JUDGMENT : 1. The Sessions Judge, Kodagu, by his judgment dated 21.11.2013 in S.C.24/2013 convicted the accused for the offences under sections 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- with a default clause of three years imprisonment for the offence under section 302 IPC; and rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs.10,000/- with default clause of rigorous imprisonment for one year in relation to offence under section 201 IPC. Aggrieved by this judgment, the accused has preferred this appeal. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is as follows : - 2. On 28.11.2012 PW14 Cheluvuraju and PW15 Shankar felt a foul smell in the cardamom estate of PW2 Anil Ponnappa, their employer. They went to the place from where this smell was emanating and saw a dead body. They informed PW2 about it. Thereafter PW2 also came to that place, saw the dead body and then informed the same to the police in writing. The police registered an FIR against unknown persons, held investigation and filed charge sheet against the accused. 3. The learned trial judge, based on the evidence of 24 witnesses, 19 documents marked as per Exs.P1 to P19 and 4 material objects MO1 to MO4, concluded that the prosecution was able to prove all the circumstances pointing to the accused to have been involved in the incident and therefore convicted and sentenced him as above. 4. The learned Sessions Judge has held that the following five circumstances have been proved by the prosecution : - (a) Dead body was found in the land of PW2 (b) The dead body was identified by PWs7, 8, 9 and 16 as that of deceased Francis D’Souza. (c) An attempt made by the accused to implicate his brother by writing an application as per Ex.P7. (d) Recovery of the weapon of the offence at the instance of the accused. (e) Medical and forensic evidence 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused and the Additional State Public Prosecutor. 6. There is no dispute that the dead body was found in a pit situated in an estate belonging to PW2-Anil Ponnappa. There is no dispute that the dead body was that of one Francis D’Souza and therefore there is no need to examine the findings given by the learned Sessions Judge on these two aspects. 6. There is no dispute that the dead body was found in a pit situated in an estate belonging to PW2-Anil Ponnappa. There is no dispute that the dead body was that of one Francis D’Souza and therefore there is no need to examine the findings given by the learned Sessions Judge on these two aspects. But, the other three circumstances require reconsideration. Even with regard to seizure of Ex.P7 and the weapon at the instance of the accused, the findings given by the Sessions Judge cannot be assailed although it was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the seizures do not get established as the independent witnesses examined by the prosecution have not supported. PW17 has deposed that on 28.11.2012, when he was driving his jeep to go to Somwarapete, the accused met him near Igoor Junction at about 8.45 am and told him that his brother had killed his friend and requested him (PW17) to write an application as he had seen that incident. They both went to Somwarapete where PW17 wrote the application as per Ex.P7. The next day the police summoned him to the station and asked him whether Ex.P7 was in his handwriting and to this question he answered in affirmative. PW24, the investigation officer, has deposed that he seized the letter Ex.P7 by writing mahazar as per Ex.P6. The seizure of Ex.P7 under mahazar as per Ex.P6 is also established by independent witness PW12. 7. There is another mahazar drawn as per Ex.P5 in relation to seizing a ‘kaththi’ marked MO3. The independent witnesses examined in this behalf are PW10 and 11, but they have not supported the prosecution; however, it is established through the investigation officer PW24. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that Ex.P5 cannot be held to be proved as the independent witnesses have not testified the seizure. This argument is countered by the Additional Special Public Prosecutor; according to him the independent witnesses some times turn hostile for obvious reasons and if the evidence of the investigation officer is found trust worthy, it can be accepted. He also stressed the point that the recovery of MO3 was at the instance of the accused himself; he gave a voluntary statement, the portion leading to discovery is marked as P18. He also stressed the point that the recovery of MO3 was at the instance of the accused himself; he gave a voluntary statement, the portion leading to discovery is marked as P18. If the findings of the learned Sessions Judge in this regard are seen, it appears that he has given cogent reasons for accepting the evidence of PW24 with regard to recovery of MO3 and we do not find any infirmity in it. The learned Sessions Judge has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State Government of NCT, Delhi vs. Sunil and Another [2000 AIR SCW 4398] to garner support for his findings. We do not find good reasons to disagree with the findings of the learned Sessions Judge. 8. Although seizure of Ex.P7 and MO3 cannot be disbelieved, yet there remains a question whether the letter as per Ex.P7 and seizure of MO3 complete the chain of circumstances? The learned counsel for the appellant argued that blood stains were not detected on the ‘kaththi’, i.e., MO3. The clothes of the accused were also not seized. In Ex.P7 the accused inculpates his brother Madappa. There was no proper investigation on the basis of Ex.P7 and therefore these doubts have remained unanswered. On the other hand, Addl. State Public Prosecutor repels this argument by arguing that Ex.P7 shows exclusive knowledge of the accused with regard to the incident. Though blood stains were not detected on MO3, PW18, the doctor who conducted autopsy and gave opinion after seeing MO3, has clearly stated that the ante mortem injuries sustained by the deceased were possible to occur if M.O.3 had been employed for inflicting injuries. Therefore, according to the Addl. State Public Prosecutor, Ex.P.7 as also seizure MO.3 at the instance of the accused are two important circumstances that have been proved. 9. We have perused Ex.P7. As opined above, its recovery from the accused cannot be assailed, but in our opinion, it is not relevant. Ex.P7 is a letter in which it is written that the accused saw his brother, Madappa killing one Babu, i.e., the deceased of this case. This letter can be interpreted in either ways, firstly that what is written in the said letter may be probably true; and secondly that the accused might have made an attempt to exculpate himself. The brother of the accused is examined as PW-1, but he has turned hostile. This letter can be interpreted in either ways, firstly that what is written in the said letter may be probably true; and secondly that the accused might have made an attempt to exculpate himself. The brother of the accused is examined as PW-1, but he has turned hostile. Even when he was cross-examined by the public prosecutor, he refuted the suggestion that the police showed him the letter Ex.P7. The learned Sessions Judge has held that Ex.P7 shows an attempt by accused to hush up some thing and it is unlikely that the police would concoct a letter like Ex.P7 to implicate the accused. This finding is quite possible to be given, yet we are little bit hesitant to accept Ex.P7 to be one of the circumstances as it is capable of interpretation in either ways. 10. Then so far as MO3 is concerned, its recovery, as we have observed above, cannot be doubted notwithstanding hostility of independent witnesses. The finding of the learned Sessions Judge is that recovery of MO3 on the basis of voluntary statement of accused is believable. Though we too are of the same opinion only with regard to recovery part, we have to further say that the learned Sessions Judge appears to have not noticed one important aspect : in that the FSL expert, PW-22, did not detect marks of blood stains on MO3. The clear evidence of PW-22 is that she detected blood stains only in three items viz., 1) Blood stained cotton 2) a shirt and 3) a Patti chaddi. MO3 is item No.2 in which there was no blood stain. According to PW-22 the articles sent for examination were tested for detecting blood by following Benzidine and Takayama Tests. If MO3 answered negative for blood, a doubt arises whether MO3 was really used for committing crime? This question has not found a probative answer. Therefore we have to disagree with the findings of the Sessions Judge on this aspect. 11. There is one more important circumstance which the Sessions Judge has not discussed. It is about tracing of accused. In a case that rests on circumstantial evidence, investigation into involvement of accused and his tracing are very important. If there is evidence as regards accused being last found with deceased, it gives an inkling to suspect his involvement. 11. There is one more important circumstance which the Sessions Judge has not discussed. It is about tracing of accused. In a case that rests on circumstantial evidence, investigation into involvement of accused and his tracing are very important. If there is evidence as regards accused being last found with deceased, it gives an inkling to suspect his involvement. If no evidence is available, as is the case here, the prosecution should establish this aspect by other means of evidence. To provide this kind of a proof, the investigator must, while deposing evidence, provide link from one circumstance to another. Whenever the investigation officer deposes in the court, what is found is that very routinely he speaks as to what he did on what date without disclosing the clues he would get or come across in the course of investigation. Section 172 of Cr.P.C mandates the investigation officer to enter in a diary the circumstances ascertained by him during investigation. Obviously the investigation officer refers to the diary to refresh his memory while deposing before court. Whatever he ascertains must be placed before court in the form of evidence. This factor needs to be emphasized because while establishing a case based on circumstantial evidence, burden is on the prosecution to disclose and prove the circumstances inculpating the accused; burden is not there on the court to find out circumstances. It is the duty of the Public Prosecutor while opening his case in accordance with Section 226 Cr.P.C to place before the court the circumstances to be proved. Also the Public prosecutor has to elicit from the investigation officer the sequence of circumstances pointing to the accused. The court assesses or appreciates the evidence in support of circumstances for drawing inferences. In this view, evidence as regards involvement of accused and very particularly in the absence of last seen theory, evidence indicative of involvement of accused, or circumstances facilitating arrest of accused should essentially be placed before court. Thus seen, in the case on hand, there is no proof which indicates as to how the investigation officer did suspect the accused. Seizure of Ex.P.7 cannot be considered as a proof in this regard, as it was after arrest of the accused. Even PW-17 did not go to police station to report to police about what he came to know after writing Ex.P.7. Seizure of Ex.P.7 cannot be considered as a proof in this regard, as it was after arrest of the accused. Even PW-17 did not go to police station to report to police about what he came to know after writing Ex.P.7. Therefore in our opinion, this circumstance has not been proved. 12. The learned Sessions Judge has discussed motive factor also. Though the finding on this factor is acceptable, we find it difficult to concur with the conclusion of the Sessions Judge that the accused can be found guilty of offence under Section 302 IPC in view of foregoing discussion. Therefore, the appeal is allowed. The judgment dated 21.11.2013 in S.C.No.24/2013 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Madikeri is set aside. The accused is acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 302 and 201 IPC. He shall be set at liberty forthwith, if his presence is not necessary in any other case.