JUDGMENT 1. Cr.Appeal 140/1991R is by Sukra @ Tiptiwa and Thukka Oraon, who were arrayed as A2 and A3 in S.T.No. 162/1990 and Cr.Appeal No. 92/1991R is by Mahendra Toppo, who was arrayed as A1 in the said sessions case. They were charged under Section 364 read with Section 34 I.P.C, under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C and under Section 201 read with Section 34 I.P.C on the allegation that after kidnapping Binod Oraon, son of P.W.2 Sahjhi Lakra, they murdered him and thereafter threw the body near a river with a view to screen the offence. The Trial Judge, finding the appellants guilty as charged, sentenced each of them to imprisonment for life under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C and they were also directed each of them to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months under the said section. On being found guilty under Section 201 read with Section 34 I.P.C, each one of them was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years. The Trial Judge acquitted the appellants in the above two appeals under Section 364 read with Section 34 I.P.C. The present appeals are by the appellants against their conviction and sentence. The above two appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment as these appeals arise out of the same sessions case and in the judgment, the appellants of Cr.Appeal Nos. 140/1991R and 92/1991R will be referred as Al to A3, in that order, as they were arrayed before the Sessions Judge for the sake of convenience. 2. At about 6,00 p.m. on 2.4.1989, P.W.2 Sahjhi Lakra was in (sic) went there, quarreled with him and assaulted him. When P.W.2 asked the accused not to beat her son, all the accused went away. Later at about 8.00 p.m., A3 Thukka @ Dhukka Oraon went to the house of the deceased and he and the deceased left the house. The deceased Binod Oraon did not return home that night. On the next day P.W.2 went in search of his son but she could not trace him. She met A1 and when questioned him about the whereabouts of his son, he feigned ignorance. The deceased Binod Oraon did not return home that night. On the next day P.W.2 went in search of his son but she could not trace him. She met A1 and when questioned him about the whereabouts of his son, he feigned ignorance. She as well as her husband P.W.6 Mungra Toppo were searching for the boy and in the night of 3.4.1989 they received information that the boys body is found near a river. P.Ws.2 and 6 went there and found the body of their son Binod. A foul smell was emanating. A red shawal was seen tied around the neck. Police was informed and fardbeyan, Ext.3, was given by P.W.2. The crime was registered under Ext.2. The Police Officer took up investigation (as the Police Officer, who conducted investigation, was not available, investigation conducted by him was spoken by P.W.5, a constable attached to the police station). Inquest report prepared by the police officer stands marked as Ext.4. After the inquest, the body was sent to the hospital for autopsy. 3. On receipt of the requisition and the dead body, P.W.8, Dr. A.K. Choudhary, conducted autopsy on the dead body and he found ligature mark which was transverse in shape around the neck. He also noticed contusion in soft tissues underneath and fracture of tracheal ring. He also noticed stab wound measuring 21/2 1 c.m cavity deep on the epigastria region. The Doctor issued Ext.5, the post mortem certificate, with his opinion that death is on account of strangulation. 4. After the completion of investigation, final report was filed against the three accused who denied the incriminating circumstances, when they were put to them under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 5. Learned Counsel, appearing for the appellants, contends that there is absolutely no material to connect the appellants with the crime. He submits that the prosecution, having relied upon the circumstantial evidence, did not prove any of the links in the chain of circumstances, indicating the guilt of the appellants. We have perused the evidence. On the above contention, we have heard Mrs. C. Prabha, learned Counsel appearing for the State. 6. Binod Oraon died on account of homicidal violence. The Doctor, who conducted autopsy, was examined as P.W.8 and the post mortem certificate was marked through him as Ext.5. P.W.2 and P.W.6 also found the dead body near a river with a red shawal tied around the neck. C. Prabha, learned Counsel appearing for the State. 6. Binod Oraon died on account of homicidal violence. The Doctor, who conducted autopsy, was examined as P.W.8 and the post mortem certificate was marked through him as Ext.5. P.W.2 and P.W.6 also found the dead body near a river with a red shawal tied around the neck. We, on the medical evidence and on the oral evidence, hold that the deceased Binod Oraon died on account of homicidal violence. 7. The prosecution, in order to prove the case against the appellants, relied upon the circumstantial evidence. According to P.W.2, at about 4.00 p.m., on the date of incident, there was a quarrel between her son and the three appellants and that the deceased was beaten by the appellants and after the appellants were asked to get out of the house, they went away and that according to P.W.2, A3 returned to the house at 8.00 p.m. and both the deceased and A3 went out. She has further deposed that the deceased did not return home and later his body was found on the night of 3.4.1989 near a river with a shawal tied around his neck. Apart from the above evidence of P.W.2 that the deceased went along with A3, there is absolutely no evidence which will connect the accused with the crime. The mere fact that the deceased went along with A3 by itself will not make the appellants guilty under Section 302 I.P.C. The prosecution by merely relying upon the evidence of P.W.2 cannot seek conviction against the three appellants, as the evidence of P.W.2 will, in no way, show that the deceased Binod Oraon was murdered by the appellants. We, therefore, set aside the conviction of the appellants and the consequent sentences imposed upon them. It is reported that the appellants are on bail. They are discharged from their bail bonds. These appeals are allowed.