JUDGMENT : Mohammad Rafiq, J. This appeal seeks to challenge judgment and order dated 06.08.2013 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramganjmandi, District Kota (for short 'the trial court') whereby the accused-appellant Mahaveer Kevat was convicted for offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default whereof he was to further undergo simple imprisonment of six months. 2. Facts of the case are that Dhanraj Kevat (P.W.3) at 1.00 A.M. on 22.02.2008 submitted a written report (Exhibit P-5) to S.H.O., Police Station Kanwas, District Kota alleging that deceased Govind had come to village Rupaheda for taking part in the feast of the 'kevat' community on 17.02.2008 and was staying with maternal uncle Chauthmal @ Chauthraj (P.W.8). The deceased Govind had gone along with Chauthmal @ Chauthraj (P.W.8) around 3-4 A.M. on 20.02.2008 to the river bed wherefrom sand is collected for the purpose of masonry construction. They met Mahaveer Kevat son of Bherulal Kevat in the river bed. Thereafter, all three of them went to Dhanaheda on tractor, which was being driven by Amar Lal Nayak. Chauthmal @ Chauthraj (P.W.8) gave sum of Rs. 100/- to Govind for bringing meat. Govind and Mahaveer together went on tractor for Sangod whereas Chauthmal @ Chauthraj (P.W.8) stayed back at Dhanaheda. While Chauthmal @ Chauthraj (P.W.8) returned back to his house at about 5.00 P.M. on that day, but Mahaveer and Govind did not turn up till late in the evening. Mahaveer around 10-11 P.M. came to the house of informant. The informant enquired from Mahaveer about Govind as to why he has not come back, Mahaveer thereupon told that he had left him at bridge of Sangod. When informant still insisted on clear reply, Mahaveer gave explanation that Govind had alighted from the vehicle at Village Laxmipura. Thereafter, when the informant and other family members still insisted that he should speak the truth, Mahaveer stated that he lastly saw Govind in the colony of Khatiks in Sangod. When they further pressurised him at about 8-9 A.M. on the following day, i.e. 21.02.2008, he stated that Govind had alighted from the vehicle at village Dhanaheda and he did not know anything more. Contradictory answers given by Mahaveer raised doubt against him. Even then, informant and other family members kept searching for Govind for 7-8 hours. When they further pressurised him at about 8-9 A.M. on the following day, i.e. 21.02.2008, he stated that Govind had alighted from the vehicle at village Dhanaheda and he did not know anything more. Contradictory answers given by Mahaveer raised doubt against him. Even then, informant and other family members kept searching for Govind for 7-8 hours. Rukmani (P.W.7) and Nandu Bai (P.W.10) saw the dead body of Govind near the bridge of Kali Sindh river in agricultural field of Mahaveer. Both the them came crying to village Rupaheda. On hearing their hue and cry, several people assembled in agricultural field of Mahaveer. People turned around the body of the deceased, which was covered by a shawl. Informant and others expressed doubt that Mahaveer might have sodomised him and thereafter, put him to death by strangulation. 3. The police on the basis of aforesaid report, registered regular FIR No. 22/2008 (Exhibit P-6) for offences under Sections 302 and 377 IPC and commenced investigation. During the course of investigation, accused-appellant was arrested. Charge sheet was filed against him for offence under Section 302 IPC. Investigation was kept pending with respect to offence under Section 377 IPC, awaiting report of Forensic Science Laboratory. The trial court framed charges against the accused-appellant under Section 302 IPC, which the appellant denied and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined 20 witnesses and got exhibited 18 documents. Thereafter, statement of the accused- appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the trial court wherein he pleaded innocence. No witness was produced by the appellant in his defence. The trial court, on conclusion of the trial, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide impugned judgment dated 06.08.2013 as indicated hereinabove. 4. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant argued that the trial court has proceeded on wrong assumption of facts and misconception of law while recording conviction of the appellant. There was no sufficient evidence to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond doubt, still the learned trial court has convicted the appellant. Evidence of Rukmani Devi (P.W.7) shows that there is no reason for conviction of the appellant and chain of circumstances is not so complete as to point the guilt of the appellant . There was no sufficient evidence to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond doubt, still the learned trial court has convicted the appellant. Evidence of Rukmani Devi (P.W.7) shows that there is no reason for conviction of the appellant and chain of circumstances is not so complete as to point the guilt of the appellant . There is no evidence of last seen or any other evidence to complete the chain of circumstances in this case and in absence thereof, conviction of the appellant cannot be recorded by the trial court. The trial court has not considered that incident took place on 17.02.2008 but complainant lodged FIR after five days on 22.02.2008. As per FIR, statements of witnesses and circumstances of the case, no case is made out under Section 302 IPC against the accused-appellant. The complainant and other witnesses stated that they reached on the spot at the time of incident and that time dead body of deceased was lying near Kali Sindh river. They expressed doubt that sodomy was committed with the deceased by accused-appellant but sign mark regarding sodomy on the deceased body and swab were sent to FSL, which was not substantiated by FSL report and the police did not file challan under Section 377 IPC against the accused-appellant. 5. It is argued that Rukmani Devi (P.W.7) stated that she went to Rupaheda on 17.02.2008 to attend social feast in her brother's house and on second day, her son Govind went with Mahaveer and thereafter, he was not found. But Chauthmal @ Chauthraj (P.W.8) and other witnesses deposed that deceased went with Mahaveer on 20.02.2008 and as per post mortem conducted by doctor on 22.02.2008, deceased died about 24 to 36 hour before the time of post mortem about 11-12 P.M., which means that Govind died in night of 20.02.2008 in this case, while Rukmani Devi (P.W.7) stated that she saw the deceased on 17.02.2008 with the accused. Therefore, chain of circumstances in the present case is not complete. Learned counsel argued that 'safi' was recovered from possession of the accused-appellant in presence of eye witnesses like Nand Kishore, Rambharos Yadav and Bherulal, but they have not supported case of the prosecution and gave different versions. Therefore, chain of circumstances in the present case is not complete. Learned counsel argued that 'safi' was recovered from possession of the accused-appellant in presence of eye witnesses like Nand Kishore, Rambharos Yadav and Bherulal, but they have not supported case of the prosecution and gave different versions. Besides, 'safi' was recovered from possession of the accused-appellant by the police after seven days and at that time, no family member was present in the house of accused whereas other witnesses stated that family members of the accused were also present in the house of accused at that time and actual 'safi' was not recovered from possession of the present accused-appellant and false recovery has been made by the concerned police against the accused. The complainant and other family members admitted that there was no enmity between the accused and the deceased. 6. Learned counsel argued that the accused-appellant gave different versions about deceased, but the trial court did not consider that last seen was not there with the accused person and complete chain was also not there in the present case. Total twenty witnesses have been examined in this case, but none of them has supported the prosecution case or last seen theory. Badri Lal, an important witness, stated that he saw the deceased with the accused, but in court statement he did not support the story of the prosecution. There are major contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and there is no witness, who supported the case of the prosecution. The trial court has not discussed as to how the chain of circumstances is complete, so as to point the guilt of the accused. The trial court has recorded conviction of the accused-appellant on mere surmises whereas in the case of circumstantial evidence, every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved shall be excluded. Therefore, guilt of the accused-appellant was not established beyond doubt. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that as per the averments in the FIR as also from the statement of Dhanraj (P.W.3) that feast of kevat community was organised on 17.02.2008, which fact is borne out from the written report (Exhibit P-5). Dhanraj (P.W.3) in his cross-examination categorically stated that he did not see the deceased Govind lastly in the company of accused Mahaveer. There was no basis for him to allege that Mahaveer killed him. Dhanraj (P.W.3) in his cross-examination categorically stated that he did not see the deceased Govind lastly in the company of accused Mahaveer. There was no basis for him to allege that Mahaveer killed him. This witness in cross-examination further admitted that he lodged FIR at the askance of Chauthmal @ Chauthraj (P.W.8), Nandu Bai (P.W.10) and Rukmani (P.W.7). Rukmani (P.W.7) which also proves that feast of kevat community was organised on 17.02.2008 and that Mahaveer brought Govind with him on 18.02.2008. Rukmani (P.W.7) also stated that Govind met Mahaveer on 18.02.2008 whereas informant Dhanraj (P.W.3) stated that Rukmani (P.W.7) and Nandu Bai (P.W.10) came to his house to enquire about the deceased. Badrilal (P.W.-11) has turned hostile. Rukmani (P.W.7) further stated that Mahaveer did not have any enmity with Govind. Chauthmal @ Chauthraj (P.W.8) has stated that he saw Mahaveer taking both at the river. Mahaveer happens to be real brother of Rukmani (P.W.7). He asked Rukmani on 18.02.2008 about Govind whereas information about his death came 4-5 days thereafter on 23.02.2008. Nandu Bai (P.W.10) in her statement did not mention as to on which date Govind went with Mahaveer and when did he die. 8. It is argued that apart from evidence of deceased being lastly seen in the company of accused-appellant, which also stands on weak footing in view of statements of various prosecution witnesses, which are marred by inconsistencies and contradictions, there is no other circumstance. Chain of circumstances against the accused-appellant does not become complete and the same has got several missing links. Father of the deceased, whose statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the police, was not produced as a witness. Prosecution has thus withheld material witnesses. Learned counsel for the appellant, in support of his arguments, relied on decisions of the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Satveer & Others, (2015) 9 SCC 44 ; State of Karnataka Vs. Chand Basha, 2015 Cr.L.R. (SC) 1040 and decision of this Court in State of Rajasthan Vs. Jankilal & Another, 2015 (4) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1858. 9. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the appeal and supported the judgment passed by the trial court. It is argued that as per the statements of prosecution witnesses, especially Dhanraj (P.W.3); Rukmani (P.W.7), Nandu Bai (P.W.10); Dr. Jaswant Singh Chauhan (P.W.12) and other witnesses, guilt of the accused-appellant stood proved beyond reasonable doubt. 9. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the appeal and supported the judgment passed by the trial court. It is argued that as per the statements of prosecution witnesses, especially Dhanraj (P.W.3); Rukmani (P.W.7), Nandu Bai (P.W.10); Dr. Jaswant Singh Chauhan (P.W.12) and other witnesses, guilt of the accused-appellant stood proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is, therefore, prayed that present appeal may be dismissed. 10. We have given our anxious consideration to rival submissions, carefully scanned the material on record and studied the judgments cited at the Bar. 11. The prosecution, in the present case, initially started investigating the case for offence under Section 302 as well as Section 377 IPC, but charge sheet against the accused-appellant was filed only for offence under Section 302 IPC. Dhanraj kevat (P.W.3) is the star witness of the prosecution case. He has stated that he knew Govind, who was resident of village Thirth and had come to village Rupaheda on 17.02.2008 to take part in the feast of Kevat community. They went to the river bed of Kali Sindh along with Chauthmal @ Chauthraj (P.W.8). Chauthmal @ Chauthraj (P.W.8) gave a sum of Rs. 100/- to Govind for bringing meat. While Chauthmal @ Chauthraj (P.W.8) returned back home around 3.00-4.00 P.M., Govind and Mahaveer did not come back. And Mahaveer returned back on the following day, but Govind did not come. On enquiry, Mahaveer stated that he has left him at the over bridge of Sangod. Second time, he told that he has left him at Laxmipura. Third time, he told that he has left him in the agricultural fields of Sangod in Khatiko Ka Mohalla. Dead body of the deceased was seen by Rukmani (P.W.7) and Nandu Bai (P.W.10) in the agricultural field of Bherulal, father of Mahaveer. In cross examination this witness stated that he has not lastly seen the deceased with the accused Mahaveer. 12. Rukmani (P.W.7) has stated that feast of kevat community was organised at Rupaheda. Her sister's son Govind also came to attend that feast. On the second day of the feast, Mahaveer took Govind with him. Chauthmal @ Chauthraj (P.W.8) also accompanied them. Govind did not turn up till the evening. She enquired Chauthmal @ Chauthraj (P.W.8) about Govind, then he told that Mahaveer had taken Govind with him. Her sister's son Govind also came to attend that feast. On the second day of the feast, Mahaveer took Govind with him. Chauthmal @ Chauthraj (P.W.8) also accompanied them. Govind did not turn up till the evening. She enquired Chauthmal @ Chauthraj (P.W.8) about Govind, then he told that Mahaveer had taken Govind with him. When she went to Mahaveer to enquire about Govind, he stated that he left him at over bridge of Laxmipura. When she insisted that he should accompany her, Mahaveer was afraid. Thereafter, when she went to the river bed, Badrilal met there, who stated that Mahaveer has murdered Govind. Then they went to agricultural field and found dead body of Govind there. In cross examination, this witness stated that she did not have any enmity with Mahaveer. 13. Chauthmal @ Chauthraj has appeared as P.W.8 and stated that his sister and her son Sonu @ Govind had come to village Rupaheda to take part in the feast of Kevat community. He along with Govind went to river bed of Kali Sindh to take bath. They met Mahaveer there. He specifically stated that he gave a sum of Rs. 100/- to Mahaveer for purchasing meat. Mahaveer had put a white colour Towel (Safi) around his neck. Then he kept waiting for them at Ghanaheda and when they did not come, he returned to his house. Her sister Rukmani asked about Govind, he told her that Govind had gone with Mahaveer. When he and his sister asked Mahaveer for Govind, he initially stated that he had left him at over bridge of Sangod. When further enquries were made, he stated that he left Govind at Ghanaheda. Thereafter, Mahaveer became perplexed. In cross examination, a suggestion was put to him that whether Govind could have died due to snake biting or consuming liquor, he denied the same for want of knowledge. 14. Nandu Bai (P.W.10) is another important witness. She stated that Govind had come to their village to take part in the feast of their community. Mahaveer called both her son Chauthmal @ Chauthraj (P.W.8) and Govind. Chauthmal @ Chauthraj (P.W.8) gave a sum of Rs. 100/- to Govind. Chauthmal @ Chauthraj (P.W.8) returned back at 5 O' clock in the evening. On enquiry from Chauthmal @ Chauthraj (P.W.8), he informed that he left Govind and Mahaveer on route and thereafter, Govind did not return back. Mahaveer called both her son Chauthmal @ Chauthraj (P.W.8) and Govind. Chauthmal @ Chauthraj (P.W.8) gave a sum of Rs. 100/- to Govind. Chauthmal @ Chauthraj (P.W.8) returned back at 5 O' clock in the evening. On enquiry from Chauthmal @ Chauthraj (P.W.8), he informed that he left Govind and Mahaveer on route and thereafter, Govind did not return back. When they went out to search him, Mahaveer told him that he left Govind at Sangod. 15. The trial court, on the basis of statements of these witnesses and other evidence, has convicted accused-appellant solely on the basis of last seen evidence because it concluded that accused-appellant failed to give any satisfactory explanation as to when he parted company with the deceased. 16. FSL report dated 23.09.2008 was produced subsequently wherein semen was not found to have been detected in Exhibit-2 from Packet marked B, which was pubic hair and Exhibit-3 from packet marked X was rectal swab. The trial court, therefore, concluded that there was no evidence to the fact that the deceased was sodomised before he was put to death. Post mortem report (Exhibit P-7), however, opined that cause of death of Govind was due to asphyxia because of strangulation. The trial court then noted statement of Ram Bharos Yadav (P.W.4), who was attesting witness of the arrest memo of the accused (Exhibit P-9) and also recovery of towel (safi) vide Exhibit P-10, but it was not found to contain any blood. Bherulal (P.W.6) was another attesting witness of recovery of towel (safi) (Exhibit P-10). This kind of cloth is generally carried by villagers. These two attesting witnesses also admitted that the house from where recovery of towel was shown was not owned by accused-appellant Mahaveer and his parents and other family members were also staying there with him. 17. Amar Singh (P.w.9), driver of the tractor also stated that he had carried the accused-appellant and one more person on his tractor, but then he stated that several other persons also boarded on his tractor. This witness was declared hostile. In cross-examination he stated that both of them alighted from the tractor, but he did not know their names. Badri Lal (P.W.11) has stated that when he was at his agricultural field, at that time, Mahaveer passed through his agricultural field in drunken condition. This witness was declared hostile. In cross-examination he stated that both of them alighted from the tractor, but he did not know their names. Badri Lal (P.W.11) has stated that when he was at his agricultural field, at that time, Mahaveer passed through his agricultural field in drunken condition. Mahaveer was carrying one 'safi' which he identified in test identification proceedings conducted by Tehsildar as Article-1. The prosecution sought to prove extra judicial confession of the appellant in presence of this witness, but in cross examination he denied the suggestion that Mahaveer, while passing through his agricultural field, confessed that he had committed murder of one boy. Dr. Jaswant Singh Chauhan (P.W.12) was one of the members of the medical board, which conducted post mortem of the deceased. He has proved post mortem report (Exhibit P-7). 18. Analysis of the evidence made above would clearly show that the prosecution has failed to prove that the deceased was sodomised and in fact, no charge sheet against accused-appellant was filed for offence under Section 377 IPC. Recovery of 'safi' at the instance of accused-appellant from his house, which was in joint possession of entire family, cannot be taken as an incriminating circumstance against him because this safi was recovered from the joint house and not from exclusive possession of the accused-appellant. Besides, the ‘safi’ also did not contain any blood stains and such safi is usually carried by the villagers. There is no other evidence against the accused-appellant, except that of last seen. We have to therefore examine whether on the solitary evidence of last seen, conviction of the accused-appellant can be sustained. 19. The Supreme Court in Prakash Vs. State of Karnataka, (2014) 12 SCC 133 was dealing with a case where the High Court reversed acquittal of the accused therein and the accused filed appeal there against before the Supreme Court. Allegation in that case was that accused Prakash was present at the house of the deceased at about 1.00 P.M. on 05.11.1990 and was thus last seen with him. The Supreme Court concluded that it does not necessarily follow that he was present at 8.00 P.M. at deceased's house on that day. There was, thus, absence of some degree of trustworthiness and certainty about Prakash's presence at deceased's house at that point of time. The Supreme Court concluded that it does not necessarily follow that he was present at 8.00 P.M. at deceased's house on that day. There was, thus, absence of some degree of trustworthiness and certainty about Prakash's presence at deceased's house at that point of time. The Supreme Court held that the view taken by the trial court giving benefit of doubt to the deceased was plausible view and in the absence of any perversity in the view taken, the High Court ought not to have upset the conclusion arrived at. 20. In Krishnan alias Ramasamy & Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2014) 12 SCC 279 , there was contradictory versions of prosecution witnesses as to where deceased was last seen with the accused. There was no other positive material on record to show that the deceased was last seen with the accused and during intervening period of seven days, there was nobody in contact with the deceased. There was contradiction about the place where the accused was last seen with the deceased. Conviction of the accused therein based on last seen together theory was set aside. 21. In State of Rajasthan Vs. Sanjay, (2014) 2 SCC 398, this Court set aside conviction of the accused, which was based on the evidence of last seen and the State filed appeal there against before the Supreme Court. One of the prosecution witnesses therein, Dinesh (P.W.10) had seen the deceased aged about 10 years going along with the accused aged about 24 years. Mahesh (P.W.13) therein spoke that he saw the deceased talking to the accused. Trial court convicted the accused for offence under Section 302 IPC. This Court disbelieved P.W. 10 and P.W.13 regarding last seen theory of prosecution because there was contradiction between the statement made by P.W.10 in his examination-in-chief and his cross-examination. Similarly, there was contradiction in statement of P.W.13. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly reversed findings of the trial court. 22. The Supreme Court in Ashok Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2015) 4 SCC 393 held that initial burden of proof is on prosecution to adduce sufficient evidence pointing towards guilt of accused. Similarly, there was contradiction in statement of P.W.13. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly reversed findings of the trial court. 22. The Supreme Court in Ashok Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2015) 4 SCC 393 held that initial burden of proof is on prosecution to adduce sufficient evidence pointing towards guilt of accused. However, in case it is established that accused was last seen together with the deceased, the prosecution is exempted to prove exact happening of incident as the accused himself would have special knowledge of incident and thus, would have burden of proof as per Section 106 of the Evidence Act. But, last seen together itself is not conclusive proof but along with other circumstances surrounding the incident, like relations between accused and deceased, enmity between them, previous history of hostility, recovery of weapon from accused, etc. non- explanation of death of deceased, etc. may lead to a presumption of guilt of accused. In that case, no other clinching evidence was produced by the prosecution in support of the last seen together theory so as to shift burden of proof onto accused. 23. The Supreme Court in Kanhaiya Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2014) 4 SCC 715 was dealing with a case where last seen together was the only circumstantial evidence against the accused. It was held that circumstance of last seen together does not by itself necessarily lead to inference that it was accused, who committed crime. There must be something more establishing connection between accused and crime, that points to guilt of accused and none less. Mere non-explanation of being last seen together with deceased person on part of accused, by itself cannot lead to proof of guilt against him. Conviction of the accused-appellant therein was reversed. 24. In the present case only circumstance that is proved against the appellant is that of last seen, which is not based on eye witness count. In the case of circumstantial evidence, there has to be ample number of circumstances, which when joined together should form a chain of circumstances so complete as to rule out any other possible hypothesis that may be compatible with the innocence of the accused. There ought to be multiple circumstances to form a chain of circumstances. One circumstance alone by itself cannot form a chain of circumstances. There ought to be multiple circumstances to form a chain of circumstances. One circumstance alone by itself cannot form a chain of circumstances. Last seen together is the only evidence in the case, without there being something more to establish connection between accused and crime, such as relations between accused and deceased, enmity between them, previous history of hostility, recovery of weapon from accused, non-explanation of death of deceased, etc. Evidence of last seen alone may not be sufficient to hold the accused-appellant guilty of so serious offence as that of murder. 25. In the result, present appeal deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly allowed. Impugned judgment dated 06.08.2013 passed by the trial court in Sessions Case No. 24/2008 is set aside. Conviction and sentence of accused-appellant for offence under Section 302 IPC is also set aside. He is acquitted of all the charges. He is in Jail and be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. 26. Keeping, however, in view the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant, namely, Mahaveer Kevat is directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount, before the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, which shall be effective for a period of six months, undertaking that in the event of Special Leave Petition being filed against this judgment or on grant of leave, he, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court.