JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated February 24, 1993 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sikar in Sessions Case No. 75/1992 whereby the appellant Sharvan Ram was convicted under section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. 2. The deceased Yusuf was found dead in the room where he was residing and on the basis of Parcha Bayan (Ex.P. 1) of PW 1 Bhanwar Singh recorded by the Station House Officer, Police Station Fatehpur at 6.30 a.m. on July 25, 1992, crime No. 141/1992 was registered under Section 302 IPC. In his parcha bayan, Bhanwar Singh has stated that he was having two camel carts which were being driven by Yusuf deceased and the appellant Sharvan Ram. That he owned a plot in which had constructed two rooms where these persons resided separately in one room each. It was also stated by him that at 10.00 a.m. on July 24, 1992, the deceased Yusuf and the appellant Sharvan Ram had come to him and on that day, Sharvan Ram told him about some quarrel which had taken place with Yusuf for taking away Rs. 10/- by deceased Yusuf in his absence. He further stated that when Yusuf did not come on July 25, 1992, he went to his room and found him dead with injuries on his person. 3. After registration of the case on basis of Parcha Bayan under Section 302 IPC, investigation commenced. During investigation, site plan Ex.P. 3 was prepared. Inquest report Ex.P. 4 was also prepared on July 25, 1992 and post mortem of the dead body of Yusuf was conducted by Medical Officer, Dhanuka Government Referral Hospital, Fatehpur. The doctor found as may as 11 injuries which included nine incised wounds and multiple bruises on left side of neck and on front of right shoulder. The skull bones were also found fractured. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was the head injury.After completion of investigation, the police submitted a Charge sheet against the appellant and ultimately, he was tried in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Sikar for the offence under Section 302 IPC. 4. During trial, prosecution examined 11 witnesses. The skull bones were also found fractured. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was the head injury.After completion of investigation, the police submitted a Charge sheet against the appellant and ultimately, he was tried in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Sikar for the offence under Section 302 IPC. 4. During trial, prosecution examined 11 witnesses. The accused denied his involvement in the crime and no witness was examined in defence. 5. At the out set it may be stated that there is no eye- witness to connect the appellant with the crime and the entire case hinges on circumstantial evidence. During trial, the following circumstances were relied upon by the prosecution:- (a) that the deceased was last seen in the company of the appellant. (b) that the appellant and the deceased were working with Bhanwar Singh and lived together. (c) that in the morning of July 25, 1992 when the appellant and deceased did not come, the witness Bhanwar Singh went at the place where Yusuf was living and found his dead body in the room. The accused was not there. (d) that there was a quarrel between the appellant and the deceased in the night of July 24, 1992 on the ground that the deceased had stolen Rs. 100/- of the appellant. (e) extra judicial confession made before the witnesses Jaisa Ram and Ayub Khan. (f) recovery of Kassi, the weapon of offence and clothes of the deceased which were found stained with human blood. 6. It may be stated that so far the circumstance (d) is concerned, the statement of Bhanwar Singh alone is on the record. His evidence on the question of stealing Rs. 100/- by the deceased is hearsay and the same is not admissible. Similarly, circumstances has not been proved at all as all the three witnesses, namely, Iliyas (PW 5), Jaisa Ram (PW 8) and Ayub Khan (PW 10} have not supported the prosecution case and they have turned hostile. Circumstances Nos. (b) and (c) are concerned, in our view, are hardly incriminating circumstances against the appellant. Now remains circumstances Nos. (a) and (f). To prove circumstance No. (a), the statement of Bhanwar Singh (PW 1) has been recorded in the trial court. Circumstances Nos. (b) and (c) are concerned, in our view, are hardly incriminating circumstances against the appellant. Now remains circumstances Nos. (a) and (f). To prove circumstance No. (a), the statement of Bhanwar Singh (PW 1) has been recorded in the trial court. He has only stated that on July 24, 1992 the appellant and the deceased had come to his house at 10.00 a.m. and after taking tea they have left his house. In our opinion this statement cannot be taken as a circumstance of last seen, as it has no proximity with the place of incident or the time of incident. Otherwise also, when the prosecution has come with this case that a quarrel had taken place between the deceased and the appellant in the night of July 24, 1992, this circumstance looses its significance and it could not be a circumstance of last seen. So far the circumstances relating to quarrel in the night of July 24, 1992 is concerned, firstly, there is no evidence on record to prove this circumstance. Secondly, if any such quarrel had taken place in the night of July 24, 1992 then how it could have been reported to Bhanwar Singh (PW 1) in the morning of July 24, 1992. 7. So far recovery of Kassi is concerned, from the statements of Mubarak Karim Khan (PW 4) and Shamshad Khan (PW 6) it transpires that it was already recovered from the place of incident. If it was recovered from the place of incident, then it cannot be said that it was discovered at the instance and on the information of the appellant. Hence, this circumstance also goes away and it cannot be read against the appellant. Then remains recovery of the clothes of the deceased containing stains of human blood. Even this circumstances is taken to be proved, this can hardly lead to the conclusion that the appellant committed murder of the deceased. It may also be stated her, that blood group was detected by the Analysis and there is no evidence that it contained the same blood group as that of the deceased. 8. In view of the above discussion, we find that there is no convincing and reliable evidence to bring home the guilt against the appellant.In the result, the appeal of the appellant is allowed. 8. In view of the above discussion, we find that there is no convincing and reliable evidence to bring home the guilt against the appellant.In the result, the appeal of the appellant is allowed. The conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC are not sustainable and they are hereby, set aside. He is acquitted of the charges. He is in jail, hence he shall be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case.Appeal Allowed. *******