JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated January 11, 1996 passed by the Special Judge, Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities, Udaipur, convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of the fine to further suffer six months' rigorous imprisonment. 2. The facts giving rise to the appeal, stated briefly, are that on 22.3.1994 a First Information Report was lodged regarding an incident which occurred on 21.3.1994 by which it was reported that body of one Jagdish was found lying by the roadside in the morning. The information mentions that the deceased has been killed by unknown persons by giving beatings on the head and forehead: The deceased has bled considerably and the matter be investigated. The First Information Report has been lodged by the brother of the deceased and he states in the First Information Report itself that he does not doubt any individual in particular. Investigation was accordingly taken up and ultimately the accused Goma was prosecuted for having committed murder of Jagdish. The prosecution has examined as many as 21 witnesses in support of its case and reliance has been placed on certain documents by the prosecution. The learned Judge on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence before him came to the conclusion of guilt and sentenced the accused for imprisonment for life as aforesaid. It is this order which is challenged in the present appeal on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal as also canvassed before this Court. 3. It was strenuously argued on behalf of the appellant that the circumstantial evidence on the basis of which conviction is ordered is so insufficient and contradictory in nature that the order of conviction cannot be maintained. It is urged that the evidence of accused being last seen together with the deceased is also insufficient as there is intrinsic evidence on record to point out that there was no grudge or enmity harboured by the accused against the deceased. It has been contended, therefore, that the order of conviction is liable to be set aside. The learned Public Prosecutor supported the order and claimed it to be a reasoned order and conviction, according to him, is liable to be maintained. 4. It has been contended, therefore, that the order of conviction is liable to be set aside. The learned Public Prosecutor supported the order and claimed it to be a reasoned order and conviction, according to him, is liable to be maintained. 4. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the accused appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor we have re appreciated the evidence on record and scrutinised the entire case in light of the submissions made by the learned Counsel at the Bar. 5. Admittedly, there is no eyewitness in this case. The entire evidence is circumstantial. P.W. 2 Laxman, P.W. 14 Devilal son of Bhimaji, P.W. 15 Devilal son of Homaji and other witnesses have stated that in the evening of 21.3.1994 the accused along with some others was drinking at the Theka along with deceased Jagdish. When they came out there was some quarrel between the accused and the deceased and it was separated by P.W. 2 Laxman, P.W. 14 Devilal has also deposed to the same occurrence and has said that when he along with accused and the deceased came out of the Theka the deceased and the accused quarrelled and he separated them and slapped the accused. It is then deposed by this witness that Laxman P.W. 2 also came there and Goma, the accused ran away. 6. P.W. 3 Kalulal is the photographer, P.W. 4 Amra, P.W. 6 Kalu, P.W. 8 Shambhu and P.W. 9 Puna are Panch witnesses in whose presence several documents like Panchnama of the dead body, Panchnama of the spot, etc. were prepared. Their evidence does not in any manner prove the complicity of the accused in the death of Jagdish. 7. Our entire scrutiny of the evidence and its reappreciation has disclosed that except for the evidence of being last seen together in the liquor bar where some quarrel took place between the accused and the deceased, there is no evidence whatever to establish that the accused alone was responsible for the death of deceased Jagdish. It has been proved on record that the accused ran away from the liquor bar earlier in point of time than the deceased. It has been proved on record that the accused ran away from the liquor bar earlier in point of time than the deceased. Two or three witnesses like P.W. 2 Laxman and P.W. 14 Devilal have deposed that there was a talk between them of Jagdish to his place as he was drunk and refusal on the part of those present to do so as Jagdish was drunk is also established. It is proved that Jagdish left the liquor bar for journey home wards alone. The possibility of some one else killing Jagdish or the, possibility of Jagdish meeting accidental death cannot be overruled. The doctor who conducted the post mortem has been asked in cross- examination by the Counsel for the accused that the injuries found on the body of Jagdish could be caused by a violent fall from a running vehicle like truck. The possibility of the deceased Jagdish moving acquired the lift from truck and having fallen sustained the injuries and died cannot be ruled out. 8. In our opinion, therefore, even if the prosecution evidence is accepted, the existence of these two reasonable possibilities explaining the death cannot be overruled and, therefore, it cannot be said that the chain of circumstances as proved by the prosecution is enough to warrant conviction of the accused. It is a fit case where at least benefit of doubt must go to the accused as the evidence on record unmistakably point out to certain facts : (1) That the accused, deceased and two others were drinking in the liquor bar; (2) that there was some quarrel between the accused and the deceased; (3) that witnesses Devilal P.W. 4 slapped the accused and separated the quarrel and the accused left for home; (4) refusal by persons present at the bar to see accompanying Jagdish home; (5) possibility of Jagdish having been assaulted by some one else than accused Goma; (6) possibility of Jagdish having fallen from an auto vehicle. 9. Consequently, mere evidence of last seen together is not enough. We are, therefore, unable to sustain the order of conviction in such circumstances. 10. In the result, the-appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside. The accused be released, if not required in any other offence.Appeal allowed. *******