JUDGMENT - R.S. MOHITE, J.:---The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pusad on 20-7-1996 in Sessions Trial No. 68 of 1994 convicting the appellant under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for two years. 2. The brief facts of the prosection case are as under:--- (a) Deceased Hrishikesh Narayanrao Shendge @ Golu was residing at Gandhi Ward, Pusad along with his father Narayanrao Panditrao Shendge (complainant) and his mother Shalinibai Narayanrao Shendge (P.W. 4). The family was residing in a rented house. The complainant Narayanrao had purchased a plot near Gandhi Nagar and had given a contract of construction upon his plot to a mason who resided in Bhojla village. The appellant and his brother were engaged to dig the foundation. Since the work relating to the foundation was continuing for a month, the appellant had made acquaintance with the deceased Hrishikesh @ Golu who was 10-11 years of age in 1994. (b) On 16-5-1994 the accused met Shalinibai and demanded Rs. 50/- as Usanwar from her. Shalinibai refused to pay the amount and informed the appellant that they were intending to discontinue the work of construction. (c) On 18-5-1994 at about 6.00 p.m. deceased Golu was playing along with his friends Avinash Uttamrao Chavan (P.W. 2) and Pramod Uttamrao Chavan (P.W. 3). At that time, the appellant came there and took deceased Golu towards the side of Dhankeshwar to consume honey. (d) Since Golu did not return home, P.W. 5 Uttam and complainant Narayanrao started searching for him. They had also gone to the house of appellant in Shivaji Ward and the appellant disclosed that he had paid Rs. 4/- to deceased Golu to see a picture. The complainant Narayanrao and P.W. 5 Uttamrao then took search of Golu in cinema talkies, but he could not be found. (e) In these circumstances, on 19-5-1994 at 12.10 in the noon, the complainant lodged a complaint in the Police Station and Crime No. 201/1994 came to be registered at the Police Station. (f) On 19-5-1994, the appellant is alleged to have disappeared from Pusad. While leaving, he took a cycle obtained by him on rent from Rocket Cycle Stores which is owned by one Syed (P.W. 6). (f) On 19-5-1994, the appellant is alleged to have disappeared from Pusad. While leaving, he took a cycle obtained by him on rent from Rocket Cycle Stores which is owned by one Syed (P.W. 6). The police seized register from the cycle shop which indicated that the appellant had taken cycle on rent. (g) While leaving, the appellant was also said to have taken a silver Jodve from his wife and disposed of the same at the shop of one Ashok Dattatraya Balge. (h) On 20-5-1994, the dead body of Golu was recovered lying in the streamlet towards the side of Dhankeshwar Temple. There was a single injury on the head of Golu of dimensions 2" x ½” x ½” on the right side with fracture of skull. The dead body was badly decomposed and eaten by maggots. (i) During investigation, the police received information that the appellant was residing at Dombivli and hence the Investigating Officer directed Head Constable Rathor (P.W. 16) to go to Dombivli to arrest the appellant. (j) On 22-5-1994, Head Constable Rathor went to Dombivli and approached the local Police Station on 23-5-1994. (k) On 24-5-1994 at about 2/2.30 p.m. the said Head Constable Rathor along with local Constable Rajaram Kondiba saw the appellant coming on cycle near Shankar Vilas Hotel situated next to the railway station, Dombivli. On being accosted, the appellant disclosed his name as Pralhad Khandale. The cycle was seized by police and the appellant was taken into custody. (l) The prosecution contended that after his arrest, the appellant agreed to produce the stone used by him to beat deceased Golu. Hence, the confessional statement of the appellant was reduced to writing and the appellant brought the police and the panchas towards the side of streamlet near Dhankeshwar Temple and produced one stone which was seized under the panchanama. Again on 7-6-1994 the appellant agreed to show spot of offence where he had committed murder of Golu. Once again, the police along two panchas were brought by the appellant towards the side of Dhankeshwar Temple and according to the prosecution, the scene of offence and spot panchanama was effected on the spot. (m) Ultimately, after completion of investigation, the charge-sheet came to be filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pusad and eventually the matter was committed to the Court of Sessions. (m) Ultimately, after completion of investigation, the charge-sheet came to be filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pusad and eventually the matter was committed to the Court of Sessions. Ultimately, after leading of evidence, the trial was concluded by the impugned judgment dated 20-7-1996 by which the appellant was convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, as aforesaid. 3. It is not in dispute that there is no eye-witness who has seen the commission of the offence. The case, admittedly, rests on circumstantial evidence alone. The circumstances which have been mentioned and relied upon by the trial Court for convicting the appellant can be summed up as under:- (a) Motive to commit the crime. (b) Last-seen-together. (c) The appellant taking cycle on rent from P.W. 6 Syed Karamtualla, just prior to the time the appellant was last seen together with deceased Golu. (d) The taking of Jodwas from his wife and selling them. (e) Discovery of stone and place of offence at the behest of the appellant. (f) The fact that appellant was absconding from 19-5-1994 till 24-5-1994 when he was arrested at Dombivli. 4. We propose to deal with each of these circumstances separately as under:- (a) As regards the first circumstance of motive, the witness who deposes about the same, is P.W. 6 Shalinibai i.e. mother of the deceased Golu. She has stated that on 16-5-1994 at 10.00 a.m. the appellant had come to her house and demanded Rs. 50/- as Usanwar from her. The amount was demanded for carrying out further construction work. She replied to the appellant that she was not intending to carry out further construction and declined to pay him Rs. 50/-. We fail to understand, how the refusal to pay Rs. 50/- to the appellant for carrying out further construction, can be the motive for committing an act of kidnapping and murdering Golu two days thereafter. It is significant that prior to 16-5-1994, there is no other act on the part of the appellant which can form a motive, as alleged. Similarly, nothing happened between 16-5-1994 and 18-5-1994 when Golu disappeared. To our mind, the mere fact that appellant demanded Rs. 50/- and was not given the amount by itself cannot form sufficient motive for committing an offence of kidnapping and murder. Similarly, nothing happened between 16-5-1994 and 18-5-1994 when Golu disappeared. To our mind, the mere fact that appellant demanded Rs. 50/- and was not given the amount by itself cannot form sufficient motive for committing an offence of kidnapping and murder. (b) The next circumstance is as regards the appellant being last seen together with the deceased Golu. Two child witnesses, i.e. P.W. 2 Avinash Uttamrao Chavan and P.W. 3 Pramod Uttamrao Chavan who were playing with deceased Golu at about 6.00 p.m. on 18-5-1994 have been examined by the prosecution to prove this circumstance of late seen together. Both these witnesses are real brothers and their father is a friend of father of deceased. P.W. 2 Avinash is a child, aged about 11 years. The Court found that he did not understand sanctity of oath and, therefore, oath was not administered to this witness. In his evidence, Avinash claimed that he and deceased Golu were seated over the plinth at the construction work on the plot. Amol and Pramod were playing in the adjoining plot. That, appellant came there and informed Golu to accompany him to consume honey and told this witness not to accompany them as maggots used to bite. Thereafter, the appellant went to deceased Golu towards the side of Dhankeshwar. However, in the cross-examination this witness categorically stated that on the date of his evidence, he was told how to depose in Court. Learned trial Judge sought to explain the statement of child witness by making a distinction between the child being told how to depose in Court and being told what to depose in Court. To our mind, such a distinction is not proper. It is settled law that evidence of a child witness should be carefully evaluated and should find corroboration before being relied. We find that the statement of child witness that he was asked by the appellant not to accompany himself and Golu as maggots used to bite, is not statement of a kind that child will usually make. It is significant that the body of deceased Golu was found eaten by maggots and it appears that it is for this reason that the child has probably been asked to make the aforesaid statement. As regards the evidence of P.W. 3 Pramod Uttamrao Chavan, he is also a child witness, aged 14 years. It is significant that the body of deceased Golu was found eaten by maggots and it appears that it is for this reason that the child has probably been asked to make the aforesaid statement. As regards the evidence of P.W. 3 Pramod Uttamrao Chavan, he is also a child witness, aged 14 years. The witness also stated that Avinash told him that Golu had gone with appellant to consume honey and he disclosed this fact to Shalinibai. In his cross-examination, he once again stated that Avinash had told him that Golu had gone to consume honey and prior to that, he was not knowing whether Golu had gone to consume honey. He further stated that his brother Avinash told him this fact and immediately he disclosed this fact to Shalinibai. It appears to us that it is doubtful whether P.W. 3 Pramod has seen the appellant with Golu together. We hasten to add that circumstance of last seen together at the highest can create suspicion, but cannot be the basis for conviction as suspicion cannot take the place of proof in a criminal trial. (c) The next circumstance is relating to hire of cycle on 18-5-1994 and subsequent seizure of the cycle from Dombivli on 24-5-1994. We fail to understand as to what relevance this circumstance has in securing conviction of the appellant, it is not in dispute that when appellant was last seen together with Golu, he was not alleged to be having cycle. We have not been able to understand as to why the appellant should hire a cycle and then take it 700 kms. away to a place like Dombivli where he was alleged apprehended. If at all the appellant wanted to have a cycle in Dombivli, he could have easily hired it at Dombivli. There is no evidence to show how or why the said cycle was carted to Dombivli. In any case, we cannot attach any significance to the hiring of said cycle and the said circumstance has no nexus with the alleged act of commission of murder. (d) Similarly, the alleged circumstance of appellant taking his wife's Jodwas and selling them for Rs. In any case, we cannot attach any significance to the hiring of said cycle and the said circumstance has no nexus with the alleged act of commission of murder. (d) Similarly, the alleged circumstance of appellant taking his wife's Jodwas and selling them for Rs. 135/-, is another circumstance which does not have any nexus with the commission of the crime, it was faintly suggested by the prosecution that the Jodwas must have been sold so that some money could have been obtained for living in Dombivli. Even assuming that this was true, yet the said circumstance would have connection with the alleged commission of the crime. We hold that this circumstance also will not come to the aid of the prosecution to secure conviction of the appellant. (e) As regards the discovery of stone and place of offence, it was fairly conceded that the injury in question could have been caused by any stone. Stone which is alleged to have been recovered at the behest of appellant, was sent for chemical analysis, but no blood was found on the same. The prosecution has thus failed to establish that the stone which was recovered has a nexus with the weapon which was alleged used for the commission of crime. As far as the scene of offence is concerned, body of the deceased had already been recovered and mere subsequent pointing out the scene of offence, by itself, would not carry the prosecution case any further. (f) The last circumstance is relating to the appellant absconding from 19-5-1995 to 24-5-1994. It is significant that it is the prosecution case itself that on 18-5-1994 the appellant himself was accompanying the father of deceased and one another to search for Golu. The complaint was filed on 19-5-1994 wherein suspicion was expressed by the complainant against the present appellant. The appellant is thereafter said to have been abscondings for a period of five days when he was apprehended at Dombivli. Why the police went to Dombivli, is not properly explained. Merely because the accused was apprehended after five days at Dombivli which is a fact which he denies, by itself, cannot complete the chain of circumstances to bring home the guilt of the appellant. 5. Why the police went to Dombivli, is not properly explained. Merely because the accused was apprehended after five days at Dombivli which is a fact which he denies, by itself, cannot complete the chain of circumstances to bring home the guilt of the appellant. 5. It is well settled that in case of circumstantial evidence, each circumstance has got to be independently established as a link and thereafter all the links have to be connected so as to form a chain of circumstances which can lead to the sole hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and which cannot be explained on any other reasonable hypothesis. We find that not only have all the links not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, but the chain of circumstance is not complete. 6. In the result, the appellant must succeed in his appeal. The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pusad on 20-7-1996 in Sessions Trial No. 68 of 1994 is quashed and set aside and the appellant is acquitted of all the offences for which he was charged. The fine, if paid, may be refunded and the appellant be released forthwith if not required in any other case. Appeal allowed. -----