JUDGMENT : ALOK VERMA, J. This criminal appeal arises from judgment of conviction dated 3-9-2013, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bagli, District Dewas in Sessions Trial No. 83/12, whereby, learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under section 302, Indian Penal Code and sentenced her to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.50,000/- with rigorous imprisonment of 5 years in case there is a default in payment of fine. 2. It is undisputed that the appellant is wife of deceased Bhatu Bhil. It is also undisputed that Hindu Singh (PW/2) and Munnalal Bhil (PW/7) are sons of the appellant and the deceased. Ranjeet Singh (PW/11) is son-in-law of the appellant and the deceased. 3. According to the prosecution story, the report was lodged by Ray Singh (PW/10) that he came to know one day prior to lodging of the report in the morning that Saree of present appellant, which was pink in colour, was tied in his well, located on his field. He went to the field to verify the fact and he also informed other villagers regarding the Saree that he found in the well. They tried to locate the present appellant and on this, Gopal Singh (PW/4), who is son of sister of the present appellant, inquired about present appellant from Inder Singh Bhil (PW/12), who is son of brother of present appellant and living in village Thalghevatiya, District Dewas. He informed that Bharudbai was there in their home, and thereafter, Chhatar Singh (PW/6) came to village Gopipur and brought out the Saree of Bharudbai. When Ray Singh (PW/10) asked him why Saree was tied in the well, he informed that the appellant wanted to scare her husband putting him under an impression that she jumped into the well, and therefore, she tied the Saree in the well. Thereafter, they inquired from Hindu Singh (PW/2) about present appellant and the deceased, on which, he told them that on 15-12-2011, during night, some dispute occurred between the appellant and the deceased Bhatu Bhil, as the appellant wanted to go to some marriage and for that she wanted some money. Infuriated by refusal of the deceased, she gave blows by wrong side of an axe on left cheek, on back etc. and caused various injuries. His father was unconscious. Next day villagers came to take him to nearby hospital and found that he had already expired. 4. Infuriated by refusal of the deceased, she gave blows by wrong side of an axe on left cheek, on back etc. and caused various injuries. His father was unconscious. Next day villagers came to take him to nearby hospital and found that he had already expired. 4. On his report, the crime was registered at Crime No. 122/11 dated 17-12-2011 under section 302, Indian Penal Code. The spot map was prepared on 17-12-2011 at about 10.55 a.m. At 10.45 a.m. a stone was recovered, which was blood stained. Present appellant was arrested on 11.35 a.m. on the same day. Her disclosure memo was prepared at 11.45 a.m. and an axe and Saree was seized at 12.00 p.m. After due investigation, charge-sheet was filed. Learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charges under section 302, Indian Penal Code, recorded evidence of all the prosecution witnesses and examined the appellant under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code. No defence evidence was given, and therefore, passed the impugned judgment. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that this is a case of no evidence and should have been disposed of by learned Judge under section 232, Criminal Procedure Code. Instead, the judge convicted the present appellant, and therefore, the impugned judgment is not based on established principles of law. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State opposed the contention raised by counsel for the appellant and submits that the appeal should be dismissed, however, he fairly admits that all the prosecution witnesses have turned hostile and there is no oral evidence available against the appellant. 7. The question is whether the evidence available against the present appellant on record the conviction recorded by learned Sessions Judge sustains. The prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses. Hindu Singh (PW/2) is son and eye witness of the incident. When he was examined, he was 15 years of age. He did not support the prosecution story and turned hostile. He only said that one day prior to the incident, some dispute arose between her mother and father, however, he did not know what was the reason for dispute, and thereafter, he went to sleep. He said that during the night his father fell down from his bed, as he was under the influence of liquor and sustained injuries. Next day morning he got up and went to nearby forest for grazing the cattle. He said that during the night his father fell down from his bed, as he was under the influence of liquor and sustained injuries. Next day morning he got up and went to nearby forest for grazing the cattle. After declaring him hostile, he was put to cross-examination by prosecution. He admitted that he gave water to his father and he also admitted that his mother ran away from the house but he explained that his mother went away from the house because she was fearing that her husband would beat her. He also admitted that her mother tied the Saree in the well and remaining facts he denied. Balusingh (PW/3) is real brother of the deceased. He also did not support the prosecution story. Gopal Singh (PW/4) is son of sister of the present appellant. Radheyshyam (PW/5) is son of sister of the deceased. Chhatar Singh (PW/6) is son of brother of the deceased. Munnalal Bhil (PW/7) is son of the deceased. Ray Singh (PW/10) is a villager. Ranjeet Singh (PW/11) is son-in-law of the deceased. Indersingh (PW/12) is son of brother of present appellant. Munna Lal Bhilala (PW/13) is brother of brother of present appellant. All these witnesses were closely related to the deceased and turned hostile and did not support the prosecution story. 8. Learned Additional Sessions Judge proceeded on the theory of last seen together. In our considered opinion, learned Sessions Judge erred in applying the theory of last seen together because, if we apply that theory, Hindu Singh (PW/2) was the person, who remained in the house after the appellant left her house in the night. He was the person, who lastly saw the deceased. He did not support the story that present appellant caused injury by giving the deceased blows by axe, and therefore, theory of last seen together is not applicable on the present appellant. 9. Learned Sessions Judge also applied theory of circumstantial evidence. However, in this case, recovery of the axe from bushes nearby is highly doubtful. Seizure memo of axe is Ex.P/20. 9. Learned Sessions Judge also applied theory of circumstantial evidence. However, in this case, recovery of the axe from bushes nearby is highly doubtful. Seizure memo of axe is Ex.P/20. By the same memo, the Saree was also seized, however, seizure of the Saree does not cover under the provisions of section 27 Evidence Act, as the existence of Saree in the well was already known to all the prosecution witnesses and seizure of the Saree created a doubt in mind of the Court that the prosecution tried to implicate the present appellant by creating false evidence against her. Munnalal (PW/13) is the witness of seizure memo Ex.P/20. He did not support the prosecution case that before him the disclosure memo was prepared and the axe was seized. This apart, Hindu Singh (PW/2) did not say even in his statement under section 161, Criminal Procedure Code that after the incident, the appellant ran away with the axe. His statement is Ex.P/2, in which, there is no mention that the appellant ran away from her house with the axe. This apart, it seems highly unnatural that wife using the axe of his own house would hide it in a nearby bush before running away from the house knowing fully well that her son had already witnessed the incident. 10. This apart, the story of prosecution itself is paradoxical. On the one hand, they tried to say that after the incident she tied the Saree in the well to scare the deceased giving him an impression that she jumped into the well. If, that was the reason, then it must have been in her mind that the deceased was alive and he would scare when he would realise that the appellant had jumped into the well. On the other hand, it is said that knowing that she was committing murder of the deceased, she took the axe with a view to destroy the evidence. 11. Her subsequent conduct also does not indicate that she had in mind that the deceased had expired. She did not run away but went to house of her brother in a neighbouring village, which must have been very normal for her to do, because when she was not found in the village, everybody contacted family of her brother and this also indicates that she had no knowledge that the deceased had already expired. She did not run away but went to house of her brother in a neighbouring village, which must have been very normal for her to do, because when she was not found in the village, everybody contacted family of her brother and this also indicates that she had no knowledge that the deceased had already expired. This apart, conduct of Hindu Singh (PW/2) is also unnatural. The incident, according to prosecution story, took place in the night of 15-12-2011. If it is believed the story of Hindu Singh (PW/2) as it is he gave to prosecution on 16-12-2011 morning, the whole day he did not check his father, though, he saw him gravely injured in the night itself. The injuries found on head of the deceased was such that there must have been profuse bleeding after the incident. It was not normal for a child of 12-13 years to remain silent even after seeing his father so gravely injured. Apart from this, on 16/12/2011 also he did not bother to check about his father and that also indicated that he was not an eye witness of the incident. 12. Apart from the oral evidence and recovery of axe, which is highly doubtful, no other legal evidence is available in this appeal. 13. Counsel for the appellant also relied on the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Anjlus Dungdung vs. State of Jharkhand, 2005 Cr.LR (SC) 72, in which, it was held that the murder took place due to some land dispute and conviction was based on circumstantial evidence. The recovery of blood stained weapon was not supported by seizure witnesses. The circumstantial evidence is not sufficient to convict the person. He also placed reliance on Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Gatti Ram @ Mani Ram vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2007 Cr.LR (MP) 557, in which, it was held that when evidence of last seen together found reliable, however, the witness of recovery of blood stained knife enclosed not supported the prosecution witness, the blood stained clothes were not referred for chemical examination, human blood was found on the knife but its group was not matched with that of deceased, and therefore, it was held that chain of circumstances, which the prosecution required to prove, in case of conviction based on circumstantial evidence was not complete. In the present case also, there is no evidence to connect the present appellant with the crime. The only admitted fact is here Saree, which was found in the well alone do not indicate her guilt. Rather it appears that she intended to jump into the well being harassed by behaviour of the deceased, and however, at 11th hour, she changed her mind and went to his brother’s house. The injuries were also found her body, which indicate that she was also subjected to beating by the deceased. This apart, the prosecutrix also failed to explain existence of a blood stained stone found from the spot. No explanation was given how this stone came in side the house and how it got blood stains on it. 14. In these circumstance, in our considered view, this appeal deserves to be allowed and hereby allowed. The conviction and sentence awarded by learned Additional Sessions Judge is hereby set-aside. The present appellant is acquitted from the charge under section 302, Indian Penal Code. The appellant shall be released from jail forthwith, if her presence is not required in any other case. The seized property being valueless be destroyed. The appeal stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules.