ORDER : 1. The Appellant herein was made accused No. 1 along with three accused persons namely Bhangi - A2 (mother of accused No. 1), Gajaraban - A3 (sister of accused No. 1) and Bhangi Maniben Maganbhai - A4 (brother of accused No. 1) and was charged for committing offence punishable Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the "Indian Penal Code"). The case set up by the prosecution against these accused persons was that they were residing at Nava - Sampra/Mahadevpura village, Taluka Vagdod, District Patan. All the four accused persons pleaded not guilty. Prosecution examined certain witnesses. The defence did not put any defence witnesses but made statement Under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, the 'Code of Criminal Procedure') expressing their innocence and stating that they were falsely implicated in the case. Significantly, insofar as accused No. 3, sister of the Appellant/accused No. 1, is concerned, in her statement Under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, she had stated that she was having illicit sexual relationship with the deceased but had expressed her unwillingness to marry him because of the reason that they were related to each other. Accused No. 3 was earlier married to somebody else and had divorced him. The case which was sought to be projected on the basis of the above, was that possibly after accused No. 3 had shunned the proposal of marriage by the deceased, he had committed suicide. The post-mortem of the deceased was conducted and in the opinion of the doctor, the death was caused by strangulation. Having regard to the circumstances under which the body of the deceased Ramesh was found hanging, it was also opined by the doctor that it cannot be the case of suicide, but it was a case of homicide. 2. We may mention at this stage that there were no eye-witnesses. However, the trial court, while acquitting accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4, convicted accused No. 1 (Appellant herein), on the basis of circumstantial evidence that had appeared against the Appellant. The conviction has been upheld by the High Court as well by the impugned judgment. 3. As it is the case of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution was required to produce evidence leading to the culpability of the Appellant herein forming unbroken chain of the events leading to such culpability. The conviction has been upheld by the High Court as well by the impugned judgment. 3. As it is the case of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution was required to produce evidence leading to the culpability of the Appellant herein forming unbroken chain of the events leading to such culpability. As per the courts below, such culpability has been established in view of the following circumstances appearing against the Appellant: (1) The deceased was found hanging in the hut belonging to the mother of the Appellant. (2) The Appellant had gone to the house of the deceased, which is 200 kms. away, to inform the members of his family that the deceased was suffering from Diarrhea. This conduct of the Appellant is found to be strange and questionable inasmuch as for such trifle disease like Diarrhea, nobody would travel to a distance of 200 kms. to inform his family members. On the contrary, the Appellant could himself arrange medical treatment for the deceased which he did not do. Therefore, the conduct of the Appellant was not natural. (3) The defence put by sister of the Appellant that she was having illicit sexual relationship with the deceased was put only to project the case as if Ramesh has committed suicide and this aspect was negated by the medical evidence. (4) It was also the case of the prosecution that the motive for crime was that the deceased Ramesh had advanced money to the Appellant from time to time and as the Appellant did not want to return the said money, he committed murder of Ramesh. In this behalf, the trial court as well as the High Court candidly accepted that no evidence is led to the effect that such money was advanced by Ramesh to the Appellant. However, according to the High Court, once there were other sufficient circumstances pointed out to the guilt of the Appellant, absence of motive would not have any adverse affect on the case of the prosecution and in this behalf, the High Court referred to the judgment of this Court in the case of Mulakh Raj, etc. vs. Satish Kumar and Others, AIR 1992 SC 1175 : 1992 (2) SCR 484 . 4. vs. Satish Kumar and Others, AIR 1992 SC 1175 : 1992 (2) SCR 484 . 4. Challenging the aforesaid conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court, it was argued by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the aforesaid factors do not form complete chain of events leading to the culpability of the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, the conviction of the Appellant cannot be sustained. 5. Learned Counsel for the Respondent-State, on the other hand, sought to justify the reasons given by the courts below in support of the conviction of the Appellant. 6. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and going through the record, we are of the opinion that there is merit in the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the Appellant and in the present case, where conviction rests only on the circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has not been able to produce sufficient evidence which would lead to the conclusion beyond reasonable doubt that the Appellant is responsible for the murder of Ramesh. 7. As already mentioned above, the case of the prosecution rested primarily on the ground that Ramesh had lent money to the Appellant and the Appellant did not want to return the said money. Admittedly, no evidence is produced in this behalf. 8. Insofar as presence of the deceased Ramesh in the hut belonging to the Appellant's mother is concerned, it has come on record that because the parties were related to each other, Ramesh was frequently visiting the house/hut of mother of the Appellant. It would be pertinent to point out at this stage that the Appellant was not residing in the said hut which belonged to his mother. 9. As far as story of illicit sexual relationship between Ramesh and accused No. 3 - sister of the Appellant is concerned, this is not the case set up by the prosecution. On the contrary, that was the defence put up by accused No. 3. If the said defence is to be believed, then it has to be believed in toto and this defence witness only stated that after she had refused to marry the deceased and he committed suicide. On the contrary, that was the defence put up by accused No. 3. If the said defence is to be believed, then it has to be believed in toto and this defence witness only stated that after she had refused to marry the deceased and he committed suicide. In any case, the statement of co-accused would neither point to the Appellant nor it points out to the culpability of the Appellant as it is not the case of the prosecution that the Appellant committed murder of deceased after knowing that his sister was having illicit relationship with the deceased. 10. In view of the aforesaid, the only circumstance which is projected against the Appellant is that he had gone to the house of Ramesh at Ahmedabad to inform about the sickness of Ramesh. His conduct was not natural. It may be so. However, that conduct by itself is not sufficient to connect the Appellant to the commission of crime particularly in the absence of any direct evidence. 11. This Court in Pawan Kumar alias Monu Mittal vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, 2015 (7) SCC 148 : AIR 2015 SC 2050 , has stated the principle of law by observing that where direct evidence is scarce or unavailable, the burden of proving the case of prosecution is bestowed upon motive and: circumstantial evidence. It is the chain of events that acquires prime importance in such cases. In the present case, as already mentioned above, the prosecution has not produced any evidence in support of the alleged motive. 12. Only one circumstance, if at all, stands proved. It is the conduct of the Appellant in travelling to Ahmedabad and informing about the sickness of the deceased. As pointed out above, this by itself is not sufficient to connect the accused to the guilt of the commission of the offence. 13. The evidence brought on record by the prosecution is, therefore, not convincing and does not prove the guilt of the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt. In view of the above, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned judgment passed by the High Court. The Appellant is already on bail. His bail-bonds stand discharged.