JUDGMENT : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. On the basis of the fardbeyan of Naresh Sahu which was recorded on 10.01.1996 at 16:30 hrs., Lohardaga P.S. Case No. 5/96 was registered against unknown. After the investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons, namely, Banti Lohra, Chunda Oraon and Laxman Lohra. The appellant has faced the charge under section 302 read with section 34 and section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. In S.T. No. 702/97, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2000/- under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and RI for seven years and fine of Rs. 1000/- under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code; the accused Chunda Oraon whose trial concluded before the judgment in S.T. No. 702/97 was delivered has been acquitted of the criminal charges framed against him for committing murder of Bana Sao. 2. The prosecution has projected Bajrang Sao PW-7 as an eye-witness. 3. The informant is brother of Bano Sao, the deceased. In his fardbeyan, he has stated that on 09.01.1996 the deceased went for work and came back home in the evening. But after some time he left home again and thereafter did not come back in the night. Next day morning Uday Kunwar came and took him near the railway line where he has seen the dead body of Bana Sao. In the court he has given a similar narration about his seeing the dead body of Bana Sao. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he does not remember the date and time of the occurrence and before Uday Kunwar came to him he had no information about the occurrence. He has stated that he does not remember whether the police has seized anything. He has also stated that it was raining in the night of the occurrence and due to heavy rain the field was wet and the entire village was flooded with water. The father and mother of the informant are hearsay witnesses. On hearing about dead body of their son lying near the railway line they have gone there. PW-1 has stated that he cannot say name of the assailants and PW-2 has stated that her statement was not recorded by the police. PW-3 is the brother-in-law of the informant and he has stated that no seizure was made in his presence. On hearing about dead body of their son lying near the railway line they have gone there. PW-1 has stated that he cannot say name of the assailants and PW-2 has stated that her statement was not recorded by the police. PW-3 is the brother-in-law of the informant and he has stated that no seizure was made in his presence. PW-5 and PW-6 have stated that before the dead body of Bana Sao was recovered on 10.01.1996, they have seen him with the appellant the last evening. PW-7 has stated that in the evening of 09.01.1996 he has seen the appellant with Chunda Oraon and Laxman Lohra going along with Bana Sao. In the night he heard the sound of marpit and soon thereafter Chunda Oraon came inside his room and threatened him not to disclose to any one whatever has been seen by him. Though the prosecution has projected PW-7 as eye-witness but on his own account he is not an eye-witness of the actual occurrence. All that he has deposed in the court is that he has seen the appellant with Bana Sao in the evening of 09.01.1996. 4. On such evidence, particularly, testimony of PW-5, PW-6 and PW-7 the prosecution has sought to prove that Bana Sao was lastly seen in the company of the appellant and thereafter his dead body has been recovered the next day. There was little time gap between the last-seen-together and recovery of the dead body and, therefore, the prosecution has successfully established the proximity test which is necessary for the last-seen-together theory, but then, only on the basis of such evidence conviction of a person and, that too, for an offence like murder cannot be recorded. The last-seen-together evidence laid by the prosecution against an accused can be an additional link in the chain of circumstances which if corroborated by other independent evidence can form the basis for conviction of an accused, but in absence of any other corroborative evidence an accused cannot be convicted only on the basis of the last-seen-together evidence. The last-seen-together evidence laid by the prosecution against an accused can be an additional link in the chain of circumstances which if corroborated by other independent evidence can form the basis for conviction of an accused, but in absence of any other corroborative evidence an accused cannot be convicted only on the basis of the last-seen-together evidence. In a catena of judgments the Supreme Court has held that once it is proved that the deceased was seen lastly in the company of the accused and immediately thereafter the dead body is recovered, it may be presumed that it was the accused who has committed the crime but there must be other independent evidence supporting the last-seen-together theory. In “Navaneethakrishnan v. State by Inspector of Police”, (2018) 16 SCC 161 , the Supreme Court has held, thus: “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.” 5. Motive generally is not a deciding factor in a criminal trial, however, in a serious crime like murder, particularly, when the case is solely based on the circumstantial evidence motive becomes relevant. In “Surinder Pal Jain Vs. Delhi Administration” reported in 1993 Supp (3) SCC 681, the Supreme Court has observed that in a case based on circumstantial evidence motive assumes pertinent significance as existence of the motive is an enlightening factor in a process of presumptive reasoning and absence of motive puts the court on its guard to scrutinise the circumstances more carefully to ensure that suspicion and conjecture do not take place of legal proof. But in the present case, we find that the prosecution has failed to lead any evidence on motive for the crime. In fact, the evidence on last-seen-together laid by the prosecution through PW-5, PW-6 and PW-7 is also cryptic and does not inspire confidence. But in the present case, we find that the prosecution has failed to lead any evidence on motive for the crime. In fact, the evidence on last-seen-together laid by the prosecution through PW-5, PW-6 and PW-7 is also cryptic and does not inspire confidence. The appellant and the deceased are co-villagers and there is nothing unusual in finding the co-villagers moving together in the evening. None of the prosecution witnesses has spoken about any gesture or overt act, such as, threat or assault or abuse or dragging of Bana Sao by the accused persons which would have reflected intention of the accused persons. 6. The above being the factual scenario, we find that the last-seen-together evidence laid by the prosecution cannot be relied upon. There is no other incriminating circumstance shown by the prosecution against the appellant and, therefore, the chain of circumstances is not complete. The so-called eye-witness on his own account is not an eye-witness to the actual occurrence and while so, on the basis of his testimony conviction of the appellant cannot be recorded for committing murder of Bana Sao. 7. Therefore, we hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge under section 302/34 and under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant and, accordingly, judgment of conviction of the appellant, namely, Banti Lohra under section 302/34 and under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and order of sentence of imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2000/- under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and RI for seven years and fine of Rs. 1000/- under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code both dated 09.12.2010, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Lohardaga in S.T. No. 702/97 are set aside. 8. The appellant, named above, is acquitted of the criminal charges framed against him in S.T. No. 702/97. 9. Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, the learned APP states that the appellant, namely, Banti Lohra is in jail custody. 10. Accordingly, the appellant, namely, Banti Lohra shall be set free forthwith, if not required in connection to any other case. 11. Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.449 of 2011 is allowed. 12. We appreciate the able assistance rendered by Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, the learned Amicus. He shall be paid fee and reimbursed for the expenses incurred by him. 13. Let lower court records be transmitted to the court concerned, forthwith. 14. 11. Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.449 of 2011 is allowed. 12. We appreciate the able assistance rendered by Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, the learned Amicus. He shall be paid fee and reimbursed for the expenses incurred by him. 13. Let lower court records be transmitted to the court concerned, forthwith. 14. Let a copy of the judgment be communicated to the trial court through FAX.