N.N. Mathur, J.— This appeal is directed against the judgment dt. 27.09.2004 of Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Rajsamand Camp Udaipur convicting appellant-Ambawa of offence under Sec. 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under go six months simple inprisonment. 2. The prosecution story as disclosed during the trial is that PW.8 Mst. Pankhi had married to the appellant Ambawa about 20 years back. Being fadup with his illtreatment, some time back, she left Ambawa and started living with deceased Lal Singh. On 06.03.2004, PW.1 Narupatel submitted the First Information Report Ex. P/1 at Police Station Ogana stating inter alia that while he was on way to village Mohini, he found the dead body of Lal Singh near the field of PW/3 Vakta. He also stated that on the preceding day i.e. on 15.03.2004 at about 6.10 P.M. while he was taking cattle for drinking water, the appellant Ambawa was seen taking his wife Smt. Pankhi towards village Mohini, she appeared unwilling and resisting. On this information police registered a case of offence under Sec. 302 IPC and proceeded with the investigation. The police sent the dead body for postmortem. PW/11 Doctor Chandra Kumar conducted the autopsy of the dead body of Lal Singh vide Ex. P/18. He noticed the following injuries on the the dead body. 1. Lacerated wound of “5 x 1” x bone deep present over central forehead region associated with fracture of funtral bone; cloted blood present on face & scalp. 2. Lacerated wound of “6.5 x 2.5” x bone deep present over right cheek between nose D pinna associated with fracture right maxillary bone; cloted blood present on face. 3. Lacerated wound of “4.5 x 2” x muscle deep present over back of right pinna: cloted blood with over hurby skin & scalp. 4. Lacerated wound “4” x “2” cm x muscle deep present over front right dupper 1/3 (clamcuber) region of cloted blood present over harby skin of front of chest. 5. Lacerated wound of “4 x 2” cm. x muscle deep present our front right dupper 1/3 (clam cuber) against ribs & cartilages are healthy. 6. Lacerated wound of “6 x 4.5” x muscle deep present over right learn 1/3 of neck; cloted blood present on neck & chest. 7. 5. Lacerated wound of “4 x 2” cm. x muscle deep present our front right dupper 1/3 (clam cuber) against ribs & cartilages are healthy. 6. Lacerated wound of “6 x 4.5” x muscle deep present over right learn 1/3 of neck; cloted blood present on neck & chest. 7. Lacerated wound of “8.5” x “4” x lacerated cartilage deep present bone left side of neck & extending to middle anteriorly; cloted blood present over neck; front & back of the neck. 8. Lacerated wound of “5”x “0.5 x 0.5”cm size present on left shoulder. 9. Abrasion of “1” x “1” cm size present over right forum. In his opinion the cause of death was hemorrhagic shock due to various injuries (1 to 9) are antimortem in nature and having duration of 12-24 years. Injuries No. 1, 2, 5, 6 & 7 are grievous and fatal to life. 3. After usual investigation the police laid charge sheet against the appellant of offence under Sec. 302 IPC. 4. The appellant denied the charges levelled against him and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case adduced oral and documentary evidence. The appellant in his statement under Sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure denied the correctness of the prosecution evidence appeared against him. The trial Court having held the prosecution case proved, convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner stated above. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. There is no direct evidence to connect the appellant with the alleged crime. The prosecution has relied upon following piece of circumstances to connect him with the murder of Lal Singh. 1. Appellant was seen taking Mst. Pankhi with him against her will. 2. Recovery of blood stained Kulhari from the possession of the appellant. 3. Presence of blood on the shirt of the appellant. 6. As far as the first circumstance is concerned PW/1 Naru has stated that he had seen the appellant Ambawa taking his wife Pankhi to village Mohini. This witness is author of the first information report but in the cross examination he has failed to give the name of the scribe. PW/8 Pankhi has not supported PW/1-Naru. She identified the appellant Ambawa as her husband. She also stated that as he used to ill treat her, she left him and took up Nata marriage with decreased Lal Singh. PW/8 Pankhi has not supported PW/1-Naru. She identified the appellant Ambawa as her husband. She also stated that as he used to ill treat her, she left him and took up Nata marriage with decreased Lal Singh. She denied the incident of taking her by Ambawa. Thus, there is no evidence to establish the first circumstance. Thus prosecution has failed to prove first circumstance by positive evidence. 7. As regards the second circumstance the appellant was arrested vide Ex. P/10. In pursuance of the information given by him vide Ex. P/12, a blood stained Kulhari was recovered vide Ex. P/12. The Kulhari has been found to be stained with human blood. The men of this piece of circumstance is that even according to the prosecution evidence, the blood stained Kulhari was found near the dead body. PW/1 Manu has admitted in the cross examination that the blood stained Kulhari was laying near the dead body. Thus the prosecution has not only failed to establish the second piece of circumstance i.e. the recovery of Kulhari by positive evidence but also guilty of introducing false evidence. 8. As regards the third circumstance, i.e. recovery of blood stained shirt at the time of arrest, the shirt was seized vide Ex. P/17. As per the FSL report Ex. P/27 it was stained with human blood. The appellant has failed to give any explanation as to the presence of the human blood on his shirt. Though the prosecution has succeeded in establishing this piece of circumstance but this in itself is not sufficient to connect the appellant with the alleged crime. 9. Thus taking into consideration over all prosecution evidence and the evidence on record, we are of the view that prosecution has failed to establish the charge of murder against the appellant Ambawa. The trial Court has committed error in convicting the appellant of offence under Sec. 302 IPC. 10. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The Judgment dt. 27.09.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Rajsamand, Camp Udaipur is set aside. The appellant Ambawa S/o Kala Gameti is acquitted of the charges under Sec. 302 IPC. The appellant is in jail. He shall be released forthwith, it not required in any other case. * * * * *