JUDGMENT : The sole appellant, namely, David Minz @ Devid Minj has challenged the judgment of conviction under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the order of sentence of R.I. for life and fine of Rs. 10,000/-, both dated 2nd June, 2011, passed against him in Sessions Trial no. 92 of 2008. 2. The informant of this case, namely, Joseph Tigga, is the father of Felomina Tigga, the deceased. On the basis of the fardbeyan of Joseph Tigga which was recorded at about 14:45 hrs. on 23.5.2008, Simdega P.S. Case no. 61 of 2008 was registered against the appellant under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. During the trial, the prosecution has examined altogether nine witnesses; the informant is PW-7. 4. Dr. Rajesh Kumar-PW-9, who has conducted the post-mortem examination of the deceased, has observed fracture of right maxillary bone with collection of blood around the occipital region and on opening of the skull compressed fracture of the right parietal bone with collection of blood in the right intra-cerebral space. The above injuries were ante-mortem in nature and according to the doctor death was caused within 24 to 48 hrs. of the post-mortem examination. 5. The prosecution has set up a case against the appellant that he had a love affair with Felomina Tigga and on the pretext of dinner he took her his home and killed her. 6. The prosecution has examined Tintus Tigga-PW-1 who is the brother of the informant, Falora Tigga-PW-5 who is the mother of the deceased and Joseph Tigga-PW-7 who is the father of the deceased to prove that Felomina Tigga was lastly seen in the company of the appellant. Through their evidence, the prosecution has also sought to prove motive for committing murder of Felomina Tigga. 7. In his fardbeyan the informant has stated that in the evening of 22nd May, 2008 at about 7:30 p.m., the appellant came to his house and called his daughter on the pretext that special arrangements for dinner have been made for her. Next day morning the dead body of Felomina Tigga was found in the field of Nicolas Minz, a co-villager. In their examination-in-chief, PW-1, PW-5 and PW-7 have stated that in the evening of 22nd May, 2008 the appellant came to their house and called Felomina Tigga to his house on the pretext of dinner. Next day morning the dead body of Felomina Tigga was found in the field of Nicolas Minz, a co-villager. In their examination-in-chief, PW-1, PW-5 and PW-7 have stated that in the evening of 22nd May, 2008 the appellant came to their house and called Felomina Tigga to his house on the pretext of dinner. We find that through their evidence, the prosecution has proved that Felomina Tigga was lastly seen in the company of the appellant. But, there are missing links in the chain of the circumstances sought to be proved by the prosecution against the appellant. 8. In a case based on circumstantial evidence motive provides an important link to the chain of the circumstances. In “Satpal v. State of Haryana” reported in (2018) 6 SCC 610 , the supreme court has held as under: 4. …….To sustain a conviction on basis of circumstantial evidence, it was necessary that all links in the chain of circumstances must be complete leading to the only hypothesis for guilt of the accused. If there were any missing link in the chain of circumstances and the possibility of innocence cannot be ruled out, the benefit of doubt must be given by acquittal. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- 6. ………If the accused offers no explanation, or furnishes a wrong explanation, absconds, motive is established, and there is corroborative evidence available inter alia in the form of recovery or otherwise forming a chain of circumstances leading to the only inference for guilt of the accused, incompatible with any possible hypothesis of innocence, conviction can be based on the same. If there be any doubt or break in the link of chain of circumstances, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused. Each case will therefore have to be examined on its own facts for invocation of the doctrine. 9. According to the prosecution, the appellant had a love affair with Felomina Tigga but he was reluctant to marry her. But then, the case set-up by the prosecution is that when he found that parents of Felomina Tigga were negotiating her marriage with a boy at Gumla he became angry and killed her. On this point, the prosecution has not disclosed the details of the boy with whom negotiation for marriage of Felomina Tigga was going on. But then, the case set-up by the prosecution is that when he found that parents of Felomina Tigga were negotiating her marriage with a boy at Gumla he became angry and killed her. On this point, the prosecution has not disclosed the details of the boy with whom negotiation for marriage of Felomina Tigga was going on. The mother of the deceased PW-5 has admitted in her cross-examination that there was no dispute between her daughter and the appellant. The relation between Felomina Tigga and the appellant was cordial is also reflected in the conduct of the prosecution witnesses, who did not search for her in the night. All the prosecution witnesses have spoken about the love affair between the appellant and Felomina Tigga and that is the reason when the appellant came to call her for dinner they willingly permitted her to go along with the appellant. On such facts, motive on the part of the appellant for committing murder of Felomina Tigga cannot be said to be proved. 10. The prosecution has also relied on the confessional statement of the appellant, but then, it is not the case projected by the prosecution that pursuant to disclosure made by the appellant a new fact previously not known to the police has been discovered. 11. The time gap after Felomina Tigga was lastly seen in the company of the appellant and when her dead body was recovered is no doubt very short, but in absence of any other corroborative evidence, in our opinion, only on the basis of the last-seen together evidence conviction of the appellant under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained. In “Navaneethakrishnan v. State”, (2018) 16 SCC 161 , the supreme court has held as under: 22. ………………. It is a settled legal position that the law presumes that it is the person, who was last seen with the deceased, would have killed the deceased and the burden to rebut the same lies on the accused to prove that they had departed. Undoubtedly, the last seen theory is an important event in the chain of circumstances that would completely establish and/or could point to the guilt of the accused with some certainty. However, this evidence alone cannot discharge the burden of establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and requires corroboration. 12. Undoubtedly, the last seen theory is an important event in the chain of circumstances that would completely establish and/or could point to the guilt of the accused with some certainty. However, this evidence alone cannot discharge the burden of establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and requires corroboration. 12. In the above facts, we are inclined to hold that the prosecution has failed to establish the charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant and, accordingly, his conviction under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the order of sentence of R.I. for life and fine of Rs. 10,000/- passed by the Sessions Judge, Simdega in Sessions Trial no. 92 of 2008 are set-aside. 13. The appellant, namely, David Minz @ Devid Minj is acquitted of the charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code framed against him. 14. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mahtha, the learned APP states that the appellant is in custody. 15. Accordingly, the appellant shall be set free forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case. 16. In the result, Criminal Appeal (D.B.) no. 534 of 2011 is allowed. 17. Let lower court records be transmitted to the court concerned, forthwith.