JUDGMENT Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. :- 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 26-9-2006 passed in S.T. No. 30 of 2006 by the Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon (CG). By the impugned judgment the appellant has been convicted under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and RI for seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- with default sentences under each count with a further direction to run sentences concurrently. 2. The facts, briefly stated, are as under: On 13-1-2006 at about 7-8 a.m., dead body of deceased Bhagoli Kanwar was found in Beshram shrubs in the outskirts of the village. Deceased had sustained multiple serious injuries. Police was telephonically informed. When the police came to the village, dehati nalsi (Ex. P/6) and merg intimation (Ex. P/7) were recorded at the instance of Kotwar Durga Prasad (PW/2). Inquest was prepared and dead body was sent for postmortem, which revealed that the deceased had sustained multiple injuries and death of deceased was homicidal in nature. Many articles including one pocket diary (Article F) were seized from the place of occurrence. According to the prosecution, the said diary (Article F) was belonging to appellant Tirathram @ Tilakram (A-1). The witnesses had seen that Hemraj (A-2) had also visited the place of occurrence in the morning and he had torned page No. 2 (Ex. P/47) of the said diary. This was informed to Kotwar and the torned page was handed over to Kotwar. The accused persons were taken into custody and their memorandum statements were recorded and various clothes were seized. The seized clothes and articles were sent for their chemical examination to FSL, Raipur, from where a report (Ex. P/56) was received. According to the FSL report, bloodstains were found on almost all the articles including the clothes seized from the accused persons. Specimen handwriting of appellant (A-1) was taken. Diary (Article F) and tamed page (Ex. P/46) of the diary were sent for expert examination to the State Examiner of Questioned Document, CG, Raipur and a report (Ex. P/55) was received. According to the hand-writing expert report, the specimen hand-writing and the hand-writing in the diary were matching with each other. Admittedly, there was no eye-witness to the incident and the case of the prosecution was based on circumstantial evidence. P/55) was received. According to the hand-writing expert report, the specimen hand-writing and the hand-writing in the diary were matching with each other. Admittedly, there was no eye-witness to the incident and the case of the prosecution was based on circumstantial evidence. Following are the circumstances on which the Sessions Judge convicted Tirathram @ Tilakram (A-1): (i) Bloodstained clothes were seized on the discovery statement made by the appellant; (ii) There was a dispute between appellant and deceased regarding a blackberry (Jamun) tree; (iii) Diary of the appellant was seized near the dead body of deceased; (iv) Deceased was lastly seen in the company of the appellant. The Sessions Judge did not find the circumstantial evidence sufficient against Hemraj (A-2). Therefore, Hemraj (A-2) was acquitted. However, the appellant Tirathram @ Tilakram was convicted as above. Hence, this appeal. 3. Mr. Ashok Verma, counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has argued that the above circumstances were not fully established. The circumstances were not of conclusive nature and tendency; it was not proved that the pocket diary (Article F) was belonging to the appellant and it was also not proved that the hand-writing in the diary was of the appellant, therefore, conviction cannot be sustained. 4. On the other hand, Ms. Madhunisha Singh, Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the State has opposed these arguments and supported the judgment passed by the Sessions Court. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the Sessions case. 6. So far as first circumstance relating to seizure of bloodstained clothes is concerned, we find that there is no report to show that the bloodstains found over the clothes of the appellant were of human blood, and that the stains were matching with the blood group of the deceased. Therefore, even if the seizure is held to be proved on the discovery statement of the appellant, in absence of any proof of genus and the fact that bloodstains were matching with the blood group of deceased, the above circumstance would not be incriminating against the appellant. 7. So far as diary (Article F) is concerned, there is no evidence to show that the said diary was belonging to the appellant. 7. So far as diary (Article F) is concerned, there is no evidence to show that the said diary was belonging to the appellant. Though the prosecution had sent the diary to the hand-writing expert after obtaining specimen handwriting of the appellant and the report to the effect of resemblance was received, but no expert was examined to prove the above report. The Sessions Judge, in para 41 of the judgment, has held that the expert, who examined hand-writing in the diary, was not covered under Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, therefore, in absence of his examination in the court, the said report (Ex. P/55) was not admissible. Even after recording this finding in para 42 of the judgment, the Sessions Judge has held that since diary belonging to the appellant was found near the dead body, therefore, it was an incriminating circumstance. There is no material on record to show that it was proved that the aforesaid diary (Article F) was belonging to the appellant. Even Panel Lawyer also could not show any material on record to hold that it was proved that the said diary (Article F) was belonging to the appellant. Therefore, the finding recorded by the Sessions Judge that the diary (Article F) was belonging to the appellant is based on no material on record and same cannot be sustained. 8. The Sessions Judge has relied on circumstance of last seen together. It is based on the evidence of Kevalram (PW/11), who deposed that in the evening of 12th January, 2006 he had accompanied the appellant on his bicycle for coming to his village which was situated on the way to the village of the appellant. He was left in his village Aamgaon. While they were coming to village Aamgaon, deceased had met them. Deceased and appellant both came to his village, and left him there and thereafter they went away together and in the next morning Police had visited his house and he came to know that the deceased had died. In cross-examination he admitted that all the three had consumed liquor in village Dongargaon. He further admitted that he was not knowing the deceased as he had not seen him earlier to the evening of 12th January, 2006. Mr. In cross-examination he admitted that all the three had consumed liquor in village Dongargaon. He further admitted that he was not knowing the deceased as he had not seen him earlier to the evening of 12th January, 2006. Mr. Ashok Verma has argued that there is no evidence to show that Kevalram (PW/11) had seen the dead body of deceased, therefore, he was not able to say that the person, who in fact had died, was accompanying the appellant as deceased was not knowing to him. Kevalram (PW /11) had clearly admitted that the deceased was not known to him, he did not saw the dead body and he had seen the person who had accompanied the appellant while returning to his village. If he had not seen the dead body, how he can say that he was the same person whose dead body was found in the next morning. Moreover, we find that the deceased was allegedly seen in the company of the appellant in the evening of 12th January, 2006 and dead body was seen at about 8.00 a.m. on 13-1-2006. Therefore, there was long time gap between deceased allegedly last seen alive in the company of the appellant and the dead body found, and a possibility of any third person coming in between cannot be fully ruled out in this matter. 9. The Sessions Judge has held that the appellant had a motive to commit murder of deceased as a dispute relating to blackberry (jamun) tree was going on between them. We do not find any clinching and cogent evidence in this regard. Moreover, it does not appear to be reasonable that only a petty dispute of a blackberry tree would be sufficient motive for the appellant to commit such a heinous offence like murder. 10. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, all the circumstances must be fully established. The circumstances so established must be of conclusive nature and tendency and they should be capable of being explained and the chain of circumstantial evidence must be complete. 11. In the instant case, the circumstances were not fully established by the prosecution and they were not of conclusive nature and tendency and all the circumstances were capable of being explained. The circumstances so established must be of conclusive nature and tendency and they should be capable of being explained and the chain of circumstantial evidence must be complete. 11. In the instant case, the circumstances were not fully established by the prosecution and they were not of conclusive nature and tendency and all the circumstances were capable of being explained. We are of the view that in the above facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Sessions Judge was not justified in convicting the appellant under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, and conviction awarded to him deserves to be set aside. 12. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Conviction and sentences awarded to the appellant under Sections 302 and 201 IPC are set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges framed under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. It is stated that the appellant is in jail since 14-1-2006. He be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. Appeal Allowed.