Sudhir Kumar Saxena, J.— This criminal appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. has been preferred from jail by Sangam Lal who has been convicted by Sri Liyakat Ali, Additional District & Sessions Judge/FTC-III, Faizabad in Session Trial No. 846 of 1999 (Case Crime No. 478/1999), State v. Sangam Lal, under Sections 302/34 and 201 I.P.C. and sentenced the life imprisonment and Rs. 4,000/- as fine under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and three years R.I. under Section 201 I.P.C. with fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine, additional imprisonment of two months was also ordered. Appeal was heard and allowed on 4.7.2012. Now reasons for allowing the appeal are being given by the Court. Facts necessary for disposal of the appeal are that one Ashokmati, daughter of deceased Shyam Lal gave an application before the Incharge Police Station Rudauli, district Faizabad on 21.9.1999 stating that her father Shyam Lal had gone on 12.9.1999 at 10.00 A.M. along with Gurdayal and Sangam Lal. He did not return since then, as such he be traced. A skeleton was recovered on 22.9.1999, consequently, a case was registered in Case Crime No. 478/1999, under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. Inquest was conducted on 22.9.1999 at about 3.00 P.M. According to the inquest report, Shyam Lal was murdered by severing his head from the body. The post-mortem was conducted on 23.9.1999. Doctor opined that bones are of male human and no ante-mortem injury was found. Cause of death could not be ascertained, hence skeleton was preserved and sent to experts for medico legal opinion. Site map was prepared on 22.9.1999 which shows that skeleton and remaining articles were found in the field of Gaya Prasad. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against Sangam Lal and Ram Roop under Sections 302/201 I.P.C. Thereupon cognizance was taken by Chief Judicial Magistrate on 27.11.1999. The case was committed on 21.12.1999. Charge was framed against Sangam Lal and Ram Roop under Sections 302/34 and 201 I.P.C. Accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution proved sixteen documents. Ext. Ka-1 is the application given by Ashok Mati, Ext. Ka-2, Ext. Ka-3 and Ext. Ka-4 are recovery memos, Ext. Ka-5 is post-mortem report, Ext. Ka-6 is Panchayatnama, Ext.Ka-8 is sample of seal, Ext. Ka-15 is the site map. Ext. Ka-16 is charge. Prosecution proved sixteen documents. Ext. Ka-1 is the application given by Ashok Mati, Ext. Ka-2, Ext. Ka-3 and Ext. Ka-4 are recovery memos, Ext. Ka-5 is post-mortem report, Ext. Ka-6 is Panchayatnama, Ext.Ka-8 is sample of seal, Ext. Ka-15 is the site map. Ext. Ka-16 is charge. Report of the Joint Director of Forensic Science Laboratory, Lucknow is dated 3.5.2000 from which it appears that clothes, shoes, bloodstained earth contained blood which was disintegrated. Prosecution examined Ashok Mati d/o deceased as P.W.1, Smt. Krishna Devi w/o Ram Sonkar, sister of Ashok Mati as P.W.2, Girdhari, P.W. 3 witness of recovery memo, P.W.4 Mohd. Younus, P.W.5 Tahir for proving the recovery of skeleton, P.W.6 Basant Lal for proving extra-judicial confession and P.W.7 Gurdayal who had accompanied the deceased Sangam Lal. Constable Badri Prasad Tripathi (P.W.8) is the formal witness, P.W.9 Dr. Chandra Shekhar Singh conducted post-mortem, P.W.10 is sub-inspector Jabrul Hasan a formal witness and Brij Bhushan Tripathi, Investigating Officer is P.W.11, who proved the investigation. In the statement given under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Sangam Lal stated that he had enmity with the brother Ram Singh, that is why, he has been implicated. Accused Ram Roop died during trial as such it proceeded only against Sangam Lal who was convicted and sentenced by the court below vide judgment and order dated 17.3.2004 as above. We have heard Sri A.M. Shukla, Amicus Curaie and Sri Rishad Murtaza, learned Government Advocate and perused the record. It is a case of circumstantial evidence. Before adverting to the contentions made by the learned counsel, it would be useful to discuss the evidence produced by the prosecution. P.W1. Ashokmati is the informant who lodged the FIR. She states that Guru Dayal and Sangam Lal had taken her father to the residence of an advocate. Guru Dayal, however, returned the same evening and informed that her father will come back after visiting the fair (rht dk esyk) and seeing agricultural plots taken in village of her sister Krishnawati. When her father did not come back, she got suspicious, searched him among her relatives and ultimately report was lodged by getting the same written by her cousin. She further stated that Sangam Lal, brother of her sister's husband Ram Singh did not execute the sale-deed after taking Rs. When her father did not come back, she got suspicious, searched him among her relatives and ultimately report was lodged by getting the same written by her cousin. She further stated that Sangam Lal, brother of her sister's husband Ram Singh did not execute the sale-deed after taking Rs. 55,000/-, that is why, she suspected that Sangam Lal had murdered her father so that he may not have to return the money and land. In cross-examination, she gave the details of family of Ram Singh, husband of Krishnawati her sister. Ram Singh is doing agriculture separately, while remaining three brothers are doing agriculture jointly. Deceased father had told her about the money although she was not present at the time of transaction. She states that she had mentioned about the transaction of Rs. 55,000/- in F.I.R.. She is unable to specify the reason for non-mention of the same therein. She states that- eSus 'kd ds vk/kkj ij eqyfte dk uke fy[kk;h Fkh A She asserts that her father left along with other persons. She denied the suggestion that Ram Singh was looking after the entire land, after his father's death and owing to enmity between Sangam Lal and Ram Singh, he has been named in this case. So far as transaction is concerned, she says dPph fy[kk i<+h gqbZ Fkh A Relevant extract is quoted below:- ????? ???? ??? ?? ?? ???? ???? ?? ?? ??? ??? ????? ?? ????? ???? ??? ?? ???? ?? ????? ???? ?? ???? ???? ??? ?? ????? ???? ??? ??? ?? ???? ???? ???? ??? ?? ?? ?? ??? ??? ????? ???? ??? ?? ???? ???? ???? ??? ???? ?? ???? ???? ?? ?? ??? ?????? ?????/- ????? ???? ?? ?? ????? ????? ??????? ??? ???? ?? ??? ???? ??? ???? ??? ?????/- ????? ???? ??? ?? ????? ???? ??? ?? ??-?? ???? ???? ?? ?? ???? ??? ?? ????? ???? ?? ?? ??? ??? ???? ????? ???? ?? When confronted about the agreement, she says that said paper is not legible and has been destroyed by rats. From the evidence of Smt. Ashokmati, it comes out about the presence of Sangam Lal at her residence is proved. Her father went with Ram Singh and Guru Dayal. When he did not return, after ten days the report was lodged. She does not have any document to support the payment of Rs. From the evidence of Smt. Ashokmati, it comes out about the presence of Sangam Lal at her residence is proved. Her father went with Ram Singh and Guru Dayal. When he did not return, after ten days the report was lodged. She does not have any document to support the payment of Rs. 55,000/- to Sangam Lal. She is also unable to tell the name of the person before whom this money was paid. She candidly admits that Sangam Lal has been named on the basis of suspicion. P.W.2 Smt. Krishna Devi, sister of Ashokmati, stated that her sister Ashokmati informed her that Sangam Lal and Guru Dayal had gone with their father to the residence of one Subhash, Vakil and had told her to return in the evening. Guru Dayal came but neither Sangam Lal nor her father returned. Guru Dayal said Sangam Lal and her father had gone to visit fair. When father did not return, Ashokmati lodged the report. She further states that Sangam Lal, brother-in-law (Dewar) who wanted to sell the plot to her father had received the payment of Rs. 55,000/-. No agreement was reduced in writing. Sangam Lal had killed her father to grab the money and land both. In cross-examination, she states that she could know about the incident from her sister who lodged the report after ten days. On page 2, she states as under:- "???? ?? ???? ??? ???? ???? ???? ? ???? ???? ??? ?? ??? ??? ???? ?? ???? ??? ?? I ???? ???? ?? ??? ??? ????? ?? I ?? ???? ???? ???? ?? ?? ?? ??? ?? I ?? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ?? I ???? ?? ??? ?? ??? ?? ????? ? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ??? ??? ???? ?? ?? I ........ ?? ???? ?? ??? ???? ??? ??? ?? I ???? ??? ?? ?????? ?????? ????? ?? I ???? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ?? I ???? ???? ???? ?? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ?? I ???? ??? ?? ???? ???? ?? ???? ??? ?? I ?? ??? ??? ??? ?? ??? ?? ?? ?? ??? ?? I ??? ?? ???? ?? ??? ???? ??? ???? ????? ???? ??? ???? ?? I ????? ???? ??? ?? ??? ???? ?? I ???? ??? ?? I ??? ?? ?? ????? ?? ????? ????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ??? ???? I ???? ??? ?? ???? ???? ??? ?? I ?? ??? ??? ??? ?? ??? ?? ?? ?? ??? ?? I ??? ?? ???? ?? ??? ???? ??? ???? ????? ???? ??? ???? ?? I ????? ???? ??? ?? ??? ???? ?? I ???? ??? ?? I ??? ?? ?? ????? ?? ????? ????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ??? ???? I ???? ??? ?? ???? ???? ??? ?? ????? ????? ?? I ???? ???? ?? ???? ??? ?? ???? ?? ???? ?? ???? ?? I ?? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ?? ???? ???? ?? ?? ??? ??? ?? ?? ????? ?? I ???? ???? ?? ??? ???? ??? ?? I ???? ?? ?? ????? ???? ??? ?? I ?? ?? ?? ????? ?????? ??? ?? ?? ??? ???? ???? ?? ??? ???? ???? ?? I ?? ???? ???? ????? ???? ?????? ?? ?? ??? ??? ???? ??? ?? ???? ?? I ....... ???? ??? ????? ???? ?? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ?? I ????? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ???? ??? ???? ??? ???? I ........... ???? ??? ?? ???? ????? ?? I ?? ????? ???? ?? ???? ?? ?? I ??? ??? ?? ???? ?? ??? ?? ????? ??? ?? ???? ?? ???? ????? ? ???? ??? ?? ?????? ?????? ???? ?? I" This statement does not appear to be trustworthy as she claims to have witnessed the transaction but later on she says that her husband had informed about the agreement which is not a sale-deed. Money was paid before the alleged written agreement and when money was paid, she was inside the house. There was no person of the village. Money was paid in two instalments. She was not aware that the money was paid in five years. This statement was given in the cross-examination. She expresses apprehension that Sangam Lal killed her father for grabbing the property and land. In cross-examination, she admits her enmity with Sangam Lal. She also states that dead body was recovered in her presence from a sugar-cane field. She denied the suggestion of enmity with Sangam Lal as a reason for false implication. Testimony of this witness consists of mostly hearsay statement. Ashokmati informed her about the missing father and husband told her about the transaction of the land. P.W.3 Girdhari Lal states that accused Sangam Lal had confessed his crime before the presence of police. She denied the suggestion of enmity with Sangam Lal as a reason for false implication. Testimony of this witness consists of mostly hearsay statement. Ashokmati informed her about the missing father and husband told her about the transaction of the land. P.W.3 Girdhari Lal states that accused Sangam Lal had confessed his crime before the presence of police. He also testifies the recovery of skeleton from the sugarcane field on the pointing out of Sangam Lal. The memo of recovery was signed by him as well as other witnesses Tahir Ali and Sangam Lal. He is the witness of recovery of dead body and clothes and bloodstained earth. In cross-examination, witness says that he himself had gone there seeing the group of people he was not called by sub-inspector. He states that he had left for the place of occurrence from the door of Shyam Lal around 10.30 and travelled for nearly 20 kilometer i.e. 3 kilometer Kharanja and 17 kilometer road. When he reached sugar-cane field, Sangam Lal and police people were already present at the place of occurrence. He could not read Fard written by sub-inspector as there was huge crowd. He further states that he was standing alone around 6-7 meter away from the place where memo was prepared. The suggestion that he was deposing falsely on account of relationship was denied. Thus, this witness testifies the confession made by Sangam Lal before police. He is also a witness of recovery of skeleton etc. P.W.4 Mohd. Younus turned hostile and on cross-examination by the State, he denied having given any statement to the sub-inspector. P.W.5 Tahir stated that Sangam Lal stayed in his village for two days, then police arrested him. At the police-station, Sangam Lal admitted having murdered Shyam Lal. He went to the spot along with police where Sangam Lal took out skeleton, clothes and one shoe of Shyam Lal. He had signed the recovery memo on spot. In the cross-examination, the witness stated that police people arrived at village around 5-6 A.M. He saw sub-inspector along with two constables who arrived in the village.40-50 people were on the spot. Sub-inspector left the place of occurrence for police-station asking them to meet in front of the Dariyabad Railway Station and all the 40-50 people reached Dariyabad Station between 11 to 11.30 A.M. on a trolley driven by one Satish Yadav. Sub-inspector left the place of occurrence for police-station asking them to meet in front of the Dariyabad Railway Station and all the 40-50 people reached Dariyabad Station between 11 to 11.30 A.M. on a trolley driven by one Satish Yadav. The witness met sub-inspector and Sangam Lal accused. They all went to the place of occurrence on foot which was around 50 steps from the road towards west. Skeleton was identified with the help of cloth and shoe. Shoe was black without laces, while white Dhoti had black margin. Fard was prepared on the road on plain paper. He does not remember as to who were the other signatories. He also did not remember what was written therein. He denied the suggestion to the effect that he did not go on spot and did not see anything. Thus, Mohd. Tahir (P.W.5) was witness of recovery of cloth and shoe. P.W.6 Basant Lal is the neighbour of Shyam Lal. He stated that Sangam Lal had visited the house of Shyam Lal on 22.2.1999 and at that time he was in his house. At that time, police came and arrested Sangam Lal who confessed his guilt on interrogation by the police. He further states that Sangam Lal had got skeleton and shoe recovered in his presence. In cross-examination, the witness admitted that Shyam Lal was his real uncle. He died about 8-10 days back. For the first time, when accused confessed the guilt in presence of the police he could know about the murder. Relevant extract is quoted below:- ".........????? ??? ?? ???? ?? ???? ??? ??-?? ??? ??? ??? ??? ?? I ????? ??? ?? ????? ?? ??????? ???? ???? ??? ?? ??? ?? ????? ?? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ????? ?? ?????? ??.?.?? ?? ????? ?? ??? ?? ?? ??? ??? ??????? ?? ??????? ?? ??? ?? I ???? ???? ?? ??? ?? ???? ?? I" He further states that in his presence, skeleton was recovered. P.W.7 Guru Dayal states that he along with Shyam Lal and Sangam Lal, accused, had gone to one Subhash Tewari, Advocate, in village Katghara, P.S. Patranga. After consultation, he came back but Shyam Lal and Sangam Lal went to their relatives. Shyam Lal was expected to return after 4-5 days. P.W.7 Guru Dayal states that he along with Shyam Lal and Sangam Lal, accused, had gone to one Subhash Tewari, Advocate, in village Katghara, P.S. Patranga. After consultation, he came back but Shyam Lal and Sangam Lal went to their relatives. Shyam Lal was expected to return after 4-5 days. When he did not return in 4-5 days, it appears that daughter of Shyam Lal enquired from the relatives whereupon she lodged a report of missing father with the police-station. Later, she came to know that Sangam Lal had murdered her father. In the cross-examination, witness stated that he had gone to an advocate to discuss the consolidation matter. Shyam Lal and Sangam Lal had also gone to the said advocate in connection with their case. Witness states that Shyam Lal and Sangam Lal too had gone in connection with their case and met him at Aashu Mau. Similar statement was given before sub-inspector. Relevant extract is given below:- "????? ??? ? ???? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ????? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ?? ?? ?? I ?? ??? ???? ????? ?? ???? ?? I ????? ????? ?? ?? ????? ?? ??? ????? ??? ? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ?? ???? ?? I" Therefore, this witness testifies that Shyam Lal and Sangam Lal had gone to meet their advocate and from there Shyam Lal and Sangam Lal went to their relatives while witness returned back. This statement is contrary to the statement of Ashokmati who says all three Shyam Lal, Sangam Lal and Guru Dayal had gone together to Advocate. P.W.8 Constable Badri Prasad is a formal witness who had accompanied sub-inspector while recovering the skeleton etc. Dr. Chandra Shekhar (P.W.9) had conducted post-mortem and prepared post-mortem report. The details given by witness in respect of skeleton are produced below:- ?????? ????? ????????? ?? ????? ?? I ??????? ????????? ??? ?? I ??? ??????? ????????? ???? ???????? ???? ????? ?? ???????? ??? ??? ?? ??? ??? ???? ??? ?? I ??????? ??????? ??? ?? ????? ??? ?? I ????? ???? ?? ??????? ???????? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ?? I ?? ?????????? ????? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ?? I ?? ???????? ????? ??? ???????? ??? ?? ???? ??? ?? I ?????? ?? ???? ???????? ??? ?????? ???? ????? ?? I ?????? ?????? ?? ????? ?? ??????? ??????? ???? ????? ?? I ??? ??????? ???? ????? ?? ?? I ???? ???? ?? ??????? ???????? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ?? I ?? ?????????? ????? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ?? I ?? ???????? ????? ??? ???????? ??? ?? ???? ??? ?? I ?????? ?? ???? ???????? ??? ?????? ???? ????? ?? I ?????? ?????? ?? ????? ?? ??????? ??????? ???? ????? ?? I ??? ??????? ???? ????? ?? ?? I ???? ?? ????? ?? ?????? ?? ????????? ?? I ??? ?????? ???? ??? ????????? ??? ???? ? ??????? Android type ?? ?? I ??????? ???? ??? ? ????????? ??? ?? I ????? ??????? ?-? ???? ??? I He was not cross-examined. P.W.10 Sub-Inspector Jabrul Hasan is a formal witness who prepared the inquest report but he was also not cross-examined. P.W.11 is the sub-inspector Brij Bhushan Tripathi who conducted the investigation. In the cross-examination, he states that he went to the place where skeleton was lying which is 25 kilometers away from the village of deceased. Memo was prepared near the field on an earthen road (Kuchcha Rasta). Sangam Lal in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. said that wrong charge-sheet was submitted and he has been implicated on account of enmity with his brother Ram Singh. No evidence was led in defence. From the above discussions, it appears that prosecution has led evidence for establishing that the deceased was last seen with accused Sangam Lal. Sangam Lal admitted his guilt before the police and other persons and recovery of skeleton, shoe, clothes etc. were made on the pointing out of Sangam Lal. Evidence was also given to prove the motive. So far motive part is concerned, no document has been filed before the court below to show any transaction between the deceased and Sangam Lal. Ashokmati quotes her father but she did not mention the transaction in her report. She admits that money was not made in her presence. ".........??? ???? ??????? ??? ????? ???? ?? ???? ??? ??? ??? ???? ???? ?? ?? ??? ???? ??? ???? ???? ??? ???? I ?? ??? ??? ?? ?? ?????? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ?? ???? ?? ???? ?? I ?????? ?????? ? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ?????? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ???? ?? I" She reiterates the same thing on page 23 of the paper-book while saying that she had mentioned about Rs. 55,000/- but could not tell the reason why it was not there in the report. ?????? ?? ??? ?? ???? ?? ???? ?? I ?????? ?????? ? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ?????? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ???? ?? I" She reiterates the same thing on page 23 of the paper-book while saying that she had mentioned about Rs. 55,000/- but could not tell the reason why it was not there in the report. Although on page 24 of the paper-book, she admits that she is in possession of paper but no such document was filed. This statement was given on 12th May, 2000. She states- " .............????? ???? ??? ??? ?? I ????? ???? ??? ?? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ???-??? ????? ?? ????? ???? ??? ?? ???? ?? ????? ???? ?? I ????-???? ??? ?? ????? ????-??? ??? ?? ???? ???? ???? ??? ?? ?? ?? ??? ??? ????? ???? ??? ?? ???? ???? ???? ??? ???? ?? I ???? ?????? ?? ??? ?????? ?????/- ????? ???? ?? I ?? ????? ????? ??????? ??? ???? ?? ??? ???? ??? ???? ??? I ?????/- ????? ???? ??? ?? ????? ???? ??? ?? I ??-?? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ?? ????? ???? ??-?? ??? ?? ???? ????? ???? ?? I ???? ??? ????????? ?? I ????? ???? ?? ???? ?? ???? ???? ??? ??? ?? ???? ???? ??? ?? ???? ??? ??? I ???? ????? ?? ??? ???? ??? ?? I" She again appeared on 22.5.2000 but on that day, she did not bring paper as stated on page 25. ".............?? ???? ??? ??? ???? ?? ???? ???? ?? ???? ??? ?? ??? ???? ??? ??? ?? ?? ???? ??? ???????? ???? ??? ??? I ???? ?? ??????? ?? ???? ??? ????? ?? ?? ??? ???? ?? ???? I" Smt. Krishna Devi is sister of Ashokmati, relative of Sangam Lal who happens to be brother-in-law (Devar) in her examination-in-chief admits that no documentary evidence has been filed. On page 28 of the paper-book, she states that she was inside the house when documentation was done, although she states that documentation was not done in her presence but her husband was there and scribe has also not been examined. Ram Singh has also not been examined. So far motive part is concerned, there is no documentary evidence to show that Sangam Lal and Shyam Lal had entered into any transaction in respect of any land or amount of Rs. Ram Singh has also not been examined. So far motive part is concerned, there is no documentary evidence to show that Sangam Lal and Shyam Lal had entered into any transaction in respect of any land or amount of Rs. 55,000/- was paid to Sangam Lal. This fact does not find place in the report lodged with the police. Documentation was not done before the witness either Ashokmati or Krishna Devi. Despite stating that Ashokmati was in possession of document, it was not produced. Therefore, evidence regarding motive is absolutely insufficient and unreliable. Much emphasis has been laid on the evidence of last seen. Daughter Ashokmati reported that Gurdayal, Sangam Lal and Shyam Lal had gone together on 12.9.1999. Krishna Devi is not a witness of last seen evidence as she was given information by Ashokmati. Gurudayal (P.W.7) states that he had gone along with Shyam Lal and Sangam Lal to an advocate Subhash Tiwari and after meeting he came back. Shyam Lal and Sangam Lal both went together. This evidence is regarding company of the deceased accused on 12.9.1999. The dead body was recovered on 22.9.1999. There was a gap of ten days. Dead body was recovered from a place which was nearly 20-25 Kms. away from the village of deceased. Nobody has seen the deceased after 12.9.1999. Thus, there was a gap of ten days between the last seen and recovery of dead body. There is no evidence to show that Sangam Lal alone was seen lastly and after that deceased was not seen. Testimony of Guru Dayal regarding meeting place Aasmau is in contradiction with that of Ashokmati. Dead body was not recovered from village of Sangam Lal. Time gap is too much to make the evidence of last seen credit worthy. Doctor has not stated regarding duration of death. He even could not ascertain the cause of death. Report of Forensic Laboratory too does not help the prosecution as blood was found to be disintegrated. Therefore, there is nothing except clothes and shoe from which it could be said that skeleton belongs to deceased Shyam Lal. In these circumstances, the evidence of last seen is found to be wholly untrustworthy. So far as recovered articles are concerned, it is apparent that skeleton could not be identified. Shoe and cloth (dhoti) are of common use, blood group could not be ascertained. In these circumstances, the evidence of last seen is found to be wholly untrustworthy. So far as recovered articles are concerned, it is apparent that skeleton could not be identified. Shoe and cloth (dhoti) are of common use, blood group could not be ascertained. Recovery was made from the place around 25 kms. away from the village. One of the witness Younus turned hostile and Girdhari though proved the recovery memo as well as the inquest report but that alone is of no avail. Recovery alone even if it is found to be proved cannot be believed to reach a conclusion that accused Sangam Lal alone might have murdered and none else. This is a case of circumstantial evidence. Circumstances have to be proved to the extent that only one conclusion could be drawn i.e. accused alone and no other person could have murdered. Although evidence tried to suggest the enmity between Ram Singh and Sangam Lal but Ram Singh has not been examined. Confession before police is also of no avail. Doctrine of 'proximity rule' will be applicable here as interval between last seen and detection of crime was too long i.e. ten days. A reference may be made to relevant observation of Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Satish, 2005 SCC (Crl.) 642. "The last seen theory comes into play where the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible. It would be difficult in some cases to positively establish that the deceased was last seen with the accused when there is a long gap and possibility of other persons coming in between exists. In the absence of any other positive evidence to conclude that accused and the deceased were last seen together, it would be hazardous to come to a conclusion of guilt in those cases. In this case, there is no evidence that accused was seen any time with deceased between 12.9.99 and 22.9.99. Skeleton was not found in the village of accused. It was 25 km.away from the village of deceased. In field of sugar-cane skeleton was found. Recovered bones could not be connected with deceased. In this case, there is no evidence that accused was seen any time with deceased between 12.9.99 and 22.9.99. Skeleton was not found in the village of accused. It was 25 km.away from the village of deceased. In field of sugar-cane skeleton was found. Recovered bones could not be connected with deceased. No trace of flesh or other remnants were found, only one shoe was found. As such it cannot be said as to how he was murdered ? and by whom ? In these circumstances, 'Proximity Rule' has full application and accused would be entitled to the benefit of doubt. In view of the above discussions, we do not find sufficient evidence to hold the appellant guilty. Prosecution has failed to establish the case against the appellant. Appellant deserves to be acquitted. Appeal is allowed. Conviction and sentence of appellant Sangam Lal Verma in Sessions Trial No. 846 of 1999 for life imprisonment vide judgment and order dated 17.3.2004 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, F.T.C.III, Faizabad, is set aside. Appellant- Sangam Lal Verma is acquitted of the charges framed under Section 302/34 read with Section 201 IPC. _____________