ORDER In this case the brother of the appellant was murdered during some time either in the night of 8.8.1996 or during the day thereafter. The appellant s version was that the murder was committed by appellant Satpal (brother of the deceased) in conjunction with one Gulab Singh who is said to be the brother-in-law of the appellant. As Gulab Singh remained absconding ever since the death of the deceased the case proceeded against the appellant alone. The Sessions Court convicted him under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. A Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant. 2. The name of the deceased was Balish alias Bali. From the post-mortem report issued by PW 12 doctor it can be seen that his death was on account of head injury sustained by him. The dead body of Balish was seen for the first time by PW 4, Bahadur Singh at 5.00 p.m. on 9.8.1996 near the Jakhana-Mashu Road. 3. The case against this appellant was sought to be established with the help of circumstantial evidence. The circumstances established by prosecution are the following : (1) PW 1 saw the deceased and his brother Satpal in the company of Gulab Singh at a tea-stall when the time was around 8.30 p.m. on 8.8.1996; (2) After the dead body was recovered appellant was not seen in the locality. 4. We are told there is not a third circumstance against the appellant. Even regarding the second circumstance there can be no possibility of characterising the same as amounting to absconding. This is because the Investigating Officer said that the appellant was found interned in a jail in connection with some other case. From whereon he was in jail is not spoken to by anyone. Even if he was absconding, it has to be shown that such absconding was not in connection with the case for which he was arrested and interned in the jail. 5. The first circumstance is not an incriminating circumstance at all, for brothers would go together and would dine together which is a common feature. 6. Even if he was absconding, it has to be shown that such absconding was not in connection with the case for which he was arrested and interned in the jail. 5. The first circumstance is not an incriminating circumstance at all, for brothers would go together and would dine together which is a common feature. 6. We are surprised to notice that on the said circumstances the criminal Court found this appellant guilty of murder of his brother and convicted him and that a Division Bench of the High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence. Without losing time, we set aside the conviction and sentence and acquit him. We order the appellant to be released from jail forthwith unless he is required in any other case. This appeal is allowed accordingly. Appeal allowed. **************** Parallel Citations of other Journals : Seth Pal v. State of H.P., 2001(4) Supreme 443 : 2001 (3) Crimes 170 : 2001 (4) All.Crl.L.R. 486 00024