JUDGMENT : Deepak Roshan, J. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 20.02.1993 and order of sentence dated 22.02.1993 passed by 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka (S.P.) in Sessions Case No.28 of 1989 whereby the appellants were convicted under Section 302/34 and 201 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I for life under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and R.I. for 7 years under Section 201 I.P.C; both the sentences were to run concurrently. 2. The appellants were granted bail by this Court vide order dated 06.04.1993. 3. During the pendency of this appeal, appellant no.1-Bodi Hansda, appellant no.2-Gupin Hansda, appellant no.3-Pradhan Hansda, appellant no.5-Diwan Hansda, appellant no.6-Lakhiram Hansda and appellant no.7-Mahadeo Hansda have expired and the appeal against them stood abated vide order dated 05.11.2018 passed by this Court. 4. The case of the prosecution in short is that on 04.03.1987 the appellant no.1 came to the house of the informant-P.W.1 and told his mother about the illness of his daughter. On the request of appellant no.1 the mother of the informant namely, Sunadi Murmu accompanied him to his village- Govindpur and after that she never returned. On the next morning, the informant went to village-Govindpur and asked the appellant no.1 about his mother, who told him that his mother had returned last night itself. Thereafter, the informant searched for his mother from his relatives but could not find her for about 2 weeks. The informant suspected that the appellant no.1 along with other appellants have caused murder of his mother because two years earlier the appellants wanted to kill his mother on the pretext that she was practicing witch-craft. On 24.03.1987, the informant upon receiving the information from the Village-Pradhan that a dead body has been found, went to the place where parts of the dead body were found and identified the body to be of his mother through the bangles. 5. On the basis of Fardbeyan, a formal FIR was lodged on 24.03.1987 at 9.00 p.m. and the police started investigation. After completion of the investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against all the accused persons who pleaded not guilty. 6. The prosecution has examined altogether 8 witnesses to prove its case. P.W.1-Dhuma Hansda is the informant and son of the deceased. On the basis of Fardbeyan, a formal FIR was lodged on 24.03.1987 at 9.00 p.m. and the police started investigation. After completion of the investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against all the accused persons who pleaded not guilty. 6. The prosecution has examined altogether 8 witnesses to prove its case. P.W.1-Dhuma Hansda is the informant and son of the deceased. P.W.2- Makhti Soren is the daughter-in-law of the deceased, P.W.3-Jetha Soren is the pradhan of village, P.W.4-Dhena Hansda is the daughter of the deceased and P.W.5-Suklal Murmu is inquest report witness. Dr. Sultan Ahamad has been examined as P.W.6 and P.W.7 is the second investigating officer; P.W.8- Jagarnath Mishra was the first investigating officer. 7. P.W.1 has fully supported his statement made in the First Information Report with respect to first part of the occurrence that on the date of occurrence Bodi Hansda, appellant no.1 came to his house at about 8-9 A.M. and told his mother that his daughter was ill and she should accompany him for her treatment. On his request the deceased went with him to his village Govindpur and thereafter she never returned. P.W.2 who is the wife of P.W.1 has also supported the prosecution case. She has also deposed that after receiving information about the murder from Pradhan of the village Govindpur she along with P.W.1 and other co-villagers went to the second place of occurrence and identified the dead body to be of her mother-in-law on the basis of bangles worn by her. P.W.3 is Pradhan of the village. P.W.6- Dr. Sultan Ahamad has stated that on 25.03.1987 two human bones (parts of human body) were sent to Bhagalpur Medical College for examination. The first investigating officer of the case has also deposed that he has recorded FIR of this case which is Ext.2. He further stated that he found one cut portion of thigh on the western bank of river where there was 2' deep water and some parts of the body were lying on the surface of the water and some parts below the water. 8. The learned trial court after relying on the testimonies of the witnesses held that all the prosecution witnesses are competent and natural witnesses because there is nothing on evidence to show that they have got any enmity with the appellants. 8. The learned trial court after relying on the testimonies of the witnesses held that all the prosecution witnesses are competent and natural witnesses because there is nothing on evidence to show that they have got any enmity with the appellants. All the witnesses are fully reliable and it is fully proved from evidence that accused Bodi Hansda took away deceased from her house on the pretext of illness of his daughter and thereafter the deceased never returned from his house. The learned trial court has further held that all the documents along with oral evidence of the witnesses prove that some part of the dead body of the deceased were recovered in concealed position about 15 days after the appellant no.1 took away the deceased from her house and, thus, she was last seen with him and then she was found dead. 9. The learned trial court has further held that though there is no direct evidence to connect the other accused alongwith Bodi Hansda, who was appellant no.1, with the murder of the deceased but the circumstances in which deceased was taken away and her dead body were recovered about two weeks later in concealed position, clearly go to prove that the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention caused murder of the deceased and to save them from legal punishment they concealed the dead body by throwing it in the river. 10. Ms. Amrita Banerjee, the learned Amicus for the appellant has vehemently argued that there is no eye witness of the murder and it is a case of circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has failed to prove the charges framed against the sole surviving appellant; the only allegation whatsoever was against appellant no.1 who has died during pendency of this appeal. 11. Mr. Mukesh Kumar, the learned APP has argued that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has established a complete chain of circumstances and there is no error in the order of learned trial court and, therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 12. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the evidence on record. 13. There is no eye-witness in this case and the prosecution's case rests on circumstantial evidence. The theory of last seen was directed against appellant no.1-Bodi Hansda, who is already dead. 12. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the evidence on record. 13. There is no eye-witness in this case and the prosecution's case rests on circumstantial evidence. The theory of last seen was directed against appellant no.1-Bodi Hansda, who is already dead. So far as the sole surviving appellant namely, Mangal Hansda is concerned, the informant-P.W.1 has not stated anything about his involvement in the crime or even having any motive for causing death of the deceased or concealing her corpus in any manner. It is the case of the prosecution that Bodi Hansda-appellant no.1 and eight others including this appellant wanted to kill the mother of the informant as they suspected her to be a 'Daain'. It is true that motive assumes a significant role in the case of circumstantial evidence, but as already discussed above none of the prosecution witnesses even whispered anything about the role played by the sole surviving appellant-Mangal Hansda. There is absolutely no allegation against him. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we are of the considered opinion that it is a case of no evidence against the surviving appellant-Mangal Hansda. 15. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set-aside the judgment of conviction dated 20.02.1993 and order of sentence both dated 22.02.1993 passed by 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka (S.P.) in Sessions Case No.28 of 1989. The appellant is discharged of liability of the bail-bonds furnished by him. 16. Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 138 of 1993 is allowed. 17. We appreciate the efforts of Ms. Amrita Banerjee, the learned Amicus who has meticulously prepared list of dates and detailed notes on the prosecution evidence and ably assisted the Court arguing this criminal appeal on behalf of the appellant. 18. The assistance rendered by Mr. Mukesh Kumar, the learned A.P.P is also appreciated. 19. The Secretary, Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee shall reimburse the learned Amicus on submission of bills(s). She shall be paid Rs.5500/- for each effective date of hearing, but subject to the cap as provided under the Notification dated 23.11.2017. 20. Let the lower-court records be transmitted to the court concerned, forthwith. 21. Let a copy of the judgment be transmitted to the court concerned through 'FAX'.