JUDGMENT : S. L. KOCHAR, J. The appellant has challenged his conviction, by filing this appeal, under sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 500/- and R.I. for 7 years with fine of Rs. 500/- respectively and in default of payment of total fine amount of Rs. 1,000/- to suffer additional S.I. for two months, with direction to run both the substantive jail sentences concurrently passed by the learned Second Addl. Sessions Judge, Shajapur in Sessions Trial No. 37/98 on 1-9-1998. 2. According to the prosecution case, the dead body of Peerkhan, father of the appellant was found at the instance of the appellant and one PW-6 Fakir Mohammad in the well of the deceased situated in the forest of village Chitawad. The body was retrieved from the well with the help of anchor. The body was identified by the appellant as the body of his father. A MERG was registered by PW-14 Head Constable Radheshyam on zero number. Thereafter, on enquiry MERG No. 13/97 was also registered vide Ex. P/25. PW-9 Investigating Officer N.R. Gudawad also recorded the Dehati Nalishi at the instance of the appellant vide Ex.P/13 on 25-12-1997. The dead body was sent for post-mortem Examination which was conducted by PW-11 Dr. B. S. Maina. Post-mortem Examination Report is Ex.P/15. On MERG enquiry, it was found by the police that Peerkhan was murdered, therefore, First Information Report Ex. P/16 was recorded and crime was registered on 30-12-1997. This First Information Report was against unknown person. The appellant was arrested vide arrest memo Ex, P/17 on 6-1-1998 and on interrogation confessed his guilt. Memorandum Ex.P/12 of the appellant was recorded regarding keeping of five thousand rupees of the deceased in Shujalpur, but in pursuance thereof, no amount was seized. Second memorandum Ex. P/4 was recorded regarding discovery of empty sulphas bottle and Ex. P/5 memorandum was for recovery of vomit of the deceased, fourth memorandum Ex. P/6 was recorded for recovery of some part of the rope whereby the dead body was tied with the stone. The empty sulfas container, vomit, nylon shoes were seized through seizure memos Ex. P/1 to P/3. A register of Basant Lodge was seized through seizure memo Ex. P/7 showing stay of the appellant. The seized articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar through letter Ex. The empty sulfas container, vomit, nylon shoes were seized through seizure memos Ex. P/1 to P/3. A register of Basant Lodge was seized through seizure memo Ex. P/7 showing stay of the appellant. The seized articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar through letter Ex. P/19 and its reports are Ex.P/20 and P/21. On completion of investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted for the aforementioned offences. 3. The appellant refuted the charges and his defence was that his father was having bad blood with one Shafiq Pathan who had threatened his father prior to his death and he was falsely implicated by his younger brother PW-2 Imamkhan for grabbing the entire land of his father. He examined his mother and sister i. e. DW-1 Shakuranbai and DW-2 Mumtajbi. Learned Trial Court, finding the appellant guilty, convicted and sentenced him as indicated herein-above. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the entire record carefully. It emerged from the impugned judgment that the conviction of the appellant is based on circumstantial evidence i.e. (1) last seen together, (2) recovery of rope at the instance of the appellant and (3) the appellant had given information to the witnesses about presence of dead body of his father (CHACHA) in the well. 5. The finding of last seen is based on the testimony of PW-12 Rajeshkumar and PW-15 Kumersingh. PW-12 Rajesh Kumar has testified that on 27-12-1997, in the evening between 6.00 and 6.30 PM he was present on Godna Bus Stand, waiting for Sarangpur bus and saw that the appellant and his father alighted from the bus, came from the side of village Akodiya. Thereafter, both took tea in the hotel of Kumersingh. The further say of this witness is that he boarded the Sarangpur bus and left the bus-stand. He came to know about the murder of the deceased when police approached him and he told them that he was not knowing any thing. Another witness PW-15 Kumersingh has deposed that on 20-12-1997 the appellant and his father came to his hotel and after taking tea, went towards the village. He was interrogated by the police after ten to twelve days. In cross-examination para 7, he deposed that on 20-12-1997, the deceased Peerkhan came to his hotel for taking tea with his wife and one child. He was not knowing the name of the wife of Peerkhan. He was interrogated by the police after ten to twelve days. In cross-examination para 7, he deposed that on 20-12-1997, the deceased Peerkhan came to his hotel for taking tea with his wife and one child. He was not knowing the name of the wife of Peerkhan. In para 8, this witness has again stated that on interrogation by police, he disclosed that on 20-12-1997, the appellant came to his hotel, took tea and went to answer the call of nature. Thereafter, the appellant, child, old woman and deceased Peerkhan went together. All this had happened in village Godna at the hotel of this witness whereas the deceased and the appellant were residents of village Chitawad. The learned trial Court has failed to consider this positive statement of witness Kumersingh that the deceased was last seen in the company of the appellant, one child and his wife. After that, the deceased was not seen by anybody and no evidence was led by the prosecution or is available on record that the deceased was last seen only in the company of the appellant. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to establish the important circumstance relied upon by the trial Court that only the appellant was last seen in the company of the deceased. 6. For taking into consideration the evidence of last seen together, proximity of time between last seen and detection of crime must be very closure. In the instant case the appellant was seen in the company of the deceased on 20-12-1997 in the evening. The body was found in the well situated in the forest at a long distance from the place of last seen and the perpetrator of crime was not known to the police even on the date of registration of the First Information Report Ex. P/16 dated 30-12-1997. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Goa vs. Sanjay Thakaran and another, 2007(3) SCC 755 has held that duration of time gap; between the accused persons seen in the company of the deceased and detection of crime would be a material consideration for taking into account the evidence of last seen. P/16 dated 30-12-1997. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Goa vs. Sanjay Thakaran and another, 2007(3) SCC 755 has held that duration of time gap; between the accused persons seen in the company of the deceased and detection of crime would be a material consideration for taking into account the evidence of last seen. If there is a long gap between last seen of the deceased in the company of the accused and detection of crime, the evidence of last seen would not have much significance and the same could not be taken into account to fasten the guilt of the accused. In the case of Sanjay (supra) the difference between last seen and detection of crime was of eight hours which has been considered as a long time gap and evidence of last seen has not been relied upon against the accused. In the case at hand, as pointed out herein-above, the difference between last seen and detection of crime was more than five days. Therefore, in our considered view, this circumstance is not a clinching one and cannot be used against the appellant. 7. The next circumstance relied upon by the learned trial Court is the seizure of rope at the instance of the appellant. We are not very much impressed by this circumstance, because the prosecution has failed to explain as to why number of memorandum-statements of the appellant under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act were required to be recorded. If the appellant wanted to disclosed about material facts to the police relating to crime voluntarily, he could have disclosed at one point of time in one statement. The statement of PW-9 Investigating Officer N. R. Gudawad is clear on this point,. The appellant was arrested on 6-1-1998, but he was already with the police from the date of lodging of the Dehati Nalishi and MERG intimation on 25-12-1997 and he lodged the report to the police about missing of his father as well as finding of dead body in the well when anchor was dipped into the well for bringing out the dead body. The memorandum statement was recorded on 7-1-1998 in which he has disclosed only about 5,000 rupees of his father, kept in Shujalpur, but no money was recovered and no evidence has been led by the prosecution as to why the money could not be recovered. The memorandum statement was recorded on 7-1-1998 in which he has disclosed only about 5,000 rupees of his father, kept in Shujalpur, but no money was recovered and no evidence has been led by the prosecution as to why the money could not be recovered. Another memorandum statement was again recorded on 6-1-1998 vide Ex.P/4 with regard to hiding of empty box of sulfas tablets in the bushes and the third memorandum statement Ex.P/5 was for recovery of vomit of the deceased. There was fourth memorandum-statement Ex. P/6 wherein he disclosed about part of the rope tied by him with the plough and the plough was in the field. This part of the rope seized was not sent to the expert to establish that the rope seized at the instance of the appellant was identical or part of the rope by which the deceased was tied with the stone. Recording of memorandum statements in piecemeal is casting a serious doubt upon the veracity of the prosecution regarding voluntary disclosure by the accused. For all these reasons, much importance cannot be given about seizure of the rope. 8. The third circumstance considered by the learned trial Court that the appellant disclosed before the witnesses is that the body of his father (CHACHA) was lying in the well. Admittedly, the dead body was not recovered at the instance of the appellant on the basis of his statement recorded under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Evidence regarding presence of dead body has come in a way that the appellant asked the boys who were sitting nearby the well to jump into the well to search his tiffin box which according to the appellant fell into the well. Nobody was ready to jump into the well and the witnesses asked the appellant to jump into the well to search out his tiffin box , therefore, the appellant jumped and found the dead body of his father lying in the bottom of the well. Body was not on the surface of water. The appellant came out of the well and disclosed to the witnesses about dead body and thereafter also reported the matter to the police on the basis of which Dehati Nalishi /MERG on zero number Ex. P/13 was recorded. Body was not on the surface of water. The appellant came out of the well and disclosed to the witnesses about dead body and thereafter also reported the matter to the police on the basis of which Dehati Nalishi /MERG on zero number Ex. P/13 was recorded. This document is disclosing the fact that the dead body was retrieved from the well with the help of the anchor by the appellant and witness Fakir Mohammad (PW-6) and the same was identified by the appellant. The statements in this regard of the witness PW-1 Manoharsingh, PW-4 Ramjankhan and PW-10 Amir are of no consequence. We have gone through the statements of all these three witnesses and it does not appear from their statements that the appellant was already knowing about the presence of dead body in the well in the bottom beneath the water before jumping into the well. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the dead body was recovered at the instance of the appellant. Therefore, this third circumstance is also not proved by the prosecution against the appellant as an incriminating one. 9. Normally in a case based on circumstantial evidence, evidence of motive plays a vital role for forming the chain of circumstantial evidence pointing out towards the guilt of the accused unerringly excluding all reasonable hypothesis of the innocence of the accused. The Supreme Court in the case of Sukhram vs. State of Maharashtra, 2007(3) SCC (Cri) has observed thus :- "In a case based on circumstantial evidence, motive assumes great significance inasmuch as is an enlightening factor in the process of presumptive reasoning." 10. In the instant case, the learned trial Court gave a positive finding in para 51 of the impugned judgment that the appellant was not having any motive for committing murder of the deceased and the witnesses have stated that the appellant was having cordial relations with his father. On the other hand, sufficient evidence has come on record and the Court has also given finding that the deceased was having inimical terms with Shafiq Pathan and Babukhan on account of a dispute over the land and the defence witnesses namely, wife of the deceased DW-1 Shakuranbai and daughter DW-1 Mumtajbi have given specific statements regarding inimical terms of the deceased with Shafiq and Babukhan. The prosecution witnesses PW-2 Imamkhan and PW-10 Amir have also admitted about inimical terms of the deceased with Shafiq and Babukhan. They have also stated that some days before the date of incident, there was a quarrel between the deceased and Shafiq and Babukhan in which PW-2 Imamkhan was assaulted and Shafiq had threatened the deceased to face dire consequences in future. 11. For the foregoing factual and legal discussion, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant. Resultantly this appeal deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The conviction and sentences of the appellants as passed by the trial Court, are set aside. The appellant is in jail. The trial Court is directed to release him forthwith if not wanted in any other criminal case. 12. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court along with its record for immediate compliance.