JUDGMENT 1. The appellant was indicted for having committed murder of his sons viz., Jeevan Das, aged 5 years and Kanhaiya Lal, aged 4 years. He was found guilty, convicted and sentenced by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Gulabpura under Section 302, I PC. vide judgment dated February 27, 1999; and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to further undergo 3 months R.l. Against this judgment of conviction the instant appeal has been resorted to by the appellant. 2. The prosecution case is woven like this. Bharat Das, real brother of the appellant (P.W.1) Instituted a written report (Ex.P/1) on June 27, 1998 with the Police Station Asind around 12.15 p.m. with the averments that the accused-appellant took with him his sons Jeevan Das and Kanhaiya Lal (now, deceased) from the house in the evening of yesterday. Thereafter, their dead-bodies were found in the well belonging to them and their death appeared to have been caused by drowning in the well. On this report, proceedings under Section 174, Cr.P.C. were initiated. After enquiry, Parcha (Ex.P/9) was recorded and a case under Section 302, I.P.C. came to be registered bearing F.I.R. No. 152/1998 against the appellant. The appellant was arrested. Statements of witnesses under Section 161, Cr.PC. were recorded. Site-plan was drawn; and, after usual investigation, charge-sheet was filed. Charge under Section 302, I.RC. was framed against the appellant who denied the charge and pleaded trial. 3. The prosecution examined 13 witnesses in support of its version. In his statement recorded under Section 313, Cr.RC., the accused-appellant claimed innocence. The learned trial Court on hearing the final submissions, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as indicated here in above. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully scanned the material on record. Undisputedly, the case is based on circumstantial evidence as there is no eye-witness to the incident. The star-witness of the prosecution is Mst. Bhaguti (P.W.8) who is wife of the appellant. In her deposition she stated that after the birth of Jeevan Das and Kanhaiya Lal the accused-appellant started beating her; five months before the incident the accused appellant had a quarrel with her and he snatched Jeevan Das and Kanhaiya Lal from her; her brothers-in-law Bharat Das and Jagdish has intervened. Bhaguti (P.W.8) who is wife of the appellant. In her deposition she stated that after the birth of Jeevan Das and Kanhaiya Lal the accused-appellant started beating her; five months before the incident the accused appellant had a quarrel with her and he snatched Jeevan Das and Kanhaiya Lal from her; her brothers-in-law Bharat Das and Jagdish has intervened. The accused- appellant, at that time, told her that as the children belonged to him he had the right to take them with him. She further stated that she did not know as to how the children had fallen in the well. In her cross-examination, categorically admitted that the accused-appellant never gave beating to the children and she did not prevent the accused-appellant from taking the children with him as earlier also he used to take them with him. 5. Bharat Das (RW.1) deposed that the accused-appellant never quarrelled in his presence with his wife and he did not know as to how his nephews had died. He had only seen them lying in the well. Prem Das, PW.2 in his deposition stated that the accused-appellant had called him and informed him that he came to the field along with his children and while he slept his children either had fallen in the well or lost. He then searched the children along with the accused and found them lying in the well. Jagdish, RW.3 did not support the prosecution story and only stated that he had heard in the village that the accused proceeded with his children from his house. Mohan, PW.4 is motbir and he exhibited memo-Ex.P/2 Ex.P/3 and Ex.P/5. Jai Singh, RW.5 deposed that Premdas came to him and informed him that both the children of Laxman Das had fallen in the well and Laxman Das was sitting near the well. RW. 6 Ram Singh narrated the same story as deposed by P.W.5 Jai Singh. Shyam Das RW.7 deposed that he had seen the children lying in the well. Gopal Das, RW.9, in his examination-in-chief stated that the relation between the accused and his wife were cordial. They had quarrelled only once or twice; thereafter, Bhaguti came to her parents house. He did not know as to how the children had fallen in the well. P.W. 10 Baludas is father of Mst. Bhaguti. He deposed that the relation of Bhaguti with the accused were not cordial. They had quarrelled only once or twice; thereafter, Bhaguti came to her parents house. He did not know as to how the children had fallen in the well. P.W. 10 Baludas is father of Mst. Bhaguti. He deposed that the relation of Bhaguti with the accused were not cordial. He stated the same version of the story. Dr. Nemi Chand Jain, P.W.11 has testified that the death of Jeevan Das and Kanhaiya Lai was caused because of drowning. PW. 12 Sumer Singh, in his cross-examination, admitted that there was no boundary around the well. Kalu Singh, RW. 13 is motbir of panchayatnama of the dead-bodies and Ex. P/2 and P/3. The accused-appellant, in his statement under Section 313, Cr.RC. stated that he had not quarrelled with his wife and he did not push the children into the well. 6. A close scrutiny of the impugned judgment of the learned trial Court demonstrates that the accused-appellant has been convicted on the basis of the testimony of Mst. Bhaguti. According to the learned trial Court, as the accused-appellant was last seen in the company of his children it was his duty to explain as to how the children had fallen in the well. As no explanation was given by him the circumstance of last-seen goes against him and, therefore, he was liable to be convicted under Section 302, I.RC. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in a recent decision, rendered in Subhash Chand v. State of Rajasthan, JT 2001 (8) 505 , indicated thus- "Thus, none of the pieces of evidence relied on as incriminating, by the trial court and the High Court, can be treated as incriminating pieces of circumstantial evidence against the accused. Though the offence is gruesome and revolts the human conscience but an accused can be convicted only on legal evidence and if only a chain of circumstantial evidence has been so forged as to rule out the possibility of any other reasonable hypothesis excepting the guilt of the accused, in Shankarlal Gyarasilal Dixits case, ( AIR 1981 SC 765 ) , this court cautioned-'human nature is too willing, when faced with brutal crimes, to pin stories out of strong suspicions. This court has held time and again that between may be true and must be true, there is long distance to travel which must be covered by clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence by the prosecution before an accused is condemned a convict. 7. From a close scrutiny of the material on record, we find that the origin and genesis of the case has not been placed on record by the prosecution. We find ourselves unable to admit the finding of the learned Add. Sessions Judge that the circumstance of taking the children with him goes against the accused-appellant. The prosecution is not able to show any motive of the appellant to kill his both the children. Even if we accept this contention that the reactions of the accused-appellant were not cordial with his wife Bhaguti then also it is not sufficient to reach at this conclusion that the children were pushed by the appellant into the well in order to teach lesson to his wife. There was no ante mortem injury on the dead-bodies of the deceased children and because of drowning in the well death was caused due to asphyxia. P.W.-8 Mst. Bhaguti, in her cross-examination, has categorically admitted this fact that in their life-time the children were never beaten by the appellant and he used to take them with him many a time earlier also. 8. The circumstance relied upon by the prosecution to prove the charge under Section 302, IPC, in our considered opinion, is insufficient and we are of the considered view that no case under Section 302, IPC is made out against the appellant. The learned trial Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence and has committed illegality in convicting the accused-appellant. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The judgment dated 27th February, 1999 of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Gulabpura (Bhilwara) is set aside and the accused-appellant stands acquitted from the charge under Section 302 IPC in Sessions Case. 50/1998. He is in judicial custody, He shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.Appeal allowed. *******