JUDGMENT L. MOHAPATRA, J. — This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam-Gajapati, Berhampur in Sessions Case No.80 of 1998 convicting the appellant for commission of offences under Sections 364, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘I.P.C.’). The appellant has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life for commission of offence under Section 302 I.P.C. but no separate sentence has been awarded either for commission of offences under Sections 364 or 201 I.P.C. 2. The family of the deceased and the appellant were staying in the same house occupying different sections. On 18.10.1996 morning when the deceased and his cousin Jitendra Patra were playing near their house, the appellant came in a cycle and took the deceased with him for a ride. The parents of the deceased learnt from Jitendra that the appellant had taken the deceased and, accordingly they waited till return of the appellant in the evening. When the appellant returned alone in a cycle, the parents of the deceased asked him whereabouts of the deceased but he denied to have any knowledge. Thereafter, the parents of the deceased called Jitendra and confronted him with the appellant and he again stated that the appellant had taken the deceased in a cycle and that when he requested to go, the appellant refused to take him on the ground that there was inade¬quate pressure in the wheel of the cycle. It is alleged that the appellant annoyed at such confrontation. Thereafter, the parents of the deceased started search for their missing child and when they did not find him, lodged a missing report in the local police station. After missing report was lodged, it is alleged that the appellant absconded and he was caught by the police on 26.10.1996. In course of interrogation, he confessed that under the advise of one Sadhu, he had killed the deceased for the purpose of sacrifices so that his misfortune would vanish and dumped the dead body in a well by the side of the road leading to Gopalpur. Thereafter, he led the police and other witnesses to the place where he dumped the dead body of the deceased and with the help of some labourers, the dead body of the deceased was recovered from the well. Thereafter, he led the police and other witnesses to the place where he dumped the dead body of the deceased and with the help of some labourers, the dead body of the deceased was recovered from the well. Though the dead body was in a highly decomposed state, the parents of the deceased could identify him. Thereafter, a case was registered for commission of murder and other offences. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was submitted for commission of offences under Section 364 I.P.C. for kidnapping the deceased, under Section 302 I.P.C. for inten¬tionally causing death of the deceased and under Section 201 I.P.C. for causing disappearance of evidence. 3. Prosecution examined ten witnesses to prove the charges and one witness was examined on behalf of the defence. The plea of the appellant is complete denial of the prosecution case. According to the appellant, he has been falsely implicated in the case by the parents of the deceased so that the entire property can be enjoyed by them. 4. Out of ten witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecu¬tion, P.W.1 is father of the deceased. P.W.2 is mother of the deceased and P.W.7 is aunt of the deceased. P.W.6 is the cousin with whom the deceased was playing. These witnesses speak about the relationship between the appellant and deceased and the fact that the deceased was last seen with the appellant, whereafter the deceased was missing and the dead body of the deceased was recovered almost eight days after. Relying on the evidence of these witnesses, postmortem report and the fact that the appel¬lant led the police to the well where he had dumped the dead body of the deceased, the trial Court found the appellant guilty of the charges and convicted him thereunder. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant assails the judgment of the trial Court on the following grounds :- 1. Even if the case of the prosecution is accepted to the extent that the deceased was last seen with the appellant in the morning on 18th October, 1996 and the dead body of the deceased was recovered on 26th October, 1996, the dead body having been recovered eight days after, the possibility of kidnapping the deceased by someone else cannot be ruled out. 2. There is no motive for committing the alleged offence. 3. The postmortem report is not conclusive with regard to cause of death. 4. 2. There is no motive for committing the alleged offence. 3. The postmortem report is not conclusive with regard to cause of death. 4. Considering the fact that the dead body of the deceased was highly decomposed, and it could not have been possible on part of the doctor, P.W.9 to form an opinion as to whether the death was homicidal or otherwise. 6. The learned counsel for the State relying on the evi¬dence adduced before the trial Court submitted that missing report as well as F.I.R. and the evidence adduced in Court clear¬ly show that the appellant had taken the deceased in a cycle in the morning hour on 18th October, 1996, whereafter the deceased was missing and eight days after the dead body of the deceased could be recovered at the instance of the appellant. A motive is also proved because of the fact that the appellant had been advised by a Sadhu to sacrifice a child so that his condition would improve. In view of such nature of evidence available on record, according to the learned counsel for the State, the trial Court was justified in convicting the appellant for all three charges. 6. We have carefully examined the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution and the reasons assigned by the trial Court while convicting the appellant for commission of the afore¬said offences. 7. P.W.1 is father of the deceased. He has stated that on 18.10.1996 at about 10 A.M., the deceased and Jitendra Patra, P.W.6, were playing near his house and on returning at 1 P.M., he did not find the deceased and accordingly, made inquiry about him from his wife, P.W.2. P.W.2 informed him that the appellant had taken the deceased with him to the shop “Star Antena” and she learnt it from P.W.6. He has further stated that the appellant was working as N.M.R. in Municipality P.W.D. Section, Berhampur but he was under suspension at the relevant time. When the de¬ceased did not return till evening, he was worried and after the appellant came back to his house in a cycle, P.W.2 asked the appellant about the whereabouts of the deceased but the appellant denied to have any knowledge. Thereafter, he called P.W.6 and confronted with the appellant. After search he having not found the deceased, he lodged the missing report, Ext. I and also supplied the photograph of the deceased. Thereafter, he called P.W.6 and confronted with the appellant. After search he having not found the deceased, he lodged the missing report, Ext. I and also supplied the photograph of the deceased. On 26.10.1996, he was called by the police and found the police officer questioning the appellant. In course of such questioning, the appellant stated that he had concealed the dead body of the deceased in a well at Gopalpur garden after throttling and that he would show that place. Thereafter, the appellant led the police and other wit¬nesses to the place where he had dumped the dead body of the deceased. Some sweepers were called from Gopalpur and under supervision of the police, the dead body was brought out from the well and he could identify the dead body of the deceased from his pant and check shirt. Nothing has been brought out in the cross-examination to disbelieve what has been stated by this witness in the Court. P.W.2 is mother of the deceased and wife of P.W.1. She has also corroborated the statement of P.W.1. However, she was not a witness to recovery of the dead body of the deceased from the well. P.W.3 was a Constable in Badabazar P.S., who is a witness to seizure list, Ext.4. P.W.4 is a witness to recovery of the dead body of the deceased at the instance of the appellant. P.W.5 is the owner of the garden in which the well is located and from where the dead body of the deceased was found. P.W.6 is the cousin of the deceased, who has stated that on 18.10.1996 at about 9 to 10 A.M., while he was playing with the deceased out¬side the house, the appellant came in a cycle and asked the deceased to go to the shop “Star Antena” and to wait him there. Therefore, he and the deceased went to the shop “Star Antena” and waited for the appellant. He has further stated that the appel¬lant came in a cycle and the deceased accompanied him sitting on the rear carrier of the cycle. When he requested to go, the appellant declined to take him on the ground that there was inadequate air in the wheel of the cycle. He has further stated that the appel¬lant came in a cycle and the deceased accompanied him sitting on the rear carrier of the cycle. When he requested to go, the appellant declined to take him on the ground that there was inadequate air in the wheel of the cycle. He has further stated that when the appellant came back at about 7 P.M., P.W.2, the mother of the deceased and sister of the appellant asked him about whereabouts of the deceased and there was a confrontation between him and the appellant. P.W.7 is another sister of the appellant who was also stated that on being questioned, the appellant refused to have taken the deceased in his cycle. P.W.8 is the S.I. of Police and P.W.9 is the doctor, who conducted postmortem of the deceased. From the evidence of P.W.9, it ap¬pears that eight injuries were found on body of the deceased and according to the doctor, injury Nos.1 and 2 were possible to be caused by the belt, M.O.III. Such two injuries are on the neck and possibility of throttling was there. Further the doctor stated that the diatom test was found to be negative and there¬fore, the death by drowning has to be ruled out. In course of examination, he has further stated that all the soft tissue including liver, kidney, spleen, heart, lungs were missing due to decomposition. P.W.10 is the Investigating Officer. 8. On overall analysis of the entire evidence as discussed above, it appears that as per the version of P.W.6, on 18.10.1996 at about 9 to 10 A.M. the appellant had taken the deceased in a cycle. Thereafter, the deceased was missing and his whereabouts were not known to the appellant. When the appellant came back at 7 P.M. in the evening, on being questioned by P.Ws. 1, 2 and 7, he stated that he had no knowledge about whereabouts of the deceased. On 26.10.1996 in course of interrogation, appellant is alleged to have confessed to have killed the deceased by throt¬tling and dumped the dead body in a well. Thereafter, the appel¬lant led the police and other witnesses to the place where he had dumped the dead body of the deceased. In presence of the police, the dead body of the deceased was recovered from the well with the help of some labourers. Thereafter, the appel¬lant led the police and other witnesses to the place where he had dumped the dead body of the deceased. In presence of the police, the dead body of the deceased was recovered from the well with the help of some labourers. Admittedly, there is no eyewitness to the occurrence and the prosecution entirely relied on the circum¬stantial evidence. The circumstances on which much reliance is placed are that the appellant was last seen with the deceased on 18.10.1996 and he led the police and other witnesses to the place where he had dumped the dead body of the deceased and body of the deceased was recovered with the help of some labourers. The other circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is that the evidence of the doctor, P.W.9 who conducted postmortem examination and was of the view that it was not a case of drowning and injuries Nos.1 and 2 could be caused by the belt M.O.III. These are the circumstances on which much reliance has also been placed by the trial Court to convict the appellant. 9. The first ground taken by the learned counsel for the appellant is that even if the evidence of P.W.6 is accepted that the appellant was last seen with the deceased in the morning on 18.10.1996, the dead of the deceased having been found on 26.10.1996, possibility of some body else kidnapping the deceased and committing his murder cannot be ruled out. 10. As it appears from the evidence of P.W.1, he had seen the deceased playing with P.W.6 in the morning and after he came back at 1 P.M., he did not find the deceased. After the appellant came back in the evening in a cycle, he asked him about where¬abouts of the deceased and thereafter they searched for the deceased and having not been able to find the deceased, lodged the missing report, Ext.I. The missing report appears to have lodged on 18.10.1996 by P.W.1 alleging therein that as per the statement of P.W.6 the deceased had accompanied the appellant in the morning and that the appellant after coming back at 7 P.M. in the evening refused to have any knowledge about the whereabouts of the deceased. P.W.9, the doctor who conducted postmortem was of the opinion that the death might have occurred about ten days prior to the date on which the postmortem was conducted. P.W.9, the doctor who conducted postmortem was of the opinion that the death might have occurred about ten days prior to the date on which the postmortem was conducted. The postmortem examination was conducted on 26.10.1996. Therefore, in and around the said period i.e. 18.10.1996 the death might have occurred. We, therefore are unable to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that there may be possibil¬ity of someone else kidnapping the deceased and committing the offence. 11. The second ground taken by the learned counsel for the appellant is absence of motive. We find a considerable force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. Undis¬putedly, the appellant is maternal uncle of the deceased. Though it is alleged in the F.I.R. that appellant was suspected to have killed the deceased on the advice of a Sadhu for improvement of his own condition, no evidence to that effect was led before the Court in course of trial. On careful scrutiny of the evidence of the parents of the deceased, his cousin brother, P.W.6 and the aunt, P.W.7, we do not find any material whatsoever to find out what could be the motive for committing such offence. We, there¬fore agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that the prosecution has not established the motive behind commission of the offence at all in course of trial. Coming to the postmortem report as deposed to by P.W.9, it appears that seven injuries were found on the body of the deceased. According to this wit¬nesses, injury Nos.1 and 2 possibly could be caused by the belt, M.O.III and that the diatom test ruled out a case of drowning. If possibility of drowning is ruled out, then the only other conclu¬sion that can be arrived at is that the deceased was killed and, thereafter dumped to a well. It is surprising to note that in course of examination, this witness has stated that all the soft tissues including liver, kidney, spleen, heart, lungs were miss¬ing due to decomposition. We have looked into the medical juris¬prudence by Modi. We have not been able to find out anything to say that in case where a person is killed by throttling and thrown into a well, the liver, kidney, spleen, heart, lungs and other vital parts may miss. We have looked into the medical juris¬prudence by Modi. We have not been able to find out anything to say that in case where a person is killed by throttling and thrown into a well, the liver, kidney, spleen, heart, lungs and other vital parts may miss. This appears to be strange and creates a doubt as to how the deceased died. 12. If the deceased has died for some other reason such as removal of liver, kidney, spleen, heart and lungs, the case of the prosecution that the appellant killed the deceased by throttling has to fail. In view of the discussions, we find that though the prosecution has been able to establish that the de¬ceased was last seen with the appellant in the morning on 18.10.1996, there is no other circumstance connecting the appel¬lant in commission of offence and even the medical evidence creates a doubt about cause of death of the deceased. It is worthwhile to refer two decisions of the Supreme Court with regard to absence of motive where the prosecution entirely relies on circumstantial evidence. In the case of State of Orissa v. Babaji Charan Mohanty reported in 2003 Vol.10 SCC 57 and in the case of Dhananjay v. State of Maharashtra reported in 2002 Vol.6 SCC 596, the Court held that when there is no motive attributed to the appellant and the case is based on circumstantial evi¬dence, the absence of any strong motive to kill the deceased casts a reasonable doubt in the prosecution case. In the case of State of Goa v. Sanjay reported in 2007 Vol.3 SCC 755, the Apex Court was of the view that evidence of last seen do not irresist¬ibly point to the guilt of the appellant if there was a consider¬able gap between the time, both of them were last seen and recov¬ery of the dead body. 13. The prosecution having only established one circum¬stance to the effect that the appellant was last seen with the deceased in the morning on 18.10.1996 and having failed to estab¬lish any other circumstances, we are of the view that the chain of circumstances not being completed, the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt. 14. We, accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam-Gajapati, Berhampur in Sessions Case No.80 of 1997. 14. We, accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam-Gajapati, Berhampur in Sessions Case No.80 of 1997. It is stated that the appellant is in custody till today. If that be so, the appellant, Pradeep Kumar Samal be set at liberty forthwith, unless his detention is required in any other case. Before parting with the case, we must record our apprecia¬tion for the valuable assistance rendered by Mr. H.K. Mund and Shri Goutam Mishra, the learned counsel of this Bar. B. P. RAY, J. I agree. Appeal allowed.