Judgment Bankim N. Mehta, J.—The present appeal calls into question the judgment and order dated 17.06.1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Banaskantha-Palanpur in Sessions Case No. 23 of 1999 convicting the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code [“IPC” for short] and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs. 500=00, in default to suffer S.I. for one month. 2. The case of the prosecution as unfolded before the trial Court is as follows: One Motibhai had two sons namely, Premjibhai (deceased) and Bhemjibhai (accused). Said Motibhai passed away about four years prior to the incident. Before his death, he had divided his 6 vighas of lands in equal parts and had given about 3 vighas each to both his sons. Deceased Premjibhai was a believer of Radhaswami Sect and would often visit Beas (Punjab). Therefore, instead of cultivating his land personally, he would give out his land for cultivation to other persons of the village in return of a lump sum amount. This had remained a bone of contention between the two brothers; Bhemjibhai wanting to have his brother gave the land to him for cultivation. On his insistence, deceased Premjibhai gave his share of the land to his brother Bhemjibhai for cultivation against a lump sum amount of Rs. 1500=00 in year 1998. It is the case of the prosecution that out of this amount, Rs. 300=00 had remained outstanding and for recovery of the said amount, Premjibhai often used to visit Bhemjibhai and ask for the money. On 22.03.1998 at about 8.00 O’ clock in the evening, Premjibhai had gone to the house of Bhemjibhai for getting back his outstanding amount. At that time, Vaghjibhai Virsangbhai-complainant (P.W. 7), Sardarbhai Nathuhai (P.W. 8), Bhagwanbhai Dalsangbhai (P.W. 9) and Manjibhai Virsangbhai (P.W. 10) were also present. It is further the case of the prosecution that a quarrel took place between deceased Premjibhai and appellant Bhemjibhai over repayment of money and Bhemjibhai gave a threat to Premjibhai to kill him at night. Thereafter, deceased Premjibhai went to his house. Next morning, when Vaghjibhai Virsangbhai returned from his farm, he was informed about the death of his cousin Premjibhai. Therefore, Vaghjibhai lodged a complaint with the Police. After the investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed against accused Bhemjibhai for the offence under Section 302 IPC. Thereafter, deceased Premjibhai went to his house. Next morning, when Vaghjibhai Virsangbhai returned from his farm, he was informed about the death of his cousin Premjibhai. Therefore, Vaghjibhai lodged a complaint with the Police. After the investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed against accused Bhemjibhai for the offence under Section 302 IPC. As the offence was exclusively triable by Court of Sessions, it was committed to Sessions Court where it was numbered as Sessions Case No. 23 of 1999. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Banaskantha at Palanpur, framed charge at Exhibit 4 for the aforesaid offence. The charge was read over and explained to the accused, who pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. Therefore, the prosecution led the evidence. After recording of evidence was over, the learned trial Judge explained to the accused incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution and recorded his further statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In his further statement, the accused denied the case of the prosecution. 3. On appreciation of the evidence, the trial Court relying upon the evidence of complainant Vaghjibhai Virsangbhai (P.W. 7), Investigating Officer-Ramjibhai Laljibhai Patel (P.W. 12) and the evidence of recovery of weapon of offence at the instance of the accused, found the charge against the accused as proved and convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and imposed the sentence as stated above. Being aggrieved by the said decision, the appellant-convict has preferred this appeal. 4. We have heard Mr. Jaiprakash Umot, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant and Mr. Maulik Nanavati, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State and with their assistance, we have perused the record and proceedings of the trial Court. 5. Mr. Umot, learned Advocate for the appellant, has submitted that the trial Court has erred in convicting the appellant by relying upon the evidence of the Investigating Officer and the statements of witnesses recorded by the Police during the course of investigation, particularly when the said witnesses have denied having given such statements to the Police. He has submitted that the evidence of complainant - Vaghjibhai Virsangbhai (P.W. 7), on whose evidence great reliance has been placed by the learned trial Judge, does not conclusively indicate or suggest the guilt of the accused. He has submitted that the evidence of complainant - Vaghjibhai Virsangbhai (P.W. 7), on whose evidence great reliance has been placed by the learned trial Judge, does not conclusively indicate or suggest the guilt of the accused. As regards the evidence of discovery of the weapon of offence, the learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that the same has not been proved and, therefore, no reliance ought to have been placed on the same. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has supported the judgment of the trial Court and submitted that the findings of the trial Court are correct and have been arrived at after proper appreciation of the evidence. 6. It appears from the evidence that there was no eyewitness to the incident and the prosecution is launched on the basis of circumstantial evidence. On scrutiny of the evidence, we find that the complainant (P.W. 7) though has narrated in the complaint lodged on 23.03.1998 that there was a quarrel between Premjibhai and Bhemjibhai about non-payment of Rs. 300=00 on previous day, i.e. on 22.03.1998 and appellant Bhemjibhai had threatened to kill Premjibhai that night, he has remained silent in his evidence before the Court about any quarrel having taken place between the appellant and the deceased over issue of non-payment of Rs. 300=00 or that the appellant having given any threat to kill Premjibhai. On the contrary, he has deposed that on the deceased asking the appellant for money, the appellant told him that he would pay up the money next morning. This is an important contradiction, particularly when the prosecution story rests primarily on the events of the previous evening wherein the appellant is alleged to have given a threat to the deceased to kill him in the night. We find that to this extent, the complainant has not stuck to his original statement given before the Police and in absence of him having been declared hostile, his evidence must be held binding on the prosecution. The other witnesses, who according to the prosecution, were present at the previous evening when alleged altercation took place between the deceased and the appellant, have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile. The other witnesses, who according to the prosecution, were present at the previous evening when alleged altercation took place between the deceased and the appellant, have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile. Even in their cross-examination, nothing could be elicited by the learned Prosecutor, which would lend credence or corroborate the evidence of the complainant (P.W. 7) or further the case of the prosecution as regards motive to kill the deceased except to the fact that Premjibhai was giving his land for cultivation to others and for that particular year Bhemjibhai was cultivating the land of Premjibhai. The evidence of all these witnesses does not prove even remotely that a quarrel had taken place between the deceased and the appellant in the evening on 22.03.1998 and that the appellant on getting infuriated had threatened to kill the deceased and in furtherance thereof committed the offence. 7. The other evidence relied upon by the prosecution is the recovery of weapon of offence at the instance of the accused. The panch witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and have been declared hostile. The panch witnesses, Hareshbhai Babubhai Chaudhary (P.W. 5, Exhibit 23) and Kanjibhai Haribhai (P.W. 6, Exhibit 27) have only identified their signatures on panchnama Exhibit 26. Even otherwise also alleged recovery is from a public place and, hence, it cannot form the basis of conviction. 8. On perusal of the record, we find that there is no other evidence led by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. This being a case of circumstantial evidence, it is necessary for the prosecution to establish conclusively the chain of events and circumstances, which point unerringly the guilt of the accused. As observed above, we find that the prosecution has not been able to prove the circumstances establishing conclusively the guilt of the accused. 9. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant and the learned trial Judge committed error in relying upon such evidence in convicting the appellant. Therefore, the appellant is required to be acquitted. In the result, the appeal is allowed. 9. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant and the learned trial Judge committed error in relying upon such evidence in convicting the appellant. Therefore, the appellant is required to be acquitted. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The conviction of the appellant recorded under Section 302 IPC and the sentence imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Banaskantha-Palanpur, vide judgment and order dated 17.06.1999 in Sessions Case No. 23 of 1999 is hereby quashed and set aside. The appellant is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case. Muddamal be disposed of.