not claimed any motive in the present case it is very important circumstance in favour of the accused. As said above, the prosecution has banked upon circumstantial evidence we must hasten to mention that the law with respect to circumstantial evidence is also settled. In order to succeed on the basis of circumstantial evidence the prosecution must adduce evidence which may show that there is a complete chain connecting the accused persons with the guilt. The chain must be so complete that it must lead to one and only one conclusion that the accused alone committed the guilt. Unless the prosecution succeeds in establishing it no conviction can be recorded on the basis of circumstantial evidence. ( 4 ) WE now proceed to deal with the evidence produced by the prosecution. It must be kept in mind that a dead body was found in a well on 26. 10. 1980 at village Sikroda, Tahil Joura, district Morena, and by that time there was no intimation with respect to disappearance of any person. The prosecution has claimed that PW 1 Munne khan stated that Ismile, his younger brother, has been killed. About 7 months prior to his examination in Court he was residing at Gwalior on a Tall across the river at Morar. On 24. 10. 1980 he had come from Agra to Morar. On 25. 10. 1980 Mewaram and Prakash went to his house. They had friendship with his brother and hence they used to visit his brothers house. After taking meal they took rest on cot behind the house under the neem tree. At about 1 P. M. they and Ismile went from his house. On 25. 10. 1980 Mewaram and Prakash went to his house. They had friendship with his brother and hence they used to visit his brothers house. After taking meal they took rest on cot behind the house under the neem tree. At about 1 P. M. they and Ismile went from his house. He tried to stop Ismile and Ismile told him that he will return. Ismile asked for money and told him that he was going to take a truck of fuel. He gave him Rs. 2200/- and thereafter he went with accused Prakash and Mewaram. Ai that time he was wearing a ring in his right hand and watch which belonged to him. He was wearing yellow shirt and pant. After some time his brother Sabu went to Agra and topci Em that there was no trace of Ismile and then he asked him to go and he will reach there. His brother Sabu had searched for him at village Joura and Gopalpura. He was also searched at Morena where Mama of the accused Mewaram lived. After some time he went to Morar and made enquiries from the friends of Prakash and Mewaram but he could not get any clue. He then returned to Agra. After about one and a half month he came to know that his brother Ismile had been murdered and then he again went to Morar and went to Joura Thana where he was shown body of Ismile. He then identified the ring, wrist watch and clothes. He went for identification of wrist watch and ring at Joura. PW 2 Sabu Khan is younger brother of the deceased and he deposed that six months back both the accused persons had taken meals at his house and after taking meals they took Ismile to Morena. His brother had gone to take a truck of fuel. Similar statement has been given by PW 3 Chunne Khan. He stated that both the accused persons had gone to meet Ismile. About one and a half month after he came to know that Ismile had been murdered. PW 4 Munnelal Sharma stated that the accused Persons had gone with one person whose name he did not know. He further stated that accused persons had taken tea with Ismile. He had also seen them even before in company of Ismile. About one and a half month after he came to know that Ismile had been murdered. PW 4 Munnelal Sharma stated that the accused Persons had gone with one person whose name he did not know. He further stated that accused persons had taken tea with Ismile. He had also seen them even before in company of Ismile. It is significant to mention that the aforesaid witnesses except Sri Sharma claimed them selves to by the brother of the deceased but they did not lodge any report or give any intimation whatsoever with respect to tile fact that the deceased had gone in company with the accused persons and he did not return of was missing. Not only this, there is nothing on record prior to recording statements of these witnesses that they took any steps in this direction. It, therefore, suggests that their statement may have been manoeuvered by the police in order to sbow that ilie case had been worked out. Had it been a fact that the accused persons had taken Ismile with them and thereafter he had disappeared their natural conduct would have been to contact close relations to search for him and if he was not found a report must have been lodged. The mere fact that nothing was done by the close relations suggests that the story has been cooked up and no reliance can be placed upon such story. The statement of these witnesses were recorded by the police much after disappearance of Ismile. Had any report been made their statements must have been taken at the earliest and the position would have been different. This aspect appears to have been completely lost sight of by the learned trial Court. No reliance can, therefore, be placed upon the statements of these witnesses. Assuming for the sake of argument that these witnesses had spoken the truth, though we do not believe them, in that case too the mere fact that the accused persons were seen in the company of thedeceased at the time alleged by them cannot lead to the inference that it was the accused persons who had committed the offence. There is no evidence on record to show as to what happened thereafter. There is no evidence on record to show as to what happened thereafter. A Division Bench of this Court in (State of M. P. v. Bindeshwari Sing) observed that where the circumstances show that the deceased and the accused were not seen together near the place of incident the circumstances cannot be relied upon to fasten the gilt of the accused. In another decision reported in (Bal singh v. State of M. P.) this Court held that circumstantial evidence of last seen together is not sufficient to fasten the gilt. In the present case as well even if the statement of these witnesses is accepted it cannot be said to be sufficient to hold that the offence was committed by the accused persons. ( 5 ) FURTHER piece of circumstantial evidence brought on record by the prosecution is the alleged recovery of ring, wrist watch and Gupti from the accused persons at the time of arrest. In this regard the prosecutioil had examined PW 10 Babusingh who stated that about 5-6 months back two accused persons were arrested. Likhapadhi was done. Golden ring, wrist watch and Chhura were recovered from them. He had been declared hostile by the prosecution. In his cross examination he stated that the ring and the wrist watch was kept on the table of the Daroga at the Thana. He stated that the ring, wrist watch and Gupti were recovered from the accused persons. He was asked to sign on the Panchnama. He had seen the wrist watch and ring after picking it up from the table. It was done in the Thana. Thus, according to him the alleged recovery was made from Thana arid from the table. PW 12 Harpal Singh is the 1. 0. who had claimed that he had arrested the accused from the Chowki Bhatpura ad at the time of their arrest the said articles were recovered. Bhatpura Chowki was at a distance of about 12 or 13 kms. Joura Thana. There is nothing in the statement to show as to how the accused persons reached the Chowki. It by itself goes to suggest that the theory set up by the prosecution with respect to alleged recovery is doubtful. We, therefore, do not rely upon such an evidence. Joura Thana. There is nothing in the statement to show as to how the accused persons reached the Chowki. It by itself goes to suggest that the theory set up by the prosecution with respect to alleged recovery is doubtful. We, therefore, do not rely upon such an evidence. Apart from it we may also mention that this evidence cannot be said to be sufficient to connect the accused persons with the offence punishable u/s. 302 IPC, even if it is believed though we have said above that it is doubtful. ( 6 ) TAKING into consideration the entire material on record we conclude that the circumstances claimed by the prosecution even if accepted for the sake of argument cannot be said sufficient to fasten the guilt to the accused. Learned trial Court appears to have completely ignored the law with respect to circumstantial evidence. Consequently we hold that the accused persons cannot be said guilty of the offence punishable u/s. 302 IPC on the basis of the evidence based upon by the prosecution. The appeal succeeds. The order of conviction and sentence is set aside. The accused persons are acquitted of the charge for which they were tried. They are on bail. They need not surrender now as their appeal has been allowed. Appeal allowed. .