JUDGMENT : Mr. Navin Sinha, J. 1. The appellant stands convicted under Section 302 IPC to life imprisonment by the District & Sessions Judge, Bundi in Sessions Trial No.98/1983. 2. P.W.14- Hajari Lal lodged FIR (Ex.P/3) in the morning about 6:45 am on 22.07.1983 that a dead body was lying abandoned. The Postmortem of the deceased was done the same day (Ex.P/12) at 7.45 am by P.W.16- Dr. Durga Shanker. 9 injuries were found on the body of the deceased. Death was opined due to brain hemorrhage causing injury to vital center leading to instantaneous death. The time elapsed at the time of post mortem since death was estimated to be about 10 to 16 hours. The body of the deceased was identified by his brother P.W.17-Gopal. The inquest report was marked as (Ex.P/5) and the site map (Ex.P/4). 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence on the principle of the last seen theory coupled with recovery of a watch allegedly on the confession of the appellant stated to be belonging to the deceased. The witnesses have stated that the deceased was allegedly last seen with the appellant and PW2 Laddu the previous morning at about 9:00 am. But there is evidence also that the deceased parted company with the appellant and Laddu and subsequently Laddu also parted company with the appellant. The question of invoking the last seen theory against the appellant therefore does not arise. Furthermore if death was opined to have occurred 10 to 16 hours before postmortem on 22.07.1983 at 7.45 A.M., there is wide time gap from the time that the deceased was allegedly seen with the appellant in the morning. Invocation of the last seen theory is clearly unsustainable. The alleged recoveries of belongings of the deceased on confession of the appellant have all been disbelieved by the Trail Judge. The only incriminating material against the appellant is the recovery of a wrist watch allegedly belonging to the deceased on basis of which alone the conviction has been ordered. Invocation of the last seen theory is clearly unsustainable. The alleged recoveries of belongings of the deceased on confession of the appellant have all been disbelieved by the Trail Judge. The only incriminating material against the appellant is the recovery of a wrist watch allegedly belonging to the deceased on basis of which alone the conviction has been ordered. There has been gross mis-appreciation of evidence by the Trial Judge in failing to consider that P.W.19- Laduram who had signed the seizure memo for recovery of the watch (Ex.P/15) allegedly on the confession of the appellant deposed that the watch produced by the prosecution was not the same watch recovered and seized in his presence. The identification of the watch as belonging to the deceased by his brother P.W.17 Gopal, allegedly during TIP therefore becomes irrelevant. The conviction on basis of circumstantial evidence was thus not sustainable at all. 4. Counsel for the State submitted that in a case of a circumstantial evidence the last seen theory becomes important. Reliance was placed on the deposition of P.W.1- Narendra Singh, P.W.2- Laddu, P.W.3 Peer Mohammad, P.W.4- Madan Lal. It was next submitted that P.W.7- Bashir Mohammad stated that the appellant had told him that he did not know the deceased which was a false statement to the knowledge of the appellant. The making of a false statement by the appellant was an incriminating factor against him. Motive existed for the appellant to make the assault evident from the statement of his wife P.W.13- Madina under 161 Cr.P.C. that the appellant suspected illicit relations between his wife and the deceased. In a case of circumstantial evidence motive becomes relevant. 5. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties and perused the evidence on record. 6. In a case of circumstantial evidence it is necessary for the prosecution to establish beyond all reasonable doubt the link in chain of circumstances leading to the inevitable conclusion of the accused alone being the assailant and the only hypothesis possible must be for the guilt incompatible with any possibility of innocence. If there be any possibility that the occurrence may have taken place in some other manner or may have been committed by another and the links in the chain of circumstances is not complete benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused. 7. If there be any possibility that the occurrence may have taken place in some other manner or may have been committed by another and the links in the chain of circumstances is not complete benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused. 7. The last seen theory is a facet of circumstantial evidence. Reference for brevity in view of settled judicial precedents may be made to 2011 (4) Supreme 331 SK Yusuf v. State of West Bengal relied upon by the appellant. It comes into play where the time gap between the time an accused is last seen with the deceased alive and recovery of the body is so narrow that there is little possibility of any other person than the accused being the author of the crime. It then becomes the duty of the accused to explain the circumstances in which the death occurred. But before the theory can be invoked the prosecution must establish the complete link in the chain of circumstances with regard to the deceased having been last seen in the company of the accused and there must be no possibility of them having parted company or there being any other intervening circumstance. 8. P.W.1- Narendra Singh has stated having seen the appellant and the deceased together the previous morning. P.W.2- Laddu has stated being with the appellant after which they parted company but has not spoken of the presence of the deceased with them. Though the witness was declared hostile this part of his deposition is admissible in evidence. P.W.-3 Peer Mohammad stated having seen the appellant and the deceased together but has not mentioned the presence of P.W.2- Laddu. Likewise P.W.4- Madan Lal has stated of the appellant and the deceased being together along with a third person which may or may not have been the deceased. 9. An analysis of the evidence of the witnesses therefore leaves it in the realm of doubt that the deceased may have parted company with the appellant or may have gone away with P.W. 2 Laddu. If that be a possibility the last seen theory does not apply. 10. 9. An analysis of the evidence of the witnesses therefore leaves it in the realm of doubt that the deceased may have parted company with the appellant or may have gone away with P.W. 2 Laddu. If that be a possibility the last seen theory does not apply. 10. The only material on which the trial Court has convicted the appellant is that the watch of the deceased was recovered on his confession holding that denial by P.W.19- Ladu Ram that it was not the same watch seized in his presence was not very relevant since the witness may have had a fleeting glance only placing undue emphasis on identification of the watch by P.W.17-Gopal during TIP. The conclusion is not sustainable as it remains in the realm of speculation by the Trail Judge reversing the principle that it is for the prosecution to lead the best evidence and prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was in fact the same watch which was seized. In a case of circumstantial evidence motive is undoubtedly important but provided there is other surrounding evidence to support the prosecution allegation of the accused being the assailant of the deceased. P.W.13 Madina wife of the appellant has denied having made any statement to the police regarding illicit relations. 11. A wrong answer by an accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that he did not know the deceased Ram Kumar may be an incriminating factor against him but cannot suffice for conviction. The weakness of the defence under Section 313 Cr.P.C. cannot become the strength of the prosecution. The prosecution has to establish the charge on its own steam beyond all reasonable doubt. In view of our conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant based on the last seen theory or any other principle of circumstantial evidence, the fact that he may have made a statement which becomes an incriminating factor against him by itself in isolation cannot become a ground for conviction. The conduct of the appellant in not going in hiding and being at home at night before recovery of the body is also incompatible with his guilt. Normal behaviour would have been to abscond in the facts and circumstances. 12. The conduct of the appellant in not going in hiding and being at home at night before recovery of the body is also incompatible with his guilt. Normal behaviour would have been to abscond in the facts and circumstances. 12. The prosecution evidence is that the deceased was last seen with the appellant about 9:00 a.m. on 21.07.1983.The body was recovered early in the morning the next day and post mortem done at 7:45 a.m. opining that death took place 10 to 16 hours ago. The estimated time of death was therefore about between 4:00 pm to 7:45 pm the previous day. The wide variation of time for seven hours on a conservative estimate even when the deceased was last seen with the appellant and the estimated time of death leaves it a distinct possibility in the nature of other evidence that the deceased may have parted company with the appellant and possibly may have been assaulted by some other. In Prem Prakash Mundra v. State of Rajasthan 1998 SCC (Cri) 896 the accused was stated to have been last seen with the deceased about 8:00 pm and the dead body was found the next afternoon. The time gap around with surrounding circumstances was held to be insufficient to sustain conviction. 13. The last seen principle in any event all by itself cannot form the basis for conviction and will have to be considered with all surrounding circumstances. The iron pipe, cycle, milk cans and caps and the chain for tying the milk cans on the cycle allegedly belonging to the deceased and stated to have been recovered on the confession of the appellant have all been disbelieved by the Trial Judge. 14. We therefore find it difficult to sustain the conviction of the appellant in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is set aside and the appellant is set at liberty subject to his executing bail bonds along with two sureties for sum of Rs. 20,000/- to the satisfaction of the trial Court concerned within a period of two months under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. The appeal is allowed.